PESTICIDE CONTROL When a function is transferred from, say, the Agriculture Department in pesticide control, and plan No. 3 calls for the EPA to assume responsibility for pesticide regulation, it is pretty hard to separate pest control from Agriculture; they are closely interrelated. By creating the EPA should Agriculture give up completely their interests in this problem, or is it anticipated that EPA will be sharing the responsibility in this area with the Department of Agriculture, the former retaining overall responsibility for protecting the environmental interests? Mr. TRAIN. No. Very clearly there is a very important and continuing role for the Department of Agriculture in the field of pests. In one case, I think this can be made very clear. There is an increasing interest in the use of nonchemical controls for pests, biological controls. While these are really environmental contaminants, they do not properly belong in EPA. I would assume that the Department of Agriculture would continue-in fact, I know it will continue, and I hope it will increase its efforts in the field of biological control of pests. The whole relationship of pests to agricultural production would be a matter for research and data development by the Department of Agriculture, so I think there is a very important role for the Department to continue to play. Naturally, EPA would remain in very close communication and contact with the Department of Agriculture in this field. Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question, but because I have had an unusually long time, I would just as soon you or Senator Stevens go ahead, and then come back. Senator RIBICOFF. We might proceed with Senator Stevens. I have submitted my questions in writing, and I have no further questions. Senator STEVENS. I have just one question, and I would like to get it in, if I may, Mr. Chairman, for the record, and that is: How does this new proposal relate to a small, little project like the proposed 800-mile, billion-and-a-half-dollar pipeline in Alaska? What is it going to mean to the people who want to build it? WILL IT CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME? Does it increase the clearances they will have to receive; will it increase the authority of the Government over lands that belong to the State of Alaska: will it change the rules of the game, you might say, as to the procedure of trying to clear that project? Mr. TRAIN. Certainly, it will not change any rules of the game that I can see. And, of course, as we have pointed out, reorganization by itself does not change any statutory authority. I think, if anything, the bringing together in one agency of these various environmental protection functions should simplify the relationship of the Federal Government to that project and simplify the process of communication on the part of the State of Alaska and private industry with the Federal Government on the project. Senator STEVENS. Just one further question. What is the relationship of this agency to potential pollution problems where you have people who have expressed fear of what might happen in the event of an earthquake or flood or an act of God in relation to this pipeline? A HYPOTHETICAL INQUIRY Now, that is not a present pollution problem; it is a problem of hypothetical inquiry, as far as EPA is concerned. Where will they fit into that problem in relation to a project like the pipeline? Mr. TRAIN. Well, specifically, in the pipeline case, where the authority for the granting of a right-of-way and the construction permit is vested in the Secretary of the Interior, I would assume that the Secretary of the Interior would consult closely with the administrator of the new agency on the potential pollution risk from possible breaks such as you have mentioned, and I would assume that the new agency, as does the present Federal Water Quality Administration, would provide its particular expertise on those questions to the Secretary of the Interior. Senator STEVENS. It would be in an advisory role rather than an action agency from which you would acquire a permit; is that the function it would perform? Mr. TRAIN. That is correct. Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LOOKING FOR THE POLLUTION CULPRIT Senator PERCY. Mr. Train, in looking around for the culprit in this whole pollution problem, you have centered on two major polluters, the internal combustion engine and, in a sense, I suppose, public service companies. Certainly, in Illinois they have been singled out as large polluters, and I think in New York, as well. With respect to the internal combustion engine, I think these figures are correct that Detroit spends about $14 per car on pollution prevention; in research and development today, they spend about $700 per car on styling changes. I would like to suggest to my friends in the automotive field that they freeze designs for a few years and take a couple of the billion dollars they would save and put the money into an accelerated program for the development of a power source that will not pollute. I am delighted that several of them have announced they intend to freeze certain limited numbers of design, but what is the relationship between whether the Federal Government is going to develop an engine or whether this should be done by a powerful industry in this country that has the resources, the desire, the capability to do it? What role is the Federal Government supposed to play? Are we going to go in and build SST's, building the actual engines because we have a terrible social problem, or is there some way to have an adequate incentive in the private sector? ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Mr. TRAIN. I believe, with respect to the development of alternative automotive power systems, particularly what we call unconventional power systems, the role of the Federal Government is hopefully to create the incentive whereby private industry, both the large companies and the small entrepreneurs, will make the necessary breakthroughs. It is not being suggested that the Federal Government directly take on the job of actually developing these new engines. We are developing a program primarily being carried out through the National Air Pollution Control Administration, and presumably this will move over to the new EPA, to encourage through contract the development of a variety of new technologies, some of which seem fairly promising. None of these now are going to the larger companies. It is our very definite hope that the major automobile companies will make, continue to make, and, hopefully, increase substantially their own research and development activities in this area, and we have been having a number of conversations with them. PUBLIC UTILITY PROBLEM Senator PERCY. Would you care to comment on the public utility problem? The public utility heads have been kicked around a lot recently, and some of them should have been long before this. But if you are a public utility head you are presented with quite a dilemma. I have talked to some of them. In Illinois, the Commonwealth-Edison Co. used coal in the past, and it has been required by the State legislature to buy their coal from Illinois coal mines. Oddly enough, they are trying to convert to oil, but because there is a limitation on imports, you have to apply for Government licenses, which are delayed if they are granted at all; sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. The gas companies are petitioning to cut down, not increase, the amount of gas that the Commonwealth-Edison Co. uses, and the only other source that I know of for power is nuclear power. But even this present problem is because we have regulations being issued whereby the temperature of the water emitted into the lake cannot be increased more than 1 percent, which is, of course, impossible. So, in Illinois, Commonwealth-Edison has got a half a billion dollars for the construction; they are under pressure from the public to have no blackouts or brownouts, but the public has an insatiable appetite to run everything in the home from toothbrushes to knives to carve food, air conditioning, and everything else, by electrical power. They must meet this tremendous desire, the expanding demand for power, yet are under equally strong pressure not to pollute the air or increase the price. As the head of a public utility, what do you do in a dilemma like that? They are between conflicting regulations every way they turn, and yet they have to fulfill a public service. Mr. TRAIN. Well, Senator Senator PERCY. What would you tell them? Mr. TRAIN. I would say you put your finger on a very important problem. Senator PERCY. Do you want to rest on that? Mr. TRAIN. Clearly, the energy production industries of this country are very large sources of air pollution and also increasingly a major source of water pollution through thermal emissions. We have projections of enormously increasing demands for electrical power in the years ahead, and there seems to be no alternative but the provision of a large number of new generating facilities throughout the Nation in the years ahead. As you have pointed out, there are pollution problems that stem inescapably from all of the persently feasible modes of energy pro duction. There are problems of fuel supply, oil imports, and also problems related to the availability of low-sulphur fuels. These are indeed highly complex problems, and I do not know what, certainly, the short-term solutions are. A LOOK AT LONG-TERM ENERGY SOURCES For the long-term we can perhaps look to alternative energy sources, but this is looking a good many years down the road. Nuclear fusion, solar energy, and things of that sort promise to be relatively pollutionfree, but in the short-term we have an exceedingly difficult problem. At the same time as these difficulties exist, the industry, the electric industry as a whole, seems to be trying to generate more public demand through advertising of all kinds, which I find somewhat troubling. I suspect we do need a national energy policy which should be coupled with a national fuel policy, which must be coupled with a national minerals policy, and these things all relate to one another. The siting of power plants is of growing public concern, as we are all aware. The demand for power is increasing, and yet the public at the same time is creating major roadblocks, often properly so, in the siting of new facilities. There must be an accommodation between these conflicting forces. I think the public, and Federal, State, and local governments must play an increasing role in trying to resolve these conflicts. It has been left far too long, I think, to local initiative. If we can try to sort out these highly complex problems they are going to have to be approached at least on a regional basis, and I would say that I think this is something we ought to be getting at, and I think we are. "FLY BEFORE THEY BUY" Senator PERCY. Having resolved that problem, can I throw you just one other. It faces the chairman and myself and 98 of our colleagues now. I noticed with great interest Secretary Laird's statement that they intended to "fly before they buy." I think that is a very good thing. I hope we will apply that to the ABM and try it out before we go ahead too deeply with it. But I just wonder how we would apply that to the SST as we develop this? Do you feel we know enough about that plane to commit ourselves to it now, with respect to its effect to the environment? Are you concerned with the environmental effects of the SST at this time, and do you think we need to learn more about it before we get too deeply committed to its implementation? Mr. TRAIN. Of course, as you know, Senator Percy, the administration's proposal for appropriation for fiscal 1971 in connection with the SST does not represent a commitment to the commercial development of supersonic transports, but rather simply the development of two prototype aircraft which can then be the basis for flight-testing, and so forth. And as I have testified before the Joint Economics Committee, while we do not feel that those prototypes in and of themselves represent any significant environmental concern, our Council does have concern over the commercial operation of a large SST fleet, and I have spelled out publicly some of the questions which we feel should be resolved before that decision is finally made. These relate primarily to sideline noise at the airport and upper atmospheric conditions, primarily from the introduction of water vapor. INCREASED RESEARCH TO SUPPLY ANSWERS The stepped-up research program which has recently been made public by the Department of Transportation, I think, is really very responsive to those needs for more information on long-range effects, and when I did testify before the Joint Committee I spoke of the need for increased research to produce the answers we need before we go ahead on commercial development and operation. The Department of Transportation research package, which is being recommended to the Congress, as I say, is responsive quite fully to that need. I did, also, in my statement say that the administration is committed to the view that no decision will be made to go ahead with commercial production of the SST unless and until the major significant environmental questions are satisfactorily resolved. TRAIN IS COMMENDED Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the witness this morning. I think everything that Mr. Train has said is an indication that we need this agency. Though the President has the power of appointment, and I am sure would wisely select who should head this agency, the Senate has the responsibility to advise and consent. I cannot think of a name that would meet with more widespread approval than that of Mr. Russell Train, if this is his inclination and interest to head such an agency. I would like, also, just to mention my admiration for the fast thinking of the President. When Mr. Train and I were in Chicago and standing alongside the President in a sewage disposal plant, they reached down to fill a cup and offered it to the President indicating that the water was pure enough to drink. The President said very quickly-I wondered how he was going to get out of this one "I never drink in the morning." Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Train, for your cooperation, and these questions will be submitted to you by the staff, and we would appreciate receiving the answers as fast as possible so that we can have the record complete. Mr. TRAIN. I will certainly do that. Senator RIBICOFF. Secretary Russell. STATEMENT OF FRED J. RUSSELL, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY CARL L. KLEIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WATER QUALITY AND RESEARCH; AND DAVID D. DOMINICK, COMMISSIONER OF FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION Mr. RUSSELL. I understand that it might be helpful to your schedule if I would submit my statement for the record rather than to read it. |