Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

The Chair notes the presence of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, the Honorable Ross Bass.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROSS BASS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Senator BASS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views on proposed amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Since I have the privilege of representing a State that has benefited greatly from Tennessee Valley Authority programs, I am deeply concerned about the proposed change to delete section 9 from the act thereby removing the exemption now accorded to TVA. When Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1946, there was an urgent need for coordination between Federal agencies with narrow authority for the construction of water resource proj ects and the Federal and State agencies with special competence and responsibility in fish and wildlife management. Congress recognized that TVA's authority and responsibility under the TVA act for the unified development of all the resources of the Tennessee Valley, which include fish and wildlife, eliminated the need to place TVA under the Coordination Act. TVA's outstanding record in fish and wildlife conservation and development is the best evidence of the adequacy of the present exemption.

Soon after TVA's establishment in 1933, they recognized the desirability of the objectives and practices which were later promulgated in the Coordination Act. Beginning with its first water resource projects-Norris in Tennessee and Wheeler in Alabama-TVA gave careful consideration to the possible injurious effects these projects would have on fish and wildlife resources. They also evaluated the positive effects of these and subsequent water control projects in the overall development of our vital natural resources.

To carry out a sound conservation program, TVA established a biological readjustment unit (now the Fish and Wildlife Branch) and staffed it with highly skilled specialists. The staff presently includes a wildlife technician and nine fishery biologists. TVA personnel have consulted and cooperated with the Fish and Wildlife Service and its predecessor, the Bureau of Fisheries and Biological Survey. In addition, they have made a special effort to cooperate fully with the fish and wildlife agencies of the Tennessee Valley States and assisted them in getting effective fish and wildlife programs underway.

Agreements providing for the development, management, and protection of fish and game in the Tennessee Valley region have been made with these Federal and State agencies. These agreements have resulted in the establishment of a large number of bird and wildlife refuges and managed shooting areas in TVA reservoir areas. As of June 30, 1965, a total of 189,676 acres of TVA land and water was being used for Federal and State wildlife programs. It is also important to note that as many as 300,000 ducks and geese winter in the Tennessee Valley now, yet before the TVA dams were built practically none of them spent any time there.

The fishing resources of the TVA reservoirs have been developed and managed through the cooperative efforts of TVA and the State

agencies in such manner that these reservoirs are considered to be among the best fishing areas in the country. Approximately 600,000 acres of TVA water are available to year-round fishing. An estimated 850,000 sport fishermen harvest of about 7,000 tons of fish annually. These sport fishermen spend more than $40 million in the local areas they visit. Commercial fishermen take an additional 4,000 to 5,000 tons of fish worth about $3 million at retail markets.

I feel that TVA has done an outstanding job in managing the fish and wildlife resources in its program. There is no need to remove the exemption from the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. In planning a project TVA considers all the purposes to which the project may reasonably be expected to contribute in obtaining the greatest public benefit. These may include navigation, flood control, power generation, recreation, agriculture, water supply, commercial and industrial development as well as fish and wildlife programs.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act emphasizes a single-purpose program and method of administration, which is contrary to TVA unified multipurpose program. Undue emphasis would be placed on fish and wildlife programs if TVA plans had to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Interior. I feel that this administrative requirement would hinder the unified approach which TVA has carried out so successfully. I strongly urge that TVA's exemption under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act be retained.

Mr. DINGELL. The subcommittee is very grateful for your statement, Senator. If there are no questions, we will proceed to our next witness, from the Atomic Energy Commission, Mr. Harold Price, Director of Regulations.

Gentlemen, the Chair is grateful for your patience, and also for

your presence.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD PRICE, DIRECTOR OF REGULATION, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. CLIFFORD K. BECK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REGULATION; BERTRAM H. SCHUR, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL; AND DR. JOSEPH A. LIEBERMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY, DIVISION OF REACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I am Harold Price, and I would like to have with me Dr. Clifford Beck, who is Deputy Director of Regulation, and Mr. Bertram Schur, Associate General Counsel.

Mr. Chairman, there are some other members of the staff in the room, if special questions come up.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, the Chair is grateful to you for your presence, and also your patience.

The Chair would welcome whatever statement you choose to give. Mr. PRICE. With the permission of the Chair, I have a brief statement, which you have, which I would like to read."

Mr. DINGELL. Very well.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to give you the views of the Atomic Energy Commission on H.R. 14455, H.R. 14414, and H.R. 9492.

It may be helpful to describe briefly how the AEC licenses and regulates nuclear power reactors, and how the AEC coordinates its regulatory activities with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The AEC exercises regulatory authority over the possession and use of atomic energy materials, and over the construction and operation of nuclear reactors.

A two-step licensing scheme has been established for nuclear reactors. First, a construction permit is required before the reactor can be built; then an operating license is required before the reactor can be operated.

In considering applications to build or operate nuclear reactors, the AEC is limited by the Atomic Energy Act to matters involving radiological health and safety, and the common defense and security.

Thus, the AEC does not now have authority to consider such matters as the thermal effects, as opposed to the radiological effects, of facility operation on the environment.

Perhaps I should mention at this point that nuclear-fueled powerplants, like fossil-fueled powerplants, operate on the principle of converting water to steam, which is then used to drive a turbine-generator to produce electric power.

Both types of plants withdraw condenser cooling water from rivers and other bodies of water, and return the water to its source.

The AEC makes it a practice to seek and obtain the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the potential radiological hazards to fish and wildlife that might result from the discharge of affluents from nuclear power reactors proposed for licensing.

The report of the Fish and Wildlife Service is incorporated in the AEC's comprehensive safety analysis of the suitability of the proposed site. The safety analysis is given wide distribution to interested State and local agencies, and to the public.

When a license is issued, it requires the licensee to restrict the discharge of radioactive material to the environment to the permissible limits established by the Commission, on the basis of the recommendations of the Federal Radiation Council.

Some of the proposed statutory amendments which are the subject of this hearing are designed to control thermal and other nonradiological effects of reactor operation. They would have the effect of providing unequal treatment for nuclear-fueled plants and fossilfueled plants.

I would like to say a few words about each of those bills.

H.R. 14455 would repeal section 9 of the FWCA, which now provides an exemption for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Since this bill would not affect any of the AEC's activities, we have no recommendations or comments to offer.

H.R. 14414 would amend the FWCA to make it specifically applicable to the FPC, the AEC, and their permittees and licensees. Since this bill does not grant any new regulatory authority to the AEC, it would probably not significantly affect the AEC's regulatory activities.

The AEC is very much in sympathy with programs seeking to protect the Nation's fish and wildlife resources, and would have no objections to legislation of the type which would require all powerplants producing electrical energy to be regulated from the point of view of their effects on fish and wildlife.

But H.R. 14414, even if it should be construed or revised to grant the AEC regulatory authority over thermal effects, would not accomplish such a purpose. It would affect nuclear plants, but not fossilfueled plants.

For these reasons, we are opposed to the enactment of H.R. 14414. For similar reasons, we are opposed to the enactment of H.R. 9492, which would amend the FWCA to provide notice and opportunity for the Secretary of the Interior and State fish and wildlife agencies to conduct studies on the effects of projects licensed by Federal agencies on fish and wildlife resources.

This bill, like H.R. 14414, would not reach fossil-fueled plants, since no Federal permit is presently required for their construction.

In addition, the bill provides no time limit during which the studies must be completed and recommendations made, so that reactor projects might be delayed on the basis of considerations which are now outside the AEC's regulatory jurisdiction.

The Atomic Energy Commission would be in favor of legislation along the lines of another pending bill; namely, H.R. 10701, which would amend the Federal Power Act to authorize the Federal Power Commission to license "water diversion facilities."

Legislation along the lines of this bill would have the effect of treating equally, from the standpoint of effects on fish and wildlife, all "water diversion facilities," whether or not the associated powerplant is nuclear-fueled or fossil-fueled.

Under such legislation, the Federal Power Commission would be in a position to impose license conditions designed to control thermal and other nonradiological effects of the utilization of water in power production.

This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. I have no questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. Yes. I do have a question relating to the last paragraph of your testimony, sir.

Do I get the impression that the Atomic Energy Commission would consider relinquishing authority to the Federal Power Commission for licensing of certain plants?

Mr. PRICE. Not with respect to the radiological problems, which is the basis of our present jurisdiction. I was talking about nonradiological effects of plants generally.

Mr. Dow. As a point of information, then, consider an atomic plant operated with nuclear facilities. Is the licensing of this plant within the purview of the Federal Power Commission, or that of the Atomic Energy Commission?

Mr. PRICE. I am sorry. Are you talking about nuclear plants?
Mr. Dow. Yes.

Mr. PRICE. There is no authority either in the Atomic Energy Commission or the Federal Power Commission at the present time, I believe, to control by license or otherwise privately owned nuclear plants, from the standpoint of thermal and other nonradiological effects.

Mr. Dow. In other words, your authority of the Atomic Energy Commission goes only to the radiological effects?

Mr. PRICE. That is right, Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. Of any plant?

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dow. And you believe, then, that the Federal Power Commission should have the same extent of oversight on the licensing of plants in relation to fish and wildlife, that you have on radiological. In other words, you would have authority in relation to radiology, and they would have it in relation to fish?

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir; and I am talking here about the general approach of that bill H.R. 10701. It could turn out that, if legislation like that is passed, it would not make sense to split nuclear plants into two agencies for control.

I really was not intending to deal with that detail, but to say that our feeling is that right now the Federal Power Commission controls hydroelectric, we control nuclear, and that is about the total of 20 percent of the installed capacity.

What we are favoring is an approach that would give the Federal Government authority to control thermal effects wherever they are a problem with respect to fish, and regardless of whether the plant that is associated with the diversion facility is a nuclear plant or a fossil plant. Question: The Federal Power Commission now has no oversight over the nuclear plants in any respect?

Mr. PRICE. That is right, and they have no jurisdiction, as I understand it, over the fossil plants.

Mr. Dow. But you would extend their authority over those plants in respect to such matters as preservation of fish?

M. PRICE. That would be the effect of this bill, this general bill, H.R. 10701, and, as I say, the Commission supports legislation along these lines.

I don't think we are arguing one way or another as to which would make the most sense to who administers the thermal problem with respect to nuclear plants. That is a detail that could be worked out.

Mr. Dow. This raises a very important question of policy, and that is whether the licensing authority shall adress itself to, you might say, functional matters such as radiology or conservation, or whether it should be a comprehensive authority by a commission to license a particular type of plant, taking into consideration all the factors relating to that plant.

Mr. PRICE. That is right.

Mr. Dow. Do you have any opinion about that, sir? Which philosophy would be preferable?

Mr. PRICE. Well, sir, I would have to speak for myself on this.

I think that a good argument can be made, for example, to say that in the case of nuclear plants, whatever power is going to be exercised in the licensing ought to be concentrated in one place, so that the applicant does not have to go to two Federal agencies to get permission to build his plant.

On the other hand, there are considerations, I suppose, with respect to thermal and mechanical effects that we do not now have jurisdiction over that would argue that to be evenly administered, that that ought to be concentrated in one place, like the nuclear problem, the radiation problem, is now concentrated in one place.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »