I don't believe I can state authoritatively which the Commission would prefer.

Mr. Dow. It is a pretty deep question.

Mr. PRICE. Yes.

Mr. Dow. Thank you, Mr. Price.

Mr. DINGELL. Counsel.

Mr. EVERETT. I have no questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentleman, the Chair has considered your views carefully, and they have been very helpful to the committee.

Are there suggestions for amendments to any of the bills to which you have expressed opposition that would satisfy the objections of the Atomic Energy Commission?

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I can give you a good answer, except to say that we are completely in sympathy with the objective of controlling thermal effects on fish wherever they are a problem, and whether it is in these bills or some other bill, we are prepared to support across-the-board legislation.

And we are simply saying that the pending bill, H.R. 10701, is that kind of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Unfortunately, that legislation is not pending before this subcommitee. Perhaps we could go over this.

Your concern here, as I note, is that dealing with H.R. 14414, and dealing with H.R. 9492, it would impose restrictions on construction of atomic energy licensees for nuclear powerplants that would not prevail with regard to the stream generating and conventional steam generating powerplants. Am I correct?

Mr. PRICE. That is right, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Is that your principal objection, gentlemen?
Mr. PRICE. I think that is the principal obection, yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Would it be fair to say that that is the sole objection to these bills asserted by the Atomic Energy Commission?

Mr. PRICE. Well, sir, section 1, as I understand it, of H.R. 9492, has in it the possibility of substantial delay in the construction of these plants, which I mentioned in this statement.

I assume that that is a kind of problem that could be solved, but I think our principal point, sir, is that thermal effects on fish, as we understand it, are bad, whether the heat comes from a nuclear plant or from some other kind of a plant, and that we respectfully suggest that we would oppose legislation dealing with nuclear only.

It would impose a burden on the nuclear industry that is not imposed on the conventional generating plants.

Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps we might treat this in two ways.

The first would be the point that you raised with regard to substantial delay being occasioned by H.R. 9492.

Could this be eliminated by directing the Secretary of the Interior to discuss with the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission and the Chairman of the AEC an executive agreement with regard to the time during which a reasonable study could be accomplished? Would that satisfy the objection you have on this point so that an agreement could be worked out?

Mr. PRICE. I think we have to worry a little bit about the statement that some of these studies may require 2 or 3 years.

I must say that under our present practice, where we have in every case that has come to us for licensing since about 1961 or 1962, automatically sent every scrap of paper we get in the application to the Fish and Wildlife Service for their recommendations on the radiological effects on fish, the cooperation as far as we are concerned has been excellent. They have not held up any cases. They get the reports back to us in time.

Mr. DINGELL. I see. But perhaps we might narrow our discussion here to this particular point. If you choose, you might desire to comment at a later time, and the committe would be happy to receive your comments at a later time.

Would it be fair to say that your principal objection on this point would be that the delay might be undue, and unconscionable, and might unduly delay the consideration of an important matter before the Atomic Energy Commission?

Mr. PRICE. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. Would it be possible to obviate this objection by requiring an agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Atomic Energy Commission on this point, so as to assure that there would not be delay of an undue sort affecting matters before the Atomic Energy Commission with regard to licensing thermonuclear plants? Mr. PRICE. I personally think such an agreement could be worked out, ves, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. This would obviate the particular objection?

Mr. PRICE. I don't know what would happen if the position was that these ecological studies might require 2 or 3 years.

You see, now we get reports on radiological effects from the Fish and Wildlife Service, usually, in about 60 to 90 days.

Mr. DINGELL. All right.

First of all, how long does it take you to license a thermonuclear plant of the kind we are discussing at the agency?

Mr. PRICE. Up until the past year-and I will have to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are not too many of these plants, and we have sort of been developing our procedures-it has taken usually as much as 9 months to a year in the uncontested case.

The last three construction permit cases that we handled were completed in around 6 months.

Now, this is what it takes to go through our rather complicated licensing procedure. We not only have to consult with people like the Fish and Wildlife Service, but we have to consult with the Geological Survey, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey on the earthquake questions, and the Weather Bureau on weather.

We have a special, separate Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, that is outside the Commission, that has to approve all these cases, so that about 6 months is about the best we can do.

If the case is a contested case, if there are intervenors, because under the law we have to have a public hearing before we can issue a permit. a contested case can go on for several years.

Mr. DINGELL. What percentage of your cases are contested?

Mr. PRICE. So far we have had two.

Mr. DINGELL. These are contested between different competing power companies?

Mr. PRICE. No, sir. They are contested by intervenors who object to the plant being located at the particular site.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Now, about what would it cost in additional construction costs to put in some cooling facilities to prevent destruction of the fish and wildlife resources in connection with the construction of some of these plants?

Mr. PRICE. I cannot answer the question. Dr. Beck may have a rough guess.

It would depend on the size of the plant, and the part of the country, the volume of water, and so forth.

Dr. BECK. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any information on cost. do, however, suggest that in many of the plants, even the large ones, the effects on the river are very small.

For example, some of the nuclear plants only raise the temperature of the water less than a degree.

Mr. DINGELL. By less than a degree?

Dr. BECK. And in some cases it is more than that.

In one particular case, where one reactor is now operating, and two more are planned at the same site, three large reactors, the overall total net effect on the river would be about 10°.

Mr. DINGELL. What is the original temperature of that river?
Dr. BECK. I don't have that particular information.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that?

Dr. BECK. I can do that.

(Information to be furnished follows:)

RANGE OF TEMPERATURE OF THE KANKAKEE RIVER

The Dresden No. 1 reactor is located on the Kankakee River. In the winter, the weekly temperature average ranges as low as 54° F; in the summer, weekly averages are 74° to 82° F.

About 160,000 gpm of river water bows through the present reactor's condenser, and is increase about 21° in temperature. This causes an estimated 1.4° F increase in average river temperature.

Mr. DINGELL. What is the name of the river?

Dr. BECK. This is the Dresden project, just outside of Chicago.

Mr. PRICE. It is the Kankakee River.

We will submit it for the record, if that is agreeable, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I understand there are 13 projects we are discussing.

Is that correct? Could you give us information as to the amount of temperature raise at each one of those projects?

Mr. PRICE. Could we submit it for the record, sir?

Mr. DINGELL. Oh, yes.

Mr. PRICE. I am sorry I don't have information on costs. We will try to get some information for the record. You mentioned the cost of cooling facilities. That will depend on the size of the plant and other factors.

Mr. DINGELL. I think it would be helpful. I would rely on you to submit it.

Measured temperature increase in utility-owned lake.

?Assumes uniform mixing of condenser with mean flow of water body.

Condenser flow is into a large body of water with no temperature rise thus resulting.

At the present stage of development, nuclear reactors are somewhat less efficient in the conversion of heat to electricity than are the most modern conventional plants.

For a nuclear electric plant of a given size the amount of heat transmitted to the condenser cooling water would be 35% or so greater than for a modern design, high efficiency fossil plant of the same electric output.

Mr. DINGELL. What kind of cooling facilities would be necessary in each instance to preserve somewhat unchanged the water quality? Dr. BECK. Could I comment?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Dr. BECK. There is one point further. The costs here would be no different it might be a little more expensive, depending on the detailed efficiency-than the cost for a similar cooling reduction in the conventional plant, because the arrangements and principles would be precisely the same.

Mr. DINGELL. Would it be fair to say that under many circumstances a 10° water temperature increase could have a very destructive effect on fish and wildlife?

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, we would have to rely on the Fish and Wildlife Service for the answer to that.

Mr. DINGELL. We are not being unfair in inferring that it could, though?

Mr. PRICE. I just don't know. I think the fish and wildlife people would be the people who could answer that.

Mr. PELLY. Would you yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. PELLY. If it were possible to insert in the record an estimate of what the cost would be to lower the temperature of the Columbia River below the Hanford steamplant by 10°, I certainly would be interested in knowing what that would cost, if it is possible to estimate it.

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. We have some people here in the room that can talk about the Columbia River.

We can do it now, or after we finish the licensing discussion, as you wish.

Mr. PELLY. At this point, if somebody could indicate actually what such a thing involved, I certainly would be glad to have it, if the chairman is willing to sit here a little longer.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair is willing to meet your wishes.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Joseph Lieberman is here, and to the extent we can be helpful on the Columbia River problems, we would be happy to do so.

Mr. PELLY. Earlier there was some indication that they thought the temperature would go from 65° to 75°, or at least raise the temperature 10°. I was wondering what the cost would be to lower it.

Dr. LIEBERMAN. My name is Joseph A. Lieberman. I am Assistant Director for Nuclear Safety, Division of Reactor Development and Technology.

To specifically answer your question, Mr. Pelly, as to how much it would cost to reduce the temperature of the Columbia River by 10° is something I cannot give a specific quantitative answer to, except to say that it would be a tremendous cost, and I am not sure how it would be done or if indeed it is at all feasible.

I am talking now specifically in connection with your question of what it would cost to reduce the temperature of the Columbia River by 10°.

Mr. PELLY. Well, the water that goes through the cooling system of that plant that goes into the Columbia River must, when it goes in, be extremely hot. Is that not so?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. No, sir, not extremely hot.

In a general way I can say that the thermal effects of the operation of the facilities at Hanford have not resulted in any detectable adverse effect on the fish life in the Columbia.

Mr. DINGELL. What has been the increase in water temperature from Hanford?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. I am afraid, sir, that I might have to supply this for the record, because we can get into some classified information, because these temperature increases can be related, knowing the flow, to the production rates of the Hanford facility, and I think I will have to back off on that.

Information on that point is, however, available.

Mr. DINGELL. If you can give us such information on this point as would not infringe upon classified information, the Chair would appreciate it.

(Information to be furnished follows:)

HANFORD TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON COLUMBIA RIVER FISH

The Columbia River can be characterized as one of the coldest major rivers in the conterminous United States, and even should marked elevation in temperature occur in the future, fish population as a whole, will not be substantially affected. One can, however, speculate that substantially warmer temperatures from whatever reason, would tend to favor the development of warm water fishes (such as bass and shad) at the expense of some runs of salmon which thrive best in cold water. The salmon and the closely related steelhead trout are, of course, the most valuable species now harvested from the Columbia River by both commercial and sport fishermen.

Both salmon and steelhead trout mature in the Pacific Ocean and migrate into the Columbia River water shed to spawn. Dams have inundated most of the