Larry Hobart, American Public Power Association, dated Septem- answers. Alex Radin, general manager, American Public Power Association, dated September 25, 1970, with enclosure__ Page 830 831 831 839 Siting of generating facilities (resolution). Frank A. Bracken, legislative counsel, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, dated September 18, 1969Nils A. Boe, Director, Office of Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the Vice President, dated September 18, 1969--William O. Doub, chairman, Maryland Public Service Commission, dated September 25, 1969. 839 840 840 841 Donald C. Cook, president, American Electric Power Co., Inc., dated September 26, 1969_ 842 David R. Toll, general counsel, National Association of Electric 844 Thomas G. Ayers, president, Commonwealth Edison Co. 844 Charles F. Luce, chairman of the board, Consolidated Edison Co. of Charles A. Robinson, Jr., staff counsel and staff engineer, National 846 847 847 848 Ben T. Wiggins, vice chairman, Georgia Public Service Commission, dated October 20, 1969. 849 S. L. Sibley, president, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., dated October 29, 1969_ 850 W. Donham Crawford, managing director, Edison Electric Institute, dated October 31, 1969, with attachment (comments on bill by task force of member companies of EEI)---. 851 Paul Rodgers, general counsel, National Association of Regulatory 862 Letter from Senator Muskie, dated August 27, 1970, seeking comments on bill _ _ _. 864 Responses to Senator Muskie's August 27, 1970, request seeking comments on bill, from— Chester M. Wiggin, Jr., Federal Cochairman, New England Regional 865 Alfred E. France, Federal Cochairman, Upper Great Lakes Regional 865 Alan Beals, Director, Congressional Relations, National League of 866 Deane Conrad, Special Assistant, National Governors' Conference_- 867 867 Appendix 3 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL Article from the Providence Evening Bulletin, "Role of the Dickey Article from Business Week," Electric Utilities Fight the Coal War". INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION OF POWER DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1114, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Muskie. Also present: Edwin W. Webber, staff director; E. Winslow Turner, general counsel; Robert E. Berry, minority counsel; and Lucinda T. Dennis, administrative secretary. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order. We resume today hearings on S. 2752, a bill to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the control of site selection and construction of power facilities for environmental and coordination purposes. This is our fourth day of hearings, and it is a pleasure to welcome as our first witness Mr. James T. Ramey, Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission. Commissioner, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning. Mr. RAMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a fairly long statement, and if you come to any section that you think might be skipped or summarized, I would be glad to do so. Senator MUSKIE. Well, I have not had an opportunity, unfortunately, to study in advance your statement; so, use the information for whatever educational purposes you think desirable. Mr. RAMEY. Thank you, sir. I have with me Mr. Harold Price, Director of Regulation of the Commission and Mr. Joe Hennessey, our General Counsel. We also have other staff members available for technical aspects. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES T. RAMEY* COMMISSIONER, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY HAROLD PRICE, DIRECTOR OF REGULATION, AND JOSEPH HENNESSEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Mr. RAMEY. I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission. *See appendix 1, additional material supplied by witnesses, p. 727. (447) Senator, your "Intergovernmental Coordination of Power Development and Environmental Protection Act," S. 2752, the legislation under discussion today, deals with an important aspect of the general environmental problem, namely, the organization and procedures for dealing with the environmental effects associated with the siting, construction, and operation of bulk power facilities. Supplying the power we need without unduly affecting our environment is one of the most challenging problems facing us today. In meeting this problem, we must recognize that, no matter how careful the planning, the construction of a powerplant, whether fossil fired or nuclear, is likely to result in some environmental impact. In fact, the environment is altered every time a farmer plows his field or we drive to work. On the other hand, we must recognize the vital role played by electric power in our way of life. The northeast blackout certainly illustrated the dependence of a great region on electric power. We must also recognize that even though some are having second thoughts on the concept of economic growth, it does not seem desirable or even possible to eliminate many of the growing uses of electricity in this country. The Atomic Energy Commission generally agrees with the environmental and reliability objectives of this legislation. As this subcommittee knows, there is an interagency group, under the aegis of the Office of Science and Technology, which is considering among other things various legislative proposals as alternative or supplementary approaches to the general problem of environmental effects associated with bulk power facilities. Unfortunately, as the subcommittee can appreciate, until this work has been completed, we will be unable to make specific comments on S. 2752. Before discussing our general, overall views on the powerplant siting problem and the objectives of S. 2752, I would like to give you some background on how the Atomic Energy Commission treats site-related environmental problems in its licensing procedures for planning, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors. I would also like to discuss some of our criteria in this regard and discuss in brief form the research and development program in which the Commission is engaged. CONTROLLING THE RISKS In 1946, the Congress created the AEC as an independent Federal agency to take over the nuclear program from the Manhattan Engineer District of the U.S. Army. In the civilian atomic energy program, the AEC has been charged with both the development of peaceful uses of atomic power, and with regulating the nuclear industry to assure that the public health and safety are protected. In placing this responsibility upon the AEC, the Congress declared that the intention was to provide for: A program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public. Acting under this mandate, the AEC has made public health and safety an overriding consideration in the development of nuclear power. As Congressman Holifield, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, has put it: The atomic energy program is unique in that for the first time a detailed regulatory system was imposed by the Government before the experience of any serious accidents prompted a demand for such regulation. As a result of this approach, the U.S. atomic energy program has one of the best safety records of any of our industries. The record bears out that, in the development of nuclear power, health, and safety have been overriding considerations. RADIATION STANDARDS From the outset of the nuclear power program, it was recognized there was a need to evaluate the degree of risk that can be accepted and the benefits that would result. It was clear nuclear power could not go forward on a case-by-case basis. Instead it became necessary to develop and adopt radiation protection standards which would reflect the levels of acceptable risks. The impressive record of radiological safety in the nuclear energy field is based on a system of such standards. These standards have been carefully developed over a period of many years by national and international experts, and they are based on the results of an extensive research program on radiation and its effects on man and the biosphere. I want to emphasize that these standards were not originated by the AEC. Rather, they reflect a consensus of the world's best available expertise, and this is independent expertise. They reflect the combined judgments of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and consultants selected for expertise in the various areas of interest. Also carefully considered are the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Commission has always subscribed to the general principle that, within radiation protection guides, radiation exposures to the public should be kept as low as practicable. This general principle has been a central one in the field of radiation protection for many years. Current reviews of reactor license applications include reviews of provisions to limit the control of radioactive effluents from the plants. The Atomic Energy Commission recently published for comment proposed amendments to its regulations (a) to improve the framework for assuring that reasonable efforts are made by all Commission licensees to continue to keep exposures to radiation and releases of radioactivity in effluents as low as practicable and (b) to specify design and operating requirements to minimize quantities of radioactivity released in gaseous and liquid effluents from light water cooled nuclear power reactors. REACTOR SAFETY The site-related environmental problems commonly associated with the construction and operation of nuclear power reactors fall into |