has been submitted on the thermal effects of particular waterways as you have considered these licenses? Mr. RAMEY. Usually, it is my understanding that the utility, of course, has its own consultants and submits and does its own monitoring work, and it submits its report, and, in addition, they normally have a literature search, and they provide all of the data reports this sort of thing. Now, in the Chesapeake Bay Senator MUSKIE. A literature search is not going to give any useful information in respect to the effects on life in a particular waterway. Mr. RAMEY. No. I mean, on reports on the ecological situation on the waterway. Now, we have been supporting some work in the Chesapeake Bay, and I believe I would assume that in these current State hearings that they have had on thermal effects, that these reports, the data that has been developed, will be utilized. Senator MUSKIE. Well, they are very inadequate, in my judgment, up to this point, and the power companies I do not think have done a very good job in producing this kind of information. The assumption in all of these cases is: "Sure, they have consultants with ecological representations which, to some degree, lend credibility and evironmental respectability to their decisions, but when I inquire as to what specific findings have been made with respect to this specific waterway there is no information. The power company takes the position: Well, thermal effects can be beneficial, not all harmful, and we are prepared to assume that they are going to be beneficial until we learn otherwise, and the burden of proof is always upon those who are concerned about the possible harm. Now, that kind of speculation is not enough. I think what you need is actual research in the waterways involved, an evaluation of the environmental values in terms of plant or animal life or fish life, the effects of temperature changes upon that specific kind of life. The Calvert Cliffs project in Chesapeake Bay is located in what might be called a throat in the Bay, a narrow portion, and I think that one witness testified that the amount of discharge from the plant into the Bay, as you consider the total area of the Bay, is like a teaspoonful of water in a bathtub. Well, that really does not tell you too much, you know. It may be at that particular point, the throat of the Bay, where the life-giving forces move through the Bay, a teaspoonful might be very harmful. Mr. RAMEY. Yes, sir. But as I understand it they do conduct environmental surveys and monitoring before and after, certainly on radioactivity and this sort of thing. I will be glad to submit for the record a listing and description of the studies that have been made in relation to the Chesapeake Bay. I would point out and I think you may be correct in one aspect of the way we have handled our licensing procedure, and that is that our research and development work, particularly in the field of ecology, is conducted under the sponsorship of our Division of Biology and Medicine, and is treated as basic research. The reports are published; they are made available; they are made knowledgeable to our regulatory people and to everybody. This has been particularly evident in the past year partly as a result of the Calvert Cliffs case. You may recall the question of the tritium release was raised there, and the data on tritium had not been entirely collated. It had not been anticipated that it would be a problem, and, as it turned out, everybody agreed that it was not a problem. But our Division of Biology and Medicine has some excellent summaries and this sort of thing which could have been made available immediately as a formal part of the process. Well, I can assure you that our procedures have been changed now so that this kind of information is made available and is much more expeditiously made available than it has been before. Senator MUSKIE. Well, Commissioners, there are other questions we could explore, but I see that time is running out on me and we have one more witness for the morning. Thank you very much. Mr. RAMEY. Thank you, sir." (The following was supplied for the record :) APRIL 27, 1970. AEC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH-CHESAPEAKE BAY Concern for the environment has been an integral part of the United States atomic energy program since 1943 when the Corps of Engineers ordered detailed advance studies of the Columbia River where several wartime atomic production plants were to be built. More than $13 million has been spent in the years since on the study of the Columbia River alone. The Atomic Energy Commission took over the atomic program in 1947 and increased the pace and scope of the environmental research effort. The present AEC environmental program ranges from Alaskan tundra to tropical rainforest and from microorganisms to man. For the last three years, the budget for environmental research has been more than $70 million a year. Among the most important areas being studied is the Chesapeake Bay. It is the largest coastal plain estuary in the United States, an important source of food for man and the site of intensive development by man. The AEC has funded in the range of $2,000,000 on environmental research relating to the Chesapeake Bay. Through fiscal year 1970, the AEC will have invested more than a million dollars in environmental research in the Chesapeake Bay. Most of the work has been done since 1964. The breakdown by program is shown below: Research through fiscal year 1970 in Chesapeake Bay Supported by the Division of Biology and Medicine.. Total AEC expenditures in Chesapeake Bay through fiscal $900, 133 150, 000 1, 050, 133 In addition, the Division of Reactor Development and Technology has supported a research program by the Chesapeake Bay Institute which though not conducted directly on the Bay will assist in understanding the dispersion of both heat and radioactivity in the Bay. This research has totaled more than $800,000 through FY 1970. The AEC currently is involved in three research projects on the Bay by the Johns Hopkins University. The total outlay for these contracts this fiscal year (1970) is expected to be approximately $236,565. In FY 1971 these contracts are expected to total approximately $331,465. In addition, the Division of Biology and Medicine has a new research proposal involving the Chesapeake Bay under review. Details on the three existing projects and the pending proposal follow: PLANKTON AS AN INDICATOR OF POLLUTION LEVELS Dr. Howard Seliger of Johns Hopkins University is studying the abundance and distribution in the Bay of certain species of plankton which serve as food for marine life. Dr. Seliger's research indicates that its abundance in a marine system may be directly related to the amount of pollution in the water. This could be an excellent indictor of pollution. Dr. Seliger will test his hypothesis in both polluted and unpolluted parts of the Bay. This contract has been in effect since 1964 with primary effort on the Chesapeake Bay since 1969. Through FY 1970 the total outlay directly on the Chesapeake Bay has been $101,750. The contract is projected for $82,465 in FY 1971. PREDICTING DISPERSION OF HEATED WATER FROM POWER PLANTS This contract is concerned with developing mathematical models which can be used to predict the distribution of heated water which is pumped into the Bay by steam electric generating stations. Dr. Donald Pritchard, the principal scientist on the project has applied the model to predict the dispersal of heated water discharges from the Morgantown, Maryland, fossil fired plant on the Potomac estuary. He will field test that prediction in the coming year. In addition, he has developed a prediction of how and where heated water which will be released by the new Calvert Cliffs nuclear generating plant will be distributed in the Bay. He will test the Calvert Cliffs prediction when the plant begins to operate. The ability to predict where and how the heated water will disperse in the Bay is a basic step in determining the biological effects of thermal effluents. This contract has been in effect since 1957, with primary effort on the Chesapeake Bay since 1969. The total outlay on the Bay through FY 1970 has been about 150,000. FY 1971 projection is for $100,000. FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE BAY Dr. Rowland Taylor and Dr. James Carpenter of Johns Hopkins University are conducting the most fundamental study now in existence of the biological, ecological and chemical structure of the Bay. Their research covers the entire Bay from the headwaters, which are fresh water, through to the saltwater at the mouth and on out across the continental shelf. One of the most important parts of this work is the study of the rate at which the phytoplankton in various parts of the Bay transform inorganic carbon into organic form. These phytoplankton are at the base of the food chain leading up through microorganisms to fish, shellfish and man. This portion of the work is coordinated with all other portions including analysis of the chemical make-up of the Bay at the same points where the phytoplankton samples are taken. This contract has been in force and focused on the Bay since 1964. The total cost through FY 1970 has been $798,383. FY 1971 is projected at $149,000. BASELINE STUDY IN THE VICINITY OF CALVERT CLIFFS Dr. J. Mihursky of the University of Maryland has proposed a new study in the vicinity of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's Calvert Cliffs plant which is now under construction. We hope to begin funding this proposal in fiscal 1971. Dr. Mihursky will obtain pre-operational information on the ecology of the Bay near Calvert Cliffs. This information can be coordinated with the Taylor and Carpenter work described above. The Mihursky study will continue after the Calvert Cliffs plant is in operation and will provide comparative information on the effects of the plant's operation on the immediate vicinity. Dr. Mihursky will also be conducting, concurrently, a laboratory experiment on the effects of heated water on the production and growth of plankton and other marine life. Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness this morning is Major General C. H. Dunn, Deputy Chief of Engineers of the Corps of Engineers. General, would you proceed, please? STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. C. H. DUNN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS General DUNN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Major General C. H. Dunn, Deputy Chief of Engineers, Office of 46-966-71-pt. 2- 4 the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. I am accompanied by three members of the staff of that Office. I appreciate having the opportunity to testify before this committee on S. 2752, relating to the siting and construction of power facilities to ensure electric power reliability and protection of the environment and, as requested, also on the role of the Corps of Engineers with regard to the environment. The purposes of S. 2752 are to promote greater reliability and adequacy of our electric energy supply, and to preserve and enhance the environment in connection with the siting and construction of power-generating facilities. I would like to say we do agree with the objectives of the bill, as we understand them. To achieve these purposes, the bill would provide for the establishment of regional districts embracing areas which are compatible with long-range planning for the siting and construction of bulk power facilities and which can be economically and reliably served by interconnected and coordinated power facilities. A regional board, composed of Governors of the States involved, and an intergovernmental advisory council, would be established in each district. The provisions of the bill would be administered by those boards. and councils, and by an agency designated by the President which would approve procedures for siting and construction of power facilities, and adequacy and reliability standards, and would grant licenses for the construction and modification of power facilities. We agree with the basic objectives of the bill. The rapidly growing electric power needs of the Nation must be met, and this can most efficiently be done through a comprehensive and coordinated effort of all involved sectors-public and private. At the same time, we must, to the fullest extent possible, preserve and enhance the environment for ourselves and future generations. This requires a sensitive and reasonable balancing of often competing interests. The matter of insuring adequacy and reliability of electric power, and the means of accomplishing this, are currently under consideration by the administration. It is my understanding that this study may result in proposed legislation. Accordingly, I must defer my comments on the merits of the bill until such time as the administration's study is completed. Mr. Chairman, you have also requested that we testify with regard to our role in power production and the environment, including the steps we have taken to consider the environmental impact of our proposed projects. The Corps does not construct and has not constructed projects for the sole purpose of power. Hydropower, which is the kind of power which we provide, where it is included at a project, is one of many purposes served by the project, such as flood control, navigation, water supply, fish and wildlife enhancement, and recreation. Power development by the Corps thus receives the same attention as all other project purposes with regard to impact on the environment. Now, as to the role of the Corps in water resources planning and development, and the environment, the responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers encompass both regulatory authorities and water resources planning and development. Our regulatory authorities stem from laws enacted before the turn of the century. Senator MUSKIE. May I ask a question, General, before I forget it? General DUNN. Yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Do fossil fuel powerplants have to get permits from the Corps to discharge into streams? General DUNN. If they have a discharge facility in a stream that is either actually or legally navigable, sir, they would be required. under our interpretation of the law to have a permit. Senator MUSKIE. Now, does that fact give you authority under section 21 of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 to subject them to the States' thermal effect standards? General DUNN. The short answer I would give is it does, sir. In other words, it has been our policy insofar as I can determine, to never issue a permit for any purpose where the responsible authority of a State has objected to that permit. Senator MUSKIE. Now, under section 21 of this new law, this would mean you would have to get certification from the State Environmental Control Agency. General DUNN. That would depend on the individual State, sir. If, as a response to public hearing the State raised an objection, regardless of what that objection might be, unless the applicant could remove that State objection our position would be that we would not issue a permit. Senator MUSKIE. In other words, section 21 conforms to your traditional attitude about the input that can be made by a State into your decision? General DUNN. That is correct, and we have always provided for a State input where the State so desired to make it. Senator MUSKIE. Now, I assume that the Corps then is addressing itself, or its legal people to section 21 and the implication of section 21 for all of its activities? General DUNN. That is correct, sir. Continuing, generally speaking, no construction, dredging, or deposition of refuse may be done in a navigable water of the United States without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Army upon recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. These laws, when passed, were concerned primarily with the protection of navigation, but the factors considered in determining whether to grant or deny a permit have grown in number as laws and attitudes have changed. Now, we consider the effects of proposed work on navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, ecology, and all matters affecting the environment and the general public interest. Presently, we are implementing the provisions of the recently enacted Water Quality Act of 1970. Our responsibilities in water resources planning and development have also grown from navigation, and then flood control, to the present multipurpose concepts. Over the past 30 years, since the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, there has been an increasing awareness of the full range of objectives towards which water resource programs contribute. Acts which extended Federal interest to encompass fish and wildlife conservation; water-related recrea |