INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION OF POWER DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1970 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:08 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Muskie, Metcalf, and Gurney. Also present: Edwin W. Webber, staff director; E. Winslow Turner, general counsel; Irish McRae, minority counsel; and Mrs. Dorothy Kornegay, secretary. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order. I have an opening statement, but because of the pressure of time this morning, I will without objection, put that statement in the record and use the time this morning for the witnesses who have traveled a distance to testify and to enlighten us on this issue. STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN America faces a critical and unmet challenge-protecting public health and environmental quality as we seek to build an adequate and reliable supply of electric power. We must triple our electric supply in 20 years. That will require the construction of over $100 billion in large electric generating plants and an additional one-half million miles of high-voltage transmission lines. Many of these plants will be thermal. They threaten to consume nearly one-half the total daily runoff of fresh water of the United States for cooling their reactors. That water will be poured back at much higher temperatures, with an increased biocide content, with drastic changes in saline content, with radioactive concentrations of unknown long-range effects. America is on the brink of this nuclear power future with: No electric power generation or transmission plan. No site-selection or land-use policy. No hard knowledge of what this concentration of generating plants will do to our health or our environment. (665) To be blunt—the utility company moves in. It gets zoning and construction permits on an ad hoc basis. It buys the land, and may even begin construction before any overall evaluation is made. In our first case study, concerning a nuclear plant at Calvert Cliffs, Md., we found the State just beginning to consider the environmental hazards of the plant's location-after the plant itself was nearly onethird completed. Everyone assumes that Government somewhere, somehow, is protecting the public interest. We have learned that Government is not doing the job. The Federal Power Commission has no jurisdiction over the siting and construction of most electric plants and transmission lines. The Atomic Energy Commission is concerned only with the immediate health, safety, and defense aspects of atomic plants. State regulation is almost nonexistent. Only in Maine, Maryland, and California is there effective State regulation of the location of plants or transmission lines, pollution standards, or aesthetic deterioration. On the local level, the only control is usually zoning. The public has become outraged over unilateral decisions made by private utilities under benign State and local regulation. Then we find charges and countercharges in an effort to hold up construction and restudy the siting decision. And then we find we have insufficient power reserves. And then we have blackouts. S. 2752 would provide for the designation of areas for long-range planning. It would create "regional boards" composed of representatives of each State within the region. The boards, with approval from a Federal agency, and only after public hearings, would establish the criteria for the siting of these power facilities. These criteria would have to be met before any construction could go forward. The regional boards would, in effect, have to approve applications for construction which meet these standards. This is an intergovernmental approach to a national, State, and local problem. Environmental degradation, blackouts, brownouts, voltage reductions, ugly and dangerous transmission lines, threaten to become a way of life-in summer and in winter-unless we respond with firm action. I hope that today's hearings will help provide us with additional answers to the question of how best we can assure that the public interest be the paramount factor in electric power decisions. First of all, I would like to express my regret that these hearings could not go forward in Minnesota as originally planned. As it turned out, they could have been held, but the uncertainty of the Senate floor schedule at the time suggested that for the convenience of witnesses, we give them plenty of notice that the hearings were not going to be held. So, I do apologize to all of those who may have been inconvenienced at that time. In any case, we will now go ahead with this hearing. I consider it a very important one. I think the issues raised and the controversy between the State of Minnesota and the AEC are very important ones. I think they need to be examined and understood and perhaps form the basis for new policy at the national level as well as the State level. It is for this reason that we scheduled the hearings in the first instance and it is for this reason that we are going forward with the hearings. now. It is fortuitous that the issues do relate to legislation which was introduced and is pending before this committee which involves the question of power siting and power planning on a regional basis. So the two issues come together very nicely. May I then welcome the first witness this morning, Mr. John Badalich, executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Mr. Badalich, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning and we do appreciate your willingness to come and testify and to enlighten us. STATEMENT OF JOHN P. BADALICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Mr. BADALICH. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it very much. Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of this opportunity to appear before you to express our views with respect to S. 2752, the Intergovernmental Coordination of Power Development and Environmental Protection Act, and to further discuss the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's policies as they relate to power siting and the associated environmental problems of great concern to us. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is required to protect the citizens of Minnesota against pollution of the air, water, and land. The agency is responsible for the management of the quality of Minnesota's waters, both surface and underground; the quality of the air; and the collection, transportation, and disposal of solid wastes. The basic policy, as set down by the Minnesota Legislature, is to prevent new pollution and control and abate existing pollution for the purpose of: Conserving the air and water resources of the State. Developing the economic welfare of the State. It is on the basis of this policy that the agency has adopted standards and regulations for the protection and enhancement of its interstate as well as its intrastate waters, including effluent standards as well as water quality standards; air quality standards, including emission standards, as wells as ambient air quality standards and standards and regulations for the collection, transportation, and disposal of solid wastes. Minnesota is blessed with an abundance of water, most of which is of excellent quality. One need only to look at a map of the State to gain. an appreciation of the quantity of water with which we are dealing. In order to protect and preserve this valuable resource, the agency's regulations assign water quality criteria for the various classifications and uses and in addition, include an effluent standard as a minimal requirement. In other words, in order to protect and enhance the stream quality, a discharger must think and design treatment works in terms of effluent quality. Included in these regulations are temperature criteria that provide all year-around protection of the fishery. All dischargers of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, including nuclear power and fossil fuel powerplants, must obtain permits for such discharges under such conditions as the agency may prescribe for the prevention of pollution and in compliance with our standards and regulations. In some cases, more stringent requirements are contained in the permit than are in the general water quality requirement. I am happy to report that all dischargers on the interstate waterways of Minnesota have or will achieve compliance with the agency's effluent standards by December of 1973. Čompliance has been achieved through stipulation, through notice, orders, and through litigation. Senator MUSKIE. May I ask a question at this point for clarification? You say that "In some cases more stringent requirements are contained in the permit than are in the general water quality requirement." What is the authority setting more stringent requirements, the State law? Mr. BADALICH. Yes; under our statutes, Senator, we do have that right in that we can amend, modify, revoke, and actually put more stringent regulations on the permit. There are two different requirements. One is meeting the regulation and the other requirement that the dischargers must have a permit from the agency and at that particular time the agency at its own discretion, and then again we also have discretionary authority to hold a public hearing on the matter and then will determine whether to require more stringent requirements. Senator MUSKIE. Does the law set out the standard for the more stringent requirements? Mr. BADALICH. Yes, it does. We do have that right. The agency has this discretion. In order to make it a regulation we would then have to hold a public hearing, but in the event there is a more stringent requirement in the permit and the discharger feels that it is unreasonable, then he certainly has the right of appeal. Senator MUSKIE. Who sets the general water quality requirements, the agency? Mr. BADALICH. The agency does, yes. Our agency does. Senator MUSKIE. I understand, then, the agency can set general water quality requirements that apply to all dischargers. Mr. BADALICH. Yes. Senator MUSKIE. And in addition set more stringent requirements with respect to particular dischargers. Mr. BADALICH. That is correct. Senator MUSKIE. And there are standards for both in the law? Mr. BADALICH. Yes, there are. There is that provision in the law. Senator MUSKIE. There is no standard? Mr. BADALICH. It is not a standard as such. Under our statutes in granting a permit to a particular discharger, we can take into account just about anything we feel might be necessary to protect the environ ment. Senator MUSKIE. I wonder if we might not have that language for the record. Mr. BADALICH. I do have a copy here, Senator. I can certainly leave that here. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. (Excerpt from "Laws Relating to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Chapters 115 and 116, Statutes 1969"-the whole of which is retained in subcommittee files-follows:) 115.03-POWERS AND DUTIES Subdivision 1. The agency is hereby given and charged with the following powers and duties: To issue, continue in effect or deny permits, under such conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste or other wastes, or for the installation or operation of disposal systems or parts thereof; To revoke or modify any permit issued under sections 115.01 to 115.09 whenever it is necessary, in the opinion of the commission, to prevent or abate pollution of any waters of the state; Mr. BADALICH. In the field of air pollution control, the standards for ambient air quality and emissions have been adopted by the agency and these standards became effective July 7, 1969. The regulations established a requirement that all existing sources of air pollution achieve compliance by January 7, 1970, or submit to the agency an acceptable compliance program, prior to this date, and in turn the agency would allow an additional 21⁄2 years to meet standards. The regulations also established a requirement that all new potential sources of air pollution meet emission standards and have a permit to construct and operate. This permit system has been developed and the necessary forms designed and procedures established for both existing and new sources. Since the agency's division of air quality became active just 2 years ago, it has established an air monitoring program and is operating a network of 166 sampling sites and gathering data and evaluating it from 326 sites in the State. The bulk of these have been furnishing data for over 2 years. Computer programs have been developed to analyze data obtained and this is furnished to the national air sampling network and to the cities affected. Since the agency is subjected to the requirements of the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967, many meetings and conferences have been held relating to air quality control and proposed establishments of air quality regions in Minnesota. The Federal Government has established an air quality region in the metropolitan area, that is, MinneapolisSt. Paul, the Duluth-Superior area, the Winona-LaCrosse area, and in the Fargo-Moorhead area. The agency has also worked with and provided technical assistance to St. Paul, Minneapolis, Rochester, Duluth, St. Cloud, and other municipalities in establishing and coordinating air pollution control programs. Federal grants for these various municipalities are reviewed by the agency before moneys are received from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Ambient air quality standards for the following air pollution have been adopted (1) Sulfur oxides: (a) Sulfation rate; (b) sulfur dioxide levels; (c) suspended sulfates; and (d) sulfuric acid mist. (2) Hydrogen sulfide. (3) Total oxidants. (4) Dustfall. (5) Suspended particulates. (6) Soiling index. |