Mr. TIERNAN. Have you done anything with regard to instructing the utility companies not to advertise for the sale of air-conditioning units?

Mr. BLOOM. No; we have not.

Mr. TIERNAN. That is used in the summertime, Mr. Bloom.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. TIERNAN. Do you know that in Maryland we were asked last year to cut air conditioners off, yet in March, April, and May, we were told to get in touch with our electrical contractor now to install airconditioner units, which were on sale?

Mr. BLOOM. That is in our group.

Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I might say that if there is any other commissioner at the table who wants to speak, I will be happy to have him.

Mr. MACDONALD. The chairman would welcome any comments at this point, too.

Mr. BRAZIER. I do not think I have much additional to add, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe that two of the witnesses never participated in the polling on whether Federal legislation is necessary. Since one of them comes from California, I think the record will be incomplete unless we get that information.

Mr. MACDONALD. I take it that the gentleman from Rhode Island has yielded.

Mr. TIERNAN. I haven't yet. I will certainly.

Does the gentleman from California support H.R. 6970?

Mr. RODGERS. There is no one here from California. We have a letter from California, that the California commission supports Federal legislation.

Mr. TIERNAN. Do you, Mr. Bloom, as the utility commissioner in Pennsylvania do anything with regard to requiring the utility companies to set aside research funds?

Mr. BLOOM. They do set aside, but we don't order them to set aside. Mr. TIERNAN. You don't set any percentage to be set aside for research?

Mr. BLOOM. No, sir; we do not.

Mr. TIERNAN. I understand that in the Maryland act there is a requirement that certain funds be set aside for research; is that correct, sir?

Mr. STRINGER. That is correct.

Mr. TIERNAN. Have you ever considered the possibility of requiring utility companies to set aside moneys to conduct research in better transmission of bulk power?

Mr. BLOOM. I have made a number of speeches and discussed it in our commission, and I would like to see it done on a national basis, not only for the private companies, but for the public power companies and the REA's, for all of them to take a certain percentage of their revenue for research and development and to establish a laboratory like Bell has to carry on certain research.

One project that I think is greatly needed and can possibly be done is to find out how to control atomic fusion. When that day comes, you will not have to worry about fallouts or having enough natural

resources.

Mr. TIERNAN. We are going to have the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission testify shortly.

Mr. Bloom, the point is that the utility companies have been woefully neglectful in setting aside money for research. In fact, it is the worst record of any industry in the country; is that correct?

Mr. BLOOM. I will say that they are not up to some of the others unless you take what General Electric and Westinghouse and other companies that supply them have contributed and add what they are contributing in the way of research from which they have the benefit. Mr. TIERNAN. The gentleman from New York, you have jurisdiction over the siting of transmission lines, but do you have any jurisdiction over ordering the construction of interconnections?

Mr. SCHIFF. All our utilities are basically seven, and they are all operating in a closely integrated pool.

Mr. TIERNAN. You have testified previously that Con-Edison would have difficulty in transmitting or getting power.

Mr. SCHIFF. Our utilities have developed a statewide grid. Now it is a problem of getting it constructed which has to be done through the approval.

Mr. TIERNAN. It is my understanding that you favor not an arbitration board that would be selected for each individual situation, but a continuing ad hoc type of board for the final one-stop proceeding.

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, we think that the basic authority should be in the State on siting. We think that there should be a Federal backup which should be a continuing body not on an ad hoc basis. I would say that there is, I think, one difficulty with the ad hoc approach as it stands now, since there is not enough consideration given to the nonpower needs. Mr. MACDONALD. I would like to tell the committee that at 12 o'clock, unlike our usual practice, we have to be on the floor. I hope all members of the subcommittee go to the floor inasmuch as we have a resolution up that affects the subcommittee. Therefore, at 12 o'clock we will have to adjourn.

I would just like to ask one last question. I would like to also explain that sometimes members get to be cross-examiners, but that doesn't mean that we are unfriendly. I know I have the fatal habit myself.

We appreciate your coming here today because you bring a lot of expertise with you. We respect and welcome your opinions. I would like to ask a question to which no one has the answer, but we have a resolution on the floor today that will set up a select committee to go into the very jurisdiction of this subcommittee about the very subject that we are exploring today-electric reliability and the source of energy in general.

If you feel free to do so, I would like to have your feelings about the need for a select committee to go into exactly what we are doing here today. Do you think there is a need for another committee to have you down to testify again?

Mr. Bloom, I am not trying to put you on the spot.

Mr. BLOOM. I am on the spot lots of times. Mr. Chairman, if this is the function of the subcommittee and this is the field which your subcommittee is assigned to study and investigate, it seems to me that to pile one committee on top of another is just a matter of duplicating time and effort and my own opinion from what experience I have had government is that I would not recommend it.

1

I may have gotten on the spot with some of my friends that I know in the House, but that is exactly how I feel. If you have a committee to perform certain functions, that committee ought to perform those functions and not create another committee to take over the functions that that committee was supposed to perform.

Mr. MACDONALD. We thank you, Mr. Bloom, and thank all the gentlemen from the various States.

Before you leave, Mr. Byron of Maryland, I know, wants to make a statement.

Mr. BYRON. It is a pleasure to see Mr. Stringer here, and I know we will get a chance to look at the record.

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, gentlemen.

Our next witness is the Honorable James T. Ramey, Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. Ramey.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES T. RAMEY, COMMISSIONER, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY BERTRAM SCHUR, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL; EDSON CASE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF REACTOR STANDARDS; JOSEPH D. NUNNO, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS; AND MERRILL WHITMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM ANALYSIS, DIVISION OF REACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Bertram Schur, Associate General Counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission; Mr. Edson Case, Director of the AEC Division of Reactor Standards; Mr. Joseph D. Nunno, Director of our Office of Environmental Affairs: and Mr. Merrill Whitman, Assistant Director for Program Analysis of our Division of Reactor Development and Technology.

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission. I have prepared a rather lengthy statement to present to the subcommittee this morning, but at the suggestion of your staff I shall submit it for the record and give you a short summary of the statement and some of my own views. Mr. MACDONALD. Without objection, your complete statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(Commissioner Ramey's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JAMES T. RAMEY, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission.

INTRODUCTION

The Atomic Energy Commission is charged by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with the responsibility for licensing of and regulation of nuclear power plants. The Commission was also given the responsibility for conducting and sponsoring a research and development program to assure that atomic power is developed safely with a minimum impact on the environment.

The total National Nuclear Program now includes a total of 121 units in operation, under construction or on order, with a capacity of just under 100.000 megawatts electrical. It is interesting to note that this amount of nuclear capacity when in operation will be more than twice the installed capacity on utility systems in the United States at the end of World War II. Twenty-one of these units are already in operation (8300 Mwe) and 11 additional units are scheduled to

come into operation this year. There have been 13 nuclear power plants (12,700 Mwe) ordered already this year, and we expect that our estimate of 150,000 Mwe nuclear capacity by the end of 1980 will be met.

Consequently, the Commission has long been deeply interested in the problems of electric power reliability and planning, siting of electric power plants, and the organization and procedures for dealing with the environmental effects associated with the siting, construction and operation of electric power plants. For many years, the AEC and the nuclear industry have engaged in a broad research and development program to assure the safety of nuclear power plants and to minimize their environmental impact.

As I will explain later in more detail, I participated on behalf of the AEC in the development of the Office of Science and Technology Report. "Electric Power and the Environment", whose recommendations the Administration's proposed power plant siting bill is intended to implement.

As a further indication of my involvement in this problem of siting power plants, I recently served as Chairman of the Committee on Licenses and Authorizations of the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Committee took a look at a broad range of techniques to reduce delays in the licensing process. My service as Chairman heightened my interest in problems of administrative delays in the total power plant approval process. I am convinced that real improvements should and can be made.

THE PROBLEM

Both from the long experience we have had at AEC in the licensing process and the studies made of needs related thereto, 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 power plant, 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.

Recently, the Commission has been experiencing some regulatory delays in the processing of applications for nuclear power plant construction permits and some operating licenses. While this has been due partly to a growing volume of construction permit and operating license applications, there is an increasing series of delays resulting from extended, contested licensing actions in which safety and environmental issues have been aggressively pursued by intervenors. I discussed the subject of delays in a speech before the Atomic Industrial Forum on November 17, 1970, entitled "Reactor Licensing Delays in Perspective: Problems, Progress, New Directions." With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit a copy of this speech for the record. Some way must be found to strike a balance between the need to explore the site-related environmental problems and the need to avoid undue delays in the construction of power plants so that urgently needed power needs can be met. I shall discuss later some of the changes and procedures which the Commission is considering to reduce these delays.

Before discussing our general, overall views on the power plant siting problem and the objectives of the bills, 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 from the research and development program in which the Commission is engaged. This should also assist in showing how the AEC would proceed in implementing H.R. 5277.

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 intension 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." (Atomic Energy Act, section 3 d.; 42 USC 2013.)

Acting under this mandate, the AEC has made public health and safety an overriding consideration in the development of nuclear power. As Congressman Holified, 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 United States 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 effluent 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 two main categories. The first category relates to the remote possibility of a reactor accident that could result in the release into the environment of hazardous quantities of radioactive materials. The second category, which I shall discuss later, relates to those environmental problems associated with normal operation of nuclear power plants-particularly the environmental effects of planned releases of low levels of radioactivity and thermal discharges to the surrounding air and water.

To assure adequate protection of the public from reactor accidents, nuclear power plants employ a defense-in-depth concept :

The first and most important line is the achievement of superior quality in design, construction and operation of basic reactor systems so as to ensure a very low probability of any malfunction.

The functions of the Federal Radiation Council were, of course, transferred to the new Environmental Protection Agency by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.