PAGENO="0001" 1979 DOE AUTHORIZATION ENVIRONMENT BUDGET HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLO~Y U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 15, 16, 1978 [No. 81] VOLUME VII Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 32-744 0 WASHINGTON 1978 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OLIN B. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman DON FUQUA, Florida WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey MIKE MeCORMACK, Washington GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California DALE MILFORD, Texas RAY THORNTON, Arkansas JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York TOM HARKIN, Iowa JIM LLOYD, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas BOB GAMMAGE, Texas ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee WES WATKINS, Oklahoma ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri CHARLES A. MOSEER, Ecvecutive Director HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director PIIILLIP B. YEAGER, Counsel JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant WILLIAM G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel JOHN P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Counsel REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk PAUL A. VANDER MYDE, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE GEORGE E. BROWN, Ja., California, Chairman TIMOTHY B. WIRTH, Colorado ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania JEROME A. AMBRO, New York MANUEL LTJJAN, JR., New Mexico DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Staff Director RADFORD BYERLY, JR., Science Consultant ALEXIS J. HOSKINS, Research Assistant LYNDA L. BROTHERS, Counsel JOHN W. WYDLER, New York LARRY WINN, Jn~, Kansas LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida BARRY M. GOLDWATER, Ja., California GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey ELDON RUDD, Arizona ROBERT K. DORNAN, California ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS WITNESSES February 14, 1978: Hon. Dale D. Myers, Under Secretary, Department of Energy, accom- panied by Dr. James Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Page Environment, Department of Energy 13 February 15, 1978: Dr. James Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, accompanied by Dr. Peter House, Acting Director, Office of Tech- nology Impacts; Dr. William Mott, Director, Division of Environ- mental Control Technology; Dr. William Burr, Director, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research; Dave Slade, Director, Office of Carbon Dioxide Effects Research and Assessment; Hal Hol- lister, Director, Division of Operational and Environmental Safety_ 41 February 16, 1978: Hon. James F. Jeffords, U.S. House of Representatives - 93 Alvin Alm, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation, Depart- ment of Energy 102 George Fumich, Jr., Acting Program Director for Fossil Energy, De- partment of Energy 106 Dr. Don Kash, Director, Science and Public Policy Program, Univer- sity of Oklahoma 110 Dr. Stephen Gage, Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency 113 Dr. James Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Department of Energy 117 Sidney R. Orem, Industrial Gas Institute 245 APPENDICES Appendix I: Additional statements for the record 247 Appendix II: Additional material for the record 259 (III) PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" 1979 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION ENVIRONMENT BUDGET TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1978 HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE, Wa.~hington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chairman), presiding. Mr. BROWN. Good morning. Today, we begin 3 days of authorization hearings for the Depart- ment of Energy's Office of Environment. The role of the Office of Environment is both to conduct general, preliminary environmental, health, and safety research, and to oversee the energy-technology programs to insure that they are environmen- tally acceptable. However, the role of the Assistant Secretary for En- vironment in formulating the agency's environmental policies is not clear to us. This situation has been exacerbated by the fact that a nomination to the post of Assistant Secretary for Environment has not been made. We will discuss these and other issues today with the Honorable Dale Myers, Undersecretary, Department of Energy; Dr. James Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment; and on Thursday with Alvin Alm, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation. Our overriding objective is to see that resources provided to the Office of Environment are sufficient to allow the environmental con- cerns to keep pace with the energy technology development process. Thus, we will explore in detail DOE's environment budget and pro- gram for fiscal year 19'T9 with several of Dr. Liverman's staff to- morrow morning. Within DOE, environmental research which is specific to a site or an energy-technology is usually conducted by the responsible energy- development program. Although we will not examine these environ- mental researc~h efforts in these hearings, over the course of the year we intend to see whether the energy development programs are re- sponsive to the guidance of the Office of Environment. Another issue involves the proposed exchange of funds and pro- grams between DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development. Specifically, $14 million from EPA's environmental control technology program will be moved to DOE's fossil energy program, while $14 million from the DOE Office of Environment's health effects program will be transferred to EPA. This issue will be discussed in detail on Thursday, February 16, with (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 Dr. Stephen Gage, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for R. & D.; Mr. George Fumich, Jr., Acting Program Director for Fossil Energy in DOE, and Dr. Don Kash, director of the science and public policy program, University of Oklahoma. We are very fortunate to have the Honorable Dale Myers, Under- secretary of the Department of Energy here to start us off this morn- ing. Knowing how many other important things that you have to do, we want to express our appreciation to you, Mr. Myers, and look for- ward to your testimony this morning. You may proceed. [The prepared statements of Mr. Myers follow:] STATEMENT OF DALE D. MYERS, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY Good morning, Mr. Ohairman, and members of the Subcommittee. It Is a pleasure to be here to discuss the role of the Department's Office of Assistant Secretary for Environment in helping to achieve our Nation's energy and en- vironmental objectives. Appearing here with me today is the Department's Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Dr. James L. Liverman. His pres- entation, following my opening general remarks, will include more detail and deal with budgetary specifics. In this overview statement, I will address the questions you requested I answer in your February S letter to me. As you are aware, the Department of Energy is committed to the development of energy technologies and resources sufficient to meet our national energy needs. We are also committed to assuring the production of this energy, not just within the `bounds of environmental regulations, but above the letter of regulations. The stated purpose of the Department requires that we do the former, the President's policy and Department goals demand the latter. The sometimes contradictory objectives of increased energy development and environmental protection are not easily met. Often, energy supply technologies and strategies involve environmental degradation. On each energy technology program decision, the Department fully considers environmental issues. This is done both in terms of the capability of a specific technology involved to economii cally meet existing and anticipated environmental regulations, and in terms of the environmentally optimal selection of energy programs or policies from avail- able supply options. The process is extremely complex and difficult. Moreover, when environmental impacts are considered in their broadest sense, they neces- sarily include socioeconomic impacts as well. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT (ASEY) Within the Department, these elements of our energy policies and execution of programs in support of these policies are carried out in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. The Office is responsible to the Secretary of the De- partment to assure compliance with environmental laws and procedures, and to exercise independent review and approval of environmental impact statements of major actions in the Department. The Assistant Secretary for Environment also has program responsibility for directing research and development programs that examine energy impacts on the environment. The role of the Assistant Secretary requires a balancing of energy and environ- mental concerns. The organization is therefore concerned with minimizing en- vironmental impacts as well as supporting the primary responsibility of the Department-assurance of an adequate supply of energy for the Nation. In this sense, it is involved in a continuing negotiation between two iterests, both of which must be reasonably met. The organization carries out this mandate by re- viewing environmental impact statements, conducting research and assessment programs regarding environmental impacts on energy programs, analyzing en- vironmental issues and associated policies, and preparing Environmental Devel- opment Plans on each emerging energy technology. All of these activities are aimed at providing guidance to other Department components as to environ- mental regulatory constraints, and information on energy-versus-environmental tradeoffs. This allows Departmental policies and programs to be selected which best balance National energy and environmental objectives. PAGENO="0007" 3 Before proceeding to other pertinent information concerning the environmental activities of the Department, I would like to discuss the status of our efforts to fill the position of Assistant Secretary for Environment. We are conducting an intensive national search, with assistance from many different groups to locate the strongest candidate for this important national leadership and management position. Basically, we are looking for a person who meets the following criteria: One who has been educated in the sciences and is knowledgeable of environ- mental issues; One who has no perceived `biases towards one energy technology in relation to another; One who has a balanced perspective with regard* to National energy and en- vironmental goals; and One who has a strong management background. Our search for such a person has been a challenging task. It is still continuing. However, the President hopes to submit a nomination to Congress in the near future. The creation of the Department of Energy led to expanded responsibilities in the area of environmental programs. In order to effectively implement some of these responsibilities, we have consolidated five former units into a single operating unit, the Office of Technology Impacts. This first change in the struc- ture of the Office of Environment allows consolidation and improved focusing of the functions of environmental overview, assessment and policy analysis. Other organizational changes and options have been developed for consideration by the Assistant Secretary for Environment after confirmation is completed. Now I would like to discus's the interactions of the Department in carrying out environmental policy responsibilities. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTACTS In order for DOE to meet environmental objectives and obligations, it main- tains an open and frequent dialogue with the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as with other governmental and private groups concerned with environ- mental issi~es. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment acts as the Departmental link to environmental agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of the Interior, and to the environmental community, in general. However, many functional relationships exist between EPA and the other DOE Assistant Secre- taries. Close contact is maintained particulary by the staff of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and staff members of energy technology programs. THE JOINT EPA/DOE PROCEDURES FOR REGULATING NEW TECHNOLOGIES One development in this set of overall contacts, which significantly facilitates DOE responses to environmental issues, is joint work currently underway by DOE and EPA to establish coordinating procedures for the environmental regu- lation of emerging energy technologies. This is in direct response to the request of the President in his Environmental Message of last May, and will ensure the exchange of plans and pertinent information between DOE and EPA. Guidance from EPA as to the regulatory constraints which an emerging energy technology may face will allow the R&D programs of both `agencies to better address antici- pated problems. In certain cases, this inter-agency coordination may result in an early decision to terminate or change the direction of a program because of environmental constraints, thus allowing DOE to allocate RD&D expenditures to programs with an attractive commercialization potential. The joint DOE/EPA procedures and information sharing will, in turn, assist EPA to better understand the energy production and supply penalties associated with ~nvironmental regulations. EPA may be able to apply this information, on the basis of an overall environmental assessment of a total energy system, in adjusting the implementation strategy or an existing or proposed regulation. This could conceivably stimulate development of a particular energy technology which could not otherwise achieve commercialization, while ensuring a lesser impact on the environment. PAGENO="0008" 4 CONTROL OVER TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment maintains the overview of energy technology development through the use of Environmental Development Plans or EDP's. These EDP's are called for in an Interim Management Direc- tive, making them a required part of the formal procedure for budget approval. The plans are prepared by each of the energy technology development programs within the Department, and identify major environmental issues and constraints which must be addressed. The Assistant Secretary for Environment coordinates the preparation, review and updating of the Environmental Development Plans in cooperation with the other concerned Department offices. Should any differ- ences of position remain between the Office of Environment and the technology program offices, they are resolved by the Under Secretary. Also, the Assistant Secretary for Environment has a Division of Environmental Control Technology which provides the information necessary to make inde- pendent judgments on the environmental control aspects of emerging energy technologies and national environmental policies and regulations. In imple- menting this expertise, there is close interaction with the energy technology offices through joint work efforts. Therefore, through the use of Environmental Development Plans, and the interaction of the Division of Environmental Control Technology, the Depart- ment ensures that Energy technologies are developed in an environmentally ac- ceptable manner. SUMMARY OF INITIATIVES The joint EPA/DOE coordinating procedures, and the Environmental Devel- opment Plans are examples of the improved capability of DOE to respond posi- tively and constructively to environmental issues in a timely manner. This is important in an era when environmental concerns increasingly must be con- sidered in the setting of programs and policies for the development and supply of energy. Meeting the Nation's environmental objectives is given high priority within DOE and the programs and institutional arrangements mentioned here today are part of a continually growing and improved capability on the part of DOE to balance energy and environmental objectives. The key to DOE's success in resolving the energy/environmental interface will be cooperation and communi- cation, both within DOE, and between DOE and pertinent environmental regula- tary and public interest groups. CONCLUDING REMARKS Following my comments, Dr. Liverman will detail elements of the proposed 1979 budget for the Office of Environment. As you know, Jim was the senior offi- cial in ERDA for environmental matters. The transition from perspectives held prior to the new, more integrated en- vironmental role is well along-as Dr. Liverman will discuss in his detailed testimony. Initiatives In FY 1978 have been refocused, and the FY 79 proposals will accelerate the direction of environmental overview, assessment and re- search in meeting the Nation's and the Administration's energy goals. Dr. Liverman will discuss the proposed FY 1979 budget of our Office of Environment. This discussion will present detail in the areas of: The expanded and changing scope of environmental responsibility in DOE:; Our continuing environmental R&D program, including the increased emphasis on conservation initiatives and non-nuclear supply techologies; and the re- organization of the policy analysis and technology assessment units in Envi- ronment. After discussing these elements, Jim will provide the detailed programmatic response to the specific areas requiring emphasis in each of the primary pro- gram categories (Light Water Reactor Safety Facilities; Environmental Re- search and Development; Decontamination and Decommissioning; and Life Sciences Research Biomedical Applications). The overall budget for FY 1979 is $284.6 million, a decrease of $27 million from 1978. These totals represent changes in the following major program categories. PAGENO="0009" 5 Environmental Research and Development for FY 79 is $208.6 million. This program level, which is down $9.2 million from 1978, reflects the fact that $13.9 niillion were in projects sponsored by DOE in FY 78 that will be sponsored by EPA in FY 79. Life Sciences Research and Biomedical Applications in FY 79 is $40.8 million. Decontamination and Decommissioning is $25.2 million in FY 79. The increase of $7 million is primarily for remedial actions at various sites. Light Water Reactor Safety Facilities is $10.0 million, down $18.1 million from 1978, to reflect completion of tests and facilities. Before Dr. Liverman's remarks, I would like to address any questions that the Subcommittee members might have at this time. PAGENO="0010" 6 STATEMENT BY JAMES L. LIVERMAN ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE FEBRUARY 14, 1978 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you again the Office of Environment's programs and budget for FY 1979 authorization in the Department of Energy (DOE). I would like to begin my discussion with an overview of the general responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Environment in terms of the general trends or changes in environmental functions and programs in DOE. To summarize these major points for you, they are: * the expanded scope of environmental responsibilities in DOE, primarily with regard to strong involvement in implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the focusing of energy/environmental policy guidance; * our continuing environmental researchand development program in support of nonnuclear technologies, including conservation. As you know, the creation of DOE combined the short range energy policy and regulatory activities with the longer range energy technology research and development. As a result, the complexity and scope of environmental interaction have increased to include those aspects which were formerly handled separately by the various agencies which have been incorporated into DOE. This, coupled with a strong and clear Presidential and legislative mandate to assure that the Nation has sufficient energy with minimal environmental disruption, has increased the overall responsibility of the Office of Environment. PAGENO="0011" 7 One of the areas of increased responsibility concerns the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The decision was made by Secretary Schlesinger and others that one major focal point for all NEPA activities would be centered under the Assistant Secretary for Environment. This includes the traditional responsibilities of independent review, analysis, and approval of all Departmental environmental iirpact statements, as well as providing technical support and policy guidance on NEPA, preparing certain legislative and policy environmental impact statements, and analyzing other agencies' environmental impact statements. Because of the diversity of the NEPA activities, this function will undoubtedly be one of our most challenging endeavors; the very diversity strengthens and ensures DOE's compliance with this country's environmental protection goals. The other major area of increased complexity and responsibility is related to questions of energy/environmental policy. The Office of Environment is responsible for providing policy guidance to the Secretary on Department-wide compliance with environmental laws and procedures as well as on health and safety issues related to DOE programs. However, on policy matters we share responsibility with the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation, a point which will be discussed in more detail. The NEPA activities and policy activities are included in the DOE budget under the category of Overview and Assessment. This category also reflects a major increase in Operational and Environmental Safety functions, as well as offsetting changes in several programs as a result of anticipated efficiencies due to consolidation of functions such as information manage- ment in DOE. PAGENO="0012" 8 Of course a major legislated responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Environment continues to be the conduct of a comprehensive research and development program to determine the environmental health and safety effects of energy technologies and systems This research comprises a second major budget category Biomedical and Environmental Research As you know we have been working over the past three to four years to redirect the primarily nuclear-related budget to support nonnuclear technologies and systems The success of this effort is demonstrated more explicitly by showing the FY 1977 78 and 79 changes in program by technology The changes have resulted from our effort to look at the possible impacts of the highest priority tech- nologies such as conservation, coal, and solar heating and cooling, while still continuing to carry out high~-priority nuclear research Overall the Federal fossil environmental research program would actually expand in FY 1979 the decrease in the Office of Environment fossil- related budget occurs because certain projects supported by DOE in FY 1978 will be conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in FY 1979 These projects are in support of EPA development of regulatory standards and long range environmental goals related to fossil fuels Discussions are currently underway among DOE EPA and the Office of Management and Budget to define specific management arrangements PAGENO="0013" 9 The management approach which we now have in place in the Office of Environment to assist us in reallocating priorities is the Environmental Development Plan (EDP) process. Each EDP (currently there are thirty~- two) identifies environmental, health, and safety issues and requirements for a specific type of energy technology. From total needs, the ~ environmental health research which is within DOE's responsibility is determined. To ensure that the environmental research program is responsive to DOE energy technology program needs, we compare ongoing research against needs; select the highest priority research; develop guidance to the laboratories, other field organizations, and universities for preparation of research proposals; and fund those proposals best satisfying research needs and program objectives. PAGENO="0014" 10 MAJOR INITIATIVES I would now like to turn your attention specifically to the major initiatives which have emerged in response to the needs of DOE. These initiatives fall into two major areas: o reorganization of programs in the Office of Environment o programmatic response to specific problems related to changing missions and technologies REORGANIZATION - Clearly, to enable programs to respond to expanded NEPA and environmental policy requirements in DOE, some reorganization was needed immediately to address and manage these activities. Therefore, the Office of Technology Impacts (OTI) was created to combine the environmental review and analysis functions of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) with the Federal Energy Administration's Office of Energy Policy. This new Office now performs national and regional energy systems assessments and policy analyses from the environmental, health, and safety perspective. Since the reorganization has just been approved, the FY 1979 budget for OTI is still carried under former ERDA categories. We are also in the process of reorganizing the NEPA function to enable it to deal with the variety and complexity of DOE programs, by establishing an Office of NEPA Affairs (ONA). In addition, the reorganization of the entire structure under the Assistant Secretary remains to be completed, although major revisions of present program organizations are not anticipated. PAGENO="0015" 11 In addition to these organizational changes, the DOE missions have sparked several major programmatic initiatives in FT 1979 with the environmental, health, and safety research and development programs. These fall in the four budget areas of Decontamination and Decommissioning, Environmental Research and Development, Light Water Reactor Facilities, and Life Sciences Research and Biomedical Applications. These will be discussed more extensively, but a summary is presented below. DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING - Major new initiatives will be taken in three subactivities to Implement the disposition of radioactively contaminated sites and facilities that are no longer needed. The program for Management of Surplus Radioactively Contaminated DOE Facilities will initiate work on major disposition projects in accordance with a National Decontamination and Decommissioning Plan that is nearing completion. In FY 1979, the primary new effort will be the dismantlement of the 100-F reactor at Hanford, Washington. Other major projects will continue, including the dismantlement of the 233-S plutonium facility at Hanford and cleanup of the GNOME Site near Carlsbad, New Mexico, to allow unrestricted release of the property. In addition, we will expand activities leading to remedial actions at installations formerly used by Manhattan Engineer District/Atomic Energy Commission (MED/AEC) for uranium sampling and processing in the early days of the nuclear defense programs and at inactive mill tailings sites. Following assessment of alternatives, major remedial action projects will be undertaken at several of these sites on a high priority basis. PAGENO="0016" 12 Preparation for remedial action at inactive mill tailings sites will be initiated for eliminating any unacceptable radiological conditions by stabilization or removal to alternative sites. DOE is developing a legis- lative package for remedial actions at inactive mill tailings sites to be submitted as soon as possible through normal procedures to the Congress. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - The Biomedical and Environmental Research program will continue to address the health and environmental problems which are associated with all developing and already existing energy technologies. A research program aimed at identifying and understanding the mechanisms and impacts of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has begun in FY 1978 and would be expanded in FY 1979. LIGHT WATER REACTOR FACILITIES - The program to support construction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety facility is nearing its scheduled completion; DOE funding is not expected after FY 1979. LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND BIOMEDICAL APPLICAflONS - The General Life Sciences program is aimed at providing needed information to design rapid and sensitive tests for biological damage and developing a fundamental understanding of comparative cellular and molecular processes to reduce the uncertainty in extrapolating risk estimates to human populations. The major emphasis in the Biomedical Applications program in FY 1979 is to facilitate the transfer of nuclear technology to the medical community to provide them with advanced diagnostic and therapeutic methodologies. PAGENO="0017" 13 STATEMENT OP HON. DALE D. MYERS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OP ENERGY Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here to discuss the role of the Department's Office of Assistant Secretary for Environment in helping to achieve our Na- tion's energy and environmental objectives. Appearing here with me to- day is the Department's Acting Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment, Dr. James L. Liverman. His presentation, following my open- ing general remarks, will include more detail and deal with budgetary specifics. In this overview statement, I will address the questions you requested I answer in your February 8 letter to me. As you are aware, the Department of Energy is committed to the development of energy technologies and resources sufficient to meet our national energy needs. We are also committed to assuring the produc- tion of this energy, not just within the bounds of environmental regu- lations, but above the letter of regulations. The stated purpose of the Department requires that we do the former; the President's policy and Department goals demand the latter. The sometimes contradictory objectives of increased energy develop- ment and environmental protection are not easily met. Often, energy supply technologies and strategies involve environmental degradation. On each energy technology program decision, the Department fully considers environmental issues. This is done both in terms of the capa- bility of a specific technology involved to economically meet existing and anticipated environmental regulations, and in terms of the en- vironmentally optimal selection of energy programs or policies from available supply options. The process is extremely complex and diffi- cult. Moreover, when environmental impacts are considered in their broadest sense, they necessarily include the socioeconomic impacts as well. Within the Department, these elements of our energy policies and execution of programs in support of these policies are carried out in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. The Office is re- sponsible to the Secretary of the Department to assure compliance with environmental laws and procedures, and to exercise independent review and approval of environmental impact statements of major ac- tions in the Department. The Assistant Secretary for Environment also has program responsibility for directing research and development programs that examine energy impacts on the environment. The role of the Assistant Secretary requires a balancing of energy and environmental concerns. The organization is therefore concerned with minimizing environmental impacts as well as supporting the primary responsibility of the Department-_assurance of an adequate supply of energy for the Nation. In this sense, it is involved in a continuing negotiation between two interests, both of which must be reasonably met. The organization carries out this mandate by review- ing environmental impact statements, conducting research and as- sessment programs regarding environmental impacts on energy pro- grams, analyzing environmental issues and associated policies, and preparing environmental development plans on each emerging energy technology. All of these activities are aimed at providing guicjance to 32-744 0 - 78 - 2 PAGENO="0018" / 14 other Department components as to environmental regulatory con- straints, and information on energy-versus-environmental tradeoffs. This allows departmental policies and programs to be selected which best balance national energy and environmental objectives. Before proceeding to other pertinent information concerning the environmental activities of the Department, I would like to discuss the status of our efforts to fill the position of Assistant Secretary for Environment. We are conducting an intensive national search, with assistance from many different groups, to locate the strongest candidate for this important national leadership and management position. Basically, we are looking for a person who meets the following criteria: One who has been educated in the sciences and is knowledgeable of environmental issues and is sensitive to the area. One who has no perceived biases toward one energy technology in relation to another. One who has a balanced perspective with regard to national energy and environmental goals. One who has a strong management background. Our search for such a person has been a challenging task. I would be surprised if we find someone who meets all of those requirements. The search is still continuing. However, the President hopes to sub- mit a nomination to Congress in the near future. The creation of the Department of Energy led to expanded re- sponsibilities in the area of environmental programs. In order to effectively implement some of these responsibilities, we have con- solidated five former units into a single operating unit, the Office of Technology Impacts. This first change in the structure of the Office of Environment allows consolidation and improved focusing of the functions of environmental overview, assessment and policy analysis. Other organizational changes and options have been developed for consideration by the Assistant Secretary for Environment after con- firmation is completed. Now I would like to discuss the interactions of the Department in carrying out environmental policy responsibilities. In order for DOE to meet enviromnental objectives and obligations, it maintains an open and frequent dialog with the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as with other governmental and private groups concerned with environmental issues. The Office of the As- sistant Secretary for Environment acts as the departmental link to environmental agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of the Interior, and to the environmental community, in general. How- ever, many functional relationships exist between EPA and the other DOE Assistant Secretaries. Close contact is maintained particularly by the staff of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation and staff members of energy technology programs. One development in this set of overall contacts, which significantly facilitates DOE responses to environmental issues, is joint work cur- rently underway by DOE and EPA to establish coordinating pro- cedures for the environmental regulation of emerging energy technol- ogies. This is in direct response to the request of the President in his environmental message of last May, and will insure the exchange of PAGENO="0019" 15 plans and pertinent information between DOE and EPA. Guidance from EPA as to the regulatory constraints which an emerging energy technology may face will allow the R. & D. programs of both agencies to better address anticipated problems. In certain cases, this inter- agency coordination may result in an early decision to terminate or change the direction o~ a program because of environmental con- straints, thus allowing DOE to allocate R.D. & D. expenditures to programs with an attractive commercialization potential. The joint DOE/EPA procedures and information sharing will, in turn, assist EPA to better understand the energy production and sup- ply penalties associated with environmental regulations. EPA may be able to apply this information, on the basis of an overall environ- mental assessment of a total energy system, in adjusting the imple- mentation strategy or an existing or proposed regulation. This could conceivably stimulate development of a particular energy technology which could not otherwise achieve commercialization, while insuring a lesser impact on the environment. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment maintains the overview of energy technology development through the use of environmental development plans or EDP's. These EDP's are called for in an interim management directive, making them a required part of the formal procedure for budget approval. The plans are prepared by each of the energy technology development programs within the Department, and identify major environmental issues and constraints which must be addressed. The Assistant Secretary for Environment coordinates the preparation, review and updating of the environ- mental development plans in cooperation with the other concerned Department offices. Should any differences of position remain between the Office of Environment and the Technology Program Offices, they are resolved by the Under Secretary. Also, the Assistant Secretary for Environment has a Division of En- vironmental Control Technology which provides the information necessary to make independent judgments on the environmental con- trol aspects of emerging energy technologies and national environ- mental policies and regulations. In implementing this expertise, there is close interaction which the Energy Technology Offices through joint work efforts. Therefore, through the use of environmental development plans, and the interaction of the Division of Environmental Control Tech- nology, the Department insures that energy technologies are developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. The joint EPA/DOE coordinating procedures, and the environ- mental development plans are examples of the improved capability of DOE to respond positively iind constructively to environmental issues in a timely manner. This is important in an era when environ- mental concerns increasingly must be considered in the setting of programs and policies for the development and supply of energy. Meeting the Nation's environmental objectives is given high pri- ority within DOE and the programs and institutional arrangements mentioned here today are part of a continually growing and improved capability on the part of DOE to balance energy and environmental objectives. The key to DOE's success in resolving the energy/environ- mental interface will be cooperation and communication, both within PAGENO="0020" 16 DOE, and between DOE and pertinent environmental regulatory and public interest groups Following my comments, Dr Liverman will detail elements of the proposed 1979 budget for the Office of Environment. As you know, Jim was the senior official in ERDA for environmental matters The transition from perspectives held prior to the new, more in- tegrated environmental role is well along-as Dr. Liverman will dis- cuss in his detailed testimony Initiatives in fiscal year 1978 have been refocused, and the fiscal year 1979 proposals will accelerate the three tion of environmental overview, assessment, and research in meeting the Nation's and the administration's energy goals. Di Liverman will discuss the proposed fiscal year 1979 budget of our Office of Environment This discussion will present detail in the areas of The expanded and changing scope of environmental responsibility in DOE; Our continuing environmental R & D program, including the in creased emphasis on conservation initiatives and nonnuclear supply technologies, and The reorganization of the policy analysis and technology assessment units ~n environment After discusing these elements Jim will provide the detailed pro grammatic response to the specific areas requiring emphasis in each of the primary program categories-Light water reactor safety fa cilities, environmental research and development, decontamination and decommissioning; and life sciences research and biomedical applications. The overall budget for fiscal year 1979 is $284.6 million, a decrease of $27 million from 1978. These totals represent changes in the follow- ing major program categories Environmental research and development for fiscal year 1979 is $208 6 million This program level, which is down $92 million from 1978, reflects the fact that $13 9 million were in projects sponsored by DOE in fiscal year 1978 that will be sponsored by EPA in fiscal year 1979 Life sciences research and biomedical applications in fiscal year 1979 is $40.8 million. Decontamination and decommissioning is $25 2 million in fiscal year 1979. The increase of $7 million is primarily for remedial actions at various sites Light water reactor facilities is $10 million, down $18 1 million from 1978, to reflect completion of tests and facilities Before Dr Liverman's remarks, I would like to address any ques tions that the subcommittee members might have at this time Mr BROWN Thank you very much, Mr Myers I think we might want to direct a few questions to you before Dr Liverman proceeds I might note parenthetically that Dr. Liverman has appeared many times before this subcommittee, and we have found him to be both knowledgeable and cooperative and we feel that we have established a good working relationship with him Now, the kinds of questions which the subcommittee has asked in the past are still matters of current concern This probably reflects the fact that there are no good answers to some of these questions We keep PAGENO="0021" 17 trying to raise them in order to understand the situation somewhat better. Let me suggest one area that has been brought up many times with witnesses at every possible setting: The coordination procedures that you refer to on page 6 of your testimony. Admittedly this is a hard kind of area to get hold of. You have coordination problems just within the Department and you probably will have a major responsi- bility for resolving those yourself. The kinds of coordination that we have belabored a little bit more arrives out of the fragmented nature of the total environmental re- search and development responsibility in the Government. As you un- doubtedly know, major responsibility exists not only in the Depart- ment of Energy, but also in the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of HEW, the Department of Agriculture, independent agencies, `and the Department of the Interior. The real question is whether these numerous programs, very good in many cases, but directed toward the specific mission of the agency involved, add up to a national environmental research and development program. Is there the coordinating mechanism necessary to achieve this? Now, the obvious problems are that if a particular gap exists in overall research and development, or in environmental research and development, and it is not within the purview of any particular mis- sion agency, or has not been specifically mandated, why should any one of them get involved in it. Or how should one get involved in it assuming that it is significant? How can we establish common inven- tories of the efforts that have been made into research projects and so on? We have discussed all of these kinds of problems with Dr. Liverman before, and we worry about them because the Congress does not want to set up new agencies. We do not want to pass any more new laws than are necessary, but we would like to feel that there is some sort of an effort being made to create a cohesive program out of the existing mission-oriented programs of various agencies. I would like to ask you to comment on that in a general way if you would. Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, in a general sense I feel like we have a reasonably good coordination now with EPA. Mr. Schlesinger has arranged meetings with the EPA and has had set up a continuing dialogue that Mr. Alm will talk to further when he is here before the committee. But that dia.logue deals with the. attempt to balance system studies of new technologies against the regulations that EPA would normally impose. We, for example, are quite worried about what we call the front end clean-up of coal, where we clean coal before it is burned hopefully to the place where, with fluidized beds, we can actually get rid of the SO2 in the early part of the process. Yet there seems to be a move in the direction of further clean-up of the `back end of the coal process. We need communication with EPA at a high level in that area and Mr. Schlesinger has set up that activity. I think it is going to give us a much better balance between the needs and the technology. Now on the other side of the coin, Dr. Liverman now is moving more and more to the position of direct support of our technologies at the early stages so that we have a strong interface between the environ- mental people who understand and, in fact drive the technology aspects with the new technology people, so they understand right at the be- ginning of the process what may be the limitations in the environment. PAGENO="0022" 18 I find that by developing memorandums of understanding with the other agencies which are involved, and by continuous high-level atten- tion within the Department-using these high-level management meet- ings to attack particular issues and problems, we are able to drive toward-I was going to say establish-but at least drive toward a co- herent environmental policy for the administration. I cannot say we are there yet. I think we are dedicated to making it happen. And the actions that we are taking with the CEQ, NRC, and EPA are evidence of that. We are also developing now interaction with Agriculture and I am sure, over a period of time, we will develop a complete set of memos of understanding, high-level meetings, and actions with re- spect to the environment. Mr. BROWN. Well, let me continue for just a moment. I will not be- labor this too much, but the Department of Energy, of course, has a primary role involving energy technology, and we would assume that you will carry a major responsibility for insuring that there is ade- quate coordination in that area. I know, as I am sure you are well aware; of some of the difficulties that have occurred in the past in de- veloping these interagency memorandums of understanding in cases where the technology is borderline. For example, the development of energy from urban waste is an energy production technology, but it also involves an aspect of solid waste disposal which is within the jur- isdiction of other agencies. Obviously, this split in responsibility posed difficulties for you. I think you will be able to resolve it and I urge you to do so, but what about the somewhat more amorphous areas, like health effects research, which fall fully within the purview of several different agencies and where research is headed off in every possible direction. Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, we deal with the health effects asso- ciated with our specific program technologies. Other agencies cer- tainly are involved in health effects, too. I think we need a certain amount of that to be able to guide our technology developments to be able to support those specific programs. I do not think we need to have very broad generic programs in health in areas other than those directly associated with our technologies. I think it is a good point which you raise concerning the balance of a close-knit operating team, as opposed to the possibility of better efficiencies by concentrating the activity in another area. My background in major program activity tends to drive me in the direction of having enough of the elements of the program to sup- port the responsibilities which we have and rely on others for the broader generic terms, which I know in some cases will, in fact, impact our activities. I think there is a limit to how much we want to put into it. Mr. BROWN. Well, the problem that is posed to the Congress is, I think, that we rank environmental health effects research fairly high on our list of priorities. We observe in some committees that the IDe- partment of Energy is doing relevant health effects research resulting from its concern with energy technologies and doing it at a sophisti- cated level. In other committees, we find that other agencies are doing health effects research, perhaps concentrating on the basic mechanisms of how cells are impacted by environmental pollutants of various kinds. We may note that the budget in one agency is going up and in PAGENO="0023" 19 the other it is going down, yet no single committee is looking at the whole area to see if we are approaching it in an appropriate, com- prehensive, and adequately prioritized manner. The system makes it almost impossible to do that unless there is someway in which we can focus on the problem as a whole and establish some priorities, as in fashion of the King-Muir report, which was originally the basis for distributing some of the energy-related environmental research and development work among the various Federal agencies. There has been some discussion, as a matter of fact, that this evalua- tion and distribution of research and development should be done on a recurring basis to assess the way in which environmental research and development is handled, since it cuts across so many agencies. Mr. MYERs. Could I have Dr. Liverman comment on that. He has been familiar with that area. Mr. BROWN. Certainly. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Brown, I was going to cover this later in my testimony, but I think now is an appropriate time to deal with it. As you are aware, we have been trying to compile an inventory of all the activities in this area. The thrust behind such a task is to find out what all the agencies in town are doing not only in health but the environmental areas as they relate to the questions which arise from the energy sources as we develop, exploit, and use them. A follow-on of that, which the King-Muir report attempted to do but did not quite achieve, is to take each of those segments, the health effects or environmental effects and to put in place expert committees of scientists to look at the content of that ongoing effort and address that to the needs, the unanswered questions, to see whether scien- tifically, it is really valid and priorities established for those things that are the most urgent. There is another need for setting. priorities, namely the technologies that we are working toward demonstration and commercialization. This effort, as you are aware, has gone a long way and is continu- ously progressing, broadening, and improving with some reluctance at times by some agencies. I would say, however, that compared to 2 years ago, we are an order of magnitude farther along in trying to achieve a final evaluation of the adequacy of these programs to cover all our needs. As the committee pointed out, we are supposed to be putting together a plan by this fall for the committee's review in this area. Mr. BROWN. Well, the purpose of the plan, of course, is to help the committee and the Congress grapple with this problem. To do this, we are proposing closer cooperation with other committees of Con- gress which have common responsibility. But we have noted, and I am sure you have much more than we, that as a result of the concern over health effects of nuclear fallout in the fifties, the Smoky test and others, there is general agreement that we goofed completely in not doing the recordkeeping, data handling, and epidemiology that might have been done. Hindsight is always beautiful, you know. We would like to avoid looking back 20 years from now and saying "we goofed again" in a whole new area-low level carcinogens or what- ever. I am not sure that we will be able to do that but we want to make the effort and that is why we tend to stress some of these efforts that might indicate that we aremissing something. PAGENO="0024" 20 Dr. LIVERMAN. I would hope that that is precisely the kind of thing which comes out of the detailed analysis of the inventory. The en- vironmental development plan is to focus on those issues that clearly may be down the road but they portend reasons for starting now to collect the right kind of information. Whether that is a DOE respon- sibility or EPA or somebody else's has yet to be resolved; of course that is one that concerns me. Mr. BROWN. Well, it is difficult to sell the Congress on the im- portance of these contacts. We need help in doing that and sometimes the best help is to look back at mistakes that we have made in the past: Although it is unfair to focus on them, it may create the momentum required to avoid them in the future. Mr. Winn? Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Dale Myers before this subcommittee. He appeared before our other subcommittee last week. Welcome back to government service. Dale, I did have a chance to go through your testimony here while you were so busy with the chairman. On page 8, paragraph 3, you dis- cuss the use of environmental development plans in the International Division of Environmental Control Technology-which insures that energy technologies are developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. Now that is a worthy effort and one that I think everybody would like to succeed. On the other hand, I am afraid that DOE might get so wrapped up in coordinating with EPA that we might come out thinking that EPA is the law and the Bible, where from a practical political standpoint, as in the case of the Alaskan pipeline, we had to overrule a lot of the requirements of EPA, and finally made the de- cision that we needed the oil more than we needed the environment cleaned up or protected. * I heard yesterday on TV that EPA requirements cost $187 per person last year. I do not know how they arrived at those figures, but it does make me wonder-are the EPA requirements, and DOE has to work very closely with theni, going to affect the budget of DOE? Mr. MYERS. Mr. Winn, I would think that the answer to that ques- tion is yes. We are doing many of our developments now in a direc- tion to favor the environment. I am sure our expanded programs in solar energy, biomass, the dispersed technologies are, in some sense, influenced by our strong desire to balance the environmental issues. The work we are doing on fluidized bed coal combustion is clearly in the direction of favoring the environment, so I think you would find that almost every one of our technologies has some element of incen- tive, of drive to be able to favor the environment in the process of doing that. The question of degree and the question of issues that may even- tually be directed by the Congress-in my mind are things that must be continuously communicated to the Congress and understood by the committees as we proceed to see whether there is the right balance in all these activities. So far the actions that we have here with the environmental groups working with our technologists are, I believe, a sound program of trying to get a balance between environment and new supply. PAGENO="0025" 21 Mr. WINN. I think it could cause a problem, just looking at our present day situation with the coal strike-and they are now back to where they started this morning-they did not have any talks sched- uled for negotiations. We have EPA's environmental requirements both on the national level and on the State level. Now we are in that situation where, I believe one or two of the cities in the State of Ohio are considering asking EPA for a suspension of certain regulations relating to the burning of coal. I am not familiar with all the technical details, but it is obvious that the environmental regulations are caus- ing a problem there along with the coal strike. So you have got double trouble. I do not know the answer to it, but it is something that you are going to be living with for a long time and you are going to have to try to figure out what EPA is telling you from a regulatory stand- point on policies, and on unexpected occurrences such as strikes, and natural disasters. Mr. MYERS. Yes, I am very worried about this coal strike and its impact on the choosing of the coal initiatives by the utilities. We, of course, are pushing to increase the use of coal. The environmental re- quirements are difficult but meetable as they stand now, and we can see a growing use of coal in the utilities. Frankly, I am worried about the reaction of the utilities in this situation of the strike that has occurred here. And certainly the total balance and one of the things that has occurred to help in that whole picture is this transfer of the advanced control of emissions tech- nology to DOE from EPA. It gives us a better opportunity to get a balance in that system of looking across the whole spectrum of first the cleanup of the coal, how clean can you burn the coal and then how easily you can clean it up after you finish working in the stack gases. It is that kind of technology balance now moved to DOE-that gives us a broader base of understanding the total picture in terms of new supply versus the environment. And some of the things we are doing are going to improve the environment relative to direct burning of coal. And so technologies that we are putting in there are going to cost the taxpayer something, but that balance with respect to the overall environment as we bring new supplies on line. Mr. WINN. Well, I think you understand that my concern is that the combination of EPA's environmental requirements, their effect on DOE's technologies and the requirements that you have to meet to coordinate with them is going to cost the American taxpayer a real bundle. I just do not know if the people-the way they feel now about taxes-are going to want to pay a bundle more on top of what they are already paying taxwise. It is a concern. I know there is no perfect answer to it, but I think it should be a concern and it is going to show up in your budget. Next year, I would be willing to bet, when you come back here we are going to be able to see those effects pretty boldly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WIRTII. Thank you and welcome Mr. Myers and Dr. Liverman. Mr. Myers, when was the Department of Energy bill signed into law by the President? Mr. MYERS. August 4, 1977. Mr. WIRTH. And how many Assistant Secretaries were designated under that reorganization plan? PAGENO="0026" 22 Dr. LIVERMAN. Would you clarify your question? Mr. WIRTH. It is a very simple question-I mean there are 6, 8, 10 or 12. Dr. LIVERMAN. The law called for a certain number of Assistant Secretaries and that is what you are asking-the number that the law called for? Mr. WIRTH. I mean every Government agency has an organizational chart and a series of boxes, and these are boxes that are entitled "As- sistant Secretary." How many are there in the Department of Energy? Mr. MYERS. On the order of 8 to 10. I will have to get the specifics for you on that. Mr. WIRTH. OK, on the order of 8 to 10, how many of those have been confirmed? Mr. MYERS. I think all but four. Mr. WIRTH. Four out of eight assistant Secretaries have not been confirmed yet during a 6-month period of time of probably the Presi- dent's No. 1 priority project? What is the problem in getting 50 per- cent of the Assistant Secretaries, the key policymakers, confirmed? Mr. MYERS. Well, I think we have described the problem that we are having with the Assistant Secretary for Environment; it has been a very difficult job to fill. Mr. WIRTH. Why have 50 percent of the key policymakers in the President's No. 1 priority program not been confirmed when we have had since August 1977? Is that due to a problem in the Congress? Is that due to a problem downtown? Mr. MYERS. I think it has been probably a problem with the De- partment in getting its act together, I guess that is a good way to put it. Mr. WIRTH. I would say, Mr. Myers, it is very difficult. There are a lot of people in the district that I represent and across the country who are beginning to see chaos on a number of fronts, especially since we cannot even get 50 percent of the key policymakers into office. You know, there are some very real problems. Let me go on-we have had since August to identify the Assistant Secretary for Environment and it is now past February 1. I know every one of these jobs is a difficult job to fill, but it seems to me that if somebody were really interested in filling that job and meeting those criteria you could do it. Mr. MYERS. We have aggressively pursued that area. Mr. WIRTH. And you cannot in 180-some odd days find a person in the United States that meets the criteria that you outlined in your state- ment? Mr. MYERS. We have not yet found the candidate for that job. Mr. WrnrH. Who is responsible for doing that search? Mr. MYERS. The search has been carried out initially by the personnel department of our agency and has more recently been broadened to include some outside search activities. Mr. WnrrH. Have the names for all the other unfilled vacancies gone up? Mr. MYERS. The names for all the other unfilled vacancies have gone up. . Mr. WIRTH. And the Assistant Secretary for the Environment is last on the list? Mr. MYERS. Correct-excuse me-I am not sure that we have sub- mitted the name for the Inspector General. I just do not happen to know. PAGENO="0027" 23 Dr. LIVERMAN. The list did not include him. Mr. MYERS. There may be two that have not gone up. Mr. WIRTH. How `soon are you going to have a name? Mr. MYERS. For the Assistant Secretary of the Environment? We are still in the search mode. We are still in the interview mode. So I really cannot give you a specific date for submission. Mr. WIRTH. In your statement, Mr. Myers, you also mentioned that you were personally going to be responsible for orchestrating any kind of conflicts or whatever that might exist between the various Assistant Secretaries. How much of your time will you spend doing that, do you think? Mr. MYERS. Well, that is a hard question to answer. So far we have had very good cooperation between the environmental group in DOE and the other Assistant Secretaries in developing this interaction with the lowest levels of the organization, and I have had no case that I am aware of-that I can remember-where we have had the kind of con- flict that I wrote into the testimony. Mr. WIRTH. I cannot call that a conflict when a job is unfilled. I mean that gives the other `people who are there a great opportunity to cooperate with any empty chair, right? Mr. MYERS. Well, I would like to state for the record that Dr. Liver- man has really done a fine job in the interim activities- Mr. WIRTH. I have great respect for Dr. Liverman but since I have also spent a lot of time in large organizations, particularly at HEW, I realize how difficult it is when you do not have the cachet to really carry out the mission that you are entrusted with under the law. It is my understanding, Mr. Myers, that EPA sets various standards. Is that not correct? Mr. MYERS. That is correct. Mr. WIRTH. And in order to set those standards, say for particulate control or 502, they really have to have a pretty good `sense of what the technology is capable of controlling-right? Who then does EPA turn to, to say what technology is available? Who has the responsibility of telling EPA? For example, I am Doug Costle, and I am very con- cerned about fine particulates. What we would like to do is to really take a look at this area. What can the technology do? Who does Doug Costle talk to? Mr. MYERS. We have coordination with EPA at several levels in the environmental organization. I would like to have Jim get more specific about that. Mr. WIRTH. Doesn't he really have to turn to Thorne's operation and is that not where the responsibility sits for defining that? Mr. MYERS. There is direct communication within the ET orga- nization. There is also a more formalized coordination with the en- vironmental group. These development plans that are actually ini- tiated by the program activities are very closely tied to the work that Jim is doing in his research programs in identifying environ- mental activities that are necessary in these areas, and the formal tie to EPA is with Jims group. Mr. WIRTH. EPA's formal tie is with your organization? Dr. LIVERMAN. That is correct. Mr. WIRTII. Do you define then, you know, tell EPA what tech- nology is available? PAGENO="0028" 24 Dr LIVERMAN Let me address that I think there are three points to be made here One is that there is a very close tie between my shop and EPA in the environmental control technology assessment area They assess the technology as do we That is a check and a balance between the two There is a very close tie-and, of course, all of these could be closer- between our R & D arm which is looking at the impact of these par ticulates So we assess where the technology can or cannot control both of us We assess the level of knowledge about what the impact of these particulates might be and then in our policy analysis and assessment area, headed by Al Alm, between Al and me we have fairly large groups that continually address the proposed regulations that EPA is thinking about issuing Those three combined, then, provide a basis for argument, debate, discussion, and finally, resolution of the difficul ties before EPA issues a regulation that the technology cannot meet Mr. WIRTH. So that the formal relationship is between your office and EPA ~ Dr LIVERMAN Principally, although that is a problem but there is a lot of interaction between the individual technologies and our- Mr WIRTH Do you and Mr Costle discuss various problems to gether on a fairly steady basis ~ Dr LIVERMAN I would say that the discussion level is more between the Assistant Secretaries and the Assistant Administrators in EPA That is where the principal contact lies, Jim Schlesinger and Dale Myers and Jack O'Leary have their discussions with Doug Costle. Mr. WIRTH. Whom do you deal with at EPA then? Dr LIVERMAN We deal considerably with Steve Gage, who will be here on Thursday In fact, my office deals with every assistant adminis trator in EPA because each has a different kind of problem My office deals with the regulatory arm and the B & D arm with Steve Jellinek who is the Assistant Administrator, Office of Toxic Substances, and William Drayton, Assistant Administrator for Planning and Manage ment, who is the policy analysis man, and the other assistant adminis- trators who regulate. Mr. WIRTH. How does Mr. Thorne get into this in his operation? Dr LIVERMAN Let us take a specific area If you want to look at the fluidized bed question in contrast to direct combustion FGD, his people, my people, and EPA would all be in the same meeting dis cussing the issues that are involved in those particular technologies Mr WIRTH Who has authority within the Department of En ergy to recommend or in fact decide what kind of research dollars are going to get spent on various technologies that might be useful to EPA~ Dr LIVERMAN Well, that is partly Thorne There are three different operations-resources applications, Thorne's energy technology and conservation solar and applications If you are talking about fossil energy, that would fall in both resource applications and Thorne's program Mr WIRTU Your office or the Assistant Secretary for Environment does not conduct any research on control technology, is that correct ~ Dr LIVERMAN That is basically correct We do not do the R & D in that area Mr WIRTH So what we have is the people who are developing the technologies are also developing the controls right ~ PAGENO="0029" 25 Dr. LIVERMAN. Right. We have in my organization an assessment function to look over their shoulder. Mr. WIRTH. Does that make a lot of sense in your opinion? That is like saying to the nuclear power people, going back to the forebears of this august department, that we are going to have the exact same people whose mission it is to develop the nuclear technologies also assure everybody that the technologies are perfectly all right. It seems to me we are in something of a fox in the chicken house situation. Mr. Mvi~ns. Mr. Wirth, I would like to speak to that. It was my decision to put the advanced control technology into the fossil fuel area because we have over a period of time been working within the technologies and what I see as an integrated system ap- proach to trying to keep the cost of coal technology down while meet- ing the environmental requirements. We have done a tremendous amount of work in the technology of the front end of coal cleaning, the burning process of coal cleaning, and the thing that was missing was the back end of that technology-the eventual scrubber activity. So having this advanced scrubber activity now in the Department of Energy I felt that the job of Dr. Liverman and the environmental activities was to continue to overview all of that activity to give us a balance as to the final pollution elements that are involved, but continue this as a total system picture to get the cost down for a given environmental level. Mr. WIRTH. Going back to playing Doug Costle's role, he has to take the word of DOE `as to what is possible. He does not have the capability to say if we did the following, made the following kinds of technological investments, we could in fact bring the level of par- ticulate emissions down very significantly. In effect, he has to believe what you are saying; he has to go to the same people whose respon- sibility it is to develop those very technologies. Dr. LIVERMAN. May I venture a point for a minute, Mr. Wirth? There are two ways to view this and there is a middle way. Let me take the middle way. I think we believe in DOE, and I certainly believe it, that the technology itself should try to improve its processes as much as it can to prevent any need for control technologies, and to modify them if there appears to be trouble ahead. It is important to look at the question of containing and controlling all of those things that look like they are going to be troublesome and that is going to `be an area, as Mr. Winn was discussing earlier, that can be done most effectively and cheaply with essentially known technology. They are not going to be inventing new control tech- nologies, basically, unless it looks like it is really needed. The role of EPA and the environmental program of DOE, it seems to me, should be to explore those things that have not yet shown scientific feasibil- ity, and I can use the deep-sea disposal of radioactive waste as an example. It is not a priority program, but it is an option that must be explored. If EPA and the environmental program of the Depart- ment are on their toes and continuously assessing what the tech- nologies are doing, as well as looking at `other options which might give better control of particulates or something else, then it seems to me that an arnenahh~ relationship exists. If all of these qualifica- tions are not met then there may be problems, and I do not know Dr. Myers' views about that particular point. PAGENO="0030" 26 Mr. WIRTH. Are you saying, Dr. Liverman, that there really are not any new control technologies that are feasible, that there are certain existing technologies which we will have to go ahead and use? Is that the summary? Dr. LIVERMAN. I think stack scrubbers and fluidized beds are ap- proaches. You can also look at different methods to improve that kind of technology or you can install bags that catch things on the end of the cycle. Those are not totally new controls. They need more exploration and the technology program would seem an appropriate place to be concerned about that with a very closely coupled overview by the environmental program. Mr. WIRTH. To draw a parallel, let us go to Mr. Schlesinger's state- ment some time ago that all of the nuclear waste management issues were going to fall under the Assistant Secretary for the Environment. Is that correct? Dr. LIVERMAN. He said that was one of the options being considered. Mr. WIRTH. One of the options was that he would put it under the Assistant Secretary for Environment for credibility reasons. Was not that the quote? Mr. MYERS. I do not know the specific quote. It is an option that is being considered. Mr. WIRTH. Let us assume that that was the quote. I think I am pretty sure that it was. What is the reason for putting the nucleai~ waste management issues under the Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment, yet on the other hand taking the technology say for air pollu- tion control and putting it under the energy technology development programs? I am trying to tease out the rationale to all of this. It has bewildered me since the formation of the Department. Mr. MYERS. I think the role of the environmental group involves the technical development in the areas which identify the problems with some of these pollutants that are involved with the energy area. I think the issue that you bring up on waste management is a good one from the standpoint of there again is the question of should these things be in a separate, highly technical, program management kind of opera- tion such as putting waste management in the environmental group, as opposed to using the broad base of skills that are involved in the energy technology area, and using that as a system approach-broad- ening it into the system approach that is involved in nuclear power. And it is in fact an issue that we are still dealing with within the Department. Mr. WIRTH. Systems are terrific, Mr. Myers, and I am for all systems and trying to see if we can get this system at the Department of Energy to function a little bit better than it has in the past. My con- cern, as you can see, is that we deal with the extraordinarily delicate balance between energy development and the environment as carefully as we ought to, I am also concerned, in considering this very important position of Assistant Secretary for Environment that is unfilled and unnominated, that we be concerned with more than just putting it under there for reasons of credibility, and that we really take it as more than an office that is cosmetic in value. There are some very, very real environmental concerns in this country, and we are not just going to allow one part of the Department of Energy not only to develop the energy, but also to define for EPA the technologies that are avail- PAGENO="0031" 27 able to clean up the environment. We are going to have a lot of people in this country immensely sick if we do not take adequate measures to control environmental pollution. Dr. Liverman's sli4e show about 4 months ago, representing a first cut at a long-range look at what is going to happen in terms of poi- lutants all over this country, was enough to age anybody on this Com- mittee and anybody in the hearing room at the time. It was a very, very thoughtful presentation, which underlined my belief that we have to put greater emphasis on environmental research. My concern, as you can tell from my questions, I am sure, is that the Department of Energy has given this very, very short shrift, beginning with nominating somebody for the position of Assistant Secretary for Environment. Let me ask you a few other question along this line. Can you tell me, Mr. Myers, what the role of the Department of Energy is with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? Maybe that falls under your operation, Jim. What do you do in relation to NEPA? Mr. MYJ~R5. I would like Dr. Liverman to respond to that. Dr. LIVERMAN. Clearly, in the Department of Energy, the responsi- bilities under NEPA have been broadened considerably. Previously, and I am speaking from my past experience under ERDA and AEC, we felt with an R. & D. element almost totally, there was little NEPA- related activity with policy and certainly nothing to do with regula- tions. With the Economic Regulation Administration, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the power marketing activities, and we now in the Department it is very clear that we have a totally dif- ferent perception of what NEPA is about and how we go about en- forcing it. We have set about to put in place new regulations, 10 CFR 1021, to look at that broadened responsibility. We are also try- ing to provide for a larger staff with a broader purview of the total Department's activities and to do this with this central staff that Mr. Schlesinger talked about; namely, to sit in an anticipatory mode as opposed to a responsive mode. By that I mean, as in the case of the environmental development plans and whatever else has to be done to indicate as early as possible those points in time in technology de- velopment at which decisions are going to be made and for which that technology must come up with a detailed environmental assessment or an EIS statement for public purview. Mr. WIRTH. How many NEPA assessments come to your office in a year? Dr. LIVERMAN. Oh, I guess, in the 41/2 months the Department has been in existence there are on the order of 50. My guess is before the year is out we will have looked at something on the order of 100 assess- ments and perhaps as many as 15 detailed environmental statements. Mr. WIRTH. You have to do that. How many different sets of regulations have you had to review in the past 4 months? Dr. LIVERMAN. I would guess offhand that the number for regu- lations is less than 10. I have just been handed additional informa- tion with regard to the number of NEPA documents we may have in process this year. We expect for the year that DOE's environmental assessments will number somewhere between 120 and 155. Dave Bardin is now coming out with lots of regulations which we have to deal with. PAGENO="0032" 28 The number of EIS's that will be in the NEPA process will number between 75 and 100. This is a lot more t/han we handled previously in ERDA. Mr. WIRTH. How many people do you have to do this job? Dr. LIVERMAN. Seven people caine from the FEA's NEPA office and I had seven in ERDA. That is the total number in that structure. The power marketing groups such as the Bonneville Power Administration have NEPA people in their organizations but they do not report to me. They report directly to the Assistant Secretary for Resource Ap- plication through their respective administrators. FERC has some of its own and they review their own statements, I do not. Mr. WIRTH. It is our information that you have a total of 19 people altogether, counting clerks and secretaries for reviewing all t.he NEPA assessments: working on the regulations and coordinating with other agencies-19 people to do a mammoth job. It seems to me that we are conjuring up a real potential for disaster in this area. I do not see how it is possible for a staff of 19 people to get into this vast subject deeply enough to be able to provide an adequate analysis of or a balance to the groups that are spending their time developing these massive energy technologies. I just do not understand how 19 people can do that job. I have a total of 18 people that work for inc and we do a lot of things like this. There is no way we could get into any kind of in-depth analysis to provide any kind of careful analytical counter to the technology people, much less pro- vide information to EPA that would be helpful to them. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think the proper response to that is that, currently, we are considering the personnel issue and, in fact, have forwarded to Mr. Myers and to the Personnel Division what we honestly feel our current needs are in this area. Confronting that question with the President's desire, shared by the Congress, to keep the number of Federal civil servants down, we have to look for other wa~ys to try to help with this problem. We are discussing in some detail whether or not we can use a contractor with the expertise to help with this problem. Mr. WIRTH. I am sure that that is the proper answer, but what I want to point out again is that it seems to me that those facts and figures about the commitment of the Department, the group of people that are supposed to be its eyes and ears and arms on various environ- mental considerations, reflects the appalling lack of commitment of the Department in this area. Let me go on. The Council of Mayors and the National Association of Counties have requested a significant program for various kinds of environ- mental planning, which I know you both are familiar with-which would involve developing various land and water use strategies to deal with energy development. There was a particular concern for boom- town analysis. What is your reaction to that requiest? Mr. MYERS. The social and economic impact of new technologies is a part of our evaluation in these environmental development plans and will be considered in any of the new technology activities. Mr. WIRTII. It was our information, Mr. Myers, that you were opposing this kind of au outreach program requested by douncil of Mayors and the National Association of Counties, due to your. feeling that this was a problem of institutional relations and was not deserving of this kind of investment. PAGENO="0033" 29 Mr. M~i~s. I think I may have answered your question by a dif- ferent answer because we are considering the boomtown issue in the new technologies that we develop, and we will identify those in our environmental development plan for a given technology. I think the program that you are talking about is a different program. Dr. LIVERMAN. I have not seen the specific thing that you are talk- ing about, but we have had a number of groups and under ERDA, as I think you are aware, we did fund some programs in various places. Riverside, Calif., is an example of one in which we looked at their total energy system. DOE has not quite sifted out exactly where that responsibility lies, but I think that it would be an appropriate func- tion for us to `assist communities like the two counties in Colorado which have a problem with oil shale development in addressing the nature of the possible impacts and what the mitigating measures might be. I think, and Mr. Myers could answer this better than I, the precise part of the agency that would be selected to deal with that question and to fund such programs and carry it out has not really been decided. But I think it will be less than candid on our part not to recognize that such problems exist and must be dealt with. Mr. WIRTH. I know, Jim, that you have been very helpful on that front. I just wanted to commend you for setting up the western energy information network in Denver. It is my understanding from talking to the people out there that they have been deluged with requests for information from the DOE data base. Is that program going to be able to continue, ~ Dr. LIVERMAN. I certainly plan to continue that. I am sure that Mr. Myers is aware of it, but it came about, as you the committee are aware, as a result of the concerns of western governors and people over the proposed synthetic fuels program. We constituted that informa- tion base in Denver with a multiagency involvement-EPA, Interior, HTJD, and others, and it is continuing. As a matter of fact, I believe there is another one either established or about to be established in Atlanta, for the people in that region of the country. I think these are very valuable. They have been called upon very often by people in the regions who have the kinds of problems that you are addressing be- cause it provides them with the access to DOE's data bases that will help them reach their conclusions on the same basis as we are. Mr. WIRTH. I would hope that the Department would continue this program and put a major emphasis on outreach efforts in general, be- cause there are a lot of people in this country, not just a few kneejerk Members of the Congress, who are concerned about the impacts of energy development. It often comes as a surprise to people that there is a very real concern not only for developing that energy, but also for making sure that it is done in an environmentally sound manner. Dr. LIVERMAN. We have had discussions with Dr. Moses of the En- ergy Information Administration, and he feels that this is a legitimate function of ours because of its particular content. Mr. WIRTH. I hope it is more than cosmetic and that it is very real. Dr. LIVERMAN. It is not cosmetic. It is for real. Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Myers, have you seen the Amory Lovins article talking about soft-path versus hard-path energy technologies? I am sure that you have. Mr. Myi~s. Yes. I have. 32-744 0 - 78 - 3 PAGENO="0034" 30 Mr. Wutni. Driving into Denver from Stapleton Air Field with the President last fall, I was very impressed when he said that he thought that was the single most important piece that he had seen in the area of energy, and he had obviously read it with great care. Have you discussed that with him? Mr. MYERS. I have not discussed it with the President. We have ac- tivities within the Department that are broadening the base of our disperse energy activities, both in, as I mentioned earlier, solar energy, the biomass, the smaller woodburning power generation stations, a whole series of increased initiatives in that area that are generally in the direction of the dispersed technology approach. Mr. WIRTH. How do you alert people in the Department to what I would assume from that conversation with Mr. Carter is a real prior- ity? Do you tell people that you think that is important? Does that come out in some kind of staff meeting? Do you emphasize that kind of thing? Mr. Myi~as. Mr. Schlesinger has discussed this idea with the Pres- ident. We have had continued actions with the energy technology peo- ple, with Jim Liverman and with John Deutch on the new initiatives in this area, and have had several weekend meetings in this area to identify the proper emphasis in these areas. Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Wutni. I would be happy to. Mr. BROWN. As long as this issue has been brought up, Mr. Myers, I understand that there has been a California study focused on the practicality of the so-called soft energy path and the viable alterna- tive to the nuclear and coal technologies of California. This issue is going to be subject to a great deal of public scrutiny in that State and possibly other States. For example, the California State Assembly, which is now consider- ing exempting the Sun Desert Nuclear Plant, is probably going to have reports from the Energy Commissioner of California dealing with the viability of the soft energy technology paths, which may in- fluence the decision of the legislature as to whether to exempt Sun Desert or not. I do not know if there is anything that can be done about it in a short time span, but I think it is very obvious that we need a full analysis done in the best possible scientific way, with ade- quate peer review, of the methodology of these reports. I would like to be reassured that analyses of the possible viability of the soft energy paths get full and open consideration in the Department of Energy, recognizing that there is controversy even in this committee. I am sure you know there will be those who say it is pie in the sky and others who will say that this will bring salvation. We will not be able to make a decision unless we have the very best kind of analysis made. It would be helpful if you would indicate that the Department will do its very best in regard to that kind of analysis. Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, the particular study which you are refer- ring to is one which had been initiated by the environmental group for which I transferred responsibility on to Dr. Deutch, who is head of our energy research organization. I felt that the activities going on in the development of our new supply initiatives needed the focus point of John Deutch in the new disperse technologies, the energy technology resource applications, and conservation solar applications, feeding data into Al Aim who is the man who is putting together our new sup- PAGENO="0035" 31 ply initiatives-the report that Mr. Schlesinger talked about as being about 3 months away. We are continuing to fund that study in Califor- nia. We are expecting to still have the support and inputs from Dr. Liverman's group. Now to speak to that overall picture. It is my view from what I see of the apparent inability of our coun- try to take on the strong conservation measures that are required to de- crease the importing of oil, the fact that our oil imports are rapidly in- creasing, the balance of payments are going much more dramatically negative because of this oil import, that we must pursue all sources of energy that are environmentally acceptable. It is clear that today the cost of solar energy is higher than other energy sources, but we are doing what we can to reduce the cost of those other sources, the solar energy and other dispersed energy sources, and if successful we will be able to get an appreciable amount of power on-line by the 1985-90 time period. That does not mean that you can drop coal, even Mr. Lovins does not say that we should drop coal-what he considers an interim situation. My problem is that the really critical time period of supply for this country is about 1985 to 1990 I believe, from the standpoint of what will occur with respect to world generation of oil, and it is that time period that I think we have got enough going on the farther out even- tual new R. & D. initiatives, like fusion, solar-powered satellites, and things of that nature. I think we are in real trouble in the 1985 to 1990 time period, and it is in that time period that we need to push as hard as we can in the new initiatives in the disperse technologies, in coal, in new sources of oil and gas and in light water reactors. I think we need to push them all. Mr. WIRTH. To finish off~ if I might, what is the condition of this year's budget at DOE in environmental research compared to last year's budget? Mr. MYERS. The Environmental Research and Development Budget for 1979 is $208.6 million which is down $9.2 million from 1978, reflect- ing the fact that $15.9 million were in projects sponsored by DOE in 1978 that will be sponsored by EPA in 1979. So we are down slightly-- Mr. WIRTH. At a time when inflation is probably up 6 or 8 percent? I agree with you completely, we will have very real problems in the mid-eighties. We are going to be converting, hopefully, significantly to coal. We are going to have some very major problems in terms of en- vironmental control technology which are already beginning to pop up in various places around the country, yet in terms of environmental research we are not only down in real dollars in the budget from last year, but looking at inflation, we are down even further. Now, just in summary, Mr. Myers, the point that I want to make is as follows: As one member of this committee and this Congress, I have spent a vast amount of time in the last 3 years working on the subject of energy: natural gas, oil shale, coal, and solar energy, all of which you are familiar with, and have attempted to move us with a sense of urgency which I think we have in this country. I know you have had a great number of organizational problems at the Depart- ment of Energy in having that sense of urgency that Mr. Schlesinger feels is reflected in an organization. At the same timeS that we reflect that urgency and push on the supply side., we are going to have to be PAGENO="0036" 32 awfully careful on the environmental side, and Dr. Liverman has been one of the very good people at the Department of Energy in thinking about this problem and attempting to get more people to understand it. However, I do not get the sense of urgency on the other side of the Department of Energy, as I have attempted to illustrate through my questioning this morning. I do not think the Department of Energy reflects, in its failure to appoint an Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment, in the way it approaches NEPA, in its relationship with EPA, in the approach it is taking to outreach programs and in its concern about the budget, an adequate environmental conscience. I just do not see that the evidence is there in looking at one issue after another. That is a very real concern to me, and I think that it is going to be a very real concern to the American public and the health of the American public. We are not talking about fuzzy-headed environmentalists. We are not talking about chipmunks or groundhogs. We are talking about such basic elements as how we are going to cut down on the amount of par- ticulates in the air, and how we are going to avoid deleterious health effects from those particulates. What are we learning about the subject of air pollution and its relation to lung cancer and other kinds `of res- piratory diseases? It is as simple as that. It is no longer something that can be dismissed out of hand. It is something that is of greater con- cern to a lot of people, and I would hope that as you coordinate these enviromental problems at DOE, we take off the so-called groundhog hat or the chipmunk hat and put on a health hat and reflect the kind of concerns that I think you must and that certainly a great number of people down at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue reflect. That is the whole purpose of my questioning this morning. I just do not see that the requisite sense o~ urgency is there, and you can count on me, as Jim well knows, to do every thing I can to keep your feet to the fire on a steady basis. I will do that from my perspective on this committee and from my perspective on the Energy and Power Subcommittee and the Commerce Committee, where I am sure we will be meeting on a steady basis over the next year. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Spensley has some questions. Mr. SPENSLEY. Thank you. Mr. Under Secretary, I just want to ask three questions. First, I think that the Assistant `Secretary for Environment seems to be a quality control lever for environmental concerns within the Department. He does not appear to be stepping out front, at least as his role has been defined to date, in motivating environmental considerations. First of all, is that a fair assessment? Second of all, should that be the role for the Assistant Secretary for Environment in the Department? Mr. MYERS. No, I do not think that is a fair assessment. I think that the environmental group is the spearhead of the awareness in- side our department on the environmental issues and it does have peo- ple who work diligently and continuously with the new technologies to make sure that the people who are actually doing that development work do understand the environment and the environmental issues associated with it. Mr. SPENSLEY. Given that response, in our previous experience with the environmental development plans (EDP's), there have PAGENO="0037" 33 been problems with the environmental people working with some of the energy technology people insofar as getting cooperation and the information necessary to develop those EDP's. Is that still perceived to be a problem, or has there been some change made since the former ERDA became DOE? Mr. MYERS. I can only say that the Acting Assistant Secretaries and the Assistant Secretaries that we have are fully cognizant of and fully cooperative with the idea of the environmental development plans. There may be difficulties within our Organization at lower levels, but I believe that the leadership that we have within the organiza- tion now, if confirmed, will strongly pursue the environmental devel- opment plans as an important element of the energy technology development. Mr. SPENSLEY. Is there a specific directive or memorandum within the Department that directs the Assistant Secretary to work with the energy technology Assistant Secretaries? Mr. MYERS. Yes, there is. I am afraid it is called an interim directive, but every directive within the Department is an interim directive. Dr. LIVERMAN. May I comment here? The question you raise, Mr. Spensley, is a very good point. I must say my own perception is, as Mr. Myers has said, that the new leader- ship in there has shown a totally different attitude than in the past. And to take a specific example, we had considerable difficulty with various parts of the fossil technology program previously. I have had dealings with both George Fumich and Auggie Pitrolo, who are the leaders in that group now, and they have made it absolutely clear that they are looking to the environmental portion of this agency to do their environmental work. Now saying it and doing it are different things but at least the intent is there. Mr. SPENSLEY. Do you, Mr. Under Secretary, sign off on the EDP's? Dr. LIVERMAN. If I may? He has not yet seen a new version. The 26 or 28 that were created in ERDA were signed off on by me and by the other Assistant Secre- taries or Assistant Administrators. Later on, I was going to tell you that we have published a summary document and we are also starting to iterate a new version. I do not think it has been decided precisely who will sign off on them, but Dr. Myers will certainly have his opportunity to see them. Mr. SPENSLEY. Let me ask the question, differently, then. Are those EDP's, the 26 or 28 that you mentioned, the working documents now for these technologies which are be.ing developed? Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes. Mr. Myers, himself, the other day said he would like to have something in hand to discuss a given technology and the problems that we consider to be the major ones. On a continuing basis, these things can be used to alert us to possible problems whether it be oil shale or fluidized bed or something else. Mr. SPENSLEY. As a practical matter then, what do you do, Dr. Liver- man, or Mr. Under Secretary, when one of the energy technology groups does not comply with that EDP? Dr. LIVERMAN. They he.ar from me. PAGENO="0038" 34 Mr. MYERS. Well, I think specifically as I said in my testimony if there are differences between the environmental gioup and the energy technology, they will be brought to me for resolution. Mr. SPENSLEY. What criteria do you use to resolve those problems? Mr. MYERS. I think, judgment. I would expect with the strong atten- tion being given by my Assistant Secretaries in the areas of energy technology, resource applications, and conservation and solar applica- tions, that when they come to me it is going to be a tough judgment to make, and I think that is what I am there for, to take on those kind of activities where there is a balance between the two and we have to look at the balance between the environmental and the supply. Mr. SPENSLEY. One last question; this deals with the EPA/DOE transfer, which is of concern to the staff in trying to decipher where the various projects are going to go. It is my understanding that in accordance with the McIntyre letter 0MB gave 120 days for the details of the transfer to be worked out. It is also my information that the Department of Energy cer- tainly knows what it would like from the Environmental Protection Agency, but it is not certain what it would like to give up to the En- vironmental Protection Agency. Maybe you can elaborate on how that process is going so that we can determine in making staff recommendations to the members whether that $14 million ought~to be transferred. Mr. MYERS. Well, it is true that the transfer of the advanced con- trol technologies to DOE is something that we agreed to and felt was important to this overall system approach. It is true that the por- tion dealing with the transfers to EPA was not clearly spelled out and needed some negotiation. Dr. Liverman has been in the process of that negotiation with EPA and he might speak further to that. Dr. LIVERMAN. The problem with the transfer in the health and en- vironmental area, as was clearly recognized by Mr. Brown earlier, be- comes one of separating the chicken from the egg. Nevertheless, we have had, with 0MB and EPA, four or five separate meetings in which we have tried to define the following point: It is not the question so much of the transfer of $14 million if the objective is, in the future, to give the agencies broad areas of responsibility with some lessening of the gray areas of overlap. It has been a matter of arriving at a definition of what that is along with one other point. If that is an agreed-upon definition by the two agencies and 0MB, then my posi- tion has been that EPA's program and our program should both be analyzed and separated according to those definitions. There has been some reluctance to do this and you will have an opportunity on Thurs- day to talk to both Dr. Gage and me about that issue. The 0MB is now taking a more forceful role in the sense that they are trying to define what it was they meant when they came up with the recommendation. We will achieve some degree of separation. We will arrive at some clearer more sharply focused missions of the two agencies but we will not totally unravel it either between those two or among the other 25 or so that are involved. The important point is an increased aware- ness and the ability which the Congress and others can help with, to perform effective coordination and have the mechanism in place to achieve it. It is important that we draw on all of the information being generated by all of the agencies to determine whether there is an adequate amount being done. PAGENO="0039" 35 Mr. SPENSLEY. Let me ask, Mr. Under Secretary, one last question in that regard. Information that has been provided to us by the Department indi- cates that in the total budget of something over $5 billion for ERDA for fiscal year 1977, the environmental control technology budget was roughly $185 million, which was about 3.4 percent of the total ERDA budget. Then, the whole environmental control technology budget for Dr. Liverman's shop was $11.6 million or less than three- tenths of 1 percent of the total ERDA budget.. Now, given those statis- tics, which I think are rather revealing as to the amount of commit- ment being given to the environmental control technology quality con- trol as distinct from development of control technology, I am wonder- ing, Mr. Under Secretary, whether we would not get the biggest benefit for our buck if we put that $14 million we are taking from EPA and put it in Dr. Liverman's shop rather than putting it in the fossil fuel program where it represents less than 10 percent of their control tech- nology program. In fact, $14 million would more than double the environmental control technology program under the Office of Environment. Mr. Myi~ais. I think that the technology activities that we would be involved in here would be dirctly related to system analysis and the technologies associated with advanced control activities and I think they would really be in response to the interests and evaluations done by the environmental group on where the areas of action should be and particulates in CO2 and things of that nature. Mr. SPENSLEY. That is my point. Why should that not be under the Assistant Secretary for Environment rather than Mr. Fumich's shop? Mr. MYERS. Because I think it is a system problem. I really am very insistent that we consider from cradle to grave the coal problem. And if I were to have separate organizations working in one element of the cleanup as opposed to another, I am sure that there would be an un- balance of activity, and `that in fact is why I was so pleased to find that the advanced control technology is being transferred to DOE. It gives us a chance to balance that kind of activity. Mr. SPENSLEY. I am not sure that there is necessarily as much of a problem with the fact that some of those EPA funds are going to DOE, but as to where they are going. And to go back to the point I am trying to make- Mr. MYEi~s. My point then is why not have the cleanup of coal in environment? Why not have fluidized beds in environment? Why not have scrubber technology in environment? Mr. SPENSLEY. Those are environmental control technology develop- ment activities, while the $14 million that is coming from EPA is pri- marily a quality control or a systems problem as you described it, which I think I agree with. Mr. MYERS. Excuse me-the activities going on in EPA are in the area of advanced control technology and they are independent of the Department of Energy except for the coordination activity that is going on and I think it is an imbalanced systems problem. So just as in the cleanup in the front end, I look at the back end as a technology that has to be included in the total picture to get the best balance of the environment for the buck. That is really what we are looking for. PAGENO="0040" 36 Mr. SPENSLEY. When you say systems problems, do you mean an energy technology development problem as distinct from a problem of how we acquire environmental control technology across the board? Mr. MYERS. I include the systems analysis and conceptual develop- ment activities that balance front-end coal technology with back-end stack gases. Mr. SPENSLEY. Just one last question. If we are going to transfer $14 million from EPA to the proper DOE program, what do you think of the idea of giving Dr. Liverman $14 million as well to improve that less than three-tenths of 1 percent commitment to environmental control technology? Mr. MYERS. Certainly, I do expect the environmental activities to be working closely with the technologists to get emphasis on the right area of pollution that is involved in these technologies. I, for example, look at the front end as basically getting rid of SO2, and the back end may be the place where we can work more on some of the other pollu- tion elements we cannot work on in the front end. So we have got to have that balance and we have to have the support from environment. I certainly do not feel that you need that big an increase in budget in environment to support that activity in the- Mr. SPENSLEY. So that was a negative answer? Mr. MYERS. A negative answer on the $14 million to environment. Mr. SPENSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Myers, is there anything that you would like to add given this morning's discussion before we get on with Dr. Liverman and ask questions of the flow at Rocky Flats and other similar, won- derful issues about which I know you have a passionate concern? [Laughter.] Mr. MYERS. No; I have been happy to have the opportunity to re- spond to questions of the committee here today and I assure you that we are within the Department holding the environmental activity as a very strong important part of the Department's activities. I will con- tinue to work with the committee and try to assure you that we are doing that. Mr. WIRTH. Just in closing, Mr. Myers, I know what a very difficult job it is to put together a huge and complex new department, and I am sure that I can assure that this subcommittee and others on the Hill will do everything to help you, since we all want to see various priori- ties met very clearly. So thank you very much for being with us. Mr. MYERS. Thank you. Mr. WIRTH. Jim, maybe you can stay for a while at least until the bells go off which I think they may well do in the not too distant future. Dr. LIVERMAN. At your pleasure, whatever you desire. I think that we have covered most of the general things that I was going to talk about, namely, the creation of the Department of Energy and my responsibilities. Mr. WIRTH. Do you mean to say that we can just put your statement as developed into the record? Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes; I believe so. There are two general points I would like to talk about first and then we can go into specific budget items. One of them has to do with the environmental development plan- ning process per se and a progress report on where that stands. I have PAGENO="0041" 37 provided to members of the staff, some days ago, material extracted from the 26 or 30 environmental development plans we have prepared to date. This material was on a foldout sheet which shows by tech- nology what the nature of the impacts might be. In addition, another compilation, not by specific pollutants but `by general classes of pollu- tants have been showing what the first year's activities in the environ- mental development planning process have yielded. I would like to make one or two observations related to what Mr. Winn brought up this morning-namely, how do we balance environ- ment, economics, and the energy technology. It seems imperative that with regard to our regulatory affairs in this country we consider these three matters on equal basis. This trade- off is what the spirit of NEPA is all about. In detail this means that we must examine the environmental impacts of a technology not only across the whole fuel cycle, but we must consider the relative impacts in all media-water, air, soil, solid waste, et cetera. From the environ- mental standpoint then we must continuously rank as most desirable those technologies which when considered on these two bases are least environmentally damaging. This ranking, coupled with energy yield and economics by technology, should allow us to combine these three 1~actors to provide these most desirable energy sources for our Nation. On such a basis, then, we could and should compare the desirability of using FGD versus fluidized bed combustion for sulfur removal. The second point is that once we have formulated the environmental development plan, completed the inventory to see what is going on, and have done the technology assessment to `see what it is we truly know for a fart, we are left with a residual of unknown information on any given technology that must be evaluated as to its priority in terms of human health or environment, and in terms of the time frame needed to get that information in ~place to make decisions about the technology. Those both set the priority for the technology and for the need for the environmental research and they must be closely coupled. My perception right now is that that has not been done as pre- cisely as it needs to be done, and we hope, during the course of this year, to achieve that closer coupling. One of the things we are doing is working very closely with a given technology. Let me take the gasifiers in industry program, where we have sat down with the technology people and worked out in detail a specific program to look at those six gasifiers that they are proposing to put in place and have environmental programs in place at three of those sites. Furthermore, we had periodic discussions which assures the feed- back of environmental information to the technology program di- rectly. So in terms of modus operandi for dealing with the DOE- related questions, we have a number of programs. I think the geo- thermal program, I have discussed in southern California, is another good example. The gasifiers in industry another. We are doing the same thing in the gasification processes. So what you are going to hear during the discussion by my staff on the details of the program is more about these specifically focused programs which are tied to the specific technology in order to be sure that, as we march forward, we are addressing all the questions that must be dealt with. Mr. WIRTH. We `have had the signal from the Speaker that it is time to go to the floor. PAGENO="0042" 38 Would you be available tomorrow morning-would that be pos- sible? I think we are scheduled in the morning at 10 o'clock. Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes; I will be available. Mr. WIRTH. Might I ask you, perhaps between now and tomorrow morning, to have someone in your office call Bill Lamb, in Colorado, about the Broomfield water situation? I know that there has been a Broomfield proposal and a DOE proposal coming together there, and I think that we are pretty close to some reconimendations. Maybe we could all get together. I talked to Bill yesterday afteruoon and he was going to talk to the Broomfield people in preparation for this morning. Dr. LIVERMAN. That must be here in our office somewhere. Mr. WIRTH. If the proposal is not, it is on its way and maybe we could move it out smartly. Thank you very much. As you know, this subcommittee has also set a No. 1 priority on various health effects, and I am sure that there will be members who will want to ask you about your responsibilities in this area versus the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology and EPA. Dr. LIVERMAN. Fine. At 10 o'clock in the morning? Mr. WIRTH. Yes, 10 o'clock. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, if I might before you adjourn? At the request of Congressman Phillip Ruppe, I would like to ask if you would be prepared tomorrow, Dr. Liverman, to give us a status report on a letter that was sent to you on October 11 of last year by Congressmen Ruppe, Oberstar, and Marks for the Conference of Great Lakes Congressmen on a proposed Great Lakes energy forum. Dr. LIVERMAN. Would you like a statement or something for the record? Mr. CLEMENT. If you could have something for the record and pos- sibly touch base with Mr. Ruppe so that they will know where they stand on this, we would appreciate it. Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes; we will provide something later on for the record and I will ask Dr. Stronberg of my staff to call Congressman Ruppe immediately. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much. [Material referred to above follows:] PAGENO="0043" 39 Department of Enerqy Washington, D.C. 20585 AUG 2 2 1978 Honorable George E. Brown Chairman, Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to provide additional information on the Great Lakes Energy Forum in which Congressman Ruppe has expressed a continuing interest. Following the authorization hearings held before your Subcommittee, there was a meeting on May 23, 1978, with the then acting Region V Representative, William Peterson; John Bruce, Minority Staff Member for the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, representing Congressman Ruppe; Ms. Lee Botts, Chairman of the Great Lakes Basin Commission; and, a member of my staff, Dr. Joel Stronberg. The Forum concepts were discussed and Ms. Botts' questions were answered. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Great Lakes Basin Commission was invited to submit a proposal. Mr. Peterson also volunteered to aid and coordinate the effort. To date, nothing in the way of a formal proposal has been received. I hope that this information will be useful to your Subcommittee and to Congressman Ruppe. Sincerely, L. Liverman rig Assistant Secretary for Environment cc: Honorable Robert S. Walker 1 ii {I'VllereuI)on. ~ ~ xo ~ I II'- III1'nIl ii 12 :~2() ).11LJ PAGENO="0044" PAGENO="0045" 1979 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION ENVIRONMENT BUDGET WEDNESDAY, PEBRUARY 15, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE, Wa$hington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable George E. Brown, Jr., chairman, presiding. Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order. This morning we continue hearings on the proposed fiscal year 1979 budget and programs of the DOE Office of Environment. Yester- day, we covered general policy and administrative issues with Under Secretary Myers and Dr. Liverman. Today we will focus on the de- tails of and major initiatives in the fiscal year 1979 budget, beginning with Dr. Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment. Then, we will explore the programs of major concern to us with mem- bers of Dr. Liverman's staff: biomedical and environmental research, environmental control technology, and NEPA affairs. Our first witness is Dr. Liverman, and Dr. Liverman, you can judge how much time the additional members of your staff might want and time yourself accordingly, and we hope we can handle the whole thing expeditiously this morning. STATEMENT OF DR. IAMES LIVERMAN, ACTING ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. PETER HOUSE, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS; DR. WILLIAM MOTT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OP ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY; DR. WILLIAM BURR, DIRECTOR, DIVI- SION OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH; DAVE SLADE, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP CARBON DIOXIDE EFFECTS RESEARCH; HAL HOLLISTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OPERA- TIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is nice to be back again this morning. We can handle the matter in two ways-I can give you a very brief 5- or 8-minute run-down on the budget highlights and then you can begin questions, or if you would prefer I would propose that two or three of my people take about 5 or 8 minutes to summarize their own areas, and I will leave that choice to the committee as to how- (41) PAGENO="0046" 42 Mr. BROWN. Why don't we do it as you have suggested. You take whatever time-8 or 10 minutes-and then have the appropriate people make their presentation and then we will have questions for the whole group. Dr. LIVERMAN. Fine. Thank you very much. If we could have the first slide? As was discussed yesterday with Mr. Myers, DOE i~ a different agency than ERDA, FEA, or other former agencies were. We have attempted to reshuffle our organiza- tion to incorporate the environmental activities involved in most of the moves. The major change that took place is one Mr. Myers brought up-the Office of Technology Impact which is headed by Dr. Peter House. What we attempted to do there was to pull together under one leadership all of the assessment activities, regional studies pro- grams, those things that put us in a more straightforward position to deal with input of environmental policy into the Department's activities. With that, let me move on rapidly to the budget. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET (S IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCREASE FY1977 FY1978 FY1979 ORDECREASE OPERATING EXPENSES OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT $ 36,577 $ 48,010 $ 48,650 $+ 640 BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 127.974 141.946 135,338 - 6,608 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 164,551 189,956 183,988 - 5,968 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 11,880 17,825 14,600 - 3,225 CONSTRUCTION 7,700 10,010 10,000 - 10 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $184,131 $217,791 $208,588 $ - 9,203 SLIDE 1 This slide shows the overall budget (Slide No. 1), and as you can see overview and assessment increases about $600,000, biomedical and environmental research is down by $6.6 million overall, and the capi- tal equipment is also down. Capital equipment is decreased because there were special needs as we moved into ERDA and we needed a major influx of new equipment to deal with our nuclear areas, and so the budget is `back down now. The decrease in operating expenses, as the committee is well aware, is related to the transfer of $14 million out of our program into the EPA program which we will be going into in more detail tomorrow when Dr. Gage is here and I will be back before you. We are prepared to explore that more if you wish today, but, basically, the decrease that you see is related to that particular question. PAGENO="0047" 43 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT S INCREASE Y 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 OR DECREASE OVERVIEW MANAGEMENT $ 5,135 $ 8,049 $ 6,000 $ - 2,049 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANALYSIS 5,799 5,011 5,450 + 439 INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT 9,819 10,756 10,200 - 556 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 11,464 16,822 16,000 - 822 OPERATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 4,360 7,372 11,000 + 3,628 TOTAL OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT $ 36,577 $ 48,010 $48,650 $+ 640 SLIDE 2 This slide shows the overview and assessment area (slide No. 2). I would like to remark about the overview management budget which shows a $2 million decrease and, again, it is an attempt in that area to look at the NEPA coordination process, environmental energy in- formation systems, environmental development plan preparation and review, and the water resources assessment. There is $1 million in that area that goes directly to the Water Resources Council, under section 13 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Act, for them to do the major qualitative and quantitative water assessments that the Agency needs. The NEPA coordination represents about $800,000 of that; the Environmental Information Systems is $1.8 million which is about what the budget was last year, so there is not a net increase there. A major segment of that goes toward carrying out the environmental development planning process. In the area of environmental policy analysis, which shows an in- crease of about a half a mil]ion, the thrust of the policy analysis is to allow us in DOE to track, as closely as possible, all of the regu- latory changes that may be coming about, those that are in place, and what their impacts may be on the ability of the Agency to devlop a viable energy operation. For instance, among the things that we have been deeply involved in is the impact of the new source performance standards, under the Clean Air Act amendments as they were passed by the Congress. This is the area, Mr. Winn, that you discussed yesterday with Mr. Myers in detail. It is that segment of our budget, and the next line, which are aimed directly at putting-and the envir- onmental engineering is a portion of that, too-us in an effective position to argue, to debate, to at least bring before the regulatory bodies all of the other considerations and facts as they may impact our ability to deliver an energy system. The environmental engineering area has been reduced. The LNG program, which the committee had last year in its authorization, and said it should get more attention in terms of its safety aspects, is being maintained at the 1978 level. The Deputy Secretary, Mr. O'Leary, PAGENO="0048" 44 has asked us to study with others members of the Agency what the program really should be, and we are due to have a program plan updated by about June 1. Involved in that are staff from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who have the responsibility for the siting, of the LNG facilities. Our largest increase in this budget segment has to do with that of Operational and Environmental Safety for which this committee was in many ways responsible for the increases in the budget last year; it really relates to two kinds of operations. One of these has to do with our responsibility to insure that all potentially hazardous activities in the Agency are approved by us before they begin, and second, to put in place a uniform safety process throughout the Agency and all of its activities. This involves inhouse activities and the demo plants for which we must comply effectively with all of the OSHA `and EPA regulations. There is about `a $11/2 million increase in that area which we thing is extremely necessary if the Agency is going to act in a re- sponsible manner. Second, an area which I will call special operations has to do with radiological support of the Enewetak Atoll cleanup in which the Department of Defense is currently involved. It is going on at the Pacific island now. We are following it very closely to insure that, in fact, the atoll is cleaned up and can be turned over the the former inhabitants or if not all the islands can be, then we must specify those which cannot be visited or used to grow crops. We are also con- tinuing support of the ongoing work in the Bikini Atoll. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET ($ IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INCREASE FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 OR DECREASE HUMAN HEALTH STUDIES $ 19,439 $ 20.130 $ 20,839 $+ 709 HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 43,009 48,922 42,753 6,169 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 47,067 53,236 49,677 - 3,559 PHYSICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES 18,459 19,658 22,069 + 2,411 TOTAL BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH $127,974 $141,946 $135,338 $- 6,608 SLIDE 3 The next slide shows the largest segment of the program (slide 3) biomedical and environmental research, and, as you can see, the budget is down by $6.6 million which in a sense is some increase; the dif- ference between the $6 and the $14 million is the increase in the budget because of the transfer of $14 million from this program `area into the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Burr will be prepared to go into that in whatever detail you wish. I would like to point out the fact that the carbon dioxide effects research and assessment program in the environmental studies line is about a $3 million program, an increase over the 1978 level. PAGENO="0049" 45 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET ($ IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING INCREASE FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 OR DECREASE OPERATING EXPENSES MANAGEMENT OF SURPLUS RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED DOE FACILITIES $ 7,613 $ 14,643 $ 14,990 $+ 347 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR INACTIVE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES 507 1,723 3,530 + 1,807 GRAND JUNCTION REMEDIAL.ACTION 3,000 0 1,500 + 1,500 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR FORMER DOE CONTRACTOR INSTALLATIONS 341 1,634 4,980 + 3,346 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 11,461 18,000 25,000 + 7,000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 223 200 200 0 TOTAL DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING $ 11,684 $ 18,200 $ 25,200 $+ 7,000 SLIDE 4 In another segment of the budget, the decontamination and decom- missioning (slide No. 4), is one in which this committee showed a par- ticular interest last year, particularly Mr. Wirth. It has to do with the safe management, planning, and disposition of surplus radio- actively contaminated facilities on our own sites. It is to initiate remedial action at the excess `sites that were previously under the con- trol of the Manhattan Engineering District. We have gone back and resurveyed some 150 sites and find that there are 10 of those that probably `are going to have to be cleaned up again. There is one in Cannonsburg, Pa., another in Middlesex, N.J., on which we are con- centrating a considerable effort. For that activity, combined with the uranium mill tailings question, namely, the 22 sites in the Western States that were abandoned `and are there now and constitute a health hazard, we will be coming for- ward with a legislative proposal. The Department has made the de- cision thwt it must, over a period of the next 5 to 7 years, move ag- gressively toward the cleanup of those excess sites and the mill tail- ings, and that program may cost between $80 and $125 million depend- ing upon choices by the States of how much they want to contribute toward the cleanup, with the formula usually being 25 percent State and 75 percent Federal. This is the formula which was used for the Grand .Junction cleanup. And so that effort is reflected in the de- contamination and decommissioning area. 32-744 0 - 78 - 4 PAGENO="0050" 46 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGV-FY 1979 BUDGET ($ IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS INCREASE FY1977 FY1978 FY1979 OR DECREASE 900 1,000 1,100 + 100 TOTAL LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS The next budget area I wish to speak about is the life sciences re- search and biomedical applications program (slide No. 5). As you can see there that program is decreasing. It was a judgment as the budget priorities were decided that that area should be held constant or decreased somewhat, and so it reflects a decrease of about $1.8 million. The final area has to do with the $10 million program that involves our support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in terms of finish- ing the LOFT Facility on the Idaho site (slide No. 6). The aim of the OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET (S IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) LIGHT WATER REACTOR FACILITIES INCREASE FY 1977 FY1978 FY 1979 OR DECREASE QPERATING EXPENSES / LOSS OF FLUID TEST PLENUM FILL EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY _______ _______ _______ _______ TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES ______ ______ ______ ______ CAPITAL EQUIPMENT whole program is to test whether or not the current regulations for reactor safety are adequate. We have already begun to run nonnu- clear experiments and this fall, I believe, or early this winter, NRC will actually begin the nuclear tests in that facility. It has been build- ing, as you know for something like 15 years at a sizable cost, and we think that we are going to complete it within the dollars that are shown there. Mr. Chairman, that completes a brief rundown of the budget. OPERATING EXPENSES GENERAL LIFE SCIENCES CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ 26,876 $ 25,870 $ 25,017 $. 853 BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS 18,855 15,640 14,683 - 957 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 45,731 41,510 39,700 - 1,810 $46,631 $ 42,510 $ 40,800 $- 1,710 SLIDE 5 $ 26,470 $ 24,342 $ 6,500 $ -17,842 2.300 0 0 28,770 24,342 6,500 0~ -17,842 0 800 500 - 300 CONSTRUCTION 0 3,000 3,000 0 TOTAL LIGHT WATER REACTOR FACILITIES $ 28,770 $ 28,142 $ 10,000 $-18,142 SLIDE 6 PAGENO="0051" 47 Dr. House, would you like to say a few words about your program? Mr. BROWN. Go ahead, Doctor. Dr. HOUSE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the Of- fice of Technology Impacts is as Dr. Liverman said, the newest addi- tion to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. It rep- resents an attempt to pull together a number of offices that carried over from ERDA and the transferred parts of the environmental pol- icy office from FEA. The Office of Technology Impact (OTT) is comprised of four divi- sions, and rather than spending a great deal of time talking about the organizational structure, let me use it merely as a way of telhn~ you about some of the major programs currently underway. I would like to make available to the committee a fact book that describes the office in more detail. The four divisions in OTT are the Division of Policy Analysis, the Division of Environmental Impacts, the Division of Technology Overview, and the Division of Regional Assessments. The uniqueness of this office is that it is one of the few places, that I know of, where there has been a policy office with direct assessment support by research. We use the policy analysis group to carry out the majority of the assessment reasearch. In the Division of Policy Analysis, the major ongoing action is the formation of an Environmental Issues Committee, which attempts to focus within the agency on environmental issues as they come in from the outside. We are working closely with Mr. Alm's Office of Policy and Evaluation to get this committee started. The Division of Technology Overview consists of two parts, on which the members of this committee have been briefed in the past. One has the responsibility for producing the DOE Environmental De- velopment Plans. We have a summary document in preparation which Dr. Liverman spoke of yesterday and that is promised to the committee by the end of the month. The second part of the Division of Technology Overview is respon- sible for performing technology assessments from an environmental perspective. The major ongoing program is the National Coal Utiliza- tion Assessment, and this one we expect to be completed within this year. The Division of Environmental Impacts is responsible for environ- mental assessments with a national perspective. It has under its juris- diction the annual environmental analysis report which this com- mittee was briefed on last year. It also has as part of its responsibility the production of the annual environmental inventory of federally- sponsored, energy-related environmental research and development projects. The fourth and final unit is the Division of Regional Analysis. It performs regional environmental assessments on a number of regional case studies. It also has the responsibility for the water for energy assessments required as part of section 13 of the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy R. & D. Act. That is about as briefly as I can summarize the activities of the Office of Technology Impacts. Thank you. Dr. LIVERMAN. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, to call on Dr. Mott, the head of our Environmental Control Tech- PAGENO="0052" 48 nology Division whose activities are concerned in a major way with assessment of the control technology areas of the agency's programs Dr MOTT Good morning I want to talk briefly about two programs-Environmental Engi neering and the Decontamination and Decommissioning Program In the Environmental Engineering, as I have stated previously be fore this subcommittee, the major thrust of our program is to identify the nature and extent of the environmental control problems, to de- fine the existing control technologies and strategies and to evaluate their efficacies and practicabilities and finally to get on with coming up with alternate control options or to see that research gets done for the options under investigation Looking very swiftly at our budget in the Environmental Engi OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ($ IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FY 1917 FY 1978 FY 1979 COAL 4,132 4866 4885 PETROLEUM AND GAS 2,393 3315 3250 OIL SHALE 157 790 765 SOLAR GEOTHERMAL, AND ENERGY 820 1321 1420 CONSERVATION NUCLEAR ENERGY 3962 6530 5680 TOTALS 11464 16822 16000 SLIDE 7 neering area( slide No 7) as Dr Liverman showed, there is a slight decrease in going from 1978 to 1979 There was some discussion yesterday about the Environmental Con trol Inventory that was done relative to environmental control initia PAGENO="0053" 49 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TOTAL DOE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ACTIVITIES FUNDING ALLOCATIONS TOTAL DOE FY 1977 BUDGET: $5,383,982,000 SLIDE 8 tives in ERDA for 1977, and it is shown here (slide No. 8) that roughly $185 million was spent in ERDA in 1977 on environmental control issues. Of that, you will see that in the fossil energy area, and I just want to focus, next slide, please, on that (slide No. 9) roughly Portion of Total FY 19fl Budget Related To Environmental Control Activities (Percent) FY 19fl Funding Allocation Related To Environmental Control Activities Administration ($ In Thousands) Conservation (AC) 5,984 Fossil Energy (AFE) 86,194 Nuclear Energy (ANE) 62,195 Solar, Geothermal, and Advanced Energy Systems (ASGA) 12,337 Environment and Safety (AES) 17,973 Total 184,683 4.8 19.4 2.5 1.4 8.1 3.4 PAGENO="0054" 50 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY Total Fossil Energy FY 1977 Funding Related To Environmental Control Technology: $86,194,000 PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS (3%) OIL SHALE AND IN SITU TECHNOLOGY (2%) COAL (95%) SLIDE 9 95 percent of the environmental control initiative is in coal. PAGENO="0055" 51 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY Total Coal Program FY 1977 Funding Related to Environmental Control: $81,897,000 HIGH-BTU GASIFICATION (10%) DEMONSTRATION (7%) ADVANCED RESEARCH AND SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY (5%) MAGNETO HYDRODYNAMICS (4%) ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS (2%) And in fossil energy, roughly 25 percent of the expenditure is on direct combustion and 87 percent on liquefaction, as you see on this next slide. (Slide No. 10) Under the direct combustion area, the major initiative there was fluidized bed combustion with roughly 50 or 60 percent of all the work on fluidized bed combustion being assigned to environmental control work. Under liquefaction, a large effort is conducted in solvent refined coal. It was decided that of the solvent refined coal initiative, roughly 80 percent of that was an environmental control initiative. That is how these numbers came about. Mr. SPENSLEY. Excuse me, Dr. Mott, that is the control technology program for the fossil area, not yours? Dr. MoTr. Not ours, that is fossil. It is all in the report that you asked for and have. That is the breakdown for fossil. Mr. WATKINS. Does this percent of work represent all the environ- mental work in the fossil fuel area? Is that the percent of dollars being so used? Is that what you have there? LOW-BTU GASIFICATION* (10%) SLIDE 10 LIQUEFACTION (37%) PAGENO="0056" 52 Dr Morr Yes Mr. WATKINS. Thirty seven percent of it for liquefaction. Dr LIVI~RMAN Of the $81 million total environmental control funds being spent by fossil, that is the percentage distribution for liquefac tion being carried out by that technology office. Our level, I believe, Bill, is about $5 million Oui overview re sponsibility, carried out to see if an adequate job is being done is about $5 million Dr MOTT For the entire division, it is a bit higher than shown on this slide which is $17 million. (Slide No. 11). OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-~FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ($ IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 COAL 4132 4,866 4885 PETROLEUM AND GAb 2,393 3,315 3,250 OIL SHALE 157 790 765 SOLAR, GEOThERMAL, AND ENERGY 820 1321 1420 CONSERVATION NUCLEAR ENERGY 3962 6530 5,680 TOTALS 16822 16000 SLIDE 11 Last year at such a hearing as this, we discussed LNG safety and environmental control R. & D., and this subcommittee recommended an increase n the budget authority which was provded for an ex panded scope to the R & D safety and control actwities then under way in ERDA The scope was expanded and the significant output was a report entitled, "An Approach to Liquefied Natural Gas Safety and Environmental Control Research" I want to emphasize that in putting this report together, we looked at the LNG research efforts of the last 15 years, and from that base we determined the need for adii tional research, delineated the research that would have to be con ducted to fill the indicated gaps and finally estimated time and cost for performing what seemed under the circumstances to be an optimistic program. Of course, the interest in liquefied natural gas comes about because LNG is natural gas that has the temperature reduced to minus 160 degrees Fahrenheit In so doing you reduce the volume by a factor of 600 The current concern is, whether in handling or storage or trans port, that the LNG will be released into the atmosphere and you will have a vapor cloud produced that we do not quite understand yet The major concerns have to do with a v'Lpor cloud distance of travel, fire size, whether or not you can detonate a vapor cloud and so on In the course of developing the approach to LNG research, one of the major aspects of all of this is the kind of experimental test facility PAGENO="0057" 53' required, and so we came up with a conceptual designed facility that would be required to conduct the kind of reseai ch I am talking OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SLIDF 12 about (slide No 12) Unfortunately, you cannot see it very well here, but the water pond shown there is ioughly 1,000 feet in diameter, and if you could see it better, you could see all the instrument towers that will be required to do the kind of meaningful research necessary OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ($ IN THOUSANDS-BUDGET AUTHORITY) DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FY~197J FYIV FY 1979 MANAGEMENT OF SURPLUS RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED DOE FACILITIES 7613 14 643 14 NO REMEDIAL ACTION FOR FORMERLY UTILIZED MED/AEC SITES 341 1634 4960 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR INACTIVE URANIUM MILLTAILINGS SITES 507 1723 3,630 GRAND JUNCTION REMEDIAL ACTION 3 ~ 0 1500 TOTALS 11461 18000 23000 SLIDE 1~ PAGENO="0058" 54 Jumping swiftly to the decommissioning and decontamination area-in 1979 the four programmatic objectives amount to roughly $25 million (slide No. 13). One of the initiatives that has been followed by this subcommittee has to do with West Valley and last year there was $1 million appro- priated by Congress to do a West Valley study. That study is now underway, and the objective is to have a document by October 1, 1978. In the management of surplus DOE-owned facilities, the total pro- gram we have is about $15 million. It is of interest to look at two of the remedial action programs, one having to do with mill tailings and the other one having to do with formerly utilized Manhattan En- gineering District and AEC sites and to see how this is spread out OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY across the country (slide No. 14). To the right or the east are the formerly utilized sites and to the left in the western part of the Nation are the uranium mill tailings. I just want to say one quick word about the origins of this program. We will not go into the detail of this slide. But what we have at- tempted to do in identifying this problem and really getting an un- derstanding of it is focus on the sources of uranium back in the early 1940's, whether they came from Africa, as shown on the bottom, or from Canadian sources or American sources, and try to see how they flowed across the country, and the whole purpose of doing this is to make sure that we have not missed some material that has been buried around for some 30 years. In 1979 in the remedial action program, we are hoping to be well along in cleaning up some of the sites. In the mill tailing programs, the same thing, but it is going to depend upon authorization legislation. LOCATIONS OP URANIUM MILL TAILPIOS AND 1*0115 MSDIASC SITU RIOUININO RADIOLOSICAL SURVEY SLIDE 14 PAGENO="0059" 55 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-FY 1979 BUDGET DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO PLANNED PROJECTS FOR FY 1979 RESIDENCES 79 SCHOOLS 1 COMMERCIAL 10 90 COMPLETED BY FY 1978 310 TOTAL 400 ESTIMATED ELIGIBLE 605 SLIDE 15 At Grand Junction (slide No. 15), as a consequence of the bill just passed last week, adequate funding is now available, and we are mov- ing on with that program very, very rapidly in the hope of handling the situation out there. In 1978 some 310 different facilities have been completed for a total of 600 altogether so there are still a couple hundred to go. Thank you. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Mott. Dr. LIVERMAN. Dr. Burr, would you like to discuss the biomedical and environmental area? Dr BURR. Mr. Chairman, I would like first to make a few general remarks about our program and then focus on work in support of coal and nuclear technologies, and I will not touch on inexhaustibles or multitechnologies. I will then talk just a little bit about life sciences. Then we can return to these if you wish during the questioning. PAGENO="0060" SLIDE 16 SLIDE 17 56 BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH OBJECTIVES * RESEARCH TO DETERMINE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS, AND TO IDENTIFY METHODS OF MINI- MIZING ADVERSE EFFECTS * PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES * PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASE FOR ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRON- MENTAL COST RISK AND BENEFIT TRADE-OFFS IN DEVEL- OPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGIES First of all, we are a research division and we are interested in try ing to achieve several objectives (slide No 16) We are trying to de termine any adverse effects and to minimize these if we find, them We `ire trying to provide information to rnsure environmental accept ability, and we are trying to provide a factual basis for assessments BIOMEDICAL. AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS I ~ L~vT1~i ____I ~ As I think you know, we organized our program into four areas (slide No 17) These are shown in the boxes across the top of the slide The physical and analytical box s our physical and technological pro gram Next is environmental program, and then our human health PAGENO="0061" 57 studies, and the experimental animal studies which is our program on health effects in biological systems. The diagram indicates the way we try to go about addressing the needs of the technologies. With any energy technology we are inter- ested in the process chemicals and the products. We are interested in any effluents and we are interested in the residuals. And the first group in our organization that would be expected to come in contact would be the physical and analytical program because of the need to make measurements of affluents. We need to characterize these materials. This information would hopefully feedback to the technology. It also is necessary information for the rest of our program. The environmen- tal program is concerned with the movement of pollutants throughf the environment. This would be transport and any transformations of this material, and also any impact on the environment. This includes ter- restrial and aquatic ecology and oceanography and related subjects. If there is a pathway to man, whether it is in an occupational en- vironment or in the overall environment, we are interested in health effects. For this we have our human studies and epidemiology, and we will talk some about some of the new studies, and we also have the ex- perimental studies that back this up in animals. OPERATING EXPENSES (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS - B/A) INCREASE OR FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 DECREASE BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH HUMAN HEALTH STUDIES $ 19.439 $ 20.130 $ 20.839 $ + 709 HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 43,009 48,922 42783 - 6.169 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 47,067 63,236 49.677 - 3.659 PHYSICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES 18,459 19,658 22.069 + 2,411 TOTAL BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH $ 127,974 $ 141,946 $ 135,338 $ - 6.608 SLIDE 18 The budget that you have before you for the biomedical and environ- mental research in terms of authority is $135 million (slide No. 18). You will notice this is down from the fiscal year 1978 level of $141.9 million. The decrease is felt most in the health effects research in bio- logical systems and in the environmental studies. This decrease reflects the transfer of $14 million to EPA and it happens that most of the pro- grams that fall into the appropriate categories for transfer are in the above two areas. The physical and technological studies increase. You will remember this as our characterization measurement and monitoring, and as we try to keep in step with developing technologies, this is a group that has to come into play rather early and therefore they need an increase in effort. The slide you have been looking at shows our program grouped by the four program areas. We also look at the budget by the technology that the particular work supports. Perhaps this is more meaningful (slide No. 19). On this slide we have grouped the three fossil areas- PAGENO="0062" 58 FY 1979 BUDGET OPERATING EXPENSES BY TECHNOLOGY (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS - B/A) INCREASE OR FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 DECREASE BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL -. COAL $ 28,084 $ 37,697 $ 36,541 $ - 1,056 OIL AND GAS 4,978 5,627 4,279 - 1,348 OIL SHALE 3,489 3,346 2,833 - 513 TOTAL FOSSIL 36,551 46,570 43,653 - 2,917 SOLAR 2,740 3,036 2,976 - 59 GEOTHERMAL 2,788 2,562 2,568 + 6 CONSERVATION 1,198 2,370 2,369 - 1 FUSION 1,823 2,663 2,611 +8 TOTAL INEXHAUSTIBLES 8,549 10,630 10,584 - 46 NUCLEAR 56,215 57,151 53,797 - 3,354 MULTI-TECHNOLOGY 26,659 27,595 27,304 - 291 TOTAL BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH $ 127,974 $ 141,946 $ 136,338 $ - 6,608 SLIDE 19 coal, oil and gas, and oil shale-and you will see that we have a reduc- tion of $2,917,000 in that category. All of the $14 million that is transferred to EPA is from the fossil area, so if we had not been making an effort to address more of the needs of fossil, we would have had an even greater reduction in the program. However, we were trying to give emphasis to fossil needs, and this is why, even with a $14 million transfer, we have only a reduc- tion then in the program of $2.9 million. The inexhaustible area-soiar, geothermal, conservation, and fusion-has stayed approximately constant from last year to this year. We would like to have shown increases in this area, but in looking at priorities we put the emphasis on the fossil area. Nuclear has a reduction in the budget authority from $57,151,000 in fiscal year 1978 to $53,797,000 in fiscal year 1979. This is a reduction of $3,354,000 in our nuclear program. The multi-technology is reduced somewhat and that gives an overall reduction of $6,608,000 in support of biomedical and environmental research. A great deal of this de- crease is accounted for by the transfer of the $14 million, so in effect we have about $7 million which is something near a cost-of-living in- crease for the balance of the program. I would like to show you the shift in emphasis within our program over the years from the time we were AEC and the period we were ERDA and now in the period that we *rre DOE. If you trace the his- tory of this particular program, as I am sure you know, all of the bio- medical and environmental research that we have in DOE was built on ERDA's program, which was built upon the work that the AEC had in place. You will see on the slide we have crossed over to where we have more emphasis on research in support of the nonnuclear tech- nologies than the nuclear (slide No. 20). PAGENO="0063" LU I- I 59 BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Now if we did not have the $14 million reduction this would look even more pronounced. The loss of the work in the fossil area `brings the curves to about the same level although with a little more emphasis on nonnuclear. Now, I would like to highlight some of our activities in 1979, new initiatives and where emphasis will be placed. I will concentrate on coal and nuclear. In the coal extracting area, you will note, first of all a rather small program of about $75,000 utilizing krypton-81m (slide No. 21). It is a metastable isotope which may be useful in early diagnosis of pulmo- nary diseases. FY 1979 BUDGET BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dollars ih Thousands - B/A COAL FY 1977 $28,084 FY 1978 $37,597 FY 1979 $36,541 INCREASE OR I DECREAS~j - $1,056___I FY 1979 HIGHLIGHTS EXTRACTION * Krypton 81m In Early Detection of Pulmonary Disease * Land Rehabilitation COMBUSTION * Toxicity and Mutagenicity of Conventional and Fluidized Bed Combustion Effluents * Multistate Atmospheric Power Production Pollution Study so 60 40 NUCLEAR ao 20 10 1974 1975 1976 1977 SLIDE 20 1978 1979 1980 SLiDE 21 PAGENO="0064" 60 Work is being done at the Argonne National Laboratory on land reclamation and shows quite a lot of promise This work at Argonne is in cooperation with the State of Illinois and it is looking at what to do with deep mine refuse, how to stabilize it and handle it In the combustion area we have studies on the toxicity and muta gencity of conventional and fluidized bed combustion effluents I would like to take just a minute to point out last year we used as an example of the opportunity to begin our work along with the de veloping technology, the geothermal area. Since last year we are pleased to say we can point to some areas in fossil where we have had the same opportunity to get programs going early. One of these areas is in combustion We have work at Davis, Calif , on the products of conventional combustion The Inhalation Toxicology Research In stitute of the Lovelace Foundation, working with the Morgantown Energy Center, has a related program for fiuidi7ed bed combustion This is going very well The "Multistate Atmospheric Power Production Pollution Studies' have been mentioned before This year we plan to complete a box bud get of sulfur compounds This study is concerned with nitrogen com pounds as well as acid rain problems and trace metals It is a study from Illinois to the New England States and is one that has involved EPRI and EPA as well. FY 1979 BUDGET BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dollars in Thousands~ B/A I INCREASE OR I I FY1977 FY1978 FY1979 DECREASE I COAL (Continued) I- $28084 $37597 $38541 -$1056 FY 1979 HIGHLIGHTS CONVERSION * Carcinogenic Mutagenic and Toxicological Screening of Products and Effluents from Conversion Processes * Environmental Impact at Specific Synfuel Sites * Transport and Conversion of Coal Conversion Process Effluents * Characterization Studies for Gasifiers in Industry Program. ~ ~ Gasification, and Other ProcesseS * DevOlopment of Portable Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Meter SLIDE 22 The conversion area is another area that we have had an oppor tunity to work closely with the fossil program (slide No. 22). Car- cinogenic, mutagenic, and toxocologic screening are carried out principally at ORNL but at PNL and other sites as well The environmental impact studies at specific Synfuel sites, and transport and conversion of coal conversion process effluents, required in fiscal year 1978 takes about $1'/2 million This will go up in fiscal year 1979. Next I want to emphasize characterization studies for the gasifiers in industry program, in situ gasification and other processes We have several major programs ITRI works with Morgantown on the low Btu gasifier The gasifiers in industry study is with the PAGENO="0065" FY 1979 HIGHLIGHTS * Integrated Program at Paraho Medical Surveillance and Registry of Workers Respiratory Toxicology of Shale Dusts Toxicological Screening of Crude and Refined Oils Test Plots of Spent Shale * Effects of jg !j~~ Operations on Hydrologic Resources 61 University of Minnesota at Duluth and with ORNL Livermore Lab oratory is looking at in situ gasification We also have some work on high Btu gas as well FY 1979 BUDGET BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dollars in Thousands B/A I I INCREASE OR I OIL SHALE [~Y 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 DECREASE L I $3489 $3346 $2833 -$513 SLIDE 23 I think I will omit discussion of oil shale in the interest of time ex cept to point out that here agam we have been able to mount what we consider an integrated program (slide No 23) We have a medical surveillance and registry of workers in collaboration with the Amer ican Petroleum Institute We put in half of the funding We have respiratory toxicology studies on shale dust being done at LASL and toxocologic screenmg of crude and refined oils also at LASL and PNL We established a program last year which will be developing in 1979 on test plots of retorted shale This environmental research and related studies are being done at the University of Colorado and Colorado State University The test plots will be followed through the years Problems of revegetation, leaching of the plots, and others will be studied to determine and see what really can be done to re establish the landscape FY 1979 BUDGET BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dollars in Thousands B/A FY 1979 HIGHLIGHTS * OIL AND GAS 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 INCREASE OR $4,978 $5,627 $4,279 -$1,348 Epidemiological Study of Refinery Workers Chronic Effects of Petroleum Outer Continental Shelf * Ocean Buoy Data Telemetry System Using Satellite Relay SLIDE 24 I will omit work in support of oil and gas except to note we have an epidemiological study on refinery workers which we are just getting underway in California (slide No 24) 327440 78 5 PAGENO="0066" 62 FY 1979 BUDGET BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dollars in Thousands - B/A I INCREASE ORI NUCLEAR FISSION LF~9l7 FY 1978 FY 1979 DECREAS~ I $56,215 $57,151 $53,797 -$3.3M~_j FY 1979 HIGHLIGHTS / * Registry for Persons Exposed to Uranium * Carcinogenic Risk Evaluation of Uranium - Thorium Fuel Cycle * Animal Test System for Evaluating Uranium Mining Risk * Transport. Conversion and Fate of Transuranics In SoIls, Rivers, Ocean Sediments * Measurement Techniques and Instrumentation Plutonium Lung Burden Plutonium In Stack EmissIons and Surrounding Soils Mixed Beta and Gamma Radiation Exposure SLIDE 25 In the nuclear area, I want to highlight the need to look at the uranium-thorium fuel cycle (slide No. 25). We are establishing a registry of persons exposed to uranium. We have work dealing with the carcinogenic risks of the uranium-thorium fuel cycle amounting to some $470,000 at PNL and at ITRI, and animal test systems to determine the risk of uranium mining. This work is being done at PNL. There are also environmental programs involved in the uranium-thorium cycle work as well. FY 1979 BUDGET (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS - B/A( INCREASE OR FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 DECREASE LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND BIOMEDICAL Q~ATING EXPENSES GENERAL LIFE SCIENCES $ 28,876 $ 26,870 $ 25,017 $ - 853 BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS 18,856 15,640 14,683 -957 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 45,731 41,610 39,700 - 1,810 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 900 1,000 1,100 + 100 TOTAL LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS $ 46,631 $ 42,510 $ 40,800 $ - 1.710 SLIDE 26 Considering next the life sciences (slide No. 26), I will call your attention to the fact that this work provides the fundamental con- ceptual and mechanistic basis for understanding how physical and chemical agents interfere with life processes (slide No. 27). PAGENO="0067" 63 FY 1979 BUDGET LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND BIOMETICAL APPLICATIONS Dollars in Thousands - B/A I I INCREASE OR GENERAL LIFE SCIENCES ~ FY 1979, DECREASE $26,876 $25,870 $25,017 -$853 FY 1979 HIGHLIGHTS * Neutron Diffraction Structural Studies of Proteins, Membranes * Mechanism of Interaction of Physical and Chemical Agents with DNA * Molecular Genetics of Repair and Regulatory Processes in Chromosomes * Studies on Limiting Processes for Plant Productivity * Development of Instrumentation for Cell Analysis - SLIDE 27 GENERAL LIFE SCIENCE PROVIDES THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTUAL AND MECHANISTIC BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL AGENTS INTERFERE WITH LIFE PROCESSES. 1. DEVELOP BASE LINE MEASUREMENTS OF THE METABOLISM OF BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE TISSUES AND CELLS. 2. CHARACTERIZE THE PROPERTIES AND PROCESSES OF KEY MACROMOLECULES AND CELLULAR ORGANELLES. 3. DEVELOP THE GENETIC BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE REPAIR AND TRANSMISSION OF DAMAGE TO INDIVIDUALS AND POPULA- TIONS. 4. DEVELOP THROUGH STUDIES IN PLANT SCIENCES MODELS FOR THE USE OF SOLAR ENERGY BASED ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BIOMASS PRODUCTION. 6. PROVIDE THE CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BASES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF BIOASSAY SYSTEMS TO DETECT HEALTH RISK. SLIDE 28 On the next slide I call your attention to the next to the last item- studies on limiting processes for plant productivity (slide No. 28). This is an area that we feel is very important. It is a little bit of a departure in that it is not an effects study. It is an opportunity for the biologist to make a contribution to the solar program with funda- mental information on what factors really influence plant productiv- ity, and we think this can be quite important. PAGENO="0068" 64 I had planned to allow Dave Slade to say a word or two about C02, and I do not know how you want to do that Dr LIVERMAN Mr Chairman, do you want to hear a word or two about 002 ~ Mr BROWN I certainly do Mr SLADE Well, the aiscussion on the 002 issue is sort of growing like the 002 itself DOE is in a rather unique position in regard to this issue because (1) we are, of course, a research funding agency and can do something about the recommendations, and (2) ultimately this is an energy policy issue and that is what our Agency is about Our goal is commensurate with this broad view, and I would like to read that It is to develop the ability to predict the environmental, economic, social, and political costs of increasing levels of atmospheric 002 with sufficient confidence to permit policy decisions to be made on future global uses of fossil fuels. So the end point of this is not oceans or atmospheres, but rather costs to the social system, and for this point of view we have three strategic approaches. First, is the creation of a national, then hopefully an international focus in this area, something called for in the National Academy of Sciences report We are planning to do this or doing this by the process of trying to marshal the scientific community in this country at two levels. One, we have an advisory committee which gives the Agency general guidance on both the policy and science, and then we have a team com posed of many of the leading scientists in the various areas making up the whole question who `ire actually developing what amounts to an overall program plan, research program plan, not for this Agency, but one which the Nation could follow Second, we wish to act as a lever to insure that adequate funds are available to the scientific community for pursuing this problem and this is being accomplished by the development of this plan We are outlining what is needed in the various areas making up the total prob lem We wish to take hold of the research recommendations which exist in great number and try to convert them into an action program They are supposed to answer the questions-How do you do this ~ What kind of resources are available ~ How do you involve the rest of the community ~ How much will it cost ~ And how long will it take ~ The program plan will be available about April 30 The plan will cover five areas which are necessary The first is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that goes beyond, of course, just burn ing It takes into account the role of the biosphere and the role of the oceans If we know something about the increase of carbon dioxide, the second area one cop~~der~ is what that will do to climate If we know something about climate changes that might result, the next area is what will those climate changes mean in terms of other environmental effects on the biosphere, on the oceans, and on the icecaps And if we know something about all of the environmental effects, the clear ques tion you ask is what is all this going to cost to the social system in dollars or in social consequences And finally at some point we will begin to look at strategies and technological fixes PAGENO="0069" 65 Our third strategy in this whole thing is to conduct an information synthesis of all the information being developed around the world and we intend to do this by having a major element of our program devoted to an assessment of the entire question. I could talk to some of the initiatives we plan in 1979. These are pri- marily in the biosphere and the ocean area. The largest probably will be in beginning surveys of total global biomass-a terribly difficult, apparently very expensive question. But we will begin that in 1978 and go into a major program in 1979 using satellites, ground proof stations scattered around the world, and so forth. In the atmosphere we will concentrate on measurements of carbon dioxide at different kinds of locations; over the oceans and over extensive biomes. And in the oceans we will begin the planning and developing of major ocean surveys, again a terribly expensive kind of thing. Let me close on one point. Tip to now total estimates of the budget dollars, new dollars required for this area have been more or less off the top of the head. By develop- ing these dozen papers and asking the people to cost them out, we have for the first time a partial budget, a partial budget of what it would look like to fund adequately the entire program. Now, not considering the social area at all, we still come up when we sum these to something on the order of $25 million. Now discount- ing that for sciei~tific enthusiasm perhaps or let us say 50 percent, we are still talking-when you add these other areas in-of a program of at least $15 million of new moneys spent throughout the Federal Government. This I think is the first semi-hard budget we have come up with. Mr. BROWN. Is that an annual estimate? Mr. Sr~&rn~. Yes, sir. Dr. LIVERMAN. That will not clear, obviously, until, I think, and Dave would agree, we get the plan put together with an appropriate budget to get information within a 5- to 7-year period. But it cer- tainly is beginning to get into the right order of amount. Mr. BROWN. Nothing comes cheaply these days. Mr. SIADE. Well, those boats, you know, $2 million a year is a minimum just to get the boats out on the water and not even have any- body on board and that is how it goes. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that completes the formal presentation. Mr. BROWN. We appreciate that. Is Mr. Hollister here? Dr. LIVERMAN. Maybe it would be useful since the largest expansion is in Mr. Hollister's budget, if he took about 5 minutes. Mr. Hollister's program is concerned about all of our onsite activities being in compliance or not. Mr. HOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman, in order to understand our budget and our program, I think the important thing to start out with is an understanding that we are not a program division. We are really a staff division in support of the environmental safety and health program of the Department as it affects all of its operations and facilities. If you will put up the strategy slide, I will start with that (slide No. 29). PAGENO="0070" OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - FY 1979 BUDGET OPERATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY DOE ES8H PROGRAM STRATEGY TO BRING ABOUT AND TO MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE ES&H PROGRAM, DOE HAS: *. Assigned To HQ Technical Program Offices And Field Organizations Responsibility For ES&H Activities, With Implementation By Contractors Through Contract Clauses.. * Assigned To ASEV/OES Responsibility For Advising And Assisting Program Offices And Field Organizations In The Development And Conduct Of ESEIH Activities Through: * Policy Development And Interpretation * Uniform ES&H Requirements, Standards, And Guides * Independent Audits, Assessments, Appraisals * Operational Involvement - Accident Investigation SLIDE No. 29 You will recall the language in the Department of Energy Or~ani- zation Act that required that we insure the incorporation of national enviromnental goals in the formulation of energy programs, and that we restore, protect, and enhance environmental quality and assure public health and safety. We take the view that we assist the Department by analyzing all of the environmental legislation, not just the NEPA legislation or the DOE legislation, but the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Act, and almost any sort of legislation, esoteric legis- lation like the Coastal Zone Management Act, or the Endangered Species Act and so on, all of these things that may affect the Depart- ment's operations in some way or another. We are coi~cerned in a staff role to departmental management that applicable laws are carried out. As our program strategy indicates, we help the Department carry out its environmental safety and health program by performing staff support functions that are listed in the four bottom bullets, and by making sure that there are clean lines of managerial responsibility assigned to the various Assistant Secretaries. Also assuring that there are proper clauses in all of the prime contracts providing for en- vironmental safety and health protection. The next slide shows the approach of the Department to its safety management (slide No. 30). PAGENO="0071" 67 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - FY 1979 BUDGET OPERATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY `SAFETY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LINE MANAGEMENT' SLIDE No. 30 By safety here I mean health protection, occupational health ~rotec- tion, public health and safety protection which is really summarized in that one statement. There are large sums of money, in fact, that are budgeted under other programs that are spent on various aspects of safety and health. Our budget is a small supporting budget for the purposes shown in slide No. 31. About 50 percent of our budget is OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY- FY 1979 BUDGET OPERATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OPERATIONAL 8' ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OUTLAY PROGRAM * AUGMENTS OES STAFF WORK * SUPPORTS SPECIFIC AREAS OF DOE ES&H PROGRAM - Not Necessarily Indicative In Emphasis Or Priority * CONDUCTS NUMEROUS SMALL PROJECTS, E.G., - Applications Engineering - Safety Studies - Standards Data Base * HAS TWO LARGE PROJECTS - AMS - Pacific SLIDE No. 31 actually in the two projects listed at the bottom-the support of the Pacific cleanup which Dr. Liverman already referred to and the support of the AMS aircraft. I believe the committee was very help- ful a year ago in funding the purchase of this second aircraft so that we can have one of these based at each end of the United States. This AMS aircraft was, in fact, used up in Canada to help with the recent Cosmos 954 problem. The rest of our budget as shown on the same slide goes into a num- ber of small projects. They do not organize very well into something logical, but each of these projects is somehow born of operational or facility or planned needs. PAGENO="0072" 68 The budget slide gives comparative funding for the 3 years in budget authority Most of the increase is in two areas-the top and the bottom area (slide No 32) The Special Operations refer solely to the support OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 1979 BUDGET ($ In Thousands Budget Authority) OPERATIONAL Et ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 ES&H ASSURANCE & MEASUREMENT $ 330 $1 488 $ 2,361 ES&H STANDARDS & CRITERIA 827 1,292 1 276 ES&HSUPPORT&ASSISTANCE $2788 4086 4364 SPECIAL OPERATIONS 415 506 2 999 $4 360 $7 372 $11 000 SLIDE 32 of the Pacific cleanup which commenced during the last year Agree ments were reached between us and the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget that clarified our funding role in the radiological support of cleanup In the assurance and measurement area, which is the other area of large increase, we are after several things First of all, we are trying to see if we can define formal safety performance measurement systems which we will be able to use to do obiective measurements of how well our plants and facilities are doing to operate safely We are also trying to institute a uniform safety review system in which the committee showed considerable interest last year and in fact has helped to pro vide funding for The intent of the uniform safety review system is to make sure that, before facilities go on stream, or before modifications are approved, or before new facilities are constructed, a thoroughly documented safety review has been made in depth. We are also interested in quality and reliability assurance viewed as a broad discipline and pioneered and developed very extensively in the Department of Defense and in the NASA program as I am sure you know. We are interested in seeing whether or not quality and reliability assurance can be applied effectively to safety management We believe it can We believe that we can develop more formal audit trails, as surance systems, and other such things that will help the Department not only do a good job but know that it is doing a good job I think with that I will stop Dr LIVERMAN Let me add one comment Mr Holhster's program was just given responsibility very recently for the agency wide standards program in all areas, not just health and safety It was a thing that got started in ERDA and was handled by PAGENO="0073" 69 me but when the DOE came along we had to go up again with an action memo to see in what segment of the Department there would be someone charged with the responsibility to try to see that we get in place standards as the industry is built up, that is, that they were building in standards for solar equipment and related things, for example. It is an overview responsibility again, but there is nothing reflected in this budget to take care of that kind of responsibility either in personnel or in dollars. Is that correct? Mr. Hou~I&r1~R. Yes, sir, and it would not be the intent that our program would fund all standards development in the Department. I am sure that the bulk of standards development funding will always be through the programs, but there needs to be a focal point, a coordinat- ing point, a policy point and some funding expended on institution- alization of all these activities. I would anticipate that we would be approaching the Congress, if not this year, certainly next year, for some funding to support that activity. Let me mention one other budget activity that is not directly related to this Division and this program, but we do have a role in it. You will, I believe, be reviewing the Department's capital construc- tion budget at some point, and in that budget there will be various line items budgeted for what we call upgrading, that is health and safety and environmental protection upgrading requirements. I think you ought to know that we play a role in the Department in determining Dr. Liverman's recommendation for priorities of those projects. Dr. LIVERMAN. That program is about the level-between $70 million and $100 million a year for which this committee certainly has a major overview responsibility, but it goes into the budgets of each of the other Assistant Secretaries, and it is sometimes difficult to identify. Mr. HOLLISTER. The other side of that coin is that failure to budget for the upgrading requirements may mean that weneed to issue vari- ances or go through some other procedure that will allow plants to operate, in some sense, out of compliance-maybe not out of compliance with law, but, perhaps, out of compliance with policy. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, there are other areas we could discuss, but I think that we should close off our formal presentation. Mr. BROWN. All right, that may be a proper balance of time. I am sure the members of the committee will want to explore some of these areas and maybe some of the other areas- Mr. Walker, do you have any questions? Mr. WALKER. Just a couple, briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. House, when you were testifying I had the impression that what you were talking about in your program in many areas were attempts to do assessments of the impact the technology is going to have. You mentioned specifically the study that you are doing in the coal-based area. Can you tell me just exactly what happens if this assessment is com- pleted and it shows that a coal-based policy will be an absolute dis- aster? Now, it seems to me that the Department has already made a commitment to coal-based energy technology. What happens if your assessment comes out and you find out that that would be a disaster for us environmentally. Dr. LIVERMAN. Maybe I should take the heat for that question. Mr. WALKER. OK. PAGENO="0074" 70 Dr. LIVERMAN. As I think you are aware, Mr. Walker, last fall we did a very detailed assessment of the national energy plan as it reached the Congress and we raised a number of questions. From a national standpoint it appeared that one could go ahead and use coal without much impact. But if you pin-pointed a given region of the country, then you find particular problems. For example, there may be too much SO,~ in one area or too much water use in another area. What we did was flag those issues not only to the public but to the policymakers within the Department, and I can say that, by and large, the issues were heard. What we say is, look, if you are going to follow a certain energy route, whether it be oil shale or something else, you are going to have to improve the control technology in that area by an enormous amount in order to operate within existing standards. So, our analysis does not stop a project necessarily, but it certainly is flagged to the Secretary's attention and to the policymaking body within the Department, and elsewhere, that there is a problem. Mr. WALKER. So in other words what you are saying is Dr. House's shop is running down individual things rather than evaluating the policy overall? Dr. LIVERMAN. The Office of Technology Impacts does both. We are intimately involved in new policy formulation in DOE. We, for in- stance, have been deeply involved, Mr. Winn raised the question yes- terday with Mr. Myers, of what we do if the new source performance standards, or if the Clean Air Act amendments, look like they are going to have major economic impacts or stop the development of the technology by some other route. What we do, and it is through Dr. House~s analyses, is bring to bear all of the existing information that can point out what the impact of those proposed or existing regulations will do to a technology. Now, the way we coordinate this internally is with the Environmental Issues Committee. I chair it, but each Assistant Secretary has a representative on the Committee, including policy and evaluation staff under Al Aim. We will be back tomorrow to discuss this, but we began to have our input and to point to the fact as we were thinking through such matters-should we go solvent refined coal, should we go looking for coal gasification? We said, look, you have these kinds of problems in that area and unless they are resolved, we can be in trouble with the regulations. If we think the regulations do not make sense, then we push that issue. And that could very well end up in a meeting, first at the working level between the two agencies, and eventually even be- tween the Secretary and the Administrator of EPA to discuss the matter to decide if they are based on sound evidence. Mr. WALKER. In other words, the bottom line on it is that the work that is going on is not very likely to come in conflict with the commit- ment that has been made toward a coal-based policy? Dr. LIVERMAN. It very well could. And it it does, then we flag the facts to the Secretary to indicate that we have a major conflict. For ex- ample CO2 question which we are evaluating could, in fact, be a clock stopper. It takes perseverance and awareness to `continually alert peo- ple to these issues because it is an unpopular position to be in to always stop something. Nevertheless, that is a responsibility that I think the Secretary, and certainly the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secre- tary, expects us to carry out. We may end up stepping over the en- PAGENO="0075" 71 vironmental boundaries if we proceed with a given technology, but to flag an issue early could perhaps, enable us to mitigate the effects. If not, it eventually becomes national policy, and the President and the Congress obviously would become involved. So I think we are expected to take a very hard-nosed attitude and flag the issues that have significant impacts on energy development and use. Mr. WALKER. The one further area I wanted to explore a little bit is the LNG question. Could you go into a little more detail on just how much progress has been made so far on the LNG study particu- larly in reference to some of the shipping problems. I think it was in a recent "60-Minutes" broadcast that they talked about the situation in Boston which could be present in an LNG disaster. Then I would like to know what is going to be accomplished on this through 1979. Dr. LIVERMAN. I would like to ask Dr. Mott to respond to that. Dr. Morr. The thrust of our program, so far, has been to identify the research that has been done in the last 15 years and to examine it for informational gaps, and finally to delineate the indicated re- search, including estimates of time and cost to complete that research. One of the conclusions from all of this was that a large scale ex- perimental program was required. By large scale, I mean up maybe to 1,000 cubic meters. That comes about because if you are dealing with vessels that carry 135,000, or greater, cubic meters of liquefied natural gas and the experimental data we have is only done at less than 10 cubic meters. Extrapolation from the data to large spills is very dif- ficult to handle. You really do not know what you have at the end. So we approached it from the point of view that we should look at the maximum program required to answer all of the questions. And that was what was dealt with in the assessment that we did. The problem with doing it that way, being very candid, is that you identify that it is going to cost a great deal of money to meet all those objectives and sometimes it is more clever to develop a program where you phase it out, and say, well, it will only cost me $10 million to get such and such information, when you truly know you have to go all the way on. And we truly believe in this case that to totally satisfy everyone, we need to complete the total program. For example, the situation discussed in "60-Minutes" was the DeCartes coming into Boston Harbor and what would happen if there were a spill of ma- terial. I could say that based on doing a 6-cubic-meter test, I will get such and such an answer. You probably would not like that very much, because you would say you are. going to spill perhaps 25,000 cubic meters. The basic answer to your question is that you can make extra- polations on what you expect to happen, but we do not have a data base from which we can come up with firm conclusions. Mr. WALKER. Is part of your intention for 1979 to establish a firmer data base on this? Dr. Morr. Within the funding that we have, we will establish as much as we can. The program that we are hoping to carry out every step of the way will provide new information, but we estimate that to get the kind of information that people would like to have will take upwards of 5 years. Mr. WALKER. What is going to be the total cost of the LNG program? Dr. Morr. The approach that we follow, in our assessment of the situation in terms of trying to answer all of the questions, we estimate PAGENO="0076" 72 it would cost roughly $50 million, but that is very debatable because you could say, well, you do not need to go to the size tests that we are talking about You can get the answers with smaller tests It is a very debatable issue at the moment Mr BROWN Over 5 years ~ Dr Mo~rT Over 5 years, yes Mr WALKER One final question Should there be a greater priority in this area given the fact that looking down the pipe we are going to have probably more shipments of LNG ~ Certainly on the east coast we are becoming more and more dependent on LNG Should we look toward this as a greater priority kind of area Dr LIVERMAN I think there are two arguments here, Mr Walker One that we hear and with which I do not quite agree Most of the decisions about where you are going to put LNG terminals are going to be made in the next 5 years, therefore, the decisions are ultimately made before you ever get the information That may well be true, but it seems to me that the public and the country would be better served to know at some point and definitively whether you have to institute additional control processes to build tankers with double walls and related things The only way you will really know definitively about that is to carry out the longer range program So there is an argument related to timing which suggests the data will be too late We do not accept that. We believe that there is a real need to get that information and, as I mentioned in my opening comments, we are now doing an update of that plan The committee has, I believe, a copy of the first plan that we provided, and I think the judgment will be that we must pro ceed with the full blown plan in order to have reasonable assurance that we are not going to run into a disaster Mr WALKER Given that, how much of the $50 million that we are talking about is a NEPA program ~ How much of that is in fiscal year 1979 budget ~ Dr LIVERMAN $2 million Dr Morr $2 million which is the same level as fiscal year 1978 Mr WALKER So we are really talking about 20 percent of what we should- Dr LIVERMAN It will not be a 5 year program at this rate Mr WALKER OK Thank you very much, Mr Chairman Mr BROWN Mr Watkins ~ Mr WATKINS Thank you, Mr Chairman Dr Liverman, lust a quick question-you mentioned establishment of standards Could you elaborate briefly on that ~ Dr LIVERMAN We do not establish standards in DOE Other agen cies, EPA, NRC, the regulatory agencies, establish standards What ~e do is to provide a basis, a scientific basis, on which these standards are established Now, you may be referring to Mr Hollister's com ments His program is charged within the Department with seeing that all of our ongoing activities, in fact, are carried out in accordance with the existing laws and regulations and in those cases where such have not yet been established We have reason to believe that we should be taking steps to restrict the exposure of people to effluents of one kind or another even though there is not in existence any regulatory base PAGENO="0077" 73 In such cases, we will put in effect guidelines. An example is that before people go into an area they must wear masks to assure their safety. If there is a reasonable possibility of harm then we begin immediately to work with the regulatory agencies, particularly in this case it would be OSHA, the Occupational and Health Safety Administration and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to deter- mine what should be done. Does that respond to your question? Mr. WATKINS. I was wondering in how much depth the DOE is involved. Dr. LIVERMAN. Well we will be involved along with many other agencies in terms of providing a considerable amount of information and in terms of the ultimate implementation of regulations we will be working very closely with EPA, Food and Drug, and. the NIOSH, and OSHA people to get them involved at a very early stage so that, particularly, as the plants go commercial, the regulations, and the in- formation on which they are based, are adequate. Mr. WATKINS. You mentioned on page 27 of your testimony that ad- ditional activity in the area of coal extraction and preparation will. focus on determining the feasibility of advanced coal preparation and processing, including the potential for enhanced sulfur removal. How much do you have going in that area now? Do you have ad- equate dollars to carry it out? Dr. LIVERMAN. We do continuing assessement, an overview, of the adequacy of the efforts being carried out by the technology. Dr. Morr. Yes; that is correct. The coal cleaning effort, of course, is one that we consider of very great importance as an environmental control means. And we have al- ways felt that to have precombustion coal cleaning with other means was a very viable option. Mr. WATKINS. In my district in Oklahoma, we have probably more capability in fossil fuel development than most districts in coal, gas, and oil. The coal has got a tremendous sulfur content, and I am very interested in what you are talking about here. What is being done in this area? I think it is a crucial area. Dr. Morr. In some of our initiatives right now, we are looking at the trace elements in the coal and how to remove those trace elements dur- ing the coal cleaning process, and from the wastes that are generated from the coal cleaning process, to identify the fate of those trace ele- ments in the processes, and, finally, to assess the advanced coal cleaning processes and what they mean in terms of environmental control requirements. For example, just as with scrubbers, if you have a coal cleaning proc- ess that is going to produce a secondary product that is as difficult to handle as, perhaps, sulfur dioxide after it has gone through the com- bustion system, then you better proceed with some caution; some of the coal cleaning processes may do that. Mr. WATKINS. Are you doing a little bit of this with the coal gasi- fication also? Dr. Morrr. Yes. Mr. WATKINS. What kind of moneys do you have in there, roughly? Dr. Morr. In coal gasification? Mr. WATKINS. In checking this work with coal? Dr. LIVERMAN. Dr. Gottlieb? PAGENO="0078" 74 Dr. GOTTLIEB. On the order of $500,000 to $700,000 for all the coal preparation activities. Mr. WATKINS. On page 29-at the top of the page there-you dis- cussed enhanced oil and gas recovery methods, by which additional amounts of oil and gas may be extracted from producing fields. What is being done on that right now? Dr. Morr. We, from the environmental control point, of view, are looking into the recovery methods to see what would happen to the ef- fluents. As you know, being from Oklahoma, back in the early days of the oil industry, there were problems involved in secondary recovery and with the brackish waters that were produced in some of the rivers out there. We are looking at what might be' done with those brackish waters after they are produced. Mr. WATKINS. Have you been making any analysis in connection with the ground water with this? Dr. Mo'rr. Are you asking what has to be done before you can-I mean take the produced water and just put it into the normal channels? Or what is happening in the aquifers? Mr. WATKiNS. Yes. Dr. Morr. I do not think we have a direct program relative to aqui- fers, except in terms of water treatment for possible reinjection. Mr. WATKINS. I would like to-not belaboring this, but I would like to visit with you and Dr. Liverman, on two or three of these matters, and find out what you are doing. Just for my own information, how much moneys in research and development in EPA is transferred over to DOE? Dr. LIVERMAN. There is a $14 million transfer in the control tech- nology area that goes into the fossil programs and not into my program. Mr. WATKINS. Fossils? Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes; what happened, in actual fact was that my pro- grams transferred $14 million. About $7 million was in the health area and about $61/2 million was in the environmental area are going into EPA. And $14 million is coming out of EPA into the environmental control technology area `of the DOE fossil energy program. We are in the process, as I think the letter from the Director of 0MB said, over the period of 120 days, of which about 60 have passed, negotiating with EPA precisely what those programs will be, both in the control tech- nology and in the health and safety area. We are meeting with EPA once a week to try to iron out those problems. Mr. WATKINS. I do not want to ask any other questions, Mr. Chair- man. But I would like Dr. Liverman to call me sometime and set up a meeting with me and a couple of his staff members about some of the activities. Dr. LIVERMAN. I will be very glad to. Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Winn? Mr. WINN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think it is a pretty well-established fact that an increase in the coal combustion emissions will probably ~worsen the acid rain situation. How much is going to be spent by DOE for the years of 1978 and 1979 on acid rain related studies? Dr. LIVERMAN. That would be in Dr. Swinebroad's area. Mr. WINN. Could you identify yourself? PAGENO="0079" 75 Dr. SWINEBROAD. I am Jeff Swinebroad, manager of the environ- mental program. We anticipate spending about $2 million in the acid rain area. This includes a certain amount in transport and transformation of SO~'s and a certain amount of work on effects in agricultural products and forests. Mr. WINN. How much of this work will be carried out by EPA or other agencies? Dr. SWINEBROAD. This is the total amount that we- Mr. WINN. The total amount? Dr. SWINEBROAD. No; that is just DOE, I should say, in the environ- mental area of DOE. Dr. LIVERMAN. Perhaps an equivalent amount is about- Dr. SWINEBROAD. Yes; an equivalent amount, that is right. Dr. LIVERMAN. The programs are about the same. size in this area. Mr. WINN. Well, both EPA and DOE have an acid rain research and monitoring program, and I am trying to figure out how the re- sponsibilities in this area have been split. I think what I want to do is get more information on this. Dr. LIVERMAN. That is precisely the nature of the exercise that the 0MB has asked us to achieve in 120 days. The stated purpose of the transfer of funds was to get our attention so that we would focus on this issue, and by that I mean ours and EPA's. So, the attempt in this 120-day exercise is to, if possible, decide those areas which clearly should be done by EPA, those that clearly should be done by the De- partment of Energy, and to recognize, at least, that there are gray areas in between in which both of us work. The difficulty is in a defini- tion of what those responsibilities are. Mr. WINN. How about the Department of Agriculture-does it have any responsibility? Dr. LIVERMAN. They do and they work in the area. This has not been a part of the exercise that we are doing now. We, in DOE, have kept a very close tab on what Agriculture is doing and, as was mentioned yesterday, our instituting an inventory of Federal R. & D. in the bio- medical and environmental area of energy activities is meant, specif- ically, to do exactly what you are talking about. It is to identify what different agencies are doing, but not necessarily to break these out so as to separate them and concentrate them in any one agency, but to consciously be aware of how much is going on and be able to answer the question of how much there is in one area or another. Is there an adequate effort, is it effectively coordinated, and is there undue overlap or are there holes? The basic purpose behind the inventory is to do exactly that. Mr. WINN. Well, is the Department of Agriculture going to add any funding to what you have already mentioned- Dr. LIVERMAN. I do not know offhand the size of that. We can cer- tainly provide that for the record for fiscal 1977; that is the latest in- ventory we have. Mr. WINN. Well, I will yield. You have a question? Mr. SPE~SLEY. Yes, Mr. Winn, it may be helpful. Dr. Liverman, you mentioned yesterday in the record that you had requested 0MB to provide a program definition to help you assist in this area, and per- haps it would be of assistance to Mr. Winn and the subcommittee if you could provide that document for the record when it becomes available. PAGENO="0080" 76 Dr LIVERMAN Dr Swinebroad has just told me that they have had a meeting with the Departments of Interior and Agriculture on this very point Dr SWINEBROAD We had a meeting in a more narrow sense than the broad issue We were interested in the ecological effects of SO,~ or acid rain on vegetation My staff convened a meeting to try to work out a coordinated program The results of th'it will be available very shortly. It included representatives of interested parties from the vari- ous agencies and from the academic community at the same time, and an attempt was made to recognize that there are all sorts of people going off in different directions and looking at acid rain problems This was an effort to get scientists and some of the participants in the action together and try to work out a program. I admit it is a little late to do it, but- Mr WINN Yes, it is a little late, but at least you are aware of it You are on top of it I am still trying to figure out the amount of money-EPA, Interior- Dr SWINEBROAD That is right-Agriculture and the Electric Power Research Institute should all be included Mr WINN How much total money ~ Dr LIVERMAN Could we provide that for the record ~ Dr SWINEBROAD It is pretty hard to figure out because of differing budget categories among the agencies Dr LIVERMAN I believe the inventory will allow us to show what was spent in fiscal 1976 and fiscal 1977 We are in the process of ac cumulating information from all the agencies on What they are doing in fiscal 1978 We could provide that for the record and I will be glad to come back and discuss it with you Mr. WINN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman [The information follows] PAGENO="0081" ACID RAIN P~0JECTS SUPPORTED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES 1976 1977 No. Projects Funding No. Projects Funding Environmental Protection Agency 1 $205,000 8 $622,400 Energy Research and 2 99,000 3 183,000 Development Administration Department of Agriculture 1 not (Cooperative State Research Service) disclosed* *Informatjon obtained from data base of the Inventory of Federal Energy-Related Environment and Safety Research. Our respondents are under no obligation to supply the information we request. PAGENO="0082" 78 Mr. BROWN. Mr. Wirbh? Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Liverman, it is good to have you here and I wish I were sure that the rest of the Department has the kind of commitment that you do, as came out yesterday in the questions and the hearing. I will not say any more because I do not want to get you into any more trouble than I already have. [Laughter.] Dr. LIVERMAN. I need all the help I can get, Mr. Wirth. Mr. BROWN. With friends like that? [Laughter.] Mr. WIRTH. Let me pursue a couple of issues that we have talked about over some period of time. As you know the subcommittee has been very concerned about what we do around the country about cleaning up after various facilities, decommissioning, what do we do with waste, what do we do with the impacts of that. I understand that the Department has undertaken a pretty ambitious long-range pro- gram on this. Is that correct? Dr. LIVERMAN. There are some items in the budget which I dis- cussed. You unfortunately could not be here, but in the budget this year there is about a $5 million item which is the kickoff for clean- ing up some of about 150 excess sites used in the Manhattan Engi- neering District. These were laboratories and so on that were utilized during the Manhattan District and subsequently turned back over to the public. But the sites do not meet current standards, and there are about thirty of them. In addition, there is the uranium mill tailings question which is focused essentially in eight Western States, at 22 in- active mill tailing sites. The Department made a decision on my recommendation back about 3 months ago to begin an aggressive program of cleanup over the next 5 years to deal with that question as well as the remedial action for former Manhattan District sites. The moneys that are in this budget reflect this emphasis-there is a $3.3 million increase for the former contractor installations to a total of $5 million, and an increase of $1.8 million in the mill tailings ques- tion to begin the work on that. The uranium mill tailings is expected to be a joint effort with the States. The surplus DOE-owned site ques- tion which is a $15 million item is one for which the Federal Gov- ernment is responsible and will `be paying total costs. Mr. WIRTIJ. It is my understanding that this is also part of a longer range program that has been approved by 0MB and they are behind it-is that correct? Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, if you assume that having let this through the door in this budget that that is an approval of the whole program, the answer is "Yes." Mr. WIRTH. We are talking about around $150 million? Dr. LIVERMAN. Somewhere between $80 and $150 million depending upon the 25-75 split between the Federal Government and the States as to what the size will be. In the case say of Salt Lake City, there is a pile that could cost anywhere from $2 million to $40 million to deal with. Mr. WIRTH. Having established this precedent, I am not asking for purely innocent reasons. I am asking on behalf of a community in Colorado with which you are familiar which is right downwater and downwind from the Rocky Flats plant. As you know there have been significant problems there in terms of emissions into the air and in PAGENO="0083" 79 terms of some emissions into the soil and most troublesome emissions into the Great Western Reservoir which is the water source for the town of Broomfield. We have been back and forth over how dangerous that is and whether there is any danger, and whether or not there is a danger, there is certainly that significant perception. In the com- munity there is a real problem and a real fear that something would happen if there were another major emission of some kind. For ex- ample, a leak of some kind from Rocky Flats into the town's reservoir which I think most people agree is a real fear whether or not it is a reality. Dr. LIVERMAN. Certainly the people there think so. Mr. WIRTH. Right. The question is why does not this whole remedial plan of a program suggest that we could also move in and in some way working with the town of Broomfield, in some remedial fashion, help them in some way develop a new water supply. They had sent in, you remember, in December a $10 million program, $4 million of which was for a short- term emergency water supply from the Denver Water Board, and about $6 million of which was for a long-term development of a new facility. My question is how might we focus or we begin to focus on that long-term operation? You know, if we could save the $4 mil- lion and focus on the long term immediately it seems to me we will be ahead of time and be consistent with this overall program on mill tailings and so on. Dr. LIVERMAN. I certainly think that the issue, as relates to the Broomfield water supply which we have had an opportunity to dis- cuss annually for the last 3 or 4 years, may turn a different complexion on the question. It certainly should be addressed. It seems to me there are other areas that are equally pertinent for exploration, and I'm speaking from just a personal view and perception. The Department has not come to this question either in the context of the excess sites question or in the one I am proposing to mention. Clearly it is a problem that needs resolution. At least the people in Broomfield perceive it needs one. The question of whether one goes in and builds, for $6 million, a new facility or a new reservoir for an expanded population is a question the Congress and the executive branch both have to deal with. But I do not believe the people of Broomfield will be satisfied until such time as there is available to them a water supply in which they have full confidence that is located remotely from the current Great Western Reservoir. There may be such options as long-term loans to help them build that expanded water supply. The matter is under discussion now but not in the context that you have just placed it. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for the Department to sit down again with the people in Broomfield and explore what the various options are. Mr. WIRTH. How might we go about doing that? Given the appar- ent precedent that is being set here with this $5 million this year and the projected $80 to $150 million program, obviously the Govern- ment has shifted its perspective somewhat and I would think that in that shift they would include Broomfield. How would we go about setting up some way in which we might have some new discussions with the people in Broomfield from the Department of Energy. Dr. LIVERMAN. Since it is a matter that is close to your area and interest, I guess my suggestion would basically be, Mr. Wirth, to per- PAGENO="0084" 80 haps write a letter to the Secretary raising the question I will cer tainly go back and raise it as a result of these hearings However you think best to deal with the question I am certainly prepared to go back and raise it because we have that response from the community, a counterproposal, essentially, to the one that was made by ERDA last year Perhaps in conjunction with that we could say, let us go back and rediscuss this issue again Mr Wi~m For the first time maybe the pieces are there The corn rnunity has a very specific proposal We have some kind of authority Everybody is willing to sit down and, not throw brickbats but talk to a solution for the first time I think that could be very productive, and I would appreciate anything that you could do internally to cx pedite it I will contact Secretary Schlesinger at the soonest possible time and talk to him about the obligations that were incurred before he took over that office [Laughter] Dr LIVERMAN And clearly the Congress, itself, will have a lot to say about that because there will be legislation coming froward on the mill tailings question and the remedial action question that will give Congress opportunity to work its will on the particular legislative provisions However, the thrust of it does not actually deal with pre cisely that kind of question Mr WIRTH If I might just for a minute, Mr Chairman, jump to another issue that came up yesterday That was the outreach issue A lot of people around the country are concerned about this $10 bil lion Department, whaf~1t\is doing It seems to me we ought to be able to do a better job than ju~t sending out to States, counties and cities the results of the phenomenal amount of research that we hear about on this subcommittee and that could be useful to States, counties, and local government I have difficulty understanding-as I understand the situation to now exist-why the Secretary for Interdepartmental Affairs is necessarily the only program with this responsibility That office plays a go between role more than a technical one And my hunch is that we probably ought to put a lot more emphasis on getting the people from your operation out, getting the people from the various technical assistant secretary jobs out into the community through outreach programs Is that something that you have any feeling for in the Department ~ Dr LIVERMAN Well, I can only give you my perception As this committee knows, since I have appeared before it a number of times, and as you are also fully aware last year in my fiscal 1978 budget, the Congress reinstituted a $6 million item that had been proposed for deferral A portion of that was directed precisely to the areas that you have discussed Namely, how do we convey to the pubhc, who is finally going to be impacted, a sense of their knowmg what is going to happen to them and give the people some say in whether they want that to happen or not One of the mechanisms, obviously, of use is for us to provide to them the information which we have m a digested form so that they are actually dealing with the information and not a bunch of tables With the creation of DOE the Congress constituted an Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations whose responsibilities are to deai with State and local people It did not however as I read the legislation say that the other Assistant Secretaries should not be in- volved in this process In fact, it sort of suggested that maybe they PAGENO="0085" 81 all should be involved as they moved their programs forward. And I think the Department has not quite decided yet how to fund those pro. grams. But, our funding here should be responsible for interface with the people out there. I brought over from ERDA into my DOE environment shop probably the largest program in the Department in dealing with this kind of an issue. I think that the enviromnental issue cuts across the fabric of every one of those questions. Certainly environment and socioeconomic issues are the important ones, and within the resources I have, I plan to continue public interface by working closely and as cooperatively as I can with the other tech- nologies and with the intergovernmental relations people. Obviously, if there are constraints on dollats and what have you, it makes it less than possible to be done. Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how much our purview permits inquiry into the other Assistant Secretaries in the Department, but I would hope that as we look at the budget of this operation we could really think more about the kind of help. I think people across the country want to see it and have begun to see with the program at Riverside, and the information center in Denver. I think both are beginning to show indications of successful helpful efforts and have truly been used. Dr. LIVERMAN. We have just entered a program with the Crow Indian Coal Authority related to precisely the same kind of question we have been addressing. How `do they deal with what they have, the impacts and benefits of their resources to our country's energy needs. So we have a number of things like that going which I think are important. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to bring up one more problem that we, have in our back- yard and one model-the Denver model-for outreach activities which I think has been helpful. Maybe our parochial perspective can be useful to the whole of the Department and I will look forward to writing to Mr. Schlesinger on the first problem. I have some other things and if we have another round I would like to get back to those. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. We still have not recognized Mr. Walgren. Do you have any questions? Mr. WALOREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Liverman, where in this budget is the funding for the kind of low-level radiation health damage studies that you have been talkmg with the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment? Dr. LIVERMAN. It is in the human health studies line. Mr. WALOREN. But it is in this request; is that right? Dr. LIv]~inMAN. Yes, that is correct. Mr. WALOREN. I just wanted to explore what steps could be taken to assure the public that those moneys will be spent in a way that people involved have an independent perspective and the public will be able to have confidence in their conclusions. The chairman of this committee has received a letter from Mr. Rogers, the chairman of the Health and the Environment Subcom- mittee and just to briefly outline for the record, the Subcommittee on Health had a number of discussions with a number of witnesses including a Dr. Maricuso from the University of Pittsburgh who had PAGENO="0086" 82 been involved in a study of low-level radiation health damage statis- tically over the years from 1964. That study was taken away from him and transferred to several different locations within the Department of Energy. The circumstances of that transfer, as revealed in the testimony, certainly lost the confidence of that subcommittee in a number of different ways, so much so that Mr. Rogers, the chairman, indicated in a letter to Mr. Brown that in his view the testimony raised the question whether the Department of Energy properly ought to engage in any new health effects studies whatsoever. I just feel that the least of our responsibilities is to oversee those studies in such a direct fashion that there is no question that the results are unbiased. I would think that as the director of the operation you would have an overriding responsibility to select personnel in such a way that the personnel you select have the confidence of all structures of the public to start out with so that we are not just winding up with a study that large segments of the public will be doubtful and skeptical about. Can you tell me what steps you might be able to take to assure that kind of confidence in expenditure of these moneys? Mr. LIVERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Walgren. It is not always totally clear to me how one achieves public accept- ability or pitblic credibility on these issues. But it seems to me that there are one or two important and key steps that can be taken to in- sure this. One is to be sure that the process of review, scientific review and deliberation, is made as open as is possible and to bring from out- side the agency and its contractors, scientists who understand the methodology, who understand what the objectives are and have a thorough-going review of the proposed studies and the conduct of those studies as they proceed. In addition, it seems to me that the contractor himself, the individ- ual who is carrying out the studies can set up his own external, ad- visory committee, which can advise him as to whether or not he is pro- ceeding along the correct scientific lines or not. In this way he is get- ting an independent and very rigorous critique that is independent of the Department concerns and review procedures. That certainly is one way that one can get across a feel for that particular problem to the public. Obviously, if one goes to a larger organization instead of only a uni- versity professor, which is the case with Dr. Mancuso, then one has to build in considerations of the institutional base an adequate review process which is open again, not to a closed corporation but people selected deliberately from outside who observe, review, and report, not to the Department of Energy, but to the institution which is the base from which the program operates. It seems to me that those are two ways that one can go about opening up the process. Another one is to insist upon publications which are reviewed in the usual manner in which papers are reviewed for scientific journals. The journals operate independently of any bias or apparent control and are not controlled by any aspect of the Federal Government. So it is a review by scientific peers as the papers and the results come out. It seems to me that these three are ways of insuring that, in fact, the re- search that is done is done untrammeled by any perceptions, precon- ceived or not, that an agency may have about the results that come out of its researchers' efforts. PAGENO="0087" 83 Mr. WALGREN. Have you given any specific thought to how the inde- pendent advisory contact points should be structured with regard to the study of low-level radiation health damage? Dr. LIVERMAN. Needless to say, I think, to you who were present at most of those 2 days of hearings, I have had time to give a considerable amount of thought to that particular question. It seems to me an appropriate step for me to take now is to have an independent committee, perhaps through the National Academy of Sciences, or other suitable group, take a look at all of the low-level studies that are being done anywhere in my organization or by any other organization. These can pass judgment upon whether or not the studies are adequate, whether they are put together correctly to be able to determine after their completion whether or not there is an impact using appropriate statistical methods. If I may speak, specifically, to the Mancuso study, it seems to me there were two issues being discussed. The first was circumstances under which the contract with Dr. Mancuso was terminated and transferred-that is one issue. The second one, a very fundamental one, is whether or not the methodologies utilized by Dr. Mancuso were adequate to draw the con- clusions which he reached. And, certainly, the latter one is, in a major way, subject to any peer review by scientists who work in that similar area who are competent to make the judgments about whether or not the conclusions reached were, in fact, possible to be reached on the basis of the methodology used. So, the problem separates into two major portions and I think here we are talking about the second one; namely, how does one insure that the facts get out and also be sure that they are presented as factually as possible and that the conclusions drawn from those facts are as pliable as possible. That always ends up being scientific judgment, not mine and not yours but the judgment of a body of scientists who are knowledgeable in the area. And on that point there is considerable disagreement about Dr. Mancuso's conclu- sions; not about the results, but about the conclusions he has reached on the basis of the evidetice that is in front of him. Mr. WALGREN. So you feel that some group from the National Academy of Sciences should be assembled to look at Mancuso's con- clusions and the methodology behind them- Dr. LWERMAN. I did not single out Dr. Mancuso per se but certainly that is a viable option. Mr. WALGEEN. And also the methodology of any ongoing examina- tion of that effort. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think it is crucially important, at this point in time, not only with the nuclear area hut in the areas that we discussed yester- day. Mr. Brown raised the question, What are you doing now to insure that, in fact, 20 years down the road we are not going to have a repeat of this story in fossil or in solar or in some other area? We are here and now with nuclear and have an enormous amount of background of information and data, and I think what Dr. Mancuso's and Dr. Mil- haus' findings say are-let us go back and reexamine all of the evidence that has been collected over a period of time to see if we have missed something that is there that was not obvious to the many scientists who have worked on this problem for 30 years, not only here but in other countries around the world. Let us go back and relook at that data, PAGENO="0088" 84 sharpen our focus, look at it from many different standpoints to see if, in fact, the regulations are wrong I am willing to believe that it may be revealing of more perception than we, have been able to get to date. It certainly needs to be done because the country is making major deci- sions about how to proceed As you know, the BEIR Committee, which is a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations Scientific Corn mittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and others have not looked in detail, at the specific point of methodology of each scientist although there is an attempt to do that as they reconsider, at periodic intervals of 2 to 3 to 5 years, whether or not there is new evidence that is per suasive in the changing of regulations Dr Radford testified before the committee and his conclusions-I presume they are his own, I do not know whether they reflect the deliberations of that whole committee or whether they are solely his own-were that the standards should be lowered If that is the judg ment that comes out of reviews of the kind we are talking about, then I think it behooves the EPA to address that question directly and inde pendently evaluate all the evidence before them If that is the way the story reads, then that is the way it reads I have nothing in par ticular to say on one side or the other I am for finding out what the truth behind the situation is because it does in a major way affect the options the country will use for its energy sources Mr. WALOREN, The BEIR, the initials. What does that stand for? Dr. LTVERMAN. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Mr. WALOREN. And that is a committee related to the National Academy of Sciences? Dr LIVERMAN Yes, it is one put together by them, approved by Dr Handler, about every 3 to 4 years to look at new data It is a different group of people nearly every time but it is put together from the body of scientists who are available to the Academy from the scientific com munity We have no control, one way or the other, over who they are nor would we wish any. Mr. WALOREN. Well, perhaps we can pursue that because it would be certainly one alternative that might increase the confidence of many people in the results of the study and their conclusions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr BROWN Thank you, Mr Walgren Dr Liverman, I do not want to unduly detain you Dr LIVERMAN I have no other schedule, sir, it is your day Mr BROWN You make such a good impression while you are here that he probably ought to keep you here longer [Laughter] I note in going over the program that you have the liquefied natural gas (LNG) program which might possibly be considered underfunded to achieve the results that we need in a short period of time, but you also have hydrogen gas programs The question that arises is whether or not there is any redundancy here that can be taken advantage of Many of the problems are the same in a hydrogen economy and an LNG economy. Dr LIVERMAN Yes Mr BROWN The same kind of data is needed to determine the safety of hydrogen as LNG I would think, although the conditions are differ ent, the factors are different and soon PAGENO="0089" 85 Is there some sort of a cross analysis of this-and I am not picking on it specifically-but as an example of a type of problem so that in budgeting and planning you can take advantage of the needs in these different fields. Dr. LIVERMAN. Dr. Mott may wish to respond to that, but let me attempt a first cut at the question. It seems to me any time you are dealing with an explosive, whether it be hydrogen, a nuclear weapon, LNG, or liquified petroleum gases which is the butanes and propanes, you are dealing with factors of scale, plus the atmospheric conditions, plus the environmental condi- tions. The conditions of a spill of any one of these in one area might be quite different. Now hydrogen is far more explosive and it probably is not affected so much by the environmental conditions. The LNG may be affected in a major way by the environmental and atmospheric condition. Certainly the LPG, the liquified petroleum gases which we believe are more explosive than the methane provide an opportunity to crossfeed. As a matter of fact Dr. Mott has gone to the nuclear weapons people in California because of their long experience in SKALOP question's, to have them take a totally different cut unbiased by our perceptions, as to what they view as the best way to address this question. Is it to set up a whole series of experiments or is it to run one experiment, back off, and analyze. This is usually what is done in the weapons program. Then you go back and, thaving designed another one, test that one so that you have a program troing like this utilizing as fully as possible every increment of knowledge you can come up with. So if the answer to your question is, yes, probably the facility that is best for LNG can also be utilized for LPG and again for hydrogen. What is needed is an integrated program which we do not have simply because we just started up that curve and we are now dealing with LNG. But, I agree with you and I suspect that Mr. Watkins, who comes from Oklahoma, would be equally convinced that the prob- lems are so similar in many respects, certainly the instrumentation and what have you, that there ought to be a lot of crossfeediugs. Bill, do you have any comment? Dr. MoTr. Well, I will just add that in the conceptual design of the facility that I showed you, we have been very careful to include the possibilities of eventually doing hydrogen experimentation as well as LPG experimentation and perhaps even ammonia experimentation at that facility. There are some similarities between LNG and LPG, of course, that as you evaporate methane and because it is liquefied natural gas you are concentrating, you are getting a mixture now that becomes more concentrated in propane and other higher molecular weight hydrocar- bons. As they start coming off you now have resemblances between those vapors and what you get from an LPG mixture. And there are trade-offs and any program should go forward keeping in mind of all these cryogenic materials. Mr. BROWN. Well, the question I am getting at is partly technical and partly political. I would like to see if Congress as a whole would sup- port moving a little more rapidly to get some answers to some of the critical problems that we have to face in the next few years on energy. I think it would be easier, more politically reasonable, to support an increased LNG safety research program if we thought it was combined PAGENO="0090" 86 with these other programs in a way that would give us a broader range of answers. And I would hope that we could approach it in that way. Dr. LIVERMAN. I realize that I am volunteering Dr. Mott's time, but I would like to comeback to the staff with a further discussion of this particular point because there are, as more broadly defined in the en- vironmental area, three or four major agencies involved. The Coast Guard, for instance, is involved because of the transportation ques- tions; we are working closely with the Coast Guard. But the question you have raised has not been addressed: namely, would an integrated program looking at all of these potential energy sources make sense in a combined fashion? If the committee would like, we will devote a little thought to that and try to get back to you with a reasonable time. Mr. BROWN. I think it would be helpful if you would do that and we would appreciate it very much. Of course, that is again another example of a sort of a system-type problem, how we put all the pieces together in some reasonable way to create a meaningful, larger picture. That is the problem of coordina- tion fr&piently- Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. It is the health business that we have been talking about, and it is also involved in this CO2 program. Dr. LIVERMAN. Precisely so. Mr. BROWN. You outlined a procedure here which seemed to be imminently reasonable for sort of scoping the problem and seeing who is involved and what the contributions of the various agencies are. That is a problem we have been grappling with in connection with the development of a slightly broader piece of legislation on long- range climate research. In fact the CO2 is a subset of long-range climate problems, and the procedures that you use will provide valu- able information as to how we can best solve this ~eneral problem of coordination, and I wanted to explore that just a little bit further, if I could, as to how this CO2 program is developing. You have a mandate as I understand it from 0MB or somebody to- Dr. LIVIuiMAN. The 0MB has basically agreed, and I am not sure that we have a letter from them which says so, but they have basically agreed that the Department of Energy should take the initiative on seeing that an adequate program is at least described that will get at what the major lever points are in the activities of this whole com- mittee because if it turns out you cannot go with coal, you have to have other options to proceed on and can lever billions of dollars in the decision process. So, because of that, I believe, they feel that we should take the iqitiative in seeing that everybody in town whose work is in CO2 is coordinating efforts to come out with an integrated national plan. Mr. BROWN. But it has not proceeded so far as the designation of a lead agency or anything like that? Mr. SLADE. Not formally that I know, sir. Dr. LIVERMAN. We did attend the National Climate Board, which I believe either you or members of your staff were at, in which we started to lay out this perception of how to move forward. It was generally bought, I think, by the Climate Board. It made sense, not that we would have the whole show, but that we could certainly be a PAGENO="0091" 87 focal point for seeing that there is an adequate national program in place to do it. Mr. BROWN. In selecting the 12 scientists that you indicated, who are preparing the plan, I was not quite clear. Do they constitute a sort of a research steering committee also or something of that sort? Mr. SLADE. Yes; they are an informal research steering committee, about 10 or 11 are from universities and one is from a nonuniversity community. On our formal advisory committee, we have had from the first day, a number of NOAA people-Dr. Wilmot Hess, Director of their Environmental Research Laboratories, has been with us, and the ad hoc chairman of our science group is Dr. Lester Mott, of NOAA, who has also been associated with these programs. So we have been coupled with NOAA from the very beginning, and quite closely coupled with NSF. In fact, this year we will begin joint sharing of a number of programs. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, in terms of 0MB guidance, I can read you one sentence-the CO2 program should be developed in accord with the Federal climate program-which is the thing that is near and dear to your own heart-and with the CO2 efforts funded by NOAA which is the principal funding agency. NSF has some funding and there is a little bit scattered elsewhere. But that is a clear indication that we and NOAA are in a program together to do it in conjunction with a broader Federal pilot program. Mr. BROWN. Well, that is what I am trying to explore here. Actually this is almost broader than the climate program because some of the important pieces of information are from diverse sources. For example, you mentioned one of them-the world biomass facts, where there is uptake or release, and what is happening to the total global biomass. A piece of inforrnatio~ such as that is not readily available and does not come from climatologists, it is going to have to come from the CIA or somebody like that. I mean this is not facetious-they have the satellite reconnaissance capability to do this and probably the only ones to do it really ac- curately. But the Department of Agriculture needs to be involved and other agencies. The question is-how do you handle this as a manage- ment problem basically similar to your other initiatives in terms of developing inventories of research initiatives? I am trying to abstract here general principles which can be used to improve programs in general where it is possible to do so. Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, my perception of this problem in the initial stages, and it happens to coincide I think 100 percent with Mr. Slade's perception, is, that in order to get the attention of the scientific com- munity, as well as the administrative and bureaucratic communities, we needed to establish an office whose sole function was to carry out that activity. In my perception, there needs to be a focal point in the Government and, perhaps, in each of the agencies which has an effort of any size in the carbon dioxide or climate area, to orchestrate this thing. Fortunately, as Mr. Slade has pointed out in the case of the carbon dioxide program, Lester Machta who is a senior member of the NOAA staff is the acting scientific director of this program for us. So in this case, the two major agencies involved are, in fact, proceeding along the same general lines with Dr. Hess from NOAA, to begin our ad- PAGENO="0092" . 88 visory committee But more involvement is needed than that on a day to-day operational basis There needs to be someone designated in each of the agencies with precise responsibility to work this problem be cause of its growmg importance and we have tued to start it in that way That group should make full use ot any mventories that we make and contmue to evaluate where we are, where we are going, and what yet needs to be done If I may add one other comment slightly iemoved from this You are aware ot a year 2000 study which is being headed by th~ CEQ I have a peison on my staff who is spending about 50 peicent of his time on the air quality aspects of that study, the monitoring and re lated things One of the charges I gave him was to be fully aware, in addition to whatever he did, of the carbon dioxide problem and be aware of this committee's specific interest in the national climate pro- gram It is a piece of a far broader issue than just the air quality question with (JEQ My staff man has taken considerable initiative in trying to persuade the leadership of that particular study to, in fact, be as aggressive in pursuit of the objectives as he is And he is pretty aggressive If he is successful then the results will be much better than it he had not been involved So I think our commitment to the climate program, not only because of the carbon dioxide, but, in general, is very heavy Mr BROWN So the heavy part gets down in another sense to the point where you have an objective review of the problem by the most competent scientists They identify the areas where you need answers and they give you a scale of resources needed to get the answers within different time frames and it includes a lot ç~f things- monitoring, modeling, you know, the whole gamut Then the question gets down to the nitty gritty, who gets what And the question is do we have here a device which will allow us to say the piogram will take such and such amount of money and assuming we get the money it should be divided up in such a way so that we play a supporting role without getting somebody out of joint in the process Dr LIVERMAN I thmk the situation you describe can be achieved 95 percent without people getting too far out of joint The otherS percent is going to have to do with those program areas concerned with leader ship Many agencies would like to be able to take the leadership role And if one could find a benevolent leader then the system would work and the 5 percent sort of goes away Lacking the presence of a benevo lent leader, and depending upon some generosity ~n the part of the other agencies, it can move forward I think the best example probably is the Interagency Committee on Atmospheric Sciences which worked, I would say, about 95 percent because most of the agencies define their own business as opposed to the business of other agencies So you divide up the pie Now there is a clinker in that one because it is not clear that that decision by the group ever survives the normal budget ary process So there has to be some kind of control from a different source-the perspective of the Congress or elsewhere-which says, this is the program which we believe should be in place We see before us only 20 percent of the program that the agencies have sent to us, thus far. Mr BROWN Unfortunately, the Congress is not gifted with divine wisdom and these are very technical problems that require experts with broad backgrounds in order to develop the piogram, I think we may PAGENO="0093" 89 be helpful in giving some structure to some programs. I am not always sure of that, however. But the carbon dioxide area is a relatively new field, and my con- cern is that we use this as a demonstration of how we can handle a complicated cross-cutting program. If we do it well, then we can go back and look at some of the things like human health effects where there are huge vested interests that spend hundreds of millions of dol- lars and maybe say that they can learn something from the way this program has been structered and coordinated. Dr. LIVRRMAN. I think if you ask me how I would deal with that problem, from an operational standpoint, I would say the way to in- sure success, would be to place a sizeable amount of the needed re- sources in a single agency, that hopefully is benevolent, and would pass on money to other agencies more competent to deal with particular aspects, and do it with generosity and understanding. In that way, you have put in place an instrument that can move a program forward. It depends a great deal, however, upon the leadership of the agency in which you placed the funding. Mr. BROWN. Well, I will not belabor that. I was going to explore some of the systemic problems of a national epidemiologic program with you in a similar way but we can do that some other time, maybe. Do you have any further questions, Mr. Wirth? Mr. WIRTH. I had a couple of specific ones and a broader one if I might, Mr. Chairman. Maybe starting with the broader one. Dr. Liverman, you remember when Mr. Schlesinger was in front of the full Science and Technology Committee a coupie of weeks ago. We covered a whole variety of areas and one of those that came up was the question of nuclear waste disposal and where are we going on that front. I guess my reaction to his answer was mixed-one, I was pleased to hear him say that maybe we ought to be doing more on that front if that is an accurate paraphrase, and that is good but on the other hand, why is not more getting done? We have talked about West VaJley. We have talked about a whole variety of issues, and my hunch is that increasingly down the line the questions of nuclear power and where we go with it are going to be less environmental emission problems and more nuclear waste and cost problems. Those are probably going to end up being the biggest bar- riers to or the biggest problems that have to be solved in the area of nuclear power. Tue point is not that thesis. The point is how do we bet- ter push on this front. I have a feeling that the question of nuclear waste is not being adequately addressed and pushed by this Govern- ment. Can you address yourself to that? Dr. LIVERMAN. I will try to be as brief as possible. As you are aware, Dr. iieutch, the new Director of Energy Research in the Department, has been charged with coming up with a recom- mendation to deal with this issue. I believe that you, in fact, may have posed questions to him regarding this issue. That recommendation is supposed to be "on the street" in the very near future. But, just having put a plan on the street is not adequate. There have beemi recommendations on the street before. This one, I hope, will have a broader perspective because it is not being put together just by the nuc1ear~*people, but by a group with a diversity of views. Once on the street, it is going to take art awful lot of commitment on the part of the PAGENO="0094" 90 executive branch and on the part of the Congress to "bite the nuclear waste bullet." Mr. WIRTH. Let us start talking about that commitment. It seems to me from the perspective of this committee that real commitment may well start with our perspective in terms of needed research. Is there within the Department of Energy or is there outside some- where a definition of the unanswered problems where we ought to ac- celerate our research effort in attempting to better get a handle on those nuclear waste problems? Dr. LIVERMAN. I hope that the policy that is going to come out will address that question. I am not totally convinced yet that it will. But I would suspect that an immediate follow-on of that policy recommen- dation has to be precisely what you have said. There has to be a far clearer delineation of what research and development has to be done in order to achieve success in this area. As you are aware, however, the greatest block to dealing effectively with the question has to do with public acceptability of disposal sites. My own perception is a personal view, that ultimately one may end up going to the deep ocean or to other sites where there are not heavily vested interests. Whether that is the way it will turn out, I do not know. Mr. BROWN. You are talking about the common heritage of mankind, you know. Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. Which the deep oceans are. Dr. LIVERMAN. Which the nuclear waste problem is fast becoming, also. Mr. WIRTH. Does the environmental development plan begin to get into this? Or is there one for the waste disposal issue? Dr. LIVERMAN. There is one for the waste disposal issue that I have not concurred in yet. It is still being developed as you are, perhaps, aware. There is the question of a generic environmental impact state- ment which will address a number of these questions, and that state- ment is being put together now by the Department. We are having a very heavy guiding hand on the kinds of issues that niust be discussed in that statement. It should cover many of the things we worry about. Mr. WIRTH. We are about to mark up next year's budget, and I am fearful that we are going to miss this if the. Deutch template. is not out., if the environmental development plan is not out in time, that we are going to be marking up and we are going to miss yet another year in the cycle. How might we work to speed up the Deutch operation, to speed up the environmental development plan in such a way that the recom- mendations which come out of that can be addressed by the subcom- mittee and the full committee in marking up the research and develop- ment budget for the Department of Energy. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think we can certainly provide to you almost im- mediately a draft of that environmental development plan. Mr. BROWN. Would you do that as soon as you can? Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes, we can certainly do that. Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, maybe we could get that and maybe the staff might also contact Dr. Deutch's office to begin to get a sense of what is coming out of there so we can see what recommendations will be coming out of these two important areas and can be in a position to deal with that rather than to react to it after the fact. PAGENO="0095" 91 Dr. LIVERMAN. Let me work with Mr. Spensley on getting to you whatever information we can that will be of help to the committee in your markup session. Mr. BROWN. The committee would appreciate that. Mr. WIRTH. A piece of that, Mr. Chairman, goes to your continuing concerns about coordination of this kind of an effort. Clearly, you have a piece of it, Dr. Liverman; Dr. Deutch has a piece of it. There has got to be a variety of agencies around the Government looking at the nu- clear waste issue. Now how are all those getting pulled together? Do you have any idea? Is there any commitment to do that? Should we be talking to Eliot Cuttler about making that happen? Where are we on that front? Do you have any sense of that? Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, I believe the Deutch committee and its inter- actions, and you can best learn that from Dr. Deutch, does involve peo- ple from the State Department, EPA, and others. We are also involved in coming up with that policy document. The waste management program used to be under my direction. I gave it back to the nuclear people with a provision which was never followed through; namely, there should be an environmental coordi- nating/overviewing committee working jointly with the technology end of it. The EDP may get us into that mode, where every step a technology is proposing to take has an adequate environmental exami- nation before proceeding. That has not worked as well as it should have in the days of ERDA. But I believe that we are moving into a better position now. Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, maybe as we get into this, we ought to consider, if we are not already, getting Dr. Deutch to come up and address the whole interagency piece of this. It is his particular tem- plate for research and development, interagency coordination and putting some clout behind it. Mr. BROWN. Well, I think it would be useful to the subcommittee to have contact with Dr. Deutch. I think it would be more appropriate to have the staff contact him first to see what would be a satisfactory arrangement on both sides. Mr. WIRTH. May I have 1 minute for one more point? Mr. BROWN. You may have I more minute. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. Dr. Liverman, we have talked about, from time to time, the long- range future of the Rocky Flats plant. You will remember it was built 25 to 30 years ago in what was a pretty rural area and is now sur- rounded by suburbia. You will remember that the task force set up by Governor Lamm and myself, No. 3 recommendation was to start the process of looking at the future long term of Rocky Flats. Is it going to be there forever from the Government perspective? If so, how do we make it as safe as possible.? And we have done that. I think we have made some major steps in that direction, but in very long term, how do we start to think about, say, increasing its work in solar energy and wind power which is now going on? How do we start. to think about the transition from being a nuclear facility in suburbia to being a facility which carries some other kind of energy responsibility which I think it could very well. Has your group done any thinking about that and if so what and where do we go to get that going? PAGENO="0096" 92 Dr LIVERMAN If I may offer a perception as I see it ~ The technical competence of the Rocky Flats staff does not extend very much beyond the things that are closely weapons related It is not like at Livermore. It is not like at Los Alamos. Mr WIRTH I realize that Dr. LIVERMAN. And in order to change Rocky Flats into something more nearly resembling that requires a deliberate decision on the part of the DOE. If that is not done, then my personal perception is, that because of the massive investment recently of another $150 million, which lb a 40 year lifetime, Rocky Fl'its will, as tong as we have nuclear weapons in our arsenal, continue with a heavy nucleai orientation How broadly it casts its net into the other energy areas is a decision that the Congress and the executive branch are both going to have to explore in depth if there is a desire to do so Mr WIRTH What this is ieally going to t'tke, you are saying, is a top level commitment to- Dr. LIVERMAN. Diversify, yes. Mr WIRTH To forge a transition and diversify Rocky Flats away from just making triggers for nuclear weapons toward a broader en- ergy base Dr LIvERMAN That is my perception, yes Mr WIRTH That is something that Mr Schlesinger has to address himself to, the 0MB would have to address themselves to, presuming with help from a friendly and supportive Congress [Laughter] Dr LIVERMAN Yes Mr WIRTH Thank you, Mr Chairman Mr BROWN Thank you, Mi Wirth Dr Liverman there may be a few items that we have not covered that we would like to have your help on, and we know you will con- tinue to be cooperative on that. We thank you very much for your testimony and the members of your staff This has been extremely helpful and we look forward to hearing from you again. The subcommittee will be adjourned [Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 12 23 p m] PAGENO="0097" 1979 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION ENVIRONMENT BUDGET THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chairman), presiding. Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order. This is the last day of the scheduled authorization hearings on the Office of Environment of the Department of Energy. Thus far, we have heard testimony concerning the fiscal year 1979 budget and program, and the general responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. Today, we will explore the possible over- la~ in responsibilities between the Office of Environment and other offices of the Department in the area of environmental policymaking with Alvin Alm, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation. In addition we will focus on the details and merits of the proposed exchange of 1!unds and program's between EPA and DOE. The con- cerned parties are represented by Dr. Stephen Gage, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development; George Fumich, Jr., DOE Acting Program Director for Fossil Energy; and Dr. James Liverman, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment. We also have two outside witnesses, Mr. Don Kash from the University of Oklahoma and Mr. Sidney Orem, representing the In- dustrial Gas Cleaning Institute, will also provide comments on the exchange. However, as our first witness, we have the Honorable James F. Jeffords, a Member of Congress, who will relate some of his concerns thout the national energy plan and about the general need for environ- mental monitoring and research, a subject which I know he has been deeply involved with, and we appreciate his contribution to the hearing this morning. STATEMENT OP HON. JAMES P. JEPPORDS, U.S. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleas- ure to be here, and I certainly have enjoyed working with you on some of these issues. (93) 32-744 0 - 78 - 7 PAGENO="0098" 94 I would like to address several issues which have been of major con- cern to this committee and to other members, including myself, and which are in urgent need of our continuing attention. I refer to the environmental impacts of our energy activities, and to the need for involving the States and localities which are impacted by our decisions in playing a greater role in our decisionmaking process. In the report which accompanied the 1978 ERDA authorization, it was stated that one major function of the Office of Assistant Ad- ministrator for Environment and Safety is "examination of environ- mental policy issues involving actual or potential conflicts between environmental and energy development goals." Certainly the creation of the Department of Energy has not dimin- ished the necessity for such an examination. In fact, it is certain that the national energy legislation now being considered by the conference committee will require extremely detailed examinations of its poten- tial consequences and impacts, as well as increased activity to assure mitigation of any harm to our environment which might result from our efforts to deal with this Nation's energy problems. Mr. Chairman, in September of 1977, we sent a joint letter to the Department of Energy requesting specific information on the scope and contents of the environmental impact statement being prepared on the National Energy Act. And as you know, you joined me in that letter. Despite repeated inquiries to the Department, to this day we have received no reply. Are we then to assume that such impact anal- ysis does not exist? Are we to assume that no action will be taken? I believe that before the fiscal 1979 DOE authorization is allowed to become law, an answer must be forthcoming which indicates the ad- ministration's ultimate plans for preparation of this document, and that Congress should be kept regularly informed of the results of the research which will aid our understanding of the ramifications of the administration's proposed solution to the energy problem. I would request permission to enter this letter in the hearing record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. Without objection, so ordered. [The letter follows:] PAGENO="0099" 95 JAMESM.JIFFORDS cO~II~ITTCEO~~ *GWC~)LTURC (24I1~ (~ongrc~ of tI)c ?L~rritcb ~tatc~ JL~ou~t of 33~eprtScntatibc~ ~1aeJflngton, ~.Q. 20515 September 15, 1977 The Honorable James Schlesinger Secretary of Energy Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary: We are seriously concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed National Energy Plan now moving through the Congress, and, specifically, the process you. are developing to address both the short and long-term environmental impacts and uncertainties associated with the coal conversion aspects of the Plan. We are aware of the Presidents commitment to the completion of an environmental impact statement. Although the initial legislation forwarded to the Congress did not, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, include an Environmental Impact Statement Plan, it is our understanding that the President is committed to the completion of an ElS prior to implementation of the National Energy Act. It is also our understanding that the relevant agencies are in the process of developing environmental analyses on many of the projected short-term impacts expected to occur as a result of the Energy Plan, such as increased emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulates, as well as combustion and pollution control wastes, mining and milling wastes, dissolved solids, and general impacts on water quality and quantity. We would ask that you provide a calendar of what analyses are being done, with expected completion, and presentation dates. In addition, please identify the mechanism you will use to keep the Congress informed, i.e., what Committees will be forwarded which analyses. However, a great many issues exist concerning the long- term effects of this proposed plan, and in many cases the models or data required to resolve these issues have not been developed. The plan does not appear to contain any mechanism for determining planning horizons based on expected changes of evolving energy technology. For example, what are the most distant future impacts that THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS PAGENO="0100" The Honorable James Schlesinger September 15, 1977 Page 2 are relevant to current energy policy decisions and how miqht they alter the allocation of capital for energy production and conseryation? It would seem that any environmental impact statement must be capable of demonstrating that it has considered impacts throu9h all relevant stages of technological innovation and transfer. If the answers to these questions are not known, what research is planned to fill the voids and how will the research design be integrated into the EIS prior to implementation of the N.E.A? Long-term impacts can arise from two causes, First, impacts which arise in the future and appear simultaneously with their cause. An example is the CO2 atmospheric heating examined by the recent National Academy of Sciences' report entitled "Energy and Climate." Second, impacts which appear in the future as a result of a significant delay between the introduction o~ the cause and its effects, such as the loss of agricultural productivity resulting from soil leaching from acid rain At the present time, the impacts of these two illustrative side-effects of energy use are imperfectly understood but could prove of great potential importance to the economy, to agriculture, and t~ the environment. Comprehensive research, together with a commitment to integrate its conclusions within national energy policy is imperative. Therefore, we would also ask your assurance that (A) An inventory of potential long-term impacts, including health, transportation, and environmental impacts, of both types be included as part of the EIS (B) A program of researc]i, including relevant tools and models, be developed to examine these impacts for all relevant stages of evolving energy technology and transfer. Suggested impact horizons would be for the jears 1985, 2005 and 2030. (C) A planned program of updating the generic EIS, together with regular reports to Congress be instituted. 96 PAGENO="0101" 97 The Honorable James Schlesinger September 15 1977 Page 3 In summary our fundamental concern is that the planned impact studies appear to limit their scope to the near term (1985) There is growing evidence that the decisions we make today particularly with regard to the capital and technological structure of our energy conservation! production systems have ramifications far into the future possibly as far as 50-75 years away As the President stated in his address to the nation on the energy crisis We have always wanted to give our children a world richer in possibilities than we have had ourselves They are the ones that we must provide for now They are the ones who will suffer most if we do not act We too are concerned that limiting our vision to the near future may prove to be extremely dangerous, and that insufficient effort is being directed toward a program of research to develop the possible impacts in these categories I know that you share these concerns as well Thank you for your attention to this matter Sincerely ~ \ `~ ~,$ George E Brown r James N Jef fords PAGENO="0102" 98 Mr. JEFFORDS. On a related matter, I would like to voice my concern that a nomination still has not been submitted to fill the permanent position of Assistant Secretary for Environment at the Department of Energy. The permanent appointment to this position of a capable individual is vital if we are to insure that the proper environmental impact analyses are carried out and upgraded through a continuous monitoring program. And I want to emphasize a continuous monitor- ing program there. Recently, Senator Gary Hart and I, on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Environmental Study Conference, wrote to Secretary Schlesinger to voice our concern a'bout this matter. I am sure this committee shares our concern, and I would hope that nomina- tion will be forthcoming in the very near future. I would request that the text of this letter also be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. Without objection, so ordered. [The letter follows:] PAGENO="0103" Environmental Study Conference 99 U.S. Congress 3349 House Office Annex 2 Washington, D.C. 20515 202-2252988 James 54. Jeffords Gory HaC Co-Chair,,,, heel W. £dgar .05,, H;Helnz, III Co-floe Vine Clmairnmnm, Lurnealine Conaaolll,. Hoaio DanidESonso, George C. B.oxnn~ Jr. Ynoone Bmathmoaile Oomhe Robeg F. Demon Thomas B. Cnans. Jr. Miflicrot Frnxekk Joseph L Fisher Dan Glicbnman John Pool Hanxoe,schmidi Ton, Ha,hin Margamet M. l4echlee Robert W. Castro, Jr. Paul PS. MeCloelmy Jr..: Richard I. Otl.nger lorry Pressler Cad D.Pu,aelI.... P"eactoo I. Steers, Jr.-... Corey 8. Sledda James Wracor Charles W. Whale,,, Jr. Tinmotby I. 545mph Senile. W"md,Jt 0. Anderson S J. teahy s... .ul,a 54cC. Mathias, Jr. John MeteS,, February 8, 1978 Hon. James R. Schlesinger Secretary Department of Energy Washington, D. C. Dear Hr. Secretary: On behalf ofthe Executive Committee Of the Environmental Study Conference,..we would like to express our concern that a competent and qualified individual haè not bseOnamed.to~fill .. -. the permanent position of Assi~tañt .SecrOtàry-for Environment;- 7. in the Department of Energy.,.: :It has been more than. four `months since the depOrtmentbegàn opératingm'an4 . evOn longer', since yoU have been directing the administration's energy policies,_~Yet1, no one has been selected for this post,' We fear that until someone is named, the environmental issues that must be addressed as part of our national energy policy will not receive the attention they' obviously must receive. - MikeMcC~bc--: We understand that'selecting qualified individuals, for StaO DumPer : important positions -i*n government requires careful attention~.:-mm and often-time-consuming scrutiny. At the same time,'we feel that you could have selected someone by now from the names sub- mitted to you by a number of interested parties. We would like to meet with you in the very near future to discuss the status of this appointment and the timetable for forwarding a nominee to the Senate. Please call us as soon as possible so that a meeting can be arranged. Sincerely yours, James )4. Jeffords -. Co-Chairman Gary Hart Co-Chairman PAGENO="0104" 100 Mr JEFFORDS I know that Dr Liverman, as DOE's chief environ mentahst, has been concerned over the potential climatological conse quences of the increased use of coal In the 1978 authorization, this committee approved the expenditure of $1 5 million for studying the is sue of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. I would urge that increased dollars be authorized to continue such research. Further, because of increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small particulate matter in the atmosphere, and the potential climatological impacts which ensue, such as acid rain, I would suggest that a study be conducted over the next year to design and implement as uniform national monitoring program Such a task force should include EPA, CEQ, DOE, NSF, USDA, as well as the Departments of HEW and Interior Environmental impacts, whether in the form of boomtowns, acid rain, or water pollution, also impact the health and well being of our economic and social institutions Therefore, the Congress must remain vigilant in requiring that decisions of the magnitude necessary to solve the energy crisis are made on the basis of minimizing, within reasonable bounds, their effect on the tot ii well being of the national community It is my hope that together we can fashion a mechanism to effectively monitor what we are doing in the energy area before we make na tional decisions in ignorance, which involves unacceptably harsh con sequences for our children and future generations Finally, Mr Chairman, I would like to express my concern that attempts to solve energy and environmental problems are too often done within the confines of the Federal research community. These issues, however, touch each of our constituencies in each of our districts. The Congress authorizes large sums of money annually for research necessary to make decisions at the Federal level Yet, this same know 1 edge can provide the knowledge necessary to State and local officials I ~ ould urge, therefore, that a program be designed to provide tech meal assistance to State and local decisionmakers be developed within the offices of each Assistant Secretary in the DOE I think additional funding for such outre~tch programs would be a very worthwhile investment. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to express these views. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. JefFords. Your statement is extremely cogent and to the point. You have touched on a number, in fact, most of the important issues which have been of concern to this committee for some time and your focus on them I think will be of help in getting whatever action is appropriate for this subcommittee to take Do you have `my questions, Mr Winn ~ Mr WINN No, Mr Chairman, I do not have any questions I do want to commend Congressman Jeffords for his special interest in this field as we all know from receiving Dear Colleague letters from time to time He has really been one of the leaders in Congress in showing his concern in environmental impacts. The last few words of your testimony I think deserve a lot of con- sideration and we have talked about it in previous hearings this week about technical assistance to the States. I wonder if you would care to enlarge on that concept a ]ittle bit- how you think it could be implemented or how it could be set up PAGENO="0105" 101 Where you think there might be some weaknesses or gaps in that kind of `i system~ Mr JEi~oRDs I think at present there is very little liaison or very little effort or even as far as I know little or no money available to the Department to try to have the outreach people necessary to go out and assist in the technical areas in these communities and States so that we can enhance the availability of information to the Federal Government and at the same time provide the decisionmakers at the local and State levels with the expertise necessary to better guide their own decisionmaking process I think that we need to develop that kind of an outreach program in order to better utilize the knowl edge that is out there and the knowledge that is within the Federal Government Mr WINN Would you think that in any way that States should pay a part of the expenses or had you given that much thought at all ~ Mr JEFI'ORDS I had not given it that much thought My feeling would be that there probably are at least sufficient State personnel The main thing would be better liaison and coordination. It might I think maybe in the local area be more of a need for some assistance which probably should be on cost sharing basis I had not really given much thought to the mechanics of that. Mr. WINN. I think most States have set up some type of environ- ment~i director or council- Mr JEITORD5 Certainly our State has and that is the only one I can- Mr WINN I think ours has, too But I think most of them have set it up or in the process of setting it up since the formulation of DOE Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr JEFrORDS Th~'nk you Mr BROWN We next have Mi Alvin Aim, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation, Department of Energy, and I will ask him to come back up to the table If I may I ~ ould like to ask the other three gentlemen who are next listed also to come up because we are going to want to have a little dialogue here after we have heai d their statements That includes Mr Fumich, Dr Gage, Dr Liverman, and Mr Kash, if he wants to come up No Dr Gage is not here yet This is mairly in the inteiest of saving time and shuffling so there will not be too much shuffling back and forth. The key problem which I think the subcommittee w'rnts to address, of course, is the understanding of each of you gentlemen `is to your relative roles in the area of environment'tl policy `ind operations within the Department of Energy, and we are not of course trying to describe any particular role, that is not our function, but we are in terested in seeing if there is a coherent understanding on the part of the people who are supposed to be carrying out the environmental re search and development function And then in connection with that, of course, there is an illustration of the problem-the transfer of $14 million between DOE and EPA and how that exchange of funds is proposed to be handled and the justificition for it With that Mr Aim, you can go ahead with your statement PAGENO="0106" 102 STATEMENT OP MR. ALVIN ALM, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Mr. ALM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased to come before you today. As Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation, I am responsible for recommendation, development and evaluation of the policies which guide the Department's programs. To accomplish this most effectively, I have established three basic functions: (1) program planning and evaluation; (2) integrated policy analysis; and (3) policy development and coordination. En- vironmental policies and concerns are an integral part of each func- tional area. Therefore a number of the major offices have staff with background and experience in environmental matters. There are several specific steps which I have taken to assure that environmental concerns are well represented at a policy level in DOE. First, I have established a Division of Environmental Planning and Program Evaluation to serve as the primary contact with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment and other environmental programs in DOE. This group represents environmental concerns with the Office of Policy and Evaluation and insures that our activi- Lies are coordinated with other environmental groups in DOE. The evaluation function of this group will be necessary to insure that en- vironmental research and analysis throughout the department is ef- fective and timely. We hope to conduct some of these evaluations jointly with staff from the office which manages the program. In addi- Lion, this group has the responsibility for overview of environmental plans and budgets throughout DOE which should facilitate policy implementation. Second, we have reviewed the environmental development plan process and feel that it is an important activity which should continue and be strengthened in DOE. As a result, I am planning to incorporate the EDP as a formal part of the overall policy and program planning system within DOE. In the area of policy analysis and formulation, my staff must con- sider the full range of impacts of the development of energy supplies. Environmental concerns, therefore, are one of the major factors in our analysis of any DOE policy. I expect to rely heavily on the Assistant Secretary for Environment for support in understanding the environ- mental implications of policy options. In fact, we have already worked closely with Environment on sev- eral major issues. A good example for our coordination is the work plan we are developing jointly with the Office of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency to identify potential problems with upcoming EPA regulations and assign responsibility for necessary analysis to appropriate staff in my office and in Environment. Our ap- proach in past efforts has emphasized coordination and shared respon- sibility which reflects staff capabilities. While informal coordination and Environment has been successful thus far, there are other groups with environmental expertise dis- persed throughout DOE which also must be routinely involved. To assure that this occurs, we are assisting the Office of Environment in establishing an Environmental Issues Committee. This committee, chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Environment, will provide an PAGENO="0107" 103 important communication link and will formalize coordination of en- vironmental analysis throughout DOE. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to address the trans- fer issue that you raised or I can address it later, whatever your pleasure. Mr. BROWN. I think you might as well go ahead and speak to that subject, Mr. Alm, since your statement is very brief. Mr. ALM. As you know, there are two aspects involved in the change of responsibilities between the two agencies. One side of the transfer deals with the control technology program where $14 million will be transferred fom the Environmental Protec- tion Agency to the Department of Energy. I feel that this transfer is an appropriate one. The technology de- veloped over a number of years at EPA are now in the process of generally widespread applications. As I recall somewhere around 100 plants, excuse me, 100 flue gas desulfurization units are under order at this point in time. I think it is important because the development of any control tech- nology is fairly closely related to the overall energy strategies that are pursued. When one looks at the resources that the United States has domestically, there is no doubt that coal is going to play a much larger role in the Nation's energy future. In order to burn coal it will be necessary to meet the environmental requirements of the Clean Air Act as well as State and local require- ments. Most coal in the near-term will be burned directly as coal. In the future of course, we will have other technologies, liquefaction and gasification, but in the near-term most coal will be burned directly. A successful control technology program is a key to allowing coal to be burned while we continue to meet our environmental require- ments. Within that context then DOE has a very strong interest in advancing these technologies, to make them more reliable, to insure they can burn all various types of coal, high sulfur coals and the like. The other transfer deals with the transfer of $14 million for health and ecological effects activities from DOE to the Environmental Pro- tection Agency. From my previous experience, I have been very im- pressed with the tremendous need to have good health and ecological data in the devlopment of standards. The quality of the technical work is key to both protecting the public health and safety and wide- spread economic ramifications of anyparticular regulation. I think the extent to which EPA scientific expertise and role in the area of health effects research can be enhanced, it is a tremendous ad- vantage to that Agency's ability to set standards to protect the public health. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Alm. I think, if I may, I would like to go ahead with the other witnesses since their statements are relatively brief before we have a little dis- cussion with the subcommittee members. So, is there any objection to that from the other members? In that case which one of you would like to go next? Mr. Fumich? [The prepared statement of Mr. Fumich follows:] PAGENO="0108" 104 STATEMENT OF GEORGE FUMICH JR ACTING PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR 1~ OSSIL ENERGY U S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY It is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss Fossil Energy's environmental work and our interactions with the Assistant Secretary for Environment and with other agencies. In our Fossil Energy Program we seek alternatives to diminishing domestic supplies of oil and natural gas. A major midterm goal is a smooth transition to a more coal fired economy However for promising technologies to reach commer cial development we must identify and resolve environmental concerns in the technology R & D process Failure to do so will kill off the technology as surely as would failure of the process itself Moreover stopping a technology late in its development because of environmental concerns can be very expensive and could delay the commercialization of competing processes Therefore it is necessary to identify and anticipate the major environmental health and safety issues sur rounding each developing technology early in the program This will allow the necessary R & D in environmental control development emission characteriza tion, and environmental effects analysis to go on parallel to other R. & D., as well as permitting EPA to use the appropriate technical information to set standards. Since any technologies that are environmentally unacceptable will not be commercialized in Fossil Energy we must 1 Incorporate environmental considerations into Fossil Energy program plan ning from the very beginning of development; 2. Consider environmental issues fully in choosing from among competing projects those that we will fund and 3 Comply with applicable Federal State and Local laws COOPERATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES Within Energy Technology there are independent environmental activities as well as cooperative efforts with industrial partners the Assistant Secretary for Envionment, Federal, State and local regulatory agencies, and with the public. In Fossil Energy we seek to develop technologies acceptable from a stand- point of the physical and biological environment We are also concerned about the health and safety of workers and the public and about the communities most af fected by technology development Within these constraints we seek high efficiency of energy production and use at the lowest possible cost Both the Assistant Secretary for Environment and the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology through the Program Director for Fossil Energy have environmental responsibilities and work together in many areas There are both similarities and differences in our respective roles. Fossil Energy is responsible to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology for all of the environmental, socioeconomic health and safety activities for planned and existing Fossil Energy programs and facilities In addition the Environmental Advisor to the Secretary for Energy Technology provides an independent viewpoint in such matters In contrast the Assistant Secretary for Environment has an overview and assessment role across the entire Department of Energy for environmental matters Therefore his responsibilities are much broader than those of Fossil Energy However the interests are similar In that we both want to assure the development of environmentally and socially sound fossil technologies that can be viable in the marketplace If we do our jobs well this will happen We both realize that environmental acceptability of fossil technologies can only come about if we can obtain the necessary environmental health safety and socioeconomic data and regulatory and compliance guidelines soon enough to act to resolve po tential environmental impediments Many times the data needs of Fossil Energy and Environment are similar For example Fossil Energy will sample process streams to verify control technology performance, characterize process stream constituents, and identify possible health hazards in the work space. To carry out overview and assessment responsibilities Environment may need samples from our plants in order to make independent analyses to determine the presence of potentially toxic substances Also Environment may use the data as input for re gional modeling to determine the possible transport and fate of pollutants from our facilities outside the boundaries of the project and immediate surrounding area. PAGENO="0109" 105 For the FY 1979 budget staff from Fossil Energy and Environment have planned and coordinated environmental programs of mutual interest in oil shale in situ coal gasification and environmental sampling and monitoring at several coal conversion facilities including Gasifiers-in Industry The intent is to involve the EPA and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in planning areas of mutual interest since they too need environmental data from our plants There are other areas of coordination with the Assistant Secretary for En vironment One such area is our compliance activities Fossil Energy prepares site specific and program environmental assessment and impact statements The Assistant Secretary for Environment approves and coordinates the review of the documents For planning Fossil Energy and Environment jointly prepare Envi ronmental Development Plans In biomedical research there has been joint proj ect planning at the Morgantown Energy Research Center and we are discussing starting some projects at the Pittsburgh Energy Research Center F0551L ENERGY PROGRAM Among our Fossil Energy environmental activities are policy analysis planning regulatory compliance and control technology development Overall we will devel op new knowledge in fossil energy chemistry materials technology engineering analysis sampling and worker and property management and protection In this context environmental refers to health safety socioeconomic and energy process conservation issues as well as the physical impact of Fossil Energy technologies on the environment POLICY ANALYSIS Environmental Policy Analysis is very important because it provides a basis for setting technology goals Fossil Energy sponsored studies consider how cur rent and emerging laws standards and regulations affect our programs and technologies and their potential for development We use the technical perform ance resource requirements and economic information from such studies to review regulations and such information is used to help establish a Department position Often our contributions help provide needed technical input for proposed laws and regulations Fossil Energy also uses these data internally to review our programs for possible redirection in light of changed environmental laws and standards. PLANNING Environmental planning involving both programs and projects assures con sideration of environmental problems at the earliest possible stage an important tool for accomplishing this are the Environmental Development Plans (EDPs) which are prepared for each activity in order to address program considerations EDPs are management documents which help Fossil Energy and Environment plan budget manage and review environmental implications of individual energy technologies They do this by identifying the environmental issues and require ments to be addressed during each stage of technology development These plans help us to assure the environmental R&D goes on in parallel with that addressing technical economic and institutional issues surrounding each technology During project planning procurement and design we analyze and consider environmental impacts of the proposed plant including plans to dispose of wastes from plant operation CONTROL TECHNOLOGY Since environmental performance is integral to technology performance we monitor sites for major projects before construction and during operation to verify the true impacts on the environment Sampling and monitoring encompass both compliance oriented data collection and special projects to determine whether processes are environmentally benign or whether new pollutants are introduced into the environment We carry out projects under representative environmental conditions in order to adequately assess their consequences Moreover process conditions are varied in order to provide adequate environmental safety health and resource efficiency data When adequate environmental control technology does not exist, the Department will take steps to develop it. Although the details have not been fully developed the integration of certain environmental control technology programs from EPA into DOE/FE will provide a single balanced national program on coal utilization The meshing of the con PAGENO="0110" 106 trol technologies from EPA with the rest of our Fossil Energy coal utilization program will now permit a total systems approach and a more effective focus of environmental control technology. Fossil Energy's present program related to environmental control technology consists mainly of: Fluidized bed combustion, both Atmospheric Fluidized Bed and Pressurized Fluidized Bed, including industrial and utility applications. Improved physical coal cleaning. Sophisticated R&D on desulfurization and particulate control of gas, liquid, and combustion streams. Integrated coal conversion /;heat engine systems including gas turbines. Process modification experiments. Advanced research on chemical coal cleaning hot gas cleanup, flue gas desuifur- ization, particulate control, and nitrogen oxide control. COMPLIANCE A related major thrust is preparing site-specific and program-specific environ- mental assessments and impact statements for Fossil Energy programs and projects, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For example, the coal RD&D program Environmental Impact Statement is now out for public comment. Also, we have begun several site specific assessments for the major demonstration plant facilities. Compliance with NEPA will ensure incorporation of environmental matters into Fossil Energy decisions as early as possible. In summary, if emerging fossil technologies are to contribute significantly to the Nation's energy supply, they must do so with minimal risk to our natural en- vironment and to the health and safety of our population. We will ensure this by constantly monitoring, studying and evaluating critical environmental, health, safety and socioeconomic issues at each stage of a technology process, and by cooperating with others within their area of responsibility. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and look forward to continuing communications with you in this extremely important area. I will now be happy to answer any questions you might have. STATEMENT OP GEORGE FUMICH, JR., ACTING PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Mr. FTJMICH. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss fossil energy's environmental work and our interactions with the Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment and with other agencies. In our fossil energy program we seek alternatives to diminishing domestic supplies of oil and natural gas. A major midterm goal is a smooth transition to a more coal-fired economy. However for promis- ing technologies to reach commercial development, we must identify and resolve environmental concerns in the technology R. & D. process. Failure to do so will kill off the technology as surely as would failure of the process itself. Moreover, stopping a technology late in its de- velopment because of environmental concerns can be very expensive and could delay the commercialization of competing processes. There- fore, it is necessary to identify and anticipate the major environmental health and safety issues surrounding each developing technology early in the program. What I am trying to say is that we do not want to hap- pen to fossil energy what happened to nuclear energy. Millions of dol- lars were expanded, and here we are in a big battle. I think that our responsibility is to make sure that we can look at the environmefftal concerns at each stage of the technology, and surface potential prob- lems so that everyone will know that this is being done in good faith with the necessary inputs to carry the technology ahead. PAGENO="0111" 107 The Nation is in too critical a situation to do anything that would make the people suspicious about the technology that is being de- veloped. Unfortunately, I think we are involved in some of that today. The only way to go is to conduct the necessary R. & D. in environmen- tal control development, emission characterization, and environmental effects analysis in parallel to other R. & D., as well as permit EPA to use the appropriate technical information to set standards. Since any technologies that are environmentally unacceptable will not be commercialized, in Fossil Energy we must: (1) Incorporate environmental considerations into fossil energy program planning from the very beginning of development. (2) Consider environmental issues fully in choosing from among competing projects those that we will fund. (3) Comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws. COOPERATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES Within Energy Technology there are independent environmental activities as well as cooperative efforts with industrial partners, the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Federal, State, and local regu- latory agencies, and also with the public. In Fossil Energy we seek to develop technologies acceptable from the standpoint of the physical and biological environment. We are also concerned ahout the health and safety of workers and the public, and about the communities most affected by technology development. As an aside to that, when I came on board, my boss, Bob Thorne, told rue that one of the main considerations that we had to address was the socioeconomic concern particularly in the western part of the country because these concerns had not been addressed properly be- fore. Within these constraints we seek high efficiency in energy pro- duction and use at the lowest possible cost. Both the Assistant Secretary for Environment, and the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, through the Program Director for Fossil Energy, have environmental responsibilities and work together in many areas. There are both similarities and differences in our re- spective roles. Fossil Energy is responsible to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology for all of the environmental, socioeconomic, health and safety activities for planned and existing Fossil Energy programs and facilities. In addition, the environmental adviser to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology provides an independent viewpoint in such matters. In contrast, the Assistant Secretary for Environment has an overview and assessment role across the entire Department of Energy for environmental matters. Therefore, his re- sponsibilities are much broader than those of Fossil Energy. However, the interests are similar in that we both want to assure the development of environmentally and socially sound fossil technologies that can be viable in the marketplace. If we do our jobs welL this will happen. We both realize that environmental acceptability of fossil technologies can only come about if we can obtain the necessary environmental, health, safety and socioeconomic data and regulatory and compliance guide- lines soon enough to act to resolve potential environmental impedi- ments. The Assistant Secretary for Environment has the overview re- sponsibility for this whole area. PAGENO="0112" 108 Many times, the data needs of Fossil Energy and Environment are similar For example, Fossil Energy will sample process streams to verify control technology performanc8, characterize process stream constituents, and identify possible health hazards in the work space To carry out overview and assessment responsibilities, Environment may need samples from our plants in order to make independent anal yses to determine the presence of potentially toxic substances, and to alert fossil energy on any unforeseen problems Also, Environment may use the data as input for regional modeling to determine the pos sible transport and fate of pollutants from our facilities outside the boundaries of the project and immediate surrounding area For the Fiscal Year 1979 budget, staff from Fossil Energy and En vironment have planned and coordinated environmental programs of mutual interest in oil shale, in situ coal gasification, and environmental sampling and monitoring at several coal conversion facilities induding Gasifiers-in industry facilities The intent is to involve the EPA and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in planning areas of mutual interest, since they too need environmental data from our plants. I want to give you an example of what I consider a typical exam pie We have a project at the University of Mrnnesota in Duluth, in the gasifiers in industry project and we have EPA, OSHA, the Assistant Secretary for the Environment in DOE and ourselves all involved in that particular project Not only that, we have EPA and OSHA fund ing that along with ourselves I think that this is the type of arrange ment that we need all across-not only in Fossil Energy but through out DOE and I am sure it is going to happen There are other areas of coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Environment. One such area is our compliance activities. Fossil Energy prepares site specific and program environmental assessment and impact statements The Assistant Secretary for Environment `inproves and coordinates the review of the documents For planning, Fossil Energy and Environment jointly prepare environmental development plans Incidentally, we have a development plan, across the board, for each one of our major technologies We intend to continue this policy In biomedical research, there has been joint project planning at the Morgantown Energy Research Center, and we are discussing starting some projects at the Pittsburgh Energy Research Center. Again, these are other examples of joint activities FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS Among our Fossil Energy environmental activities are policy analysis, planning, regulatory compliance and control technology development Overall, we will develop new knowledge in fossil energy chemistry, materials, technology, engineering, analysis, sampling and worker and property management and protection In this context, environmental refers to health, safety, socioeconomic and energy process conservation issues, as well as the physical impact of Fossil Energy technologies on the environment Policy analvsis-Althouoth the Assistant Secretary for Environ ment has the lead responsibility in this area, we feel that environ mental policy analysis is very important because it provides a basis PAGENO="0113" 109 for setting technology goals Fossil Energy sponsored studies consider I-iow current and emerging laws, standards, and regulations affect our programs and technologies and their potential for development We use the technical performance, resource requirements and economic information from such studies to review regulations and such infor mation is used to help establish a department position This is our input into the departmental position Often our contributions help provide needed technical input for proposed laws and regulations Fossil Energy also uses these data internally to review our programs for possible redirection in light of changed environmental laws and standards. Planning-Environmental planning involving both programs and projects assures consideration of environmental problems at the earliest possible stage An import'tnt tool for accomplishing this is the environmental development plans, which are prepared for each activity in order to address program considerations EDP's are man agement documents jointly prepared by ourselves and the Assistant Secretary for Environment in whwh Fossil Energy and Environ ment plan, budget, manage, and review environmental implications of individual energy tedhnologies They do this by identifying the en vironmental issues and requirements to be addressed during each stage of technology development These plans help us to assure that environ mental R & D goes on in parallel with work addressing technical, economic, and institutional issues surrounding each technology During project planning procurement and design, we analyze and consider environmental impacts of the proposed plant, including plans to dispose of wastes from plant operation Involving control technology, again the Assistant Secretary for Environment has the o~ erview responsibility for independent assess ment to the adequacy of the development of the particular technologies involved Since environmental performance is integral to technology performance, we monitor sites for major projects before construe tion FOSSIL ENERGY CONTROL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS And without going through the rest of the statement, I would like to give you some indicationc of the family of technologies that we have within the control technology activity that Secretary Aim was discussing This gives us a good idea of the trade ofFs, some of the supplementary type programs, and some of the marriages that might be involved between the different technologies of that particular area For instance, it is our feeling that there is a possibility that coal cleaning or a combination of coal cleaning and stack gas technology might be the best way to go in certain instances Here is a list of some of the other technologies that we are involved in Fluidized bed combustion, both atmospheric fluidized bed and pressurized fluidized bed, including industrial and utility applications Improved physical coal cleaning and chemical coal cleaning Sophisticated R & D on desulfurization and particulate control of g~as, liquid, and combustion streams Integrated coal conversion/heat engine systems including gas turbines 327440 78 8 PAGENO="0114" 110 Process modification experiments. Advanced research on chemical coal cleaning hot gas cleanup, flue gas desulfurization, particulate control, and nitrogen oxide control. We also have low-Btu coal gasification and combined cycles ac- tivities in this area. Also fuel cells. So it gives you an indication of what we have in that immediate area. Besides these, we also have major programs in MHD technology, liquefaction and high-Btu gasification. So we feel that since these are all being developed by people in the same general area and also subject to the analysis of Secretary Alm's shop, we have an in-depth type of trade-off and review analysis capability. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fumich. Let us see, who should we have next, Dr. Liverman? Dr. LIVERMAN. I have no prepared statement. Mr. BROWN. Well, why don't we just save you then for the exchange later. Dr. Kash, do you have a statement that you could proceed with at this time? STATEMENT OP DR. DON KASH, DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OP OKLAHOMA Dr. KASH. The remarks that I will be making today are really joint remarks of mine and Mike Divine who is sitting over here at the other end, a colleague of mine at the TJniv~rsity of Oklahoma. Mr. BROWN. Is he going to back you up on this? Dr. KASH. Yes; actually he is the one with some judgment and in- formation and I am the more handsome of the two. [Laughter.] Mr. BROWN. I might say by way of a fuller introduction that in addi- tion to his handsomeness, Dr. Kash has had widespread experience with the assessment of energy technologies in connection with his program at t;he University of Oklahoma, and we are very happy to have him here to contribute to our thinking on this subject. Dr. KASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate this opportunity to testify on the proposed two-way transfer of environmental control technology and environmental re- search activities between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. Our comments today are divided into three categories. First, and most important, we would like to address the major issues raised by the transfer of EPA environmental control technology to DOE. Second, we will discuss the transfer of en- vironmental research from DOE to EPA. And, finally, we will express some views on the overall needs for environmental research. The decision to centralize responsibility for environmental control technology in a single agency, DOE, represents a major change in management philosophy. Simply stated, it reflects the belief that centralized management will have more payoff than the previous situation of interagency competition. Previously, technologies for con- trolling air pollution from coal were divided among three groups: The Bureau of Mines took primary responsibility for precombustion cleaning of coal; ERDA had responsibility for fluidized-bed combus- tion and synthetic fuels; and EPA had control over flue gas desulfuri- zation. With the proposed transfer, DOE will take over all three of PAGENO="0115" 111 these programs. That is the final step in concentrating these programs in DOE. We know that under the competitive situation, EPA's flue desul- furization technology has moved rapidly to a point where it is now widely believed to be proven and is commercially available. What we do not know is whether more rapid or equal progress would have resulted from the centralized management that is now being imple- mented. The rationale behind this move to centralized management is that it will increase efficiency by reducing the waste inherent in the over- lapping functions associated with interagency competition. We do not find this rationale compelling in the case of environmental control technology. If the policy goal is rapid development of control tech- nology, we believe the competitive situation is to be preferred. This is especially so when the technologies being developed are controversial and likely to be resisted by industry, as has been the case with air pollution control technologies. Linked to the issue of centralization is the issue of inherent agency bias. In noting agency bias, we emphasize that bias flows from the congressionally mandated or assigned agency missions, and we do not mean to question the values or motives of the leadership of the two agencies. DOE's primary mission is increased energy production and efficiency. EPA's mission is environmental protection. In the process of developing new energy technologies, compromises will have to be evolved between these two missions. One point seems certain; it is that those interests in society who give primary emphasis to environmental protection will believe that DOE will weight the compromises in favor of production and efficiency, just as industry often complains that EPA has not given enough attention to the cost and reliability of flue gas desulfurization. The central issue, then, is that of credibility. Credibility is the meas- ure of confidence interested parties have that programs or actions of government are looking after their concerns. The proposed transfer will likely reduce the credibility of the Government's energy program ~o environmental interests and probably increase it with industry. The third, and perhaps most crucial issue, and I really want to un- derline this, the third and perhaps most crucial issue that the subcom- mittee should consider as it reviews the transfer of control technology concerns the impact on EPA's technological base for supporting its environmental regulation function. Two factors make state-of-the-art knowledge of environmental control technologies essential to the EPA regulatory function. First~ although many of EPA's regulations are supposed to be based on scientifically determined fate-effects relation- ships, in fact, there is only very limited scientific understanding of these relationships for most pollutants. In practice, then, if EPA regulations are to be neither impossibly stringent, nor unacceptably loose, they must be influenced by up-to-date knowledge of what en- vironmental control technologies can accomplish. It is our impression that to date knowledge of control technologies has been essential to the realistic establishment of those regulations which are supposed to be based on scientific knowledge of health and environmental effects. Second, existing legislation, in fact, requires EPA to establish some technology-based standards. For example, the new source performance PAGENO="0116" 112 standards established in the Clean Air Act Amendments are to be technology based The apparent rationale for the transfer is that DOE will have in tegrated programs for the development of energy production and en vironmental control technologies EPA will then use DOE data in developing its environmental regulations Given the different and po tentially conflicting missions of DOE and EPA, we find the proposed arrangement less than satisfactory. We believe EPA must have the authority and resources to continue its own program in control tech nologies Without the ability to be a major participant in control tech nology programs, EPA will have no say over what technologies are pushed and at what rate Also, EPA is likely to lose the personnel expertise that is necessary to develop sound regulatory programs and to observe and evaluate the technology development piograms being carried out in industry and other Federal agencies In sum, this trans fer of function could result in EPA being subjected to the same criti cism the U S Geological Survey has faced in regulating offshore oil and gas without its own independent base of technical expertise Finally, the importance of each of the preceding issues might be less if both the history and expectations of close and meaningful coopera tion between DOE-previously ERDA-1~ LA, and EPA were high It is our impression that such cooperation has not been, and is unlikely to be, the case Please note this expectation is in no way a 1 eflection of the quality, motives, or good will of the people involved Rather, it is a reflection 0± the organizations The success of the two organizations is defined differently, and to make either organization's success dependent on the other seems less than wise Stated simply, society is more likely to benefit if each organization has the full range of resources necessary to carry out its mission. The previous four points have all dealt with the consequences of transport 0± those residuals and the dose response relationships Our fifth point concerns the quid pro quo transfer of environmental research funds from DOE to EPA To achieve the implied purpose of this transfer, it is necessary to define a clear line of responsibility be tween the two agencies in the area of environmental research In the abstract, such a line may appear to be easily defined For example, DOE might have responsibility for research on the various energy technologies, while EPA would have responsibility for research on the transport of those residuals and the dose response relationships Unfortunately, the limited understanding and the complexity of the environmental effects of energy technologies, for example coal, make dividing research responsibilities highly questionab]e in our view Re search on dose response or pollution transport may very well lead io the need to investigate residuals that were previously viewed as of minor significance For example, recent concern with trace elements and whether or not they should be regulated requires that EPA be concerned with both coal characteristics and coal conversion processes Different coals and different conversion processes can affect the emis sion rates of the trace elements, the chemical forms in which they appear, and the waste stream in which they are emitted; that is, in the stack gas, the ash, or the scrubbing sludge Such information is essen tial to structuring fate effect studies and in regulatoiy decisions A second issue regarding this transfer is the loss by DOE of exper tise concerning environmental effects that it must have to guide its PAGENO="0117" 113 technology R. & D. program. The issue is parallel to the one identified earlier regarding the loss to EPA of its required technology base. In sum any separation among agencies of research on the effects of coal residuals is likely to be an impediment to both environmental reg- ulation and technology development. Our view is that both EPA and DOE should be free to study any part of the system associated with environmental effects that they feel is important to their mission. That is, both agencies should have freedom to pursue research in this area. Of course, there should be enough interagency communication and co- ordination, for example, as carried out by the Federal interagency energy/environment R. & D. program, to preclude significant amounts of overlap and redundancy. Finally, we want to briefly touch on another point that is a subject of these hearings; that is, the size of the overall, Federal environ- mental research budget for fossil fuels, especially coal. The data we have indicate an absolute reduction in environmental R. & D. within DOE and an increase within EPA. However, we did not have informa- tion as to how these funds would be divided among coal, nuclear, and so forth. Present understanding of the environmental effects of coal utilization is very limited, much less than for nuclear, for example, and that is not in such good shape, I am told. The clear need is for more coal-related environmental research over the next few years, not less, no matter what agency funds it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to questions. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Kash. As a matter of fact your statement makes many of the points which I must say have run through my own mind in going over this situation and it does it much better than I would have done it, I think. If I may just correct or at least indicate my understanding with regard to that last statement that you made on the Federal environ- mental R. & D. budget. There has been a substantial increase in the EPA budget overall, but a minimal increase in the R. & D. section of that budget, as I think Dr. Gage could probably clarify for us. Mr. BROWN. Dr. Gage, are you up to speed on what we are doing here? Do you think you could proceed with your statement? STATEMENT OP DR. STEPHEN GAGE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMIN- ISTRATOR POE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMEN- TAL PROTECTION AGENCY Dr. GAGE. Yes; I could immediately, if you want me to. Mr. BROWN. We are trying to get the introductory statements out of the way before we enter into questions. So if you will proceed, Dr. Gage, who is the Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency, and we are pleased to have you here. Dr. GAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee at this time to testify on the realignment of certain energy-related environmental research in the Environmental Protec- tion Agency and the Department of Enengy. As you have been discussing here this morning, the President's fiscal year 1979 budget provides for a change in program emphasis, under PAGENO="0118" 114 existing agency authorizations, in the environmental research activities of EPA and DOE. In general, the new emphasis establishes EPA as the lead agency responsible for research in support of long range en- vironmental goals and regulatory standards. Similarly, the action es- tablishes DOE as the lead agency responsible for development of energy environmental control technology. As part of this realignment in responsibilities, which you have been discussing, $14 million worth of health and environmental effects re- search currently conducted in DOE's National Laboratories will be in- corporated in the EPA research program. Also, $14 million of pollution control technology projects conducted by EPA will be administered in the future by DOE. The specific de- tails of this action-namely, identification of the projects to be trans- ferred and the arrangements for orderly transfer and future manage- ment-will be worked out by EPA, DOE, and the Office of Manage- ment and Budget during the next 3 months. In fact Dr. Liverman and I will be meeting again tomorrow morning. Mr. BROWN. I understand you meet weekly-is that right? Dr. GAGE. That is correct. The intent of this realignment is to improve the overall Federal effort in environmental research and environmental technology de- velopment. At the current time, there are significant overlaps in EPA's and DOE's mandates for environmental research and environmental technology development. These have arisen during recent years as a result of earnest attempts by both agencies to see that adequate scien- tific and technological data be available so that decisionmakers could make informed decisions. This realignment will clarify EPA and DOE responsibilities in the two designated areas. During the past 3 years-which have included rapid growth in energy-related environmental research and formation of first the En- ergy Research and Development Administration and later the Depart- ment of Energy-there have been continuing attempts by EPA and ERDA/DOE to coordinate their programs. Some segments of the programs have been well coordinated, for example, those activities un- der the Interagency Energy/Environmental R. & P. program admin- istered by EPA. However, these programs included but a fraction of the energy-related research conducted by EPA and DOE. In DOE's case, the pass-through funding from EPA was a miniscule fraction of its total research resources. The sheer enormity, over $300 million, and complexity, thousands of projects connected by several dozen labora- tories across the country, of the combined EPA/DOE programs has, of course, made the problem of coordination extremely difficult. With this realignment and the establishment of a permanent EPA! DOE interagency working group operating under the auspices of 0MB, we can expect improved coordination across the full spectrum of energy-related environmental research conducted by the two agencies. Further, by connecting the improved understanding of the corn- `bined EPA/DOE programs with the budgeting process, we could as- sure that Federal research resources are directed at the highest priority problems and that serious research gaps are filled. An approach to effect the best allocation of resources might be cross-agency zero base budgeting~ a new concept recently described by 0MB Acting Director James McIntyre. PAGENO="0119" 115 One of the most significant benefits to EPA in the realignment will be the direct access to the outstanding expertise in national labora- tories. Although we have not completed the identification of national laboratory projects to be transferred to EPA, we are confident that direct contracting with the national laboratories will expand mark- edly the capabilities we can draw on in developing the scientific data essential for environmental standards and regulations. We have sup- ported research by the national laboratory personnel in the past and generally have been quite pleased with the work. We anticipate that, beginning with the projects transferred in the $14 million realignment, we can build upon the centers of expertise in the national laboratories to give us important future support both in regulation-oriented re- search and long-term environmental research. I should also mention that the national laboratories, since they are operated by contractors, have considerably more flexibility in adjusting the size and skill mix of their staff than do Government laboratories operating under Civil Service Commission rules. This may be very im- portant to EPA since our regulatory priorities evolve rather quickly while the personnel ceilings and skill mixes in our laboratories change very slowly. The other part of the realignment involves the assumption of lead responsibility by DOE for pilot and demonstration plant projects in energy environmental control technology. EPA retains its current en- gineering and technical assessment capabilities as well as resources to continue bench-scale research on energy control technologies in order to advance the state of the art and to be able to specify best available pollution control technologies such as new source performance stand- ards for existing and emerging energy technologies. In the past, EPA has undertaken demonstration plant projects only in the area of sulfur oxides control. Noteworthy are the successful demonstrations of the magnesium oxide scrubbing process in coopera- tion with the Boston Edison Electric Co., and the highly promising Wellman-Lord scrubbing process now underway in cooperation with Northern Indiana Public Service Co. The Weliman-Lord demonstra- tion will be carried through to completion, as will the double alkali scrubbing demonstration conducted with Louisville Gas and Electric Co., during the next 1½ years under EPA management. As you see, scrubber technology has been brought to a relatively high degree of maturity by EPA and the electric utility industry within the last few years. Thus, in the scrubber area, the realignment basically affects future investment decisions on pilot and demonstration plants for advanced scrubber concepts. Since the Federal R. & D. resources could be allo- cated either to advanced scrubber concepts or to alternative clean energy technologies such as fluidized bed combustion, or to some mix of both, it is logical that such decisions should be made within a com- mon set of decision criteria. Through careful weighing of technological, economic, and environmental factors, the most cost-effective use of Federal resources can be achieved. Control of nitrogen oxides emissions presents a substantially differ- ent picture. Alt;hough some progress has been made in reducing NO~ from large coal-fired powerplants, the state of currently available NO~ control techniques, namely, certain modifications in the combustion process, is not adequate to check the nationwide growth in NO~ emis- PAGENO="0120" 116 sions during the coming decade This fact, coupled with increasing use of coal, demands a technological breakthrough. At leist one technique, low NO~ pulverized coal burners, however, does show promise of controlling nitrogen oxides emissions to the 80 to 90 percent level, well beyond the current 40 to 50 percent level I'hat is why EPA, in support of the President's national energy plan, sought a substantial supplement to its fiscal year 1978 budget to acceler ate the development of this technique, which does appear to be ap plic~~ble on convention'il pulveri7ed coal boilers To assure the optimum conditions for success of this effort, the realignment excludes this on going effort, leaving EPA engineers responsible for carrying it through to completion Future initiatives for NO~ control will, of course, be the responsibility of DOE. Other EPA energy-related control technology R. & D. efforts have been primarily at iench sc'ile and pilot plant levels with a flexible definition of bench scale efforts-such as i/100 to i/30 of commercial scale plants-many of EPA's past contributions to the state of the art of pollution control would have qualified as the results of bench scale efforts We are confident that we can continue to press ahead with new innovations under the terms of the realignment The realignment does not relieve EPA in any way of its responsibih ties to carry out the intent of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the other relevant authorities. We will continue bench-scale re- search, as I have explained, and we will also continue to test and evalu- ate control technologies developed by DOE and private companies so that we are fully aware of the capabilities of new control techniques ~nd approaches Further through the permanent interagency working group and other mechanisms, we will urge DOE to carefully consider our priorities for funding of energy environmental control tech nologies An extremely important part of the realignment is DOE's guaran tee that EPA will have access to all facilities, data and methodology employed in the energy technology program While we have negoti ated specific arrangements with ERDA/DOE in the past 2 years, they have been limited to relatively narro~i areas of concern, for in stance, fluidized bed combustion. Where we have achieved agreement, the working relationships have been excellent and have involved gen uine cooperation With the broad DOE guarantee, we feel that we will have access to the information we will need to shape and set environ mental regulations for the new energy technologies This concludes my formal presentation, Mr Chairman I would be happy to answer any questions you have Mr BROWN That is a very positive statement, Dr Gage, one which would indicate the possibility that this matter could be satisfactorily resolved to the advantage of everybody concerned it seems to me. We have not heard from Dr. Liverman, and at this point I will ask him just to offer any comments that he might have with regard to the presentations that we have heard so far PAGENO="0121" 117 STATEMENT OP DR ~1AMES LIVERHAN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRE TARY POR ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OP ENERGY Dr LIVERMAN Thank you I did not come with any prepared statement in accordance with you staff's instructions I could comment on two or three statements that have been made I think Mr Aim spelled out, quite c1e~ ny, for you how the relatio ts are between his office and mine in terms uf policy implications of what is being done by the Assistant Secretary for Environment I would say that since the formation of the Department only 4 months ago, we have made tremendous strides forward in working out effective rela tionships between us and addressing jointly those environmental ques tions that impact on the Department's policy I am personally quite pleased with the way these relationships are going In the case of Mr Fumich's comments, I think that this committee is fully aware, from its long knowledge about my own programs, that there have been times in the past in ERDA, when the fossil energy and environmental programs were not always happy with each other I have to say, in all honesty now, that the relationship with George Fu mich and Auggie Pitrolo, since they have taken that over, has had a very positive turn George Fumich described for you somc of the rea sons for interactions between our two groups such as the gasifiers in industry program We are also working together in the solvent refined coal area Other things that George outlined indicate to me that the relationships are greatly improved From the discussions that George and I have had in the last few weeks, I think that any problems that may have existed before are either ironed out now or will be ironed out because we are determined at the policy level that they will be ironed out, those views will be passed down to lower echelons in the Depart ment I think Don Kash's comments about the public perception question is one which this committee wrestles with from time to time and there may be no way to clearly resolve what the public perception may turn out to be I think that it behooves us all-Steve Gage and myself and everybody else involved-with this new approach that the President has said we should begin to achieve, to take every step we can to open up the process so that the public is fully informed about what we are doing at all stages of our programs, and measures to involve them so that they do feel that they are part of the decisionmaking process on these issues and are fully informed and therefore they will at least be confident they are being told the whole truth and will be given an op portumty to talk ahout those things with which they do not agree Don's comments about whether or not the total environmental pro grams of the Nation are receiving adequate support is certainly an is sue before this committee, over and over and over again I have my own perceptions of that problem I think it is important that we utilize all of the resources we have, not only that in the technologies, that in the EPA, but that in the other 25 or 30 agencies in this town who are involved in areas related to the energy/environment interface ques tions and try to make maximum use of that to insure that in fact, I think in Don's words, that there is not redundancy, but more impor tantly that there are no holes in the R & D That needs to be done to insure environmental integnty of these systems as they move forward PAGENO="0122" 118 I think I would voice much the same view that Steve does that where there is a will there is a way, and if we march forward on this program of interchange of programs and funds, if it ends up in having a clear delineation of the responsibilities of the two agencies, it seems to me one comes out with a picture somewhat as follows: The EPA has a broad responsibility to work in this area. DOE has broad responsibili- ties to work in this area.. And there is clearly a gray area and that will always remain, and we must insure that in that gray area there is not; unnecessary redundancy. I think that the pressures that this com- mittee, and others, that the 0MB will bring to bear that we will be forced to talk to each other more vigorously and coordinate more vigorously than perhaps we have always done in the past, and I think that sort of summarizes where I come out. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Liverman. Let me just make a few comments of my own. I think I personally and I suspect most Members of Congress feel that there is not any magic about the particular forms of organization which guarantee the fulfillment of the public purpose. And it is not my intent to second-guess any legitimate organizational effort, exchange of programs, or whatnot that seem to be based upon any reasonably sound grounds. What I am concerned about-and I think this is a shared concern by other Members of Congress-is that ther~ be what we frequently desig- nate by the shorthand term-"adequate coordination," This word does not convey very well all of the things that we are interested in, they obviously include that there be no unnecessary duplication of expen- sive work. It obviously includes an effort to analyze the existence of gaps in a research program. These dual purposes require that in some fashion there be a mech- anism for understanding the total program. You cannot very well determine gaps if you do not understand what the total program is trying to achieve, and this has been the most common defect of most forms of bureaucratic organization. Bureaucrats do not think in each of their shops in terms of the total program which is sought to be achieved to serve the public interest, and the Congress very frequently contributes to this and we are willing to accept the blame. But more and more I think you will find the Members of Congress concerned with remedying both the defects that we may have caused and the defects which may have arisen without our system. This is the pur- pose of an examination of the sort that we are talking about here. Very frankly, it is far more important, I think, to the success of both of the agency's programs in terms of serving the public welfare, that we have accomplished what Dr. Gage refers to as EPA access to all the facilities, data, and methodology employed in the energy technology program. You are not working in classified areas, gentlemen. You are working in areas in which you are both seeking to achieve the same purpose. Now obviously there are times when bureaucratic rivalries or even frictions can develop a~nd which there is a little dragging of feet here and there and it is very difficult to find this out sometimes. But ultimately it tends to surface in one form or another and it is on those occasions that I personally become very incensed, because somewhere there is a defect that should have been corrected within the organization without it having to be brought up to the level of the PAGENO="0123" 119 President and 0MB or the Congress. It adds to our work and it i~ very unsatisfying. It causes us to make enemies and lose friends and none of us likes to do that. So these are the concerns that we have. Now, having pontificated to that extent, let me ask if any of you gentlemen would care to add to your original statement as to what you perceive the prospects for success in this realignment or the realign- ment of programs and in the organization of the environmental R. & D. policy functions. On that one point, let me say, that I have no criteria that I could apply that would say that Dr. Liverman has to do all of the environ- mental R. & D. policy work in DOE. I think it quite properly has to be distributed between you and Mr. Alm and Mr. Fumich. But the important thing is that there be a recognition of the relative role that each of you is playing in this operation so that you can do just as you have to do in connection with outside agencies; make decisions which incorporate all of the facts and all of the necessary data. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I add one comment to my-I would pick up on the words of Don Kash-which really has to do with the perceived needs by an agency, and I think this sort of bears on the diversity which he felt is needed in order to insure that you bring to bear all the viewpoints. Now today EPA and DOE could separate programs and start down the road. They will reach a point of disagreement about whether or not something is important in the other one's area that needs to be done but for their own purposes. And that will continue to exist, and I think that says, again, that there is a very important requirement imposed upon both agencies as well as the other agencies in town in this area, and that is that they work together on planning the R. & D. that they carry out. Because if EPA does not carry out something for which they have responsibility and which we feel a need, it is very clear we are going to go on and do it because we feel we have to have it in order, and the same thing is true of EPA looking at our side. Perhaps if we develop he mecianisrn which you referred to insure that not only in the implementation of the budgets and R. & D. that we have ongoing, but in the planning of that we work closely together, perhaps it can be assured. But I think lacking that then we are going to be back in the same boat again later on. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Aim, you mentioned an environmental issues com- mittee, is that the kind of a mechanism which can help to achieve the goal that Dr. Liverman is talking about, or is this something that you put up to take the heat if something goes wrong? [Laughter.] Mr. ALM. It may not be bad for that purpose, but that was not the reason I mentioned it. The Environmental Issues Committee is designed to bring together the people within DOE that have environmental responsibilities under the purview of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. As Mr. Fumich mentioned, the fossil energy program has environ- mental responsibilities, other direct program activities have en- vironmental responsibilities, my office has environmental respon- sibilities. It is important that within EPA and within DOE there be a group that focuses comprehensively on a series of environmental issues. PAGENO="0124" 120 a The second issue is how we are assured that DOE is coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency I indicat~l before that we have a regular working relationship with EPA There are 21 groups working on individual problems One group is implementing this notion of an overview of the DOE budget by EPA and vice versa One of EPA's legitimate concerns which came out in a meeting that I had with Doug Costele is that EPA get involved rather early in the development of our budgets so that they can have the kind of input on the control technology side That agreement has been developed It is run out 0± the Office of Envnonment-Mr Coleman, who works for Dr Liverman, is the responsible official on our side for that coordination I guess my feeling is that these two mechanisms, one within DOE `md one between DOE and EPA, provide a pretty good framework Now `having said that, we realize that any coordinating mechanism is going to run into problems, and I think it is incumbent upon us to continually review how well we are doing and to work very closely with the committee and establish a dialogue on how well these mecha- nisms are working You have information that does not normally come to our atten tion Problems come up on our side which you should be informed about Mr BROWN Well, we are particularly involved in this issue in this committee because we will look at both the environmental re search and development budget in DOE and in EPA And ~e are very much concerned that the momentum of critical high-priority programs be maintained, but if there is some question as to which agency is doing what, and one agency is reducing its budget whereas the other may be increasing it, it is rather difficult to see if this fits within a total plan of maintaining an adequate priority in that particular area Obviously other people including the Appropriations Committee and 0MB look at this, but it has to be something that can be under stood in a rational way by all of those who have some input into the policy process. And I hope that will include us to some degree. Continuing on this Environmental Issues Committee within the Department for a moment. There are, as I indicated, two closely i elated issues One is what you might narrowly define as coordination and the other is more broadly defined as coordination but includes sort of an overview of the total subject that is being coordinated to deter mine ] f the overall progi am within the agency, between agencies, with other agencies is adequate Now, can something like the Environmental Issues Committee do this or should there be a broader mechanism that can look in a very broad way at the total programs Should we have such an organiza tion or mechanism of some sort Or, maybe we do, and if we do, what isit? Mr ALM I think there are probably two dimensions to the question One is the question of, To `~mhat extent do the environmental programs fit into the Nation's overall energy strategy? That is a critical issue because, as I indicated before, in the medium term, coal is going to be the major area of domestic energy growth In the longer term we are t'tlking about the use of coal for various synthetic products PAGENO="0125" 121 There are a number of constraints in the development of any series of technologies, including infrastructure, financing, and the like, `but environment is one of the most important. You can either call it a con- straint or an opportunity in terms of a new technology. The function of evaluating constraints to energy production is a function of my office working very closely with other offices. The func- tion of evaluating all DOE environmental programs, what progress is being made, and how well are we coordinated internally are issues the Environmental Issues Committee is most appropriate to perform. So I think these two functions can fit very nicely together. Obviously, it all comes down ultimately to working relationships and the desire of people to make things work. And I can assure you we plan to do that. We work very closely together. Mr. BROWN. Let me give you two simple examples of what I am talking about. You have a perfect setup for internal coordination of environmental research and development in your Department and now you have developed a perfect relationship with EPA so that all energy environ- mental matters are adequately provided for. However, it so happens that we have a huge problem stemming from another sector-agriculture, say, fertilizers and pesticides are getting into the streams and ending up in the ocean and we are all getting cancer from it, and the energy stream contribution is merely a small section of this whole thing. Is there some way of looking at this other phase? Or if you cut it another way, as another example, you are doing an excellent iob on the health effects of the energy production stream of carcinogens. You have got this perfectly under control. You have a beautiful cancer research program. But NIH has got another cancer program and they are fumbling away at the same problem. Are you able to develop an ade- quate way of optimizing our resources in this fashion? These are two separate additional aspects of the problem that have to be looked at it seems to me. Mr. ALM. I thihk in many respects the question you are asking me probably is more directed at EPA. But since I am a former official- Mr. BROWN. I will be glad to do that. [Laughter.] Mr. ALM. But since I am a former official, I think it is fair for me to make a comment or two before passing it on to my friend. Dr. Gage. It is always a difficult problem with the diversity of Federal re- search and development and other activities. I remember in the partic- ular area you mentioned of cancer research. We had a series of meetings with the Department of HEW dealing with the activities of both NIH and NIEHS. We developed some working arrangements at that time. These arrangements were in the nature of agreements. In the energy research and development area, on the other hand, there was a more formal mechanism established through passthrough of funds from EPA to other agencies. The point I am making is that you should structure your coordinat- ing mechanisms to the problem at hand. There is no one perfect pattern for coordination. Dr. Gage, do you want to comment on that? Dr. GAGE. Yes; I would like to, Al, thaiik you. PAGENO="0126" 122 I would have to echo your point. There is no single mechanism; there is no single committee structure, or approach which can be used to get at the variety of problems that you described, Mr. Brown. For instance, we essentially have a mirror image of the Environ- mental Issues Committee of DOE within EPA. This is an effort which was originally started by Mr. Alm when he was the Assistant Adminis- trator for Planning and Management with EPA. It is called an Energy Policy Committee. Basically, we try to identify those cross- cutting issues that affect several offices within EPA. We then attempt to address the issues to make sure that we are coordinated within the agency and have a designated official to deal with the issues outside the agency. This was more complex, I remember in Mr. Alm's day, because the activities were more splintered in the energy area. We had to deal with parts of Interior, with the Federal Power Commission, with the Federal Energy Administration, and with ERDA. We have found it necessary to reinvigorate that policy committee, and the chairman of the committee is Mr. Drayton, who succeeded Mr. Alm in the posi- tion of the Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management. I am a full member of that committee, and we have representatives from our Air, Water, and Toxic Substances Office as well. With regard to the other types of issues, I think that we have a vari- ety of mechanisms which are ongoing right now and interfacing with the National Institutes of Health. We have ~arrangements to use data developed by the National Cancer Institute on preliminary results of screening and the early identification of potential threats from com- pounds. We even get that information on a confidential basis before they have confirmed the results to a degree that they feel they can announce them publicly-just so we have very early warning of prob- lems which may arise. Another area-and I think a more difficult, more obtuse area-that we have to continue to worry about is the more subtle or secondary or tertiary interactions. You mentioned pesticides and agriculture chemicals. These chemicals certainly have an environmental impact. They also have a very strong influence on the productivity of Ameri- can cropland. Further, they are a major component of energy demands with fuels being used to form the fertilizers and pesticides and with a great deal of fuel being used in the application to cropland. Those are the kind of interactions that I think we need to spend a lot more time working on. Hopefully some of the many issues might settle down and we can start worrying about some of the more subtle longer term issues that may be at the heart of future problems. Mr. BROWN. I recognize when I phrase points of this sort in rather broad ways, it runs the risk of becoming such a broad issue that it be- comes fuzzy and we cannot address it properly. Bnt basically, what I am looking for and whatever merit my position has, I think the same view will be shared by other Congressmen is cross- cutting ways in which we can approach this problem. For example, we have looked with considerable favor on the development of broad scale data base with full accessibility to all the agencies that are involved in a particular kind of problem. Similarly we have focused on systems like comprehensive monitoring systems which meet the needs of a num- ber of agencies which need to be planned in a coordinated way. PAGENO="0127" 123 We see these as ways in which we can strengthen our total program effort in broad areas and at the same time possibly simplify the struc- tures which currently exist, and I do not need to tell any of you gentle- men how important today from a political standpoint is the need to simplify and rationalize our various different Government programs and Government organizations. And it is only when we can see things that are of concern to a num- ber of agencies and see mechanisms by which they can work together to meet a common purpose hat we have any chance of simplification. Otherwise we are going to create a national monitoring bureau or a national something else. It will probably go down the drain like the Consumer Protection Act did because it represents another layer of Government or another bureaucratic establishment. So the purpose behind my sometimes fanatic pushing on these things is really to encourage more thinking that would look in a net- work fashion at ways we can develop these necessary systems without complicating an already complicated existence. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I take 2 minutes to talk to the mechanism thing? Mr. BROWN. Yes. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think your positions are always very restrained-. whatever you may say of your positions. As you and the committee are well aware we have started environ- mental development plans which attempt to lay out the problems in the energy technologies which get commented upon by EPA and the other agencies in town, the industry and the environmental groups hoping to identify problem areas. Point No. 2-we have attempted jointly with the some 25 other agen- cies to identify the ongoing efforts in the environmental and related areas. Steve and his people in EPA about, I think, 3 years ago almost, as a result of the existence of the pass through exercise pulled together in Pinehurst, N.C.-and we did not have time to go golfing, it was tco cold-but pulled together a workshop of about 100 people in the health area specifically looking at particular aspects of the health area by those people currently involved in the R. & D. efforts related to the health impact of energy pollutants. I think if you take those three separate systems and weld them together in an effective relationship, then you in some large measure will have achieved the kind of coordination of which you speak, par- ticularly if the workshop area is broadened to include the researchers that are not necessarily funded by EPA or by DOE, but the research- ers who are doing work in that closely related area. What you then end up with is the environmental development plan gives you those areas which need more research done on them. The inventory tells you what is being done currently, and you get together the people who are work- ing, and it really sharpens up the priority focus from a health and en- vironmental impact of what should really be getting the top priority and what should not be getting the top priority. If you couple that then back to the EDP and the time frame that the technology needs answers in order to give you the decision process to go forward or not, then you have wrapped together what to me would seem to be a pretty effective mechanism for taking advantage from a regulatory and from a development standpoint all of the information we have, thoroughly PAGENO="0128" 124 evaluated and be sure that you are putting your dollars on the target on which it should be located Mr. BROWN. You have described very well the kind of process which I have been trying to emphasize and I think you can count on con tinued encouragement from this committee in initiatives of that sort. Now I have been monopolizing the conversation here too much. Mr. Watkins, would you care to explore any of these issues? Mr. WATKINS. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your yield- ing a few minutes to me. I am also glad to hear that you might feel that you are a fanatic about something because I know some folks probably feel like I am very much a fanatic about utilization of labo- ratories, and so forth Also, Dr Liverman, your comment about the restraint of the chair man, let me assure you, I try to be very restrained too in my situation when I see, I think, the lack of coordination, the lack of adequate utilization of our laboratories and the lack of, I think, just the effort to sit down and try to say how can we utilize these programs Mr. Kash, I am from the State of Oklahoma, and I have not had the opportunity to visit with you and talk with you, but I think a central- ized point I would like to begin with was briefly mentioned by you on page 3 of your testimony and that is credibility. I think we have got a serious credibility gap and maybe a lack of a sincere effort to get some things resolved I think ~e have a credi bihty gap here within the agencies of our Government But let me assure you one thing, and I think Mr Kash might have alluded to it, we have a tremendous credibility gap out here with the public And I think, as our chairman said, there is a little political concern, I think, of a lot of us of just why we cannot resolve a lot of it I think a lot of it is in that second or third paragraph down, Mr. Kash, stated-first, although many of EPA's regulations are supposed to be based on scientifically determined fate effects relationships-and I think that most of the people, and I have said this I do not know how many times, are willing to accept certain restrictions if they are based on adequate scientific research that might affect the health, or might affect the operttion of agriculture, water, or whatever I think they are willing to tighten their belt and work it out, but I think so much of these regulations come out without that proper basis And second, and if I am thinking wrong, I can be corrected When we find something on scientific analysis and research, we should also come up hopefully with a different alternative. I mean not put the peo- ple with such~ a barrier on something and say you cannot utilize this any more, you cannot do this any more Here is an alternative People ac cept it Our credibility would be increased treirendously in the energy field as well as all facets of it. Now, one of the things I have suggested close to a year ago, and I have not seen anything done about it maybe there is something happening on it I would like to ask you all I ~1iscussed the possibility of some joint research through interagency agreement in some of the laboratories, like an EPA laboratory And iust briefly, because I would like to get some brief answers because I have to catch a 12 15 flight to Oklahoma. Are we doing anything in this area from the Department of Energy on environmental studies ~ Are we doing any research in EPA labs on interagency agreement ~ PAGENO="0129" 125 Dr. LIVERMAN. We transfer very little money into the EPA, al- though there is a small amount. I do not know exactly what that is. EPA, on the other hand, is carrying out a sizable amount of it, and I guess, Steve, the number must be $6 million? Dr. GAGE. About that, Jim. Dr. LIVERMAN. $6 or $8 million a year in our various laboratories, and many of these are joint programs between my program and, say, George Fumich's program and Steve's program. And George men- tioned the case of the-not in the laboratories but essentially the same-the University of Minnesota project looking at gasifiers for the university there in which not only Dr. Gage, but Mr. Fumich and me and OSHA, all have joint programs. So that when they come out with a regulation, it will be based on facts that we all agree are facts, which I think, you know, leans a great deal to what the credibility- Mr. WATKINS. I caught that statement, but I have talked for a year about the possibility of needing a joint laboratory as such in order to carry out some of this because I am deeply concerned about the credibility. And I think if we did some joint work, maybe in some laboratories, on petrochemical, petroleum, or on energy, such as the water labs, we would probably get more credibility, and I would like to see some of this take place. I have got many notes here and I know I am going- Dr. GAGE. Mr. Watkins, I would certainly welcome the transfer of any DOE funds to EPA laboratories. [Laughter.] Mr. WATKINS. I would like to, too, since I have seen all the evidence, Dr. Gage, it looks like you are going to attempt to close down the energy petroleum rese.arch at the laboratory in Ada, Okla. I get deeply concerned about the direction when I see research going in all direc- tions, and we have laboratories, Government facilities, that are 40 percent in operation. Now, it is costly to pay the overhead for a lot of research to go in many other areas, especially when we set with labora- tories 40 percent occupied. That is something in behalf of the taxpay- ers that I hope we can get an answer to and we can see if we can place some research in some of these laboratories to not let them just be there as shelter. Now, I would like to go with another statement which concerns me, which Mr. Kash made, and I think it is something we should not let go lightly. He says-finally, the importance of each of the preceding issues might be less if both the history and expectations of close and mean- ingful cooperation between DOE and EPA were high. It is our im- pression that such cooperation has not been and is unlikely to be. I hope we can in-house develop that cooperation, and I understand there are efforts being made to do that, because I think it is crucial, and I would like to see some of that cooperation done by seeing where we can better utilize some of the facilities. I am deeply concerned, Dr. Gage, in evidence I see about basically the long-term agreement, I think, we have. It looks like the plans are to shut down certain areas. I want to discuss this with you after this. And I do not think this was anywhere in our discussion. Let me ask Dr. Gage a couple more questions along these lines. Are agencies or managers of our environmental research programs adequately considering the full utilization of these laboratory facili- ties? 32-744 0 - 78 - 9 PAGENO="0130" 126 Dr. GAGE. We have had several discussions about this before, Mr. Watkins, and I assure you again that utilization of our laboratories and, probably more importantly, of our personnel is a daily preoccu- pation. As I have explained to you, we are under very limited man- power ceilings. Our manpower has essentially remained constant over the last 4 years within the Environmental Protection Agency's re- search and development program. One of the unfortunate things is that we just cannot turn dollars which we have been getting in increas- ing amounts for the conduct of the research program into Federal civil servants which we need to hire into our laboratories. There may be some other mechanisms such as bringing some contract or other per- sonnel into our laboratories on a cost-reimburseable basis, of course. But let me assure you the best utilization of what we have- Mr. WATKINS. How about the interagency agreements we would like to deal, we used to do some environmental studies in some of these- Dr. LIVERMAN. You are addressing the question to me- Mr. WATKINS. Yes; I am. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think the issue again here hinges on the point that Steve makes, that the activities in their laboratories, if we transfer money to them, gets carried out through the use of civil servants, so they are blocked by the ceilings that the President places on the labora- tories. Now, the other option which DOE uses extensively as you know and except almost totally except for George Fumich's program in fossil, the energy research labs is done by contractor employees. And the ceiling there is limited by the number of dollars that you can put into the place. So I think the case in Ada is that it has principally and historically been a civil servant staff laboratory, and if it becomes a contractor-operated-and-run laboratory, then the question only then becomes one of are there programs that make good sense to put there. I would like Dr. Gage to comment on what I have said, but I think that is essentially true. Dr. GAGE. I think you have exactly described the situation. I do think there are programs which can be operated very effectively out of the Ada laboratory. We have, in fact, begun a new initiative for fiscal year 1979 at Ada in the area of ground water reseach. This is an area which has not received enough attention. It is one of those areas that sort of slipped between the cracks of the various environmental authorizations in the past few years, although there has been some attention given to it in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Nowhere is there a comprehensive approach to the treatment of ground water problems, and I certainly would like to welcome the Department of Energy and any other Fed- eral agency that would have an interest in working with us to build up the capability in the ground water research area as quickly as possible. Mr. WATKINS. I am very enthused about that, and I am looking at that flexibility and some of these barriers that we might have. I would appreciate from you some indication on those. Let me ask you a question. Is the utilization of these existing facilities given little or no pri- ority in carrying out research ~ Dr. GAGE. The utilization of our facilities is a major factor to take into account, but it cannot be something which is unrelated to the PAGENO="0131" 127 utilization of the personnel that is involved. First and foremost you must have someone who is capable and experienced in the area to put in charge of a project or you must have some new positions that you can place in a facility which can be filled with people having that type of expertise. Putting all those factors together we try to al- locate our resources the best way possible. Mr. WATKINS. I will not continue this because I know you and I have an appointment next week. I want to visit with you on that in great length. I read your statement and I will probably have some more questions on that, Dr. Gage. Mr. Fumich, let me ask you another question. I understand reorganization has established an environmental ad- viser to this Assistant Secretary-has that been filled? ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISER TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY Mr. F1JMICH. I do not think it has been filled yet, sir. I know that Mr. Thorne is looking for someone, but I do not think that position has been filled yet. Mr. WATKINS. Has there been any indication of when it might be filled? Mr. FUMICH. He was talking about the very near future, in other words something is imminent. Mr. WATKINS. I just wondered-maybe that is part of our problem down there. We lack personnel slots being filled, and I understand the problem because there are a lot of similar situations in Oklahoma. With personnel slots not being filled you cannot get the job done. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think Mr. Fumich is correct because Mr. Thorne and I have actually discussed possible candidates for that position in his organization because he feels it is important that whoever occupies that, they have a very close relationship with the Assistant Secretary for Environment. So I think it is a positive answer- Mr. FUMICH. He also wanted to make sure that I, and the others, got his message. ILaughter.] Mr. WATKINS. Let me ask Mr. Fumich another question. In your testimony, on pages 7-8, you listed some of the programs that you presently have going and I have tried to outline each one of these. Briefly, what are some of your new programs that you plan for fiscal years 1979 and 1980? You mentioned some of the existing pro- grams with as much emphasis being placed on some new technology and alternatives. NEW TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Mr. FUMIcH. Well, in many cases it involves third-generation activi- ties. I will just give you an example. We have been involved in gasifi- cation technology for quite some time. I have been involved in it myself for about 15 years, and there is quite a bit of controversy on the status of second-generation tech- nology. Some people say it is about 15 percent more efficient than first- generation technology. Others say that it is not. However, we feel that we are involved in research right now which can lead to a breakthrough in increased efficiency. In any gasification process, the reactor com- prises only about 5 percent of the capital investment of a complete PAGENO="0132" 128 commercial plant involving over $1 billion investment. So if you only work at improving the reactor and even though you make a major breakthrough, you will not make a major impact in that particulai technology On the other hand, if you work not only on improving the reactor but on cutting down or eliminating many of the downstream capital requirements, then you can make a major improvement These are the areas of R. & D. that we are getting involved in. I will give you another example-improved coal cleaning We have been involved in physical coal cleaning for quite some time, but chemi cal coal cleaning is something really new. We have about seven proc- esses now where we think that by utilizing chemical cleaning we can get much of the organic sulfur out of coal. And we feel that maybe two or three of these processes can pass muster and we can move ahead in a major development scheme Of course we also have the fuel cell technology that was transferred to us recently from the conservation group within ERDA and we think that this as great promise, particularly when we start moving into the second and third generation technology So it is not alone in looking for new areas, it is looking at what we have already and seeing where we can make these major improvements Because, to be completely can did with you, if we are going to do something in the next 10 years, it is not going to be by finding new technology It is going to be by making major improvements in areas where we have already spent a lot of money Then of course we can also move ahead these other areas that you are considering Mr WATKINS Just a quick comment on that and another quick question As Mr Kash knows, the area I represent probably has tremendous potential with the fossil fuel development-oil, gas, and coal-and I am deeply interested in and concerned with the sulfur work you have done there. The question I have is what are you doing along the lines of en hanced oil recovery? ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY Mr FUMICH Enhanced oil recovery is one of our more promising technical areas Unfortunately, when we extract oil we only extract about one third of the oil in place A good way to show the technical problem in this area may be that 1 cubic foot of sediment spread out equals about the area of a football field So when you scrape all the oil off the top of that football field you come up with 1 gallon. This is the type of problem that we are involved in underground You cannot get all of this oil out because it is either too thick or viscous or the permeability of the sediments there is too low or too heterogeneous So you have to fracture them or use chemical or thermal recovery methods and, as a result of the combination, you can bring out more oil Unfortunately, like in everything else you have something that puts a cap on that activity and that is economics Chemicals cost a lot of money, so if we can find a new way of doing this, we can increase our oil availability I think this is one of our more important areas so we are increasing this effort PAGENO="0133" 129 Mr. WATKINS. That is probably one of the greatest things in the decade ahead of us-our coal development. This issue will require in- creasing attention in the very near future, and I can see a couple of questions we have to get answered: ground water and some other things associated with enhanced oil recovery. I do not know if anyone has sat down and tried to discuss this problem or not. I think this is an oppor- tunity for us to develop an abundance of oil that has not to date been available in this country. I think we need to try to find this answer. Mr. ALM. Mr. Watkins, I would just like to make one comment. Tertiary recovery of oil under the national energy plan would re- ceive the world price. This is the case where focusing both the regu- lation efforts of the Department and the research efforts we would develop the techniques of advanced recovery on the one hand and on the other hand provide the economic incentives for the actual development. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for having this meeting this morning. I stayed over last night, though I had planned on leaving, because I felt the importance of this meeting. Some coordination and some policies need to be worked out and de- veloped by all of you, and I hope for some answers concerning the utilization of our laboratories. I think the effort has got to be made and I hope th'at each of you knows the priority the chairman has placed on this kind of work since I have ~ot to run like mad now to catch a plane before it takes off. I appreciate your willingness to sit down and do what you can to work some of these problems out. I think, Mr. Kash, your statement about credibility sums it all up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. I want to ask the staff to help me with a few questions which need to be answered. This will just take a few minutes. We are trying to comniete our authorization `hearings on this subject of environmental R. & D. so that we can get a bill marked up in the near future. I unfortunately have a tendency to neglect some of the details of this process while I concentrate on larger and sometimes less important matters. [Laughter.] Mr. BROWN. Mr. Spensley? Mr. SPENSLEY. I would like to explore a little bit the role differen- tiation between the three areas that are represented today, and I would like to start with Mr. Alm. Can you give me some idea in your own words of the difference in role in the area of environmental control technology development or environmental control technology activity between the Assistant Sec- retary for Environment and in the fossil fuel program? Mr. ALM. I am pretty much in agreement with what has been said today. The overview responsibility is the responsibility of the Assist- ant Secretary for Environment. Much of the detailed work would be conducted by the Fossil Fuel Office, as indeed it should be. The de- velopment of any technology has to have the environmental compo- nent developed from the very start. And the Office of Environment is responsible to make sure this occurs. For example, the environmem. tal `development plans process is very important. We now have 33 completed and 26 have been approved by the Assistant Secretary for Environment. PAGENO="0134" 130 Mr. SPENSLEY. Would you be more specific on that statement, be- cause I think that is the statement that has been echoed by the other witnesses as well. Let us take the case of policy development in the environmental area or in environmental control technology tradeoffs as an example. Where should that activity principally be? Mr. ALM. That, Mr. Spensley, depends on the particular issue. If you are developing an overall supply strategy, you have questions about the use of various fuels, let us say coal, and then you have questions about the contributions of individual technologies such as atmospheric fluidized bed combustion, low Btu gas or coal burned as coal. These are issues that policy and evaluation would get into because we would be dealing with the whole variety of departmental tools to bring about the development of energy supplies. I would say the trade-offs also get involved with Dr. Liverman's overview i~ole- Mr. SPEN5LEY. Maybe it would help if I were a little more specific. Take the example of trade-offs between the environmental control technology activities across the technology development area. Presum- ably that would be an activity that would be in Dr. Liverman's shop because it would include more than fossil. Do you agree with that? Mr. ALM. Yes. Mr. SPENSLEY. Now where within the fossil program should examina- tion of environmental trade-off s among environmental control tech- nology activities for a variety of fossil applications be? Mr. ALM. It depends on the issue. In general- Mr. SPENSLEY. Let us say an examination of the trade-offs, the economics, or the environmental acceptability of the various environ- mental control technology strategies across the fossil program. Mr. ALM. The programatic responsibility would be with Mr. Fumich. Dr. Liverman would have an overview function. Mr. SPEN5LEY. I do not understand overview. That is my problem. Mr. ALM. Overview, I think, almost speaks for itself. Dr. Liver- man has responsibility for evaluating the program, for helping set priorities, and if conflicts exist ultimately either resolving them, or getting a resolution from the Secretary. Mr. SPENSLEY. Moving to another area for a minute, what do you see as the role of the Assistant Secretary for Environment in examining environmental impacts and considerations of the soft energy paths as an energy strategy? Mr. ALM. That is a critical effort that Dr. Liverman has to under- take. In fact, this is something that we talked about very recently and we are now looking at particular work in dividing the policy component from the component dealing with the environmental impact. Mr. SPENSLEY. Finally, we this morning had a short meeting with one of the CEQ members, and we understand that they are now in the process Of asking for comments by the various agencies on their pro- posed regulations. I am curious to know whet:her the Department of Energy has pro- vided any comments, and if so, who prepared the comments and who reviewed them before they were submitted. PAGENO="0135" 131 Dr. LIVERMAN. Do you want me to answer that? Mr. ALM. Why don't you answer that. [Laughter.] By the way, I have read the comments, but with the concurrence system we have I am not sure who prepared them. Mr. SPENSLEY. Did you concur in them-the comments? Mr. ALM. Yes. Dr. LIVERMAN. The comments were-when the regs came in they were taken by my NEPA office and sent out to all of the Assistant Secretaries and the Administrators and the Directors and there are some 25 of them or something, and consolidated by my shop and put together. As you have seen they are focused on two or three areas, specifically the question of the extent to which NEPA was required to analyze impacts in the foreign arena and whet:her NEPA should re- quire that envirotnment was given superior or equal status with eco- nomics and other nationai policies were ones that gave some trouble within the Department. And they were concurred in as they went out the door by everybody and I believe they went over the signature of the Deputy Secretary, it could have been the tinder Secretary. Mr. SPENSLEY. Did you make comments, substantive comments in your shop, or did you just simply consolidate- Dr. LIVERMAN. No, no, we made substantive comments also. Mr. SPENSLEY. Could you provide a copy of your comments of the CEQ regulations for our records? Dr. LIVERMAN. Sure-what time frame do you wish those. Mr. SPENSLEY. As soon as possible. [The document follows:] PAGENO="0136" 132 Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20461 FEB 6 1978 Mr. Charles Warren, Chairman Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Warren: The Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed the draft regulations proposed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to iriipln- inent the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which were transmitted by your letter of December 12, 1977. DOE has also reconsidered the marits of the proposed Executive order, originally circulated to Federal agencies on August 19, 1977, as requested. DOE fully supports the President's objectives to re~iuce p~er- work, simplify procedures, and improve the effectiveness of the environmental review process. However, on the basis of this review, we have substantial concerns reç~arding the policy and procedural implications of the proposed Executive order and regulations. Background . Presiden~t Carter, in his Environrnenta~L Message ofMáy'23, 1977, noted that NEPA : has had a dramatic--and beneficial--influence Ofl the way i~ew projects are planned. But to be more useful to dec~.sionmakers and the public, environmental impact statements: inus~ be concise, ~ceac1ab1e, ~tnd based on compet~nt profes~ional analy~is.. They must ref idct a concern with qua1ity,..i~otqUafltitY. PAGENO="0137" 133 Accordingly, the President issued E.O. 11991, directing CEQ to issue regulations to implement the procedural provisions [Section 102(2)] of NEPA. A complete overhaul of the environ- mental impact statement (515) process was not required. In the course of preparing the Environmental Message, and sub- sequent thereto, CEQ sought additional authority, by means of a proposed Executive order, to implement the substantive goals of NEPA. These efforts were firmly opposed by each of the major constituent age~icies incorporated into DOE. Fur- ther, we understand that other Federal agencies expressed major concerns in this regard. Comments on the Proposed Executive Order * The proposed Executive order does not differ from the version previously reviewed, and therefore, is not responsive to prior agency comments. It would require, among other things, that Federal agencies: (1) select the alternative that is least harmful to the environment, uñIê~" 1~Eéf~ are specific overriding national policy considerations; (2) use all prac- ticable means to avoid or minimize significant enyironmental harm; and (3) adopt a concise public finding which states that all practicable means have been adopted and enforced to minimize or avoid significant environmental harm and which provides reasons for choosing an alternative other than the one which is least harmful to the environment. DOE n~~jn1~ains t_si~ch.xeg,~4rements misconstrue the primary pUQ~~NEPA and make such~ tantive and fun amenta change in the ~mp ementation of public poli~7Wtt1r-petential ~ impacts, that the substance of. this ini.tiative shou'd be submitted for * Congressional consideration rather than acti~ated by Executive order (see Tab A for detailed comments). Comments on the proposed Reg~latiOns * * ~heDOE.revie~ of the propOsed rdgulations (see Tabs:B and C fordetaile~ comments) has Iden~Ified four. major policy issues.tha~:regi4re resolution as well as. major doncerns rOg.ardiig; (1) the approPri~te ~cope,-of th& rè.g~i1atio~is consistent ~4ith the:mar~date of NEPA añd:E.O, .11991; and (2). ~zreas of unwarranted administrative burden, insufficient * guidance, lack of clarity, and technical inconsistencies. PAGENO="0138" 134 `Major Polic~~g~s The following major policy issues, raised in the regulations, with respect to the role of CEQ and the application of NEPA in Federal decisionmaking need to be resolved: (1) Requirement to Identify the Environmentally Preferable Alternative This requirement, coupled with the requirement in the draft Executive order, misconstrues the primary purpose of NEPA and, as noted above, could lead to severe impacts. Further, as discussed in Tab A with respect to the proposed Executive order, as well as in Tab C with respect to the regulations, it is, generally unworkable to require agencies to identify the environ- mentally preferable alternative. This proposal also exceeds the authority of E.O. 11991 by attempting to infuse substantive goals into procedural regulations. (2) Transformation of the EIS Process into the Agency Decisionxnaking Process Certain requirements of the draft regulations, such as publication of a judicially-reviewable record of decision stating how the EIS was used by the agency in its decisionmaking and justifying why the least environ- mentally harmful option was not selected, as well as expansion of the referral process to all agencies and e~ctension of the time to implement the decisipn because of' interagency disagreements on the EIS, ~ppe~j~o * t~~~form~,the. tS~~ process. * ` lamming and c1ecisionmaking.Q~9g~5, with strong `poten ia or a ny an even deterrence of significant * agency activities. Suchan .approach'tends to "judicialize" and inhibit administrative decision- * making, and exceeds the mandate o~ NEPA and E.O. 11991.- ~3) I~ole o~f CEQ in D~.sagreementS Involving Environm.ntal Issues and Other Matters of National. Policy The expanded referral process (involving agencies other * * :than the `Er~viroñm~ntal.PrOteCtiOfl Ageiic~k).wouid O1~vah~ CEQ above all `other departments, agencies, and other governmental bodies, including the Office of Management PAGENO="0139" 135 * and Budget (0MB), in resolving such major issues. DOE believes that this proposal improperly broadens the meaning of Section 102(2) and that CEO'S responsibilities as an environmental advisor to the President preclude it from resolving issues of this nature. (4) International Reach of NEPA DOE has serious reservations regarding the potential impairment of the' U.S. international competitive position, particularly in regard to the export of energy sources, including nuclear facilities, equipnent and material, if agencies are required by the proposed regulations to inquire into the envirorutiental effects in foreign nations of their.rnajor actions. These issues are fundamental to the interagency review of the proposed regulations and should be addressed through the normal OriB issue process. DOE believes that the development of the proposed regulations cannot logically proceed until these issues are resolved. Other Major Deficiencies Pending resolution of the major policy issues, CEQ should begin to address other shortcomings in the proposed regula-~ tions relative to the mandate of E.0. 11991. These, include: (1) extension of the regulations beyond recognized boundaries of NEPA la~i and policy;. (2) extension. of the regulations `beyond the mandate of E.0~ 11991; (3) increase in Federal paperwork burden; (4) increase in time requirements and po-' tential delays;' (5) additional potential `for litigation; (6} unworkable requirements for participatin~ agencies; (7) insufficient guidance irt crucial' areas; arid (8) insufficient. clarity, coherence and precision for a regulatory document. Reconnienda~ions *** . . *.. .. . . . We believe thab th~ analyses' enclosed ~i1i fIrmly ~ our recommendations that CEQ Cl) withdraw its prô~osëd Exëcutivè order; . ** (2) prepare issue papers to permit resolution of the major policy issues underlying the proposed regulations through the 0MB issue process; and PAGENO="0140" 136 (3) redraft its proposed regulations and recirculate them for agency review prior to their publicatiOlt in the Federal Register We would be pleased to provide further input on any of these comments if desired. Sincerely, Is! ~ohn F O'Leary Deputy Secretary Enclosures cc James T McIntyre, Jr Acting Director Office of Management and Budget PAGENO="0141" 137 Tab A bOE Comments on the Executive Order Titled "Relátin,g to P~otection and Enhince~ent~ ~Environmenta1 Qua lity In response to CEQ's request of December 12, 1977, DOE has reviewed the proposed Executive order entitled "Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality," that was previously submitted to Federal agencies for comment on August 19, 1977. During the first review, the Federal Energy Administration, Energy Research and Development Administration, and other elements now comprising DOE expressed severe reservations regarding the proposed Execu- tive order. DOE finds no changes in-the re-proposed Execu- tive order that woul6 allay any of the original concerns. Therefore, we are providing below our full detailed comments on the Executive order in the hopc that we can better convey to CEQ our problems with the approach under reconsideration. The proposed Executive order amends Executive Order No. 11514, and requires the following: (1) Federal agencies in choosing among alternatives in environmental impact state- * ments and in planning and carrying out agency actions, must select the alternative that is least harmful to the environ- ment, unless there are specific overriding national policy * considerations; (2) agencies use all practicable means to avoid or minimize significant `environmental harm; and (3) each agency, when choosing ~nong alternatives in environ~ mental impact statements, adopt a ..coi~cise public finding - that states that all practicable means havebeen adopted and enforced to rnini?mize or avoid significant environmental- harm - and provides the reasons for choosing any alternative other t1~art the one which is least harmful to the environment. In DOE's view, the `proposed Execut~ive order is urtaccpp~able asamatter of policy and is in ionflict with -the basic purposes of the -National Env.ironm~ental Policy Act ("NEPA"). - We~ have the. -following major concerns: * - *. - - i.: There is a substantial legal cjuostiort as tó whether - NEP~ is an adequate statutory basis for the issuance of this Executive order. there is not agreement among legal scholars or the Federal courts as to whether and PAGENO="0142" 138 to what extent NEPA contains substantive requirements as well a's procedural ones. If NEPA is only procedural in nature, the proposed Executive order is without legal foundation. 2. Even assuming NEPA has sufficient substantive content to sustain this Executive order as a matter of law, the proposed Order misconstrues the primary policy of NEPA. NEPA declared a national policy to "use all practicable means and measures"..."to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony," and "fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of 2~mericans." Consequently, with respect to any sub-' stantive NEPA content and its impact on Federal deci- sionnaking, the range of objectives to be considered are evidently broad and often competing. Given this broad definition of environment, it is excessively simplistic to attempt to determine which of several alternatives might be the least environmentally harmful. In fact, it is,a contradiction to suggest in Section (1) (a) (3) (ii) that the alternative "which involves the least harm to the environment" ("harm" being more readily applied to physical damage) and the "environ-' mentally preferable alternative" (encompassing broader objectives) are necessarily one and the same. Further-' more, even with rOspect to the natural environment, the task of forecasting the magnitude of environmental impacts is often imprecise and unquantifiable. There-' * fore', any attempt to rank alternatives as required by. the Executive order will be subject to major questions and.:c.h~j1enge while injecting.inefficiency.ând uncer- tainty in the decisionmaking process. . . 3. As a matter of policy, they substance of this initiative should be submitted for' Cong~essional consideration * rather than be actuated by an Executive order because :it'rnakes such a* sub~tantial and fundame.nt~tl change in * the implementation of public policy by Executive Branch agenciCs. ~In setting the nation's public polidy through, enactment of le~is1ation, `Congress determines the h~sic priorities through exrictmont of suhs~antiVe ~iws' as `well as appro~riations.. A change..' such as that proposed represents, in effect, a sub- stantial reordering of national priorities. Laws which PAGENO="0143" 139 mandate that specific agency action be undertaken in accordance with specific statutory standards will, in their implementation, have added to them a new standard which requires that a certain approach be taken absent "overriding considerations of national policy.". This type of fundamental adjustment of national priorities should not be undertaken except through the legislative process--including the hearings and broad public debate the issue deserves. 4. This radical alteration in the framework of environ-. mental regulation is being proposed without any evi- dence that agencies are not currently giving sufficient weight to environmental considerations in the decision- making process. Our experience demonstrates the opposite, that the substantive objectives of NEPA are being largely met by the agencies through the Section 102(2) (C) process. In contrast, we have yet to see the rationale for the Executive order or an estimate of the benefits that could be expected from it. We believe that prior to further consideration of the Order CEQ should provide a statement of the incremental benefits to be derived from the proposed Executive order. Further, should such benefits exist, then achievement through the Executive order appears inappropriate in light of the major substantive environmental protection afforded the country through other environmental protection statutes. These basic environmental pro- tection statutes (i.e., the Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, etc.), provide for the necessary and appropriate protection and restoration of environmental quality. Furthermore, *these statutes afford protection not only for Federal activities but also encompass private, State and local activities.. If additional, substantive environmental protection authorities are deemed- necessary, amendments to those basic statutes should be proposed by the Administration. . . .5. The proposed Executive order ~hould be accompanied-by an estimate of the inflationary impact of the proposed ±ecjuircments. * Because of the wide ranqing scope pf NEPA on Federal and non~Fddera1 actjons arrd prdject~, the ~hift from the traditional "least co~t" critei~ion PAGENO="0144" 140 to the "environmentally preferred" criterion could result in a substantial cost to the Nation. No re- structuring of the balancing process inherent in NEPA can logically be contemplated until an in-depth study of the economic impacts has been completed. 6. Adoption of this Executive order could well lead to pressure for similar requirements with respect to public policies which are every bit as critical as environmental issues. Thus, there could be a require- ment that agencies choose the "least energy consuming" alternative, or the "most unemployment reducing" alternative. The possibilities and the legitimate justifications are endless - as would be the paperwork, confusion, and impi~oper public administration caused by such an approach. 7. An additional policy factor weighing heavily against the issuance of this proposed Executive orderis the possible a~exse nexgy~im ac that could result from ~ The Federa overnment's ~ resources as well as its licensing activities are substantial and represent a significant percentage of future energy supply. The addition of the concepts of "least harmful alternatives," "environmentally prefer- able alternative" and "overriding considerations of national policy" are invitations to litigation with respect to the development of these resources. For the above reasons, DOE continues to oppose the issuance of the proposed Executive order. We suggest that the pro- posal has failed to support itself on merit and that it should be removed from further consid~ration~ .~ PAGENO="0145" TAB B Exceeds Eumeeds Additional Section 0:0. 11991 Pap~rwork Part 1500. Purpose 1500.1 Purpose X x 1500.2 Policy x x 1500.3 Mandate * 1500.4 Reducing Paperwork a 1500.5 Reducing S Delay - 1500.6 Agency . - Authority x Part 1501. Agency Planning 1501.1 Purpose : * x 1501.2 Apply NEPA Early S x 1501.3 When to Prepare an 1501.4 Whether to .- Prepare an 010 1501.5 Lead Agencies 1501.5 ~ . 1501.7 Scoping 1501.0 Time Limits S Part 1502. EIS's -. -.. * 1502.1 Purpose * xx 1502.2 Implementation * X 0 DOE Comments on Proposed CEQ Reaulations: ~~nd Index DOE Comments on Proposed CEO Regulations: Summary and Index Tsb 0 Vague/ Additional Litigation Insufficient Unclean Page Time/Delal Potential Guidance Inconsistent Tab ~ * -~ X 7 X n 7 X X 10 X X 12 X X 13- 21 x X 36 21 * S x 19 X X X 22 X * * 25 - 27 27 21 ** Sc x PAGENO="0146" Vague/ ExceedS Exceeds Additional Additional Litigation Insufficient unclean Page Section ~_ ~~~l19!~ ~pg~ork !~p~!y ~~tia1 Cuidamce~ Inconsistent ~~C_ 1502.22 Duty to Know X 47 1502.23 Cout-Senefit Analysis * ~C - -. x 48 1502.24 Methodology * 48 1502.25 Environmental Review Requirements- : - X X 48 Part 1503. Commentin$~ - * 1503.1 Inviting coeiments..: 0 X 49 1503.2 Duty to Comment -. * * - - 49 1503.3 Specificity X - 50 1503.4 Response * . X 50 1504. Predecisiom Referrals 1504.1 Purpose . 52. 1504.2 Criteria for : Roferral X - X 52 1504.3 Procedure for - - - - - Referrals - - -. .- X K - X 53 1505. Iecisionm~~gg - - - 1555.1 Decisiommaking - . Procedures IC - - - X - X 55 - 1505.2 Record of Decision - 0- - 0 - K - X - 56 1505.3 Implementing - . .- - the Decision X X K - 57 - Part 1506. Other Requirements - 1506.1 Limitations . - - - - - on Actions --K X K 58 1506.2 Elimination of * - -. Duplication - - X X 60 PAGENO="0147" Vague/ Exceede Exceeds Z~dditiona1 Additional Litigation Insufficient Umclear/ Page 5 Section NEPA E.G. 11991 - Paperwork Tiine/Delgy Potential Guidance Inconsistent TabC 1502.3 Statutory Requirements 29 1502.4 Major Federal Actions x X 30 1502.5 Timing X 32 15~.6 Interdisciplinary Preparation x X 33 1502.7 Page Limits x X X 34 1502.8 Writing x 34 1502.9 Supplemental. -. Statementa . x x 35 1502.10 Recommended Format * . X X 37 1502.1]. Cover Sheet x 38 1502.12 Summary - - X 38 1502.13 Purpose and . Need .. - X 39 1102.14 Alternatives X . X X X X 40 1502.15 Environmental -- - Consequences . : . X X 43 1002.16 Affected . Environment .* 44 1502.17 List of -. - Preparers * * x x X 44 1502.18 Appendix -, x 45 1502.19 Circulation * of theESS - X * X. 46 1522.20 Tiering -- X 47 1502.21 Incorporation , a by Refepence . - X 47 PAGENO="0148" * * . Vaguo/ Exceeds Exceeds Additional Additional Litigation Insufficient Unclear/ Page 1 Section . J~~.__ ~~.11991 . ~~p~prk ~55~/~9~a ~955tial Guidance Inconsiste0h !o~_C_ 1506.3 AdoptiOn . X 61 1506.4 Combining . . . Documents . .- X 61 1506.5 Agency * * . Responsibility . . * X 62 1506.6 Public . Involvement . .X . X X X X 63 1506.7 Further * . Guidance .~. -. X 64 15068 Lg lti Ppol X X 65 1506.9 Filing ** Rq t X X 66 ) 1500~1O I g f figency * * Action *. X X 67 150611 Enrg i X 68 1506.12 Effective *~ * * . * 3 Dt X 69 P t 1507 5o.y C mph 15071 C ph X 70 5072 Ag cy Cpbhity x 70~] 15073 Ag y P d X 71 P t 1508 5 mi 1og~ 15001 Tn lgy 56 72 15082 At 72 1518 3 Aff tig x 72 1564 Cig 6 1 Excluaion .. * 72 PAGENO="0149" Vague/ Exceeds . Excueds Additional Additional Litigation Insufficient Unclean Page Section ~_ 5.0. 11991 Paperwork Time/Delay Potential Guidance Inconsistent TabC 1508.; Cooperating. . Agency . . . X 73 1508.6 Council . 1508.7 Cumulative * Impact IC . . .74 1508.8 Effects * . X * 75 1500.9 ES *. . . V 70 1508.10 Environmental Documents . . 76 1508.11 LOS 76 1508.12 Finding of . No Impact . . . 76 2 1508.13 Human . Environment IC . X X 77 ~ 1508.15 Legislation. : x . 77 1508.16 Major Federal. ~.* Action . . x 78 1508.17 Matter . . 78 1508.18 Mitigation; . . . . . x 78 1508.19 HEPA .* Process `. . .* . x 79 1508.20 Notice Qj * .. Intent . x l5O8.21P~oposa1 . . . . IC 79 1508.22 Referring . Agency . 79 1508.23 Scope : . so 80 1508.24 Significantly ..* 1508.25 Tiening. 1: IC 80 Index . . . . X . MO PAGENO="0150" 146 Paragraph 1 The first statement of the regulations, that NEPA "is our basic national charter for protection of the environment," is debatable and inappropriate in these regulations. NEPA establishes broad national "policy" with respect to the environnent; other statutes (e.q., the Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, etc.) provide for the necessary and appropriate protection and restoration of environmental quality. NEPA does not encompass private, State and local activities, and in the Federal sphere, it recognizes the need to balance environmental protection goals with "other essential considerations of national policy." Paragraph 1 states that the purpose of these regulations is "to tell federal agencies what they must do to comply with the procedures and advance th~goals of the Act." While we agree that Federal agencies have a responsibility to advance the goals of NEPA, such a requirement is clearly beyond the authority of E.O. 11991 and should be deleted from the regulations. Paragraph 1 also refers to a responsibility for "enforcing" NEPA "so as to achieve the substantive requirements of section 101." Since there is not agreement among legal scholars or the Federal courts whether and to what extent NEPA. contains substantive requirements, and since the * substantive provisionsof NEPA are goals which agencies should strive to attain, rather than requirements. to be aáhieved or enforced, the last sentence of Paragr~ph1 * should be deleted.. * . This paragraph exceed~ the authorities o~NEPA and E.O.-. 11991 and includds vague and sweeping language (The in-v formation must be ~f.high quality, public scruti~ty is essential to implementing NbPA etc ) that is inapprdoriate in regulations The paragraph should be deleted Paragra~~~ The subject of this pragraph also exceeds the authority of E.O. 11991, which doe.~ not direct CEQ to seek to improve Federal decisiomma~ç~ through NEPA regulations. Rather, the reguT ~i~i~re to make the EIS process more useful to decisionmakers. Therefore, Paragraph 3 should be deleted. PAGENO="0151" Section 1500.2 Po1ic~ General 147 It is inappropriate under the mandate of E.O. 11991 for CEQ to attempt to propose regulations based on provisions of NEPA other than Section 102(2). Direct and indirect re-. ferences to other sections of NEPA should be deleted or appropriately described as goals, not requirements, which are beyond the legal purview of these regulations. Any statements of policy should be limited to the procedural provisions of NEPA and E.O. 11991. Section 1500.2(a) This section is a restatement of Section 102(1) of NEPA, which is not covered by CEQ's authorities and should be deleted. Furthermore, the phrase, "to the fullest extent possible" is applicable only to Section 102 of NEPA, not to the policies set forth "in these regulations," as inserted by CEQ. Section 15Q0.2(b) In this section (and elsewhere) the CEQ regulation uses the term "NEPA process." This is an improper and misleading paraphrasing of E.O. 11991, which uses the term "environmental impact statement process." DOE perceives a significant difference in the two terms and they should not be used ii~terchangeably. (CEO also views "the NEPA process" as substantially broader than "the EIS process," as evidenced by.the definition at Section 1508.19..) .. The remainder, of this suhsection~ is a paraphrase of E.O. 11991. CEQ should quote precisely4. however, to avoid changes in meaning. (i.e.,. "in order to emphasize th~ need ~ focus on real environS mental issues and alternatives" rather than "to emohasize real environmental issues and alternatives"). Seótion 1500.2(c) .* The phrase "to .the'fullest extent possible" should not be proposed as. applicable to `the goal of integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review procedures until the implications of that stringent test are assessed. CEQ has provided no guidance as to how this goal might be achieved. Without detailing appropriate procedures to effect such inte~ration, the unintended result is likely to be delays in the EIS process. We suggest that CEQ complete its study of Federal environmental review requirements, as PAGENO="0152" 148 the President directed CEQ to do in his Environmental Message of May 23, 1977, and recommend specific measures, including legislation and administrative.aCtiOns, to clarify and integrate them, as appropriate. Until that study is complete, the regulations should either not address the subject or utilize a "to the extent pracLicable" test, which would allow agencies the requisite discretion. Section 1500.2(4) The phrase "to the fullest extent possible" applied to public involvement in decisions should a~.so be deleted from this subsection, as such a requirement is not imposed either by NEPA or E.O. 11991. Furthermore, there is nothing in the E.O. which indicates that the public should be "involved" in decisionmaking, per se. NEPA requires only that HIS's be made available to the public and views solicited; E.O. 11991 requires that EIS's be "more useful" to the public. Accordingly, this section should be deleted in its entirety or revised as follows: "Encourage and facilitate public involvement in the HIS process." Section 1500.2(e) Given the broad definition of "effects" (Section 1508.8).; it would appear almost impossible in many situations to define alternatives that "avoid" adverse effects. However, since standards for harm to the physical and natural environment, as. well as to human health, are often better defined than those for economic and social well-being, this section would introduce a bias into the range of altexnatiyes that would *be~avai1ahle toa Federal decisionrnaker. Furthermore, this subsection inappropriae1y~ infers thát!'the proposed action~ * is loss desirable environmentally, while "alternatives" will avoid or minimize adverse effects. Accordingly, the wording should be changed to read: "Identify and assess all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, inc1ud~ those that may avoid or ~ni.ninizd adverse environmental irnp~ctS of these, actions upon the quality of thn human eñvirOnñ~eflt." * Fina11y~ the .phtase "the NEPA .proccss"~ should be dhange~ to:. the EIS process (5ee comment, Section 1500 2(o) PAGENO="0153" 149 Section 1500.2(f) This subsection should be deleted, as it is clearly beyond the scope of procedural regulations. Of further concern is the fact that CEQ has improperly comoined phrases from Section 101(a) and Section 101(b), thereby seriously mis- representing the Act. Maintaining consistency with other. considerations of national policy is a requirement of the Act, contrary to the meaning conveyed by the sentence structure. Section 1500.3 Mandate The last sentence of this section should be deleted. These regulations should be designed to implement Section 102(2) of NEPA; CEQ's mandate here does not extend to the entire Act. NEPA carefully separates policy from procedures. Neither Congress nor the courts have clearly shown how NEPA policy and Section 102(2) procedures should be integrated. Without such definitive guidance, CEQ should avoid any direct or indirect references in these regulations to, and interpretations of, the purported substantive provisions of the Act. PAGENO="0154" 150 Section 1500.4 Reducing Paperwork This entire section should be deleted as it is unnecessary and cumbersome in regulations. A summary or cross-reference, if used, should be incorporated in the Federal RQ9ister preamble. However, it is not at all clear that the provisions cited in 1500.4 will, in fact, reduce paperwork, as CEQ contends. Furthermore, there are other provisions of the proposed regulations which will increase the Federal paper- work burden. For example, items 1500.4(d), writing in plain language, (h),circulating a summary, and (1), requiring comments to be as specific as possible will not necessarily reduce paperwork. . Other provisions of the regulations, e.g., requirements for scoping meetings, expanded public notification, preparation of an index, preparation of a record of decision, reports to commenting agencies on the implementation of mitigating measures, and others, will significantly increase paperwork. CEQ needs to carefully analyze the regulations as a whole, with input from the affected Federal agencies, to determine the cumulative paperwork impacts of its proposed regulations. Without such an analysis, CEQ cannot support its claims that it has satisfied the mandate of E.O. 11991 with respect to reducing paperwork. * Section 1500.5 Reducin~g Deldy! For the reasons discussed in our response to Section 1500.4, this. section should be deleted. It is not at all.clear that the cumulative, impact of the CEQ regulatipns will, be to * reduce delay iii the EISproce~s. On the contrary, additional delays may be caused by .such provisions as scoping meetings, integration' of other statutory environmental review require- ments, public notice requirements, broadening the referral process to all a~gencies and extending the time to implement the decision because of interagency disagreement.on the EIS, * etc. Therefore, CEQ', should, carefully assess the~ timing impacts of its. proposed regulations.. .*. * `` Section `1500.6 Agency Author~y This section should be deleted as it is a reference to Section 102(1) of NEPA, which is beyond the authority of these regulations. Furthermore, the language suggests that agencies have not complied with NEPA during the past seven years by requiring agencies to view "traditional" policies and missions in light of NEPA and to revi~e policies, procedures, and regulations, as necessary, to comply with the Act. Finally, it should be noted that existing law may grant an exemption from NEPA compliance or EIS preparation. In such cases, compliance is not prohibited or impossible, but is not required. PAGENO="0155" 151 Part 1501. NEPA and Agency ?lann~ Section 1501.1 Purpose General The, thrust of this section should be modified to reflect the integration of the EIS process, not the NEPA process, with agency planning, in keeping with the limitations to CEQ authority. The language should be revised to eliminate unwarranted implications of conflicts in the EIS process. The following changes are considered essential to minimize ambiguity regarding the purpose of this section. Section 1501.1(a) Change to read: "Integrating the EIS process into early planning to insure appropriate consideration of environ~ mental factors and to avoid delay at later stages of decisionmaking and implementation." Section 1501.1(b) Change to read: "Emphasizing early consultation among agencies prior to EIS preparation." Section 1501.1(c) * change to read: "Providing for the early determination of. lead and cooperating agency EIS preparation responsibilities " Section 1501.1(d) * * *bhange to read: "Identifying as many significant environmental * impacts as possible at an early stage and defining the scope * * pf the EXS accordin~]y." * . * * * .* * Section 1501.1(e) * * . * Ch~hge ~o read: `~ncourag~ng t~iine limits f'or~ the ~omp1ètIoh of particular phases Of the EIS preparaionprOcess." PAGENO="0156" 152 Section 1501 2_~pp~yj~EPA Early in Proce~ General' This section is vague and proposes unrealistic requirements. The introductory sentence should be changed to read: "Agencies shall integrate the ElSpreparation process with other planning at the earliest practicable time to insure that planning and aecisions ref leát consideration of environ~ mental values and to avoid dela~s ànd~otentii~[ conflicts later in the process " The CEO regulations should reflect the fact that there are clearly situations where it is too 1 to begin prepara~' tion of an EIS The courts hai~e acknowledged that it is not always possible to pinpoint the tine in agency planning when a proposal is "ripe" for EIS preparation. An EIS prepared too early without proper formulation of alternatives and accumulation of basic planning information would be of poor quality and increase the potential for litigation and delay. CEQ regulations should also reflect the balancing of competing values required by NEPA and acknowledge that decisions may not always reflect environmental values, but that they should reflect consideration of those values Section 1501 2(a) The CEQ regulations provide no guidance here other than to quota the Act DOE finds little value in this approach i~q~n, )~50l 2(b) This sectionrequires substantial redrafting for the reasans outlined below.. First, it is simplistic to assume that en~ vironmental, economic and technical considerations warrant equal detail and simultaneous attention NEPA does not require ~ treatment it dOes require ajpropriate con~ sideration of environmental amenities and values n3ltl (not at the same time as) economic a~d technical considera~' tions rurther, the CEQ regulations imply an even greater than equal treatment in the words in at least as much detail, ~ih1ch is clearly beyond the requirements of NFPA The lcv~l of deta 1 should be determined by the test of "appropriateness," which is a function of the significance, complexity, and relevance to various program activities of each area of analysis. PAGENO="0157" 153 Second, with respect to the timing of the environmental analyses, there are numerous instances where a preliminary feasibility analysis without environmental impact analysis may be appropriate For example, it would be pointless to conduct an environmental review of projects that are clearly technically infeasible NEPA requires ag~ncies to consider environmental factors prior to decisionmaking, but not necessarily at the identical time that other factors are considered Finally, the CEQ regulations are unrealistic in requiring that the same individuals who review all other planning docunents (cost-benefit analyses, engineering drawings, etc ) will be the ones to review the environmental documents (notices of intent, environmental assessments, findings of no significant impact and EIS's Section 1501 2(c) DOE perceives no value in merely repeating the Act CEQ should provide guidance as to how this provision shoula be implemented Section 1501.2(d) This section is too vague to provide any useful guidance The only "provision the agency can make is to request that the non-Federal entity notify the agency during the action's planning stage If so notified the agency may request that studies be initiated~ However, clarification is needed regarding the extent of agency authority to require non-Federal applicants to participate in the EIS process at pre-applicatiOn stages CEQ should specify the type of studies sponsors should initiate, e g , environ- mental basolin studies, appropriate alternatives analyses, mitigating measures etc as well as specific Federal procedures for assuring early coordination It would be improper for the agency to begin its own environmental studios in anticipation of a project because that project might never rn~tortal17e or might deviatG substantially from orlg3nal plans In addition, item (3) should be revised to read `rhe rccleral agency commence~ its EIS preparation process at the ~ar1icst practiciblq ~ (S.e general comment, S~ction 1501 2 PAGENO="0158" 154 Section 1501.3 When to Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) The CEQ proposal here leaves gaps in the logical sequence and conditions of EA preparation. For example, it does not adequately deal with: (1) actions which normally require EIS's, but which nevertheless may require EA's or other levels of review; (2) actions which normally do not require EIS's, but nevertheless could require EA's or EIS's; or (3) a process by which emerging or unanticipated actions are classified into appropriate categories. In other words, CEQ has not provided clear guidance as to when an EA should be prepared, and has, in fact, opened the door to the possibility of preparing many more EA's then necessary. DOE believes it essential that this section be redrafted to focus specifically on when an EA is required and not simply on certain conditions when it ~g~t not be prepared.~ In our view, an EA should be prepared only when it is unclear whether an EIS is required. If an EIS is clearly required, then the agency should commence EIS preparation, without preparing an EA. If an EIS is clearly not required, even though the proposed action has not been explicitly excluded in agency regulations, then it should not be necessary to prepare an EA in order to complete the requisite environ-~ mental review. Environmental analyses (as opposed to the more formal EA) nay and should be performed whenever neces- sary to assist agency planning and decisionmaking. PAGENO="0159" 155 Section 1501.4 Whether to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) General This section does not present a logical framework orset of criteria for an agency faced with the decision of whether to prepare an HIS. CEQ should begin by stating that an HIS is required for a "major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," and then proceed to define these terms, or reference their definitions elsewhere. Section 1501.4(a) DOE supports the concept of categorical inclusions or exclu- sions as an aid in determining whether to prepare an HIS. However, CEQ should recognize that the scope of an agency's activities is not fixed, and that agencies must be permitted to add to these categories on a case-by-case basis, if necessary. The list of potential agency actions may expand, due to new legislative authorities, administrative initiatives, emergency circumstances, etc. Agencies cannot predict the appropriate category for all, potential actions. CEQ should also define "normally" in the context of these exclusions. Neither this section, nor Section 1507.3, nor Section 1508.4, gives any indication as to what constitutes an "abnormal" situation which requires the preparation of an * HA or EIS in the case of an, action "normally" excluded, or no HIS (or LA) in the case where an EIS is "normally" required. S~ct1on 1501.4(b) . . . * This section would require more LA's than actually are * necessary to comply with NEPA requirements. With the pas- sage of new energy legislation, for example, EA's would be required for every proposed action which had not been pre- vi~ously included, in or excluded from EIS requirements. DOL strongly recommendS that CEQ adopt the principle of `requirieg HA's ofl3x when it is unclear wbei~her to prepare an HIS. If an HIS is .cle~rly.no.t required, the LA is unnecessary; if an HIS cle~rly. is required, then HIS preparation should begii~ withOut ~réparation of an LA. * ` Public notice of intent to prepare an EA is unnecessary and poses a significant addition to the Federal paperwork burden. On the other hand, DOE recommends expanded notification of PAGENO="0160" 156 the availability of an EA and its accompanying "finding of no significant impact." (See response to SectiOn 1501.4(e).] As a practical matter, preparation of an EA is a relatively short-term effort, (particularly as defined at Section 1508.9) so that advance public notification that an EA is being prepared is unlikely to provide any input to the document. However, it is appropriate to allow the public to review the findings of the EA and public notice should be required. Section 1501.4(c) The language proposed by CEQ is not precise. An agency may make its determination based on the EA, if one has been ~~pared. Section 1501.4(a) allows the agency to~make it~s determination based on the categorical inclusions or exclusions. In addition, CEQ should permit an agency to go straight to an EIS, without preparing an EA, if it is "clear" from the outset that an EIS is required. Section 1501.4 (d) The benefit of a scoping meeting for every ETS is extremely questionable. Flexibility is required here. (See response to Section 1501.7.) Section 1501.4(e) This section contains unclear and imprecise language which obscures the intended meaning. The first clause refers to "the agency," while the second refers to "the lead agency." Would one agency make the determination not to prepare an EIS,. while another agency (the lead agency) . prepares the finding of no significant impact? If the agencymakes a "tentative" determirtation, how and when does it become final? . *Subsection 1501.4(e) (1) requires the finding of no significant impact to be made available to "the affected public." .Sub~ section lSQl..4(e)(2) refers to"pübli~' review prior to.a' final determinatipa in two limited circumstances. Is "public" broader t~ian "the affected ppblic7" If ~o., does (2) require a Fod~_l~gister notice while (1) may not' This entire process is confusing. * .. *: To clarify and improve the EA "findingS" process, ~OE recommends that: . PAGENO="0161" 157 `(1) EA's should be required ~ when it is "unclear" whether to prepare an EIS. (2) Environmental analyses (but not the more formal EA) may and should be prepared whenever useful to planning and decisionmaking. (3) A notice of availability of an EA should be published in the Federal Register, accompanied by a tentative "findin~" (i.e., EIS required or no EIS required). (4) Other forms of public notice may also be employed, as appropriate. (5) The finding automatically becomes final 15 days after publication in the Federal Resister, unless the agency determines, based on comments r~e]ved during that period, to reconsider its determination. (6) An agency may take no action with respect to the sub- ject of a tentative finding prior to expiration of the i5~day period, except that appropriate waivers are permitted for the emergency or overriding circumstances contemplated in Section 1506.11. While DOE prefers to enhance public notification through publication of a notice of availability and a "finding" for all EA's, we suggest that if a more limited approach is advocated by CEQ, then subsection (2) (ii) needs to be expanded to, at a minimum, include decisions in which. there is significant interest or controversy surrounding the potential environmental impacts. This matter raises a general question as to whether agenciOswilI in their. imnpie~.. mnenting regulations be able to go beyond the requirements of the CEO regulation. (See response to Section 1507.3.) 32-744 0 - 78 - 0 PAGENO="0162" 158 Section 1501.5 Lead Agencies General The CEQ regulations do not provide clear and sufficient guidance to assure the prompt and rational selection Of lead agencies. The proposed process is curr~bersome and would require a minimum of two months to conclude. Further, there is no provision for the early initiation of the selection process. We suggest that the entire section be rewritten, based on a thorough reconsideration of lead agency problems and the comments provided herein. In general, CEQ should recognize that a major part of the lead agency problem with respect to preparation of a required EIS is related to inertia and lack of initiative,, rather than overt agency "disputes." Therefore, CEQ should establish specific procedures for selection of lead agencies and the delegation of supportive responsibilities among participating or cooperating agencies, rather than rely heavily on an appeals process in the event of disagreement. Based on our analysis of the problem, CEQ should focus its attention on procedures for: (1) determining those circumstances in which there may be lead and cooperating agency participation in ETS preparation (e.g., multiple Federal permits for the same project; geographically or functionally related projects or programs sponsoted by, multiple agencies,; essential expertise in one agency (energy supply/demand * ` * * analysis by DOE) regarding a proposal under consider- atior~by another agency (pipeline approval or coal lease'sale proposed by DOf); * . . * (2) determining whether an'EA or EIS is'required, based on * the total Federal involvement, in specific cases; * ~3).id~ntifying the appropriáte~divi~ion of.ró~ponsibilities~ * * * for EA/EIS. preparation; * (4) * fosolvinginterágenqy disputes ~oncernin~ th~need fo~ * an EIS, designation of the lead agency, or appropriate * divisions of responsibility for EIS preparation; and (5) establishing generic lead agency agreements. PAGENO="0163" 159 Section 1501.5(a) The lead agency must assume supervisory responsibility for the preparation and content of the EIS. In ad~tion, the language must be sufficiently broad to encompa~ all potential situations where more than one agency is involved in a proposed program or project. Therefore, change (a) to read: "A lead agency shall be designated to supervise the preparation of an EIS, if required, when more than one Federal agency: (1) is directly involved in a project or program or ma group of projects directly related to each other, either functionally or geographically; or (2) possesses essential expertise regarding a proposed project or program, without which the project or program may not proceed." Section_1501.5(b) This sentence infers that two or more State or local agencies could act as joint lead agencies without participation of a Federal agency, a result that is available under Section 102(2) (D), if at all, under very limited circumstances. CEQ should reword the sentence to state: "A Federal agency may act as joint lead agency with one or more other Federal, State, or local agencies to prepare an EIS." * Section 1501.5 Cc) * The section does not establish a clear process wh~reby One agency proposix~g an action can learn of other agencies pro~ posing the same or related actions, and potential lead agencies determine which is to be thn lead agency. The first step is for the first agency on the proposal develop~ ment continuum to notify, as early as possible, all other agencies whjch willhave a part In app~ova1 ô.f the proposal. ~fte~ such. notificatjon,. the agencies invo1~ied. should consult With each other re9arding the need for. an EIS. * Thefl, an * interagency m~eting would be necessary to define the, probable ~oppe of the EIS,. particularly ~ith regard to the proposed * action and its a1.te~natives, in ordertO determine. ~hich agency\should most làgically assUme lead ágenc~ responsibility Other specific steps are also required and should be defined in the regulations. PAGENO="0164" 160 ¶1~he factors proposed by CEQ for determining lead agency designation are too restrictive Change to read "The following factors shall guide the involved agencies in determining the appropriate lead agency Further, DOE questions the validity of the descending order of importance as postulated by CEQ in all or even most situations. Finally, the distinction between (1) and (2) requires clarification DOE recommends that the various factors be listed without judgment as to priority Section 1501 5(d) This step is likely to have little or no value in resolving lead agency questions No timetable is provided (Agencies shall resolve the lead agency question in a manner that will not cause delay ) An affected party should be able to make such a request at any time in the process, the earlier the better. Section 1501 5(e) DOE disagrees st~ongly with the process whereby an applicant can make the detailed statement of why each potential lead agency should or should not be the lead agency and the agencies are required to react to that statement Par- ticularly if the applicant is a private applicant for a Federal permit, CEQ may not be presented with an unbiased case As a policy matter, we believe this analysis is a Federal respOnsibility Therefore, Section 1501 5(e)(2) should be deleted and a provision inserted to require CEQ to conduct such an analysis Section 1501 5(f) The section ~equiies extensive redrafting based on CEQ analysis and preparation of a tentative finding of lead agency (See comment ~tbove SecL,Lon 1501 5(e) ) The sequence of events should include (1) submission of the request to CFQ, (2) ~gcncy comment to CCQ (option~1), (3) CEQ analysis and prepazation of tent~ti.ve finding ~in consultation with OIIB to address budgcttry matters), (4) circulation of tontafive finding by CEQ to affected agencies,. (5) agency comments and (6) final detc.rmin~tion by CEQ rurther the language regtrding the timing of the CEQ determination is unclear Twenty days after the receipt of responses would be 40 days after the filing of the appeal PAGENO="0165" 161 Section 1501.6 Cooperating Agencies General Since this section addresses both lead agency and cooperating agency responsibilities, it would be more appropriate to combine Sections 1501.5 and 1501.6 into one section which encompasses all aspects of multi-agency EIS preparation. The referenced memorandum of understanding [Section 1501.5 Cc)] regarding lead agency designation could also include cooperating agency responsibilities. DOE questions whether CEQ has carefully considered the impacts of its proposal to require that any Federal agency "upon request of the lead agenày shall be a cooperating agency." This approach hardly se~is the way to foster interagency cooperation. In addition, and potentially more important is the fact that there are obvious manpower and funding implications, the extent of which are unknown. The task of anticipating lead agency EIS preparation resOurce requirements is exceedingly difficult. Providing sufficient resources for cooperating agency responsibilities may be impossible. Since a discussion of energy requirements and conservation potentials is mandatory for all EIS's under Section 1502 * 15(e), DOE could be required to be a cooperating agency for a large number of EIS's. Similarly, EPA involve-. ment, by virtue of its special expertise with respect to environmental impacts, maybe required for all EIS's. In our view, this section needs to be reworked, allowing for discretion and flexibility regarding the.participation of potential cooperatIng agencies. DOE suggests the following 1anguage~ * "Any Federal ag~nty, other than the lead agency, which has jurisdiction by law or special expe~tise with respect to any envitonxnental inipact included in the scop~. of. an EIS, and * any State .or local agency with similar quarificatiGns, may at its option provide s~ipport to the lead agenc~ in its preparatfon çf an EIS, as a cooperating agency. Lead agencies shall identify and consult with potential. coopordting agencies at the earliest practicable time.." * PAGENO="0166" 162 Section 1501.6(a) To provide needed flexibility, change item (1) to read: "Invite the participation of each potential cooperating agency in the EIS process at the earliest practicable time." With respect to item (2), DOE has serious concernswith respect to requiring "to the maximum extent possible" that agencies ~~pt the analysis and proposals of cooperating agencies. This approach has several disadvantages: (1) cooperating agencies are not free from bias; (2) the lead agency's responsibility for the contents of the EIS is diminished; (3) this discourages the lead agency from developing its own environmental expertise and encourages the lead agency to defer to the "expertise" of the cooperating agency; (4) it raises questions as to how comments on that portion of the EIS prepared by a cooperating agency will be handled; and (5) it may result in significantly greater confusion, delay, paperwork, etc., due to thO substantial difficulties in preparing a. coherent document with multi- agency participation. The potential detriment here to the EIS process is significant. Therefore, this approach should be discarded. The proposed list of lead agency responsibilities is incomplete. Appropriate additions may include: define scope of cooperating agency input, set EIS preparation schedules, provide funding for cooperating agency participation, allow cooperating * agencies to review their input as it will, appear in the EIS, etc. * - - * * / Section 1501.6(b) *..~ .. Consistent with previous comments, change. item (1) to read; "Participate in the EIS process at the earliest practicable time." . Iter~r (2) . indicates (apjropriateiy) that~thb scopi~nq meeting. is optional. . I~owever, this is' thconsistent with.Section 1501.7.' ~` *** -~ - . . * - Asdiscussc~ tinder SectiOn' .1501.6(a) .abo~!=e, we ,bttlieve it.is' unwise for a cooperating agency to "as~ume ~esponsibility" for a portion of an EIS. Therefore, item (3) should be deleted or revised to reflect cooperating agency assistance, but not direct preparation or responsibility. CEQ should recognize the potential abuse of this provision; e.g., PAGENO="0167" 163 agencies could delegate a major portion of their EIS preparation responsibilities to EPA. DOE believes that only through the actual preparation of an EIS does a lead agency become intimately familiar with the environmental consequences of its proposed actions. With respect to item (4), cooperating agency staff support must be discretionary, due to budgetary and manpower realities.. Furthermore, this provision is inconsistent with Section 1507.2, which requires that agencies have the requisite interdisciplinary capability and Section 1506.5, which requires any environmental docunent to be prepared directly by the. lead agency. The last sentence of this item is misplaced as it refers to a lead agency responsibility. PAGENO="0168" 164 Section 1501 7 Scop~p~ General The concept of early planning and involvement of affected parties in the preparation of an HIS is a sound one in theory However, the approach proposed in these regulations does not weigh the potential benefits against practical limitations and the potential for increased litigation and other delays in the HIS process, and should be reconsic~ered by CEQ An absolute reouirement that a scoping meeting be held for every HIS is unreasonable and unwarranted. Such a require-~ ment presents a substantial additional burden for every HIS preparation effort, with potentially little benefit in many cases Therefore, DOE recommends that the early scoping meeting be ootional Agencies should consider such factors as nagnitude of the project degree of controversy and uncertainty as to probable impacts wnen determining whether to convene a scoping meeting Agencies routinely consult with affected Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested persons, on an informal basis, to assist in determining the appropriate scope and emphasis of an HIS. Requiring a formal meeting will not necessarily provide better input and adds another step at the beginning of the HIS process which delays actual HIS preparation Multiple meetings in Washington and in affected regions would pose further delays Such meetings would become unwieldy when programmatic HIS's with national and international concerns are considered In addition, the approacF outlir~ed potentially opens up new areas of litigation and raises questions of financial assistance to affected parties as discussed below SecUon 1501 7(a) With respect to item (1), it is not clear how an agency, at the earliest stages of ETS planning, can identify ~ll interested pcrsofls (or points of view) who may support or oppose a proposed acUon Furthermore, there is no gtrtrantce that those persons who those to attend a scoping meeting would accurately represent all affected interests For example, one could imagine an energy development proposal where the private proponent and a major environmental group would be represented at the scoping meeting, but the resident PAGENO="0169" 165 ad)acent to the site or the worker potentially employed at the project would not. This would open up a new area for potential litigation, even before the EIS gets underway based on unfair representation at the scoping meeting. This question of representation could be complicated by requests for financial assistance to attend the scoping meeting In point of fact, the scoping meeting approach delineated here could inhibit public participation by allowing certain special interest groups to exercise excessive influence on the scoping process Despite these difficulties, item (3) would allow those present at the scoping meeting to eliminate from detailed study issues deemed insignificant From the standpoint of the agency ~esponsxble for the contents of the EIS and for its defense in court, this approach would on balance appear to create significant risks With respect to item (4), see our response to Section 1501 6 Item (6) is vague and unclear CEQ should specify how the identification of other environmental review requirements will enable their integration with the EIS process Section 1501 7(b) Any EIS page limits or time limits should be in the form ~f targets or goals See response to Section 1501 8 Section 1501 7(c) If the Notice of Intent is published in the Federal R~~ster after the sconing meeting, other interested persons may emerge We suggest that the Notice of Intent be prepared as soon as practicable aiter a decision is made to prepare art FIS and that ii. precede the scoping meeting, if held Interest expro~ ~od as a result of the Notice of Intent would be a fattor to consider in determining whether a scopirtg nleetihg i~ appropriate and necessary It. should also be noted that there may be situations where advance notice of EIS preparation may not be desirable due to an essential policy conbideration this flexibility should be maintained. Section 1501 7(d) Determining the appropriate scope of an EIS is a dynamic process, which responds to information developed during the course of EIS preparation it is unnecessary, however, to make formal changes in the scope, as CEQ suggests Further, this part implies that a formal determination of scope was required under Section 1501 7(a) and 1501 7(b) however, the procedures for that determination are unclear PAGENO="0170" 166 Section 1501.8 Time Limits General DOE believes that the "time limit" approach of this section is somewhat illusory for it does not provide mechanisms for reducing unnecessary delay. We suggest that the thrust of this section should be to encourage agencies to establish (and publish as part of the Notice of Intent, if appropriate) EIS preparation schedules, which agencies would endeavor to attain, to the extent consistent with NEPA and other statutory responsibilities. Such schedules would not be mandatory or enforceable, but would place a burden on an agency to justify why it may be necessary to deviate from the estimated timetable. Publication of the schedule in the Notice of Intent would assist the public and other Federal agencies in their planning and decisionmaking with respect to the proposed project or program. Therefore, we recommend that the introductory sentence be changed to read: "Agencies shall endeavor to establish, and publish in the Federal Re3ister Notice of Intent, as appropriate, EIS preparation schedules. Such schedules are not binding; however, to the extent practicable, agencies shall adhere to the estimated timetable." Section 1501.8(a) In keeping with the above comments, we suggest the following changes with respect to item (1): * Change ~(l) to read: "Consider the following factors in determining an EIS prep~ration sched~e:" Change (1) to read: "Significance of the potential ~y_er~ * ~~9j1~~i Change (vi).. to read: "Degree to which relevant information isknbwn'~nd if not known the ~me~~uii~ed to obtain it." Md: "(vii) Statutory deadlines, prog~am effectiveness,, and pending emergency siiEuations.' . . . * With respect `to item (2), DOE opposes any provision which grants app]icants leverage in accelerating the EIS process. The interests of the applicant in obtaining a speedy approval are not necessarily compatible with the public interest to PAGENO="0171" 167 provide an adequate study of the impacts of the proposal and its alternatives. Therefore, any tine limits with respect to an applicant proceeding must clearly be goals or targets, which are not binding on the agency. It should also be noted that in many instances the applicant is directly responsible for EIS delays by not providing adequate information to support the EIS. Section 1501.8(b) In both items (1) and (2), change "the NEPA process" to "the EIS process." While this section provides for optional time limits, we would point out that item (ii), determining the scope of an EIS, is a dynamic process, not subject to a fixed time frame. Also,a time limit for preparation of a final EIS would be difficult to set without knowing the num$er and merit of comments on the draft. PAGENO="0172" 168 !art,~l502.. Environmental, I,~pact Statement Section 1502 1 Purpose We question the need for this statement of purpose " which duplicates the language of Sections 1500 1 and 1500 2 Further, the CEQ language clouds the distinction between the procedural and substantive provisions of NEPA. We believe the primary purpose of the EIS is to insure the consideration of environmental impacts in agency decisionmakin~. Therefore, if this section is deemed warranted, we suggest the following language The purpose of the EIS is to assure identification and consideration of potential environ- mental impacts in agency decisionrraking The EIS shall inform decisionmakers and the public of the direct and indirect effects of proposed major Federal actions and their alternatives Section 1502 2 Implementation General In our view, the proposed regulations have failed to achieve their intended purpose, i.e., "to make the environmental impact statement process more useful to the public and decisionmakers." We ~uggest that CEQ focus greater attention and effort in this section towards improving the EIS process Section 1502 2(a) This admonition is vague and without regulatdry meaning. Furthermore, the t~io teams are not necessarily in omposition "Analytic" is defined as: that which separates into constituent. parts encyclopedic is defined as comorehensive in scope CEQ'sintention here is unclear. Section _l502 2(b) In this section (and elscwhere) the terms "impacts and issues are used interchang~tbly We believe t,his is improper ana misleading Imptct, as defined by CFQ is synonymous with effect ` An issue is a matter subjo~t to dispute. As discussed elsewhere, we recommend that the ETS process focus on the more obje~tivo environmental imp~cLs of a proposed action, and that the depth of discussion of impacts be based prim~ri1y on the significance of LPPICtS, rather than issues. PAGENO="0173" 169 Section 1502.2(c) The phrase, "no longer than absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA," is vague and unclear. CEQ should specify in detail the required contents of a legally sufficient EIS in order that agencies may condense the size of their .EIS's without increasing the risk of litigation. The proposed criteria for determining appropriate length are too limited. We suggest the following: "Length may vary with the significance of potential environmental impacts, the magnitude of the proposed project in terms of resources committed, the complexity of the environmental impacts involved, and the existence of public controversy with respect to the environmental impacts of the proposed project." Section 1502.2(d) This proposed provision, based on Section 101 and 102(1) of NEPA, appears to exceed the authority of E.O. 11991 and should be deleted. This requirement would add a new section to each EIS, which would tend to be self-serving and of limited value. It certainly would not advance CEQ's goal of reducing EIS length. Section 1502.2(e) EIS's, particularly programmatic EIS's, may address a number of alternative scenarios, intended to encompass the range of options and impacts under consideration. `The precise alternative ultimatelypresented `to the agency decisionmaker' may no~ have been specifically identified in the. EIS, although its impacts fall between two scenarios which were considered in detail. Therefore, we suggest the following: "EIS's shall enàompass the range of alternatives considered by agency decisionmnakers." . Section 1502.2(f) . ` . ` . -. ` . `. . The phrase,. "sh~1l not comnih resources prejudicing, selection" is vague and' confusing... Does this pr.~clu~o planning activiUes? .~e .~uggest the. LQ1lowing: `!`Agencies shall take no acUon~ with res~iect to the proposed prOject tha'twbuld significant1~ affect the quality of the human environment or curtail the range of alternatives under consideration until completion of the EIS process." PAGENO="0174" 170 Section 1502.2 (g) This type of wording unfairly suggests that agencies have been preparing EIS's to justify decisions already made. We suggest that the provision be deleted or changed to read: "EIS's shall serve as the means of assessing the environ- mental impact of proposed agency actions.and of their reasonably available alternatives." Section 1502.3 Statutory Req~irements ~ This section merely repeats the text of NEPA. We suggest that it be deleted or combined with other sections. PAGENO="0175" 171 Section 1502.4 Major Federal Actions~ uirip~g the ~~pration of Eflvironmental I~pac~ Statements General The purpose of this section is unclear. There is no definitive guidance here with respect to the identification of "major Federal actions requiring the preparation of EIS's." Section 15Q2.4(a) To improve understanding, we suggest the first sentence be revised to read: "Agencies shall clearly define the proposed action which is the subject of the EIS." The CEQ definition of "proposal" (Section 1508.21) is vague and apparently inconsistent with the use of the term in this section. The definition suggests that not all proposals require EIS's. Section 1502.4(a) states that "proposals or parts of proposals"... shall be evaluated in a single EIS. It is also unclear whether the terms "proposed action" and "proposal" are synonymous. Section 1502.4(b) The term "broad Federal action" is vague and ambiguous. The verbiage in this section provides no regulatory guidance, e.g., "special care" and "policy relevant." This section should be deleted or redraf ted tofurnish clear guidance. Section 1502.4(c) : .. CEQ's intent here is obscured by the imprecise language. The term "may find it useful" is inappropriate in a regulation. Also, is CEQ suggesting in the first serftence that a "proposal" may be prhposed by one or more agencies or that it maybe evaluated by one o~ mo~e agencies, or is some other meaning *in~enc1ed? In item ~(l) e.CEQ su~cjests~ that the geographic proximity of multiple proposed actions may necessitate a broad hIS However, there rnây'bbno~ 1ogic.~r jus.tifi~cationfor combining~ two or more sepai~ate actions in "an ocean" or "region" when the impacts are in no way additive. CFQ should provide the appropriate criteria or rationale for determining which geographically related projects are also related in terms of their cumulative environmental impact and therefore warrant coordinated review in a single ETS. Section 1502.4(d) The meaning of "to relate broad and narrow actiOns".iS unclear. Furthermore, this provision appears to be repetitive or out of place. PAGENO="0176" 172 Section 1502 5 Timing General In the first sentence it is not clear whether CEQ is referring to a draft or final FIS or whether the timing refers to the initiation or comoletion of the document The phrase makes a proposal can be interpreted to mean that the agency takes some formal action, such as a Federal Re~ister notice. If the first sentence refers to a final EIS, then this section would require completion of final HIS s prior to publication of a proposed rulemaking. The second sentence requires that an EIS be prepared early in the planning process However, the CEQ regulations should also acknowledge that EIS preparation may begin too early We suggest that in order to provide more meaningful guidance to agencies, CEQ adopt the following introductory language: An LIS shall be prep-~red as early as practicable in the planning and decisionmaking process of a proposed action. HIS preparation shall beam early enough to provide a useful contribution to decisionmaking, but late enough in the formulation of the proposed project or program to permit analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and its alternatives. The HIS shall be pre- pared before major resources are irreversibly committed or alternatives foreclosed and prior to taking any action with respect to the prooosed project which may cause significant environmental impact except as provided in Section 1506 11 Section 15025(a) This section should oe revised to provide essential flexibility it ..s often not- a)flroor~ace ~.o romn~nce uS preoaratiort prior to the completion of a preliminary feasibility analysis. Clearly, a vast, amount of unnecessary paperwork would be generated in support ofprojccts which are found to be wholly mnfc ~sible Furthermore if the proposil is not sufficiently w~1l-d~fined adequate analysts of the en- vironmental impacts of the proposed projcct and its alter- natiVes may not be poss~ible We suggest the sentence i~e revj sod as foliows "For projects directly undertikep by Federal agences, such statements shill be prepared nO later than immediately prior to a go- no-go decision to construct or mrr~versibly commit mijor resources which foreclose alternatives PAGENO="0177" 173 Section 1502.5(b) This section suggests an impossible burden for agencies by requiring HIS preparation to begin prior to receipt.of an application for a Federal permit, license, etc. CEQ has identified no early notification system from applicants so that agencies nay be apprised of forthcoming EIS require-S ments. Furthermore, this section requires immediate HIS preparation and does not allow for the cases where no HIS or an HA is required. Section 1502.5(c) In cases under adjudication, a public hearing may be held on a draft HIS. However, the proposed CEQ regulation requires completion of a final HIS prior to a public hearing. The intent here is unclear and appears to be at odds with enhancing public participation in the HIS process. Section 1502.6 Interdisci~p1inaryPr~rati~ CEQ regulations should clarify the language of Section 102(2)(A) (e.g., the environmental design arts) and specify appropriate procedures for implementation. Further, the requirement that the disciplines of HIS preparers shall be correlated to the "scope and issues identified in the scoping process" could open up a new area for litigation and force suspension of work on HIS's until the appropriate disciplines are identified and incorporated into the HIS preparaUon team. This requirement should be deleted. 32-744 0 - 78 - 12 PAGENO="0178" 174 Section 1502.7 Page Limits DOE believes that the proposed CEQ regulations of fer little guidance in accomplishing the goal of reducing the size of EIS"s. On the contrary, Section 1501.2 requires envircin- mental analyses to be at least as detailed as economic and technical analyses, and Section 1501.7 requires that signi- ficant issues "be analyzed in depth" in the EIS. Establishing arbitrary limits for all EIS's of 150 or 300 pages appears to be unrealiêtic and subject to le~al challenge. Further- more, by excluding appendices from the page totals, the CEQ regulation would merely encourage agencies to restructure their EIS's so that information deemed necessary to assure a legally sufficient EIS will be relegated to appendices. As a result, the overall bulk of EIS's will not be reduced. The page limit approach should be reconsidered; we suggest that CEQ attack the root cause of the "length" problem, by providing specific guidance as to what analyses and dis- cussion are and are not required in various kinds of EIS's. Sectiort 1502 .8Writi~q "Plain" language is not always "precise" language. Legal principles, scientific analysis, and the like often may not be reduced to "plain" language without loss of accuracy. DOE would suggest deletion of this section. PAGENO="0179" 175 Section 1502.9 Draft, Final and Sup lemental Statements Section 1502.9(a) The requirement that draft EIS's "shall be prepared in accordance with the scope decided upon at the scoping meeting" leaves no room for agency flecibility. Since the scope of an EIS may be modified during the course of the environmental analyses, CEQ regulations should not limit the scope to that which was determined at the scoping meeting (if held). The second sentence of the section repeats requirements specified elsewhere in the regulations and should therefore be deleted. The fourth sentence refers to a draft EIS which is "so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis." CEQ should specify how and by whom such inadequacy is determined or delete this thought. The fifth sentence requires agencies to "make every effort to disclose and discuss all major points of viè~w." DOE believes that the burden of "every effort" exceeds the requirements of a draft ETS, and would likely require circulation of a preliminary draft EIS for comment. An agency may not be aware of all major points of view prior to circulation of the draft EI$, despite reasonable efforts * regarding public notification. This sentence requires * appropriate revision. Section 1502.9(b) . . * This ~ection shotild be redrafted. It does `not descrIbe wh~t a final EIS is or what it should contain. It repeats information also specified in Part 1503. As written, the sectio~t implies that the final EIS contain~'onh1 the ~esponses to comments and a discussion of any responsible opposing views, not..ac1~quat,o1y addr~ssed in th~. draft EIS. . * * Section~lS02.9(c) *.* . . * Th~s se~tion'~s too rest~ictive'In .requiiing a supplement t~.: * an ElS if the~O are "substantial changes .in the proposed action." Such changes need to be assessed in terms of their PAGENO="0180" 176 potential environmental impacts which may or may not be significant enough to warrant preparation of a supplement to the EIS Similarly, the existence of significant new information bearing on the proposed action or its impacts nay not be sufficient to trigger an EIS supplement There- fore, CEQ reaulations should clarify the circumstances in which a supplement to an EIS is recuired, under ~FPA In addition, procedures to distinguish draft and final s~ipple- rnents should be provided. DOE suggests the following language Whenever substantial new information pertinent to an existing FIS becones available or whenever a modification of an action covered by an EIS is proposed that may be environ- mentally significant, agencies shall consider the need for a supplement to the EIS Based on the significance of the modification and environmental irnoacts involved, relative to the impacts originally discussed, the agency shall determine whether to prepare a supplement to the EIS and, if so, whether it shall be a draft (relative to either a draft or final.EIS) or a final (related to a final EIS only) supple- ment. Draft supplements will be subject to the preparation and review procedures for draft EIS's specified in this Part. When a final supplement is prepared, agencies shall publish a notice of availability in the Federal Reg~ster and distribute copies to agencies and persons who have expressed interest in the proposed action Agencies shall take no action with respect to the subject of a final supplement * until 15 days after publication of the notice of availability and shall consider any comments received during that period." PAGENO="0181" 177 Section 150210 Recommended Format General The antecedent for "it in the first sentence is unclear Presumably, the CEQ regulation intends to say "Agencies shall use a format for HIS's which will encourage good analysis and clear presentation of the proposed action and its alternatives " In this sentence, CEQ appears to be encouraging innovation and creativity in ~IS formats. However, the second sentence discourages any such innovation by requiring a comoelling reason for deviating from the standard format prescribed by CEQ DOE suggests that better HIS's would result if agencies were free to adapt a general format to the particular need of specific projects and programs Section 1502 10(e) DOE interprets Section 102(2) CE) as a requirement seoarate from the HIS in Section 102(2) (C) We suggest that CEQ reconsider whether the provisions of Section 102(2)(E) are appropriate in this context Section 1502 10(f) Section 102(2)(C)(i), (ii), (iv) and Cv) of NEPA are limited to the promosed action The oroposed CEQ format here does not provide for the discussion of the environmental impacts of aLternatives, as required by Section 102(2) (C) (iii) Section 1502 10(h) DOE strongly objects to a requirement that EIS's shall include a list of preparers (See resoonse to Section 1502 17 Section 1502 DOE sees no bonef it to a requirement that all ~IS's shall `nclude an index While art index may be appropriate in a lengthy HIS, it may be unn( co~sary in a short I IS, particularly if it inriudes a detailed t-tblc of contents PAGENO="0182" 178 Section 1502.11 cover Sheet Section 1502.11(a) The cover sheet should clearly specify the lead agency which is responsible for the contents of the EIS. (See also response to Section 1501.5.) Section 15O2.llj~_ A one paragraph abstract of the statement will provide little information. CEQ should specify whether this paragraph should describe the proposed action, summarize its impacts, list the alternatives, or provide other information. It is not possible to distill an entire EIS into one paragraph. Section 1502. 11 (f)~ If CEQ intends for the cover sheet to include the date by which comments must be received, then, in most cases, the cover sheet cannot be bound with the EIS, but must be a separate insert. This is due to the fact that uncertainties with respect to printing schedules and publication of the Federal ~pister notice of availability (either by EPA or the preparing agency) make it impossible to determine when to start counting the 45-day review period for a draft EIS or a 30-day review period for a final EIS. DOE recommends alternatively, that the date by which comments must be received be included in the transmittal letter. Section 1502.12 Summary DOE supports the inclusion of a summary in EIS's. However, the language used in the proposed CEQ regulation to describe the contents of the summary is inappropriate and should be redrafted. On the one hand, the first sentence requires the summary to "adequately and accurately" summarize the statement. On the other hand, the second sentence requires the summary to "stress" areas of controversy, which does not encourage an impartial and accurate reflection of the EIS. Purther- more, EIS's are not conclusory documents; therefore, the summary cannot "stress the major conclusions." We suggest that the summary include a comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives PAGENO="0183" 179 Section 1502.13 Purpose and Need The "purpose and need" section of an ETS can be a very significant part of the analysis of a proposed project, and its role should not be diminished by the CEQ regulations. DOE strongly objects to the requirement that this section normally shall not exceed one page. Furthermore, DOE recommends that CEQ provide specific guidance regarding the contents of this section. In our `view, the reasonable alternatives to a proposed action can be identified and evajuated on~ if the purpose and need of the proposed project have been clearly and adequately demonstrated. Unless the "problem" is clearly defined, appropriate solutions cannot be developed. Often, detailed discussion, including underlying assumptions, supply/demand forecasts, external constraints, etc., is required to support the assertion of need. This "need" is a major factor in evaluating the relative significance of the resultant environmental impacts. This section may be particularly important in an energy development proposal where the urgency or "need" for the proposal may determine the viability of the conservation alternative. PAGENO="0184" 180 Sectio~l502 14 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action General As discussed in more detail below, DOE strongly objects to the language of this section whiáh would make the EIS the decisionmaking document and infuse the substantive goals of ~EPA into these procedural regulations This section exceeds both the mandate of NEPA itself as well as the authority of E.O. 11991. Subsections (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) require substantial redrafting subsection Ce) should be deleted in its entirety With respect to the proposed introductory language, DOE questions whether this section is prooerly the `heart of the EIS. In our view, the section dealing with environ-S mental immacts should be the focus of the EIS Again, the regulations use the word "issues," whereas the appropriate term is environmental impacts Section 1502 l4(a),(b) (C) and Cd) As a matter of regulatory form, DOE suggests that these subsections should be consolidated into one which defines a "reasonable alternative and the appropriate treatment of alternatives in an ElS Subsection (a) should specify that alternatives are to be evaluated in terms of their environmental ~ The comparative evaluation does not extend to all aspects of each alternative. CEQ should elaborate on the "reasonableness" test, so that agencies may eliminate from the EIS those alternatives which are not reasonable Subsection (b), requiring substantially equal treatmentof each alternative is unrealistic and inconsistent with other sect.~ons of these regulations which require the discussion to be in proportion of the significance of environmental impacts CEQ should avoid the use of the word equal We suggest that the discussion of each alternative "should 1?e `in sufficient detail to permit comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and its (ioasoirible) alternatives PAGENO="0185" 181 Subsection (c) reouires discussion of alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency, without quali- fication DOE strongly recommends that the definition of "reasonable alternatives" be limited to those actions "within the Federal sphere Alternatives which would not be within the legal authority of ~ Federal agency to implement would not be considered reasonable Agencies should not be required to engage in speculation on what mij~ be done if laws and regulations were amended DOE suggests the following language "The discussion of an alternative the implementation of which lies wholly within the private sohere, or State or local units of government, and which is expected to remain within the jurisdiction of those entities, shall be at the agency's discretion " Section 1502 14(e) This section should be deleted not only because it exceeds the authority of E 0 11991, and EIS's are not, in our view, expected to be conclusory but also because the notion, that "the environmentally preferable alternative --particularly where a broad definition of the term environment" is adopted, as in these regulations--could be identified, is unrealistic. (See also `DOE's response to the proposed CEQ Fxecutive Order ) Since the above terminology Is subject to varying interpretations, the obvious result of such a provision would be for agencies to identify and defend their preferred alternative as "the environmentally preferable alternative." The consequences would be (1) no benefit to decisionmaking, and (2) a clouding of the "real environmental issues and alterl3atives," contrary to E 0 11991, and (3) the opening up of major new areas of litigation Section 1502 14(f) The CEQ regulations should allow for situations in which an agency may not wish to identity a oreferred alternative in a final iiS for reasons of program effectiveness, e g situations where land acauisition costs may rise Further-' more, there should be no requirement in the CEQ regulations that precludes an agency from completing the ris process prior to identifying its preference, b~sed on the FIS as `~.ell as other sub equent technical economic, and planning documents or political consider-ttions PAGENO="0186" 182 Section 1502.14(g) The purpose of this requirement is unclear. Does CEQ intend for mitigating measures to constitute a separate section in the LIS, or should mitigators be incorporated as part of the alternatives? If the latter interpretation is correct, DOE would object to the provision, since various combinations of alternatives and mitigators would. unreasonably extend the number of options to be evaluated. In addition, it is unclear whether the environmental impacts of mitigating measures should be considered. PAGENO="0187" 183 Section l02.15Environrnenta1çonse~uence~ General By not citing Section 102(2) (C) (iii) of NEPA, which refers to alternatives, while specifically citing Section 102(2) Ci), (ii), (iv) and (v), which refer to the "proposed action" or proposal," it is not clear how this section applies to the evaluation of alternatives. This distinction and the intent of these provisiohs need to be clarified. As the phrases hon NEPA are combined in this section, it is unclear whether CEQ intends the environmental impact analyses of the alternatives, as well as the proposed action, to include discussions of unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Section 1502.15(a) and (b) If the terms "direct effects" and "indirect effects" are to be defined (somewhat differently) at 1508.8, it is unnecessary and confusing to define them here. We also suggest that the two sections be combined to read: "Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives, and the relative significance of those effects." (See also response to 1508.8.) Section 1502.15(d) This section duplicates Section 1502.15(a), as revised, and should be deleted. See also comments regarding Section 1502.14. Section 1502.15(e) As worded, this section suggests that energy requirements and conservation potential should be discussed for some, but not all, alternatives and mitigating measures. CEQ's intent should be clarified, DOE suggests that energy~ related impacts should be discussed, as appropriate. Formal energy audits are generally not appropriate in an EIS, however. Section 1502. 15(f) This sectIon appears to duplicate Section 1502.14(g) and should therefore be deleted or clarified. PAGENO="0188" 184 Section 1502 16 Affected Environment For clarification, the first two sentences should be changed to read: "The EIS shall succinctly describe the environment of the area or areas which nay be affected by the proposed action and its alternatives. Such, descriptions shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the uotential environ- mental imnacts discussed in Section 1502 15 The use of the word "importance" is unclear in the third sentence Is the tern synonymous with the word "significance," as discussed in Section 1501 7' The fourth and fifth sentences should be deleted or placed elsewhere, as they constitute a statement of purpose, rather than procedures iegarding the EIS Section 1502 17 List of Pr~parers DOE strongly objects to this provision and recommends that this concept be abandoned as unworkable and without demon- strated benefit. Authorship.of complex documents is not easy to establish The contributions of numerous individuals may be edited or intearated in a fashion that precludes direct identification. Furthermore, individual professionals should not be subject to harrassment and/or lobbying from special interest groups based on their role in ElS preparation DOE believes that it is sufficient that the agency stands behind and assumes responsibility for the contents of the EIS. On the other hand, DOE suggests that it is appropriate to require agencies to designate one or more central points of contact Ce g the NEPA office) for questions or comments concerning the content of EIS's PAGENO="0189" 185 ~~c~_on. 1502. l8~p4~ix The function of the appendix remains unclear. If its purpose is to segregate detailed, technical information and analyses from the less technical body of the EIS, CEQ should so state. As proposed, the appendix may be viewed as the means of satisfying the page limitations suggested by CEQ without reducing the overall bulk of the EIS. Subsection (b) should be revised to state that the appendix contains relevant environmental material which supports the analyses contained T~iThe body of the EIS. As written, this subsection could require a large number of appendices in an EIS. The term "policy relevant" in subsection (c) is unclear. It would seem that information which is "policy relevant" should appear in the body of the ETS. Subsection (e) regarding the circulation of appendices poses problems with respect to requests for extensions of review periods. If an agency elects to make its appendices "readily available on request," rather than to circulate them with the body of the EIS, would it be obligated to extend the comment period, as provided in Section 1502.19 with respect to the circulation of a summary? CEQ should clarify these points and avoid any requirement that would oblige the agency to extend the comment period. The CEQ approach results in delay with no evident reduction in paperwork. PAGENO="0190" 186 Section 1502.19 Circulation of the Environmental Imp~.2~ Statement General This section is vague, contradictory, and incomplete, and should be completely redraf ted. The first sentence, by requiring the entire EIS to be circulated, contradicts the previous Section 1502.18(e), which allows an agency to make the appendix to .an EIS "readily available on request." The exception noted is incorrectly cited. The phrase "unusually long" would indicate that a summary may be circulated only for EIS's which exceed CEQ's page limits of 150 and 300 pages. CEQ's intent here should be clarified. We suggest the following introductory language: "Agencies shall circulate draft and final EIS's in their entirety, except as provided in Section 1502.18(e) and Section 1503.4(c). In addition, if an EIS is lengthy, the agency may circulate only the summary, except that the entire EIS (with the exceptions noted) shall be furnished to:..." Furthermore, we suggest that this sectiQn reference Section 1506.9 regarding filing EIS's. / Section 1502.19 (a) DOE recommends the addition of the phrase: "applicable to the action proposed" at the end of this sentence, to logically complete the intent here, (See also comment on Section 1503.1(a),) Section 1502.19(b) The regulations need to clarify whether such requests shall be honored at any time, within the designated comment period, or some other qualification, and what the mph-' cations on comment periods are. Section 1502.19(c) The last sentence after subsection (c) appears out of place. In arty case, the regulations should define the term "timely" in this context. Furthermore, this provision would disco~rage agencies from circulating summaries, since (1) administratively it would probably be easier to circul4te the entire document, rather than respond to numerous individual requests, and (2) such a process would most surely extend the comment period by 15 days in all cases. DOE suggests that CEQ reconsider its approach here. PAGENO="0191" 187 Section 1502.20 Tie4~ The CEQ regulations should define "program," "plan," and "policy" EIS's, either here or at Part 1508. It is essential that any such definitions are consistent with the concept of "proposal," as defined in ~pe v. Sierra Club. The second sentence of Section 1502.20(b) should be deleted as it repeats the sense of the introductory paragraph. Section .1502.21 Incorporation by Reference The CEO regulations should clarify that the process of incorporating by reference and making such material available for inspection will not require an extension of the review period. Section 1502.22 Du~y to Know Section 1502.22(a) While the general intent here has merit, there is sufficient ambiguity to pose significant problems. If an agency wishes to pursue an action for which information is not available, or only available at an exorbitant price, a cautious and conservative approach is obviously warranted. However, if the missing information pertains to an alternative to the proposed action, it may not be reasonable to expect the agency to delay decisionmakirtg with respect to the proposed action (whose impacts are predictable), pending quantification of the impacts of all alternatives, if the time required to generate such information is excessive. This section should be rewritten to allow the agency to proceed if either the financial or the time costs required to fill all data gaps are exorbitant, Such gaps and uncertainties, however, should be identified in the EIS. In order to assure a fair comparison among alternatives, a "worst case `analysis," if employed, should be applied to all alternatives, including the proposed action. Such analysis should be based on a crodible worst case, PAGENO="0192" 188 c~F~'-'~~ 1502.23 Cost-Benefit Anal~ysis The first sentence of this section should be qualified to clearly make incorporation of a cost-benefit analysis optional. Furthermore,, such cost-benefit analyses need be considered in the EIS only if available during the same timeframe The discussion required by the second sentence does not appear to be recuired by Section 102(2) (B) and would establish a new section in EIS's without demonstrated benef it DOE strongly recommends that this provision be deleted Section 1502 24 Methodolog~and Scientific Acçur~~~ No comment Section 1502.25 Environmental Review and Consultation . ~g~xrements ` The CEQ regulations have failed to outline procedures whereby such environmental reviews may be integrated with the ETS process. In our view, this is a serious omission. (See also response to Section 1500.2(c).) Therefore, it is not appropriate for the CEQ regulations to use the phrase "to the maximum extent possible With such a requirement, the EIS process could be significantly and unnecessarily delayed by attempts to conduct related environmental reviews concurrently The phrase and other environmental review laws" is vague and unacceptable. Based on the above comments, this section should be. deleted or entirely reworked.. DOE encourages CEQ to study the multiple Federal environmental review reciuirements and prooose appropriate specific procedures for intejrati~g them with the EIS process PAGENO="0193" 189 Part 1503. commenting Section 1503.1 Inviting Comments Gemeral This section overlaps considerably with Section 1502.19. CEQ should consider a major reorganization of its proposed regulations to avoid such duplication. In item (1), the proposed regulation requires agencies to obtain the comments of other Federal agencies, but does not specify what agencies should do if those comments are not forthcoming. It is unrealistic to ~~4ro agencies to comment (without additional resources) ,ii~d it is unfair to expect a lead agency to wait beyond the designated review period for receipt of comments. Therefore, DOE suggests that the following be added: "If comments are not received, within the designated review period, the agency may presume that no comment is to be made." Also, the word "appropriate" should be inserted to modify the phrase "which is authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards," in keeping with the language of Section 102 (2) (C). This qualification is necessary since several Federal agencies are involved in the development and enforcement of enviror~ mental standards (e.g., EPA, HEW, NRC) which may not be applicable to a particular EIS. Seotion 1503.1(b) To clarify this provision, DOE suggests the following change: "An agency may request comments on a final EIS, and shall consider any comments received prior to its final decision on the proposed action." . . Section 1503.2 Du~yj~ç Comment This proposed requirement is unrealistic without assurances that adequate resources will be available. Even if agencies were to provide only a perfunctory review and a "no comment" response, this provision would acid substantially to the Federal p~perwork burden. CEQ should allow agencies to establish priorities with respect to'their HIS commenting responsibilities, particularly since the resource requirements are unpredictable. The language should be changed to read: "Agencies.. .shell endeavor to comment-..." 32-744 0 - 78 - 13 PAGENO="0194" i~o Section 1503. 3 Specificity of Comm~p~ These regulations should address the EIS process, not Federal decisionnaking. In our view, comments should be limited to the adequac~y of the 515 or the significance of any environmental impact involved. Agencies should not be required to respond to comments addressing the non-envirOn~ mental merits of the alternatives discussed. Sectioi~ 1503.4, Response `tO Comme~ Section 1503.4(a) This section needs to be redraf ted to answer a number of questions. As written~ it is unclear whether an agency may assess, consider, and ~ to comments collectively. By modifying the proposed action, as suggested in item (1), would an agency have to circulate a revised draft? Item (2) suggests that an agency had deliberately ignored the require-S ments of NEPA. The provision should be changed to read: "Develop and evaluate reasonable alternatives not previously known by the agency." Sect~ion 1503.4(bi The requirement that "all substantive comments" or summaries should be attached to the final EIS is far too burdensome. Many comments on a draft BIS are quite "substantive" (actual, real, firm)., but not relevant. In our view, the provision should be revised to require jnclusion of "all relevant substantive comments." PAGENO="0195" 191 Part 1504. Predecision Referrals to the Cou~fl~of P~posed Federal Actions Found to b~ Environmenta11y~Unsatisfactor~ Section 15Q4.'l Purpose The policy and process envisioned in this section would broaden the referral process into a separate decisionrnaking process on major policy questions, displacing the role of the Office of Management and Budget and elevating the role of CEQ in such decisionmaking above all other departments, agencies, and governmental bodies. DOE believes that the referral process proposed here goes beyond the legal foundation of NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. First, we believe that the legislative history surrounding these Acts makes it clear that EPA's role under Section 309 was intended to be unique; i.e., to raise properly focused environmental concerns of a substantive nature to the Executive Office. Second, even if the lan- guage of Section 102(2) (C) were construed so as to extend this role to other appropriate "agencies which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards," we believe that that language is clearly focused on physical, natural, andhealth-related impacts, and see no basis to extend such a role to "other Federal agencies" (paragraph 3) via a broadened definition of environmental acceptability. Therefore, we believe it essential that this Section be redrafted to reflect a referral process consistent with NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and E.O. 11991. Assuming that reorientation will be accomplished, DOE offers the following further suggestions. The paraphrasing of Section 102 (2) (C) in the third paragraph goes beyond the intent of NEPA. The word "accop~ability" should be deleted, and the paragraph revised to read: "Under Section 102(2) (C) of the Act, appropriate Federal agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, may be required to review MIS's. Copies of such comments and views on the MIS shall be made available to the Presidont, the Council, and the public." PAGENO="0196" 192 Section 1504.2 Criteria for Referral This section needs to be reworked to differentiate between those agencies authorized to raise substantive issues of environmental acceptability and those that cannot, and to confine the referral process to questions of environmental acceptability or, at a minimum, to define "issues deserving national attention" within the context of questions of environmental acceptability raised by agencies authorized to develop and enforce standards. Further, the proposed criteria for referral do not provide' for the resolution of questions of environmental acceptability in cases not deserving national attention. DOE suggests that there may be a number of such questions involving .strictly local standards. , * With respect to item (a), the term "environmental policies" is too vague to be meaningful in this referral process and should be deleted or clarified. PAGENO="0197" 193 Section 1504.3 Procedure for Referrals and Response General The proposed referral process is too cumbersome. It could take months to resolve the issue of environmental "acceptability. In some instances, this nay be an unacceptable delay. Section 1504.3(a) The process described is vague. CEQ should specify the manner in which an agency shall advise (in writing?) the lead agency that it intends to refer a matter to the Council. Such advice may not be possible in comments on the draft EIS, as required by item (2),. if the lead.agency has not identified a "preferre4 alternative" in the draft EIS. With respect to item (4), presumably one copy of such advice is sufficient for the Council. If not, CEQ should specify `how many copies are' required. Section_1504.3(b) It is unclear whether (a) and (b) entail a two-step or three-step process: (1) an agency advises the lead agency that it intends to make a referral; (2) the referring agency sends a copy of such advice to the Council; (3) the referring agency delivers a referral to the Council. CEQ should clarify who gives what to whom and when. Section 1504.3(c) It is unclear whether Cc) adds a fourth step: the referring agency delivers a copy of the referral to the lead agency. With respect to item (2), the CEQ regulations should clarify the intended meaning of "environment" in this context; also, a "violation of policy" is unclear. Section 1504.3(e) This last step in the referral process improperly gives CEQ the role of arbiter in interagency disputes. This is clearly beyond the' authority of NEPA and E.O. 11991, which limits CEQ's function in conflicts between agencies to the making of a "recommendation as to their prompt resolution." DOE objects strongly to giving CEQ the authority to "conclude" unilaterally and arbitrarily that a matter has been "successfully resolved" by the referral process, as proposed in item (1). Similarly, CEQ should not place itself in the PAGENO="0198" 194 role of "mediator," as proposed in item (2), since as the President's environmental advisors CEQ cannot be presumed to be a disinterested third party. Secondly, this step is entirely open-ended. There are no time constraints placed on CEQ for determining its recoin- inendation. This is not consistent with reducing EIS- related delays. Based on the above comments, we suggest the following language: "Within 30 days after receipt of a referral, or within 10 days after receipt of a response from a lead agency as provided by Section 1504.3(d), whichever is later, CEQ shall publish its findings and recommendations with respect to the referral and the lead agency response. Prior to making its recommendation, CEQ may hold public meetingsOr hearings to obtain additional information or views, or CEQ may meet with the affected agencies in an effort to resolve the dispute. If either the lead agency or the referring agency (or both) does not concur in the Council's recommendation, the objecting party(ies) shall notify CEQ in writing, which shall immediately submit the matter to the President for decision. Until the presidential decision is made, the lead agency may not take any action with respect to the matter which may cause a significant environmental impact." PAGENO="0199" 195 ~ 1505. NEPA and Age Decisionma~~ SectiOn 1505.1 Agency Decis~onmak~L~ocedures General This section exceeds the authority of EM. 11991 by extending to the substantive goals of NEPA and the decisionnakin~ process, rather than being limited to Seci~i~ 102t~2) and the EIS process. Section 1505.1(a) This provision should be deleted, as it exceeds the authority of E.O. 11991. . Section 1505.1(b) This section is vague and unworkable and should be deleted. Decisionmaking is dynamic and not conducive to predetermined schedules. Furthermore, the CEQ regulation does not specify how such decision points should be designated, e.g., a Federal ~~te2~ notice or a new document. Section 1505.1(c) presumably, the CEO regulations would require an additional (unnecessary) document. This provision should be deleted. Section 1505.1(f) Based on comments provided on Section 1502.2, the first sentence should be changed to read: "Requiring that the alternatives considered by the decisionmaker are encompassed by the range of alternatives discussed in the EIS.'~ The second sentence is clearly beyond the authority of E.O. 11991. Furthermore, it should be noted that Congress, in enacting the Freedom of Xnformation Act, has allowed agencies to withhold such documents from the public iii order to foster freedom of expression during the prodeçisional stage. The comprehensive and critical comparison of alter~ natives, prepared by staff members and made available to the decisionmake~, maybe constrained if the staff is aware that the document will be relansed to the public. Agency dts~ cretion with respect to the.relcase of pre-decisional information should not be narrowed by the CEQ regulations. PAGENO="0200" 196 Section 1505.2 Record of Decision General This provision is clearly beyond any requirements of Section 102(2) of NEPA and the authority of E.O. 11991 and should be deleted in its entirety. Furthermore, it should be noted that the "record of decision" would constitute another document to be prepared, presumably accompanied by a Federa~ Re_çjister notice and other forms of public notification, which would add to the Federal paperwork burden. CEQ regulations to implement Section 102(2) procedures are not the proper vehicle for insuring overall documentation of agency decisions. This end, if desired, should be pursued through revisions to the Administrative Procedures Act and overall agency practices. Section 1505.2(b) As a point of information, it should be noted that the phrase "least harm to the environment" is not synonymous with "the envirOnmentally preferable alternative." Clearly, if "environment" encompasses social, economic and energy impacts (as the CEQ regulation proposes), then the alter- native which of fers the greatest environmental benefits (i.e., environmentally preferable) may not involve the least environmental harm. As phrased, the CEQ regulations would tilt the balance in favor of avoiding adverse physical impacts as opposed to providing positive social, economic, and energy impacts. This points up the impracticability of requiring such determinations and the potential legal challenges that could result. Section 1505.2(c) This sweeping requirement would add a new and complex analysis to the EIS process. Agencies would he required to identify all potential mitigators and assess their prac- ticability. Further, agencies would have to adopt (and apparently maintain for an indeterminate time) a monitoring and enforcement program for each mitigator adopted. The benefits of this provision relative to cost are unclear; even if it were within the purview of these regulations, it should be deleted as a matter of unsupported policy. PAGENO="0201" 197 i~n~_)~S05. 3 Irnplementinq~e Decision General DOH supports the concept of mitigation and verification of project implementation to ensure application of appropriate mitigating measures. However, authority to require..rnitigation and conditioning of grants, permits, and other approvals does not appo~r to derive from Section 102(2) of NEPA. Accordingly, this section should be deleted. Furthermore, it should be noted that the CEQ regulations focus only on mitigation measures in the post-EIS review. However, the mitigators could be trivial in comparison to the impacts of the project itself. Any verification done by an agency should encompass the entire project in order. to learn whether the environmental impacts were accurately * predicted. It should also be noted that in the case of privately-. sponsored projects, the applicant, not the agency, inple-. ments any mitigating measure. Section 1505.3(c) and (d) These provisions add unnecessarily to the Federal paperwork burden. Any reports, if required, should be made available only on request. PAGENO="0202" 198 Part 1506. Other Requi~ern~~ of NEPA Section ~ During NEPA Proc General CEQ may, tinder Section 102(2) andE.0. 11991, limit agency action during the EIS process, not the NEPA process as a whole. The title of Part 1506 and Section 1506.1 should be changed to reflect this distinction. Sectional CEQ has improperly inserted an additional step in the EIS process by extending the process to include decisionmaking and requiring a record of decision. Furthermore, the limitations proposed are' too restrictive. This seeti~n should be revised to read: "Until 30 days after publication of a final EIS, except as provided in Section 1506.11, agencies shall take no action which would: Cl) have a ~~gnificant adverse impact; or (2) foreclose any reasonable alternative." Section 1506.1(b) ~n agency cannot `be presumed tO know what an applicant is planning to do. Furthermore, the threat to reject an application because an applicant has proceeded with pzft~tate acti6ns having environmental impact, or which narrow the choice of alternatives, is meaningless unless the agency* possesses the leqal authority to reject applications on such grounds. With respect to numerous Federal activities, the existence of such authority is unOertain. Applicants may be notified, through the agency NEPA regulations, that if they proceed with an action prior to completion of the EIS process, they may jeopardize approval of the application. ~cti~n_ij0~1(cj The provisions of this section do not accurately reflect the legal guidance provided in K1ej~p~ v. ~j~r ç~t~ with respect to programmatic EIS'iand related site-specific actions. In addition, CEQ, in its Memorandum of September 16, 1976, on this subject identified a three-patt standard for interim action: no significant interdependence between the PAGENO="0203" 199 individual action and the other actions to be covered in the programnatic EIS, an adequate EIS for the interim action, and analysis of the interim action in the program- matic EIS. In our view, items (1) and (2) should be revised to accurately reflect these principles. Item (3) should be revised to read,: "an adequate environ-S mental review," due to the fact that an EIS is required only `for major Federal actions ~9nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment. ` PAGENO="0204" 200 ~ Elimin on of Du cation with State and Local Proce&~res Section 1506.2(a) This section should be deleted as it merely authorizes agencies to do what NEPA already allows them to do. DOE recommends that CEQ carefully reassess the implications of this section, which places an enormous burden on Federal agencies and assumes (unrealistically) that State and local governments are consistently willing and able to participate. in a manner conducive to such cooperation. The requirement that agencies cooperate with State and local agencies "to the fullest extent possible. . .unless they are specifically barred from doing so by some other law" is totally unacceptable and should be deleted. This provision would require joint efforts with respect to virtually every Federal project. Not only are problems created in attempting to prepare an EIS "by committee," but State and local agencies may have reasons for delaying a Federal EIS, which could severaly impede the Federal ETS and decisionmaking processes. DOE perceives no benefit in reauiri~ joint planning processes, hearings, and LA'S and EIS~~ince the Federal and State and local interests, review requirements, timetables, alter- natives, etc., may not coincide. Rather, CEQ~ should en~ courage Federal agencies to cooperate with State and local agencies, as appropriate, and allow agencies to adopt State or local environmental analyses as part of Federal EIS's. Furthermore, CEQ does not appear to have authority to require Federal agencies to cooperate in fulfilling the requirements of State laws or local ordinances. Section 1506.2(c) The purpose of this section is unclear. It appears to add a major new requirement to EIS's, which is not required by NEPA and which DOE believes to be inappropriate and un~ necessary. PAGENO="0205" 201 Section 1506.3 Adoption General The criteria for adoption need to be revised to reflect two essential conditions: (1) the "adopting" agency bears full legal responsibility for the EIS with respect to its own proposed action, and (2) the "adopted' EIS (or portions thereof) must represent a currently valid assessment of the *proposed action and/or its alternatives. The constraints imposed in the CEQ regulations are unnecessarily burdensone and do not encompass the essential criteria. Sections (a) and (c) are repetitious and should he combined, Given the conditions outlined above, it is not necessary: (1) that the adopted EIS (or portions thereof) be a final EIS; (2) that it "meet the requirements of this regulation" (this would preclude adoption of portions of ETS's prepared prior to the promulgation of these regulations, even though the analyses provided therein were satisfactory); or (3) that it not be the subject of a referral or pending judicial action (portions of the EIS could still be fully adequate). Based on these comments we suggest the following: (a) "An agency may adopt an EIS or portion thereof, provided that: (1) the adopting agency accepts full legal responsibility for the EIS with respect to its own proposed action; (2) the adopted material represents a currently valid assessment of the proposed action and/or its alternatives; and (3) the adopted EIS (or portions thereof) is recirculated as a draft." (b) "A cooperating agency may adopt the EIS of a lead agency if the cooperating agency is satisfied that its responsibilities under NEPA have been met." Section 1506.4 Combining Documents The phrase "in full compliance with NEPA" is subject to court determination. This section should be revised to read: "Art environmental document may be combined with any other agency document, as a~ oriate, to reduce duplication and paperwork." PAGENO="0206" 202 Section 1506.5 Ag Responsthilit The requirement that an environmental document "shall be prepared directly by or under contract to the lead agency" contradicts Section 1501.6(b) (3), whi:h provides that a cooperating agency nay assume responsibility for preparing a portion of an EIS. CEQ should correct this discrepancy. The regulations do not provide for so-called three-party contracts involving an applicant, a Federal agency and a consultant. DOE believes there are situations where this arrangement is appropriate. Further, agencies should be able to adopt portions of an environmental report prepared by an applicant, if the agency is satisfied that in so doing the requirements of NEPA will be met. The third sentence regarding a statement of no financial interest may be too restrictive. For example, expertise in developing EIS's might well coincide with expertise in other environmental areas, such as planning and executing, environ- mental monitoring programs. Although it might be in the interest of the government to use the same contractor for such follow-up services if a project is approved, the CEO provision would act as a deterrent. Therefore, we suggest that CEQ reference existing agency conflict of interest regulations and that the "no interest" requirement should be changed to a "declaration of interest." In the fourth sentence, the phrase "responsible Federal official" should be changed to "the agency" and "prior to its approval" should be changed to "prior to its publication," to avoid any confusion with respect to internal agency procedures. PAGENO="0207" 203 Section 1506.6 Public Involvement Section 1506.6(a) The phrase "make every effort" is too burdensome and not required by NEPA. Nor is public "involvement" in the implementation of "NEPA procedures" required. This sentence should be revised to read: "Encourage public participation in the EIS process." Section 1506.6(bj_ To clarify, the first sentence should be revised to read: "Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, ~1ic meetings, and the availahiffEiof environmental documents by means calculated to inform those persons and agencies believed to be interested or affected." Item (b) (1) is potentially burdensome, as it may be construed to require individual notification to a large number of special interest groups for each environmental document issued by the agency. This provision should be limited and clarified. Section 1506.6(c) DOE suggests that important considerations have been omitted in the criteria proposed with respect to determining whether to hold public hearings. We suggest the following language: "In determining whether to provide a public hearing with respect to an ETS, agencies shall consider: (1) the magnitude of the proposed actiQn in terms of economic costs, the geographic area involved, and the uniqueness or size of the resources involved; (2) the degree of interest in the proposed action, as evidenced by requests from the public and from Federal, State and local authorities that a hearing be held; (3) the complexity of the issues and the likelihood that additional information generated by the hearing will assist the agency in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA; (4) the extent to which public involvement already has * been achieved through other means, such as earlier public hearings, meetings with citizen representatives and/or Written commmbts on the proposed action; and (5) the need for expeditious decisionmaking on the proposed action." PAGENO="0208" 204 With respect to the language proposed by CEQ, the following changes should be made: (1) Substantial controversy concerning the proposed action and substantial interest in holding the hearing. (2) A request for a hearing from another agency with )urlsd3.ct3On bj~law~ special ex~pe to a~y envirojrn taL~p~aqt in~oiju1fitfl~~ need for and benefit to ~ derived from a hea4~. Section 1506.6(d) This provision adds unnecessarily to the Federal paperwork burden by requiring agencies to "establish a procedure" and to prepare "status reports." DOE suggests that it is sufficient for agencies to identify a central point of contact for inquiries regarding their NEPA-related activities. Written requests for reports on the status of an EIS would be honored, as would any similar correspondence. ction~06.. 6(e) The phrase "any underlying documents" is both vague and sweeping and needs to be defined. If the intent is to include early drafts of statements and the written comments generated by the inter- or intra-'agency review of such early drafts, the possible benefits of the eventual availability of such comments need to be balanced against the possible. loss of open and candid exchanges of views among agency staff during the EIS preparation process. Section 1506.7 Further Guidance This section could be construed as requiring agencies to observe any CEQ guidance emanating from this section. We believe this would be undesirable and the section should be deleted. . PAGENO="0209" 205 Section 1506.8 Proposals for Legislation General In the first sentence, "the NEPA process" should be changed to "the EIS process." This section, coupled with the definition at Section 1508.15, does not fully acknowledge the difficulties in applying the normal EIS process to the legislative process. DOE suggests that even greater flexibility is required here in recognition of the timing constraints and the fact that Administration proposals for legislation are subject to considerable revision by Congress. This section should also be revised to clarify EIS"requirements with respect to the agency budget cycle and 0MB requirements. Section 1506.8(b) The first sentence of this section is redundant and should. be deleted. Item (b) (1) should be deleted because: (1) it appears inappropriate to have individual Congressional committees passing on the appropriate level of NEPA review Federal agencies should perform, and (2) it would result in confusion and uncertainty on the part of the agencies, particularly where a legislative "proposal" cuts across the jurisdiction of more than one committee. Item (b) (4) is implicit in the introductory sentence and therefore is redundant and should be deleted. Section 1506.8(d) DOE `disagrees strongly with any provision which would grant EPA the authority to reduce or extend review periods. The EPA would not appear to be in a position to make a decision regarding tradeoffs between environmental review periods and other agency "mission" objectives. In addition, EPA also prepares ETS's and as such has an inherent conflict of. interest in the role described here. Such authority should reside with preparing agencies in consultation with CEQ. (See also response to Section 1506.10.) PAGENO="0210" 206 Sectio 506. 9Fi~eg~uirements The CEQ procedures for filing EIS's are unclear and incomplete. It appears (from Section 1506.10) that "filing" occurs on the date EPA publishes its notice of availability in the Federal Register, not on the date EPA receives the EIS. This should be clarified to relate the "filing" date to.the date of EPA receipt. Furthermore, the regulations do not specify how many copies of an EIS should be filed with EPA. Rather than requiring EPA to deliver one copy of `each statement to CEQ, which may not be timely, it would be more efficient to require the preparing agency to send a copy to CEQ along with the general ETS distribution. PAGENO="0211" 207 Sectio~15O6.10 Timing of~Act~o~ Section 1506.10 (a) In accordance with previous comments, the phrase "or recorded under Section 1505.2" should be deleted. In addition, the CEQ regulations assume that "decision" and "action" are synonymous in this instance. CEQ's intention should be clarified. Finally, the minimum 90-d~ay and 30-day periods should run from the date of public notice of availability, not the filing date. (See comments on Section 1506.10(d).) Section 1506.10(b) The proposed language is cumbersome and confusing. We suggest the following: "The 90-day and 30-day periods * specified in Section 1506.10(a) may run concurrently." Section 1506.10(d) Due to imprecise use of the language, the CEQ regulation is contradictory. The term "filed" in Section 1506.10(d) appears. to mean the date an EIS is received by EPA (i.e., "The Environmental Protection Agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Regis each week of the environmental impact statements filed with the Environmental Protection Agency the preceding week."). Yet, the term "filed" in Sections 1506.10(a) and 1506.10(b) apparently means the date on which EPA publishes its notice of availability (i.e., "The date of publication of this notice shall be the date from which the minimum time periods of this section shall be calculated."). This type of discrepancy is unacceptable in regulations. Furthermore, DOE strongly recommends that the computation of time periods should begin on either the date the responsible agency gives public notice of availability of an EIS or the date of the EPA notice, whichever is earlier. This can save up to two weeks of delay caused by paper processing problems with no significant detriment to public notice. Section 1506.10(e) DOE objects to any delegation of authority to EPA to extend or reduce ETS review periods. EPA, as a preparer of EIS's itself, should not be granted such power over other agencies. PAGENO="0212" 208 Any such authority should remain with the preparing agencies in consultation with CEQ. (See also responses to Sectjons 1506.8(d) and 1506.11.) Furthermore, the phrase "compelling reasons of national policy" appears too restrictive. It should be defined to include "emergency circumstances, statutory deadlines, or overriding considerations of expense or effectiveness." Section 1506.11 Emergencies The provisions herein are too stringent. If a true emergency exists, there clearly is not time for an agency to consult with CEQ in advance. Agencies must have the flexibility to react to emergencies in a timely manner. DOE suggests that agencies be allowed to determine that an emergency situation exists and take appropriate action in response to the emergency, considering their, environmental responsibilities under NEPA in formulating the response. At the earliest possible time, agencies should be recjuired to notify CEQ of the emergency action in order to establish appropriate alternative NEPA compliance procedures. PAGENO="0213" 209 69 Section 1506.12 Effective Date General Based on the length of time required for CEQ to draft these proposed regulations, the number of comments they have generated, and the possibility of substantial revision between draft and final versions due to further comments, DOE suggests that it is unreasonable to propose art effective date six months after publication of final CEQ regulations. DOE doubts that agencies would be able to adapt their internal procedures and promulgate implementing regulations within six months. It is more realistic to allow one year for agencies to conform and for these regulations to become effective. Section 1506.12(a) The term "fullest" should be deleted from the first sentence as too burdensome. "That date" should be defined as "the effective date" for clarity. The status of the CEQ "Guidelines" following the effective date of the CEQ regulations is unclear. CEQ should specify that the Guidelines will be superceded by the regulations, if that is intended. Section 1506.12(b) This section is vague and unclear and should be deleted or clarified. DOE again points out that the appropriate subject of these regul~tions is the EIS process, not NEPA as a whole. PAGENO="0214" 210 Section 1506.13 ~ En~T~nmenta1 Effects Not Confined EbeThnfIed Stat~ This section would require that agencies engaged in activities affecting the environment of the "global commons" or of other nations inquire into the environmental effects upon those areas as well as the environmental requirements of those countries. It is DOE's view that the legal basis in Section 102(2) for requiring, as a general rule, an examination into the environmental effects of U.S. activities in other countries is not firmly established. The requirements of Section 1506.13(b) could force agencies to prepare EIS's for, and condition their support of, activities significantly affecting foreign jurisdictions and having little or no effect on the U.S. environment or that of the "global commons." Such a course of action could be rejected by other nations, have severe adverse impacts on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and be extremelydifficult, if not practically impossible, to implement. The imposition of the 1506.13(b) requircment could seriously impair our competitive position abroad, particularly our support of the export of nuclear facilities, equipment and materials. Therefore, since the legal basis is not completely clear, DOE believes that, from a policy standpoint, Section 1506.13(b) should be deleted. That is not to say, however, that the environmental effects of U.S. activities in other countries should not be examined. Flexibility should be accorded the agencies to determine on a case-by-case basis whether such an examination is appropriate. PAGENO="0215" 211 Part 1507. Ag C2m ljance ~ç~ipj~_l~07. 1 Comp].iance The CEQ regulation should limit the application of the phrase "to the fullest extent possible" to Section 102(2) of NEPA. In addition, the phrase "all agencies of the Federal Government" should be defined to clarify whether the Executive Office of the President is included. ~ to Com~i~ General It is unrealistic for CEQ to recjuire agencies to have sufficient capability to comply with its regulations. Only Congress, through the appropriations process, can really determine what capabilities and resources an agency shall have. The introductory language should be changed to read: "Each agency shall endeavor to establish and maintain sufficient capability, including personnel an~ other resources, to:" Section 1507.2(a) As noted elsewhere, it is not useful for the CEO regulations to merely repeat the language of NEPA. In addition, the last sentence here seems tobe out of place. Section 1507.2(b) CEQ should provide detailed guidance as to how this require~ inent can be net. Section 1507.2(d) (e), (f) CEQ should either provide detailed guidance here or merely reference Section 102(2) of the Act so as to save paper. PAGENO="0216" 212 - 71 Section 1507.3 A~ency Procedures Section 1507. 3(aL As noted under Section 1506.12, the timetable proposed by CEQ is unrealistic. Not only is it extremely doubtful that an existing agency could prepare, propose, and publish final regulations within six months, but it is out of the question to expect a newly established agency to do so within three months. The procedures outlined by CEQ--preparatiofl of proposed implementing procedures, consultation with CEQ prior to publication in the Federal Register for comment, approval by CEQ--signal a lengthy process. DOE disagrees with CEQ's proposal that agency regulations should be confined to implementing procedures. Due to the questionable enforôeability of CEQ regulations, their limited applicability, i.e., to only Section 102(2) of NEPA, their failure to adequately cover necessary areas, e.g., applicant or adjudicatory processes, and the need for agencies to establish regulatory ~ and procedure unique to their needs, it is desirable for each agency to prepare a ~q~plete regulation which would be cons~~~ with. the CEQ regulations. CEQ should not be permi~id to approve or disapprove agency regulations. However, CEQ may review and comment on proposed regulations and raise any issues of nonconformity to the President. Section 1507.3(b) The introductory phrase should be revised to read: Agency procedures shall include, ~ other t~~ns: With respect to item (b) (1), see our response to Section 1505.1. While it is desirable to maintain agency flexibility with respect to implementing procedures, it is also useful for CEQ to define more clearly an appropriate regulatory framework. . . Item (b) (2) forms the crux of an agency HA/HIS process. However, as noted in our response to Section 1501.3, the proposed CEQ framework does not define "abnormal" circun- Stances, nor does it allow for case-by-case exclusions or for an immediate decision to prepare an HIS, if One is clearly necessary,. in the case of a proposed action not previously included or excluded. PAGENO="0217" 213 Part 1508. Termn29y and Index L_Tm~2201 In order for the proposed terminology to be uniform through- out the Federal Government, this part needs to be revised so that the definitions are succinct, clear, precise, and accurate. Secondly, definitions must be confined to an ~planation of terms and should not be used to describe additional procedures. Thirdly, each of these terms must be consisten~~ and correct1~ ~p~J~ed in each instance where it is usecfin the body of the proposed regulations. A major effort is required here to accomplish the stated goal of uniform terminology. Section 1508.2 Act Rather than "define" Act, it may be more useful for CEQ* to provide a list of abbreviations used in the regulations, e.g., NEPA, EIS, EA, CEQI etc. Use of these common abbreviations will reduce paperwork. ion 1508 3Affec~j~g~ It serves no useful purpose for the CEQ regulations to redefine terms commonly used and clearly understood. "Affect," according to Webster's New World Dictionarl 91 ~ ~rnericam Languaq~, means "to have an effect on; influence; produce a ch~je in." There is no contingency or possibility associated with the effect. Therefore, as a definition of terminology, "may have an effect on" is far too broad. Moreover, the concept espoused here in the context of "significantly affecting the quality of the human envirom-' merit" is too broad. A test of "probability of occurrence" must be applied, not the mere "possibility" inferred by an. effect which `may" happen. This section should confine itself to definitions. By incorporating additional procedures into this section on terminology, the CEQ regulations are confusing and dis- jointed. Therefore, the second sentence of this section should be deleted and inserted in Section 1507.3. 32-744 0 - 78 - 14 PAGENO="0218" 214 Section 1508 This definition incorrectly assumes that an agency "which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise " automatica~~ becomes a cooperating agency In the first place, the lead agency must, according to Section 1501 6 request that another agency become a cooperating agency with respect to a particular EIS Secondly, the proposed language is not in the form of a clear definition Accordingly, the first sentence should be revised and the second deleted, as it repeats the procedures outlined at Section 1501 6 DOE recommends the following "Cooperating agency" means any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has )urisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) or any State or local agency of similar qualifications, which supports the lead agency in its preparation of an EIS. Section 1508.6 Council See response to Section 1508.2. PAGENO="0219" 215 $t~LDn 150L? ~ Cumulative impact, as defined here and as used in Section 1508 23(a), improperly extends the reach of NEPA and the ETS As defined, cumulative impacts could result in a Federal agency being required to prepare an EIS in the case where the proposed Federal action (or actions) are clearly minor and without cignificant imoact but when added to a number of non-Federal actions (in the same geographic area, but not caused by the Federal actions) may result in a significant imoact This requirement if this is what CEQ intends, is clearly unacceptable to DOE While it may be appropriate to consider the cumulative impacts of a propo~ed Federal action or actions and related or resultant non- Federal actions in an EIS, it should not be necessary for a Federal agency to key i~Ei test of signifcance to the cumulative impact of Federal and non-Federal actions In short, NEPA requires that "significance' should relate to the imoact of Federal action Secondly, cumulative impacts whether Federal or non-Federal, should be limited to other ~~ent and reasonably foreseeable future actions The impacts of ~ actions are included in the environmental baseline See also response to Section 1508 23 PAGENO="0220" 216 Section 1508.8 Effects The syntax is incorrect. Moreover, DOE believes a more precise definition can be given. We suggest the following: "Effects" means the direct and indirect results of a proposed action and its alternatives which are reasonably predictable. Direct effects are those which occur in the same general time and place as the causative agent, i.e., the proposed action or alternative. Indirect effects are those which are derived from the direct effects and nay be further removed in time or space from the proposed action or alternative, but which are also reasonably predictable and can be traced to the original agent. Effects and impacts, as used in these regulations, are synonymous. Effects include natural, physical, and socioeconomic impacts and may be beneficial or adverse. DOE strongly recommends that references to "economic" impacts here be deleted. It is DOE's view that this inclusion tends toward a cost-benefit approach to environmental impact review which is beyond the scope of Section 102(2), and leads to making the EIS the decisionmaking document which DOE opposes. The term "socioeconomic" is appropriate, however. (See our comments on Section 1505.1 and Section 1505.2.) Furthermore, "health effects" should be included in EIS's only to the extent feasible and appropriate. It is unreasonable to require the inclusion of health impacts since: (1) in many cases, the cause and effect relation between project and health impacts cannot be practicably determined, (2) such analysis would, where practicable, require considerable data and explanation, leading to lengthy and technically sophisticated EIS's, and (3) health impacts should be minimal if established standards are met. Finally,, it is not clear whether such a requirement extends to non-human "health" analyses. . PAGENO="0221" 217 ~ ~ Section 1508.9(a) The proposed language is not a definition of an EA, Iut a statement of its purposes. Those purposeS should be in~ chided in Section 1501.3 and not repeated here. We suggest the following: "Environmental assessment" means a document prepared by an agency which assesses whether a proposed action would be "major" and would "significantly affect" the quality of the human environment, and which serves as the basis for determining whether an EIS is required. Section 1508.9(b) The required contents of an EA should be included in the body of the regulations, not in the definitions. Section 1508.10 Environmental_Document To avoid unnecessary turning of pages, the definition should simply state: "Environmental document" means an environmental assessment (Section 1508.9) an environmental impact statement (Section 1508.11), a finding of no significant impact (Section 1508.12) and a notice of intent (Section 1508.20). Section 1508.11 Erwironmenta1Im~~tem~t No comment. The syntax is incorrect. We suggest the following: "Finding of No Significant Impact" means a document prepared by a Federal agency and based on an E1~ which summarizes the reasons for the agency's decision not to prepare an EIS. PAGENO="0222" 218 Statement DOE recommends the deletion of this section for the reasons stated in its recommendation for the deletion of Section 1506 13 above Section_1508.13 Human Environment DOE interprets the "human environment" to encompass the natural, physical, and socioeconomic environment ~j~islation Again, the CEQ regulations should not attempt to redefine common terms. Instead of the word "legislation," it would be more appropriate for CEQ to define what constitutes a "legislative proposal" in the context of Section 102(2) (C) and rewrite the body of the regulation to use this term We suggest the following "Legislative oroposal" means a report or recommendation by a Federal agency in support of legislation which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Designation of requests for ratification of treaties as proposals for legislation should be omitted until the major policy issues regarding the international reach of Section 102(2) of NEPA are resolved. PAGENO="0223" 219 ~ General Most of this section addresses "procedures" and does not define terminology. The text should be deleted (where it is repetitious) or transferred to other parts of the regulation. It should be noted, however, that the phrase "major Federal action" clearly entails some degree of Federal control, not merely the potential for Federal control, as indicated in the first sentence. Sections 1508.1.6(a) and (b) These sections list certain "Federal actions" all of which by virtue of the definition of "major" in the introductory paragraph would already be assumed to have sufficient Federal involvement to require an EIS unless the "significance" test was not passed. DOE believes that the list here is too broad in that many of the actions shown would, under certain circumstances, not constitute an action requiring, or ripe for, a review as to significance. Further, this list precludes the agency from classifying these actions in accordance with the direction. of Section 1507.3(b)(2). That section specifies agency identification of classes of actions requiring varying levels of NEPA review presumably depending on analysis of both the degree of Federal involvement and significance. Finally, this list is inappropriate under the title, ~j~jor Federal Action. DOE recommends the deletion of these sections. Section 1508.17 Matter No comment. Section 1508.19 Mitigation . The word "nitigate" means to make less severe, less rigorous, or less painful; it does not imply a complete avoidance of impact. Therefore, sections 1508.18(a) Cc), and Cd) are not confined to "mitigation." Section 1508.18(e) is unclear. PAGENO="0224" 220 Section 1508.19 NEPA Process This provision exceeds the limits of E.O. 11991. "NEPA process" should be replaced by EIS process. Furthermore, DOE does not regard "all measures necessary for compliance" with NEPA as a "process." Section 1508.20 Notice of Intent This section should be revised and limited to a definition of terms. Specific content should be delineated in the body of the regulation, DOE suggests the following: "Notice of intent" means a written announcement that an EIS is being prepared, which briefly describes the proposed action and its alternatives. Section 1508.21 Prop~a1 The proposed definition is vague and raises a number of questions. While this definition (with modification) may be sufficient to delineate that point in time at which environ-. mental review should commence, it is too early, in most cases, in the program development process to require a complete draft or final EIS. Thus, agencies could be held to an impossible requirement in many cases. When reworking the definition, CEQ should keep in mind the Supreme Court requirement (K1e~pe v. Sierra Club) that agencies have an EIS prepared by the time thé~ "propose't an action. The phrase "an agency subject to the Act" is unclear. CEQ should identify which agencies are not subject to the Act. DOE recommends that the term "proposal" should be distinguished from planning activities which occur prior to the identification of specific objectives and alternative courses of action. (See also response to Section 1501.2.) Section 1508.22 Referring Agency No comment. PAGENO="0225" 221 Section 1508.23 Sco~ This is not a "definition" and adds very little to the guidance already provided in Sections 1501.7, 1502.4, 1502.14, 1502.15, and elsewhere. We suggest it be deleted. With respect to item (a), it should be noted that the "connected," "cumulative" or "similar" actions should be Federal actions. With respect to item (b), mitigation measures should not be considered as "alternatives;" the selection of one mitigating measure does not preclude others. Section 1508.24 S~nificantl~ In (a), references "to society as a whole" or. "global" contexts should be deleted until the international reach of Section 102(2) is resolved. The last sentence of (a) states the obvious. Section 1508.25 Tierin~ DOE suggests that a better, more precise definition could be provided. In addition, the last two sentences refer to the "purpose" of tiering and should be deleted. Index Rather than providing an index to 43 pages of regulation, it would be more useful.if CEQ would focus on providing a logical, coherent, well-defined set of procedures, which would not require an index. It should be noted that the index contains a significant number of errors, e.g., Endangered Species Act references a non-existent Section lSO9.2S(b)~8); and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is not mentioned at Section 1506.8(b) (4) as indicated. PAGENO="0226" 222 ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNoL~y Mr SPENSLEY Mr Fumich, a few questions for you about the role differentiation between your shop and Dr Liverman's I noticed in your testimony before the Fossil and Nuclear Subcom- mittee back in January you made some statements about the proposed transfer under the heading of Advanced Environmental Control Technology I would first like to ask where your environmental programs were prior to the proposed transfei ~ Mr FUMICH The same area They are all under John Belding who is sitting behind me Mr SPENSLEY Your budget table that you submitted with that testimony indicates Advanced Energy Control Technology and shows a zero budget for fiscal year 1918. Mr FUMICH John, could you answer that Dr. BELDING. That is correct. We did not in fact do any work on scrubbers in 1978 It was really miniscule, there was no development work in that area So that is a new initiative Now, the other environmental work that went on previously was carried in a separate line item and is still in the 1919 budget Mr. SPENSLEY. Is that identified as advanced research and support- ing technology ~ Dr. BELDING. No. Mr SPENSLEY Could you identify yourself if you are going to an swer for the record ~ Mr. FUMICH. This is Mr. Jerry Walsh, my budget man in Fossil Energy. Mr SPENSLEY Wait a minute, I am son y, I did not get an answer yet to my question Mr FUMICH This is Jim Johnson, head of my Environmental Division Mr JOHNSON In the Advanced Research and Supporting Technol ogy activity there is a small environmental office which is charged with cooi dmating environmental activities within Fossil Energy The environmental development activities are spread out among the vari- ous fossil technology divisions and coordinated through this office. Mr. SPENSLEY. I understood your answer to say that under the Ad- vanced Research and Supporting Technology there is no environmen tal program~ Mr JOHNSON No, I did not say that There is a small environmental office charged with coordinating a lot of the functions which cut across the board in Fossil Energy technology areas Mr. SPENSLEY. That is where the environmental program was prior to the initiation of the advanced energy control technology program ~ Mr. JOHNSON. That was part of it. The actual environmental devel- opment programs were also spread throughout the technology divi- sions within Fossil Energy. Mr. SPENSLEY. Perhaps I mieht ask you, Mr. Fumich, if you could provide for the record a specific crosscut of your environmental pro PAGENO="0227" 223 grams prior to the initiation of this new program for the fossil fuel area Mr FTJMICH I would be very happy to do that because we are going through a reorganization and some of the programs that we got from the Division of Conservation are environmentally oriented And the other technology which we are involved in and which I gave in my presentation, is also in the same category that the stack gas technol ogy is Now it might not be what we call advanced technology, but this is where all of this is going to be when we reorganize In other words, we are planning a reorganization right now which I think will be announc ed shortly The control technology will all be together in this new organization So that the trade offs can be made I will give you that mformation for the record [The information follows] PAGENO="0228" ThTSE~t FOR REWRD Page 80 FOSSIL ENERGY ENVIRONTYIENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY CROSS-CUT . Totals by Technology Division (Budget Authority in millions of dollars) Environmental and Technology Division Control NEPA Technol~~ Monitor~ ~p~pliance Regulatory ~p~1iance Health Effects Solid Fuel Mining and Analysis Total Preparation $ 7.60 $ 0.10 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Coal Conversion 36.40 1.63 2.00 $ $ 7.70 Power Systems 39.2O.~ 0.015 0.70 0.0 0.10 40.19 Magnetohydrodynamics 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.10 0.20 0.30 40.115 Oil, Gas, Shale and In Situ 0.85 Technology 0.88 3.23 1.00 0.30 Program Control & Support 0.0 0.10 5.51 ... 0.26 0.78 0.96 0.65 2.65 Total $84.08 $ 5~435 a. Includes~i4.0 million for Advanced Environmental Control Technology activity transferred from EPA. PAGENO="0229" 225 Mr. SPENSLEY. So your intention is to put more than $14 million into your environmental control technology and assessment program? Mr. FUMICTI. I would say when you lump it altogether it will be quite a bit more than that, yes, sir. Dr. LIVERMAN. Mr. Spensley, we ran an inventory, as I think you are aware, which showed the fossil energy in fiscal 1977, I think the number was, had about 85 million- Mr. FUMICH. We estimate that $84.08 million will be required for our control technology activities in fiscal year 1979. Mr. SPENSLEY. I am trying to find where in your budget that is. It was not a separate line item. Mr. FUMICH. It was not. I could give you the breakdown for the record. Mr. SPENSLEY. If you could give me the breakdown for the record that would be sufficient. IThis information is shown op. page 222.] Mr. SPENSLEY. The reason the question seemed appropriate to me was that apparently the other energy technology areas have a separate line item for environment. I could not find it in the fossil area except for the new category that has been proposed. I had some difficulty in reading your statement before the Fossil and Nuclear Subcommittee in understanding precisely what is planned for that $14 million. In reference to that statement you made some comment that this program would integrate a complete systems ap- proach to fossil fuel utilization and environmental impact problems, and that this systems analysis will be initiated to examine the tradeoffs between precombustion cleanup, cleanup during combustion and flue gas cleanup and so on. This was really the genesis of my question to Mr. Aim as to how those activities are different from those activities that are being carried on in Dr. Liverman's shop, and as a matter of fact how they are different from some of the activities that will be continued in EPA aside from the differences in emphasis of regulation versus development. ROLE OF FOSSIL ENERGY'S ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES Mr. FUMIcE. I think it is a matter of attacking the problem from different angles. We feel that no one technology in this area is going to be a panacea for the energy problem. I do not think it is going to be low Btu fuel gas or medium Btu fuel gas, nor is it going to be atmos- pheric fluidized bed or pressurized fluidized bed or stack gas tech- nology. I think it is going to be a combination of these various tech- nologies where in each of use area you might find one or two that play a predominant part. One could be much more economical in certain regions or localities than another. We intended to look at this whole family of technologies regarding energy and the environment and also pollution, and see where tradeoffs need to be made. As I said in my statement, I think a combination of coal cleaning and stack gas technology can be a real viable avenue of approach in some areas where you do not want too much capital investment or where neither stack gas technology nor coal cleaning alone cannot do the job particularly with the new source performance standards. PAGENO="0230" 226 I would say that the same marriage might be applicable to large atmospheric fluidized bed combustion These technologies we were al ready involved in and are not shown in that budget The $14 million applies to the advanced environmental control technology program that is included in this interchange with EPA rhat funding has nothing to with these other technology development programs that I discussed Although we are now able to make essential tradeoffs be tween environmental concerns and technology, as I mentioned. I think that in one case, one methodology will be much better. In another case I think it might be a combination of others Mr. SPENSLEY. It is my understanding then that those sorts of trade- offs would be reviewed and overviewed by Dr Liverman's shop ~ Mr FtJMICH Let me put that in another context We are not operat ing alone in the Department of Energy I his is an in depth type of analysis We will start in our shop Before we get very far we will also involve Bob Thorne and his group It will also involve Jim Liverman's shop because of his particular concerns, and so up through the system until we make the final decision These tradeoffs are going to be made at the policy level as to where we should be going. I understand that maybe in the next 20 to 30 days the administration will be coming out with a new package on new initiatives, with prior overview being done on a high policy level Mr SPENSLLY So ~ ou will not be making those precise dccisions Mr FUMICH Oh, no, no Mr SPENSLEY They would be reviewed by such groups as the En vironmental Issues Committee ~ Mr FUMICH I would think so SPECIFIC EPA PROJECTS TO BE TRANSFERRED Mr SPENSLEY Good OK Has there been any agreement on the specific projects which will be transferred to you, Mr Fumich, from EPA ~ Mr. F1:rMICH. Dr. John Belding of my shop is my representative on that particular negotiating group He is involved in discussions about particulai projects that `Lre to be tiansferred but it is my understand ing that it is going to take 120 days to get these issues resolved It is not a clear cut picture I think it is a lot simpler than the picture is between EPA and the Environmental Office, but still there is still quite a gray area. Mr. SPENSLEY. When did the 120 days begin? Mr. FUMICH. John? Dr. BELDING. January 30. Mr. SPENSLEY. January 30, they began. I understand that there is an 0MB memo which has recently been delivered to the Department of Energy which sets out the program definition and the health effects research area is so that it can accom modate this transfer of responsibilities Is there going to be a similar 0MB memo that defines what the en- vironmental control technology program definition is so that we can assist there as well? Mr. FUMICH. I think that was part of the original memo. Dr LIVERMAN I think that is correct I think the original memo because it was felt that control technology was going to be split on PAGENO="0231" 227 S0,~ and N0~ on that basis. The difficulty in the biomedical environ- mental area is that the definition of what we split has been much more difficult. Mr. SPENSLEY. Are we speaking of the February 10 memo from 0MB? Dr. LIVERMAN. February 10 memo to Dr. Gage and me. Mr. SPENSLEY. That only dealt with health effects- Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes; that is right. It is only the health effects area.. Mr. SPENSLEY. Is there going to be a similar program definition for the environmental control technology transfers? Dr. LIVERMAN. I think as he said the original memo gave that split. Dr. BELDING. There was an original memo from Mr. McIntyre to Dr. Schlesinger and Council, that delineated exactly what the control technology split would be. Mr. SPENSLEY. Why, then, is there so much difficulty in deciding the specific projects? Dr. BELDING. Well, we have only met a couple of times so far. We have not gotten down to finalizing all the mechanisms of transfer, et cetera. Mr. FUMICH. Sir, I think there is another legitimate reason for that. It is always hard to delineate between feasibility and development stages. It is easier, of course, when you get beyond the powerplant stage. I understand that this is one of the problems involved in trying to define what stage some of these projects are in. Under the agree- ment that was negotiated, EPA is going to retain the technology area that goes up to a certain stage so that they will have knowledge on what the standards should be. I was a member of that original negotiating team, as was Steve Gage. He made the request about having access to our facilities. I agreed. Mr. BROWN. Dr. Gage's statement said that EPA would retain the engineering and technical assessment capabilities required for regula- tory purpose~s. There may be some problem in planning that, but I think the idea is fairly- Dr. GAGE. There are no people involved in this transfer Mr. Chair- man. The people on my staff who had been involved in these activi- ties will remain, and we feel that they are very competent and very knowledgeable in these activities. In fact, many of them have been working closely with Mr. Fumich's staff in a number of these projects, so I think that we will not have any discontinuity in that area. Mr. BROWN. In the light of the lack of finalization, I suppose it would be difficult to answer the question as to how much of that $14 million was in-house or contract research. But could you offer some sort of a guess on that? Dr. GAGE. I would say that probably better than 90 percent is extramural research. This has been necessary because we have had to conduct these experim~nts around powerplants and other large facilities, and have obtained the required cooperation with power companies- Mr. BROWN. So basically it is a question of who administers the contract. Dr. GAGE. Substantially. Mr. BROWN. Dr. Kash? PAGENO="0232" 228 Dr. KASH. Mr. Chairman, I hate to be a thorn in the side of this cooperative love feast that is going on. I do think that there might be one question raised if in fact DOE has had a zero budget for flue gas desulfurization which is what I understood, and if those functions are to be transferred from EPA to DOE but in fact Mr. Gage is not going to transfer the people who are in charge of those, I would assume that one of the costs associated with work in this area is going to be some period of time in sort of staffing up and gearing up for the management of those flue gas desulfurization activities within DOE. How much time that takes, I really do not know, but I would think that there is at least some interim costs in that connection, and that that is something that the subcommittee might want to take into its investigation of this. Mr. BROWN. This almost always seems to be the case, Dr. Kash, but fortunately if Dr. Gage is correct, it only represents about 10 percent of the money involved here. Mr. SPENSLEY. Could I just finish with a couple of questions? I would like toe~o back for a minute to the 0MB memo. Apparently there is some deadline set in there for the transfer of the health effects programs. It appears that the deadline for a complete identification of the projects is some time around the middle of April and that the final orders for the transfer of those programs will not be executed until around June 9, which is, I think, well beyond the 120 days. It is going to be very difficult for the staff of thia subcommittee-which I know is not your major concern-to determine whether the transfer of projects involved will in fact represent the policy that is being set by 0MB. I am wondering if any of the witnesses might give us some help as to how we might judge the effectiveness of the transfer in light of those deadlines. Dr. LIVERMAN. I think we are fishing for an answer because I do not think anybody around this table knows the precise answer to that. We are in the definition phase now of trying to decide-since the purpose of the exercise was to sort of separate agency responsibility, in the health and environmental area is a little bit more difficult, I think, but we are as spelled out in a February 10 memo, memo to us, give us a definite series of schedules by `which we have got to produce. That again does not help the committee, but I would say in the case of the health and environmental area it is ongoing R. & D. that is in place, and people are there and projects are running. It is not B. & D. to be initiated. I do not know how that helps the committee, except I think that says you do not cut the budgets of the two agencies unless you want to cut that work out. SHOULD TRANSFER BE APPROVED Mr. SPENSLEY. But in fact we have to decide on the budget within the next several weeks in this committee, and there are budget changes, so how do we alleviate the problem. Does it not make more sense, Dr. Liverman or Mr. Fumich, that per- haps we should at this time hold off on approving any transfer until some specific budget and program policy documents have been devel- oped rather than going by a letter from 0MB, giving someone 120 days to make these important decisions? PAGENO="0233" 229 Mr. FUMICH. So far as fossil energy is concerned, we are already going through a preliminary program plan for all of the technologies that I mentioned including developing milestones and everything else that is required. Mr. SPENSLEY. Well, it is a major part of the programs that lose $10 or $12 or $15 million, but you are gaining $14 million. Mr. FUMICH. Well, I was just talking about fossil energy. Mr. SPENSLEY. Right; I understand. Mr. ALM. It strikes me that if you did not change the authorization to reflect these decisions merely on the grounds that nothing is concrete now, you are talking about a year of uncertainty- Mr. SPENSLEY. A year of uncertainty will exist until the middle of June, three-quarters of the fiscal year that we are in right now. Mr. ALM. We are talking about the transfer for the 1979 budget. Mr. SPENSLEY. Yes; that is right, I am sorry. Mr. ALM. What I am worried about is a great deal of uncertainty. Any change like this is painful, and it just strikes me that work is underway, that we ought to get it finished so the work can go on and to hold ofF on a decision for a period of time merely because all the de- tails have not been pinned down is going to slow program momentum. I do agree that because of this committee's strong interest that we have an obligation to ke.ep you fully informed at every step, and I think I can easily make that commitment. Mr. SPENSLEY. It is more than the details of whith projects. It seems to me that the 0MB memo has a lot of ambiguity as to the role., the responsibility, of Dr. Liverman's shop versus EPA. Mr. FUMICH. I have been talking to John back here. He is the one involved in this intimately. My understanding, based on the information from him, is that money is not the crux. The program is being transferred, the manage- ment of the program is going to be transferred, and the funding and everything will be taking plsce during the usual course of events. Mr. SPENSLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, no more questions. Mr. BROWN. Ms. Hoskins. Ms. HosKINs. Basically, I am concerned about one thing in this mat- ter of the $14 million. It seems there have been some pro~rams identi- fied at EPA aid some at DOE, and 0MB decided that they should be transferred from one agency to another. How did 0MB arrive at that figure $14 million, if these programs have not been identified for either DOE or EPA~ Mr. ALM. The programs have been identified. It is always hard ~o take a particular number and say why did someone say ~i4 versus ~20 or what-have-you. With respect to the components. the 0MB guidance was quite clear. We can certainly make that part of the record. Mr. BROWN. I would like without objection to make the letters re- ferred to here part of the record. I think it would be helpful. 32-744 0 - 78 - 15 PAGENO="0234" 230 [The letter follows:] Memorandum for: James R. Schlesinger, Douglas M. Costle. From: James T. McIntyre. Subject: DOE-EPA environmental research and development programs. As you are aware the President's FY 1979 Budget will provide for a change in program emphasis, under existing agency authorizations, in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). The intent of this action is to improve the overall Federal effort in environmental protection and energy technology development. 0MB staff has discussed the specific nature of this funding change with your staffs. In summary, $14 million of environmen- tal control with your staffs. In summary, $14 million of environmental control technology projects previously conducted in EPA will be administered by DOE and $14 million of environmental and health effects research previously con- ducted in DOE will be incorporated into the ongoing EPA research program. Attached is a detailed description of this budgetary action. It has been agreed that the specific management details of this action will be negotiated between 0MB, DOE and EPA over the next 120 days. In addition, the following guidelines and language have been drafted to describe the basic nature of the change and the subsequent agency responsibilities. These will also serve to guide the more detailed discussions over the next 120 days. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DOE will assume responsibility for $14 M of EPA environmental control tech- nology development programs. DOE will be the lead Agency responsible for de- velopment of energy environmental control technology. EPA will continue to do bench-scale research on environmental control technology and may proceed to conclusion with its existing NO~ program. Future environmental control tech- no~ogy development programs are the responsibility of DOE, Including future NO~ initiatives. EPA may not initiate any new pilot or demonstration plant projects in environmental control technology development without consulting with DOE but will be provided resources for continued bench-scale investigations into the state-of-the-art developments in control technologies. DOE guarantees EPA access to all facilities, data. and methodology employed in the energy technology program provided that DOE is notified in advance. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH EPA will assume responsibility for $14 M of DOE environmental research projects. EPA will support these research projects at the National Laboratories for two years unless a project is concluded as determined In consultation with DOE and 0MB. EPA will be the lead Agency responsible for research in support of long range environmental goals and regulatory standards. The particular man- agement details and guidelines for future program responsibility will be formu- lated during the 120 day period of negotiation. However, with the exception of site-specific or effluent-specific research in support of energy technology develop- mental effects research without consulting with EPA. The results of all EPA research projects will be entered into the Federal En- vironment and Safety Research Inventory developed by DOE. Please designate two individuals to represent your agency in the discussions addressing the specific management details of this budgetary action. Attachment PAGENO="0235" 231 SUMMARY OF DOE/EPA BUDGET ACTION IBudget authority in millions of dollarsj Control technology R. & D.: Coal gasification and liquefaction control technology Direct coal combustion Hot gas clean-up (turbines) Petroleum oil shale and in situ control tech- nology Subtotal Health and environmental effects R. & D,: - Health effects: Epidemiology of energy employes rapid screening and characterization of energy pollutant streams and product streams. Quantification of health effects of energy pollutants by amount of dose, duration of exposure, affected organ, effect produced Environmental effects: Site specific General Fate and transport of pollutants: Site specific General Instrumentation and supporting studies Environmental baseline studies and monitoring of energy development impact: Site specific General Subtotal - Grand total 2 0 2 32 0 32 49 -13 36 19 +13 32 O 0 0 3 0 3 2 -1 1 1 +1 2 53 -14 39 55 +1469 8 +7 15 7 -7 0 o 0 0 6 0 6 11 +3 14 3 -3 0 o 0 0 5 0 5 6 +3 9 3 -3 0 2 +1 3 2 -1 1 o 0 0 13 0 13 7 0 7 0 0 0 40+14 54 49 -14 35 93 0 93 104 0 104 Ms. HOSKINS. For example, Dr. Gage, we have been told that EPA thus far has only been able to identify about $5.7 million worth of pro- grams to meet the criteria of the transfer to DOE, considering require.- inents that they be in the pilot administration stage and meet energy related and other such criteria. Dr. GAGE. I do not have any idea where the $5.7 million amount came from. Do you have further background on that? Ms. HO5KINS. I have some of the funds for the advanced oil process- ing. Apparently $1 million was planned for fiscal year 1979. Is that part of the transfer? Dr. GAGE. Mr. Frank Princiotta of my Energy Processing Division tells me yes. He has been working with Mr. Belding of the Department of Energy, and they have indicated that that is just an initial cut of some areas where they have some mutual agreement that transfer would make a good deal of sense. This does not mean that that is the only amount that we have been able to identify in the budget. It is just a first step. Ms. HosI~INs. What if less than $14 million were identified in your program? What would happen then? Dr. GAGE. I would think that the next step would be to meet with the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy and tell them that that is the situation, and that there would be ]ess than a full transfer at this time. We in fact think that there is probably considerably in excess of $14 million that would meet the definition that was set forth in the January 11 memorandum. EPA (present mark) DOE (0MB mark) - Present Change Total - Present Change Total 6 0 6 10 0 10 PAGENO="0236" 232 Generalizing beyond that I would say that we read the January 11 memorandum as more of a po1ic~ document than a budget document The $14 million realignment is more than a token, of course, but it is ieally much more of an indication of the direction in which the Othee of Management and Budget plans to move in reahgmng these activities in future years I would say that the increase would be considerably more than $14 million in future years Mr FUMIcH My understanding is that they are going to meet agam next Friday and, aecoi ding to Dr Belthng, there is a pretty good chance of getting most of the issues resolved at that time Ms HosKINs I have lust one more question about what kind of con trol EPA will have ovei programs that are now in DOE that you will be contracting out to the national labs Will you be able to change the direction of those programs ~ Or will you be able to fund them as they are? Dr GAGE The January 11 meinoiandum speaks to the continua tion of those programs within the national laboratories for 2 years unless they are terminated We recogmze that as a fact of life in order not to inject too much instability for those laboratories We plan, if we take those piojects over, to scrutinize them veiy care fully, to expand them if necessary, or to close them out and to use that money for other purposes if the national laboratory projects do not `tnswei our needs I have not been circumscribed in any way beyond that 2 yeai transition period in the use of that $14 million We, in fact, would put the national laboratories in competition for those funds in future years If they do not produce, if they do not write the best proposals, if they cannot meet the competition from other cx ternal sources, then the money will go elsewhere Ms HosKINs Thank you Mi BROWN Mi Clement ~ Mi Cr~i~ni~ Yes thank you Mi Ch'urman Di Liverman, the first thing I would like to do would be to reiterate our request for a status report on the letter from Congressman Ruppe, of October 11th of last year I have not seen anything on that yet Dr LIVERMAN Is this the question of the NEPA statement ~ Mr CLEMENT This was the request by Mr Ruppe, Mr Oberstar, and Mr Marks on the Great Lakes energy forum Di LIVEPM v~ Yes ~ou posed that question the other d'iy and we will get `in `inswei out to you onth'Lt Mr CLEMENT Thank you Mr Ruppe has expressed further interest I guess, Mr Fumich, you w ould probably be the `i~ppropriate person to address this Members of the staff iecently h'td an opportunity to visit one of the leading industrial research centers and during discussions with both scientisth and engineers there, it appeared that many of the DOE mi ti'Lti~ es that nrc curren,t~l~ being funded `ire in o re'~s that had already been exanyned by industry and rejected or discarded based on economic grounds We realize that the cost of oil drives many of these programs, `tnd `m program that is economically unfeasible today m'ty very quickly become feasible as the price of imported oil goes up An example was the enhanced oil recovery. We were briefed rather thoroughly on what industry was doing Some of their activities go well beyond the sort of things that we heard here earlier PAGENO="0237" 233 How are your policy decisions made in this area as to whether or not DOE is going to go and reexamine something that industry has been doing for 15 or 20 years? HOW POLICY DECISIONS ARE MADE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AREAS Mr. FUMICH. That is a very legitimate question. You have to realize that we are always working toward a moving target. What might have been uneconomical 3 or 4 years ago, may now look promising. We get comments like you are just reinventing the wheel. But you have to realize that because of the environmental and other considerations that none of these targets remain in the same po- sition. We are right back to the example that you mentioned, liquefac- tion or liquids. Now, we realize what the price of oil is today. We know that it is an artificial price. It is really not set by the marketplace. On the other hand if we try to produce oil from our current technology, the cost is going to be high. To be specific, if you are talking about oil from shale, you are talking about $14 a barrel. If you are talking about coal liquefaction you are talking about $20 to $35 a barrel for low sul- fur fuel. When we move this technology to the marketplace, for a while we are going to have something that is not competitive. This is where we need some of the mechanisms that Mr. Aim was talking about. We can only go so far with research on the front end. Then it is going to take some type of market mechanism, tax incen- tive., or regulatory incentive or something like that to help bring these technologies into the market place, whether they are economic or not. If we wait for that test, we are never going to be able to get the job done in time because we need a large impact in the liquefaction area between 1990 and 2000. This is when we are really going to be hurting. So if we wait until these technologies become economically competitive, it is going to be too late. We have to move some of these technologies that are not economically competitive so that when the time comes they will be available on a broad enough base to fill some of these gaps that we sec in the future. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Alm, this would fall under your bailiwick. Our experience has shown that industry is willing to undertake much of this research and development and in fact has been doing it for many years. Should the position of the Department of Energy at this point be one of, as Mr. Fumich sa.id, reinventing the wheel by bringing the research and development up to date, or should we be providing the economic incentive.s through tax breaks or whatever to industry to en- courage them to do the research and development? Mr. ALM. You have hit the heart of the Federal role in research and development and also how the Department views its integration of the functions that it inherited. Let me ge.t to the first question first. Those research and development activities that industry is willing to undertake on its own, those projects that are clearly profitable in a rel- atively short period of time are types of activities that Government should not duplicate.. The role of Government in research and development is obviously to deal with those kinds of activities that are eithe.r very basic in nature PAGENO="0238" 234 or where the wish is too great for private entities to undertake the project. When the Department takes a look at a series of technologies it needs to define which technologies are needed in what time period. Once that process has been finished, then the next question is, Of those technolo- gies that are most promising, what technique will bring them on line most effectively? In some cases different pricing structures or greater certainty will create adequate incentives. In some cases, regulatory activities of the Department can provide incentives for development. In some cases direct subsidies will be needed, but this does not necessarily mean a research and development subsidy. It might mean a loan guarantee or some other method of reducing risk. The point I am making is that there is no one best way to bring these technologies on line considering the overall institutional and economic contexts involved. For example, there are different pricing syste~ns for gas and oil; therefore your incentive system would be different between the two. To sum up, we ought to look at the widest range of tools before decid- ing on the exact program which the Department would undertake to bring on a new technology. Direct Government financial support is only one of a series of alternatives. Mr. FUMICH. Let me give you some of our procedures, to show that we do not reinvent the wheel. As Mr. Alm mentioned, when we are involved in a particular area of activity, we put out an RFP (request for proposal) to the people that are involved in this general area of technology. They come in with their responses. The responses are evaluated by people within Fossil Energy and within DOE. These evaluations are both technical and economic, and admittedly if this is some new technology, the proposal is going to be based on a lot of assumptions. People do not realize that it takes about 20 years to get from an idea to the commercial activity. And in the beginning the chances are it is high risk, long-range un- certain technology where you can measure the technical parameters, but the economic parameters are quite uncertain. The further you go down that road, both the technology and economics become less uncertain and this is where your other evaluations come about. But we do not try to reinvent the wheel, we try to get involved in technologies that will in fact pass muster both technically and economically. Mr. CLEMENT. Something of technical expertise, Mr. Fumich. One of the reasons that we have heard expressed for the transfer of control technology into the Department of Energy is because of the technical expertise within DOE. Did I hear you say earlier that you did not have anyone who had been working on scrubber technology? Mr. FUMICH. I do not have anyone particularly who has been work- ing on scrubber technology, but I do have a family of scientists and engineers that have been involved in this general area. Chemical en- gineers for instance and all the other type of engineers that are involved in hot gas cleanup. This is one of our critical areas, and it is the same generic type technology that you have in stack gas cleanup. This prob- lem goes across a whole layer of activities in our technological area. Mr. CLEMENT. Specifically, you did not have anyone working on control technology. PAGENO="0239" 235 Mr. FUMICH. Yes; in answer to your question. Mr. CLEMENT. Dr. Gage, did I hear you correctly- Mr. BELDING. Could I say one thing? I think if you focus on the scrubber technology a's control technology, that is not the case. Scrubber technology is only one piece of this whole program, and we have people very much, very heavily involved in coal cleanup, in hot gas cleanup and everything else. So the one area we are missing is scrubber technology. We do not think that is going to be hard to pick up. And in fact barring any cataclysmic events, we could even go back to use the EPA people if we had to. So I do not think that that is a real problem that we ought to be addressing. Mr. CLEMENT. All right, sir, let me ask-what portion of the $14 mil- lion effort, percentagewise, will probably fall in the area of scrubber technology? Mr. BELDING. It is probably a lot less than half. Mr. CLEMENT. How much is a lot less? Mr. BELDING. Under $2 million. Mr. CLEMENT. Under $2 million of the $14 million. Mr. BELDING. Under $2 million. Mr. CLEMENT. Dr. Gage, you did say that you will not be transfer- ring any people. Dr. GAGE. It is my understanding of the initial guidance that there will not be a transfer of people involved from DOE to EPA or vice versa. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Fumich, I would like to ask also, on the numbers that have been requested by Mr. Spensley, when you write your chart would you also give us, since we now understand that there are people working in the environmental field outside of Dr. Liverman's shop, could you give us a breakdown by numbers and percentage both in dollars and in positions of the people that are involved in environ- mental efforts, and could we also have a list of all spots within the Department identified as environmental spots-one of the ones men- tioned earlier I think was the adviser to the Assistant Secretary. Mr. FuMIdH. Yes, sir. Mr. CLEMENT. And any if they are vacant, some indication about how long the vacancy has existed. Mr. FTJMICH. Yes, sir. Mr. CLEMENT. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Dr. LIvEBMAN. You asked the question for the whole Department, right? Mr. CLEMENT. That is correct, not just your shop. Dr. LIVERMAN. OK, I guess I am the man that ought to take the responsibility, and I will drag it out of George- [The document follows:] PAGENO="0240" DOE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKFORCE INFORMATION (Excluding Office of Environment) Full Time % of Total Number of Vacancies Support Authorized Strength as of 2/1/78 Inspector General (IG) 0 0 0 General Counsel (GC) 9 3.1 0 Economic Regulatory no full time Administration (RG) 2 man-year 0 0 worth of effort Energy Information Administration (El) 1 0 0 Conservation and Solar Applications (CS) 6 2 0 Resource Applications (RA) 25 5 0 Energy Technology (ET) 10 1 2 Federal Energy Regulatory Cormnission (RC) 72 5 13 Office of Energy Research (ER) 0 0 0 Defense Programs (DP) 11 3.4 0 Administration (AD) 0 0 0 Intergovernmental and Institutional Relations (IR) 0 0 0 International Affairs (IA) 5_~1 4 0 Policy and Evaluation (PE) 14 6 3 Controller (CR) 1 o.a 0 Procurement and Contracts Management (PR) 0 0 0 Small % of work time. 3 are only dealing with socioeconomic aspects. PAGENO="0241" 237 Dr. KASH. Mr. Chairman, might I make one comment in connection with at least the example that you used, Mr. Clement, with regard to tertiary oil recovery-I assume that is what you were talking about for the most part. It does seem to me that there is another issue tied up with the research that the Department of Energy is doing in that area independent of simply developing the technologies or the techniques for enhanced oil recovery, and that is trying to get to the public domain so7me cred- ible information about what the prospects are with regard to~enhanced oil recovery. Most of the industry work is as you know proprietary work. It is viewed by most of the companies as being something that they do not want to talk about in any great detail, and some years ago in reviewing the, I believe, the initial ERDA budget, the Office of Technology As- sessment proposed that what should be done in this area were a number of experiments or demonstration efforts to try to get some picture about what in fact was possible with different techniques and dif- ferent kinds of structure. Now I just make one point and my dilettante spreads over `a very wide range and so I do not have any reservations about talking with no knowledge-I think the thing that is striking about enhanced oil re- covery is that the first time my colleagues and I had some interest in this, there were some fairly vigorous advocates within the industry who were saying that if we could just get the price of oil fom $3.50 a barrel to $5 that technology would come online and this remaining 60 percent or 70 percent of oil would come gushing out of the ground. Now a while back Mike and I had a graduate student go through the Oil and Gas Journal and you know oil has-I believe that initial com- ment came out of an issue of the Oil and Gas Journal of 1972, if I am not mistaken, something like that. So if you could get the price of oil up by a third or a little bit less, from $3.50 to $5 a barrel, a bonanza would come flowing forth. Well, it has jumped now to $14 a barrel or thereabouts and the bonanza is still not there. I think enhanced oil recovery has been a Fly- ing Dutchman for as long at least as we have looked at it. It is always just through the mists and when you try to get your hands on it the mist kind of covers it. Now I think that it is fairly important in the policymaking sense, even if you do not develop technologies that work, to eliminate the notion that somehow the energy gap is going to be filled by pumping out a lot of the oil that remains in the ground. I will make one other comment. I have seen statements recently which suggest that we may all be suffering from a certain amount of conven- tional wisdom about just how much oil is being left in the ground. The USGS I think has suggested 65 percent, something like some 35- percent recovery figure. There are at least people who are arguing now, since no one ever really got down in there and looked, that there may be a good deal less oil in there. If the* DOE research program were to do nothing other than clarify that situation, that is not bring the technology online, I should think that that would be a most useful result. It seems to me it is really quite important to get some information in the public domain. I cannot resist that. It has been terribly difficult for me to sit here 2 hours and not say anything. [Laughter.] PAGENO="0242" 238 Mr. FUMICH. May I address part of the question? Dr. KASH. Just let me make one other point. With regard to a good deal of the discussion of environmental research and also information throughout the performance of energy technologies whether they be environmental control or energy production technologies, my col- leagues and I generally say that the label you ought to put over this is uncertainty. Now, if I were omnipotent, I would have handled environmental control technology differently than it has been handled in the past. I would have chosen to put primary emphasis on precombustion clean- up of coal. And that again is based upon almost no information, but that would have been my choice. Now that reflects something of the view of what is technologically possible. If one looks back industry and government have been fiddling around with precombustion, dur- ing-combustion, postcombustion cleanup for quite a number of years. The technology that is online and commercial now is the postcombus- tion technology. Some of the people in this room had something to do with bringing flue gas desulfurization online. Part of that I have to believe was tied up with the set of organizational and political incen- tives that EPA had to push that technology along rapidly. They hap- pened to grab onto it and they made it work. I am the kind of guy who believes that most technologies can be made to work. EPA had two instruments that work. They put some money into it, which always seems to me to be useful, but they had a stick at the other end and I think that these' two things played a pretty important role. The Bureau of Mines had a little bit of money. My recollection is that most of it came in fact from EPA to pay for some precombustion cleanup. I may be incorrect on that, Steve. ERDA's performance and other outfits' performance during com- bustion cleanup has moved along much less rapidly. Now I am pre- pared to believe that a lot of reason for that is the complexity of the technology. But it is also tied up with a lot of institutional social things. I have talked to people in the utility industry who tell me that it was a revolution when you went from old furnaces with grates to the ones where I guess you blow this ground stuff in now. And that the utility industry is made up of people who are about as prone to tak- ing risks with new technology as my grandmother is. And so you talk about bringing on something like fluidized bed and you are talking about pushing a change which has organizational and social implica- tions which are pretty widespread. My only point in this connection is to say that I want to reinforce the testimony and say that I think there are a lot of advantages in mak- ing a competitive gain. It seems strange to me that we preach compe- tition in the free enterprise system and contrary to what Chairman Brown says we want to perfectly rationalize Government and make it managerially efficient and orderly with no overlap. I just think that there are grave questions to be raised about how effectively that works. I would conclude by saying that unfortunately too many people in and out of Government have listened to the teachings of the Harvard Business School. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Fumich would you like to rebut? I went to West Virginia. [Laughter.] PAGENO="0243" 239 Dr. KASH. Well it is my impression that order and efficiency is not the norm there. [Laughter.] I guess there are two points of view. Mr. BROWN. Do you wish to make a comment, Mr. Fumich? Mr. FUMIOH. Talking about philosophy, I agree, you cannot com- pare stick and competition. Now you are talking about two different things. I agree that if you are talking about competition and you put the technologies side by side we might have a different picture and I guess this is what has happened here. On the other hand, if you could use the carrot and stick approach and I think this is what DOE is going to do in the very near future, * and again we will have this same alinement. In other words we will have the same mechanisms that was used successfully as he mentioned. And I think it is a very successful approach, and I understand that this is what DOE is going to use, going to use the carrot and also the stick-a big stick. So we will make sure that these technologies move ahead. As far as coal cleaning, I think coal cleaning has been successful even on a competitive basis. About half of the sulfur in this country is pyretic and about half is organic. Now based on the present per- formance standards if you get pyretic sulfur in coal, physical coal cleaning will remove that so it will meet new source performance standards. Unfortunately many of the coals also have more organic sulfur in them that you cannot remove unless you remove them chemically or through a conversion process. So physical coal cleaning will not work. But there have been areas-and in these areas where it has worked it has increased our resource base and this is what we feel also is im- portant, and many of our other technologies that we are developing, I think will be impacting on the marketplace with this new set of incen- tive~, and when I say incentives I am talking about incentives of all kinds. Mr. BROWN. All right, any further comment? I want to commend all of you for your great patience. I do not quite understand how you have been able to sit here for 3 hours without fidgeting, but you have done very well. I also want to thank you quite sincerely. I hope that you do not need to be exposed to this kind of thing too often. And we will try and resolve the questions that have been raised in some satisfactory fashion from our standpoint. Thank you very much. We have one additional witness. You gentlemen are excused, and I want to get into the record the additional witness. Dr. LIVERMAN. Off the record I would like to say I admire Mr. Kash's country boy wisdom. [Laughter.] Mr. BROWN. Mr. Orem, I do want to apologize to you. I know you would have liked to have participated in this earlier discussion. I have read your testimony and I am aware of your position, but I thought that this was the group that we had to work on, so I have delayed you unnecessarily because of that. Without objection, the full text of your statement will be included in the record and you may proceed in any fashion that you wish. [The prepared statement of Mr. Orem follows:] PAGENO="0244" 240 STATEMENT BY INDUSTRIAL GAS CLEANING INSTITLifE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16; 1978 COMNITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U,S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PAGENO="0245" 241 MY NAME IS SIDNEY R OREM. I AM TECHNICAL DIRECTOR OF THE IIIDUSTRIAL GAS CLEANING INSTITUTE, THIS STATEMENT IS MADE JOINTLY IN BEHALF'OF THE IGCI AND T~E ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL. THE IGCI IS THE NATIONAL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT, PRESENTLY BASED IN STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL IS A WASHINGTON BASED ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING MANUFACTURERS OF ALL TYPES OF POLLUTION. CONTROL, INCLUDING NOT ONLY AIR, BUT WATERJ SOLID WASTE, ETC. THE IGCI AND EIC APPEAR TO URGE THE COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE TO QUESTION THE 0MB DIRECTIVE TRANSFERRING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY-ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FROM EPA TO DOE. SPECIFICALLY FOR FY'79 $1L~ MILLION IS TRANSFERRED FROM EPA. TO DOE WITH THE CONDITION "...EPA MAY NOT INITIATE ANY NEW PILOT OR DEMONSTRATION PLANT PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT DOE AND 0MB CONCURRENCE. ." DOUBTLESS, FRAMERS OF THE DIRECTIVE TRANSFERRING THIS R&D AUTHORITY WOULD ARGUE FOR. THE VALUE OF AN OVERALL SYSTEMS APPROACH TO DEVELOPING NEW ENERGY PRODUCTION METHODS, SUCH SYSTEMS APPROACH INCLUDING REQUIRED ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL PAGENO="0246" 242 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. ON THE PRACTICALITIES OF THE MATTER.. WE BELIEVE THIS ARGUMENT FAILS. THE IGCI AND EIC SUGGEST THAT AFTER REASONED ANALYSIS, A MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FAVORING THE RETENTION WITHIN EPA OF FUNDING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR PILOT OR DEMONSTRATION SCALE PROJECTS. THE CLEAN AIR ACT CHARGES EPA WITH REGULATORY FUNCTIONS. TO SATISFY THIS CHARTER.. EPA CANNOT OPERATE ON HEALTH EFFECTS DATA ALONE, BUT MUST INDEED HAVE CURRENT "HANDS ON" EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. SUCH "HANDS ON" KNOWLEDGE IS NEEDED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF "NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" AND "BACT" (B~T AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY). ONLY BYIIEMONSTRATINfl PRACTICAL PROV.ENJECHNOLOGI CAN BACT BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. THE IGCI HAS ACTIVELY COOPERATED WITH GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CLEAN AIR R&D EFFORTS SINCE THE EARLY 60's WHEN THESE EFFORTS WERE LODGED IN THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION AND LATER.. EPA. WE HAVE NOT ALWAYS CONCURRED IN THE THRUST OF ALL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS, NEVERTHELESS, THERE HAVE BEEN SALUTORY EXAMPLES WHERE THE TECHNOLOGY WAS ADVANCED BY EPA PILOT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. EXCELLENT EXAMPLES ARE IN THE AREA OF PAGENO="0247" 243 FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION (FGD) WHERE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS HAVE BEEN COOPERATIVELY FUNDED, USING MAJOR EPA SUPPORT. SOME EXAMPLES ARE: -BOSTON EDISON-MYSTIC STATION MAGNESIUM OXIDE-SULFURIC ACID -SHAWNEE STATION4ENIIESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY LIME/LIMESTONE TEST FACILITY -NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE-MITCHELL STATION WELLMAN-LORD PROCESS-ELEMENTAL SULFUR -RICKENBACKER AIR FORCE BASE BAHCO LIME/LIMESTONE -ST. JOSEPH MINERALS-PENNSYLVANIA CITRATE PROCESS-SULFUR RECOVERY -LOUISVILLE GAS.a ELECTRIC COMPANY DOUBLE ALKALI 280 MW DEMONSTRATION III CONTRAST TO THIS SUCCESSFUL LIST OF EPA FGD DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS, SENIOR OFFICIALS OF ERDA (A PREDECESSOR ARM OF DOE) HAVE RECENTLY DESCRIBED FGD SCRUBBER TECHNOLOGY IN PAPERS AND SPEECHES AS UNPROVEN, UNRELIABLE AND NOT COST EFFECTIVE. THE CONGRESS HAS CHARGED EPi~ WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL RESPONSIBILITY. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, BEING CHARGED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND IMPROVED ENERGY SOURCES, WOULD BE PAGENO="0248" 244 EXPECTED TO PURSUE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY WITH A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND A DIFFEREFIT PRIORITY-AS CONTRAST TO THEIR PURSUIT OF ~ ENERGY SOURCES IN CONCLUSIONJ THE IGCI AND THE EIC URGE THE CONGRESS AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.. TO RETAIN PILOT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CONTPOL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WIT~IH THE EPA AUTHORITY AND BUDGET THE OPPORTUNITY 10 PRESENT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS APPRECIATED PAGENO="0249" 245 STATEMENT OP SIDNEY R. Ol~EM, INDUSTRIAL GAS INSTITUTE Mr. OREM. It is understandable. Thank you, sir. If the full text is included, I think it is hardly necessary to go through the entire statement. I tend to share some of the feeling expressed by Mr. Kash. I cannot help but oversimplify_-what the boss is charged to do. Mr. Schlesinger has a charge to look into new and better energy sources. Mr. Costle has a charge to look into a better environment. And it seems to me that this question of control technology inevitably is more logically tied to the environmental control side of the picture. I have cited in the statement a few additional demonstration projects somewhat more lengthy than those cited by Steve Gage. Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. OREM. Which we consider to be good examples of pushing tech- nology. I think it is only fair to say that in contrast to that, most com- ments coming out of ERDA in the recent past have been more negative than encouraging on how this technology was developing. I believe that states it, sir. Mr. BROWN. Well, your statement is a very strong support for main- taining this capability in EPA. I am inclined to belieVe without having to poll the subcommittee that their feeling has been somewhat strained. I am not at all sure at this point what our final conclusions will be or whether they can be implemented if we choose to contest the change, but obviously we can, and I think will, insist that EPA retain the competence necessary to insure full consideration of all of the different options here so that we do not have the same organizations both pushing the technology of energy development and trying also to make the decisions with regard to the control technologies without some in- denendent review of that situation. So we will proceed in an effort to accomplish that. Do you have any questions, Mr. Spensley? Mr. SPENSLEY. No questions, sir. Mr. BROWN. In view of the time, then, and the fact that we have already kept you from your lunch, I think we will defer any further questions, Mr. Ore.m, and we will keep in touch with you and if there are any questions that we need answers to, we will ask you in writing if we may. Mr. OREM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. Thank you. The subcommittee will be adjourned. [Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 1 p.m.] 32-744 0 - 78 - 16 PAGENO="0250" PAGENO="0251" 247 APPENDIX I ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD TERRY L. SCHMIDTASSOCIATES INC. WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVES IN HEALTH 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW. * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 * (202) 452'8805 March 22, 1978 Alexis Hoskins Technical Consultant Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere Committee on Science and Technology 2319 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Alexis: Here is a copy of the Society of Nuclear Medicines formal statement regarding Fiscal Year 1979 authorizations for nuclear medicine research activities with the Depart- ment of Energy. After you have a chance to review it, perhaps we could have lunch and discuss how the Society might have an improved impact on this program next year. Meanwhile, thanks for your patience Sincerely, Paul H. Hubbard PHH:es End osure PAGENO="0252" 248 THE SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE CONCERNING FISCAL YEAR 1979 A~J,HORIZATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS IN,,. P~UCLEAR~ MEDICINE RESEARCH Submitted to the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives March 22, 1978 PAGENO="0253" 249 STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE CONCERNING FISCAL YEAR 1979 AUTHORIZATIONS - - FORTHE DEPARTME~T' OF ENERGY BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE RESEARCH The Society of Nuclear Medicine is pleased to have the opportunity to present its comments and views -o~n proposed Fiscal Year 1979 authori- zations concerning nuclear medicine research activities within the Department of Energy SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE The Society of Nuclear Medicine founded in 1954 is the largest all-encompassing umbrella-like organization dedicated to the field of nuclear medicine in the United States Among its 9,000 members are found physicists, chemists radiopharmacists nuclear medicine technologists and others with career interests in the diagnostic and therapeutic use of radioactive materials for medical applications NUCLEAR MEDICINE'S ROLE IN HEALTH CARE The discipline of nuclear medicine is a significant component of American health care Of the more than 7,000 hospitals in the United States, well over half have ni~clear medicine facilities The Joint PAGENO="0254" 250 Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (4JCAH) now requires that nuclear medicine facilities be available for a hospital to receive accreditation. Industry sources have estimated a growth of the nuclear medicine industry in the U.S. from $90 million in 1975 to $250 million by 1985. Clinical nuclear medicine services will increase threefold during the. next 10 years, with compu-ter use alone increasing from $6 million to $36 million during this same period. The major contributions of nuclear medicine to health care relate to the development of radioactive tracer methods for the study of disease and the development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures which influence the care of patients afflicted with various diseases. Nuclear medicine examinations are of great importance in the diag- nosis of abnormalities and diseases of the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, central nervous system, skeleton and other organs and tissue systems within the human body. For example, nuclear medicine visuali- zation of the skeletal system provides the earliest and most sensitive indication of the existence of a pathologic lesion in bone of any diag- notic modality now routinely available. This technique, useful in.bqth hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients, is of great clinical impor- tance in the ~ diagnosis of cancer of the bone. It is also exceed- ingly important in the planning and evaluation of therapy for patients in whom the diagnosis of cancer of tI~e bone has been established. In addition to body organ imaging, nuclear medicine studies may be used to determine physiologic function. These types of examinations include~ studies of heart actions, assessments of thyroid and kidney PAGENO="0255" 251 function, determinations of total blood or plasma volume and other equally important diagnostic studies of body function and body compo- sition. The direction that nuclear medicine is going is exemplified by cardiovascular nuclear medicine. Cardiologists have long been among the most physiologicall.y oriented of all physicians, insisting on quantifi- cation and validation af data whenever possible. The increasing use of computers in nuclear medicine has permitted nuclear physicians 1~o meet cardiologists' strict requirements for quantification of functional information to help solve their patients' problems. One of the most- striking new developments in cardiovascular nuclear medicine is imaging of the beating of the right and left ventricles through motion-picture displays which demonstrate how the heart muscle is functioning. To be able to obtain early indications of factors predisposing to heart attacks. with reasonable accuracy is a major accomplishment. To be able to do so noninvasively is all the more remarkable. It is possible that future advances in nuclear medicine may bring about changes in the concept of health and disease as profound as the changes brought about by Pasteur when he demonstrated the relationship between disease and germs. If we view the patient's body as a symphony of chemical and physical motions, perhaps we shall be able to redefine diseases and recognize them at a much earlier stage, even before detect- able structural changes have occurred. For example, bone imaging can detect changes before they can be seen through the microscope. It is possible that nuclear medicine procedures can help teach us PAGENO="0256" 252 Thôw to live and safeguard our health, rather than simply showing us how we have become diseased As one example what better motivation could there be to stop smoking than to be able to demonstrate direct evidence of the effect of smoking on the heart as well as visualizing impaired ventilation of the lungs Such Information might help patients modify their lives and cultivate practices that would improve their health Thus nuclear medicine may play a future role in helping people practice preventive medicine at a personal level Even today the field of nuclear medicine plays a major role in the nations health One of every~ three patients admitted to hospitals re- quires a nuclear medicine procedure with more than 35 million procedures performed in 1976 in the United States The field has grown to the point where it has significant influence on a major segment of our total popu- lation PREVIOUS AUTHORIZAT1Q!?!~ Congress has recognized the significance of providing support for nuclear medicine research for more than 20 years at first within the Atomic Energy Commission, later within the Energy Research and Devel- opment Administration and now within the new Department of Energy In Fiscal Year 1977 combined expenditures for the Life Sciences Research and Biomedical Applications programs were $41,316,000 Fiscal Year 1978 expenditures are currently being projected at $40 140 000, a significant reduction made only worse by the effects of inflation The President has recommended a further reduction for Fiscal Year 1979 indi- cating that $38 200 000 would be sufficient for the combined program~ PAGENO="0257" 253 Of this recommended funding, only $14,683,000 is allocated to the Bio- medical Applications program, within which only approximately $8,000,000 is available to nuclear medicine research efforts. While we commend Congress for its longstanding support of nuclear medicine research, we view the present and proposed funding decline with great alarm. The scientific discipline of nuclear medicine has been responsive to societal needs. The medical, scientific and lay public have observed numerous demonstrations of the capabilities and potential of nuclear medicine. We can document our performance, our usefulness and our responsiveness to the SUblic need. It is on the basis of both previous accomplishments, as well as potential progress, that we believe nuclear medicine research deserves' continued and adequate support. PROMISING AREAS OF RESEARCH For example, the university hospital cyclotron is an idea whose time has come. Between 1966 and the present, the number of cyclotrons in the world dedicated to biomedical research increased from 2 to 66, 5 of them being in the United States. An example of their usefulness is to make possible our understanding of the role of chemical receptors in the body (such as opiates and dopamine receptors in the brain). This is bu-t--ene- field in which there is a clear need for "physiological' or "true" tracers, such as carbon-il labeled biochemicals, that have the essential characteristics of being measurable within the living human body. Is it not likely that biochemical changes precede structural changes in patients with cancer and that these could be detected by regional chemical measurements before the overall chemistry of the body~is impaired? PAGENO="0258" 254 Certainly this approach is worthy of society's support. Instrument development can proceed along several lines: (1) exploitation of the concept of emission axial tomography; (2) increasing use of computers to improve data processing and display, including use of television and cinematography; and (3) development of simpler special purpose instruments (e.g., the nuclear stethoscope to provide cardiac ventricular function curves in patients).~ - Interfaces with other medical specialties, such as nephrology, neurology and gastroenterology can be developed, using cardiovascular nuclear medicine as a model. Public concern with environmental hazards, such as chemical toxins and inhaled pollutants, could be the basis of worthwhile research projects based on the principle of biodistributions, one of the most fundamental principles of the field of nuclear medicine. It appears likely that many of the concepts and techniques of nuclear medicine are applicable to the solution of public health problems. Other promising research prospects include: Completing evaluation of the krypton-81m-ventilatiOn technique for early diagnosis of black lung disease and other chronic pulmonary obstruction diseases; using cyclotron-produced, short half-life nitrogen-13 and oxygen-l5 in con- junction with the positron ring detector to study the effects of environ- mental pollutants such as sulfur dioxide on lung function in human subjects; and completing and demonstrating the ability of the 280-crystal positron detector system to visualize myocardial infarctions as small as one cubic centimeter. The availability of cyclotron-produced, short-lived isotopes of PAGENO="0259" 255 carbon-il, nitrogen-13 and fluorine-iS, together with improved under- standing o~ how to design technetium-99m labeled compounds with the desired biochemical properties, would accelerate advances in radio-tracer development, the backbone of nuclear medicine research. Advances in the concept of "chemical localism" should duplicate those of "structural localism" and promise a major source of research and clinical advances in nuclear medicine, even going beyond the advances being made in transmission axial tomography. Preston has stated, "How something works is more important than how it looks." - RECOMMENDATIONS More than ever before, the continuing vigorous growth of the field of nuclear medicine requires the strong support of both basic and applied research, the building blocks upon which all of scientific medicine rests. The federal government will continue to be the main supporter of such research. The present level of funding for nuclear medicine research within the Department of Energy, as stated earlier, is near $8,000,000, an amount which, frankly stated, falls far short of the significance which this effort continues to demonstrate. In the long range, there can be no question that both basic and applied research in the biological and the physical sciences must be adequately supported, since together they provide the essential and necessary basis for innovation, modernization and Improvement in clinical nuclear medicine. PAGENO="0260" 256 The Society of Nuclear Medicine recommends that a minimum of $15 600 000 be authorized for the Biomedical Applications program for Fiscal Year 1979 This amount is sufficient to offset the effects of inflation while at the same time maintaining the present programmatic activities directed at medical applications of nuclear technology including nuclear medicine research In addition the Society urges that a $2 000 000 add-on be auth- orized in order to increase support for promising technical advances in radionuclide and instrumentation development This add-on would support programs suchàs the nuclear cardiology efforts as well as research aimed at developing the medical aspects of the hospital cyclotron The Society further recommends that such an add-on be authorized for both intramural and extramural research efforts Nuclear medicine research embodies a group of high-technology equipment-intensive researcirprograms, requiring increased capital funding to ensure maintenance of state-of-the-art capabilities. Un- fortunately adequate funding has been lacking in this area for a number of years resulting in dramatic deficiencies with exisi~ing capital equipment in the national laboratories Therefore the-Soeiety urges that funding in the amount of $1,500,000 be provided to upgrade the equipment which is essential for nuclear medicine research programs in our national laboratories The unique resources of the nuclear medicine research programs funded by DOE both at the national laboratories (intramural) as well as at the universities (extramural) should be recognized as major components PAGENO="0261" 257 of nuclear medicine training programs. Efforts should be directe~Ftö ensuring the continued availability of these resources, not only for young scientists, but also for senior investigators. In both the na- tional laboratories and the universities, research training should be linked to the conduct of research. We are aware that serious questions are currently being posed with respect to Department of Energy involvement in health research. The Society believes that it is imperative for research and research training *in nuclear medicine to continue to rest on the two strong pillars.o.f federal support represented by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. While the bridging of 1~he two is essential, the significantly different approaches and expertise mandate that both be supported strongly, rather than attempting to consolidate their activities into one or the other. Nuclear medicine research is concerned with the use of radionuclides in the investigation of normal and abnormal basic physiology, as well as advances in diagnosis and therapy of patients with a wide variety of illnesses. In these areas, both agencies should support theoretical research, fea-s-i-b41-i-ty- studies and early application of new advances to normal and diseased man. Because of its special human and physical resources represented by 9 national laboratories plus extramural grant support for technological research, the Department of Energy is best prepared to emphasize advances in the related physical sciences of chemistry, nuclide production, physiology and early tests of feasibility and effi~acy. Because of its organizational emphasis on disease categories, PAGENO="0262" 258 the National Institutes of Health are best prepared to undertake long- term clinical investigations using methods beyond the early studies of feasibility and efficacy. In the area of nuclear medicine research, the interests and activities of both of these agencies are interrelated. Agency support should overlap in these areas of common interest. The Society appreciates the, opportunity to provide this information for the Committee. We look forward to being of additional assistance if there are questions or concerns about our recommendations or other related matters. PAGENO="0263" 259 APPENDIX II ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUITE23ZI NAYBURN HOUSEOFFICEBUILOINC WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515 December 12, 1977 Honorable James Schlesinger Secretary Department of Energy 730 Jackson Place, NW Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary: Members and staff of the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere were recently briefed by Dr. James Liverman, DOE's Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, on the responsibilities and programs of his Office. However, the status of certain programs as a result of the reorganization remains unclear. Therefore, we would appreciate your assistance in defining the status of these programs. In addition, we have several requests for information in connection with our preparations for the FY 1979 budget cycle. Specifically, we require the following information: 1. Marshall Islands program: (a) What is the current status of the clean-up activities in the Marshall Islands? (b) What are the expected costs of DOE activities in the Marshall Islands for FY 78 and FY 79? Cc) What is the current status of the lawsuit against the U.S.? Cd) What are the current estimates of the cost of environmental and radiological follow-up through 5'Y 1980? 2. Biomedical and Environmental Research: (a) Will the National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurement be funded through the Office of Environment? What has its funding level been from FY 74 - FY 78? PAGENO="0264" 260 (b) What is the number of personnel associated with policy and program management in biomedical and environmental research? 7 Cc) Please list and describe the program assessment and interim management directives related to th s area (BEN) * \ Cd) Please list and briefly describe all outstanding 8ER contracts.. * Ce) Please describe all planning directions involving National Laboratory efforts in the BEN area (f) What is the current status ~f the Nuclear Medicine program? Have any formal attempts been made since the formation of DOE to place this program within another government agency? 3 Overview environmental assessment (a) What authorities does the Assistant Secretary for Environment have to guarantee that an overview on environmental issues is main- tained and action is taken to prevent the rest of DOE from making serious environmental mistakes' (b) Now does the DOE expect to implement Sec. 206 of 5.1340, the"Department of Energy Act of 1978 - Civilian Applications", expected to be sent to the President shortly? I would appreciate your expeditious response to this inquiry. Please feel free to call me, or my Committee Counsel, Mr. James Spensle~', if you have any questions. - * * * * Sincerely eorg E Brown Jr Chairman Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere PAGENO="0265" Januar 10, 1978 Sincerely, Dale D. Ny~rs ) Under Secre~b~a~y 32-744 0 - 78 - 17 Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 261 The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr., Chairman Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere Coimnitteeon Science and Technology House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: The information which you have requested regarding the status of certain environmental programs related funding levels or expected costs is covered in detail in the enclosure. I hope the information will indeed be of assistance to your subcommittee We appreciate your continued interest in the evolving energy programs and organizations /, Enclosure: As stated cc The Honorable Robert S WalKer Ranking Minority Member PAGENO="0266" 262 Mar.shiiX~Tãnds~Program~ a. What is the current status of the cleanup activities in the: Marshall Islands? The DOE is working in cooperation with and in support of DOD in its cleanup operation at Enewetak Atoll. The cleanup of contami- nated debris is underway. An aerial survey of the most contami- nated islands has been completed, and the mapping of the distribution of plutonium and other radionuclides in near surface soils is being performed. The removal of plutonium contaminated soil will follow. This will be accomplished in conformance with approved criteria. The DOD on-atoll analytical laboratory is in place and operational, and a fulltime advisor to the cl.eanup commander is being provided. - b. What are the expected costs of DOE activities in the Marshall Islands for FY 78 and FY 79?, and d. What are the current estimates of the cost of environmental and radiological followup through FY 1980? FY78 FY79 FY80. $xl,000 $xl,000 $xl,000 Radiological Support for. Enewetak Cleanup 682 1,500 1,500 Biomedical and Environmental Research 1,530 1,570 1,570 Radiological Followup Surveys and Assessments 250 325 400 c. What is the current status of the lawsuit against the U.S.? The lawsuit in question is dormant pending an aerial survey that the U.S. Government has agreed to conduct. This survey was a principal form of relief sought by the plaintiffs in the 1awsu~t. PAGENO="0267" 263 Biomedical and Environmental Research a. Will the National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurement be funded through the Office of Environment? What has its funding level been from FY 74 - FY 78? It is planned that financial support for the NCRP will be provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. Funding levels for the period FY 1974 - FY 1978 are: FY 1974 $ 95,510 FY 1975 173,830 FY 1976 175,000 TQ & FY 1977 241,094 FY 1978 120,563 b. What is the number of personnel associated with policy and program management in biomedical and environmental research?, and d. Who manages the contracts in BER?1' The responsibility for the BER research program rests with the Director who Is assisted by an Associate Director for Research and Development Programs. For the purpose of managing the program, the research is grouped into four major areas, each with a program manager who reports through the Associate Director for Research and Development Programs-~.Dr. Charles Edington,to the Deputy Director, Dr. W. W. Burr. The four program areas and the managers of each of these are as follows: Human Health Studies Program - Dr. Walter Weyzen, Manager Health Effects Re~earch in Biological Systems Dr. Charles Carter, Manager Physical and Technological Programs - Dr. Robert Wood, Manager Environmental Programs - Dr. Jeff Swinebroad, Manager `The negotiation of research contracts and admimistrative matters are delegated to the field off ice, with the responsibility for all technical matters being retained in BER, Headquarters. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Dr. James 1. Liverman, provides policy direction for biomedical and environmental research. The number of policy and program management officers is seven. Changed per clarification from subcommittee Chairman's staff member. PAGENO="0268" 264 c Please list and describe the program assessment and interim manage~ ment directives related to this area (BER) In the transition from ERDA to DOE the Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research (BER) moved intact `into the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment The program management and assessment practices followed in ERDA are still utilized Although no specific Interim Management Directive (IMD) has been issued relating to BER, the following IMD's are followed in assessment and management of research supported by BER IMD No. 0203 Department of Energy Policy and Program Planning System "This directive describes the Policy and Program Planning System (PPPS) of the Department of Energy. This system provides a process by which energy policy is developed and implemented through budgetary, regulatory tax and information programs Its purpose is to apprise the Secretary of significant energy related developments; to develop policy initiatives and plans that will respond constructively to these developments and to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Department's programs. `All major organizational elements of the Department will participate through this system in advising the Secretary on the development and execution of policy `The sections which follow describe the general framework within which policy budgetary, legislative program planning information and evaluation processes interact Organizational responsibilities anda timetable of major events in the policy development cycle are also set forth IMO No1a~5lOl DOE~ Interim NatlQnal Envlr~nment~J ~ol icy Ac~Dr~~~ "The purpose of this directive is to establish interim internal proc~dure's for use by all elements of'the Department of Energy (DOE), with the exception of the `Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in complying with the National Envirønmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U S C 4321 et~!g. ), and Executive Order 11514 (35 FR 4247) as amended, as supplemented by the guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR, Part 1500, 36 FR 20550). NEPA establishes a broad national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment and to ensure that adequate consideration is given to environmental values and factors in Federal decisionmaking processes PAGENO="0269" 265 IMD No. 0202 Establishment of Interim DOE Program Management Review and Control System "This IMD establishes the interim Departmeht of Energy Prograth Management Review and Control System (PMRC). The PMRC Systernis concerned with the program Implementation and evaluation phase of the policy and program planning cycle. The PMRC System provides the linkage between planning and program implementation, permits integration of program plans and financial plans, and documents key program implementation agreements between Departmental Management and line managers. The system provides a formal mechanism for baselining all major DOE programs, establishing significant milestones and monitoring program implementation by measuring performance against the baseline plan at regularly scheduled general management reviews." In addition to these established DOE guidelines and practices, BER continues to assess the scientific progress of research which It supports. These assessments Involve peer reviews of individual research proposals, specific program areas and individual laboratory performance to ensure that scientific quality of the research efforts and relevance to the health and environmental needs of the energy technology programs are being maintained. e. P1eas~describe all planning directions i~volving~Nationa~ ELàb~at~'~pfforts in the BER area. Headquarters staff identify, in concert with the various technology programs, the health and environmental issues and requirements. needed to be responsive to the development of the various energy technology developments and conservation options. These needs are utilized in the preparation of the Environmental Development Plans for specific processes which tie health and environmental r~esearch needs and timelines to technology and conservation developments and timelines. The high priority research needs, identified in the EDP, are used to develop a program plan within the current and expectedbudget level. This program includes consideration of the laboratory or laboratories which have scientific expertise and facilities to carry out the necessary research. This information is transmitted to each of the laboratories in a Call to the Field, and includes specific and/or general areas in which the laboratories are expected to submit scientific proposals for (1) initiation or expansion of research; (2) redirection of work; and (3) continue current efforts. In addition specific information is provided about research projects which should be reduced in level of effort or terminated. The laboratory response to Headquarter's directions Is received In a formal program submission in May of each fiscal year. These submissions are reviewed for scientific content and PAGENO="0270" 266 relevance to BER health and environmental research needs, and management decisions are made with respect to actual funding in the next fiscal year and estimates of budget needs for the subsequent fiscal year. In addition to this formal mechanism for planning and management, information discussions are held with laboratory management on a continuing basis. f. What is the current status of the NuclearMedicine program? Have any formal attempts been made since the formation of DOE to place this program within another government agency? The program is continuing tb be supported by DOE at a level of about $12 million. No formal attempts have been made since the formation of DOE to transfer this program to another government agency. In the recent evaluation of the ERDA Nuclear Medicine Program, the agency review committee noted that it would be unreasonable to expect another Federal agency to develop the capital investment in people, facilities, and programs that were in place under ERDA. PAGENO="0271" 267 Overview Environmental Assessment a. What authorities does the Assistant Secretary for Environment have to guarantee that an overview on environmental issues is maintained? P.1. 95-91, page 91, stat. 570, Sec. 203(a) provides: "The functions which the Secretary shall assign to the Assistant Secre- taries include, but are not limited to,... (3) Environmental responsibilities and functions including advising the Secretary with respect to conformance of.the Department's activities to environmental protection laws and principles..." What action is taken to prevent the rest of DOE from making serious environmental mistakes? The Department of Energy Organization Book (Executive Order of: the President, September 13, 1977), states that ASEV Is responsible to the Secretary".. .to assure Department-wide compliance with environmental laws and procedures and to exercise independent review and approval of environmental impact statements prepared within the Department." ASEV has a number of programs that support this objective: 1. The Office of Environmental Policy Analysis follows EPA activities in air, water, solid waste, radiation, and toxic substances; analyzes the effects of this regulatory activity on DOE programs, and advises the technology development divisions of the implications. 2. The Division of Technology Overview prepares Environmental' Development Plans (EDP's) jointly with ,energy program divisions to assure that environmental considerations are built in at the early stages of planning and decisionmaking. The program helps keep environmental issues competitive with technological, economic and institutional issues. 3. The Office of NEPA Affairs monitors the process for elements of DOE (except Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act. In part, that office is responsible for alerting management to DOE actions believed to be not in conformance with applicable environmental laws, regulations, or national or DOE environ- mental policies. PAGENO="0272" 268 b. How does the DOE expect to implement Section 206 of S. 1340, the ssDepartment of Energy Act of 1978 - Civilian Applications," expected to be sent to the President shortly? There are two aspects relative to implementing the new provisions contained in Section 206 of S 1340 The first is the develop- ment of the comprehensive environment and safety program Tentatively we expect to use the planning process already in place in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment, to produce the program insurance that "full consideration and evaluation of all environmental, health, and safety impacts" is happening The DOE system for Environmental Development Plans (EDP's) identifies and defines environmental issues and requirements from the earliest stages of energy program develop- ment onward. The EDP's also include strategies to address. the environmental issues and requirements, a coordinated schedule for program development and requisite environmental Issues and requirements, and management responsibilities. All issues and requirements are then aggregated Into a master list and priorities established Assessments are made of work that has been and is being performed and how much more is needed The ranked list of requirements is adjusted to reflect voids and overlaps and to pinpoint areas of greatest and least effort The second aspect of Section 206 is the establishment of a new reporting requirement--a detailed description of the environ- mental and safety activities Again our implementation method is tentative however DOE activities are included in the Inventory of Federal Energy-Related Environment and Safety Research We have almost completed the second full cycle of this Inventory and are about half through the third It is felt that the effort involved in preparation of the Inventory reflects the intent of Section 206 The detailed description is to include mitigating procedures adopted, but these are not currently part of the Federal Inventory process It will be necessary to determine the best nethodology for accomplishing this activity. PAGENO="0273" 269 To COMMITThEON SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY U S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUITE 2322 RAYBURN HOUSE OF ICE BUILDING WASHINGTON,D.C. 20515 February 8 1978 Dr James Liverman Acting Assistant Secretary LoT Environment Department of Energy Washington D C 20545 Dear Dr Liverman As a re~ult of the briefing of the Subcommittee on February 2 1978 the following questions have been raised Please provide a written response prior to the hearings beginning on February 14, 1978. 1. Precisely what are the differences between the environ- mental control technology research and development responsi- bilities of EPA s Office of Research and Development DOE s energy technology programs (Fossil Energy in particular) and DOE s Division of Environment? What are the resources allocated to environmental control technology in each of these programs (FY 78)? Please list and describe any interagency agreements or guidelines which delegate or spell out these differences 2 What amount of money and manpower of the overall Environmental Engineering budget is allocated to actual labora tory research on or experience with environmental control technologies (versus paper assessments)? 3 What role does the Assistant Secretary for Environment have in deciding whether environmental control technologies have been adequately demonstrated for the purpose of establish ing a new source performance standard? What are the duties of the NSPS task force, and who from DOE is a member of it? ~4 What role does the ASEV serve (a) within DOE and (b) Mith/outside environmental groups in setting policies and providing input on environmental legislation and regulations which have impacts on DOE such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Alaska Lands Act?/ PAGENO="0274" 270 Dr. James Liverman Page 2 5. Which program in DOE is responsible for "soft" or renewable energy technology research and development? Please list and describe projects in this area that have been carried out in the past by the different DOE/ERDA/AEC programs. If it has been determined that soft energy technology programs are no longer organizationally appropriate to the Office of Environment, what steps are being taken to see that the appropriate Offices will pursue them? 6. (a) In the FY 1978 Authorization, $10 million was added to the Environment and Safety Program according to the following breakdown: $ .5 million Environmental Policy Analysis $3.6 million Integrated Assessments (coal) $ .9 million Environmental Engineering (LNG) $1.0 million Safety, Standards, and Compliance $1.0 million Environmental Information Systems $1.0 million Environmental Studies (CO2) $2.0 million Decommissioning and Decontamination ($1 million for West Valley; $1 million for generic study) Of these authorized funds, $5 million for the Overview and Assessment category; $1 million for Environmental Studies and $1 million for the West Valley study were appropriated. How were the appropriation funds for Overview and Assessment distri- buted among the authorized studies? What amount of the $1 million for West Valley was allocated to the Environment Program? Who made these decisions? (b) Section 207 of the bill requires that the Admin- istrator develop an annual comprehensive Environment and Safety program. What is the status of the program? 7. Does the Assistant Secretary for Environment have any authority to require that agencies submit information regarding their energy-related environmental R~D projects to the Federal Inventory? The 0MB memorandum dated January 11, 1978, from McIntyre to Schlesinger and Costle states that "all EPA research projects" are to be entered into the DOE environmental research inventory. Is this 0MB mandate sufficient? How can DOE quarantee that it is carried out? 8. Does anyone itt DOE survey and inventory all the environmental R~D being done within the agency? D~s anyone have the authority to do this? Sincerely, GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. Chairman, Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere PAGENO="0275" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION -. 1. a. Precisely what are the differences between the environmental control technology research and development responsibilities of EPA's Office of Research and Development, DOE's energy technology programs (Fossil Energy, In particular), and DOE's Division of Environment? RESPONSE The environmental control technology research and development responsibilities of EPA's Office of Research and Development should provide the Regulatory Agency with sufficient staff expertise and data to establish responsible and balanced emission and effluent regulations for the complete spectrum of industrial processes. The primary environmental control responsibility of DOE is to assure the adequacy of environmental controls associated with, or integral to, energy technologies. WithTh DOE, the technology developers have the primary responsibility for the development and demon- stration of adequate environmental control *hardware and systems. The ASEV, however, has the responsi- bility to overview and assess DOE's emerging energy systems to assure that proper and timely emphasis is indeed being given to environmental control activities. In general, the ASEV environmental control overview and assessment activities, conducted through the Division of Euvironmental Control Technology (Ed), differ from the primary energy developers in three major categories: (a) perspective, (b) nature of the work supported and (c) use of the information generated. Each of these will be discussed in more detail below. PERSPECTIVE: the ECT perspective, an outgrowth of the Overview and Assessment responsibility mandated by Congress to ASEV in the `Department of Energy Organization Act," is such that.environmenta.1 control implications of anentire fuel cycle, from resource extraction through end use, are considered in rela- tion to the fuel cycle. In contrast, the traditional perspective of. energy developers is much more narrow with an inherent concern for single and localized operations within the fuel cycle. Additionally, the ECT perspective includes consideration of the environmental control implications of anticipated constraints for a single technology and for the commercial industry. On the other hand, the natural and logical tendency of the technology developers is to deal with here-and-now compliance demands. Further, ASEV overview and assessment responsibilities cut across all DOE technologies assunng transfer of environmental control technologies across technology lines. PAGENO="0276" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE -2- The significance of the broad ECT perspective is twofold First the ECT systems orientation ensures that environmental controls chosen for a segment of the fuel cycle do not, in fact create adverse ramifications in other parts of the system For example an often cited example of the unacceptable single unit operation (and single pollutant) approach is the lime/limestone Flue Gas Desulfurization System that creates a very difficult solid waste management problem while controlling stack gas sulfur dioxide Secondly the ECT focus on !yt~e requirements of a comercial industry helps to ensure that DOE does not allocate Its resources to ~he development of a technology that will soon be made obsolete by future environmental constraints In our judgment it is unlikely that such a broad single-minded perspective can be maintained by the developers of DOE s energy technologies themselves because (a) their traditional and in some cases justifieo initial obligation is to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of the heart of the process in the absence of complicating environmental control concerns and (b) their responsibility is generally to develop only a portion of the total fuel cycle with different portions assigned across organizational lines NATURE OF WORK ECT activities are designed to provide sufficient and timely information to allow for judgments to be made on the efficacy and practicability of environmental controls for the total energy system In contrast to work conducted by the energy technologies ECT does not develop or demonstrate environmental control processes and hardware although ECT will screen possible back-up and advanced control systems and will identify their applicability to emerging technologies ECT efforts are directed at generating comparative analysis and evaluations of environmental trade-offs between energy systems, whereas environmental control work supported by tecl'nology developers is limited in focus to quite detailed process applicability cost and site-specificity issues It is also important to point out that ECT also serves as (a) a catalyst to cause the initiation of required environmental control research by the energy technologies (b) an organizational focal point to facilitate environmental control technology transfer, Cc) a bridge to environmental control activities of other agencies such as EPA and of industry and (d) a forward looking organizational entity which will collect and promote data collection in areas of little imeediate concern to developers (e g information on currently non-regulated species such as fine particulate or some trace metals) PAGENO="0277" FY 1979 BUDGET * SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE * -3- INFORMATION USE: The ECT program is designed to generate data upon which independent and unbiased judg- ments can be made regarding issues such as performance, reliability, costs, energy demands, etc. of environmental control processes, procedures, systems, and strategies proposed by DOE. The data generated by ECT Is used by both the technology developers and the policy formulators within DOE. Environmental control capability gaps Identified by ECT serve as a basis for establishing needed RD&D within the Depart- ment. Thus, the ECT program provides DOE with an impartial, Independent, and technically sound environ- mental control data base that is necessary to impact DOE's RD&D program and policy formulation. PAGENO="0278" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE - QUESTION 1. b. What are the resources allocated to environmental control technology in each of these programs (FY 78)? RESPONSE The difference in the environmental control activity of ECT and the primary energy developers in DOE is reflected in the funding for the respective programs. *The ECT survey entitled `Environmental Controi Technology Activities of the Department of Energy in FY 1977,' shows that $185 million out of a total ERDA budget of $5.14 billion (approximately 3.4%) was devoted to environmental control work. Of the $185 million allocated for environmental control, the Fossil Energy Program accounted for $86 million. In contrast, the total ECT Overview and Assessment budget for FY 1977, reflected in the budget category Environmental Engineering, was $11.5 million. Of this, $6.7 million was directed at fossil energy re-lated work. An update of the Environmental Control survey to reflect FY 1978 activitIes has been initiated by ECT.. Planned completion for thIs activity Is in the third quarter FY 1978. PAGENO="0279" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION . 1. c. Please list and describe any Interagency agreements or guidelines which delegate or spell out these differences. RESPONSE The 0MB memorandum dated January 11, 1978, referenced In Question 7 below requires that certain environmental control technology activities currently being performed by EPA's Office of Research and Development be transferred to DOE. A review of the environmental and health research programs being carried out in that office reveals that a number of back-up programs carried out to support those control technology acti vities are being transferred to DOE. Under the guidelines of the IB4rectIie, it would appear reasonable to transfer to ppçenvlronmen~iprograi~~i~pse EPA programs rel~evantto the control technology act1v~tIes trans1~i'~Uto DOE 7 PAGENO="0280" FY 1979 bUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 2 What amount of money and manpower of the overall Environmental Engineering budget is allocated to actual laboratory research on or experiments with environmental control technologies (versus paper assessments)? RESPONSE The FY 1978 Fnvironmental Engineering budget has allocated approximately 50 percent of Its budget to the acquisition of new or confirmatory data from laboratory and field research activities (actual laborato~'y research and experimentation) with the remaining 50 percent of the funds dedicated to systematic evaluation of environmental control aspects of near mid-term and long range energy systems (paper assessments) Specifically $8 4 million of the total Environmental Engineering budget of $14 8 million is allocated to laboratory and field data acquisition efforts The estimated FY 1978 manpower demand associated with laboratory and field data acquisition efforts is approximately 80 man years The ECT laboratory and field data acquisition activities some of which are conducted jointly with the primary ener~jy developers are designed to fill information gaps identified in our comprehensive evalua- tions The data generated are incorporated into ECT evaluations so that judgments on the adequacy of environmental control systems procedures processes and strategies proposed for current and advanced energy technologies can be made Parameters considered in these judgments include control costs control capability energy demands by-product formation, and possible secondary effects on the entire fuel cycle A prime example of such an evaluation is our study Environmental Control Implications of Electric Power Generation from Coal in which trade-offs among conventional (direct coal combustion with precombustion cleanup or stack gas cleaning) and advanced (e g fluidized bed combustion and coal conversion with subsequent combustion) electric generation fuel cycles are being considered PAGENO="0281" 0 FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION - S 3.a.What role does the Assistant Secretary for Environment have in deciding whether environmental control technologies have been adequately demonstrated" for the purpose of establishing a new source perfor- mance standard? S RESPONSE S The Assistant Secretary for Environment provides substantive Input to the DOE position on environmental regulatory initiatives taken by EPA. This input includes considerations of environmental control efficacy and practicability, socio-economic implications, and regional constraints. Within EV, the primary responsibility for providing information upon which judgments on environmental control adequacy can be based resides with the Division of Environmental Control Technology. Information dealing ~sith health effects and broader policy implications is provided by the Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research and the Office of Technology Impacts, respectively. PAGENO="0282" FY l97~ BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 3. b. What are the duties of the NSPS task force, and who from DOE is a member 0f It? RESPONSE The duties of NSPS Task Force on Steam Electric Plants are to analyze the consequences of EPA's proposed NSPS, as well as the consequences of reasonable alternatives, on existinn and future energy facilities. These consequences are organized in five general categories: (1) Economic and Financial Impact on Utilities (2) Effects on Coal Production - Quantity and Geographic Location (3) Impacts for Emerging Technologies (4) Implications for Emissions Control Equipment (5) Environmental Loadings Associated with Existing and Proposed NSPS This task force has maintained close contact with staffs from EPA throughout the analysis of this issue. DOE ~`ernbers: Chair: Dick Molt, DPA/ASEV (Environment) Sam Biondo, ASPE (Policy and Evaluation) Myron Gottlieb, ECT/ASEV (Environment) Sue Mickey, ASPE (Policy and Evaluation) Jerry Hinkle, DTO/ASEV (Environment) Jack Siegal, ASRA (Resource Applications) Richard Stevenson, DPA/ASEV (Environment) Henry Garson, 0CC (General Counsel) Ted Williams, DPA/ASEV (Environment) Jim S~eyer, ASPE (Policy and Evaluation) PAGENO="0283" FY l~79 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 4. What role does the ASEV serve (a) within DOE and (b) with outside environmental groups in setting policies and providing input on environmental" legislation and regulations which have impacts on DOE, such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Alaska Lands Act? RESPONSE The ASEV has input on environmental issues in a number of ways including funding of projects to review and summarize environmental legislation; interagency committees; memorandums of understanding; and attendance and participation in conferences and workshops. Within DOE, the ASEV is responsible to the Secretary to assure compliance with environmental laws and procedures, and to exercise independent review and approval of environmental impact statements of major actions in the Department. The ASEV is concerned with minimizing environmental impacts as well as supporting the DOE responsibility of assuring an adequate supply of energy for the Nation. The Office conducts research and assessment programs regarding environmental impacts on energy programs; analyzes environmental proposed legislation, regulations, and their implementation; reviews environmental impact statements; and prepares Environmental Development Plans. These activities are aimed at providing guidance to other Offices in the Department as to environmental regulatory constraints, and information on energy-environmental trade-offs as a basis fon establishing DOE positions on energy-related policies, legislation, and regulations. Externally, the Department maintains an open and frequent dialogue with the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as with other governmental and private groups concerned with environmental policies and issues. The ASEV acts as the Departmental link to environmental agencies (particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmentpl Quality, and the Department of the Interior) and to the environmental community, in general. Examples of thes'e interactions are as follows. . a. ASEV and EPA representatives are currently working jointly to establish coordinating procedures for the environmental regulation of emerging energy technologies, PAGENO="0284" b In response to a request from DO! ASEV provided comments on the bill to design%te an additional 35-mile stretch of the Delores River in Colorado as a wild and scenic river c The ASEV participated in a special meeting in September 1977 regarding the Alaska Lands Act (H R 39) and provided both oral and written comments d In the Forest Service Roadless Area Review Evaluation program DOE has examined on a tract by tract basis the potential energy resource of each of the nearly 2,000 proposed wilderness tracts covering some 67 million acres of land concerning nearly every state The ASEV has assumed responsibility for two general activities in this program The first regards the potential effects associated with the various types of energy resource development at.or near each of these sites. The second involves developing a model or decision equation whereby wilderness and energy trade-offs can be evaluated as objectively as possible PAGENO="0285" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION -: 5. a. Which program In DOE is responsible for "soft" or renewable energy technology research and developmen RESPONSE Responsibility for soft or renewable energy technology development is under active consideration by several Assistant Secretaries. Of the numerous options, the two major biologically oriented programs include development and demonstration of large scale use of renewable energy sources in the Fuels from Biomass program of Energy Technology and conversion of waste to fuel in the Conservation Program. Although both~ of these technology programs utilize biological materials, green plants as biomass and bioconversion of waste, they use essentially today's "state of the art" systems. The Biomedical and Environmental Research Division's efforts involve the biological aspects covering longer range studies aimed at developing new concepts and techniques which can fit principally into the far term energy picture. This is described In the draft of the program entitled "Biological Energy Conversion and Conservation" (BECC), a copy of wtnch has been provided to the Subcommittee staff. PAGENO="0286" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 5. b. Please list and describe projects in this area that have been carried out in the past by different DOEIERDA/AEC programs. RESPONSE Under AEC there were no RD&D programs for biomass production or bioconversion of waste. However, basic plant sciences research touching on biomass productivity was carried on by the Division of Biomedical and Environmenti Research. In ERDA, the Solar Energy Division initiated RD&D programs to use plants, and plant and animal residues and wastes for energy production. The Assistant Administrator for Conservation developed a program to utilize biological processes for production of liquid and gaseous fuels from domestic waste. The accompanying table represents the major efforts and responsible organizational element under AEC, ERDA, and DOE. PAGENO="0287" AC C I. Biological aspects of photosynthesis (8CR) 2. Biological constraints on plant growth and reproduction (8CR) 3. Genetic aspects of plant productivity (8CR) 4. Techniques for genetic improvement of plants (8CR) EROA 1. Production of woody plants as renewable energy resource (Solar) 2. Use of forest litter for energy pro- duction (Solar) 3. Conversion of animal waste to fuel (Solar) 4. Productio~ of aquatic plants for fuel (Solar) 5. Bioproductian of methane from domestic solid waste (Conservation) 6.. Bioproductian of alcohol as an alternative fuel (Conservation) 7. Oesulfurizaticn of high-sulfur crude oil by microorganisms (OCR) 8.' Bioprocessing of toxic wastes (8CR) 8 9. 8iological aspects of photosynthesis (8CR) 10. Biological constraints on plant growth and * reproduction (8CR) 10.. 11. Genetic aspects of plant productivity (8CR) 12. Tqchniques for genetic improvement of plants (8CR) * `.13. DOE 1. Production of woody plants as renewable energy resource (Solar) 2. Use of forest litter for energy pro- duction (Solar) 3. Conversion of animal waste to fuel (Solar) 4. Production of aquatic plants for fuel (Solar) 5. Bioproduction of methane from domestic solid waste (Conservation) 6. Bioproduction of alcohol an an alternative fuel (Conservation) 7. Desulfurizstton of high-sulfur c~ude oil by microcrianisms (OCR) Bioprocessing of toxic wastes (8CR) Biological aspects of photosynthesis (8CR) Biological constraints on plant growth and reproduction (OCR) 11. Genetic aspects of plant productivity (8CR) 82. Techniques for genetic improvement of plants (OCR) Small grants program for alternate technologi (Conservation) PAGENO="0288" ASPE o Technol ogy~i~iracteri zati on o Technology Characterization o TransmIssion and Distribution o Costs of Soft Energy Technologies o Anytown Study ASET o Coimnunity Technology Assessment o Storage Systems o Transition Technologies o Biomass for Fuels o Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Solar Electric (Partially Decentralized Systems) ASEV o California Case Study o California Case Study o Socioeconomic Analysis o Environmental Analysis 0 Water Resources ASIR o Public Participation o Consumer Affairs / * FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 5 c If it has been determined that soft energy technology programs are no longer organizationally appropriate to the Office of Environment what steps are being taken to see that the appropriate Offices will pursue them? RESPONSE At the moment there has been no decision within DOE that it is organizationally inappropriate to pursue renewable resoirce technology research in the Office of Environment The matter is now under study and discussions have been held between the Office of Energy Research and the ASEV The main points are whether this long range basically oriented research effort should reside with the Basic Energy Sciences Program which would requre staffing changes or remain in BER where traditionally biological research has been centralized thus affording close interaction with other biologically oriented work Thus institutionally it becomes a question of whether BER research efforts should go beyond strictly effects studies and whether the BECC program will be Identified and adequate program growth permitted The currently existing "soft path" work within the DO.E is as follows: ASCS o West Coast~i~ll Grants o West Coast Small Grants o Bldgs. and Community System o Solar Heating and Cooling o Solar Economics o Municipal Systems o Municipal Wastes o Industrial Processes * o Weatherization Program ASIA EIA Development for o Data Base Management LDCs o End-Use Data PAGENO="0289" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 4. 4:. 4, . `I'll 6. (a) . .. How were the a~propriatiOE~"funds authorized ~tudies?'1 RESPONSE See attached' table. ` ` I .1~ . I', * ., . ...~,,. i , `.43,..... . It~.~ .`t~. 3 . I II `~ .4! 44 4 I' ` **~` 1! I., ``3 .. * . 1l'4 `~ `I . . . `~ I 1. i * :* I. Ii .11 * : . . .i .. .i 1.. ti 113111 u * 14 * IIIII&III'J I 4. 3' l$I'~1l. It. I; **. .. 1. I. 1~1. .. 1. . . I * ~ 14.1, $ * .31111 I I~c1iit 4.11 * fit .;(1I1$.II~/L4tl .%.ç 3,'~) * `I .111 1 ill' I. 1,54. .1. .443*! 3 . .1.1 ~ .I,. t1 `I its.,. I, .143.. I, . ..~ l.~.. ,41 t. 44t1tJPdt I'' ~ ,j33~ 5 . 3 for Overview and ~s~essine'nt distributed among .the `rI .1 4', 3, `l' /3 ~4''33*334~33~ * . . .. /144.. )4~ j .., . `.t,~& 1ys1. II /t~1lJt 4*414, 5.) I~. ;t2lUJJl .11 1 l's,,.! .4l1I~.4, * `I. I. * 3. 1~1. itt, PAGENO="0290" 286 ~I ~ oL~ 0 d. oeøooaj~ooogo ~ Hi :00001010000 (] ilL ~1'~1~°1F ~0~0v'0 0 0 r~ 00 ~ ~ I ~ IhJ :~- 11 3 I ~ C F 14 PAGENO="0291" F? 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE. QUESTION 6. (a) . . . What amount of the $1 million for West Valley was allocated to the Environmental Program? Who made these decisions? RESPONSE The Assistant Secretary for Environment (ASEV) made the decision to allocate $900,000 to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology (ASET) to perform the study of technical options at West Valley, Including environmental assessment of the options. The ASEV retained $100,000 for conducting an independent environmental overview of the West Valley Decommissionin Study. The allocation of effort to the Waste Management Division, under the ASET, was made because of their responsibility for fuel cycles facilities and the management of DOE and commercial radioactive wastes which are intimate issues with the West Valley Plant. In assessing the Government's role in West Vall~ey, it is important that the recommendation be consistent with the policies and plans for radioactive waste management at Federally owned sites. The study is being conducted by Argonne National Lab in coordination with the State of New York and NRC. The study includes technical options for solidification and management of radioactive wastes, decommissioning options, alternative use of the facilities, and recommendations for allocating existing and future responsi~ bilities for the titest Valley facilities. . The Environmental Control Technology Division, under the ASEV, is coordinating the environmental overview of the study. A proposal has been requested for the independent overview and will be initiated in the near future. We have.been In contact with the New York State Attorney General's office to determine their participation in the various aspects of the overview study. . PAGENO="0292" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE ~~TION 7 a Does the Assistant Secretary for Environment have any authority to require that agencies submit information regarding their energy-related environmental R&D projects to the Federal Inventory? RESPONSE The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (P 1 93-438) authorizes the Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) to establish programs to minimize the adverse environmental effects of energy development and utilization It further directs that these programs will utilize research dnd development activities supported by other Federal agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication In addition the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and pevelopment Act of l974~(P Lj~~-577) requires that the Administrator of ERDA submit to Congress a comprehensive energy research development and demonstration plan and a companion comprehensive nonnuclear energy program on an annual basis This annual report must include relative financial contributions by the agenLies of the Federal government This 1eg1s1~tion requires that ERDA perform certain acts and the Federal Inventory of Energy-Related Biomedical and Environmental Research was established In response t~ this mandate NeIthe~~this~legis1atiOn nor an~~ other legjslat~~nicurrentlylactive ~reqUires other Federal agencies to cooper~te~wttlL~jiPA (now DOE)~j~ the~preparation~of~the Inventory PAGENO="0293" FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND.THE ATMOSPHERE QUESTION 7. b. The 0MB memorandum dated January 11, 1978, from McIntyre to Schlesinger and Costle states that "all EPA research projects" are to be entered into the DOE environmental research inventory. Is this 0MB mandate. sufficient? RESPONSE While the referenced 0MB memorandum may be sufficient to require EPA to cooperate wtth DOE to the extent of entering all relevant research projects into the Federal Inventory, it does not affect the responses of the remaining twelve Federal agencies solicited for inventory Inputs. PAGENO="0294" Pt 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE 7. c. How can DOE guarantee that It Is carried out? RESPONSE In order to ensure that the Federal Inventory Is complete and accurate, It would appear that a legislative amendment or action needs to.be introduced which both recognIzes the responsibility of DOE to conduct the Federal Inventory as part of Its overall role~in the Federal Government and require that all solicited agencies respond to Input requestswith.:aibest faith effort. .1 (1 r~, votit PAGENO="0295" pm FY 1979 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE AThOSPHERE ~flON 8. a. Does anyone in DOE survey and Inventory afl the environmental R&D being done within the agency? RESPONSE The Assistant Secretary for Environment annually publishes an Inventory of Federal Energy-related Environment and Safety Research, WhIch ir~c1udes the e~forts of all DOE organizations. I 1 II... * I t .* I~*. ~Ij I a t~ PAGENO="0296" FY ~ BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE QUEST1P~I 8. b. Does anyone have the authority to do this? RESPONSE The Assistant Secretary for Environment does this as function of the responsibility to prepare an annual Inventory of Federa' Energy~re1ated Environment and Safety Research. Beyond the precedent of the previous Inventories, there is no specific authority for the ASEV to perform this task. 0