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