A particular aspect of our total review which I wish to highlight is the potential expansion of participation by other government agencies. In the case of the floating nuclear plant, it is recognized that other government agencies have regulatory responsibilities over installation and operation of facilities in the coastal waters.

The Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate State water quality agencies would have authority over discharges of effluents from the offshore plant. We are currently proceeding with the development of a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Coast Guard, which would set forth the responsibilities of AEC and the Coast Guard with respect to offshore plants, and would set forth each agency with respect to offshore plants, and would set forth a mechanism for agency in order that our respective responsibilities may be effectively and efficiently discharged with a minimum of conflict and duplication.

The corps also has responsibilities in this area. Responsibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, concerning marine fisheries and management of animal and mineral resources also need to be coordinated with the AEC activities.

We are currently in the process of arranging meetings with these federal agencies to carefully explore the extent of their interests and responsibilities and take actions for inter-agency agreements as necessary.

In addition to recognizing the regulatory roles of particular government agencies, we expect to continue to call upon those agencies having special expertise in matters relating to our staff safety evaluations.

In addition to the areas of giology, hydrology, meteorology and seismology in which we receive substantial technical assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA, we see a possible expansion to other areas peculiar to the ocean environment, such as more specific weather data analysis, oceanographic and marine geophysical surveys and mapping, marine biology and general matters pertaining to the ocean and coastal waterways.

We also expect a continuation of the consulting services of the Coastal Engineering Research Center and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Other agencies may be asked to bring their expertise to bear on special problem areas as well.

Now to the environmental review, NEPA, under NEPA. At the beginning of 1972, the AEC was faced with the task of conducting approximately 60 environmental reviews on nuclear power plants, each requiring the preparation of a draft and final detailed environmental statement.

Most of these were part of an "instant backlog" created by the Calvert Cliffs decision. This required broadened environmental reviews of many plants for which construction permits and operating licenses had already been issued, as well as for new applications.

During 1972, 49 draft detailed statements were circulated for public comment and 26 final statements were issued by the AEC staff covering a total of 78 power reactors at the construction permit or operating license stage. The NEPA reviews require a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of a wide range of environmental effects

of each facility, including a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the various public interest factors involved.

As a result of the environmental reviews, various requirements by means of license conditions and technical specifications have been imposed on nuclear plant licensees relative to plant design, methods of operation, and environmental monitoring programs.

Sing the past year, the AEC effort in developing regulatory standards, criteria and guidelines was expanded significantly. The

yam is the establishment of a comprehensive framework of sids and criteria covering the siting, design, construction, and estion of all nuclear facilities which will protect the health and son of the public and the environment as well as help to accelerBoensing process.

For example, the AEC has published in the Federal Register reFebruary 1, 1973, a notice of its intent to initiate a compreprogram for the development of general environmental reria to provide guidance for the site selection process. pgram should significantly advance our past efforts to espower plant siting criteria, including criteria for offshore AFC has for many years conducted a program of oceanoresearch. Although the effort has not been directed toward siting problems, it has provided a wealth of technical inforand technical capability which can be applied to evaluating Snmental effects of this concept.

this experience, we believe we are well equipped to effeccharge our regulatory responsibilities with respect to any orton for a floating nuclear plant.

add that the contribution made by the AEC National sories in coping with the backlog of environmental reviews Ast year was noteworthy. Because of the special expertise 6, the regulatory staff has formed a special task group at the de National Laboratory to provide assistance on environaspects of the floating nuclear plant concept.

BAKER. Who at Oak Ridge is handling that program? RAMEY. They have been studying this concept for a number of course, so they are particularly well equipped.

5. RAMBUSSO. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has an environgram group organized under Mr. Struxness. Within that hey have organized teams for handling individual environmpact statements.

To particular group which will be evaluating the barge-mounted hended by Mr. Doma, who is here in the audience today. BAKER. Thank you very much.

MEY. This task group is made up of individuals with qualiand experience in such areas as thermal hydraulics, marine Jogging, oceanography, and marine biology. The Oak Ridge currently active in reviewing the literature and documentaHing to this concept.

se, the NEPA environmental statement process itself will ailable to AEC the expertise of a wide variety of Federal This includes the parent agencies of the corps, the U.S. : Guard, NOAA, the Department of Interior, and EPA.

In addition to the routine review of our draft environmental statements, we recognize the valuable assistance which may be available to us from many of these agencies in carrying out special studies and evaluations related to environmental effects of offshore plants.

In reviewing any application for an offshore plant with its variety of unique considerations, we intend to devote our full resources and cooperate to the fullest degree with other agencies in maintaining our high standards of reactor safety and environmental protection. Of course, it is too early to predict whether an application for an offshore plant will pass the detailed review that we plan and whether a license can be granted for such a plant. We do believe that, whatever may be the outcome, the best expertise available will have been brought to bear on the issues involved.

In conclusion, we believe that the existing statutory authority is adequate to cover any offshore nuclear plant that would be embraced by this proposed legislation. Indeed, the matters to be considered by the Secretary of Commerce in establishing criteria under section 304 (c) of the bill would all be addressed by the AEC in considering an application for an offshore nuclear powerplant under its existing statutory authority.

While the bill would not affect existing AEC authority over offshore nuclear powerplants, it would create possible conflicts and duplication since two separate Federal agencies would be exercising similar authority over the same subject matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Pastore?

Senator PASTORE. Offhand-I am sorry I was not here when you began your statement, Mr. Ramey-but I listened to you on many other occasions and I know pretty much how you feel about these matters, and the requirement for safety especially when we are dealing with nuclear plants.

The efforts that have been made by the Commission, and the overseeing that-meticulous overseeing by the Committee on Atomic Energy with reference to safety, your views are known on that.

You mention, here in conclusion, that you do not know how the industry might feel about establishing these floating nuclear plants. Have we ever had an application for one?

Mr. RAMEY. We have an application from-for a manufacturing authorization to build eight of these standard plants. This is by the Offshore Power Systems, Inc., which is a joint venture of Westinghouse and Tenneco. We do not have a construction permit application yet, although Public Service of New Jersey has indicated that by mid-year they will submit one.

The general pattern that we are following is that on-is what one would call on a generic basis, an across-the-board basis, we will review the manufacture of these standardized plants which will be proposed to be conducted at Jacksonville, Fla., at a manufacturing plant to be built there, in which these standardized plants will be built and put on a barge, and towed up the coast to a specific site. These plants when they are manufactured, will not contain the nuclear fuel so they will not pose a nuclear safety question at all,

during their manufacture or during their transportation up to the specific site.

But, all of the other safety and radiological characteristics the whole design of the plant, et cetera-will be reviewed in connection with this manufacturing authorization. We believe, in general—as I indicated in my statement-that by manufacturing these standardized plants in one place where we, the AEC, and the manufacturer can have onsite inspection people is bound to improve the safety of these plants.

We will not have it as with a normal construction project, where we are very careful and inspectors are very careful but-it is not feasible to have around-the-clock inspection people; but on these standardized plants which will be at a specific facility, we believe it is possible to have a somewhat closer manufacturing control by the Government and by the manufacturer.

Again

Senator PASTORE. Well, that being so, the question I asked is this: In your opinion-you have been connected with this industry and you have been connected with this area of knowledgeability for a long time do you feel that we can make land-based nuclear reactors absolutely safe?

Mr. RAMEY. I believe, as Chairman Schlesinger indicated in his testimony before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy

Senator PASTORE. I was there.

Mr. RAMEY. Yes, sir-that these plants can be made very safe, extremely safe, but like all industrial enterprises, and all of the activities of life, one cannot say that they are absolutely safe; that there is some-in this case- highly improbable degree of risk which we have said all the way through.

Senator PASTORE. The is no 100 percent guarantee in almost anything, I realize that. Maybe I should not have used the words "absolutely safe." The fact remains, however, that why we are concerned about building them offshore, if we can make them safe, land-based?

Why do we spend all this money in research to build them offshore? If it is a contention of the AEC, you can build them safe enough on land, why spend all that money?

Mr. RAMEY. Our view on this, Senator Pastore, is that any new concept should be examined in considerable depth. The development of our safety requirements for onshore plants have been worked out over the last 20 years, or more. The concept of floating plants has been considered, say for the last 10 years but only as a kind of a concept. It arises out of our original consideration of building an artificial island for the Bolsa Island nuclear desalting proposal, that was later dropped because of cost considerations. So what we have been devoting ourselves to are the sort of unique aspects of the offshore type of facility.

I think, of course, the interest of the utilities in offshore plants and the interest of the Commission from the standpoint of its responsibilities for siting plants-the interest in offshore plants, of course, arose by reason of the growing scarcity of land-based sites, our need for identifying means of providing the safest types of sites that can be arranged. It appeared that these offshore sites had cer

tain advantages and that they also have certain additional problems which is to say, relating to building breakwaters, and the question of what happens in relation to shipping and this kind of thing.

There are certain other characteristics of the offshore plants such as being located on barges. The concept as originally discussed and originally reviewed by our regulatory staff would have these barges, once they were moored within a circular breakwater, approximately 3 miles offshore, and that the safest of them would be that of slightly a floating facility.

Our people decided in reviewing the design, that the plant had to be designed so that in the event that that barge sank, within that breakwater, the plant would still be safe and it is this kind of different consideration that our staff have been spending a fair amount of time on, it has not been-in relation to the amount of time in research done on land-based plants; I think it is a proportionate

amount.

It is not an extraordinary amount of time.

Senator PASTORE. The thing that disturbs me is this; there was some talk that maybe we should build these plants underground, and, of course, you know what the economics of that would be.

Now, we are talking about offshore plants. Eventually, they may come to be. I do not know, but I am wondering if all this is not being used as a retreat from the contention that they are safe on land?

Mr. RAMEY. No, sir.

Senator PASTORE. I would not want that impression to get afloat, and I use the word advisedly.

Mr. RAMEY. No, sir. I do not believe that it is. I think it is an effort to utilize

Senator PASTORE. We had an underground test there at the Nevada Flats, and we have underground tests that have been safe enough. Why have we not gone more deeply into nuclear plant parks with longer transmission lines which, in my humble opinion would be a lot more economical than building a plant that is put on a barge, and in case of a hurricane-I do not know about that.

You might say we are going to make them safe enough even if the barge is sunk, that it would be safe enough; it would be hard to convince the housewives on that, I am afraid. Why are we not thinking more of these nuclear plant parks with long transmission lines?

We are talking about doing it where the coal is available. Now, if we are talking about siting-naturally you take an area like Washington, D.C., you could not build a plant, and get away with it, right downtown next door to the White House. You would never get away with that.

Mr. RAMEY. It was once proposed to build one in the Capitol. Senator PASTORE. My pause was significant, as you will notice, but there are many places in this country where you have a land area where you could have a concentration of nuclear plants, welldesigned, well-built, well-constructed; and that, at the same time, with long transmission lines, you would get the energy that you need. Mr. RAMEY. Well, the development of the concept of nuclear parks