Since cities discharge water warmer than that, all cities as well as industries will have to provide cooling towers. The combined municipal-industrial usage for this area is now, according to FWQA, 5.72 billion gallons of water a day. Cooling towers evaporate water as part of the operation. With an evaporation loss of 5 percent there would be 286 million gallons a day or 104 billion gallons a year removed from the lake and discharged to the atmosphere.

Most of this water will not precipitate in the basin so the lake level could drop. But this amount of water regularly discharged to the atmosphere could cause weather modification. It will definitely cause fogging and icing.

Even more, pumping this amount of water over cooling towers will consume electrical energy in large quantities. This means a faster depletion of coal, gas, and oil, and there are finite limitations on these reserves.

But the added expenditure of energy also means there will be more particulates and carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds discharged to the atmosphere as well as heat.

Also, inland cities which now suffer water shortages and which are prevented from pumping water from Lake Michigan by court decree, will watch this precious asset float uselessly overhead.

What Canada will say about the diversion as a violation of its treaty with the United States can be anticipated.

All this started because some well meaning fishermen apparently convinced a pollution control official that warm water discharges adversely affect the fishery in the lake. So, in this era of emotional involvement over the environment when the magic word is enhancement, any suggestion of eliminating a discharge is immediately considered enhancement and must be adopted at all costs. Unfortunately, not all costs are considered. And neither are all consequences on the environment.

In this instance while the people's environment will be changed and they will be paying dearly for the changes, the fishery won't be improved unless effective fishery management is instituted. This is not provided for in this reorganization. And actually, the warm water discharges have no effect on the temperature of Lake Michigan outside mixing zone areas. Much better for the total environment if there were requirements limiting mixing zones. The thermal pollution hysteria is resulting in many environmental errors.

STANDARDS AND POLICING

What it boils down to is that the EPA will be an agency independent of other departments which will argue for the freedom to set standards as a prerequisite to the policing of what it deems necessary in protecting the environment. If our environment is to be truly protected, there must first be a definition of the environment we want and that includes the total environment of man. So we need to answer his needs which include, but are not limited to, quality of air, water, and land.

Yet for every benefit a penalty must be exacted and for every regulation or every development some effects will result. So if we are to have environmental protection, both ecology and economics must be considered.

As an illustration, consider the complexity of the problem of providing sufficient electrical energy. To some the issue is simply one of burning gas, low sulfur coal or oil and then provision of cooling towers. But to others the issue is seen in terms of availability of fuel now and, of even more importance, availability 30 years from now. At that time according to the Academy of Science report "Resources and Man" there will be critical shortages of petroleum, gas and low sulfur coal and, unless breeder reactors are in use, critically reduced sources of cheap radioactive uranium.

In fact, the report emphasizes that although pollution is a disgraceful condition, it can be cured once we have defined specifically what should be done and spend the money to do it. The report points up the true environmental problems are population distribution, availability of food from land and sea, availability of minerals from land and sea, and energy. Emphasis on pollution distracts attention from these vital issues.

Also, emphasis on constructing waste treatment facilities leaves the impression the problem is simple and isolated from other aspects of the environment and that a rapid expenditure of funds is all that is needed. Much has been done in the last two decades to abate pollution; much more needs to be done. But if the

environment is to be considered, the pollution control program must be considered in terms of time and objective to determine cost and in terms of relationship to other environmental needs to establish priorities. But it must also be considered in relation to the manner in which other environmental aspects can be affected.

ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED

The objective in this reorganization is to get coordination and more effective implementation of programs. But will this do it?

The operating organizations will continue to be individual entities for at least 120 days after date of effective consolidation. What guidelines are established to achieve the integrating effect within that time, or is a longer period to be anticipated?

Will this reorganization tend to halt all policymaking decisions and thus impede pollution control rather than accelerate it? You may recall this was the history of the two previous reorganizations of the water pollution control agency.

At present the pollution control agencies within the various departments have varying degrees of cooperation with the other bureaus in the departments, which can and do supply data for decisionmaking. At present the potential for data exceeds the utilization but at least the potential is there. If this new agency is created apart from the departments, how will the EPA get the data it should be using from such entities as Geological Survey and Soil Conservation Service? Are arrangements made for such activity? Or is it planned to drain personnel via Bureau of Budget adjustments from these agencies for transfer to EPA?

Since an announced intention is to increase EPA power to set standards, who shall review the impact of proposed standards?

If EPA is to absorb some of the ecology research from the Quality of the Environment Council, will not EPA have the authority to limit the studies to those it deems essential to policing the standards it proposes?

Will EPA continue to be a loose conglomerate, despite the title, simply because there will be a number of congressional committees and appropriation subcommittees interested in certain aspects of the program?

A PROPOSAL

Until there is a separate factfinding and environmental analysis agency, the Members of the Congress as well as the people have no place to go for an independent appraisal of proposals or an unbiased evaluation of a situation.

If there were such an agency, the State and interstate regulatory officials could have positive support in setting standards of quality which, if violated and not enforced at that level, could be by the Federal Government.

Also, if there were such an agency, the many bureaus in Government dealing with various aspects of the environment could have a counseling board at which alternatives could be evaluated.

One might argue that if consolidation of the agencies for policing is desirable, why not do that via this reorganization and then proceed to add on to this venture at a later date. One might also argue equally well that grouping of such policing agencies should be under a program that would first organize the separate mechanism for developing objectives and standards which would then be policed by a policing organization.

In essence then the two issues before the voters this fall-the state of the economy and pollution control-are actually both part of the same issue-the state of the environment. In this sense the environment we want improved and protected is cultural, social, economic and physical, and unless placed in that perspective is cause for trouble, not benefit.

With a rapidly increasing population and a finite limitation on resources, there must be an end to optimistic but blind reaction, a determination of what is truly in the best interests of man, a forum for mutual agreement, an encouragement for those who can interpret the facts and guide our getting where we want to go. Our deficiencies at present are facts and solutions. This reorganization, unfortunately, guarantees neither. Unless the Congress can see the need, we are apparently doomed to further airless wanderings, for as Carl Jung has summarized our public attitude, the situation is not optimistic.

"We rush impetuously into novelty, driven by a mounting sense of insufficiency, dissatisfaction, and restlessness. We no longer live on what we have, but on promises, no longer in the light of the present day, but in the darkness of the future, which, we expect, will at last bring the proper sunrise."— (Memories, Dreams and Reflections.)

Mr. BLATNIK. Hearing no further requests for time, the hearings on plan No. 3 are recessed and the subcommittee is adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970
(Environmental Protection Agency)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, presiding.

Present: Representatives John A. Blatnik, Chet Holifield, and Benjamin S. Rosenthal.

Staff members present: Elmer W. Henderson, subcommittee counsel; James A. Lanigan, general counsel, and J. P. Carlson, minority counsel, Committee on Government Operations.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. The Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization will come to order.

This morning we continue our hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 to create an Environmental Protection Agency. You will recall we considered this plan earlier, on July 22 and 23.

We will have testimony this morning from representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Radiation Council and other interested organizations. The plan transfers certain radiation. standard-setting functions from the AEC to the new agency and gives to the new agency all of the functions of the Federal Radiation Council.

This morning we are pleased to have with us Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of the AEC, accompanied by Commissioner James T. Ramey. Also with them at the witness table is Paul C. Thompkins, Executive Director of the Federal Radiation Council.

We will be very pleased to hear your statement in any order that you gentlemen choose.

STATEMENTS OF DR. GLENN SEABORG, CHAIRMAN, AND JAMES T. RAMEY, COMMISSIONER, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY HAROLD L. PRICE, DIRECTOR OF REGULATION; JOSEPH F. HENNESSEY, GENERAL COUNSEL; PAUL C. TOMPKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL; AND CLAIRE C. PALMITER

Dr. SEABORG. I am going to make the statement for the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I might suggest that you identify those with you at the table.

Dr. SEABORG. Mr. Harold Price, Director of Regulation, on my right, and Mr. Joseph Hennessey, the General Counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission, on my left. You identified Mr. Ramey and Mr. Tompkins. Mr. ROSENTHAL. You may proceed.

Dr. SEABORG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to review with you certain aspects of the administration's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 as it affects functions of the Atomic Energy Commission.

As you know, this plan fulfills the President's pledge of early this year to recommend improved Federal administrative machinery to control and abate pollution of all forms which pose an increasing threat to the quality of our environment. The Commission supports the plan and the ultimate objective expressed by the President in his message of July 9, 1970, to the Congress:

To insure that the Nation's environmental and resource protection activities are so organized as to maximize both the effective coordination of all and the effective functioning of each.

Reorganization Plan No. 3 would bring together in a new agencythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-pollution control programs now existing in four separate agencies and an interagency council. In the field of radiation, the plan would transfer to EPA all functions now vested in the interagency Federal Radiation Council (FRC), which would be abolished, and the functions of the AEC for setting generally applicable environmental radiation standards as administered by its Division of Radiation Protection Standards. My testimony is related directly to the transfer of these functions, the respective roles and relationships of the FRC and AEC in this field, and our understanding of how these activities will be carried out under the new reorganization plan.

Before discussing the transfer of the AEC function, I would like first to discuss the work of the FRC and its transfer to the new Environmental Protection Agency. For perspective, a little background in the field of radiation protection standards may be helpful.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection, created in 1928, and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, established in 1929, have provided the basic radiation protection recommendations that have been used throughout the world as the bases for national regulations to control uses of atomic energy and radiation. Since 1959, the Federal Radiation Council has provided official guidance in the United States to Federal agencies for control of exposures to radiation. The basic guidance of the FRC and the basic recommendations of the NCRP and the ICRP have been mutually compatible.

Specifically, the FRC was established by Executive order and amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and directed to “. advise the President with respect to radiation matters directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards...." The Council, which consists of the Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare; Defense; Commerce; Interior; Agriculture; Labor; and the Chairman of the AEC, was directed to consult qualified scientists and experts in radiation matters, including the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the National Council on Radiation Protec