or triple these estimated costs. Generally speaking, an additional capital cost of approximately $5 million is needed for a 1,000 megawatt plant requiring a cooling tower system. A closed system dry cooling tower (which would be used only in areas of critical water shortage) is estimated at about $25 per kilowatt of installed capacity. However, it is emphasized that the site location and characteristics (soil conditions, available land area, ground water conditions and the quality, source, cost and availability of useable cooling water) all have significant effects on the actual capital and operating costs for each plant installation. Mr. DINGELL. Would it be fair to infer that there is reason to be concerned about the question of heating of our waters by large industrial facilities?

Mr. PRICE. We accept the views of the Fish and Wildlife Service on that. We have no basis for quarreling with the need for doing what is necessary to control thermal pollution.

Mr. DINGELL. Of course, the problem we have here is that you have the responsibility for construction of these plants, and yet you assert no responsibility over the consequences, apart from radioactivity, and you are controlled by no statute to take any steps to protect the populace from any of the effects, other than just radioactivity. Am I correct?

Mr. PRICE. That is the limitation of our authority, yes, plus one other criterion, the common defense and security.

Mr. DINGELL. But as a matter of fact, under the law, you assert no policy in these questions. Am I correct?

Mr. PRICE. I did not mean to be understood as not asserting an interest. I am just saying that we have no quarrel at all with the proposition that the heat effects on fish and wildlife can be bad, and that something ought to be done about it.

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, but, you see, you as a matter of policy control the construction of these plants.

Mr. PRICE. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. But you assert first of all no knowledge with regard to the consequences of this insofar as thermal pollution. Am I correct? Mr. PRICE. All I say is we don't have power to do anything about

it.

Mr. DINGELL. But you assert no power, first of all. Am I correct? Mr. PRICE. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. And you assert no real interest in it?

Mr. PRICE. No, we are very much interested.

Mr. DINGELL. Have you ever come up with any legislative recommendations to any of the committees of Congress with regard to vesting in your agency power to correct the hazard that is clearly apparent?

Mr. PRICE. Well, Mr. Chairman, no, sir, we have not. I think our view is that this is a problem that is not peculiar to atomic energy plants, and it ought to be attacked more broadly. It is a river problem.

Mr. DINGELL. I thoroughly agree with you, but you do have the responsibility. In effect you are saying that you say, "All right, fellows, if it is safe, there is no leakage of atomic wastes or radioactivity, go ahead and build it." Am I correct?

Mr. PRICE. That is our charter, yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. But you assert no interest more broad than this. From this, would I be fair in reading that you don't have any concern about the other problem?

Mr. PRICE. We have concern, but I guess we don't feel that the initiative for doing something about it rests with us. I think probably that is a fair statement.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say that if I were to lend my automobile to a drunk, that I would have no responsibility for the consequences of that lending?

Mr. PRICE. No, sir. I sure wouldn't.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say that if I were to loan my shotgun to a homicidal maniac, I would have no responsibility over the consequences of that act?

Mr. PRICE. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly would not but I

respectfully suggest that it is not a good analogy.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say that, if I were to loan a 5 gallon can of gasoline and a box of kitchen matches to a pyromaniac, I would assert no responsibility over the consequences of that act?

Mr. PRICE. No, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Here you concede no knowledge whatsoever as to the effect of the actions of the Atomic Energy Commission with regard to construction of plants that release many thousands of B.t.u.'s every minute of every day into the major watercourses of this country, and yet you assert no responsibility over the consequences of that act. Mr. PRICE. I assert no responsibility?

In the first place, Mr. Chairman, we do have knowledge. We don't claim to be as expert as the Fish and Wildlife Service on the subject, but I don't assert responsibility for it because I don't have power to do anything about it.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you assert any interest in the consequences of that? Your agency makes no effort to consider these questions whatsoever. Am I correct?

Mr. PRICE. This is right, because we don't have the authority to do anything about it. I am talking now, Mr. Chairman, about our licensing authority. The Commission also operates a lot of plants, and there it is different. The Commission does have not only a responsibility for the operation of the Government-owned plants, but authority to do something about it.

Mr. DINGELL. In connection with its own wholly operated and owned plants?

Mr. PRICE. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you assert this same thing with regard to persons who operate Government-owned plants under license?

Mr. PRICE. Government-owned plants under license?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. PRICE. No, sir, not if they are under license.

Our authority on a licensed plant is, as I said, limited to nuclear safety.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you have plants that you lease out to contractors? Mr. PRICE. Let me explain this.

All of the Government-owned plants that the Commission has responsibility for are operated by private contractors, but the Government, the Commission, has complete control, and is in a position to deal with the problems we are talking about today, thermal effects, mechanical effects, every kind of effects.

Mr. DINGELL. Also changes in the biological atmosphere?

Mr. PRICE. Yes. There are only two agencies in the Federal Government-the Defense Department and the AEC-who if they build a reactor, would not have to get a license from the Commission. For example, if the TVA builds a nuclear powerplant, they will have to get a license from the Commission, just like the Consolidated Edison Co. in New York. But that is a licensed plant, and our only control over them is our licensing authority, so that it would be the radiation hazard, as I mentioned.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Are there further questions?

Mr. PELLY. According to your testimony, it was the Commission itself that asked for the bill that is presently before another committee.

Mr. PRICE. I believe all of the witnesses that appeared before you are supporting that bill; yes, sir.

Mr. PELLY. H.R. 10701. That certainly indicates to me that you have an interest.

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PELLY. Why did you not say so? You did not tell the chairman when he kept insisting that you did not have an interest. I thought you did.

Mr. PRICE. I tried to insist that we did, but I suppose I did not succeed.

Mr. PELLY. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think when you backed that legislation, you were interested.

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, just one last point that troubles me greatly is this: You feel that you don't have legislative authority to go into these questions.

Assuming as a matter of fact that you were to find that a project you were licensing was going to raise the temperature of a major river by 10°, and this was going to have an enormously destructive effect on, let's say, a major run of salmon, as a matter of fact, it would wipe out a major salmon and trout stream, would the Atomic Energy Commission go ahead then and license that plant, in spite of that fact?

Mr. PRICE. Under the present law, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we could deny the license for that reason.

Now, I am sure we would do some things short of exercising mandatory control, which we don't have. I think we would tell those people that they had a real big problem, and that they ought to work with the State and other interested agencies on it.

But we could not, under the law, deny the license on that ground. I am sure of that.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Assuming, though, that there was no other Federal or State statute that would affect this matter. Then what would you do?

Mr. PRICE. I think we would be very unhappy, but I think we have got to administer the law, which we have, and the whole purpose of it was to guard against the special hazards of radiation, and that is what the licensing control has been established for.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Thank you very much, sir.

The Chair is grateful to the Commission for your presence today. We have one more witness, Mr. Louis Clapper from the National Wildlife Federation.

We appreciate your presence and your patience.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, CHIEF OF CONSERVATION EDUCATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. CLAPPER. Mr. Chairman, I am Louis Clapper, chief of conservation education for the National Wildlife Federation, which has its national headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

Ours is a private organization which seeks to further the cause of conservation through educational means. Affiliates of the federation are located in 49 States. These affiliates are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated. 2 million persons.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the invitation to comment briefly upon the three proposals under consideration here today.

First, we are in accord with the principles outlined in H.R. 9492:

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to provide adequate notice and opportunity for the Secretary of the Interior and State fish and game agencies to conduct studies on the effects of projects licensed by Federal agencies on fish and wildlife resources, and for other purposes.

Section 1 of H.R. 9492 would delay the issuance of a permit or license to construct a water facility until the Department of the Interior and the State or States concerned have determined its probable effects upon fish and wildlife resources, and recommendations for minimizing or mitigating the losses can be made.

We have written the Federal Power Commission to express satisfaction with its proposed rules, announced April 19, 1966, to require the preparation of exhibits:

** setting forth matters related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project be filed as part of license applications for proposed projects of more than 2,000 horsepower installed capacity.

We were pleased that the proposed exhibit would encourage an applicant to consult early with the proper fish and wildlife agencies in planning for the conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife

resources.

Despite the progress indicated in this proposed rule, we would prefer to have this portion of H.R. 9492 enacted to give the added protection of law, even though we would not want any undue delay.

We believe that added research is needed on the effects of thermal pollution on fish and wildlife, and would be in general agreement with section 2 of H.R. 9492.

Thermal pollution has had both good and bad results on fish and wildlife and their habitats, from casual observations and experience, but much more needs to be known about it.

Section 3 provides for the Secretary of the Interior to give to the creator of thermal pollution the result of findings in cases detrimental to fish and wildlife.

Since the Secretary now will be in charge of all Federal water pollution abatement efforts, with transfer of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, perhaps the need for this section is not as great as when the proposal was introduced.

However, we agree that thermal pollution is a factor which must be dealt with in the same manner as other forms of pollution.

In our opinion, H.R. 14414 and H.R. 14455 should be considered together. In effect, collectively, these proposals bring the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority under provisions of the Coordination Act. From testimony presented earlier, it appears that FPC and AEC are covered, and with this we are in complete agreement.

Attached, Mr. Chairman, is a copy of resolution No. 10, adopted by the National Wildlife Federation in its annual convention earlier this year. This resolution is to a considerable extent self-explanatory. It relates to a plan of TVA to control floods in the upper French Broad watershed of North Carolina. The project, which also claims other benefits for water supply, low-flow augmentation, recreation, and industrial development, would feature 14 dams-12 of the "wet" type, and 2 of the "dry" type.

The Soil Conservation Service had started development of the project, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, back in 1963, recommended-attachment No. 2-the construction of "dry" dams to carry out flood control objectives, while preserving some of the most outstanding natural trout stream fishing in the eastern United States.

TVA then took over the project, and has ignored alternate plans of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to minimize damage to trout streams through the use of "dry" dams in the upper reaches and a "wet" dam in the lower area.

Clyde P. Patton, executive director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, in November 1965, wrote TVA:

On

It is our considered opinion that this plan fails to give consideration to the trout fishery commensurate with its value and importance to the public. those streams where major impoundments are proposed, water temperatures would be elevated and the trout habitat, along with the trout fishery, practically destroyed. Trout streams are irreplaceable. Their loss cannot be mitigated. Comparable habitat cannot be created at any price.

Also attached are recent resolutions by the North Carolina Wildlife Federation and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission-attachments 3 and 4-which relate to this problem.

I would request that all of these resolutions be made part of the record.

(Resolutions referred to follow :)

PRESERVATION OF FISHERIES IN TVA AREA

RESOLUTION No. 10

National Wildlife Federation, 30th Annual Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa., March 11-13, 1966

Whereas, the Tennessee Valley Authority is seeking to develop acceptable plans for controlling floods in the watershed of the Upper French Broad River in North Carolina while, at the same time, providing water supply and low flow augmentation; and