United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Washington D. C. 20460
EPA-600/9-80-009
March 1980
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Energy Alternatives
and the
Environment 1979
EPA
600/
9-
80-
009
c.2
The Public Reviews
The Federal Nonnuclear
Energy RD&D Program
-------
-------
PA/
transcript from the National Hearing on
The Federal Nonnuclear
Energy RD&D Program
conducted on
October 3, 4 and 5, 1979
Office of Personnel Management Auditorium
Washington, D.C.
Snvlronaemtal Protect Ion A««»J
Room 2404 P--2U-1
sponsored by
The Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
within the Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
Foreword
Section 11 of Public Law 93-577, the Federal
Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development (R&D)
Act of 1974, directs the responsible agency to carry out
a continuing review of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy
R&D Program to evaluate its adequacy of attention to:
(a) energy conservation methods, and
(b) environmental protection and the
environmental consequences of the
application of energy technologies.
President Carter's Executive Reorganization Plan (77-1)
transferred responsibility for this review from the Council
on Environmental Quality to the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. The Office of Environmental Engineering
and Technology within EPA's Office of Research and
Development has been assigned the responsibility for
conducting the review.
"Section 11" requires EPA to hold yearly public
hearings as part of its R&D review responsibilities. This
report presents the edited transcripts of a National
Hearing on the environmental conservation aspects of
the Federal Nonnuclear Energy R&D Program held
October 3-5, 1979 in Washington DC. Information
acquired at the Hearing will be of particular value as a
mechanism for surfacing problems and issues in Federal
Nonnuclear Energy R&D. EPA plans to improve the
understanding of these problems and issues, to confirm
their significance and to further explore their dimensions.
Readers of this report may wish to comment on
the issues presented here or on other issues concerning
the non-nuclear R&D program's adequacy of attention
to energy conservation and environmental protection.
We would greatly appreciate receiving such comments.
Please send them to:
Section 11 Coordinator
Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology (RD-681)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
Steven R. Reznek
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Engineering and Technology
iii
-------
-------
Table of Contents
vli NATIONAL HEARING SUMMARY
1 October 3, 1979
Morning Session
1 Introductory Remarks, Dr. Stephen Gage
2 Further remarks by Dr. Steven Reznek
2 Further remarks by Ms. Ruth Clusen
3 Statement of Dr. Gordon MacDonald
6 Statement of Dr. Toby Anthony
10 Statement of Mr. Joel Robinson
14 Statement of Ms. Merilyn Reeves
19 Statement of Mr. Kevin Markey
Afternoon Session
27 Statement of Mr. Macauley Whiting
30 Statement of Mr. Moss
33 Statement of Mr. Lowell Endahl
37 Statement of Mr. Pate
44 Statement of Dr. Schlesinger
49 Statement of Ms. Jones
51 Adjournment
57 October 4, 1979
Morning Session
57 Opening Remarks by Dr. Stephen Reznek
57 Statement of Dr. Chester Richmond
62 Statement of Dr. Kenneth Bridbord
67 Statement 'of Dr. Ralph Perhac
73 Statement of Mr. Michael Paparian
Afternoon Session
79 Statement of Mr. Reynolds
84 Statement of Ms. Jane MacGregor
86 Statement of Mr. Richard Pratt
89 Statement of Mr. Scott Crytser
93 Statement of Ms. Patricia Pelkofer
97 Adjournment
103 October 5, 1979
Morning Session
103 Opening Remarks by Dr. Stephen Reznek
103 Statement of Dr. Samuel Morris
107 Statement of Mr. William Rogers
111 Statement of Ms. Susan Tachau
114 Statement of Dr. Neil Seldman
120 Statement of Ms. Mary Jadiker
122 Statement of Dr. Allan Hirsch
126 Statement of Mr. Robert Thomason
Afternoon Session
129 Opening Remarks by Mr. Gregory Ondich
129 Statement of Dr. David Anthony
135 Statement of Mr. Mark McClellan
140 Statement of Mr. Albert Slap
142 Statement of Dr. Michael Devine
146 Statement of Ms. Lore Keffer
148 Statement of Ms. Edith Chase
151 Statement of Dr. Carl Norbeck
154 Statement of Mr. Michael Seaman
158 Adjournment
159 Addendum
-------
-------
National Hearing Summary
The Section 11 National Hearing was held in
Washington, D.C., on October 3, 4, and 5, 1979. The
Hearing panels included the Department of Energy
Assistant Secretary for Environment, representatives
from the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Council on Environmental Quality, and members of
congressional staff, environmental groups, State
governments, and industry. Thirty-five people
presented testimony, and an additional participant
subsequently submitted written testimony. Participants
represented a broad spectrum of interests, including
industry, environmental organizations, public interest
groups, universities and research laboratories, State and
local government, and the general public. Many of the
participants had attended one or more of the regional
workshops held earlier this year.
Prior to the Hearing, witnesses were sent materials
discussing the focus of this year's Section 11 activities
and the major issues that emerged from the
workshops. * Most of the witnesses addressed one or
more of these issues in their testimony. This report sum-
marizes comments from the National Hearing on seven
key issues and on other topics of interest to particular
witnesses.
evaluate and compare all proposed and available
technologies to determine which ones offer the greatest
potential for meeting our energy needs most econom-
ically and with the least environmental risk. Instead,
DOE
is hardware-oriented; it is not geared to problem solv-
ing. There is no meaningful competition among
technologies within each resource category. There is
no real competition among resources in developing
national energy plans or determining budgetary
priorities.
(Kevin Markey, Friends of the Earth)
Witnesses felt that such comparisons of both pro-
duction and conservation options are essential to the
development of a rational, comprehensive energy
policy.
In discussing the importance of performing such
assessments, one witness stressed that
in evaluating technologies from an environmental
standpoint, it is crucial to compare the new technology
with that which it replaces or augments, as well as with
other new competing technologies.
(Gordon MacDonald, The MITRE Corporation)
1. Nonnuclear Research Priorities
Many Hearing witnesses were concerned that
DOE's current nonnuclear RD&D" * policy appears to
favor large-scale, centralized technologies based on
nonrenewable resources. They felt that smaller-scale,
decentralized, appropriate technologies are not given
the attention or support they merit. Several participants
described in detail the potential lower cost and environ-
mental advantages of alternatives such as solar energy,
recycling, and conservation when these approaches are
compared with the large projects DOE now emphasizes.
Many witnesses felt that there is an urgent need for DOE
to balance its RD&D efforts better if the nation's energy
requirements are to be met, in both the immediate and
the long-range future.
It did not appear to witnesses that, in setting policy
and RD&D priorities, DOE planners systematically
* Environmental Protection Agency, Background Document for
the National Hearing. EPA 600/9-79-033. September 1979.
* * Research, Development, and Demonstration
2. Objectives of DOE Research, Development,
and Demonstration
In one workshop, considerable time was spent
discussing the role of DOE as an RD&D agency, and
this question was examined further by several Hearing
witnesses. Witnesses said that DOE's research goals
were not clearly articulated. The RD&D program seems
to be heavily oriented toward rapid commercialization
of technologies rather than toward thoroughly testing
and examining all aspects of their application. One
witness outlined how this aspect of RD&D could be
improved:
What you need is a system which is a little more balanced
between branches that are building things and branches
that are considering alternatives, rather than having a
whole agency...whose mission it is to build and second-
arily to do the best it can with the consequences... You
need a more balanced situation, where you are setting
your energy priorities and your environmental priorities at
the same time and then you look at those on the same
Vll
-------
footings and try to ask, how can we optimize both of
these—rather than looking for the best energy tech-
nologies and then later worrying about how to handle
the environment.
(Richard Pratt, Pennsylvania Sierra Club)
Both this witness and other participants felt that
technical and environmental research should be more
closely linked and that DOE efforts in both areas should
be designed to provide the greatest amount of data to
be used in decisionmaking. Another witness reinforced
this idea:
1 think the need has to be stressed for experimental
facilities which test not only the technological capability,
but also the environmental issues....There's also a need
to emphasize decisionmaking systems which focus on
incremental and adaptive decisionmaking to the greatest
extent possible, rather than go/no-go decisions, so that
we can reflect, as we move through various steps, the
findings of environmental research, assessment, or
monitoring.
(Allan Hirsch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
3. Project Management and Review
Witnesses felt that DOE's project management
system, which requires top-level review only of projects
involving major Federal investment, was also a prob-
lem. Projects that do not require large outlays of capital
are managed at lower levels and therefore may never
have their potential benefits seriously considered by
DOE policymakers. Witnesses believed that this lack of
attention to smaller projects reinforces a bias toward
high-technology solutions to energy problems. There-
fore, although witnesses recognized that not all projects
could be monitored regularly by top officials, they felt
that cost should not be the primary criterion for selecting
projects for senior management review.
The uniqueness of environmental or health considera-
tions, and potentiality of a system should also be examined.
(Chester Richmond, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
Further, witnesses felt that this top management
review should not be limited to determining whether a
technology is technically feasible, the cost is acceptable,
and the environmental effects are manageable; it should
also include comparison with alternative technology
options, i.e., it should review all feasible options.
Criticism of the review process included the opinion that
the PPMS review process does not take into considera-
tion alternative small-scale technologies when it evaluates
a particular major system technology. In other words, it
does not consider other ways to obtain the energy which
is proposed for production by the technology under con-
sideration.
(Susan Tachau, National Center for Appropriate
Technology!
The witness added the consideration that
if technological alternatives are not reviewed, then energy
conservation possibilities will not be addressed, nor will
appropriate technologies or other alternatives be addressed
which might produce the same amount of energy more
economically than the large-scale technologies being
considered.
(Susan Tachau, National Center for Appropriate
Technology)
Another witness contended that
The complex procedures which were established by DOE
to guide technology expenditures, the PPMS, appear to
fail to provide for adequate evaluation of alternative
actions on programs...By the time the DOE staff has
committed large amounts of time and financial resources
to a particular project... it is almost too late to address
alternatives adequately in an EIS.
(Marilyn Reeves, League of Women Voters of Maryland)
To ensure that alternatives are adequately con-
sidered in policymaking and project management,
several Hearing witnesses suggested that technologies
be compared according to the efficiency of their "end
use"—that each fuel source and technology be com-
pared with others that can be used to meet a given
energy need or "end use," such as residential heating or
transportation. As described by one hearing witness,
The principle is that the "end use" for which energy Is
required should determine, as much as possible, the source
and form of the energy to be employed for that use. The
choice should be based on consideration of conservation
or, in other words, of energy economy. This means that
preference should always be shown for forms of energy
that, while remaining compatible with the "end use" to
which they are put, are as direct as possible, involve as
little capital-intensive technology as possible, and come,
as much as possible, from renewable sources.
(Susan Tachau, National Center for Appropriate
Technology)
Another witness cited a recent report by the
Carnegie-Mellon Institute of Research, "The Least Cost
Energy Strategy," which discusses a new way of looking
at inferfuel competition—an approach called "energy
services"
The premise is that an "energy service" is what people
require: people want a warm house; they, in effect, are
neutral as to whether this comes from gas heat, electricity,
and so forth.
(Benjamin Schlesinger, American Gas Association)
4. Criteria for Assessing Technologies
Several Hearing witnesses expressed concern that
environmental criteria do not appear to have significant
influence in DOE technology development decisions.
viii
-------
Others felt that once the decision is made to invest in a
technology, it is virtually impossible to halt or even slow
its progress, even if serious environmental questions
remain unanswered. Therefore, many witnesses sup-
ported the development and establishment of explicit
environmental criteria which would be applied consis-
tently to all technology projects at key decision points.
Further, they felt that these criteria should be explained
to the public and that the results of the application of the
criteria to each decision should be disclosed. As one
Hearing witness commented
Absence of explicit criteria gives the appearance, if not the
reality, that decisions are arbitrary.
(Mark McCiellan, Pennsylvania Citizens Advisory
Council)
Witnesses felt that in addition to cost and net
energy analysis, the criteria should address a broad
range of environmental issues; should apply to the
potential local, regional, and global effects of a
technology project; and should include consideration of
the entire fuel cycle. Ideally these criteria should be
measurable and observable. In discussing the broad
range of applicable criteria, one scientist stated that
The process of evaluating competitive technologies
requires explicit criteria, which should include risk evalua-
tion, potential for environmental degradation, aesthetics
and social concerns, and the aspect so often
overlooked—the worldwide consequences of developing
a technology....The obvious criteria include impacts on
air, land, water, and the biosphere. The changes brought
about in these resources must then be evaluated in terms
of how they affect man. In this analysis, it is not only
direct health effects that are of importance, but also the
impact on those values that are often impossible to quan-
tify, but are so important, such as the aesthetic impacts of
changes in the recreational values of the environment.
(Gordon MacDonakl, The MITRE Corporation)
He felt that these concerns should be among the earliest
issues to be discussed, studied, and resolved before
large-scale commitment to a technology is made,
because occupational safety and health issues are
largely independent of siting, occupational safety and
health assessments should really precede overall
environmental assessment.
(Kenneth Bridbord, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health)
Several witnesses discussed potential approaches
to the application of environmental criteria. One
described two models that could be used to integrate
environmental factors into technology decisionmaking.
The first model is to have a periodic review to identify
and avoid potential 'show stoppers'...things that would
stop the technology dead and which unless overcome
would make continuation unwise. It is my impression
that this is the motivating element of the current DOE
process. But a second model is to have an interactive
process in which environmental and energy conserva-
tion factors are influential in steering the technology
development along one path as opposed to another path.
(Larry Moss, National Coal Policy Project)
Another witness had a slightly different perspective on
the role of environmental criteria in the review process.
The review process is only useful and accomplishing its
objectives if it can result in a negative decision. This
does not appear to be the case within the Department of
Energy today. Once a project enters the funding pipe-
line for basic research, it appears to be a foregone con-
clusion that it will proceed unmolested through the key
decision points in the PPMS to commercialization.
(Mark McCiellan, Pennsylvania Citizens Advisory
Council)
The process should be modified to include thresholds or
Another scientist noted that in evaluating energy
technologies,
environmental and health considerations cover a span
from site-specific to those that are truly global in nature.
One might look to the acid rain problem as an indication
of growing interest in regional concerns.. .We must also
include the internal environment of an energy-
generating facility, which brings us into the important
area of worker protection, health, and safety.
(Chester Richmond, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
Regarding this last concern, a representative from the
National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health
said that
the issue of occupational safety and health has generally
been given relatively low priority and visibility in the
development of new energy technologies.
(Kenneth Bridbord, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health)
environmental conditions which must be met during
each development phase. Any deficiencies or unaccept-
able environmental problems should be a condition for
temporarily halting and in severe cases canceling a proj-
ect. In the case of the project that does not meet the
threshold, the DOE Undersecretary should have the
discretion to allow the project to proceed...but only to
the next phase, and under conditional approval which
would stipulate that specified environmental concerns
must be resolved in a specified time period, or the proj-
ect will be placed on permanent hold at that phase. No
technology should ever be approved for commercializa-
tion unless all thresholds are satisfactorily met.
(Mark McCiellan, Pennsylvania Citizens Advisory
Council)
Environmental issues are currently examined in
Environmental Readiness Documents (ERDs). One
witness discussed shortcomings, primarily a lack of
thoroughness, in the way the ERD deals with these
issues.
ix
-------
ERDs should address five areas: the current state of
knowledge about the health, safety, and environmental
impacts that would be created by deployment of the
technology; available control technologies; the current
and proposed regulations which will affect commer-
cialization; the areas of environmental concern for
which information is inadequate and further research is
required; and the likelihood of significant delay in attain-
ing program objectives because of environmental con-
cerns. The ERDs tend to present data unsystematically
and to emphasize qualitative rather than quantitative
analysis. Most ERDs treat the current state of knowledge
about environmental concerns insufficiently. They omit
definitions of the origin and size of the environmental
concerns ....ERDs now merely list a potpourri of
research needs and their dollar value. They should
make some effort to prioritize these needs.... Environ-
mental issues are now identified haphazardly. A more
logical approach, used in many of the analyses at
Brookhaven, would go through the entire fuel cycles of
each of the technologies and identify possible environ-
mental conflicts.
(Samuel Morris for Leonard Hamilton, Brookhaven
National Laboratory)
Finally, a witness discussed the importance of
developing and applying environmental criteria early in
the process
prior to siting decisions. Today these considerations
usually enter after individual sites have been selected
and are being evaluated and after the battle lines have
been drawn. If we use these criteria early in the process
of identifying candidate sites for demonstration projects
or for full-scale projects, we could ease—if not
avoid—many last-minute confrontations.
(Allan Hirsch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
5. Appropriate Levels for Treating
Environmental Issues
A concern expressed in each workshop and
repeated at the National Hearing was that agencies at
the State and local levels, whose residents lived near
planned projects, were not given a clear role in the DOE
decisionmaking process.
Most of the assessment of the environmental impact
is.. .done on the national level. Most of the serious envi-
ronmental effects of the new large-scale technologies
will be felt most severely at the regional and local levels
where the energy facilities are actually located. These
effects must be examined closely.
(Susan Tachau, National Center for Appropriate
Technology)
Participants felt that more responsibility for envi-
ronmental assessment should be delegated to these
local levels to increase the likelihood that local con-
cerns, as well as generic technology concerns, would be
dealt with at appropriate times. Local, State, or regional
officials have a familiarity with their own environment
that results in a deeper understanding of the potential
range and severity of impacts a project may cause. This
information must be considered along with generic
technical data in making technology project decisions.
In discussing the importance of continued research at all
levels, another witness recommended that
DOE...should coordinate its funding sources so that
both site-specific... and generic work can be
pursued...Answers to the regional and global concerns
most probably will arise from the generic research con-
ducted as part of the core programs at various
laboratories.
Further,
non-Federal levels of government will become the foci
of decisions on environmental tradeoffs among energy
policy alternatives. Harmony between energy develop-
ment and regional concerns will be largely defined at the
regional level, with the Federal government defining the
boundaries of acceptability, offering incentives for
actions and decisions that are in the national interest,
and helping resolve conflicts that arise between States
and regions whose actions and decisions affect one
another.
Therefore,
DOE should make special efforts to keep State and
especially local officials involved, as projects proceed
through the environmental evaluation process, primarily
through improved information dissemination, assistance
to outside groups in preparing EISs, and establishing
local planning and review groups.
(Chester Richmond, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
And one witness complained of a present situation.
DOE has spent millions studying the Geysers. We're
practically an annuity for the National Labs. But our
local government still doesn't have the basic environ-
mental and economic information it needs in a form it
can use. We tend to think it might be because no one
ever came to us and asked us. Local government is too
often treated as the object of some anthropological field
trip. Our geographic jurisdiction seems to be considered
as some underdeveloped colonial possession, just right
for exploitation.
(Mary Jadiker, Lake County, California, Planning
Commission)
Many participants stressed that the role of local and
State agencies should not be limited to reviewing
documents or decisions. Instead, these organizations
should be involved in a steering capacity before final
siting decisions are made and then throughout the life of
a project. As one witness stated,
We're the ones who see, hear, smell, pay for, or benefit
from our 'go' decisions. Obviously, we feel those
ultimate decisions must be made at the local level.
(Mary Jadiker, Lake County, California, Planning
Commission)
-------
6. Public Participation
The clearest theme to emerge from the workshops
and the National Hearing was that public involvement in
DOE's management and decisionmaking systems has
been woefully inadequate. Hearing witnesses expressed
a deep sense of frustration in their efforts to participate
in DOE's decisionmaking process. Through their com-
ments, they reinforced the four overall criticisms of
DOE's interactions with the public that were made at the
workshops, and they offered some specific recommenda-
tions.
First, the amount and quality of information
available to the public is inadequate. Important internal
documents are not systematically disseminated, and
documents that are supposed to be available upon request
are difficult, if not impossible to obtain. Materials
distributed are frequently highly technical and laden
with bureaucratic jargon.
Second, opportunities for effective public participa-
tion in the decisionmaking process are inadequate.
DOE technology management processes do not
systematically involve the public until mandated by
NEPA requirements. At this point in the process, many
critical decisions have already been made. The public is
never given an opportunity to affect the choices DOE
makes among alternative technology options. Accord-
ing to one witness,
We can see that DOE is not involving a wider public in
the decisionmaking process, and it is our view that they
should be doing so and doing so very early. Early par-
ticipation outside the agency, we believe, is necessary
for the effective management of any program which is
ultimately going to impact the public. Now...the public
has its say (only later) and often that is inefficient and
leads to many delays which could have been prevented
if this much broader public impact had begun early.
(Richard Pratt, Pennsylvania Sierra Club)
Little attempt is made to inform the public when
decisions are going to be made and what the options
are. Thus, citizens cannot actively seek involvement at
appropriate times. This situation is exacerbated by the
seemingly constant crisis atmosphere and organizational
flux that surrounds DOE decisionmaking, which makes
it very difficult for outsiders to discern how and when to
attempt to influence the process. To improve com-
munication with the public on decisions, one witness
suggested that
we need to put more emphasis not so much on the for-
mal system of preparing and circulating documents, but
providing opportunities for various segments of the
public who are concerned with these projects—like
government agencies, the industry, environmental
community—to meet in forums where... questions can
be...(asked) and mutual respect can be generated.
(William Rogers, Gulf Mineral Resources Company)
As an example, one witness cited the National
Coal Policy Project, which aimed to reconcile the views
of energy developers and those of environmentalists.
The approach to reconciliation used in the project was
the "Rule of Reason," an alternative to adversary-type
processes, in which the primary aim of the parties was
to find an accommodative solution which did not
seriously transgress the values of either party. This
witness suggested that DOE could use this process to
help resolve important long term issues, such as those
involved in the development of synthetic fuels.
The third overall criticism of existing participation
mechanisms was that they appear to favor certain inter-
ests. Advisory committees seem to be dominated by
industry groups, and research review panels are com-
posed of narrow groups of professionals with vested
interests in pursuing traditional technology projects.
Groups that are not well-funded have difficulty being
involved in the public programs offered.
Finally, participants felt that the general attitude of
DOE officials is not favorable toward public participa-
tion. Although certain officials in DOE have a strong
personal commitment to public involvement, overall
there seems to be too little value attached to effective
citizen input. Even when lip service is given to citizen
activities, little time is devoted to adequate exchange
between top officials and representatives of public
groups. Many DOE representatives seem to consider
members of public groups as naive amateurs with little
of substance to contribute. One witness countered this
attitude:
No management system will work without meaningful
public involvement. It must be clear to the public also
how DOE responds to public... participation. Credibility
of public involvement efforts demands a responsive
Department.
(Kevin Markey, Friends of the Earth)
Witnesses stressed that the implementation of mean-
ingful measures to encourage public participation
would, in fact, result in a number of benefits to DOE:
issues would be identified earlier, conflicts would be
resolved more easily, greater public support would be
fostered, and the process would be expedited. Finally, it
would meet the public's demand and legislative man-
dates for greater participation in governmental decision-
making. As one participant summarized,
Public participation should not be viewed as an end
unto itself, rather as a means of achieving goals, and
it should always be clear that it is providing an oppor-
tunity... to participate in the decisionmaking...first you
decide what decisions have to be made, then you
decide when you are going to make those decisions,
and then you decide how it is best to bring in the public
to provide advice at those key points in the decision-
making process.
(Edith Chase, League of Women Voters)
XI
-------
7. Discussions of Specific Technologies
A number of witnesses discussed the merits or
drawbacks of specific technologies. Individual witnesses
discussed the pros and cons of geothermal develop-
ment and synthetic fuels from coal and oil shale. Others
discussed the benefits that would result from an increased
DOE emphasis on recycling, improved waste manage-
ment methods, gasohol, and the increased efficiency of
electrical appliances and equipment.
Most witnesses who discussed specific approaches
focused on conservation, renewable resources, and
appropriate technologies. One witness stated, regarding
conservation, that it
must be an inherent part of our national energy policy
and must be viewed as complementary to energy
research and development and not as an alternative
to it.
(Patricia Pelkofer, Group Against Smog and Pollution)
Another pointed out the necessity of conservation.
Conservation has been our only source of new supplies in
me recent past and will be our only source in the near
term. Conservation, along with the use of renewable
sources, should be our major source in the long term.
(Lore Keffer, Group for Recycling in Pennsylvania)
Finally, in discussing the urgency of the need to
place more emphasis on renewable sources of energy,
one witness stressed that the national energy program
must soon see
the beginning of a transition in economic and political advan-
tage from the fossil and nudear proyiams to the more
benign renewable fuel forms. The purpose of this Hear-
ing is to establish a document for congressional and
executive review. I think it has to be established here
that the people have gone on record as being concerned
about a future that is dominated by dead ends and
disappointments. A self-sustaining renewable fuel
should be priced below the use of our rapidly depleting
reserves by policy. To give the petroleum or synthetic
fuels programs artktfical supports and financial benefits
is to work counter to baste principle, and it is to succumb
to political irrelevance and cowardice, to oppose the
inevitable, to delay the day until we must face our cold
and hungry children in the darkness of our own selfish
short-sightedness because we waited too long.
(Scott Crytser, Pennsylvania Gasohol Commission)
xii
-------
October 3, 1979
Panel:
DR. STEPHEN GAGE, Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
DR.STEVEN REZNEK, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Engineering and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency
RUTH CLUSEN, Assistant Secretary for Environment
Department of Energy
WILLIAM HEDEMAN, Director, Office of Environmental Review,
Environmental Protection Agency
GEORGE PATTON, Environmental Affairs Director,
American Petroleum Institute
TOBY PIERCE, Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Protection Agency
ROBERT SIEK, Departmental Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Xlll
-------
Contents
MORNING SESSION
PAGE
PAGE
1 Introductory remarks, DR. STEPHEN GAGE
2 Further remarks, DR. STEVEN REZNEK
MS. RUTH CLUSEN
2 Statement of DR. GORDON MACDONALD
MITRE Corporation
Questions and remarks
4 MS. CLUSEN
4 DR. PATTON
5 DR. REZNEK
5 DR. GAGE
6 MR. HEDEMAN
6 DR. REZNEK
6 Statement of MR. TOBY ANTHONY
Research - Cottrell
Questions and remarks
8 MS. CLUSEN
8 DR. REZNEK
9 DR. GAGE
9 MR. HEDEMAN
10 Statement of MR. JOEL ROBINSON
Union Oil Company
Questions and remarks
11 MR. SIEK
12 MR. SIEK
12 DR. REZNEK
13 MR. HEDEMAN
13 MS. CLUSEN
13 MR. SIEK
14 DR. PATTON
14 Statement of MS. MERILYN REEVES
League of Women Voters of Maryland
Questions and remarks
16 DR. PATTON
17 MS. CLUSEN
18 DR. REZNEK
19 Statement of MR. KEVIN MARKEY
Friends of the Earth
Questions and remarks
22 DR. PATTON
23 MS. CLUSEN
23 DR. REZNEK
24 MR. HEDEMAN
25 MS. REEVES
25 DR. REZNEK
xiv
-------
Contents (Continued)
AFTERNOON SESSION
PAGE
PAGE
27 Statement of MR. MACAULEY WHITING
Dow Chemical Company - National Coal Policy
Project
Questions and remarks
29 DR. REZNEK
29 MR. MOSS
29 MR. PIERCE
30 MR. MOSS
30 MS. CLUSEN
30 DR. REZNEK
31 Statement of MR. LARRY MOSS
National Coal Policy Project
Questions and remarks
32 MS. CLUSEN
33 MR. WHITING
33 DR. REZNEK
33 MR. PIERCE
33 Statement of MR. LOWELL ENDAHL
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Questions and remarks
36 DR. REZNEK
36 MR. IVES
36 MR. PIERCE
37 MS. CLUSEN
37 DR. REZNEK
37 Statement of MR. DAVID PATE
Alabama Solar Energy Coalition
Questions and remarks
41 MR. STEVENS
42 MR. STEVENS
42 DR. REZNEK
42 DR. PATTON
43 DR. REZNEK
43 DR. PATTON
44 DR. PATTON
44 Statement of DR. BENJAMIN SCHLESINGER
American Gas Association
Questions and remarks
46 MR. PIERCE
47 MR. PIERCE
47 MR. SIEK
47 DR. REZNEK
48 DR. REZNEK
49 Statement of MS. JO JONES
Georgia Clean Water Coalition
Questions and remarks
50 DR. REZNEK
Adjournment
xv
-------
-------
Proceedings
Introductory Remarks
DR. GAGE: Good morning. I am Stephen Gage,
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
at the Environmental Protection Agency and I would
like to welcome all of you to the 1979 Section 11
National Hearing.
The impetus for this Hearing is the Federal Non-
nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of
1974. That Act created a National program for
research, development, and demonstration in the non-
nuclear energy technologies with a total Federal invest-
ment of nearly $20 billion over a 10-year period.
Further, it required the development of "tech-
nological capabilities to support the broadest range of
energy policy options through conservation and the use
of domestic resources by socially and environmentally
acceptable means."
Originally, Section 11 directed the Council on
Environmental Quality to carry out "a continuing
analysis of the adequacy of attention given to energy
conservation and environmental protection" in energy
technology development. CEQ was also directed to
hold annual hearings to involve the public in their
analysis and report the results of that analysis to the
President and to the Congress.
Since 1974, there have been a few changes, of
course. ERDA has been replaced by DOE, and the Sec-
tion 11 review has been reassigned from CEQ to the
Office of Research and Development within EPA.
However, despite the changes in organization, the
Section 11 review is as important today as it was in
1974. Perhaps even more so because as this country
brings major new initiatives in synthetic fuels and solar
energy, a more opportune time for the public to help
influence the direction those initiatives take will probably
not come again.
The President has emphasized the seriousness of
our energy situation. He is also committed to protecting
the environment.
In his July 15, 1979 address, he juxtaposed two
very important and interesting ideas. He said, "We will
protect our environment, but when this nation critically
needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it."
We are entering a very crucial period. The deci-
sions made in the next few years will determine the
nation's energy security, its economic well-being, and
the quality of its environment. These decisions will be
made and will be made soon. The pace of events really
allows no other alternative. What we do now or what
we don't do will profoundly affect our future.
Federal decisionmaking on energy and environ-
mental issues is becoming even more critical than it has
been in the past. This Section 11 Hearing can help to
improve those decisions.
Last year's Section 11 review focused on the
allocation of research and development dollars among
different energy technologies. We discovered that
reasonable men and women could disagree quite elo-
quently and strongly on whether or not the research
budget reflected adequate attention to environmental
protection and energy conservation.
This year we have concentrated on the DOE
decisionmaking process rather than the results of those
decisions. We've tried to find out how information on
environmental concerns is used in the major manage-
ment decisions concerning DOE's technology research
programs and projects.
As you know, a new Secretary of Energy has
recently been appointed, a departmental reorganization
has been announced, and a major review of DOE proj-
ect management is underway. Thus, it is particularly
timely to make findings and recommendations as to
how environmental factors should be incorporated in
the decisionmaking process.
We believe that the underlying issues, which are
the focus of this year's Section 11 evaluation, are
applicable. We hope that you will help us examine these
issues further and that Congress and DOE will use your
comments in developing the research program necessary
to ensure that environmental concerns are fully inte-
grated into our search for an end to the dependence on
foreign energy.
We feel especially fortunate to have assembled
both a .Hearing panel and a group of witnesses of great
distinction. These people represent a wide spectrum of
energy and environmental interests. I'd particularly like
to welcome to our panel my distinguished colleague,
Ms. Ruth Clusen who is the Assistant Secretary for
Environment in the Department of Energy and whose
office in DOE will play a critical role in implementing the
results of such deliberations.
Now I would like to introduce Dr. Steve Reznek
who heads the Office of Environmental Engineering
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
and Technology in EPA. This office is responsible for
organizing the Section 11 Hearing and conducting
the entire review. Steve will introduce the other panel
members and describe how we'll be proceeding during
the next three days. Steve.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Let me introduce the
other members of the Panel, Starting at the far end is
Dr. George Patton of the American Petroleum Institute.
Sitting next to him is Robert Siek, Deputy Commissioner
in the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Next
to him is William Hedeman of the Office of Environ-
mental Review in the Environmental Protection Agency.
I would like to ask Ruth Clusen if she would like to
make some opening remarks or statement.
MS. CLUSEN: Thank you, Dr. Reznek. I would
simply like to say that I have followed the process of the
Section 11 review with considerable interest during the
months it has been evolving. I have had good reports
on the workshops that were held around the country. I
have read the documents including the report which is
the basis for the Hearing today and 1 look forward to
hearing the opinions of a really remarkable group of
witnesses.
I think my commitment personally to the process of
public participation in the decisionmaking process in
any part of the government is well known and 1 want to
underscore the fact that it is an on-going commitment in
my role at the Department of Energy. It is one I have
vigorously pursued during the year that I have been at
the Agency.
I think that there is a great deal to be gained from
holding this Hearing just at this time. As Dr. Gage
indicated, we are once again undergoing changes in the
decisionmaking process at the Department of Energy so
this is perhaps a time when it is appropriate to attempt
to have a different kind of input, a different kind of pro-
cess. So the timing has worked out so that there is an
opportunity to do some things differently as we see
Secretary Duncan and his administration unfold.
Other than that, I can only say that there are any
number of witnesses who are appearing in the next
three days with whom I have had a long personal or
professional association. I respect their opinions and I
believe that we are all here for the same purpose, to
make suggestions that will result in improving public
participation at the Department of Energy, especially
through my office. Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you, Ruth. As Steve Gage
said, last year we concentrated on the relative division
of the resources in the Department of Energy's
Research, Development, and Demonstration Program.
We heard very eloquently that there was very little
agreement or consensus about how to allocate those
funds between competing technologies.
The people who represented solar interests believed
very strongly there was not enough money in the solar
programs. The people who represented the develop-
ment of synthetic natural gas, for example, pointed out
the environmental benefits with replacing natural gas
with a clean-burning fuel and indicated there was not
enough emphasis in the development of those processes.
Because of this extremely wide and strongly held
divergence of opinion, we tried to approach the subject
this year in a slightly different way. Rather than center-
ing discussion on the allocation of resources between
programs, we examined the decisionmaking process
that is used in DOE in deciding whether to go ahead
and develop a technology or not. In particular, how
environmental information is used in that decision-
making process and how it affects the actual decisions
that are made.
We also very much wanted to not make this a
study of professional management analysts, environ-
mental analysts done in Washington. So we put
together a document that described the process in some
detail and went to a series of four regional workshops
where we invited members of the public in to review
that process.
Many of the witnesses that you will hear over the
next three days were people who participated in those
workshops, and much of the comments that we hope to
hear in the next three days of hearings are the analysis
and thinking of the people who attended those work-
shops and have reviewed the DOE planning process.
We have also invited a set of witnesses who are the
professionals in the health and environmental sciences
area who are concerned with the development of new
energy technologies and they will comment on the
same questions.
Each witness will have 10 minutes for testimony
and we will then open the discussion for questioning by
the panel for 15 minutes. If any member of the au-
dience wishes to address a question to the witness,
there will be 3x5 cards available which will be collected
by two representatives of our staff and they will be
brought to me for addressing the question.
We have a variety of documents available outside.
We have the transcript of the hearing we had last year,
our summary report that we prepared last year. We
have the document describing the DOE planning process
that we used for the regional workshops this summer
and we have a prehearing document outlining the six
major issues that we will hope to receive testimony on.
We will complete the 3 days of hearings and the
record will remain open for 14 days. We will be glad to
receive written comments from any of the witnesses or
any members of the public. At the end of that period,
we will proceed under the charge of Section 11 to
prepare the report to the Congress, to the Assistant
Secretaries, and to the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency on our findings regarding the
relative emphasis given to environmental protection in
energy conservation.
-------
Statement of Dr. MacDonald
That concludes my opening remarks. We will pro-
ceed to the first witness. Our first witness is Dr. Gordon
MacDonald. Dr. MacDonald is currently with the Mitre
Corporation where he is Senior Scientist in Residence.
Gordon.
DR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Steve. After a
most trying summer of long gasoline lines and curtailed
vacations, it is now autumn and cool nights seem to
remind us that winter is approaching. It was the fall of
1973, six years ago, that put into focus the great U.S.
dependence on liquid hydrocarbon fuel and increased
awareness that a growing percentage of this supply of
fuel was coming in from outside the borders of the
United States.
This led to the creation of a new agency, devoted
to the research, development, and demonstration of
energy technologies to solve our nation's energy prob-
lems in an "environmentally acceptable" manner. That
agency's life was brief and the mission it had been
designated to perform was given to a new entity—the
Department of Energy.
i have been asked to present my views on the ade-
quacy of that Department's attention to environmental
concerns in the pursuit of developing and deploying
new energy technologies and conservation measures.
Attention to such concerns can only be adequately
addressed in a stable organization, and it cannot be
claimed that the Department of Energy's short history
has been one of stability. The task of taking into account
environmental concerns requires the successful balanc-
ing of technological, environmental, social, and
economic factors. Such balancing demands strong
leadership, exceptional managerial and administrative
skills, technical excellence in both technological
development and environmental matters, and a com-
mitment to national goals and objectives. There is, of
course, no organization that meets, in full, these
requirements, and DOE certainly does not at present.
That presents a dilemma in trying to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of a function which must be included as an
integral part of each developing energy technology.
In evaluating technologies from an environmental
standpoint, it is crucial to compare the new technology
with what it replaces or augments as well as with other
new competing technologies. In any research organiza-
tion, there is a natural hesitancy to compare the value of
one research project against another for fear that some
major breakthrough may be squelched. However, this
attitude cannot be carried into the development and
demonstration stages.
The cost of research, while often considerable, is
usually much less than that of developing and
demonstrating a new technology. Trade-offs must be
made and the decisionmaking system must evaluate
and incorporate economic and environmental trade-offs
at all stages of development and demonstration.
The process of evaluating competitive technologies
requires explicit criteria which should include risk
evaluation, potential for environmental degradation,
aesthetics and social concerns, and one aspect so often
overlooked—the worldwide consequences of developing
a technology.
All energy technologies pose some risk to man. For
energy technologies, these risks must be evaluated
through the entire fuel cycle from raw material produc-
tion to the disposal of wastes. The obvious criteria
include impacts of air, land, water, and the biosphere.
The changes brought about in these resources must
then be evaluated in terms of how they affect man.
In this analysis, it is not only direct health effects
that are of importance, but also the impact on those
values that are often impossible to quantify, but are so
important, such as the aesthetic impacts or changes in
the recreational values of the environment.
When I spoke of worldwide concerns, I was not just
alluding to consumption of the non-renewable wprld
resources, I also mean the environmental impacts on
the world, of energy usage in the United States, such
as, altering the acidity of rain or even changing world
climate.
The burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass
produces carbon dioxide in differing amounts per unit of
thermal energy delivered. The conversion of these
resources from one form to another—coal to oil or
biomass to alcohol also generates carbon dioxide and
the amount generated is highly dependent on the
technology that is employed. Carbon dioxide is known
to affect the energy balance in the atmosphere and large
increases in the carbon dioxide content could alter
worldwide climate. Future generations (and the future
generation may well be the next) may see major shifts in
world climate. The comparative potential impact on
world climate of various energy technologies has, I am
afraid, been given scant attention by the Department
of Energy.
I will now focus more specifically on the Depart-
ment and the opportunity for non-DOE interests to
participate in the decisionmaking process.
An examination of the present system reveals that
environmental research on a developing technology
often gets done only because of the interest of particular
individuals rather than because there is a system which
drives the research.
The priorities for funding environmental research
in DOE have tended toward support of long-term, more
esoteric research rather than developing research pro-
grams to meet the needs of developing technologies.
In the past, the developers of technology have not
been overjoyed to use project funds to support envi-
ronmental activities. It is my observation that the adver-
sary positions taken in the past in such situations are
starting to change. The technologists have started to
realize that solving environmental concerns may be the
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
key to rapid, successful commercialization of a tech-
nology. The environmentalists within DOE have started
to play a more active role in the formulation of program
objectives. Those shifts in attitude are the keys to
the successful merging of environmental and technical
concerns.
For example, let us examine a small program in
fossil energy, Underground Coal Gasification (UCG).
There is a program plan and an Environmental
Development Plan (EDP) both of which were recently
updated. The environmental research-associated with
the program has been funded by the Environmental
Control Technology Division under DOE's Assistant
Secretary for Environment and EPA's Extraction
Technology Branch as well as by direct program funding.
These funding arrangements were put in place prior to
the development of the first Environmental Develop-
ment Plan and in my view illustrate the kind of working
together between environmentalists and technologists
that will change the situation within the Department.
Although there has been considerable effort expended
in the comparison of Underground Coal Gasification
economics with all of the technologies it may replace,
augment, or compete with, no such undertaking has
been attempted in the environmental area.
Some effort has been made to inform local public
interest groups and State and local governmental agen-
cies about activities in the Underground Coal Gasifica-
tion on a project-ty-project basis. The involvement of
the public has been by the initiative of the various proj-
ect leaders rather than by a deliberate effort to include
local interests in the planning and analysis of projects.
Mechanisms to involve the public on a regular basis will
need to be built into the system as projects mature.
The next procurement action for that program,
Underground Coal Gasification, will be a major system
acquisition. At this stage, there will be an opportunity
for input to both environmental and technical decisions
through the Project Environmental Plan (PEP).
Thus, there will be an opportunity to allow non-
Department of Energy interests a voice in the decision-
making process. What remains uncertain, at least in my
mind, is how the public will have that voice. The Project
Environmental Plan, in principal, will focus for the first
time on the necessary environmental R&D with its funding
levels and milestones.
It is not quite fair to pick out one specific example
from the multitude of DOE projects. However, Under-
ground Coal Gasification has many desirable features
for comparison with other technologies and may be
viewed as proto typical. It is at an early stage in develop-
ment with promise for commercialization in the late
1980's and there is the beginning of a good working
relationship between the technologists and the environ-
mentalists in DOE. DOE is moving, however slowly, in
the direction to accomplish the objective of energy
development in an environmentally acceptable manner.
It still, though, has a way to go.
To carefully scrutinize all of the technologies using
the same resource and producing the same project, and
compare them using environmental criteria, then do this
technology area by technology area at the varying
stages of development, and then cross-comparing
technologies is a difficult, arduous, and politically
dangerous effort. However, these are the comparisons
which must be made. They cannot be done by DOE
technology developers alone. They cannot be done by
DOE environmental researchers alone. EPA cannot do
the task alone. There are vital interests at stake here.
Yes, the United States needs new energy sources.
The United States also needs to have its energy policy
evaluated from environmental as well as technological
perspectives. An informed public which includes indus-
try, public interest groups, and the local population
must be aware of and be able to influence the course
and choices being made for our energy future and for
their particular locale. Thank you, Dr. Reznek.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much. We will
take some questions from the panel. Does the panel
have some questions?
MS. CLUSEN: Perhaps I could begin, Dr. Mac-
Donald. Thank you for your statement. I agree with you
that the Project Environmental Plans, which are
relatively new, offer the potential for doing what we
have been wanting to do. I would be interested in hear-
ing you pursue in some detail, if you can, exactly that
question of how we can do this, particularly when it
comes to local involvement?
I am wondering whether you are thinking of site-
specific kinds of activities, documents that are written
for the public rather than for technical specialists, or
other means you think we might use?
DR. MacDONALD: I think it is very important
in projects such as Underground Coal Gasification,
since I have used that as an illustration, to be site-
specific. The people in the immediate vicinity, and that
immediate vicinity may actually be a larger area than
just a few square miles, will be affected.
Often, the documents prepared in proceeding with
such a project are highly technical, contain a great deal
of the necessary technical detail, engineering detail, envi-
ronmental control technologies, but presented in such a
way that the public would have a very great difficulty in
evaluating them and in understanding the impact of that
project on their community or their locale.
So I believe the point that you make of the necessity,
Ms. Clusen, of putting together documents which spell
out what is going to happen in the language that the
general public will understand is critically important if
the Project Environmental Plan is going to have the
desired effect of bringing the non-DOE interests into the
decisionmaking process.
DR. PATTON: I am George Pattern with the
American Petroleum Institute. It seems to me that
-------
Statement of Dr. MacDonald
if DOE were to pursue their Energy Development Pro-
gram, and the example you raised, Underground Coal
Gasification, and do so within the existing framework of
law, you would then have them controlling emissions to
the point where they didn't violate national ambient air
quality standards, which are presumably set to protect
public health. They presumably would work within the
restrictions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act, Solid Waste Recovery Act, and if they do those
things, that is, if they do their job legally, I wonder what
it is that necessitates a more intensive local involvement—
I didn't even get into State and local laws that
presumably the area would have certain additional, if
necessary, and my concern is that while on the one
hand we recognize that collectively we should be trying
to do something to ease our energy dilemma, it also
seems that that can run head on into, quote, "micro
concerns," local concerns if you will, and so my concern
is that in an effort to try to have additional energy for the
nation as a whole we offer additional impediments to
that goal if we adopt a policy you just propose, which
is more local involvement. Don't forget that as a
backdrop I have said I suppose and presume that DOE
will work within existing law. So they are going to
protect the public health and all known media.
I would be interested in some specific examples
where you feel that the local public would be in some
way harmed were they not informed through this local
education program that you have recommended.
DR. MacDONALD: In addition to protecting
public health, and it is a point that I made in my remarks
here, is the need to take into account those impacts that
are not related to public health. That is, the social
impacts, the impacts on recreational values, the impacts
on the community as a whole.
I think if you bring a project into a community,
there will be some economic benefits, the tax base will
be increased, services may increase, but there also may
be some negative impacts on the community as a whole.
I think it is proper that the community have a voice in
those decisions. I agree, there is always going to be a
national interest, that national interest may be over-
riding, but the local participation and the local interest
should be weighed against the national interest. In the
end, DOE may wish to proceed with the project on the
grounds of national need but in making that decision it
should, at the very minimum, be aware of any local
concern.
As a specific example, I have followed over the
years, as many have done, what coal development in
the vicinity of GHIette, Wyoming has done or how it has
changed that community. It has some obvious positive
benefits and some disbenefits to that development. I
think the acceptance of the community of the new proj-
ect, Underground Coal Gasification Project, in the par-
ticular community will be greater if the citizens have a
voice or at least are given the opportunity to voice their
concern and to perhaps make suggestions of ways of
making that particular project more compatible with the
interests of the community.
DR. REZNEK: Dr. MacDonald, 1 would like to
return to some of your remarks about intercomparisons
between technologies that are using the same resource
and producing competing products and comparisons
between technologies. Does that mean that there are
well-defined ways, for example, emissions per unit of
energy produced, for different kinds of pollutants or
different kinds of resource use like water resource use,
land disturbance, that can be laid out for each and every
technology?
DR. MacDONALD: I won't claim that the meth-
odology is available to carry out such a compara-
tive analysis for all technology, but I think we
should be working towards developing that method-
ology. The examples you quote are, I think, very
appropriate. One can look at a variety of technologies
to gasify coal to high Btu gas and these technologies will
have different requirements with respect to water, there
will be different emissions, whether they are nitrogen
oxides or carbon dioxide, or whatever, that one can, I
think, attempt to carry out this comparative analysis.
My point is that I think that kind of comparison
should certainly begin in the developmental, and carry
through the demonstration phase to guide decisions as
to what should eventually enter the commercialization
process.
DR. REZNEK: Is that type of information relatively
available now in the EISs and could it be understood
by either a technical person or a reasonably informed
layjjerson?
DR. MacDONALD: In my view— in the first
place, there are relatively few assessments that are
going on as far as Environmental Impact Statements.
There are environmental assessments that one can look
at. I think that some of that information is contained
within the documentation. I wouldn't say that it is con-
tained in a way that everybody could pick it out and
make this comparative analysis on their own, just the
manner and way of preparing information for either
environmental assessments of environmental impact
statements has to be improved.
But I think it is important to make this comparative
analyst's because the environmental impacts in making
the final commercialization decision should be weighed
along with the technical and economic consequences of
that decision.
DR. GAGE: You have probably been one of the
most vigorous spokespersons in the country pointing
out the potential problems with the climate modification
resulting from buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmos-
phere. That, of course, is an effect which reaches far
beyond the effects that I think we are talking about
implicitly here, at least.
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
Most of the assessments which have been done in
the past typically focused on the effects which occur
within the general vicinity of a plant or the general
vicinity of an energy development. How do you take
into account such large regional impacts as acid rain or
even such global impacts as carbon dioxide buildup in
carrying out these comparative assessments?
DR. MacDONALD: 1 think in the development
of any particular technology or in the early comparison
of competitive technology, the carbon dioxide compo-
nent is one that should enter into consideration as well
as the local effects of the acid rain impact should go
along. I think the important point is that fuel resources
or energy process is an incremental one. We make
decision-by-decision on a technology, then on site, and
given one set of decisions, this then tends to channel the
direction in which our fuel resources will be obtained.
If we don't at every incremental step look to see
whether some of the potential worldwide impacts, and I
think the overall view is incomplete, clearly the impact
of one or two commercialized synthetic gas plants are
going to have a very, very small impact on the carbon
dioxide content of the atmosphere worldwide and,
therefore, on climate. However, if those two early
plants lead to a massive development of synthetic fuel
through incremental decisions, at which stage you say
the next little step is just going to have a very small
effect, the sum of those very small effects can be
very major.
MR. HEDEMAN: Following up on that question,
it seems to me I am not sure that I fully understood your
answer but the one problem that I had hoped you
would get to is one that I think we face in terms of
understanding the cumulative impacts of what we are
doing with those that are being sponsored or under-
taken by other countries.
Personally, I had the fortune last week of attending
an international conference of the European countries
where that was discussed. It became apparent to me
that the United States appears to be far more willing and
able to discuss this problem than many of the other
countries, which leads to the rather logical conclusion
that the information available in other countries, which
the United States would need to compare or to use in
assessing the cumulative impact is simply not available.
I have described the problem. The question I
would have is do you have a suggestion as to how that
information can be better developed on an international
sphere?
DR. MacDONALD: Yes, I think that there are
several international organizations which I turn to,
perhaps first to the International Energy Agency as a
logical agency to attempt to collect information with
respect to, let's say, the generation of carbon dioxide.
In fact, one can make a pretty good worldwide
estimate right now knowing the quantities and kinds of
fuels that the individual nations use. But as new
technologies come in in which coal is converted to oil or
gas or similar synthetic fuels, then we will need to know
a good deal more in detail about the character of that
technology in order to evaluate the emissions of CO2
and the contribution of that technology to the world-
wide loading of the atmosphere by carbon dioxide.
I think the agency, such as the International Energy
Agency, perhaps the United Nations Environmental
Program, UNEP, as being two agencies that could assist
in bringing that kind of information together.
DR. REZNEK: Dr. MacDonald, I have one final
question. You have mentioned local impacts, impacts
on aesthetics around a certain site, you mentioned
global problems and international problems, it seems to
me that one of the important concerns is to separate
those types of issues and allow them to be addressed
and decided and those decisions communicated in
separate forums. If all forums have to participate in all
issues, it will slow down very important decisionmaking.
Would you care to comment on that?
DR. MacDONALD: I would agree completely
with you. I think that for the local kinds of interests and
problems that the process by which the Project Environ-
mental Plan is put together or commented on, that that
document is the appropriate document to take into
account local interest.
For these broader concerns, the questions of
worldwide climate changes, I think those should be inte-
gral parts of generic environmental impact statement on
particular technologies. For example, a project not
related to DOE, but I think it provides an appropriate
example, the Environmental Impact Statement, on our
coal releasing program certainly should have had a
comparative analysis of the impact on CO2 proceeding
in various ways with co-leasing, and I think that policy
documents such as'the National Energy Plan, NEP 2
that was issued a few months ago, should have had a
clear statement of the implications to the carbon dioxide
problem of the proposals contained within that Plan.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Before moving on to
the next witness, let me remind you that if any member
of the audience wants to discuss a question, there are
3x5 cards available. I also neglected to say that we will
take an open period for any witness who is not scheduled
now to testify. We would like to hold testimony to
about five minutes per person, unscheduled witnesses.
That period will start at 4:30, at the close of the day.
Our next witness is Dr. Toby Anthony of Research-
Cottrell. Research-Cottrell is one of the major suppliers
of pollution control technology.
MR. ANTHONY: I have to get rid of the title
"Doctor" because I don't deserve it. I am not a Ph.D.
but thank you anyway, Steve.
Good morning. I am privileged to be here today to
comment on the very important subject of whether envi-
ronmental consequences of the application of energy
technologies are being addressed properly.
-------
Statement of Mr. Anthony
Research-Cottrell is probably the oldest pollution
control company in the world, with interests in nearly
every phase of environmental control, and most recently
energy development. I think we have insights into the
problems of developing energy resources in an environ-
mentally safe way. Hopefully, these insights will be
helpful. 1 am Director of Business Development and
Washington Affairs here in the Washington office.
I did not attend any of the regional workshops in
July, but I have studied the background document sup-
plied by EPA and am fully aware of the findings reached
at those workshops. I might also add parenthetically
that Research-Cottrell has no major contracts with
either EPA or DOE for developing environmental
technologies. Most of the funding for our R&D projects
come from internal sources and is used for product
improvement. So I feel I can speak with much less bias
than I would have some 10 years ago.
I would like to address my comments to the roles of
interested parties involved in the decision making and
information dissemination process. My objective is to
pinpoint the difficulties caused by the interaction of
interested parties, to discuss the underlying factors caus-
ing these difficulties, and to define what I think the
proper roles should be.
I will assume at the outset that all the parties, that
is, the public, DOE, EPA, state and local officials, and I
might add private firms engaged in pollution control and
energy R&D have one purpose in mind.
I am persuaded that we have a singleminded pur-
pose, namely, developing our energy resources in an
environmentally safe manner as rapidly as possible and
in the most cost-effective way.
To accomplish this purpose I submit the first step is
to identify who is responsible for measuring the threat of
pollutants to health and the environment and who is to
assure the existence of best control or substitute
technology. Clearly, Congress has assigned this
authority to the EPA with the assistance of the public
and the scientific community. To back this authority,
Congress has permitted EPA to conduct health effects
studies and R&D to develop the best available control
technology.
We are all aware of the input from the public and
scientific community particularly during the technical
assessment process prior to issuing standards, and of
the numerous management advisory groups at a good
number of levels within EPA and DOE, and of the many
interactions resulting from EPA's various publications.
However, this is not to say that each interested party
is or ever will be fully informed. That would be nearly
impossible to accomplish. This point is well documented
in the findings resulting from the workshops.
As I view it, the problem is not so much insufficient
dissemination of information. On the contrary, we
know only too well pollution control is a horrendous
task. Since we are trying to control an exceptional
number of pollutants, it is an overwhelming task to con-
vey confidence and sufficient data to each interested
party.
Prior to the 70's, our concerns were directed
primarily at aggregate pollutants such as flyash in air
and biological-oxygen-demand material in water. These
pollutants were clearly threats, easily measurable, and
rather simple to control. Currently our threats involve
specific chemicals such as SO2 and chlorophenols
perhaps contained in those aggregates but extremely
complex to control or to find substitute processes. So
while it is clear to the public these chemicals are threats,
it is not so clear to them when they will be controlled.
This produces frustration which will worsen as we
deal with a constant stream of threats. We are dealing
with hundreds growing into thousands of chemicals
located in hundreds of thousands of products, waste
streams, and sites which the public demands must be
controlled. This will take years and perhaps some
pollutants will never be controlled, but those facts do
not appear to be satisfactory. This realization which is
creeping into the public's consciousness is what I think is
causing the frustration. There is much information avail-
able on these realities, not too little, which deepens this
frustration.
Energy waste streams are simply another source of
chemicals considered to be carcinogens or pollutants. It
is clear in the laws that the EPA has the essential author-
ity to define, measure, and control the threat. It is the
only sector motivated by law to exercise these functions.
Their responsibility is to do the health effects
studies with participation from public and scientific com-
munities and to develop the best available control
technology and demonstrate it.
Neither DOE nor R&D firms are motivated to do
this. DOE's job is to develop energy resources that meet
environmental standards set by EPA. Ruth Clusen's
shop, as I view it, bridges the gap between EPA and
DOE technology centers. She translates and imple-
ments EPA policy as if she were an arm of the EPA.
Several weeks ago, Congressman Toby Moffet
erroneously chastised Ruth Clusen for not being an
environmental advocate. DOE is no place for environ-
mental advocacy, EPA is. It is not inherent in DOE's
purpose to develop "best available control technology."
The law says the EPA Administrator is responsible for
that. DOE's purpose is to develop the best available
energy technology. So while EPA is motivated to
develop BACT, DOE is motivated to modify it for long
term cost-effective use.
Let me emphasize this point. No demonstrated
major technology is ready for continuous, reliable, and
economical operation over the life of the equipment. All
equipment must go through stages of redesign and
improvement until it reaches a steady-state of optimum
performance. That is what DOE is concerned with, and
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
rightfully so. That is not necessarily of concern to EPA
and according to the law, rightly so.
What about the role of RD&D firms? Pollution con-
trol companies are not motivated to develop BACT. It is
to their advantage to do product improvement work,
but not develop new pollution control technologies.
The reason being environmental standards change too
frequently.
For example, the Clean Air Act 1977 says stan-
dards should be reviewed every four years. That word
"review" creates uncertainty, not risk, to pollution con-
trol companies. It takes roughly 5 to 10 years to develop
a technology and another 5 to 10 years to recover the
investment in RD&D and marketing. Clearly, the two
schedules are out of sync. As long as EPA needs to
develop new standards and new BACT involving the
same pollutant, the uncertainty of return from potentially
obsolete technology will preclude exclusive private
investment so funding by agencies must fill the gap.
But DOE and EPA funds are limited, too. So here
we find ourselves with threats popping up every day,
much more difficult to solve than in the past, outstripping
our capability to ward those threats off. It is no wonder
we are all frustrated.
But no amount of public intercession in DOE's or
EPA's decisionmaking system will help. If the public
intervenes any further into the system, it will make it
even more difficult to satisfy our objectives. Congress
senses that environmental decisions are already imped-
ing progress in developing energy resources. That is the
reason the Energy Mobilization Board was conceived. It
was conceived by three men having lunch in Sans Souci
who convinced a few Senators too many people are
involved in decisions on energy.
Make no mistake, if the existing system will not
work efficiently to develop energy resources in an envi-
ronmentally safe manner as rapidly as possible and in a
most cost-effective way, we will end up with a mobiliza-
tion board not the public, not DOE, not EPA making
those decisions.
I can find no fault with the management system as
described in DOE. It allows for oversight by the public
on health threat issues, but excludes them where
engineering decisions are made. That is as it should be.
While EPA and the public should watch-dog DOE to
assure compliance with the law, it must be left to
engineers with designated responsibilities to provide the
proper hardware. If the results are unsatisfactory, it may
be we are trying to do too much, too soon, too
idealistically. Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. I thought your
remarks were very incisive. Are there questions from
the panel?
MS. CLUSEN: Thank you, Mr. Anthony. I have a
particular problem right now that relates to the hearings
of the House Committee on Government Operations,
and I would like to pose this question to you since you
touched upon it.
What would you see as the proper role of the Office
of Environment in the instance of coal conversion of
public utilities?
MR. ANTHONY: Well, we have some responsi-
bilities given to DOE in the Energy Act, which surprise
me because those responsibilities are also called out in
the Clean Air Act. Namely, that coal conversion should
be instituted except for some 21 exceptions, one of
them being where it impacts the non-attainment area,
for example.
I think Congress got themselves mixed up. 1 think
that that responsibility rests with EPA. Under the old
ESECA, DOE had to check with EPA on every prohibi-
tion order, or any conversion order, for their approval
and I can only assume that practice will continue which
in effect gives veto authority over environmental matters
to EPA. I do not see how you can exercise that
responsibility.
DR. REZNEK: I would like to return to our
remarks about public involvement in decisions. Your
last comments that the public has an overview function
rather than involvement in the actual decision process,
can you elaborate on how they would exercise that
overview function and the responsibilities to the agen-
cies to make sure that the information is available for
that overview.
MR. ANTHONY: I think that the system already
exists. Unfortunately, not everybody in the public can
participate in the system. For example, underway right
now at Research Triangle Park is a technical assessment
process which will lead to new source performance
standards for small industrial boilers.
I know the EPA at Research Triangle Park has tried
to solicit as many interested parties as possible and has
members of the public on their NAPTAC board. Their
judgments are on technical matters which cannot be
dealt with by all the public. Yet, EPA has involved the
public anyway. Standards will result from their delibera-
tions which must be followed by DOE. But, the public
need not help DOE meet the standards but simply
watch them to see that they do.
The public also participates in such groups as the
Management Advisory Group for construction grants
programs, Ruth Clusen has a Management Advisory
Group. Much of the public doesn't know who is on
those groups and their actions cannot be funneled back
to the public. Nor do I think the public has to know
everything that is going on.
When it comes to the oversight, this occurs when
we are ready to site a plant or when plans are underway
to site a developed energy technology somewhere. A
whole reeducation process has to take place because
there are local people who didn't know it was going to
be sited there, don't understand what the energy project
-------
Statement of Mr. Anthony
is, and are not quite sure that the pollution control
facilities are going to be sufficient.
But at this point it is too late to stop the project. It
should be DOE's or EPA's responsibility to inform loca1
people during pilot stages when a full scale plant will bt
located in their area.
DR. GAGE: Mr. Anthony, your last response
seemed to give me a little more insight into some of the
implicit meanings in your original statement. You indi-
cated the public oversight should occur more at the time
when individual sites are selected and being reviewed.
MR. ANTHONY: Two places; one, when the
health effects studies are underway.
DR. GAGE: Okay. That then I think sharpens it
even further. I guess, then, implicit in what you are say-
ing in terms of allowing the engineers, once objectives
are set, to continue along a particular path until that
path is completed leaves us with a bit of a problem,
especially with respect to technologies that are going
to be developed only over decades or at least 10, 15,
20 years.
If you recall, most of the environmental concerns
that are worried about today in dealing with toxic
chemicals in particular have become apparent only in
the last five to eight years. Your rather sweeping
approach here of setting a technology on a track and
allowing it to work its way through, allowing the
engineers to come to the final solution seems to sweep
away some very serious concerns that I think those of us
in the environmental community are trying to wrestle
with and that is how do we at least periodically review
what societal objectives are with respect to protecting
public health.
It may be all right to grandfather existing
technologies for a period of time or until a very per-
suasive case to change might be made. It may even be
all right to grandfather near-term technologies with a
new set of regulations at the time they are beginning to
emerge into commercial application. But to make such
a sweeping statement for all energy technologies appears
to really fly into the face of our experience for the last
10 years. Would you like to comment on that?
MR. ANTHONY: Yes. I would like to distinguish
between two stages involving technologies. I would like
to first talk about the technologies that are in the pilot
stage or in the study stage and are being developed.
Then I would like to address different remarks to
technologies that are being sited, this is after the com-
mercialization or demonstration phase. I think you have
to look at them in two different ways.
Technologies that are in the predemonstration
period can be stopped, restarted and redirected usually
at low cost and at stages where changes are easy to make.
The technologies go from study to pilot to
predemonstration to demonstration. At any time, in the
puristic sense, those technologies can be reevaluated,
and in many cases are reevaluated, to determine
whether the next stage funding should take place or not.
I think that the system doesn't work all that well
and that is the problem. The procedure is there but
insufficient manpower, political influences, etc. prevent
the system from working ideally, that is, incorporate
changes or cancel projects.
DR. GAGE: I take quite a bit of comfort from your
clarification—
MR. ANTHONY: When we arrive at the point
when we have decided to site a large plant incor-
porating BACT it is too late to incorporate new
discoveries made that day. A gasification plant costing
maybe $400 million to $1 billion incorporate technology
developed 5-10 years ago. If you have discovered a
new environmental threat it is too late to incorporate
new controls, usually. That may be the way to build
rockets and airplanes because the threat or risk cannot
be measured at all, but we cannot afford to build energy
facilities that way.
I am sure most people will state we cannot afford to
build armaments that way either.
MR. HEDEMAN: I want to react to I think the last
remark which you made which in effect was that the
public and EPA should be, I think you used the term,
"watch-dogs" with respect to the public health concerns
but that once those standards and concerns were estab-
lished that the technologies and judgment calls by the
engineering profession should be, as I understand what
you were saying, pretty much left to that profession.
I suppose I am having a little bit of difficulty focus-
ing on that because to the extent that I get involved in
the analysis of energy projects, public health is not the
sole reason. It is equally controversial and equally the
subject of discussion are the development of natural
resources and the impact on those resources which,
frankly, go beyond the public health issue. It has been
traditionally the role of the public to assist in that
analysis.
I find it rather difficult to leave the decisions on
engineering technology to the engineers if those deci-
sions are perhaps consistent with public health stan-
dards but rather inconsistent or controversial with
respect to natural resource issue. I wonder if you have
some thoughts on that.
MR. ANTHONY: Yes. The engineer is trained to
meet standards or task statements. That is his nature.
Specify for him how big, how wide, how tall it should be
and then he will attempt to design a new technology or
improve on an existing technology to satisfy the
specification.
Standards must incorporate some quantification of
the degree to which the natural resource should be
preserved. If it is clearly defined, the engineer can re-
spond to it or not respond. I think our problem has been
that we are talking about extremely difficult situations to
define 5, 6, 10 years ahead of time and this is what
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
poses a particular threat to the successful development
of a technology.
So in other words, what I am saying is if we are
going beyond public health, that is fine. The engineer
doesn't care. If it is required to take a surface mine
restore it to the original contour of the land, just tell the
engineer, he will do it.
But once having set this requirement you cannot
continue to change your standards because the first set
did not work well without considering costs and
benefits. Obsolescence is common in our lines. Some
standards will have to remain marginally effective until
we can afford to change them.
MR. HEDEMAN: I guess I have to react that it
seems to me much easier to deal with numerical
engineering type of standards for public health than it
does natural resources.
MR. ANTHONY: Yes.
MR. HEDEMAN: And I think that is an issue that
has to be put out on the table for discussion.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you, Mr. Anthony. Our
next witness is Joel Robinson from Union Oil Company.
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, Dr. Reznek. 1
appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I would
like to amplify on the comments that I made at the San
Francisco meeting on geothermal power. I apologize if I
read most of this because 1 don't want to miss most of
the things I want to say so please bear with me.
Union is the operator of the world's largest geother-
mal project in The Geysers in Northern California. We
also operate two major geothermal facilities in the
Philippines and are constructing a demonstration geo-
thermal project in Imperial County in California. We are
also applying for permits for another similar plant nearby.
In New Mexico, Union, Public Service Company of
New Mexico and DOE are joining together to fund a 50
megawatt demonstration plant. Union is also exploring
in most of the western states and pursuing international
geothermal developments in several Latin American,
Asian, and European countries.
Union has considerable experience with DOE
through our New Mexico project which we call the Baca
project (due to historic land ownership). I understand
that this Baca demonstration project is the first and only
geothermal project that has been subject to this Program
and Project Management System, PPMS. Although I
understand your major issue today is with the PPMS, I
would like to expand my discussion to cover nearly all
of DOE's environmental activities.
I would like to give just a brief background of some
of the geothermal constraints. Geothermal does not
have many distinct complex technologies such as other
fuel sources do. In all electrical cases we must drill wells,
pipe fluids, spin turbines, and condense and cool fluids.
Even direct heat use of geothermal power is simple and
small. Hence, the environmental issues are pretty
well known.
Just last week at the Geothermal Resources Council
Conference in Reno it was remarked that there were
really no new environmental issues, mostly the same
ones that we have known about for some time.
Since this is the case, major environmental
research on the discovery of new environmental prob-
lems due to geothermal development is in my opinion a
misallocation of funds. DOE should spend its efforts
more on site-specific aspects of individual projects and
on abatement technologies that will and must go hand-
in-hand with that development.
Because geothermal is such a site-specific fuel
source and because it is relatively small and benign
compared to other, quote "large module" fuel systems,
the five issues raised in the Background Document are
relatively easy to answer.
The first issue regards the appropriate government
levels for treating environmental issues. It is our opinion
that DOE serves the public best by addressing local site-
specific concerns. Each plant must be located at the
resources, and these impacts will occur where the
resource is, and nearby. Establishment of an adequate
data baseline is imperative if new areas are to be
developed. This data will help the public and local
officials plan properly for future development.
The Imperial Valley Environmental Project, the
IVEP, developed such a data base and I believe it has
helped Imperial Valley immensely. Similar work should
be continued.
Regional issues are not quite so important in
geothermal as in other fuel sources primarily because of
its small modular nature. However, national concerns
are important to introduce because sometimes local
issues lose the necessary national perspective needed
when examining a new fuel source. We feel that on
environmental grounds geothermal can compete with
and excel any new fuel source. The national perspective
will help keep that fact on the table as local decisions
are made.
The second issue regards the type of projects
receiving major management attention. We feel that the
amount of attention a project gets should be commen-
surate with its size and cost and a lower limit should con-
tinue to be used to limit unnecessary paperwork. So far,
the Baca project has been the only geothermal project
to undergo this major review. We are dissatisfied
because that project has already been delayed well
beyond its originally planned decision date and the EIS
is much too long.
Some DOE staff are making an effort to keep it on
the track, but if the PPMS were to be applied to small
projects as well as large ones with the same scrutiny that
the Baca project has received, we feel that geothermal
development could be relegated to the 21st century.
Nor should small projects be aggregated to pro-
gram status and then submitted to the PPMS. That
10
-------
Statement of Mr. Robinson
would only delay many small, environmentally inconse-
quential projects to the detriment of the national inter-
est. We feel that it is critical that this nation identify wha
geothermal resources it has and then decide the best
way to develop or not to develop those resources.
Aggregating the small resource identification efforts
into a program for the PPMS would only serve as a
delaying activity for opponents of particular local proj-
ects. I sense that an opponent would want to delay the
resource evaluation because once it is known the\
would feel that the public might want it to be developed.
Back on the issue, California has recognized that
scaling the environmental review to the size of the proj-
ect is a good way to encourage industry to explore for
other resources. California has compressed the environ-
mental review process for exploration projects to 135
days while development projects can take a year to
study. This system works in California and we think
DOE should scale its environmental reviews in a
similar way.
The third issue regards criteria to be used in
evaluating individual technologies. As I mentioned
earlier, geothermal projects have very site-specific
impacts and we feel that explicit criteria are the most
value for review by DOE. We also feel that DOE should
ask every question germane to the project but, once
they are answered, they should make a decision and
move on.
It is imperative to remember that there will always
be unavoidable impacts on every project. No project is
totally invisible or totally silent. However, there can be
some mitigation of most of these impacts. DOE should
develop explicit criteria of comparison, not only between
technologies within the same industry, but across indus-
tries. We think geothermal will compare favorably with
other fuel sources.
The fourth issue regards the role of non-DOE
groups in evaluating environmental issues. The public
should be involved. We need known points of informa-
tion receiving and giving. DOE should make special
efforts to keep state and especially local officials involved
as projects proceed through the environmental evalua-
tion process. However, conferences are not the way to
do this. Conferences are self-defeating. They do not
answer any question, they only intensify emotions over
controversial issues. They do not speed solutions to
problems and they overly sensitize uninformed members
of the public to non-issues and already resolved issues.
I was once told that conferences are much like
bridge parties. If you don't go, everyone gossips about
you. So I think you must attend these things.
Assistance to outside groups preparing EISs or, in
California as we call them, Environmental Impact
Reports, is a valuable way for DOE to involve the
public. This assistance reduces the financial burden of
local and state agencies, it teaches the public about
geothermal power, and it prepares the citizens to plan
for geothermal development before it arrives.
The establishment of the IVEP, that is the Imperial
Valley Environmental Project, is a good example of
this. I understand that DOE has recently funded a
geothermal officer and a planner for Imperial County
and this effort should be continued. However, direct
involvement of the public in reviewing internal DOE
documents would be of little value for geothermal proj-
ects because each is so site-specific that it would be
impossible to get local representation on each project
and still maintain the necessary continuity and perspective
that this representation requires.
The last issue regards the integration of the envi-
ronmental factors into technology decisionmaking. We
feel that all of the proposals we make, either to DOE or
to anyone else, have environmental planning intimately
integrated into the technology to be proposed. Admit-
tedly, we don't have every answer. No one does. But
we feel we are on the right track for those answers. We
hope that DOE can, in a similar manner, integrate its
environmental planning into technological decisions at
the earliest time. However, it seems that each tech-
nology should speak for itself and that the Office of the
Environment should not stand as an advocate of one
fuel source over another. We feel this nation needs a
diversity of energy sources and that each and all should
contribute to that mix.
A peripheral issue raised here is whether DOE
should sponsor sub-demonstration size experiments on
a variety of technologies. If this means no demonstration
plants, it would be a big mistake.
In geothermal, the technical options are only in a
narrow range. What is urgently needed is the demon-
stration of cbntinuous, reliable economic operation of
full scale plants. Experimental facilities could not do
this. Experimental facilities have not and will not
demonstrate these characteristics to encourage
developers and utilities to jump into geothermal.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that we are
very enthusiastic about geothermal and we think it is a
significant resource for America. DOE must serve the
public interest by encouraging geothermal development
to get that power on line just as much as by careful envi-
ronmental scrutiny of each technological option. These
should both occur simultaneously but promptly. We feel
that the most important addition to the PPMS would be
a strict timetable which DOE could adhere to once a
proposal was submitted. We and the rest of the industry
are ready to move ahead and such a timetable would
serve the national interest by encouraging progress in an
environmentally sound manner. Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Are there questions
from the panel?
MR. SIEK: I was encouraged to hear for the first
time that the states and locals were addressed as having
11
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
a part to play in the decisionmaking on some of these
environmental decisions. Some of the things I think that
have been overlooked in some of the energy develop-
ment scenarios which have been discussed, are the
synergistic development impacts to a region or to an
area of various multiple energy developments. And
although on an ad hoc basis DOE or EPA can look at
the control technology for a particular development,
sometimes local governments and the local com-
munities as well as the states become involved with
varied developments in an area.
I would kind of like to get your reaction since you
have been working with the State of California on how
you feel that the state governments can become more
involved with standard setting, evaluation of that stan-
dard setting as it relates to multiple development in
a region.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, as you can guess, I will
probably have to stick solely to geothermal, that is really
my area of knowledge, but I think our experience in
California has really amplified the fact that the locals
have a very important role to play, in fact, even more so
than the State does, in setting standards.
Also, in technology development, at The Geysers
we found that the local agencies are probably the most
conversant and most able group that we have encoun-
tered in assisting us to develop technology and working
with us in setting standards.
The geothermal industry, as I mentioned, we feel is
rather benign and in fact there are few national envi-
ronmental standards on geothermal. What we find are
mostly State and local standards. We have worked very
closely with the State and local agencies on them.
The role that the state could play in setting Federal
standards—is that what your question is?
MR. SIEK: Yes.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think-all I can advo-
cate is that the State continually remind the Federal
Government that it is primarily a State and local prob-
lem and that I would encourage DOE and the Office of
the Environment to involve the States wherever possi-
ble. In terms of specific guidance points that I could
advocate, I am afraid I am at a loss.
MR. SIEK: Well, of course, I wasn't suggesting
that States become involved with actually number-
setting and research activities, but I can give you an
example out of Ruth Clusen's shop, for example. They
have set up a DOE-state task force on oil shale develop-
ment primarily with the universities in Colorado, but
they have included State government on that task force
to participate in evaluation of certain research activities
and evaluation of those results and possibly develop-
ment of some standards for the future. So I think that is
an example of a way a State can become involved and
have an input to the general standard setting area.
MR. ROBINSON: In California we have a State
Energy Commission which in the last couple of years
has sort of become a central state clearinghouse, if you
will, for geothermal activities. The DOE makes an effort
to touch base with the Energy Commission quite regu-
larly. There is not a formal organization that I am aware
of where DOE presents and receives comments to the
State academics or agencies but rather most of it goes
through contacts with the State Energy Commission.
MR. ANTHONY: Considering the air part of stan-
dard setting, Don Goodwin and Walt Barber of
Research Triangle Park, EPA, have an advisory group
called NAPTAC. I am not sure whether someone repre-
senting the State is on that group, but that would be One
place where you would review all the air standards that
would go through that group.
1 don't think there is a comparable group on the
effluent guidelines side, the water side, and that might
be something to create.
DR. REZNEK: Geothermal is an energy tech-
nology which in terms of conventional national con-
cerns of air pollutants and water pollutants is more
benign than some of its competitors, but it is located for
the most part in areas which have great national
resource value in terms of aesthetics, wilderness areas,
et cetera. You have indicated that you believe that the
State or local authorities should play a clear role on that.
Can you amplify for the questions of location and
natural resource preservation of wilderness areas what
the Federal involvement may be? You also indicated
that Federal support for surveys of resources is impor-
tant. Can you amplify a little bit on what you feel is an
appropriate role for the Federal involvement?
~~MR. ROBINSON: Yes. In fact, we are deeply
involved with that problem right now, as ypu may be
aware. The Baca project that I mentioned in New Mex-
ico is located in a very attractive area and it is, I
suppose, a candidate for public ownership.
One of the things that disturbed us greatly at the
outset was that different agencies within the Federal
Government did not participate uniformly in the
preparation of the EIS.
Our understanding of the NEPA process is that
agencies should all combine their activities such that one
document really addresses ail their needs. We found
that there were internecine rivalries that resulted in a
document that some agencies feel is not adequate for
their purposes and hence they have to prepare an
additional document.
I think this is really to the detriment of the project
and of DOE's effort to demonstrate geothermal power. I
think what I would propose is that early in the stage that
DOE either directly or through the Interagency Coor-
dinating Council draw these other agencies into a joint
document such that one document is prepared and does
answer the questions satisfactorily for all of those agencies.
DR. REZNEK: So, the Federal role is to make the
resources available for the quality EIS on the individual
12
-------
Statement of Mr. Robinson
project and to assure widespread Federal agreement on
that EIS, is that what you are saying?
MR. ROBINSON: I feel that should be a primary
involvement of DOE as they prepare that EIS. Yes.
MR. HEDEMAN: It may be unfair to ask thi;
question, but there are now new procedures applicable
to all Federal agencies that, among other things, would
be intended to avoid the very problems you have raised. 1
guess it is unfair because the procedures have only been
effective for two months and so you may not be familiar
with them to begin with and maybe I would just like to
go on record to note the procedures and note thai
maybe there is an opportunity now to solve the problem
that you are raising.
MR. ROBINSON: If I may respond, 1 am familiar
with those and unfortunately what is determined is that
we would take the worst conditions of the old ones and
new ones and combine them and that would apply to
the DOE's Impact Statements. If I recall one of their
guidelines within those new CEQ guidelines is a limita-
tion of 150 pages. I referred in my presentation that this
EIS is too long. This is not a very complex project com-
pared to many other projects, and yet this EIS is well
over 300 pages already and growing. I think if either the
new or the old guidelines had been stuck to religiously, I
think things would have gone smoother. They just don't
seem to be adhered to.
MS. CLUSEN: Obviously, I am not going to com-
ment since my office reviews the EIS, although we don't
write it. I want to go on record as saying that. But 1 do
have an interest in your remarks about conferences and
means of getting public inputs.
We also are reviewing in my office the geothermal
pilot project we have been doing as far as public par-
ticipation is concerned. We have looked at all the
documentation and made some visits and talked with a
lot of people.
I was interested in your statement that conferences
are not the best way. By and large, I tend to agree with
you and yet, I ask you, how you would address the
problem of a Federal agency that wants to get substan-
tial, informed input from knowledgeable segments of
the public on what can only be a one-time pr at most a
two step process? What other routes would you see? !
ask this in all sincerity since we are grappling with this
problem right now. We have spent a lot of money on
conferences and I am trying to decide whether it is
worth it.
MR. ROBINSON: As you are aware, there are
two DOE offices in Albuquerque and if we are talking
particularly about this demonstration project as an ex-
ample, the Operations Office and the Project Office are
the two that are there.
I would propose that although it is currently prob-
ably understaffed, the Project Office could serve as sort
of a clearinghouse and an information/dissemination
center for this project. The two chief officials that are
there I think would be overburdened if this was dumped
on them unannounced, but I think they are probably the
most conversant with the subject and could get the most
academic and most unbiased input from any point
within DOE. So 1 would advocate that the Project Office
be the center of this dissemination and receiving. I think
this would be a great addition to DOE's efforts.
DR. REZNEK: You would say that specific funds
be made available for that outreach program.
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
DR. REZNEK: What should be the involvement
of the local authorities, State and local, in that
dissemination activity?
MR. ROBINSON: I think you will find that many
of those State and local agencies would be on the
receiving end rather than on the disseminating end and
that they would appreciate such an effort by DOE to
show DOE's involvement. I think they would like to see
that.
MR. SIEK: You know, it is kind of confusing to
me sitting here listening to how we are proceeding. 1 am
not sure myself whether EPA should be doing this
primary responsibility in the research area or if DOE
should be and whether we are talking about the project
development stage or the research stage.
My understanding is that what we are talking about
now is a proposed development that is undergoing an
Environmental Impact Statement and that you are
discussing public participation opportunities.
MR. ROBINSON: That is what I am discussing.
MR. SIEK: Yes, okay. If that is the case then, I
would say that—you know, when you are dealing in
that kind of a situation, it would seem that the States
and the local areas have a very important role to play
because you are going to have to obtain your en-
vironmental permits, those that are required at the State
level, in order to proceed with your project.
MR. ROBINSON: That is correct.
MR. SIEK: And if this is the case, then, you know,
it is necessary for the public to become involved early on
to assist in the review and the evaluation of that pro-
posal. And Colorado is deeply involved with develop-
ing a streamlined permitting process that does just that.
And again, that is being funded out of Ruth Clusen's
shop to try to address that specific problem of bringing
the public and the various levels of government in early
on to understand and review a project. I think that is so
important for any energy development now, rapid
development that is going on in the western states, to
have some kind of a system available to do just that,
bring the people in where they understand the project.
MR. ROBINSON: I think that is exactly right. I am
addressing this, Mr. Siek, from the applicant's viewpoint
of how do I get information into DOE and the State
agencies. I think your point is very good. I mentioned in
13
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
my presentation that DOE has recently funded in
Imperial County a geothermal officer and planner.
I think what these will do is the same thing that you are
talking about, help streamline and prepare and plan for
the incoming geothermal power plants. Right now in
Imperial County there are no operating geothermal
power plants but they perceive a curve that goes ex-
ponentially upward and they want to be ready for this.
I think this is another path that certainly would be
worthwhile and should be expanded.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
DR. PATTON: Mr. Chairman? You know, I
visited the geothermal facility in The Geysers, California
and I would ask just a couple of questions. First, the
Geysers facility has been in operation for quite some
time, hasn't it?
MR. ROBINSON: The first power plant was in-
stalled in 1960. The first drilling occurred there in the
mid-'50s.
DR. PATTON: So we are not talking about
something where the technology is relatively uncertain,
right?
MR. ROBINSON: That is correct.
DR. PATTON: Now, when I was there, my
understanding was that it was located in a little valley
where few people, if any live, I guess there was one
house that I recall seeing. Steam was naturally coming
to the surface of the earth at this place, people found
that there was this geothermal potential, and so now
what you have done is drilled holes, capped the steam,
and used it to spin turbines, and generate electricity.
Compared with other alternatives, I would have to
describe it as relatively clean. Right?
MR. ROBINSON: I agree.
DR. PATTON: Is the technology to be used in,
say, the New Mexico project significantly different? Is it
wet steam?
MR. ROBINSON: It is wet steam but it is not
significantly different. You still drill wells, you still pipe
fluids, spin turbines.
DR. PATTON: All right. Then my concern is not
for the people who are participating in the development
of the 300 page environmental impact statement, my
concern is for the nation as a whole, for the silent ma-
jority, for the people who still think we would like to
have jobs and fuel and so on, and 1 wonder if we aren't
in danger of going too far in trying to involve each and
every individual in each and every decision—you
know, that is why we have a Congress, why we have
public officials, et cetera. It seems to me EPA's job is to
look after the public-at-Iarge; DOE's job is to try to
develop additional energy facilities; and I do concern
myself that by trying to pay homage to the concern of
each individual who takes a position on each issue we
run the risk of stalling the entire nation for us all. I think
you have brought up geothermal and I am kind of
pleased you did because it is a strikingly simple and
clean technology and yet the experiences you have had
to date can best be described as frustrating delays. Do 1
over-simplify the issue?
MR. ROBINSON: You said it much better than I
could.
DR. PATTON: Thank you.
MR. ROBINSON: 1 think you are right, we need a
national perspective. Our historical experiences are that
local and State opposition, the people living next door,
have really retarded the growth of this benign source but
I think it is imperative, however, that these people be in-
cluded in the decision that is made. But once the deci-
sion is made, we ought to move ahead.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. We will take a 15
minute break. I believe coffee is available. We will
reconvene at 11:00.
(Brief recess)
DR. REZNEK: The first witness in this session will
be Merilyn Reeves. David Pate's plane has been
delayed and we will try to pick him up at the end of the
day. Once again, if any member of the audience is
unscheduled and wants to testify, please let us know so
we can prepare in the afternoon closing sessions to
allow for you. Ms. Reeves?
MS. REEVES: Members of the Hearing Panel and
ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to
come before you. I am a citizen volunteer. 1 am not an
expert. I am a lay individual. I am bringing with me
today my perspective as it deals with my participation to
the Department of Energy's Environmental Advisory
Committee. I in no way am here to represent that
Environmental Advisory Committee. I also bring the
perspective of more than 10 years of experience serving
on various advisory committees, commissions, task
forces, et cetera on environmental and energy issues,
on the local, State, and Federal level.
I think my remarks will have the greatest effect in
areas that I know the most about. First, the techniques
and second, the productivity of public participation, and
I am concerned about both of these.
I differ from one of the previous speakers. I do not
share his great faith in the engineering community to
solve energy problems. I believe that our energy prob-
lems are more of a social, environmental nature which
may defy engineering solutions.
I believe that the public clearly understands that too
many mistakes have been made in the past because we
have failed to recognize the importance of social,
environmental, health, and other related effects. We
cannot expect instant public confidence for future
reviews of projects.
1 watched the TV show last night, "The Plague of
Children," I have seen "The Killing Ground," and I
have seen the Three Mile Island publicity. I serve as
chairman of Maryland's Hazardous Substance Advisory
Committee and I share no illusions about the difficulty
14
-------
Statement of Ms. Reeves
of educating the general public to the problems that we
face in regard to environmental risks and hazards.
Last year I presented a paper on public participa-
tion at the National Conference on Citizen Participation
and I am submitting a copy of this for the record
because it clearly defines what I think public participa-
tion is and provides two examples of successful
programs.
For this hearing I want to limit my comments to
three major questions which were listed in the letter re-
questing me to testify. The first question asked if there
were sufficient opportunities for non-DOE interests to
participate in the decision making process and the
answer is no. There are not sufficient opportunities.
This should not mean that there are individuals
within DOE who are to blame. DOE and its agencies
which proceeded it, the Federal Energy Office through
the Federal Energy Administration through ERDA and
on down to DOE, has operated in a crisis atmosphere
replete with reorganization and political indecision. All
of this has superceded efforts to establish a good public
participation program.
From the ill-advised decision to store oil in salt
domes to the most recent impossible synfuel proposal, it
is very obvious to me that the Department of Energy
could benefit from an effective public participation
program.
It think it is doubtful if anyone knows how DOE's
decisionmaking process works and how or when the
public could provide timely advice. In the past year the
Environmental Advisory Committee for the Department
of Energy has not been able to successfully participate in
the decisionmaking process. The former Secretary met
with the Committee at its first meeting and provided no
advice on what he needed or what he wanted. The
Assistant Secretary Ruth Clusen felt that it was better
that we struggle without her advice. Our Committee
finally did pass a motion requesting that she give us
guidance on what particular issues she would like to
have the Environmental Advisory Committee specif-
ically deal with.
At every meeting of this Committee the members
have noted that it is difficult to understand how the
system works or how the public can influence the deci-
sionmaking process.
During the course of high interest in energy DOE,
and, of course, the preceding Federal energy agencies,
have conducted many public information meetings.
They have solicited comments. I have participated and
prepared many statements over the years. But it is
never clear how DOE uses citizen comment. There is no
feedback to the citizens that tell us, "okay, as a result of
testimony, we didn't like this advice and we accepted
that advice." Feedback is desperately needed.
I recommend that DOE provide greater oppor-
tunities for public participation in all of its activities and
programs. But it must be developed so that all citizens
and interest groups have equal opportunity to influence
decisions, and a process must be set up that is
somewhat simple to follow.
Also, a process must be established to respond to
public comment. DOE should give very special
encouragement, including financial assistance if
necessary, to ensure that all interests are represented at
hearings. We all know that business and industry, par-
ticularly those which have an economic interest at stake,
will participate. Public interest organizations and citizens
do not have the financial wherewithal to participate
as well.
The second question I was asked to deal with is
what explicit criteria should be used in evaluating
technology development. It seems very apparent to me
that the Department of Energy continues to be
dominated by a bias toward nuclear energy and by
other centralized, high technology sources. I believe this
dominance is reflected in the National Energy Plans,
particularly NEP 2; it is reflected in the budget; and it is
even reflected in the internal R&D review procedures.
Energy conservation, small-scale decentralized
non-nuclear technology is provided less funding, much
less Departmental time and attention, certainly much
less than nuclear energy with all of the waste related
problems that have received heavy funding.
I believe that proposals for research and develop-
ment, even the funding level decisions, need to be
reviewed by more members of the general scientific
community and the public. I would like to give a specific
example.
In the Office of the Environment, many unsolicited
proposals are received. We understand that these are
reviewed by a volunteer peer process. Many of these
peers may have volunteered during the heyday of the
Atomic Energy Commission. This peer process may not
be biased against nonnuclear technology, but it is very
important that research and development proposals be
reviewed by a multi-disciplinary scientific committee
which includes members of the lay public. It is not im-
possible to do this.
The complex procedures which were established
by DOE to guide the technology expenditures, the Pro-
gram and Project Management System and its compo-
nent parts, appear to me to fail to provide for adequate
evaluation of alternative actions or programs. We get
trapped on these single track programs which don't
allow adequate evaluation of alternatives. By the time
that DOE staff has committed large amounts of time and
financial resources to a particular project through the
PPMS review, it is too late to adequately address alter-
natives in an Environmental Impact Statement.
There appears to be very inadequate opportunity
for public comment at key decision points. Perhaps this
is because the PPMS is very new. It appears that the
15
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
process does not delineate those key decision points
even for DOE staff.
I believe a multi-disciplinary and lay committee
should be established to monitor and to provide advice
on DOE's environmental research planning and assess-
ment process. I still share great concern that the PPMS,
since it is only used for major projects, will cause the
small, decentralized nonnuclear projects, and par-
ticularly the advantages of energy conservation, to be
lost in the shuffle.
The last point I would like to make in regard to
criteria which should be used to evaluate technology
development is that a greater emphasis should be
placed on the concept of net energy. I do not believe
that there is an adequate examination of how much
energy it takes to produce new energy so that the cost
benefits of that net energy can be fully analyzed.
The third question that I was asked to address,
concerns what is the appropriate government level for
dealing with environment issues.
I will duck that question because 1 don't believe that
the level of responsibility is an important issue. If all the
issues are addressed, and all appropriate levels of
government are involved in the process, then it may not
be important which level is designated as the lead.
Past decisions of DOE clearly indicate that en-
vironmental review has not involved all affected levels
of government, or even all environmental issues. I go
back to the two examples, the decision to put a strategic
oil reserve in salt domes or the most recent administra-
tion proposal for a crash synfuel process. These needed
much greater public participation prior to the decision-
making. Some of this decisionmaking needs to be site
oriented.
Local and state governments should be given op-
portunity for a greater degree of involvement.
However, these same governments may be too
parochial to be designated as the only level of govern-
ment to deal with environmental issues.
I believe that a thorough environmental review of
energy proposals will result in a more cost-effective proj-
ect. I do not believe that haste is all that necessary in
looking towards our future energy needs. The long term
public interest is best served by wise use of all natural
resources. Crash energy programs and hasty govern-
ment decisions may not yield the most cost effective,
environmentally sound energy sources. For example,
far too much public money has been used for nuclear
research and development and there is no evidence that
it is the most cost effective source for the future. A
thorough environmental review may prevent spending
millions of dollars of public money for a nonnuclear
energy source which is not environmentally sound or
cost effective. I think I am basically saying that the en-
vironmental review is the best economic tool we have.
I have attached to the copy of the testimony that I
have given for the recorder, some observations that I
made after the Enviromental Energy Committee toured
the pilot solvent refined coal plant at Fort Lewis,
Washington. These personal observations were
distributed to members of the DOE Environmental Ad-
visory Committee and I only had one available copy,
I regret to say, for this Panel today.
I also have submitted with my testimony comments
on.public participation, the techniques and the produc-
tivity of it. It is obvious that some people view public
participation as a delaying tactic. I do not view this as a
delaying tactic. I believe that public participation is ab-
solutely essential if we are to achieve energy source
development. It is not going to work when you try to
bypass public involvement and you are going to have
more problems. 1 am very concerned that public par-
ticipation is becoming almost an end unto itself rather
than a means of achieving goals. I would caution that as
the Department of Energy and EPA seek to encourage
more and more public participation, they always seek it
in terms of decisionmaking. This is different from pro-
viding information, educating, but it is providing an op-
portunity clearly understood by all to participate in the
decisionmaking.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my
views. ! hope they are helpful to you. 1 think that you
have a very difficult problem in looking at the issues that
you have before you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much. Does the
Panel have questions?
DR. PATTON: You mentioned that you feel it is
essential that all citizens have equal opportunity to in-
fluence decisions, and 1 believe you also felt it ap-
propriate that there be financial assistance to aid this. I
guess 1 would be interested in our views on how you
contrast that decision with the fact that in our particular
form of government we have a Congress where you try
to get representation in the House on the basis of
population and, of course, representation in the Senate
on the basis of each State, and it seems to me, and I
have always assumed and understood, that that is the
principal avenue for the public to influence what it
wishes its governments to do. Of course, the Congress
then has established agencies and the agency is given a
mandate to carry out some particular thing and if, in
fact, the public finds they are not happy with what that '
agency is doing, it seems to me the public still has its
recourse through Congress. Through the appropria-
tions process, you can stop an agency cold within 12
months.
I just wonder why that particular process doesn't
provide us with what you sought, which was that
citizens have an opportunity to influence decisions. Of
course, I can appreciate that getting all citizens to have
equal opportunity is particularly difficult. Furthermore,
it would seem to me to be very difficult to try to give
financial assistance to all citizens to give them equal
opportunity, and considering that we as taxpayers are
16
-------
Statement of Ms. Reeves
the ultimate source of the financial assistance, how
would you go about doling out the monies to give some
citizens an opportunity to speak to these issues. You
obviously couldn't give financial assistance equal to all
citizens.
MS. REEVES: I think when you talk about Con-
gress you are describing something that no longer exists
in terms of the general public influencing decisions only
through Congress.
Congress once it enacted the Clean Water Act, the
Water Pollution Control Amendments PL92-500 back
in 1972, clearly indicated that they wanted the public to
follow agency implementation of that Act. This then has
come about in Law after Law in which we now have the
situation in which our elected representatives have
given authority to the public, so to speak, to work and
participate in agency implementation decisions.
That was not the case, say, 30 years ago in which
you did go back to Congress and say "do something for
us." But now we, the public, at various levels, have a
mandated responsibility to participate in agency deci-
sions. The agencies have a responsibility to seek out the
public so they can participate in decisionmaking within
the bureaucracy.
It is this type of public participation that I think we
need to direct a great deal of time and attention to so it
will be productive. Agencies are strapped for finances. It
is very easy to set up a committee and say "see, we
have public participation." But if the public participation
system is not satisfactory to members of the public, then
you will find that delays occur, and you will find suspi-
cions and confrontation.
I would like to talk a little bit about financing public
participation. Because agencies are required to hold
public hearings, generally required by the very laws that
have been enacted by Congress, it is difficult then to say
"can we hold a public hearing in Philadelphia" and
expect to get a broad-based comment at that public
hearing. Can we expect that citizens who should have
their views represented wit! travel to Philadelphia to
testify? i would like to point out that I am talking about
public interest groups perhaps more than individual
citizens. Citizens who represent public interest groups
may need financial assistance.
If such groups cannot be heard at the public hear-
ing in Philadelphia, for example, because they have no
transportation or funds provided, then 1 do not believe
the agency has lived up to its congressional mandate to
seek out the views of the public. So I believe that there
has to be financial assistance for public participation.
The precedent was set in 1972, by requiring public par-
ticipation. When you invite a witness to give testimony
you must provide some assistance to do this.
There are various ways that the agency, the
Department of Energy, or the Environmental Protection
Agency, can assist in getting broad-based public com-
ment and public participation. The expenditure of funds
will not necessarily be very large in comparison to the
total expenditure of a project.
This has been borne out in waste water treatment
plants where you will talk about building a $29 million
waste water treatment plant, and you will talk about
spending maybe less than $50,000 to ensure that there
is a public review or participation. Those are small funds
spent in order to hopefully get a better product.
MS. CLUSEN: Mrs. Reeves, needless to say, I
share many of your attitudes given our common
background. In addition to that, 1 think many of the
things that you have to say about the process of the
Department of Energy and indeed to the Office of En-
vironment are on target.
I would like to say two things and then ask you
something else. One is that I am sure you understand
that the reason for my refusal, up until I was asked to
direct the Environmental Advisory committee et al, is
related to the fact that, according to the statute, it
reports to the Secretary of the Department, and it was
primarily appointed by him, and reports to the
Secretary through me.
Nevertheless, since the request came in from the
Committee, I have indeed suggested to you some possi-
ble fieldsjjf investigation. _
With regard to money, I would like to tell you that I
think the Department, and this is proven by budget
statistics for '80 and '81 both, has consistently moved
under a mandate for equalizing the spending on nuclear
technologies and fossil and other technologies. I think
this is somewhat represented by the fact that the budget
for the Office of Environment for fiscal '80, which we
are now in, and the one which we are about to propose
for '81, spends substantially more amounts of money
on fossil because that is the direction in which the
Administration is going as is the Department of Energy.
With regard to funding for public participation,
once again, this is something in which I have long
believed. I must tell you, and in fact I think Dr. Reznek
would bear me out in this also, that we in the agencies
are encountering some resistance on the part of the
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget
regarding this kind of thing. Sometimes assertion is
even made that we are building a constituency when we
do this. I would be glad to have you react to that.
I can say that this is not constituency building. But if
someone from the outside believes that there is no ele-
ment of that, it would be helpful for someone like you to
say so to press the point.
MS. REEVES: Having dealt with various aspects
of the public in various committees, I would say there is
no possibility for constituent building because of the
adversarial position which invariably arises on every
diverse issue.
However, if the Office of the Budget and if the
Congress is concerned about the constituent building,
perhaps they should be more concerned about the lack
17
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
of constituent building in terms of looking at future
energy needs and solving energy problems. If funds can
be spent which will help to achieve that goal, they are
going to be funds well spent all the way across the
board.
I really have no fears that the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or the Department of Energy is capable
of developing a coherent constituency out there which
will always respond in some favorable way. Like all
things in public life, there are strange bedfellows when
one opposes or supports projects and the constituencies
change. One time the League of Women Voters will
find itself aligned with the Chamber of Commerce, and
another time we will find ourselves aligned with the
Audubon Society.
I do not believe that this is a valid point of view. I
brought up the issues that we have made too many
mistakes in the past, and I view public participation as
an effort to try to broaden public knowledge, to involve
individuals in decisionmaking because they are going to
be involved anyway. It would be far better to develop a
systematic approach, a constructive approach to do this
than to leave it in the confrontation and adversary posi-
tion in which it is going to occur if you don't.
DR. REZNEK: I have a series of three or so ques-
tions I would like to go over. One relates to two of your
statements about the appropriate level and you seem to
indicate that all levels should be involved in all decisions
and tie that also to the question of haste not being
necessary in energy decisions.
There are many people who disagree and feel the
decisionmaking process needs to be streamlined, that
decisions and responsibilities for these decisions need to
be allocated, decisions have to be made, and we
must move ahead. Can you comment a little bit on the
feeling?
MS. REEVES: First, 1 do not necessarily believe
that all levels of government should be participating in
all decisions, and I would hope that it would be only the
appropriate levels of government.
When it comes to actual siting of a gasification of
coal project, it doesn't really matter how much evidence
the Department of Energy or EPA have accumulated,
and how much work has been done in terms of the
Federal level if in fact local government, the one that is
directly responsible where the plant is going to be, has
been left out of the process.
Haste makes waste. ! believe that we have to be
very careful that we develop a process so people
understand what decisions need to be made and in
what timeframe. We really don't have this. So if you are
going to short circuit decisions or fast track energy deci-
sions in any way, we have to make certain that you
haven't hastily put together something which will not
yield the most cost effective energy program, an en-
vironmentally sound energy program. This is what I
really fear.
I do not believe that this country has faced up to
the energy conservation opportunities that are available
to it. The more that we face the energy conservation
opportunities that are available, and the more we work
on tightening up the waste across the board in all
segments of energy use, the more time we will have to
analyze alternatives, and the more time we will have to
perfect a PPMS system within DOE to be able to analyze
these. And we will have to involve local government
and answer questions. It disturbs me that we are not
taking advantage of energy conservation. We are look-
ing at nuclear fission, and other big processes. When
you look at the 30 major projects in the PPMS system
these are all major, long-range projects. We are not giv-
ing enough time to the short-term needs.
DR. REZNEK: The second question relates par-
tially to your answer and second, to the observation that
you felt the net energy calculation should be done on all
proposed supply technologies. Do you feel that that can
be done meaningfully, and that net energy yields of
supply technologies could be compared to investments
in conservation technologies?
MS. REEVES: I would like to see a stab at it. I am
not going to say that it probably can be done and it is
easy to be done, but I would like to see more done
along those lines. I would like to see more information
put out for public review and for scientific comment on
net energy. You will not really be able to analyze how
effective it is until there are some good net energy
studies done of some of these various new energy
sources.
DR. REZNEK: In your comments on public par-
ticipation, you indicated that there are really two
aspects; one is involvement in decisions, the other is an
outreach or public information supply prior to the deci-
sion process. Have you thought about ways of identify-
ing and institutionalizing the responsibility for that, and
to be able to track the responsibility for that within a
bureaucracy, and in your experience, are there any in-
stitutionalizations in any of the bureaucracies that do it
better than others?
MS. REEVES: It is almost impossible to establish
an office in anything as diverse as the Department of
Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency which
will cut across the various interests. So the best public
participation is always that which is done in a smaller,
more site-specific way or on a project that is oriented
toward a key decision.
My idea with public participation is first you decide
what decisions have to be made, and then you decide
when are you going to make those decisions, and then
you decide how is it best to bring in the public to provide
advice at key points in the decisionmaking process. If
we did this, it would help to simplify the matter. I am not
sure that we need elaborate institutional arrangements,
and much better institutional arrangements, when it
comes to the dissemination of informtion.
18
-------
Statement of Mr. Markey
I see these as two different types of functions, all
within DOE and within EPA. There is the constant need
to make certain that information is provided to the
various interest groups in a timely fashion. This is a job
that has to be borne by the agency. Some people say it
is best in the old PR departments, or in departments
with a different look.
But when it comes to true public participation which
involves asking the public for advice, and receiving ad-
vice from various interest groups at key decision points,
first the agency has to tell us what are your key decision
points and what is your timeframe. Then I think it is
going to be relatively easy to figure out the methodology
for doing this.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Any other questions?
(No response)
DR. REZNEK: Our next witness is Kevin Markey,
member of Friends of the Earth.
MR. MARKEY: Thank you, Dr. Reznek. Those
were very thoughtful comments (to previous witnesses).
First of all, I will bring you greetings of a fiscal new year
and hopefully my testimony today will perfect the
PPMS system. We will see whether we can do that.
Friends of the Earth appreciates this opportunity to
address the adequacy of attention to environmental
protection and energy conservation within the Depart-
ment of Energy's research, development, and
demonstration management process.
We have actively followed progress of DOE's pro-
grams since its establishment and before that, during
the tenure of the Energy Research and Development
Administration.
Today we monitor DOE directly in regular discus-
sions with the Department as well as through our par-
ticipation in various panels which advise or evaluate the
Department, including the National Petroleum Council,
the House Science and Technology Committee Ad-
visory Panel on Synthetic Fuels, the Department of the
Interior's Oil Shale Environmental Advisory Panel, Of-
fice of Technology Assessment studies, and other
bodies.
We have been impressed by EPA's preparation for
this hearing which included an in-depth evaluation of
DOE's management system, field workshops, and fur-
ther analysis of workshop results. I will address some of
the questions which EPA has posed in the Hearing
Background Document. My written testimony, which I
have submitted to you, I would ask be included in the
record. I will leave out some portions of it for my oral
presentation.
Appropriate Governmental Level for
Treating Environmental Concerns
The appropriate governmental level for the treat-
ment of environmental concerns depends on the type of
government action anticipated. A hierarchical organiza-
tion makes sense for environmental regulation due to
our Federal legal system.
However, DOE has an RD&D mission. A strict
hierarchical organization of its functions would not ex-
pedite or improve the quality of its research, it would
only complicate an already difficult to manage program.
There are important roles for other levels and
agencies of government to fill in research and develop-
ment activities. DOE needs to involve other govern-
ment agencies, especially those who will ultimately be
responsible to regulate the impacts which DOE is now
investigating, in identifying environmental RD&D
needs.
DOE must better communicate the results of its
research with regulatory agencies at all levels of govern-
ment and the public, including legislators responsible for
the enactment of new regulatory programs, and the
establishment of energy policy.
Thirdly, many agencies possess expertise which
DOE might be able to use to conduct research under
direct contract or interagency agreement.
DOE should also consider how its RD&D responsi-
bilities can help local governments or states mitigate the
impacts of energy development, especially synthetic
fuel commercialization. We refer to those monitoring ef-
forts which might be appropriately funded as an RD&D
effort, not strictly as socioeconomic mitigation.
Congress, by prematurely stimulating an oil shale
industry for example, will unfortunately create one of
the largest social and biological science laboratories ever
imagined. From an academic point of view, that might
be attractive, but particularly from the perspective of a
community which needs accurate socioeconomic data
to correct problems, assistance to provide the data, or
health, water quality, or other monitoring on a regional
basis is appropriate.
Finally, local and state governments and the public
need to be consulted when DOE makes decisions on
specific sites and specific projects.
Types of Projects Receiving
Major Management Attention
There was a question about the types of projects
receiving major management attention. EPA asks
whether criteria other than budget commitments should
be used in designating energy systems as "major." We
believe that criteria such as "potential environmental
consequences" and "energy industry significance"
should be used. In addition, subject to the conditions
and the suggestions that I am about to make, small
related projects should be combined into programs
which should be subject to the Program and Project
Management System (PPMS).
19
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
PPMS Structure
By far the most significant issue, though, is the
structure of the PPMS system itself, not how projects
are designated as major or minor.
The most intractible problem with technology
development programs is the single purpose momen-
tum which they generate to carry each new technology
into full commercialization whether it is desirable to do
so or not.
Unfortunately, DOE's management system does
everything possible to reinforce rather than to correct
this fault. It is hardware oriented; it is not geared to
problem solving. There is no meaningful competition
among technologies within each resource category.
There is no real competition among resources in
developing national energy plans or determining
budgetary priorities. There are limited environmental
criteria to judge among technologies.
Congress, however, when it enacted the Non-
Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act, clearly
desired the development of a diverse, almost pluralistic
set of technology choices; yet it clearly directed DOE,
than ERDA, to give preference to those processes with
the least environmental impact.
Despite its intent to facilitate the timely develop-
ment of new technologies, the PPMS has not led to
rapid progress. DOE decisionmaking languishes. Con-
gress, the President, and DOE's Resource Applications
Office (RA) have consequently sidestepped the RD&D
process and are proceeding directly to commercializa-
tion efforts most prematurely.
Congressional action makes a shambles of the
orderly progression of technology acquisition from basic
research to commercial acceptance in many steps when
it decides to make the transition in one or two steps.
Independently of the Assistant Secretaries for
Energy Technologies (ET), Fossil Energy (FE), and En-
vironment (EV), and prior to any departmental finding
or the preparation of Environmental Impact Statement,
RA was heavily pushing the $3 per barrel tax credit on
the Hill and in the Administration.
On the other hand, in terms of RD&D progress,
DOE processing of a congressionally authorized oil
shale surface retort is one example of delay which is not
even subject to the highly structured and formalized
PPMS process.
Authorized in 1977 and appropriated in 1978,
only during this summer was a project opportunity
notice for a first retort design phase issued. After retort
designs, there will be a competition among alternative
designs for construction. A decision on actual construc-
tion will be several years in the making. In related
action, the draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the construction of fullscale retort at Anvil Points, Col-
orado went through four preliminary drafts.
On the other hand, there as no guarantee that the
process and the delays and protections that are pro-
vided in the PPMS offer any environmental advantages.
The suggestion made in one of the workshops for an
audit of the effectiveness of the PPMS system is a good
one.
Thus, the question before us is how to resolve the
conflicting needs for rapid technological progress unen-
cumbered by bureaucratic delay with the presumably
opposite need to assess environmental problems, com-
pare technologies, and make choices.
We would like to suggest some changes in PPMS
which might achieve both of these goals without disrupt-
ing the entire system.
First of all, the system should be organized on a
program not a project basis. Second, programs should
be hardware oriented, they should be aimed at problem
solving.
An appropriate division of programs under this
scheme might be by resource type and product (or
product substitution). For example, dividing among
liquids from oil shale, gas from oil shale, liquids from
coal, liquids from biomass, et cetera. Dividing DOE
RD&D activities into programs in this manner, though
this is certainly not the only alternative, has several
advantages.
Classifying programs by resources and products
forms the framework in which programs can be com-
pared and priorities set. For example, comparing liquids
from oil shale with liquids from biomass, saving liquids
through conservation, and liquids through coal.
Ultimately technologies should be compared on the
basis of their end uses (See below).
It is likely that research problems within each pro-
gram will be similar. For example, resource
characterization, environmental baselines, certain air
pollution controls, and other environmental impacts will
be similar among all oil shale technologies.
Several hardware-oriented projects will certainly be
included in each program offering the opportunity to
compare them directly. For example, in oil shale there
would be Occidental, Equity, Geokinetics as well as sur-
face retorting technologies.
Environmental and energy technology RD&D ef-
forts'" can be coordinated within each program. One
example of this is the current effort of ET (now FE) and
EV to coordinate their activities in oil shale.
Each program, regardless of its size or budget,
should be subject to the same review and evaluation
criteria.
The third design criteria is the establishment of a
competitive system for prioritizing programs on the basis
of costs and technical readiness and impacts for deter-
mining RD&D resources and commercialization efforts
devoted to each program.
Fourth, similarly, a system for competition among
technologies within each program should be established.
20
-------
Statement of Mr. Markey
Decisions regarding technologies within programs
and competition among programs must be based on the
comparison of impacts for entire fuel cycles among
similar end-use applications. For example: Coal/
combustion/electricity/space heating vs. coal/slagging
Lurgi/gas/space heating vs. solar/annual storage water
system/space heating vs. etc.
Fifth, within each program, technology develop-
ment efforts should proceed along parallel paths where
appropriate rather than along a single track. Long term
program plans can be established to chart the expected
program progress. The program plan should clearly
define decision points and opportunities for,public in-
volvement in affecting those decisions. Technical
roadblocks, environmental concerns, project competi-
tion, and program reevaluations will affect the progress
of each project with that program plan.
Sixth, a programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement prepared on the program plan would be the
tool used by the Department and by the public to assign
priorities among competing technologies, evaluate pro-
gram options, identify research needs, and coordinate
technology and environmental RD&D.
Seventh, likewise, the tool which can be used to
compare programs and make commercialization and
budgetary decisions would be the biennial National
Energy Plan Environmental Impact Statement.
There are two partial precedents for the system I
have outlined above. First, DOE has recently released a
draft program management plan for oil shale RD&D. It
undertakes a coordinated technology and environ-
mental RD&D program to be undertaken jointly by ET
and EV. It coordinates parallel resource characteriza-
tion, environmental baseline, environmental control,
and technology development plans.
Of interest is its emphasis on problem solving rather
than on hardware. DOE in that plan starts with a state-
ment of the problem, it then identifies RD&D needs to
solve the problem, designs projects to meet those
needs, and then coordinates the projects.
Second of all, the Department of the Interior has
established a coal management program which has
several tiers of environmental impact statements to
decide on leasing and the availablility of resources.
In that system, regional environmental statements
will access alternative leasing tracts and rank such tracts
on the basis of environmental acceptability. Com-
parably, the DOE Program Plan E1S could evaluate
alternative projects and rank them on various bases.
Back to the Department of Interior, the national
coal EIS would set national and regional production
goals. Similarly, a National Energy Plan EIS would
assess each program's place in DOE's budget and com-
mercialization efforts. Recall that the principal goal of
the National Environmental Policy Act is the compari-
sion of alternatives. This is perfectly suited to making
the choice among competing programs and projects.
The Energy System's Acquisition Advisory Board
would still have a role in this process although it will
primarily assess the design of programs and priorities
among energy sources.
The ninth design criteria is that certain individual
projects will themselves be major Federal actions
significantly affecting the environment. NEPA com-
pliance is essential. However, a coordinated program
plan can anticipate such a need and avoid EIS
preparation-generated delays.
Finally, it is essential to integrate Resource Applica-
tions (RA) activities within RD&D activities.
Too often RA acts to promote commercialization
efforts without the benefit of expert technical assistance
and makes unsubstantiated claims in promoting various
technologies. Closer communication may eliminate this
problem if DOE is willing to see it eliminated. The goal
to integrate environmental factors in technology deci-
sionmaking will be frustrated if some portions of DOE
insist on acting entirely without constraint.
Another purpose for closer RA coordination with
ET and EV is to assist in technology transfer or commer-
cialization of small advances in technology and en-
vironmental R&D. Of particular interest is the use of RD
marketing and other skills to accelerate the impact of
new pollution control strategies.
One example raised at a recent Oil Shale En-
vironmental Advisory Panel meeting reveals efforts in
Colorado to develop a seed bank and adequate plant
materials for oil shale and coal reclamation activities.
The effort does not fit into conventional divisions of
RD&D but does involve the carrying of results of
research activities in reclamation closer to commercial
readiness. This is probably a role in the environmental
area for RA.
Integration of RA activities into the program plan is
also important to assure that all environmental concerns
are addressed. One of the weaknesses, for example, in
DOE's oil shale management plan is the emphasis on in
situ retorting to the virtual exclusion of surface retorting.
As a result, the environmental tasks largely ignore
still outstanding environmental concerns with surface
retorting.
Criteria Used for Evaluating
Individual Technologies
The background document identifies several ap-
propriate criteria for technology evaluation. We believe
it is important to apply these criteria within the
framework we have outlined above. That is, impacts
should be identified and compared among energy
technologies on an entire fuel cycle basis according to
energy end-use applications.
We would only at this point reiterate the concerns
expressed by others, and identified in the workshops
and the Background Document for more meaningful
21
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
and vigorous involvement of the public in decision-
making and education of the public.
The recommendations which came from the
workshops regarding public and non-DOE involvement
are all important. DOE needs to give a greater commit-
ment to implementing those reforms which it has
already planned, and should incorporate those addi-
tional suggestions made during the course of these
hearings and the previous workshops. We have at-
tached our own July comments and the Background
Document public involvement summary to our
testimony.
We should point out that some individuals in DOE
are making new public involvement commitments. For
example, making the oil shale management plan
available to the public for comment is a major departure
from normal practice.
DOE should not limit its dissemination of materials
and information to policy documents though. The
dissemination of RD&D results is perhaps even more
important. Public feedback must be encouraged. Efforts
are needed to facilitate peer review of DOE activities
and research, including multidisciplinary peer review,
and other energy RD&D which has progressed much
faster than can be handled by traditional academic
journals.
No management system will work without mean-
ingful public involvement. It must be clear to the public
how DOE responds to public involvement and par-
ticipation. Credibility of public involvement efforts
demands a responsive department.
Integration of Environmental Factors
Into Technology Decisionmaking
Our discussion of PPMS structure and operation
was exhaustive on this topic. Three additional sugges-
tions may help further. First, the Memorandum of
Understanding is an adequate mechanism for
establishing the framework for program management.
Despite the appearance of creating a separate series of
DOE divisions, the establishment of programs such as
that done in oil shale requires only the cooperation of
appropriate personnel in each of DOE's main offices,
ET, EV, and RA.
Second, consideration might be given to requiring
EV concurrence to implement program decisions.
Third, greater respect for NEPA is needed in the
Department. A year after the Department started to ac-
tively push tax credits for oil shale production, and
several months after the President announced his sup-
port for the credits, we still await (probably indefinitely)
DOE's environmental statement on the tax credit.
In closing, we shall share our hope that this entire
discussion in these hearings will not be made moot by
synthetic fuels initiatives undertaken by the Congress
and the President. Any large scale shale oil commer-
cialization effort is premature. If it is to proceed, it
should be limited in scope to pioneer plants, and it
should be fully coordinated with the Department of
Energy's nonnuclear energy programs in a way which
will help protect the public's interest and environmental
balance. Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you, Mr. Markey. I feel I
should comment that this is an excellent piece of
testimony, one difficult to react to on a short timeframe.
1 think it is an excellent demonstration of the ability of
the public to formulate some very interesting and mean-
ingful ideas. Are there any questions?
DR. PATTON: I enjoyed your presentation and I
tried to follow it as best I could. I realize you said a lot
there. In addition to your concern that each individual
project be carefully reviewed, and that we not pursue
one that would be in any way harmful, how do you add
to this a care or concern that there be a balance such
that while worrying about the cost in any one particular
program we also must balance off the total cost to the
nation for our present economic and energy predica-
ment? 1 don't mean to recite the litany but it is that we
are importing foreign oil which at first blush is marvelous
from an environmental standpoint because it is pro-
duced overseas; however, we have to pay for that oil
with exports, and those exports have environmental im-
pact here at home, and whatever it is that we produce
and then export, whether it is rubber tires, pharma-
ceuticals, munitions, you name it, and so once again I
have a concern here today for that silent portion of the
public, and it is clearly a majority of the public, that
doesn't see each of them in the micro. I would like to
know how we continue to see that there is some con-
cern for the public at large, and for the macroeconomic
problem of energy for the country, which means jobs,
the standard of living that we have come to accept,
and overall health and well-being as well as national
security.
MR. MARKEY: Friends of the Earth is clearly in
the public record that it is concerned with our over-
dependence on foreign petroleum, the costs that that
involves, and the risks that it creates.
The question is how do we get out of of that
predicament. What I am presenting is both a process to
compare research and development efforts, and energy
commercialization efforts within the Federal Govern-
ment to address those problems so that the whole pro-
gram is balanced, so that you are using your most cost-
effective options, so that the program as a whole is cost-
effective, and so that you are protecting the environ-
mental public health and welfare.
If we are to proceed with a crash program, we are
probably going to end up taking more risks than if we
properly design a balanced approach to the situation
which recognizes the uncertainties in the synthetic fuels
technologies, and also recognizes the promise of
changes in the energy economy, and additional efforts
22
-------
Statement of Mr. Markey
in renewable resource applications and conservation
applications.
The Senate Budget Committee has just released a
report on synthetic fuels which very clearly defines the
limits on any crash program and also puts into context
the opportunities for conservation and other means to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The opportunities for synthetic fuels commer-
cialization in the near-term are very limited, and it
makes that clear. What DOE has got to do and what the
Administration and future administrations have got to
do is to very clearly work into its decisionmaking and
budgetary process a rational, reasonable way of figuring
out where its priorities lie.
MS. CLUSEN: I would like, Mr. Markey, to com-
mend your thoughtful comments on the PPMS process,
and tell you that it is undergoing some review at this
time through the Office of the Under Secretary, and that
I shall communicate your proposal to them.
DR. REZNEK: I would like to view briefly two
points. In your statement on page five it says "each pro-
gram, regardless of its size or budget, will be subject to
the same review and evaluation," and you list a set of
criteria. I would like to have your thoughts on including
the question of public involvement in those criteria, and
your general thoughts on the idea of how to institu-
tionalize that as part of the operating program.
MR. MARKEY: Okay. One of the pieces of this
evaluation is NEPA, and NEPA is the ultimate public in-
volvement tool that Congress has established, and
which has evolved over the past 10 years. That is one
entry point into this.
Let me just outline a little bit differently, from a dif-
ferent tack, how these programs would be dealt with.
When I say each program regardless of its size would be
subject to the same review and evaluation, I mean you
are dividing essentially the energy budget into various
programs. The budget of each program is in different
pieces; some of it is in RA, some of it is in ET, some of it
is in EV, and some of it is in other commercialization
efforts.
The design of that program would itself be subject
to a program management plan document which
outlines how it would be structured and how it would be
undertaken, and also to an environmental impact state-
ment, the programmatic impact statement, which
would evaluate the program, identify additional RD&D
efforts, and compare and evaluate different alternative
approaches to that program.
The public hearing involved in that EIS as well as
specific public review, workshops included, advisory
committees, you name it, which address that particular
program over the long term could all have a role in
assessing in each of those programs whether it is oil
shale, whether it is a conservation program, whatever.
On top of this whole program structure you would
have the National Energy Plan which by law is estab-
lished and revised every two years. Already there is an
Environmental Impact Statement which is connected
with that National Energy Plan (NEP).
That process got entirely buried this year because
in the middle of it the President, who is not subject to
NEPA, comes out and proposes this colossal program
which has no relationship to reality. All I am saying is we
have got the tools there, what we ought to do is make
sure that everything is within a program so that you are
comparing everything as equals in the NEP process and
the NEP document, including public hearings nation-
wide or workshops—I like workshops a lot better than
public hearings because you get a better opportunity for
exchange of information for argument, for discussion,
and that sort of thing. They have got to be done right so
that you record everything that goes on in them but you
also provide the opportunity for written comments as
well, that the workshop stimulates.
All those mechanisms, in particular the EIS, and
ESAAB review of this whole thing would be important
in establishing the National Energy Plan.
Over the past several years out in Colorado we
have been very intimately involved with something
called energy forecasting methods, primarily for electric
gas utilities. We reviewed the operation of energy
forecasting methods throughout the country and pro-
posed a program for Colorado which was ultimately
adopted by the State Legislature.
The National Energy Plan process is in essence an
energy forecasting and an energy strategic planning
process for the entire nation which spans all of the
energy sources and has to address the question of
reducing our oil imports. That process is entirely
unknown, there is no preliminary assessment which is
available to the public for its review and evaluation prior
to making any comments on the National Energy Plan
in terms of what the technical assessment is of our
needs, and the opportunities for reducing our needs,
and that sort of thing.
One of the most important things in that process is
to establish a methodology for at least figuring out what
the needs are, and then a process for proposing dif-
ferent ways to get to that end point 20 years down the
line which is forecasted on a technical basis. But the
decision among different routes to get to that point is a
public process; it is not a technology process; it is one
which involves policy decisions which have social, en-
vironmental, and economic and other consequences
and that may be the EIS process coordinated with the
NEP process which is used by the Federal Governments
as absolutely essential.
DR. REZNEK: One other observation. By struc-
turing your program to resolve problems, structuring the
program by problem-solving area, bringing in the
23
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
various components as necessary to do that, you in-
dicate you end up with a very changed spectrum of
activities for the commercialization of resource applica-
tions area, that some of these are the commercialization
of the entire mitigation efforts. That activity to have it
phrased and identified in that way, whether it is
developing seeds for reseeding or developing what is
necessary to introduce chemical process technology
into an industry dominated by mechanical engineers,
seems to me to offer a number of advantages. I would
just like to comment that I think that that aspect of this
approach certainly seems to hold some promises.
MR. MARKEY: It would certainly give RA more
than one thing to do and would expand their mission
and their one track mind somewhat, or at least I would
hope it could.
MR. HEDEMAN: I would like to make an obser-
vation and perhaps get your reaction. In the morning
that I have listened, two concerns seem to be raised.
One, that there is an expected delay in decisionmaking
and implementation because of the public participation
in an adequate sort of way.
You and Ms. Reeves have, I think, brought that
second point out, and I couldn't agree more that NEPA
and the impact assessment process is probably the
ultimate, as you say, way to get that involvement.
The one thing that everyone seems to be scurrying
around, and I am not sure that I am altogether on board
on this in terms of whether I am going to pinpoint the
issue or not, is that the R&D program is in effect a pro-
gram that provides the opportunity to plant the seed. If
the public is not involved in that planting, then ironically
they become involved in the maturing of the plant itself
and that often—
MR. MARKEY: Or the prevention of the maturing
of the plant.
MR. HEDEMAN: That is exactly what I guess 1
am driving at. That maturity ironically in our Federa'
system often does not involve the Department oi
Energy. Instead, it involves other Federal agencies who
up until then have had relatively no input into the
development of the R&D program.
For example, Ms. Reeves mentioned the salt dome
project in Louisiana which is a project that presumably
had some sort of R&D impetus but then requires
government approvals from other Federal agencies tha'
really were not directly involved in the inception of the
projects.
All this leads to a question as to whether in your
view public participation in an active and early stage of
R&D may not indeed produce less delay in that deci-
sionmaking of energy-related projects.
MR. MARKEY: Two things. Number one, to really
answer your last question, "Can earlier participation
reduce delay later?", the obvious answer is yes. There
has been more than one study to address that, one
which I thought was quite well done, and which ad-
dresses both geothermal and oil shale technologies, was
a little study done by the Rand Corporation which com-
pared them as case studies; one involving the public at a
very early stage, the other involving the public when
you are starting to build demonstration plants and com-
mercializing the industry. The response of the public
was entirely different in each case.
The other thing is whether public participation,
public involvement, basically has to delay decision-
making in the acquisition of energy systems. I don't
think that it has to and there are plenty of examples.
One recent look at the question from a regulatory
point of view is an analysis done by EPA Region VIII of
the time required to obtain PSD permits. The biggest
reason for delay was the fact that EPA always receives
incomplete applications. In other words, the biggest
reason for delay is a lack of understanding on the point
of view of the applicant, of the energy developer, of the
system, the decisionmaking system.
They found that there was minimal delay caused
by any public participation activities. The one place
where there was delay was due more than anything else
to the—and it was a delay which Friends of the Earth
and other organizations actually requested by the
developer went along with—was in the review of the
Colony Development Operation PSD permit. That hap-
pened because Colony told EPA "you can take your
time on this permit because we don't need it right away,
we don't have immediate plans to build a plant."
When public participation time came along, there
were two months left in the 12 month clock for decision-
making, but it found by and large that there was ade-
quate public involvement where necessary, and that it
did not delay the process.
If you look at the process, the PPMS process, and
the decisionmaking process, this is what creates delay.
The linear extension of one stage after another during
which there is a key decision in each stage and
everything else, and having to stop all progress, so to
speak, in between each phase of a project. Between
each phase of a project a technology within a program
may proceed in a linear fashion and has to proceed in
somewhat linear fashion, but at the same time there are
all sorts of side programs which are going on which
have to support and expedite this technology acquisi-
tion system.
I just compare that to the charts for the program
management plan for the oil shale R&D program where
essentially you have got four major categories of the
program ranging from resource, characterization, en-
vironment, down to retorting and preparation. Each of
these is going on simultaneously. They all, or a number
of them feed into a demonstration program called the
so-called "moon shot" and they are parallel. That is the
sort of thing which speeds up the process, and if you
have a public review of the plan as a whole and you
24
-------
Statement of Mr. Markey
have various little mechanisms for public review when
there is an important decision to be made, and the plan
identifies those decision points in the plan, you can pro-
ceed without this cumbrous linear process which takes
forever.
MS. REEVES: Dr. Reznek, may I make a com-
ment on a question I was not asked but about which I
feel guilty. Mrs1. Clusen asked the other members about
conferences arid I have to—I can't—I would like to be
able to say. Conferences, and public workshops, and
public seminars, or whatever you wish to call them are
probably the best general adult education mechanism
we have in spite of their problems. No matter how much
difficulty all of us have with another conference and
another workshop, the truth of the matter is in the
school of life we don't have any other place to even go
to class. So I would not like to have the record go away
with a negative connotation. I am fully aware of the
problems that we have in developing good conferences
and workshops, but I believe that in order to get people
of different persuasions and different points of view
together, a conference is one mechanism that does it,
and if you structure it properly so most people can
argue among themselves instead of creating an adver-
sary position between the participants of the conference
and a particular agency, it is very productive.
So I just have to add that. I am a long term advo-
cate in spite of the problems that conferences cause,
and I hope that DOE continues to fund, to encourage,
and to improve them.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. I have been handed a
note which says the outlook is bleak for food. There are
two cafeterias, one is across the hall and one is in the
Department of Interior building. I think we should try to
reassemble by 1:30. We have drifted over our time, as
conferences and workshops tend to do. But if we can
begin promptly at 1:30 we can move into the list of
witnesses this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing recessed
for lunch to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. the same day.)
25
-------
-------
Afternoon Session
Statement of Mr. Whiting
(1:30 p.m.)
DR. REZNEK: Mr. Hedeman was called this
afternoon, Toby Pierce will be replacing him on the
Panel. I am hoping for the return of Mr. Siek. Our first
witness this afternoon will be Macauley Whiting from
the National Coal Policy Project. Mr. Whiting?
MR. WHITING: My name is Macauley Whiting. I
am employed by the Dow Chemical Company as a con-
sultant on energy and am here representing the
National Coal Policy Project as Mr. Reznek said.
I am Chairman of the Project's industry group. This
project (NCPP) aims to achieve a reconciliation of the
views of those whose prime concern is energy develop-
ment on the one hand and those of environmental
priority on the other.
The project is now nearly complete and is deemed
to have been successful. It is felt that the approach or
process might be useful to the Department of Energy's
research, development, and demonstration manage-
ment process. This approach to reconciliation is called
the "Rule of Reason" process.
In my testimony, I plan to describe the general
process, to give the history of NCPP as an example,
and finally to explain how I think the process might be
used by DOE.
Stephen Gage of your Panel was one of the first
people in government to encourage the initiators of
NCPP to go forward.
The "Rule of Reason" has recently been described
by attorney Milton Wessel in his book by the same
name. He cites it as an alternative to the normal court-
room adversary proceeding in which the aim of each
party is to defeat the opponent, and in which games-
manship is a major element of the tactics.
Conversely, gamesmanship is avoided in the "Rule
of Reason" process for dispute resolution, and the
primary aim of the parties is to find an accommodative
solution which does not seriously transgress the values
of either.
Mr. Wessel sees the "Rule of Reason" as adapted
to the resolution of complex socio-technical issues such
as are confronted every day by the Department of
Energy in the development of new energy technology.
It is not adapted to more simple questions like, for
instance, the guilt of a burglary suspect.
The employment of the "Rule of Reason" depends
on negotiation between qualified experts on each side
of the issue and it does not rely on the wisdom of an
inexperienced lay person like a judge. It also depends
on the development of a trusting relationship between
the partisans over the course of an extended period
of negotiation.
Application of the "Rule of Reason" generally
follows this code of conduct and I would like to read to
you from Mr. Wessel's book. The code has sometimes
jokingly and lovingly been referred to as a substitute for
the Boy Scout code.
First, "data will not be withheld because it is
'negative' or 'unhelpful.' Concealment will not be prac-
ticed for concealment's sake. Delay will not be employed
as a tactic to avoid an undesired result. Unfair tricks
designed to mislead will not be employed. Borderline
ethical disingenuity will not be practiced."
"Motivation of adversaries will not unnecessarily or
lightly be impugned. An opponent's personal habits and
characteristics will not be questioned unless relevant.
Wherever possible, opportunity will be left for an oppo-
nent's orderly retreat and 'exit with honor'."
"Extremism may be countered forcefully and with
emotionalism where justified but will not be fought or
matched with extremism. Dogmatism will be avoided.
Complex concepts will be simplified as much as possible
so as to achieve maximum communication and lay
understanding."
"Effort will be made to identify and isolate subjective
considerations involved in reaching a technical conclu-
sion. Relevant data will be disclosed when ready for
analysis and peer review—even to an extremist opposi-
tion and without legal obligation. Socially desirable pro-
fessional disclosure will not be postponed for tactical
advantage. Hypothesis, uncertainty, and inadequate
knowledge will be stated affirmatively—not conceded
only reluctantly or under pressure."
"Unjustified assumption and off-the-cuff comment
will be avoided. Interest in an outcome, relationship to
a proponent, and bias, prejudice, and proclivity of any
kind will be disclosed voluntarily and as a matter
of course."
"Research and investigation will be conducted
appropriate to the problem involved. Although the
precise extent of the efforts will vary with the nature of
the issues, it will be consistent with stated overall
responsibility to the solution of the problem. Integrity
will always be given first priority."
27
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
To be more explicit, let's examine the employment
of the "Rule of Reason" process by the National Coal
Policy Project as described in its report titled "Where We
Agree." I,will have several copies of this summary and
synthesis of the report for the Panel for inspection later
on. I would like to read certain excerpts from the
chapter on the history of this project.
"The idea of the National Coal Policy Project
(NCPP) originated with Gerald L. Decker, Corporate
Energy Manager of The Dow Chemical Company, and
certain of his colleagues in industry. They believed, in
part as a result of their participation in studies performed
under the auspices of the Department of Commerce's
Technical Advisory Board (CTAB) that it was important
for the United States to shift from the use of oil and
natural gas to coal. It appeared to them, however, that
this would not occur without a reconciliation of environ-
mental and industrial interests.
"In connection with Mr. Decker's service on the
Federal Energy Administration's Environmental Advi-
sory Committee, he met Laurence I. Moss," who will be
here shortly, "former Sierra Club president and chair-
man of that committee. Decker, with the support and
encouragement of key executives of several major com-
panies, approached Moss and other environmentalists in
January, 1976, to enlist their support for the project."
"The environmentalists were not enthusiastic.
Some had met with representatives from industry on
previous occasions and found the discussions unpro-
ductive. The environmentalists felt that they could not
afford to set aside the considerable time required for the
proposed project unless there was a reasonable likeli-
hood that it would be productive. On the other hand,
many of them were not fully satisfied with existing
mechanisms for resolving disputes, and were receptive
to exploring new approaches. From the environmental
point of view, there was a growing feeling that the
industry had business to transact with the environmental
movement just as it does with shareholders, labor
unions, customers, and regulatory authorities. The lack
of a non adversarial forum to conduct such business
was impeding progress on issues upon which agreement
might be possible."
"It was agreed, accordingly, to test the concept
with a single two-day meeting on a limited agenda. This
meeting, held in July, 1976, was judged productive by
the participants. Industrialists and environmentalists
meeting in separate caucuses endorsed continuing and
expanding the project to address important coal-related
environmental and energy policy issues. Decker and
Moss were elected Co-Chairmen by their respective
caucuses."
"Five Task Forces were organized to cover the
spectrum of coal-related energy and environmental
policy issues. They were: Mining; Transportation; Air
Pollution; Fuel Utilization and Conservation; and
Energy Pricing. Later an ad hoc task force, Emission
Charges, was organized, drawing from members of the
Air Pollution and Energy Pricing Task Force. Each side
was represented equally on each Task Force."
"The Task Force Co-Chairmen and Vice Co-
Chairmen," 20 people in all, "were formal members of
the Plenary Group, the governing body for the project.
Other members were the NCPP Co-Chairmen, Decker
and Moss; and, Father Francis Quinn, the Plenary
Chairman."
"The Plenary Group defined the scope of the Task
Forces' activites, provided guidance and redirection,
and reviewed and approved their recommendations.
The Plenary was responsible for resolving disagreements
between Task Forces."
"The fact that the Plenary group approved the final
task force reports does not mean that every member of
the Plenary is in full agreement with the more than 200
recommendations contained therein. Most Task Force
recommendations were accepted by the Plenary with-
out dissent. The more controversial recommendations
were discussed until a consensus of the Plenary group
emerged but, in a few cases, agreement was not unani-
mous. Those dissenting had been provided the opportunity
to submit for the record their minority views."
"The participants in the project took part as individ-
uals. Although they were selected in part because of
their leadership roles in environmental and industrial
organizations, they do not support to speak either for
their organizations or for the environmental and indus-
trial communities at large. The issues are too complex
and controversial for either side to speak with a single
voice."
Following the test meeting in the summer of 1976,
the full scale effort got underway in the winter of
1976-77. The task forces met over the course of more
than a year. Nearly half a year later was taken in
preparation and approval of reports, and this phase was
completed nearly a year ago. Implementation and the
tying up of loose ends are now in progress.
To arrive at final agreement on the 200 recommen-
dations of NCPP then took the direct and extensive
involvement of over 50 industrial and environmental
representatives, together with supporting staff, nearly
three years of time arid nearly one million dollars of
budget. As you can see, the "Rule of Reason" is not a
process to be casually undertaken.
Among the 200 recommendations are some out-
standing syntheses, such as the recommendation for a
single hearing process to lead to site approvals by the
many agencies involved in granting these. In this pro-
cess, the reasonable expenses of participation by
selected public interest groups would be paid by govern-
ment. The participants at NCPP felt that this recom-
mendation for such a combined hearing process would
yield faster and better site decisions. I mention that as
one example of a synthesis recommendation.
28
-------
Statement of Mr. Whiting
Now, it seems to Mr. Moss and me that this "Rule
of Reason" proceeding would have limited but impor-
tant application in DOE's RD&D management process
to best assure consideration of environmental and
energy conservation matters.
Of course, the subject would have to be of sufficient
importance to command the high budget, of sufficient
permanence to permit the long time, and of sufficient
interest to attract qualified environmental and energy
development representatives.
Given such conditions, DOE could well assemble
qualified groups who would adhere to the code of con-
duct of "Rule of Reason" to deal over time with environ-
mental and energy conservation issues which arise in
the course of important energy developments.
One timely subject, as an example, is the develop-
ment of synthetic fuels. Even any one of the synthetic
technologies would qualify as a subject that is important,
long-lived, and interesting.
I hope that you can visualize now the "Rule of
Reason" process as demonstrated by the National Coal
Policy Project, and its potential application to the issues
faced by DOE.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before you and would be pleased to answer any questions.
DR. REZNEK: Mr. Whiting, should we ask Mr.
Moss to testify and ask questions of both of you or
should ask you questions now?
MR. WHITING: It might be well to address the
questions now and let me be sure—I think Mr. Moss
plans to testify directly about DOE matters and not to
talk as much about the "Rule of Reason" process.
MR. MOSS: Yes, I will be covering two other
questions in my testimony.
DR. REZNEK: Are there questions?
(No response)
DR. REZNEK: Let me start off by asking the ques-
tion of—the people involved certainly reach a consen-
sus if there are 20 people on each side, but have you
been able to translate the consensus that is reached
between the participants into a broader political context
such that the recommendations are finding a constituency
that is actually leading to modification of government
programs?
MR. WHITING: That is very difficult. The other
day I used the examples that nobody from industry has
taken out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal on
behalf of our recommendations, nor have any environ-
mental groups staged a rock concert on their behalf, but
we have achieved a general acceptance of these as an
accommodative solution. There have been issues taken
with some of the findings by some people, but the
instances in which that has happened have been minor.
We have presented the findings in San Francisco,
California; in Houston, Texas; in Billings, Montana;
and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I would say that well over
1,000 people have attended presentations and we have
answered their questions. As a result, there have been
two or three issues that have not been accepted, but
there has been very, very general and large, if unemo-
tional, kind of acceptance of that recommendation.
MR. MOSS: Let me comment on that. It is always
very difficult to establish cause and effect relationships in
the complex business of policy formulation. A lot of
people are speaking out on various sides of any par-
ticular issue. We didn't duck any issues, and we made
some very controversial recommendations that were
not. only controversial but quite broad in scope. But I
think we have had an impact although I will by no
means claim total credit for such impact.
For example, it seems to me that three or four
years ago, before we undertook this project, it was a lot
harder to find people in the public interest sector who
thought that there might be some problems associated
with controlling energy prices to low levels than there
are today. And partly as a result of the work in the proj-
ect where we pointed out that without energy being
priced at replacement cost levels, you weren't going to
get the right amount of investment in conservation or
solar energy or any end-use technology that some of
that shift has occurred.
We made a lot of recommendations and had a lot
of findings on reclamation of strip mine lands, and for
the first time we had a body of technical information
agreed to by both sides that no one had had there to
work with before. I think that was quite useful.
In specific areas in the reclamation of strip mine
lands, we have come up with rather detailed recom-
mendations on things like bonding provisions of the
law, things like assistance to small mine operators. And
we found a receptive audience among the regulators,
and, in fact, in the case of bonding provisions the deci-
sion to go ahead with the rulemaking procedure at
which we and others would be given the chance to sub-
mit our recommendations so that we have high hopes
that we will have impact there.
I could go on in the other areas as well, but 1 think
those of us who have been associated with trying to
influence policy over the last 10 or 15 years are a little
bit humble about what can be accomplished overnight.
I remember Ed Wayburn, who is a well-known per-
son in the Sierra Club, instructing some of the newer
directors of the Sierra Club back about 10 or 12 years
ago on what it took to assemble a political consensus,
and get legislation passed to create a new national park.
We had to plan on a 7 or 8 year campaign on average in
order to accomplish that.
Some of the issues we are talking about here are
just as controversial as creating a new national park; in
many respects, more controversial because they affect
more people more directly.
MR. PIERCE: Early this morning we heard Gor-
don MacDonald talk about the CO2 greenhouse issue.
This is an example of a long-range issue which we are
29
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
going to be grappling with in the years to come. I would
be interested how a group like yours with people from
industry, from environmental groups handle an issue
like that.
MR. WHITING: I would say that in an issue like
that you are dealing with a great many unknowns, and
the process would be particularly valuable in that point
because between the knowledgeable partisans you can
work out strategies which minimize the risk both to envi-
ronmental concerns and also to economic development
while the process of finding out what the true nature of
the risk is.
! think particularly in an adaptive situation like that
that the "Rule of Reason" process is applicable where
the knowledge is not complete, and where you are try-
ing to figure out a way of progressing without too much
danger while the full scientific knowledge is being
accumulated.
MR. MOSS: I am not entirely satisfied with how
we handled that in phase one of our project. In effect,
we pointed attention to the fact that there could very
well be a problem and ask for further research on it to be
conducted and expedited. A lot of other people have
made that recommendation as well and there is a
research program currently underway. But that is the
kind of an issue that undermines the whole question of
using more coal or fossil fuels in the future, and it is very
difficult for people on both sides of the project who were
brought together to consider how decisions should be
made if more coal was to be used to grapple with such a
fundamental question. Maybe we can do a better job on
that in the future. Certainly, if more damaging informa-
tion is uncovered about CO2 in future years, we or
others will have to discuss, and eventually implement
policy initiatives which will prevent the uncontrolled
increase in CO2 concentrations.
MS. CLUSEN: Would one of you suggest a current
or near term Department of Energy issue that would
lend itself to this process?
MR. WHITING: I mentioned the synthetics as
one that seems very much adapted to it. Really, the
development of any new energy technology in which
environmental cautions have been raised, we thought
as we prepared for this hearing, would be adapted to
the formation of "Rule of Reason" group to follow the
process, the full process of the development of the
technology. In other words, we don't see the "Rule of
Reason" proceeding as kind of a spot thing, but rather
something that would follow the course of a development
right through.
MS. CLUSENj It would of necessity then, I
gather, have to be a long term project and a well-funded
one. It is not an answer for dealing with our immediate
decision.
MR. WHITING: Right. I would not use it to pre-
pare an Environmental Impact Statement, for instance.
I think that would be a poor use of it as spot in a thing
like that.
MR. MOSS: But my experience has been that
immediate decisions almost always have a history of
turning into decisions that last over years, and people
come back to the same questions, they have the same
conflicts, the same unresolved issues. They reconsider
and reconsider, and if a process like this was begun,
then at least a year or two further down the road you
would begin to resolve some of those conflicts, and
maybe produce some better considered decisions.
DR. REZNEK: Begun with Federal money behind
it. One of your successes was the lack of bias and lack of
prejudice in the way in which you were funded and
selected your members. Can you expect the Federal
Government to operate or to fund a process such as
yours, and allow it to maintain the unbiased reputation
that your project has?
MR. WHITING: That is a difficult question to
answer exactly. We were much more cautious at the
start. At the start, environmentalists would not tolerate
any funding from any industry that stood to benefit
directly, to profit directly from the energy business. We
had no oil company funding, et cetera, which made it
extremely difficult, of course, to get funding initially. As
time went on, 1 think the environmentalists felt that
there was much less pressue or bias applied by the fund-
ing than they had feared initially, and thus, my answer
to that question would be that even though the govern-
ment's direct interest is in the development of energy
technology it ought not to be impossible to have the
money dispensed in an even-handed way, or to put
controls to guard against the bias that might otherwise
come from development-oriented funding.
MR. MOSS: There is an interesting story about
this. The Project did receive some government funds,
although it was much less than half. One contribution
was a grant from DOE. When this was being discussed
with Secretary Schlesinger, two of the Georgetown
University CSIS people were discussing it with him, and
he asked them what DOE would buy with this grant.
One of them said "nothing," and the other one thought
that answer was too harsh and started to hem and haw.
Mr. Schlesinger interrupted him and said, "The first guy
gave the right answer, don't say any more or you will
spoil it." So it depends a lot on leadership at the top.
There still may be a perception of a conflict,
though, and that is why the National Coal Policy Project
was set up so that all the environmentalist expenses
were covered by grants from either foundations or
government agencies. But there is a long term problem
with that.
Foundations are interested in funding this as a pro-
totype to see if it can be done, so that other, people will
consider non-adversarial processes in dealing with these
and other problems, but they are unlikely to fund this
sort of activity indefinitely.
Thus, it is necessary to find other kinds of institu-
tional mechanisms in order to make this thing possible in
30
-------
Statement of Mr. Moss
the future. Expanded funding by Government agencies
may be part of the solution.
DR. REZNEK: I guess, Larry, you could continue
with your testimony.
MR. MOSS: I am going to present my individual
views on two important questions that are before you. I
have not made a careful or comprehensive study of the
present institutional arrangements for including environ-
mental and energy conservation factors in the planning
for research, development, and demonstration, but I
have formed certain impressions as a result of my chair-
manship of first, the FEO, and then the FEA's environ-
mental advisory committees over a period of five years,
as well as impressions obtained from other contacts
during and since that period.
The two questions I would like to focus on are:
first, the integration of environmental and energy con-
servation factors into technology decisionmaking, and
second, the role of advisory committees in this process,
and in the more general matter of advising the Department.
Mac Whiting, as you know, has already commented
on the possible role of non-adversarial processes in giving
advice, and I won't get into that in my remarks.
First, I'll address the integration of environmental
factors into technology decisionmaking. There are two
models that I think of in describing how this could be
done. The first model is to have a periodic review to
identify and avoid potential "show stoppers," as DOE
and others put it, impacts that would stop the tech-
nology dead, and which, unless overcome, would
make continuation unwise. It is my impression that this
is the motivating element of the current DOE process.
A second model is to have an interactive process in
which environmental and energy conservation factors
are influential in steering the technology development
along one path as opposed to another path. This would
be not necessarily because of "show stoppers," but
because of relative advantages and disadvantages from
the viewpoint of environmental impact and energy con-
servation considered along with the more traditional
elements of the planning process.
Let me give you an example. DOE has a number
of development programs in the gasification of coal.
The expected emissions of air pollutants from these
processes are less than those expected from a conven-
tional coal combustion plant using a scrubber. But it
would be possible to make the emissions still less, in fact
so much less that air pollutant emissions would no
longer be a factor in the siting of these plants, by using
gas produced from coal, rather than conventional coal
combustion, for in-plant energy services.
This would be done at some additional cost,
obviously, and there would be some sacrifice in energy
efficiency unless you did other things to compensate, of
which I will speak in a moment. The cost might be 20 or
30 percent higher at the upper limit. When we are talk-
ing about a cost of production of gas from coal that is
already marginal in economic terms, it is understand-
able that the developers of these sytems don't like to do
anything that would increase the costs still further. But it
would be possible to recapture some of the energy lost
in conversion with combined cycle electric generation
and cogeneration. A higher temperature thermo-
dynamic cycle is possible using gas than with conven-
tional coal combustion. With the feature of having close
to zero emissions as well as acceptable conversion effi-
ciency, and with electricity as a useful and high value-
added byproduct to help recover the additional capital
costs, this could be an attractive line of development.
The question I want to ask is how would this line of
development be proposed and pursued within the deci-
sionmaking and evaluation processes that is either cur-
rently in place at DOE, or something that might replace
it? I do think that we need an interactive process, along
the line of the second model I have given, in addition to
the first model, the identification of show stoppers.
In other words, I believe we should think of envi-
ronmental and energy conservation analysis as part of
the solution rather than part of the problem in developing
new technologies.
How do we accomplish that? We obviously need
appropriate institutional arrangements, with the various
agency divisions given roles at important stages in the
decisionmaking process, so that people with primary
responsibilities in energy conservation and environmen-
tal protection are able to evaluate and comment at the
right time.
We also need the right people in place in the dif-
ferent parts of the organization. I think you need people
with strong motivation towards environmental protec-
tion values on the technology development side, and
you need people with a strong technical background,
with competence in engineering and design, on the
energy conservation and environmental assessment
side. Otherwise, you are not going to get the right play
between the two groups, the right kind of tension, and
the discussion won't take place to the desired depth.
These are ways that I think of possibly accomplish-
ing it. I am sure there are others and perhaps we can
discuss the importance of accomplishing this interactive
process, and how it might be fostered, later in this hearing.
The second issue I would like to address is that of
the rgle of advisory committees in helping to impact on
the DOE decisionmaking process. My experience, as I
said, is with the FEA Environmental Advisory Commit-
tee. There we often had a feeling of frustration with
members of the Committee doubting that they were
having any impact on the FEA. But that was leavened
with assertions from FEA officials, and perhaps more
important from former FEA officials who had no reason
to tell us so, if they didn't believe it, that we were
highly effective.
I remember one visit we had from a former FEA
official who was appointed Assistant Secretary of the
31
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
Department of the Interior who took time out from a
busy schedule to come to one of our meetings to
explain how we had had an important impact on the
FEA decisionmaking process. In fact, I think we were
influential in such areas as the importance of proper
pricing, the need to focus on improvements on end-use
efficiency which were cheaper than the marginal costs
of supply alternatives, the need for the Federal Govern-
ment to get its act together on cogeneration, and the
need for consideration of certain environmental impacts.
What makes an advisory committee effective? The
first is an obvious one: You need talented, highly
motivated members and they should come from a
cross-section of disciplines, including technical,
economic, and experience with public policy formula-
tion. They should have a range of values, but in an
environmental advisory committee obviously environ-
mental values should rank high.
In the case of the FEA Environmental Advisory
Committee, its members went on to become the
Administrator of EPA, the Chairman of CEQ, the
Chairman of the CAB (and then the President's Infla-
tion Advisor), the General Counsel of CEQ, an Assis-
tant Administrator of EPA, an Assistant to the Secretary
of Interior, a member of the White House Domestic
Policy Staff, and so on. So we had a talented group
of people.
On the question of whether you could assemble a
comparable group now, I think the answer is yes, if you
do the job carefully. I know that I am continually
impressed by the number of talented, committed people
in all sectors of our society who have yet to receive
widespread recognition despite their outstanding work.
This constitutes a pool from which committee member-
ship can be drawn. The committee chairman, by the
way, should be involved in the selection process. That
was the case with the FEA Environmental Advisory
Committee, and I think it worked rather well.
You need good staff support, which we had with
the FEA Environmental Advisory Committee. You
need good working relationships with top agency
people, which we had, though I must confess to a cer-
tain amount of frustration arising from the frequent turn-
over of the top people.
I would alsoj mention the ability to form task forces
on specific issues) and add to them people not members
of the committee when their contributions would be
important. That sends out roots from the committee to
the community-at-large, and involves people who are
very competent who may not happen to be members of
the committee.
Something we did not have on the FEA Environ-
mental Advisory Committee but I think is also very
important, and would have increased our effectiveness,
is to have funds available to support those members of
the committee, or those people brought in from outside
who were employees of public interest groups, or non-
affiliated individuals when they were working on
committee business.
We have done that in the National Coal Policy
Project. We provide an honorarium for each day of
attendance at a regular committee meeting plus an
equal amount presumed to be in preparation for the
meeting or in follow-up to it. This may have made a dif-
ference with some people who are faced with all kinds
of demands on their time but who felt that at least we
took this seriously enough to compensate, in part, them
or their non-profit organizations for the time we were
asking them to spend on the project. We also budgeted
funds for a part-time staff assistant to each of the task
force environmental co-chairmen.
1 think that similar funding would be especially
important if the advisory committee were to play a role
in the interactive process 1 described before, since it
requires a pretty thorough review of alternative
technological options in making recommendations
about which lines to pursue.
These comments touch on only two of a multitude
of issues that I am sure are in front of you, but are the
things I felt most strongly about and most knowledge-
able about. So that is what I chose to include in my
testimony. Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Are there questions?
MS. CLUSEN: I think you gave some very helpful
advice on the role of advisory committees, particularly
regarding the advisory committee with which I deal.
Some of it could be adopted to the model at DOE and
some of it could not. But I too have heard good things
about the advisory committee to FEA/FEO. Perhaps
there was some particular value attached to being in the
game in the formative stages that gave you greater
opportunity than perhaps exists now with an ongoing
agency having a broad mission for energy development.
I was curious about one statement you made. I
want to be sure that I do not misunderstand it. Was
there some implication, and if this is true I can even
understand how you might have arrived at this conclu-
sion, that there is inequality in the scientific or technical
competence required by those, for instance, who work
in the energy technology side, and those who do a job
on what is regarded by some as the softer side, the envi-
ronmental side, or conservation side, or in the technical
competence that exists on those two sides?
MR. MOSS: I have not made a careful study of
this, so I draw no conclusions about it, but I do think it is
important that there be a rough equivalence of technical
competence, and that you have people on the environ-
mental assessment side who know a lot about process
development as well as knowing a lot about scientific
assessments of environmental impact. In considering
technological alternatives in evaluating different paths
that might be taken in development, they have to know
32
-------
Statement of Mr. Endahl
when someone on the development side is being honest
with them, for example, when claiming that a line of
development is impractical or impossible. That takes a
certain amount of sophistication in the game that is
played by the development people.
MS. CLUSEN: There is no judgmental factor
involved in your saying that at this time?
DR. MOSS: No, I have not made a study of the
present situation at DOE, I would be curious, though, if
the example I gave of possibly using product gases to
fuel the in-plant energy services, and combine that with
combined cycle, and possibly cogeneration has ever
been seriously considered on either the development
side or the environmental assessment side within DOE
in defining an optimum path of development. I am not
saying it is the solution, but I am just saying it is one of
the kinds of things that should be carefully evaluated. If
something like that hasn't been carefully evaluated, it
may point to either some inadequacies in the process,
or inadequacies in not having the broad spectrum of
talents that you need in different parts of the organiza-
tion, and values motivating the people that would help
identify things like that.
MR. WHITING: If I could add to that answer just
a little bit. I think generally what you are looking for, if
the problems in DOE are the same as the problems we
faced in the National Coal Policy Project, they were
problems of getting accomodative solutions or problems
of making very creative syntheses to problems that had
been there for a long time and haven't been solved before.
We found out that people who understood the
technology had the resources with which to make these
accommodative solutions or syntheses, whereas people
who were of very good will and very much motivated to
solve it, if they didn't have the technical resources they
were not able to contribute much to the solution.
MS. CLUSEN: I think I should reply for my office
that we have a highly professional and technically com-
petent staff, and that it cannot be compared with that
kind of an operation.
MR. WHITING: By no means did I mean to imply
that, I was thinking more of a volunteer as well—
MS. CLUSEN: I know you were, and that is why I
wanted to clarify it.
MR. MOSS: Mac, you weren't saying that the
environmentalists in the Coal Policy Project lacked
technical competence, were you?
MR. WHITING: No, I was saying just the
opposite.
MS. CLUSEN: Sorry I raised the question.
MR. MOSS: We have all got to defend our turf.
DR. REZNEK: Let me dwell on that a little bit. We
heard some testimony this morning that it is the job of
people schooled in the environmental sciences to set
standards, and then for the engineers to meet those
standards in the most efficient way. That testimony was
given this morning rather forcefully.
What you are suggesting is the development process
itself, the engineering development process itself, which
should somehow or other incorporate in NEPA for
making sure—or an ethic to make sure that the environ-
mental performance is maximized as welt. That implies
an engineering capability with that particular goal to find
an institutional organization within the Department
of Energy.
MR. MOSS: That is a good summary of what I
have said, with one small caveat. I don't like to use
words like "maximize" when I am talking about only
one of the criteria that is involved in an optimization. If
you maximize one, you have not regarded anything
else as being of importance. But in the overall optimiza-
tion process, the lessening of adverse environmental
impact can perhaps be given greater weight than it has
been. In order to do that, I think we do need this
engineering kind of competence on the environmental
side to participate in the assessments and to interact
with people on the development side. Again, no judg-
ment is implied on whether or not that presently exists.
MR. PIERCE: It would seem to me that one of the
indicators of success, if not the major indicator of suc-
cess, is the degree to which an advisory committee
recommendations are listened to, the degree to which
you are causing change to occur. I am just wondering
whether in light of your own time and the time of other
people on advisory committees do you have a kind of
evaluation or perhaps even a quantification of the
degree of success that your recommendations are
adhered to? In other words, if you have, say, 20 recom-
mendations a year, or two years from now are they
being listended to, are they being looked at, do you
analyze your action on advisory committees in that way
at all?
MR. MOSS: We don't quantify it. I think that
would be very difficult or impossible, but we do review
our progress. We did that on the FEA Environmental
Advisory Committee. And if we saw things weren't being
implemented, we didn't drop them, we kept on calling
the people back who would be the ones responsible for
implementing them and kept on raising the issues.
Similarly, in the National Coal Policy Project, we
periodically review what has been happening, either
consistent with or inconsistent with our recommenda-
tions, and try to bring our recommendations to the
attention of more people who are in a position to act
on them.
The business of influencing policy is very complex
and there are no clearcut answers to it. Nevertheless, I
think we have had enough of an impact in both cases to
make the activity worthwhile.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Our next witness is
Lowell Endahl from the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association.
MR. ENDAHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Hearing Committee. My name is
33
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
Lowell Endahl, coordinator of Research and
Technological Development for the National Rural Elec-
tric Cooperative Association. 1 have with me Joe Ives,
our environmental counsel, and who is also a member
of the Environmental Advisory Committee.
I would like to deal mainly with areas of energy
conservation and I am sure if you have questions con-
cerning environmental issues, Joe will be happy to assist
in answering those.
NRECA is a national service organization represent-
ing more than 1,000 non-profit, consumer-owned rural
electric systems that deliver electric power to about 7.5
million farms and rural residences throughout the nation,
that is about 25 million people, that are beyond the
natural gas mains in the rural and sparsely populated
agricultural areas of 46 states.
These cooperatively owned utilities are located in
some 2,600 of the nations's 3,100 counties and they
own and operate more than 40 percent of the distribu-
tion lines to serve about nine percent of the nation's
population.
NRECA and its member systems are concerned
about how the energy policies made here in Washing-
ton will affect the little guy at the end of the line. We still
build our programs and policies on the belief that we
must have an adequate supply of energy at reasonable
prices in order to maintain a strong, prosperous
America and the standard of living we enjoy. We
believe that we must have a healthy environment but
also that costs as well as benefits of environmental
initiatives should be carefully weighed.
We believe that the development and rapid com-
mercialization of new technology and constant efforts to
.improve efficiencies of our current methods of produc-
ing, distributing, and using energy are essential to the
nation's future. From that standpoint, the work of the
U.S. Department of Energy is vital to that effort and we
have given strong support to many of the programs
within DOE.
At the regional meetings this fall, the NRECA
members approved a resolution which I believe clearly
speaks their views on the need for reduced dependence
on petroleum through research.
I think all members of the Committee have a copy
of the statement and the resolution therein.
"Continuation of policies and energy use approaches
that encourage increased oil imports will have a
disastrous effect on this nation's economy and living
standards. Recent predictions indicate that imported oil
prices will soon reach $40.00 per barrel."
"We believe that this nation must act promptly and
do everything possible to reduce dependence on im-
ported oil, and a major part of that effort should involve
an expanded research, development, and demonstra-
tion (RD&D) and commercialization program."
"We believe that emphasis on the following pro-
grams are essential to ultimately achieve reduction of
dependence on foreign oil:
1. development and commercialization of
economical and environmentally acceptable processes
to produce synthetic fuels from existing abundant fossil
fuels and renewable energy resources;
2. development and demonstration of electric
power production emphasizing economically feasible
alternative energy resources and improved efficiencies
in coal utilization; and
3. a concerted effort to establish policies to shift
from an oil based economy to an electric economy
where abundant coal and nuclear resources can be
maximized through conservation by development and
commercialization of more efficient electric appliances
and equipment (i.e., energy efficient heat pump water
heaters) and by commercialization of electric vehicles
which, in many instances, can substitute for gasoline
powered vehicles."
"We therefore respectfully urge the President and
Congress to act promptly in establishing policies and in
the funding of major RD&D and commercialization pro-
grams, as outlined, that can begin to reduce the
stranglehold that oil producing nations now have over
us. We further urge that electric cooperatives, as
consumer-owned organizations, be recognized as ideal
utilities to implement demonstration and commercializa-
tion programs and that the Rural Electrification
Administration be given the authority and the funding
to carry out these programs with the assistance
of NRECA."
Note that the rural electric membership encourages
conservation in the broadest and purest sense, it urges
environmentally acceptable processes of producing syn-
thetic fuels, supports research to improve etficiencies of
power production and to develop supplemental energy
resources, and urges policies that will result in a shift
away from an oil-based economy to one which utilizes
our abundant resources. -
There is also a separate resolution attached which
speaks to building standards and which I believe in-
dicates that some of our policies within DOE are really
not aimed at reduced dependence upon petroleum. We
want to call that to your attention.
We believe that a strong research and development
and demonstration program is essential to resolving our
energy supply and use problems. While we have gone
on record in support of many of the DOE programs, we
believe that there is room for improvement in the deci-
sionmaking process and in areas involving priorities and
procedures for demonstration and commercialization.
We believe that we need to explore all the
possibilities and make use of all the technologies that
show promise for resolving the energy problem. But
because of the urgency of the energy situation, we
believe that the greatest attention should be given to
those technologies that have greatest immediate prom-
ise for saving, or producing, substantial amounts of
energy quickly, reliably, and economically, as well
as safely.
34
-------
Statement of Mr. Endahl
We think there is a great temptation to base deci-
sions on what is politically acceptable than what is prac-
tical or technically achievable. I was interested in the
discussion earlier, and I think some good ideas were ex-
pressed on how groups that would ordinarily oppose
one another might be able to get together and resolve
some of these problems.
We support, for example, a strong solar and space
heating program as having the greatest potential of the
solar technologies that are available to us today and par-
ticularly for people in rural areas that we are serving.
But I think we have to be realistic about what kind of
fuel savings can be achieved with this kind of a conser-
vation policy.
Conservation to us means a lot more than curtail-
ing the use of energy. It means utilizing not only solar
energy, but more efficient appliances. In addition, it
means greater attention to the energy savings that can
be achieved by improved efficiency in the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electric power. For that
reason, we have strongly supported the work done by
the Division of Electric Energy Systems at the Depart-
ment of Energy.
The potential for conservation by improving the
efficiency of electric power production and distribution
is enormous. One percent increase in efficiency would
give us well over 5500 megawatts of electric power. Yet
very little attention, and even less funding, is given to
these areas.
We believe that there is a great tendency for the
Department of Energy to engage in paper studies and
surveys rather than the kind of research and develop-
ment that produces hardware and eventually results in
introduction of new technology.
Volumes of reports and attitude surveys and com-
puter models by themselves are not going to solve the
energy problem. At some point in the near future, that
technology has to be demonstrated and commercialized.
I guess we get a little impatient. We would like to
see some of the things that have been researched,
developed and put into practice.
It is in that demonstration phase that the rural elec-
tric systems and other utilities can play an important
role. Programs involving large scale power generation
and transmission usually are conducted with utility input
so that results can be implemented quickly. It is equally
important that utilities be involved in small-scale
technology and even in the programs involving conser-
vation and solar space conditioning and water heating.
We are getting an opportunity to make an input in
many of these areas and especially in an area involving
the demonstration of a new technology which has been
developed by the Department of Energy, the heat
pump water heater. There are some 100 heat pump
water heaters being demonstrated now by cooperatives
and other utilities throughout the nation. This device
could do the work of a solar water heater at less than
half the initial cost.
We believe that rural electric systems, in particular,
can play an important role in the implementation
of technologies such as these. As consumer-owned
organizations, they are responsive to the needs of their
members and as such are in a position to advise and
assist them and to encourage the use of energy saving
technologies.
In addition, we believe that it is essential that the
utility be a part of the team because the introduction of
such technologies as consumer-owned power genera-
tion facilities and solar space heating systems can have
an impact on the electric system. By working together,
the utility and the consumer can both benefit from these
technologies.
The transfer of technology we think is the greatest
problem that DOE faces. We believe much more atten-
tion needs to be given to this area. The tendency is to
hold a conference and hope that you get the right peo-
ple there and that the information that is disseminated
gets out to the people who use it.
We think that there ought to be someone responsi-
ble for initiating an innovative marketing program, an
effective marketing plan, to make sure that the
technology is put to use. This is as much the responsi-
bility of DOE as developing the technology. We under-
stand that this is being considered and that DOE is trying
to do this.
Some system of measurement should be
developed to determine the effectiveness of any given
department in marketing its ideas. We suggest that
perhaps one way to do this would be a close working
relationship with the Electric Power Research Institute
which has close contacts with utilities, all segments of
the utility industry, and has the capability of technology
transfer.
With respect to the adequacy of attention given by
the Department of Energy to environmental protection,
we just do not know of situations where adequate atten-
tion is not being given. We think it is being done quite
well. But we do caution against imposing such stringent
environmental constraints that the needed research
never gets done, or is so severely hampered or delayed
that the real purpose of DOE, which is to help solve the
energy problem, is never really achieved.
1 would like to call the Committee's attention to the
resolutions in the rear of the statement, especially the
one having to do with energy performance standards.
We are concerned about the attitude that the use of
electricity for space conditioning is by definition wasteful
and that it should be discouraged without considering
the resource used for generating the electricity. Rural
electric systems generate most of their power with coal
fired units. They are also beyond the natural gas mains.
Their only choices are oil or electricity, so here is
something that we are very concerned about.
With respect to the resolution on "price forced con-
servation," we oppose any energy conservation plan
35
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
based solely on increased energy prices or increased
taxes.
On the question of research on cost-of-service
studies, we believe that these studies are necessary but
we believe that the Department of Energy ought to
come up with some plans and a program to try to find a
low cost, simplified uniform approach to data gathering.
This would be very useful to us.
We have outlined suggested priorities in research
funding, and we have already discussed some of those,
and the support for Federal energy-related research and
the support for fuel cell commercialization.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this
statement.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Are there questions?
(No response)
DR. REZNEK: I have some questions. The com-
parison of research investment between efficiency and
generation and conservation measures is—do you
foresee a way of deciding at the margin how to allocate
the Federal resources between investments in, say, tur-
bine development or MHD or those kinds of questions
and Federal investments in conservation measures, the
experiments on having the financing for tightening
up homes.
MR. ENDAHL: We think both are important and
one should not be slighted for the other. I am not sure
that I can answer your question as to exactly how do
you determine the dollar value for each of the
technologies.
In allocating resources, we believe that greatest at-
tention should be given to those areas that can produce
greatest results with minimum effect on lifestyle. That
means concentrating on achieving greater efficiencies in
energy technologies such as generation, transmission
and distribution, where small improvements can pro-
duce large energy savings.
DR. REZNEK: In your testimony you say we
need to explore all possibilities but money is not
available in infinite supply.
MR, IVES: The biggest problem that we think can
be overcome rapidly in the near term is the improve-
ment of power plant reliability. If, for example, as
Lowell mentioned in the testimony, we can improve it
one percent, it gives us a tremendously large increase in
capacity utilization which in itself keeps us from having
to build additional power generating stations, so that the
reliability can be handled. If these efficiency im-
provements can be applied to the electric utility
industry, we think there can be immediate payoff. By
immediate, I am talking 4, 5, 10 years, possibly. With
the other technologies, you are talking about the
year 2000.
DR. REZNEK: Since the-
MR. IVES: This is immediately. If these analyses
are carried out properly, we might be able to change a
few pumps or a valve and increase our availability by a
very large amount.
DR. REZNEK: The current split between oil fired
and coal fired power plants is—will, hopefully, switch in
the future as we become more dependent on coal.
Therefore, won't that program impede the replacement
of oil power with coal power?
MR. IVES: We are largely on coal. About 90 per-
cent of our capacity is coal fired. The oil, (most of the
rest is oil and gas), is a fairly small amount. So for us I
don't think it will be a substantial problem.
MR. PIERCE: There are a number of utilities—the
ones I know about are mainly on the West Coast—that
have found that it is cheaper to support energy conser-
vation measures as opposed to building new generating
capacity. My question to you is how serious do you feel
the conservation alternative is being taken in planning
for future capacity and, number two, how acceptable do
you think that conservation measure alternative would
be in terms of customer receptivity?
MR. ENDAHL: We think our rural electric
systems are taking conservation seriously and have
been for a good many years. 1 can recall 20 years ago
we were trying to get the insulation standards improved.
We had a meeting on that with a number of people from
NEMA, TVA, and several organizations that should
have been very much interested in insulation of homes.
At the time rural electric systems in Minnesota were
recommending 13 inches of insulation in the attic. That
was 20 years ago.
We had a terrible time getting those insulation
standards raised. So our people have been very much
involved with that kind of thing for a long time.
We don't see though that conservation is going to
eliminate the need for additional power generation. Our
loads are growing at the rate of a little less than six per-
cent per year currently which is a little faster than the
investor-owned segment and we think it is going to con-
tinue simply because there are more people moving out
there. There are many more needs for energy.
Also as I mentioned earlier, there is the need for
substitution for oil. If we substitute electricity for oil,
which is really our biggest problem, we will minimize our
dependence upon imported oil. Using something other
than oil and electricity generated by coal, we think,
makes a lot of sense.
MR. IVES: One other point I think is very impor-
tant to supplement what Lowell said is the fact that we
produce power, not energy. Where you may conserve
energy, we don't see any decrease in the production of
power. You might say that there is a good substitution
by using low level energy like solar heating to replace
power consumption because you can get away with a
low level type of energy. But not in factories—our
standard of living depends on power production.
MR. ENDAHL: Let me give you one example
taken from an EPRI report. If 25 percent of the new
residences that we build today were outfitted with solar
space heating equipment, between now and the year
2000, that would provide a seven percent reduction in
36
-------
Statement of Mr. Pate
space heating energy required. If it is possible to retrofit
another 3.5 million homes, that would increase this
figure to nine percent. But the combined savings of total
energy would be about one percent reduction in total
energy used in this country.
You see, what we are trying to say is that we ought
to do those things that result in energy conservation.
There is no question about this. I have a solar water
heater myself. But we have to be realistic about how
much energy conservation can reduce our energy
needs and how much we really need to increase our
supplies of energy in the future. We need to do both.
MS. CLUSEN: Mr. Endahl, I would like to com-
ment on two statements in your testimony. One had to
do with your belief that there should be someone
responsible in DOE for the commercialization of new
technologies and innovative approaches. Let me assure
you that there is. For the last two years, the Deputy to
the Under Secretary has been responsible. At this point
in the realignment that responsibility is located in the
Office of Resource Applications.
I would also like to add that we indeed have had a
long ongoing arrangement with the Electric Power
Research Institute, which has recently entered into
some joint funding of projects.
MR. ENDAHL: Very good. We think that is a very
good approach.
DR. REZNEK: One of the questions in your
resolutions are "We strongly oppose a massive infusion
in Federal research funds in solar research to the near
exclusion of developing other forms of energy such as
nuclear that are more economical and environmentally
acceptable."
How do you compare solar energy in terms of its
environmental acceptability to nuclear?
MR. ENDAHL: Solar space conditioning and
solar water heating—we don't see any serious environ-
mental problems to that. Solar thermal electric requires
a good bit of space. We really don't see any serious
environmental problems with the solar technology. You
have to remember that these are resolutions of our
membership. The NRECA membership is concerned
about the economic as well as the environmental
aspects of these technologies.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much. We will
take a 15 minute break and then reconvene at
3:00 o'clock.
(Brief recess)
DR. REZNEK: We will start again. Our next
speaker is Mr. Pate from this morning. His flight was
delayed. Mr. Pate is from the Alabama Solar Energy
Coalition.
MR. PATE: Thank you. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to be here with you today in order to present my
views on the adequacy of environmental impacts of the
Department of Energy's decisionmaking process with
respect to nonnuclear research, development, and
demonstration programs.
I would like to make a comment on Mr. Whiting's
presentation. I really don't think he has to worry about
rock stars doing a benefit for coal-related projects.
It is impossible to discuss this subject in isolation
because the issues we hope to address are so far-
reaching. Our decisions in developing energy tech-
. nologies have got to be the best possible because they
don't just affect people's lives today but will be extremely
important for many generations to come.
Our energy crisis is real and will require more than
paper studies to solve. However, it is extremely impor-
tant to note that development of nonrenewable energy
technologies will place very uncomfortable burdens on
future lives, since depletion of finite resources which are
nonrenewable will severely hamper availability of goods
dependent upon fossil reserves for production; i.e.,
plastics, drugs, stainless steel, and fertilizer.
I am an unsalaried, non-staffed officer and Board
member in a public interest, not-for-profit group,
educating and promoting solar and renewable energies
and appropriate technology in Alabama.
I can safely say that 1 have no vested interest in any
energy technology that DOE, (which by the way could
stand for the Department of Entropy) can concoct, with
the notable exception that I will be forced to pay
possibly through the nose for those energy tech-
nologies, both financially and physically with their
environmentally related impacts.
Since I live within sight of strip mining operations, I
can attest to the adverse environmental impacts of that
energy resource, including audible pollution, water and
air pollution, erosion of the land, and visual pollution.
Raped earth is not a very pretty sight.
From an environmental standpoint, let me state
preference for decentralized, renewable-income sources
of energy technologies, as they are without fail the most
environmentally benign.
With respect to the Background Document on this
hearing, let me begin by noting that the Department of
Energy PPMS is rather farcical as decisions are already
made before they (the PPMS's) are even prepared. For
heaven's sake, what would it take to cancel an energy
technology from being developed?
To begin with, PPMS comparisons aren't even
made between competing energy technologies. Also, it
appears to me that PPMS's are done as a cursory dip of
the hat to the NEPA.
I would call for equal representation in decision-
making with senior DOE officials by environmentalists
and public interest representatives, each having equal
representation and authority to override research,
development, and demonstration for energy tech-
nologies having adverse environmental impacts.
Having actual authority in the decisionmaking pro-
cess would in all probability, assure environmentally
sound energy technology development. All four
regional workshops have called for public input in this
37
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
matter and, by God, if environmental protection is to be
accomplished, we must have that representation.
Also, on page 21, note the terminology, "to syn-
chronize required," and "intended to insure envi-
ronmentally responsible decisionmaking"—note the
sign as you came in "Required Public Hearings," and
finally, the over-abundance of should's, could's, and
designed to's in the text. If the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency were the environmental protection agency
I would call for, it would have the authority vested by
Congress to override policy decisions made by the
Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, or
any other Federal agency with respect to environmental
degradation.
Also note that PPMS and the environmental plan-
ning and assessment process which are intended to
ensure environmentally responsible decisionmaking are
pure crapola, or else we have a batch of unadulterated
idiots making decisions at DOE.
As testament, consider the adverse environmental
impacts of the solar satellite power systems, SSPS, yet it
appears that $25 million will be appropriated to
evaluate that boondoggle next year.
This is an evaluation of SSPS. There are many
proposals to use space satellites to trap solar energy and
microwave the energy to earth. The most popular plant
size is to use about 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells
to generate electricity to microwave to a 100 square
mile receiving rectenna on earth.
The Boeing Sunsat System employs a series of
reflectors to heat a closed loop helium turbine. This tur-
bine electric system weighs a great deal more per watt
than the photovoltaic system and is not considered to be
as viable"as the photovoltaic system but stitl continues to
receive considerable government funding.
Other plans including building large scale manufac-
turing and transport facilities both on the moon and in
space for using lunar material to build the system. This
plan, O'Neill/Nasa, would require much larger initial
funding, perhaps 10 to 100 times, and would probably
deliver no power until well after the year 2000, yet it
continues to receive significant funding.
The basic plan is to build perhaps 60 5,000
megawatt plants in space which would provide perhaps
10 percent of our domestic electricity in the year 2000
at a cost of perhaps one trillion dollars, neglecting infla-
tion, cost over-runs, and unanticipated difficulties,
et cetera.
The cost of the first 5,000 megawatt plant would be
about $100 billion which is about 15 times the cost of a
comparable terrestrial nuclear power plant.
All of this assumes that the cost of photovoltaic
sales would drop to about five cents per watt, at which
point the cost of sales to provide electricity on the roof
of an average house would be only $250.
The plan appears to be outrageously expensive.
Each plant would require the firing of about 100 heavy
launch lift vehicles. The HLLV, heavy lift launch
vehicles, not yet developed would be much larger than
the Saturn rocket and would have to carry about 500
tons apiece as opposed to the 30 to 60 ton capacity of
the Saturn space shuttle system.
There are many environmental problems. The
HLLV would punch unprecedented holes in the
ionosphere, the microwaves would totally dry up the
area under the rectenna, birds flying through the
microwave beam would become "uncomfortably warm"
at best. We might advise the birds that they should fly
directly through and not lull around.
The beam might wander by accident and radiate
human population or could be deliberately trained on
human populations as a military weapon. The space
platform is vulnerable to attack. The cells may have a
very short life in space due to micrometeorite bombard-
ment, perhaps as much as 10 percent loss of capacity in
only 10 years.
The centralized power plant of rectennas would
require massive new land-line systems and would con-
tinue the present oligarchic system of power distribu-
tion. The beam would disrupt police, taxi, C.B., and
defense electronic communication equipment within a
distance of perhaps 100 miles of the rectenna.
The SSPS system adds heat which would normally
not reach the earth to the earth's heat budget. The
question arises, who is promoting the SSPS and why?
Most of the promotion has come from NASA, large
aerospace corporations, notably Boeing and Lockheed,
and major nuclear boiler suppliers such as
Westinghouse and General Electric. All of these are
industries whose support base is eroding. NASA cannot
justify continued manned exploration of near space
unless there are more massive direct human benefits
than resulted from Apollo-Skylab kinds of programs.
The large American aerospace corporations are
finding their sales slipping as European manufacturers
are beginning to build more efficient aerospace vehicles.
Orders for nuclear plants and other conventional plants
are being cancelled as conservation and economics are
beginning to take effect.
All of this means that these major industries and
the congressmen who represent them, such as Ronnio
Flippo, who I regret to say is a representative from
Alabama, are the major influences in the SSPS move-
ment. Most energy-related consumer organizations who
support solar programs have taken strong stands against
SSPS. Such organizations include Solar Lobby, Envi-
ronmental Action, Center for Renewable Resources,
and Citizens Energy Project. The Sierra Club, Audubon
Society, and other environmental groups have pub-
lished critiques of what has been called "pork barrel
in the sky," "a solar boondoggle to rival nuclear and
synfuels."
I am probably the most intense solar advocate in
the universe, but don't think for one minute that just
because energy technology has solar incorporated that I
will fall for it. I really can't quite come to grips with
38
-------
Statement of Mr. Pate
DOE's supposedly sincere approach to "public candor"
while throwing out such unmitigated bull all the time.
It is critical to know at this time that any research
and development monies appropriated to an energy tech-
nology merely adds impetus to further expenditures in
order to justify the initial expenditures; i.e., nuclear
energy.
I would like to reiterate the call for active
dissemination of information. For example, I received a
1500 page Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on nuclear waste disposal (and other technologies don't
have nearly the far-reaching environmental implications
as does rad-waste) three days before the hearings in
Atlanta last week. So I can verify that neither adequate
time nor resources were allocated for public participation.
Are there members of the press in the audience?
Would you raise your hand?
(No response)
MR. PATE: I think this demonstration also proves
that point. Just for the record, could I receive the
Federal Register for the Solar Energy Coalition-
Alabama's Library? Since I was told at the public hearing
on Management of Commercially Generated Radio-
active Waste that notice of that hearing and the subse-
quent 1500 page GEIS was announced in April. The
address is Solar Energy Coalition-Alabama, P.O. Box
163, Coaling, Alabama, 35449.
Just to remind us of what we are here for, I will
quote, "the adequacy of attention to energy conserva-
tion methods and environmental protection ... and the
environmental consequences of the application of
energy technologies."
In terms of conservation, let's examine the Indus-
trial Recycling and Conservation hearings that DOE
held. In those hearings it was brought out that DOE had
no mandate on energy conservation for industrial
groups, all they have is targets. Unless financial incen-
tives or economics are there, I doubt if industry is going
to take it on their own to meet those targets. It should be
mandated conservation efforts.
Let me take this opportunity to castrate DOE and
EPA at the same time for their open-ended approach to
urban waste utiteation, promoting combustion, rather
than source separation, and more environmentally
benign energy production technologies, such as
methane generation (etc.).
Include here endorsement by the Department of
Energy and the Department of Agriculture and EPA's
lifting of environmental considerations for alcohol
production.
In terms of alcohol production, I would like to
address a couple of issues. Just what is the net energy
picture for alcohol? We know that a bushel of corn meal
will produce 220,000 Btus of alcohol, but how much
energy does it take to produce that alcohol? Distillers
use 280,000 Btus, but that is for double-distilled drink-
ing alcohol. The engineers at the National Gasahol
meeting in November, 1978, said that they could do it
for 80,000 Btus, but they haven't done it yet. How
many Btus of gasoline and other fuels does it take to
grow a bushel of corn. And if it does take a total of, for
example, 200,000 Btus to grow, harvest, mill, and pro-
duce 220,000 Btus of corn-derived alcohol, is it worth
it? Or are we better off perhaps to use our oil reserves,
until a direct solar economy is achieved?
I would like to note here that in 1972, (if I am not
mistaken, we have somebody here from the Petroleum
Council) the Department of Interior stated that the
reserves of petroleums in the United States was at 500
billion barrels in 1972. A short year later, after the Arab
oil embargo, this reserve was reduced to fifty billion
barrels of oil in our reserves. One year dropped our
domestic reserves a hundred-fold. Why is that?
Since it takes much less invested energy to grow
high cellulose crops, for example trees, than it does to
grown grains, perhaps we should concentrate on wood
alcohol, (methanol) instead of grain alcohol, (ethanol).
What are the net energy figures for alcohol produced
from high cellulose crops such as wood chips, bagasse,
and corn stalks? Grain is fairly plentiful today, but much
less plentiful than it was in the 1950's when we filled
ships with our surpluses and then towed them out to sea
and sank them.
Food shortages are looming for the 21st century.
Soil is eroding from our corn fields at over a ton per acre
per year average. Is it wise to get deeply involved with a
resource which would allow us to prolong our love affair
with the automobile, continue the destruction of our
soils, and then have to go "cold turkey" at a point where
we are even more dependent on liquid fuels. Perhaps a
better solution would be conservation, 1500 pound
cars, and more careful land use.
Alcohol is a more powerful fuel than the blend of
hydrocarbons we call gasoline. When added to gaso-
line, it raises the octane level the same way additives
such as tetraethyl lead do. On the surface, this would
seem to be a good thing. By adding alcohol to gasoline,
we can abolish leaded gas and save the catalytic con-
verter, thus making it possible to continue building
engines the same old way. Alcohol may be arriving just
in time to preserve current American automobile
technology for a few more years at a time when we
should be changing as rapidly as possible.
When gasoline was selling for about 65 cents per
gallon, 10 percent alcohol-gasohol was selling for about
70 cents per gallon, presumably because the alcohol
costs 50 cents per gallon more than gasoline to produce
and sell; that is, about $1.15 per gallon. Although there
have been claims that alcohol can be produced and sold
for 60 to 70 cents per gallon, most commercial sales
have been in the $1.10 to $1.60 range.
In Brazil, where both 100 percent alcohol and 10
percent gasohol are in rather extensive use, the alcohol-
based fuels are far more expensive than gasoline, even
though gasoline costs significantly more than it does in
the United States. Are there any good solid studies
39
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
which would lead us to believe that alcohol will ever
compete economically with gasoline, or are we just
luxuriating in wishful thinking?
Also, we must remember that since it takes energy
to produce alcohol, the cost of alcohol will always be
pegged to the price of other energy, whether that
energy is a ton of coal, a pound of uranium, a barrel of
oil, or a cord of wood.
This shortsighted approach is indicative of the
irrelevance of the PPMS. At this point, it becomes diffi-
cult to reflect upon the relevance of environmental con-
siderations in current DOE research, development, and
demonstration decisionmaking processes since at best
those considerations are wholly inadequate at this time.
To quote Public Law 93-577, Section 2(a), the
"nation is suffering from a shortage of environmentally
acceptable forms of energy, (b) ... This failure is partially
because the unconventional energy technologies have not
been judged to be economically competitive with tradi-
tional energy technologies." Who made that judgment?
Perhaps it would be wise to ask why we have the
"conventional" energy sources we use, and then see if
there is any correlation between those accepted energy
sources and those which the Department of Energy, in
its shortsightedness and total lack of public interest or
benefit, are advocating.
Our energy needs today are met by supplies derived
by men who in their "infinite" wisdom learned how to
forge the earth's beauty into power for a profit. Prior to
this development, all energy needs were derived from
renewable, environmentally benign energy sources,
notably, solar, wind, biomass, and hydro, and were all
income sources of energy.
My perception of environmentally acceptable
energy technologies calls for appropriate technology in
the area of renewable energy resource RD&D which
inherently call for decentralization, public benefit and
control, and distinct advantages for our progeny.
Instead, we have tower power so that someone can sell
the sun.
In regards to tower power, the tower power con-
sists of a very large array, perhaps 1 to 10 square miles,
of mirrors on double axis mounting so they can con-
stantly reflect and focus sunlight near the top of a tall
tower. The tower contains high technology metallo-
ceramic surfaces which can receive the energy at
temperatures from a few hundred degrees to a few
thousand degrees and use this heat to boil water and
then run a turbine on superheated steam.
The boiler turbine uses large amounts of cooling
water just like the ones in nuclear coal-fired power
plants. The advantages of the tower power are that the
fuel is free and the plant is free from the various pollu-
tions: air, water, mining, radioactivity, and dangers
associated with conventional power plants.
However, there are many problems associated
with tower power. Not only does it continue the tradi-
tion of centralized high temperature corporate-
distributed power, but the fact that these plants would
have to be located in low rainfall areas means that
cooling water would be scarce and expensive.
In addition, these semi-arid areas are the last areas
where we should be heating up the water. Desert areas
are low population density areas and so the plants
located large distances from the load centers would
require a larger scale transmission line and facilities than
conventional power plants.
The initial costs are high, about $10 per watt, and
show little promise for future cost reductions. By con-
trast, many wind electric systems are already operating
at less than $3 per watt and the cost of photovoltaic cells
is now below $4 a watt with costs on the order of $1
watt promised in a couple of years.
In addition, the tower power is a "fragile" power
plant. Parts must be replaced frequently, not only
because of the very high temperatures and rapid flow
rates, but also because the mirrors must remain bright
and the axis free-turning in a rather hostile, blowing-
sand environment.
Another problem with centralized terrestrial solar
system is the difficulty of providing storage backup.
Either you fire up a fossil fire boiler every night or you
must store the daily-generated solar energy during the
day so that it can be released at night.
So far, the only feasible way to do this is to pump
water up to a high lake pump storage and then let the
water run back down through turbines at night.
Although this is the best option available for centralized
power plants, it is not very efficient and it is particularly
inappropriate for power tower application because of
the lack of water at the desert sites and because of high
evaporation rates.
Small-scale storage is much more appropriate. A
household can store its solar electricity in batteries,
flywheels, or other technologies which cannot operate
on that large a scale.
It is disgusting and disappointing to me to see short
term profit oriented energy technology promoted by a
government agency when that government was estab-
lished by the people and for the people and not by the
multi-nationals and for the multi-nationals and their
respective stockholders.
The only folks I see advocating coal gasification, et
cetera, are politicians representing coal-producing states
and oil companies which in turn own the coal com-
panies. Instead of research, development, and demon-
stration to increase supply of internal combustion
engine fuels, alternative transportation methods utilizing
more efficient technology should be the priority of the
day. According to my calculations, approximately 60
percent of DOE's funding goes to nuclear energy and of
that going to nonnuclear sources, about 95 percent
goes to oil companies or other large multi-nationals.
40
-------
Statement of Mr. Pate
The most sensible program currently offered by the
Department of Energy is the Appropriate Technology
Small Grants Program and we will be lucky if we can
squeeze $16 million out of the big business funding for
this year.
The Appropriate Technology Program exhibits a
characteristic I would tend to advocate. Let's simply
give all the Department of Energy funds to the public
and let the public through free enterprise select appro-
priate energy conservation or supply technologies. At
least they couldn't screw things up any worse than DOE
has done with their Department of Entropy approach.
I fully realize that when big business has squeezed
the last dollar of profit from its oil, natural gas, coal,
nuclear, shale, and tar sands investments and have suf-
ficiently monopolized the renewable energy field that
they will allow DOE to proceed with actual efforts to
develop those energy resources.
There are by now several million Americans who
are pissed about nuclear power, as evidenced by the
almost daily rallies, marches, and protests (brought
about by their education on the subject) and believe me,
this public criticism of energy policy will spill over to
other adverse profit-oriented energy technologies.
What I am calling for is sensitivity to public benefit
and long term solutions rather than short term pitfalls.
For example, the synfuel—and I would like to note here
the misnomer of synthetics, there is nothing synthetic
about converting from a solid form to a liquid form with
a very high net energy loss—program would only solve
our petroleum shortages in the near future, wreaking
havoc on the environment in the process.
The billions proposed to develop this extremely
low, net-energy-benefit technology could be much
more productively spent developing long term solutions
such as renewable technologies, conservation, and
educating the public.
The Department of Energy has failed to set an
appropriate example in procurement efforts with
respect to photovoltaics, and research, demonstration,
and development has been disproportionately directed
toward NASA-scaled energy systems rather than
community-scaled peoples energy. Not only have
smaller, environmentally benign technologies been sur-
named DOE's "stepchild" in energy research, develop-
ment, and demonstration, but those solar technologies
being promoted by DOE, also by NASA, Boeing, West-
inghouse, will have adverse and irreversible environ-
mental damage as well as serious resource depletion,
i.e., SSPS and tower power.
From the outcry of solar advocates and anti-
nuclear proponents, I feel that the American public is
unwilling to sacrifice a clean environment, even for
energy. What is needed is active rapport not only
between the Department of Energy and big business, but
between small business and the public as well. A per-
sonal point of aggravation is my understanding that
about 75 percent of the Small Business Administration's
solar loans went to big business subsidiaries for synfuel
projects, coal gasification, what-have-you.
One thing strikes me for certain, if nuclear power
development had been assigned to solar advocates or
appropriate technology folks in the fashion which
nuclear advocates have been assigned the development
and commercialization of solar, we would still be waiting
for our first commercial reactor just like we are still
waiting for commercialization of solar technology to
begin. Unbelievable!
President Carter has been quoted as saying that if
he and Congress can't deliver to the public a sensible
energy plan, then they should all resign and go home.
Second that recommendation. And if the Department
of Energy can't begin to reassign priorities in its energy
research, development, and demonstration, then they
can all forget it and go home also.
If the Department of Energy expects its new effort
at public candor to be accepted, it has got to stop its
determination to keep vested interests above public
interests and to begin to take long and serious looks at
environmental impacts.
As guardians of the earth's resources during our
time here, we have a moral obligation to ourselves and
to our progeny to conserve all resources that we are
technically and not necessarily economically feasible of
doing so, meanwhile devoting all energies and resources
to renewable energies.
I'll close with my tee-shirt of the month which
states, "We don't care. We don't have to care. We're
Exxon. At Exxon, we're part of the problem." Thank^you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Are there questions?
(No response)
DR. REZNEK: I have just received a note that our
next witness, Dr. Schlesinger, has been delayed. He is
scheduled for the last witness for the day. We would like
to open up and ask if any of the audience would like to
testify.
MR. STEVENS: My name is Ken Stevens. My
comment is really quite brief. This morning a couple of
the people made comments with respect to the role the
engineering profession should play. As a Registered
Professional Engineer, I have noted that over the past
ten years or so there has been a change in the attitude of
engineering students. Most notably that environmental
matters are no longer out of the question for considera-
tion, they are part of the decisionmaking, they are just
as much a part of it as physics or chemistry or electrical
matters. I think that is very desirable.
We are seeing this in the Department of Energy,
especially with the younger people coming into DOE.
Since I work on the outside, I can watch this from
somewhat of an objective distance. They are integrating
environmental thinking into their technical decisions
without even giving it a second thought.
An example is when I visited someone in Energy
Technology a few days ago, the ET group within DOE,
and asked what he saw as the basic needs for additional
41
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
R&D funding, he listed three items. Two of them were
for specific technology development and one of them
was for an environmental study that was actually being
funded by ET. It was obvious to me that he had done a
lot of cross thinking with EV, Mrs. Clusen's operation,
and said they have work going and we would like to
parallel it with some work that enables us to integrate
this thinking with our technical decisionmaking at the
front end.
So 1 think this is a very positive thing that is going
on. I think there is a long term trend. I think it is
accelerating. I think it is very desirable.
DR. REZNEK: Mr. Stevens, I think we missed
your affiliation.
MR. STEVENS: My name is Ken Stevens, I work
for the Aerospace Corporation, which is a consultant
to DOE.
DR. REZNEK: 1 would like to address a question
or two to Mr. Pate. Mr. Pate, your comments imply that
any centralized power distribution system is in reality so
expensive as to not be deserving of federal support and
any decentralized one, based on renewable resources,
is competitive and therefore advantageous to any
centralized one. Is there a formalism for making this
calculation?
For example, you implied that in the long term,
renewables are our only solution. However, I believe
that most people think that we have quite a number of
years left on a synthetic fuel based on coal technology
and that the cost of foregoing that transition bridge
would in fact be quite high.
MR. PATE: You are right, I stated the costs would
be very high. It would deserve a commitment which
President Carter called the "moral equivalent of war," I
believe. At any rate, the 400 or so years that we have
left of coal at current energy consumption rates would
be knocked down to around 125 years if we used the
synthetic fuels program primarily because you take a
ton of high grade coal and convert it to approximately
90 or so gallons of gasoline.
I didn't really mean to imply that all centralized
generating facilities were necessarily demons. I realize
that in a lot of urban areas that will be the way we have
to go and, therefore, I have no difficulties with that.
What I am saying in terms of how the selection process
should be made would be to take a look at net energy
benefits, that was a part of my comment, that in the
PPMS evaluations, there were no comparisons made
between competing energy technologies and it is also
important to note that PPMS's are not even required for
I think technologies in which less than $50 million is
spent in a year or less than $200 million is budgeted
over the life of the project.
At any rate, with respect to what I feel is one very
good Department of Energy program going on right
now is the Appropriate Technology Small Grants Pro-
gram. I would challenge anybody within the Depart-
ment of Energy to take a look at the net energy benefit
per dollar invested in that Appropriate Technology Pro-
gram and compare that to dollars invested on any other
energy technology program that is being developed,
with the possible exception of conservation. Also, in
respect to synfuels, President Carter's plan purports to
invest $88 billion through the Energy Security Fund to
develop a synthetic fuels capacity to provide 2.5 million
barrels per day in 1985. The figures that I see from the
Harvard Business School, Energy Futures Report
would tend to indicate that about a ninth of that invest-
ment spent on conservation technologies would
generate that same 2.5 million per day saved, which
would be saved from that point on and not have to be
resupplied daily.
DR. REZNEK: So you believe that it is possible to
have a reasonably forma! calculation of net energy
return per investment, particularly Federal R&D invest-
ment, which could be used as a consistent criteria across
the investment choices.
MR. PATE: Yes, I do.
DR. REZNEK: Another question that I would like
to return to is that you felt that the substitution of energy
conservation methods for fuel consumption required an
activity above and beyond the market allocation required
of federal mandate to conserve energy. Do you believe
that the federal establishment has got the wisdom to do
that effectively?
MR. PATE: That's a very incriminating question. I
am not sure that there is that capability—
DR. REZNEK: We are only people.
MR. PATE: Right. I am not sure there is that
capability. I can note, however, that the American
public is indeed willing to adhere to conservation
methods. I think the figures that are coming in are like
85 percent response participation in the thermostat set-
ting and what have you. I think that indicates that the
American public as a whole is willing to go along with it.
I think it is important to note that in terms of industrial
(or commercial, or what have you) energy consumption
(for one industry in particular}, the aluminum industry
has decreased because it is very economical for them to
recycle and to conserve energy putting out aluminum
products, and that they have gone to those technologies.
What is needed is to take away the federal incen-
tives—in terms of taking raw materials, rather than
recycling products, there are also tax incentives for
industry to ship raw materials rather than to ship recycled
materials. There are resource depletion allowances that
should be gradually if not drastically done away with.
And several other areas of institutional barriers there. I
just don't feel that setting targets without providing
some sort of financial incentive or else mandating those
targets is going to be very effective in energy conservation.
DR. PATTON: You mentioned several things that
gets close to economics and I thought I would take a
moment to see if I clearly understood your point. You
called for the equivalent of net energy analysis as
42
-------
Statement of Mr. Pate
evaluating various alternatives and the same thing was
said today, earlier, before noon. Allow me a flight of
whimsy for a moment.
I could see the Labor Department doing a net labor
analysis and then you could see the Treasury doing a
net capital analysis and when these three reports would
be brought to the Office of the President, he would turn
to his council of economic advisors and say "what shall i
do?" and they would say, "Look at the market price for
the three commodities and choose the one that is most
effective in terms of price." They might say that. It is
very likely they would say that. But I wonder if that
would satisfy your understanding of the issue as well.
What 1 am really saying is you cannot look simply
at net energy, you must recognize that we need land,
natural resources, labor, and capital and all those things
are captured in the price system if, one, you don't
unduly subsidize one thing to the disadvantage of
others; and two, you avoid the use of mandates. I would
appreciate your response to that.
MR. PATE: What I would address first is the state-
ment of unduly providing incentives for one energy
technology over the other. I think it is fairly common
knowledge that the non-renewable energy resources
are heavily subsidized by the government and there are
very few incentives, except for personal income tax
credits and very small industrial income tax credits, for
development of renewable energy technologies.
In terms of the three part analysis of the net energy
analysis or the net labor analysis or the net capital
analysis of the energy technologies, I think that by
examining and if there were some structured method for
preparing an accurate report in those three areas in
comparison of non-renewables versus renewables, that
the renewables in most cases would probably give a
slight advantage at this time due to the high and rising
cost of non-renewables energy sources.
But I think also that somewhere in that analysis
there has got to be what this hearing is for, an envi-
ronmental consideration. It really bothers me that we
are depleting the earth's resources, which have taken
millions and millions of years to store here, in a period
of roughly 100 years for our own personal, self-seeking
interests, so that we can fly around in our automobiles
and we can live in a 70 degree heated house and a lot of
other things that really shouldn't be and that as inhabi-
tants of this sphere and of the earth for a very short
period of time, it is our responsibility to make sure that
the future generations and our progeny in particular
have resources for the necessities of life, not only purely
physical comforts.
So I would advocate a four part analysis. I am
about as fair-minded a person as 1 know and if there
were distinct economic or capital or land considerations
that would preclude development of a renewable
technology and that is what the people wanted, then )
would be all for it.
DR. REZNEK: When you pursue that line of
argument in its usual direction, you finally corne to the
point where someone has to put a discount rate on cur-
rent costs and future discount of increasing costs and
values of remaining resources to future generations. Do
you have a discount rate that ought to be used? Should
we plan for 100 years or 50 years?
MR. PATE: Steve, 1 have really given a lot of
thought to that subject. If we continue our nuclear
madness, we might should only use 100 years, but
assuming that the physicists' calculations are correct, the
sun is going to keep shining for something on the order
of four billion years. So what I would advocate in terms
of replacement costs would be to average the number of
people that are going to be here for four billion years
and then see what it amounts to environmentally for
energy development.
DR. REZNEK: I think if we use a billion year
discount rate, you will end up in renewables.
MR. PATE: The transition to renewable-based
society is inevitable, and this is a comprehensive change
in lifestyle in terms of recycling, conservation, and all
the things that people quibble about being good and fine
but that the economics are just not there. The fact
remains that that transition is going to be made, because
at our rate of consumption, we are going to deplete the
earth's fossil fuels within a very short (geologically
speaking) period of time. 1 would even allow 500 or
1,000 years if that is what you want to hear, but the
transition is inevitable. So why delay that transition?
Why not devote our interests and our energies and our
resources to developing those technologies so that we
have petroleums to make plastics and to make drugs
and to make fertilizers for future generations.
Once you do that, the environmental concerns
really begin to take shape.
DR. PATTON: If we run out of time, please stop
me. Your view of economics is a little different than
mine and I guess I seek to better understand yours. For
one thing, you know, as we transition through the next
100,200,500,1,000 years, it isn't that you abruptly run
out of any one commodity such as petroleum as feed-
stock. It is just that its marginal price slowly rises relative
to other things of which we are not running out.
There is another aspect to it and, of course, that is
the population. If prices grow higher and the public in
the future does not want to have large families, there
could be a reduction in the total number of people living
on earth over the next few billion years, taking your
model there, and so it isn't that somehow you have to
axiomatically assume that the population stays in this
country at 220 or several billion for the world, the society
of the future has a way to accommodate the changing
circumstances. You seem to have ruled out totally that
there might be finds of energy that we haven't con-
sidered til now, some rumbles include such things as
geothermal beneath the domes under the ocean floor. If
43
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
you put yourself back 50 years, go back 100 years, go
back 200 years, people then did not forecast the things
we take for granted now.
I think it is appropriate that society continue to use
a discount rate. OMB would say 10 percent. And I think
that discount rate can even be used in the case of the
non-renewables, that is a personal opinion, but I at least
share that view with you.
The other thing I would mention is that the
renewables cause you and require you to live in a much
lower level of industrial activity than we now take for
granted. For example, you talked to alcohol. If you
wanted to add 10 percent alcohol to all of the gasoline
used in this country and produce the alcohol from grain,
you would have to totally commit all of our farmlands to
the production of the grain to provide the alcohol. 1
thought I addressed that I would only point out to you
then that the rate of power that renewables can supply is
considerably less than that which we take for granted now.
The other thing you seem to be very upset about
was the fact that the EXXON Corporation does exist
and it is large and it represents centralized industrial
power in your eyes. The only thing 1 would observe is it
was the use of concentrated capital in the form of
private sector-forming corporations that found domestic
oil that we now take for granted, found the oil in most of
the world, in foreign countries throughout the world
that so recently we took for granted. It was the national-
ization of that foreign oil by those foreign countries that
suddenly raised the price. So I wonder if you aren't for
some reason kind of biting an institution—and I don't
mean any one firm, I mean the concept of the corpora-
tion which provides jobs and puts capital together to go
out and find energy—I wonder if you aren't biting that
goose that laid the golden egg.
MR. PATE: It is a real good point. It is extremely
well-taken. In regards to population growth, I personally
would advocate negative population growth so that we
don't have as much consumption because we wouldn't
have as many people here.
Also, you mentioned appropriate at some point in
some context and what I would like to address is appro-
priate lifestyle, appropriate energy consumption,
appropriate energy resource development.
The point here in consideration with the "goose
that laid the golden egg" or what have you, I ride a
motorcycle and I personally am not paid in any fashion
to be an advocate for solar energy or public interest
advocate or what have you, so, obviously, my
economics and yours are probably in a good deal of
disparity. Once you get down to where you are driving
a very fuel-efficient car or on a motorcycle or riding a
bicycle, I will probably be on a horse. My interpretation
of the way that we are supposed to live as individuals
and in terms of why we do necessarily need an indus-
trial society really is another subject for discussion.
At any rate, the utilization of energy resources
which are non-renewable, and I think you will accept
the fact that the earth is a finite sphere, will subside as
the marginal cost. Along that line, I would like to state
for the record that there is not enough copper to put
enough solar collectors on everybody's house to heat
the water for the people that we have got. So there are
going to have to be decisions made and you seem to
indicate that the world population level would somehow
control itself and probably regress back to a previous'
level of population—
DR. PATTON: I was not trying to be a clairvoyant.
I merely said the society can accommodate the chang-
ing economic conditions over a period of time and as
prices grow higher, you can expect that people might
have fewer children which individually is the family unit,
but collectively reflects what the size of the total population
will be.
MR. PATE: Exactly. The last thing that I would
like to say in regards to that is that we do have limited
resources and we do have an environment to be con-
cerned with. Because, number one, the people who are
promoting synfuels are older (which I think most
everybody would admit does have serious environmen-
tal impacts, negative impacts), and I am going to be
around for 20, or 30, or 40 years longer than you all so
I have got to live with decisions that DOE and the
Federal Government are making now—
DR. PATTON: Not on that motorcycle, you aren't.
MR. PATE: Maybe not. But at any rate, we do
have the environment to be concerned with and I don't
really feel that environmental considerations are
given—it is my interpretation that they are not given any
consideration but what consideration they may have is
not significant enough for me.
DR. REZNEK: If we can proceed. Mr. Schlesinger?
DR. SCHLESINGER: Thank you. Ladies and
gentlemen. Let me first say that AGA, which represents
the natural gas in this country, some 85 percent of
them, appreciates this opportunity to appear again this
year at Section 11 hearings being conducted by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
This past year has been a real turning point for
energy, gas energy in particular. It is significant to point
out that the National Energy Plan issued by this Admin-
istration depicted gas energy as a declining and
ultimately disappearing component of the nation's
energy policy, to disappear altogether by the year 2030,
I believe, if you project it onward.
Two years later, the second National Energy Plan
depicts the exact opposite trajectory for gas, gas energy
in various forms and shows a five-quad increase at the
up end by the year 2000 in natural gas supply potential.
These kinds of discussions are likely to continue.
We see no end to the kinds of considerations and I
simply want to raise with you six issues that I think are
germane as you consider environment and conservation
in connection with energy.
44
-------
Statement of Dr. Schlesinger
First, the issue of synthetic gas from coal. Critics of
synthetic fuel programs often make the mistake of com-
paring synthetic gas with natural gas. I have no argu-
ment that synthetic gas from coal would have to fall on
the short end of the stick environmentally speaking,
because natural gas is the cleanest major fuel we have.
But this country has to use more and more of its vast
coal resources in some way to help reduce oil imports.
Today, 70 to 75 percent of our nation's coal is burned
to make electricity and this trend is likely to continue.
In effect, what I am suggesting to members of the
Panel is that we really have three choices as a country
about what we can do with all that coal we have, the
400 year coal supply. We can either leave it in the
ground, which I would submit is irresponsible. We can
burn all of it, which I think is not environmentally
desirable. Or we can turn some of it into usable fuel,
namely clean oil or clean gas.
I think that choice really comes down to one
between coal gas, coal liquids, and coal electricity—
some secondary fuel, one of those three, produced
from coal.
From an environmental standpoint, 1 would submit
that the superior answer is synthetic gas from coal on
every count, from every parameter one wishes to go into. I
will submit a copy of my testimony from a year ago that
I think demonstrates this point.
In particular, I want to raise the carbon dioxide
issue because I think this is one that has not been well
understood.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the coal gasification
cycle—considering the pile of coal through to the end-
use point as gas, versus carbon dioxide emissions from
coal electrification considering combustion of coal, ship-
ment of electricity and that use—would produce 20 per-
cent less carbon dioxide than the equivalent level of coal
electrification. I believe that Dr. Gordon MacDonald's
figures fully support this point.
I think the question with carbon dioxide and coal
gasification should really be one of what do we do with
the predominant source of all the carbon dioxide, even
though it is only 80 percent of the carbon dioxide from
electrification.
It is interesting to note that coal gas plant, a stan-
dard size commercial scale 250 million cubic foot a day
coal gasification plant, would produce about 300,000
cubic feet per day of pure carbon dioxide, nearly pure.
This accounts for most of carbon dioxide in that 80 per-
cent, and it is coming out as nearly 100 percent pure
carbon dioxide, what would be considered industrial
grade.
At least one proposed commercial-scale coal gas
plant has been in active discussions with a nearby oil
producer to sell its carbon dioxide by-product for the
purpose of enhanced oil recovery. So that my sugges-
tion in connection with the carbon dioxide issue is to
expand environmental research into productive uses of
this pure grade carbon dioxide that will be emitted,
(either vented or frozen or in a shipped form) for
enhanced oil recovery. What environmentally compat-
ible uses can be made for this? What kind of dissipation
can be seen if this is, in fact, injected for purposes of
enhanced oil and gas recovery, primarily enhanced oil
recovery in this case?
There is also an active CO2 chemical market. It is
the 27th largest chemical in the country. Perhaps there
are research areas that would be relevant in terms of
expanding kinds of uses for CO2 as well.
We also want to raise the issue of gas from
unconventional and new technologies. Recently, the
American Gas Association published a brochure which
you may have seen entitled "New Technologies for Gas
Energy Supply and Efficient Use." It describes each of a
large variety of unconventional gas resources, each of
which could produce significant additional amounts of
conventional and unconventional gas, natural or syn-
thetic methane, from a variety of resources way beyond
what we consider to be our domestic gas resource base,
which ranges from 700 to 1200 Tcf.
In particular, several of these potential resources
have been associated with potential environmental dif-
ficulties. I would strongly recommend that the EPA and
Department of Energy's research programs be strongly
enhanced in these areas; in particular, what are the
specific brine disposal issues in connection with
geopressured gas that need to be resolved? What kinds
of solutions are there? Is this also a reinjection potential
or what?
Right now, the Department of Energy is sponsoring
four test wells in a resource whose total quantity may
ultimately lie somewhere from 3,000 to 50,000 Tcf
of gas.
Most of DOE's effort in the past several years
(through ERDA) for this geopressured resource has had
little to do with gas. It has been attempting to make use
of the heat for geothermal electricity production. We
would submit that' the methane content of what comes
up is far more interesting.
Third, total energy systems. While I am aware that
EPA's research programs are very significant in the area
of production of energy from wastes in connection with
RCRA programs, I think there ought to be far greater
emphasis on total energy systems such as the produc-
tion of gas from perhaps sewage treatment plant wastes,
production of gas energy from solid waste sites (Class I
disposal sites). Inactive Class I disposal sites alone are
estimated to contain substantial amounts of methane
that could be used without significant technology
breakthroughs.
And following on that, where ought total energy
systems be emphasized? We at AGA have recently
completed two studies that would help respond to this
particular question. I think it may come right home to
the Clean Air Act. Gas has a very significant advantage,
perhaps, in helping site coal-fired boilers or other
facilities and helping to abate air quality problems and
45
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
help address the non-attainment problem that lingers
throughout the nation, not only for particulates and
sulfur-oxides, but for other criteria substances as well.
Two potential solutions ought to be investigated by
the Environmental Protection Agency. For one, we
notice that in an effort to control non-attainment in
some urban areas, there has actually been discussion of
shutting down parking lots in some in-city areas. We
would submit that this is unnecessary if one were to take
a harder look at a methane automobile. By every com-
parison that one can make, even with coal gas in the
cars, there is no cheaper way to run a car today in the
United States. Natural gas costs about 50 cents a gallon
equivalent. A conversion for automobiles is not expen-
sive compared to the kinds of capital costs we are seeing
with the electric car. Total emissions—the gas auto-
mobile again is very favorable. So rather than shutting
down parking lots, maybe we ought to be talking about
reconfiguring our automotive fleet, at least urban fleet
uses in the initial stages. We note with dismay that there
is not a single research project that we are aware of that
is federally sponsored in this area despite these advantages.
The other area where non-attainment problems could
be addressed and additional research is required is the use
of gas in new facilities designed to bum other fuels such as
coal or solid wastes.
The select use of gas in these facilities could be accom-
plished on a seasonal basis, or on an intermittent basis, if
possible, under the Clean Air Act, or even under situations
where part of the facility is burning the coal or solid waste
fuel and part is burning gas, in an effort to help meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Significant meteorological study is needed to prove
this concept out, and 1 think this is an area where addi-
tional environmental research is required.
Another issue that we would urge upon EPA and
its R&D programs is the acceleration of end-use device
research. This is really connected with the total energy
concept. It may very well be that small-scale electric
generation using gas, which produces far less pollution
and is far less socially objectionable than either coal or
nuclear power for electricity, may really hold significant
promise for helping meet the future needs for electricity
in this country.
We suggest and recommend that additional work
be accomplished in the area of cogeneration systems:
small-scale, home-size cogeneration systems perhaps
using known engine devices there are already on the
market, we note, but have very limited deployment,
perhaps sterling cycle engines in small scale for producing
electricity and, as a by-product, home heat.
I would point out to the Panel that of the 78
quadrillion Btu's of primary energy (quads) this country
used last year for all of its fuel use, some 17 quads were
never used, but were rejected from the nation's power
plants as waste heat into the air and the water. There is
a good reason, unfortunately, for that. Most of the
power plants that we emphasize are objectionable.
If we could locate power plants much closer to the
people, we could begin to take advantage of their waste
heat and improve the overall efficiency of electric
generation.
Our final recommendation comes in the area of
review and permitting processes throughout the agen-
cies. It is primarily directed towards the Department of
Energy and we will make this same suggestion in other
forums. The licensing process for new energy facilities is
woefully long. I don't necessarily wish to comment on
whether substantive and procedural requirements of exist-
ing law be overturned. Frankly, 1 think in the case of a
number of energy facilities, neither is required. This is
my own opinion. I think that our industry would concur
strongly that an expedited process which puts important
facilities on what you would call a "fast track" alone
would accomplish significant gain in helping to alleviate
the problems of regulatory delays, without any change
in the law, as an appropriate first step.
We note that in her speech yesterday before the
Gas Men's Roundtable, Deputy Administrator Barbara
Blum emphasized that EPA has already taken steps to
put energy facility considerations on a fast track, and we
applaud that. We think that this approach, perhaps,
could set a model for the Department of Energy.
In conclusion, I think that we are going to continue
to see a reemphasis on new forms of energy supply as a
significant point in all kinds of discussions on energy
policy. Synthetic fuels is only one area where we can
increase our energy supply. We think that coal gas,
among the synthetic fuels, is the obvious and preferable
synthetic fuel and almost every government report that I
have ever seen or private study bears this out.
The capital efficiency advantages of various alter-
native gas options should definitely be explored. With
that, I thank the Panel for inviting AGA, again, and
would entertain questions from anybody.
MR. PIERCE: I just might respond to your last
point, and I appreciate the specific and constructive
presentation you made. An earlier speaker mentioned a
study in EPA's Region VIII where on the delay issue in
permitting one of the key ingredients there was the fact
that many times the applicant didn't provide all the
background information and material. I feel this is a very
productive area that maybe the government and indus-
try can work closely together on. I just wanted to get
some of your reactions to that point.
DR. SCHLESINGER: I have two reactions on
that point. One, the groundrules are continually chang-
ing. Often applicants are confused as to exactly what
they are supposed to provide. This may or may not
account for some insufficient applications. But more
importantly, I guess it occurs to me that it is important
for the agencies to drive home on that process, make
them provide all that you think needs to be provided.
This helps separate the wheat from the shaft. More
often than not, the serious projects for which substantial
sponsor funds have been expended have done all kinds
46
-------
Statement of Dr. Schlesinger
of environmental work, baseline monitoring and signifi-
cant analysis of all sorts, and it would surprise me if
these kinds of projects would be insufficient in their
applications. Other kinds of projects that are kind of
"spur of the moment" are unable to provide this kind of
information. This helps EPA. I guess that is how I would
respond.
MR. PIERCE: On that point, it is my understand-
ing that the latest version of the Energy Mobilization
Board states that before the expedited schedule com-
mences that the applicant must provide all of the
background information required, so that this gain is
going to be an issue that we are going to have to both
work on very closely.
DR. SCHLESINGER: This would be helpful as
long as all the background information that is required is
well-defined.
MR. PIERCE: Right.
DR. SCHLESINGER: One last point on that. I
am sorry, I don't mean to filibuster that question. It is
interesting to note that, in connection with the five coal
gas plants that have been proposed by members of our
industry (who are in effect small guys in the energy
business}, have spent cumulatively $100 million prepar-
ing materials and engineering designs and so forth for
five coal gas plants. I would imagine these guys would
win the race in any filing materials context.
MR. SIEK: I am interested in your comment
because I am from Colorado and we are faced with
some synthetic fuel development out there, as you
know. We recognized that our permitting process was
really a confused process for industry to deal with, for
environmentalists to deal with, and for state and local
agencies to deal with. We have attempted to put a pro-
cess together that addresses that problem, that brings in
all levels of government early on to meet together with
the proponent and to try to understand from each
perspective what is required of the applicant.
To date, we have run a pilot project on the AMAX,
Mt. Emons, project which some of you may have heard
about. It has worked out very well. I think AMAX as a
proponent is really pushing this project as a model pro-
cess to be utilized in their projects throughout the coun-
try and the world. Certainly local government has been
very receptive to it. The state agencies, I think to an
agency, are very supportive and the federal agencies to
date have cooperated and feel that it is a step in the right
direction to coordinating environmental permit reviews.
We will have that project out. I mentioned this
morning it is being funded by DOE. I think DOE sees it
as a possible model for energy and mineral resource
development throughout the country. We will have that
finished sometime in December or January in Colorado
and implemented.
So I think working with the oil shale industry there
and the other mineral development industries there get-
ting their support, it seems like this is a process that
probably has a lot of possibility throughout the country
and may address some of the problems that you are
concerned with.
DR. SCHLESINGER: I would like to find out
more about that project. We at AGA are now studying
the institutional barriers to solid waste methane recovery
projects and we are finding there that no one knows
who ought to be "the applicant" let alone, when an
applicant has been decided upon, what he has got to
come up with. There are so many parties to it: there are
the utility, the state and local government, the
municipality, the Federal Government, various Federal
Government programs, DOE, EPA, public utility com-
missions. There is just a real need for a series of model
methane projects.
MR. SIEK: I think an oil shale project in Colorado,
a demonstration project, that is now being constructed,
went through over 70 permits to start operation and
over a period of about two or three years to obtain those
permits. That is not unusual, 1 don't think. I think what
is required of oil shale industry certainly is going to be
required of coal gasification development. All of these
things need to be coordinated. It is costing millions of
dollars for duplication and confusion and delays and
that is the intent of this process which will be available,
again, in December in manual form with all the permits
laid out, how you can jointly hold public hearings, and
how the timeframe for each permit can be coordinated.
DR. SCHLESINGER: I would really like to see that.
DR. REZNEK: I would like to return to some of
your comments. You imply very strongly that research,
Federal supports R&D, in the gas area is under-
represented in the current program and this year rather
than deal with what is underrepresented and what is
overrepresented, I would like to concentrate a little bit
on the process.
You indicated that the underrepresentation in the
Federal slate of R&D support is basically not in the pro-
duction end of R&D but in the R&D that would be
necessary to find new end-uses and substitute gas,
methane presumably generated out of coal, as the
substitute use. You mentioned methane-powered cars
and a few others.
Why does the system, or would you care to com-
ment on why the system of deciding how to allocate the
Federal research dollar overlooked these resources and
are there ways of modifying the allocation of research
monies to make a better balance in your opinion rather
than support the program you advocate?
DR. SCHLESINGER: I appreciate your asking
that because we have done considerable study on this
point. First of all, Steve, I really think that the under-
representation of gas energy and the gas option is com-
plete across the board. It is not particularly confined to
end-uses.
47
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
In the supply programs alone of the Department of
Energy, gas-related R&D accounts for some eight per-
cent of the 1980 budget. Electricity-related R&D
accounts for 78 percent of the budget. That is in the
energy supply budget. Some figures on that are
available and I can provide our studies on it.
In the total R&D budget of the Department of
Energy—that brings some $2 billion dollars up to about
$3 billion including supply and end-use (which is not
very much to add to the whole other demand side of the
equation)—the ratio is about 8% to 78%, about the
same ratio. So I think there is particular bias against gas
in both the supply and demand areas.
By the way, in the entire DOE budget, it may inter-
est you to know, gas-related work altogether accounts
for some three percent of DOE's budget in FY 80,
whereas electricity is about 50 percent. We understand
others have attempted the same thing roughly and got
quite similar kinds of answers.
As to why this has happened, I think it is pretty
obvious. Gas was kind of considered to be a dying
issue. I can recall when I joined the American Gas
Association, my first question was: is there going to be
an AGA in a couple of years? What are we bothering
with an AGA for?
The very opposite is the case. With all of the prob-
lems other fuels are having—nuclear, coal combustion,
and others—I don't think there is any question that gas
is going to be here for a long time, including in its
renewable forms. So that I think is why this underrepre-
sentation occurred—no one really cared about a gas
automobile, the job was to get out an electric automobile.
I have had discussions on this point with the
Department of Energy, and I think the only way to
change them is to create an awareness of the oppor-
tunities for gas supplies beyond just the conventional
resources, including renewable sources of methane as
part of a solar/renewable-resource future, and then we
can begin to talk in terms of gas-related R&D, and other
primary fuels as well. Oil, interestingly enough, is
similarly underrepresented in the RD&D budgets.
DR. REZNEK: Let me pursue the question of
whether the only way to do that is to arouse the
awareness of certain of my fellow bureaucrats although
in a different agency. The question of inter-fuel com-
petition and displacement of conventional markets that
one fuel had, displacement of that fuel out of that
market and by another, has been a difficult subject for
the government for a long time, since World War 11, and
various administrations have adopted various policies
some of which border on the simplistic of being unaware
or trying to shut off certain issues.
Is there an approach, an analytical and objective
approach to examining that question of trying to set a
policy of where we think various fuels may move forward
and various fuels may contract?
DR. SCHLESINGER: I would recommend to the
Panel that a recently published report by the Mellon
Institute, entitled, "The Least Cost Energy Strategy," be
studied thoroughly.
The Mellon Institute's Energy Productivity Center,
directed by Roger Sant, formerly the Assistant Adminis-
trator of FEA for Environment and Conservation, is
undertaking a $4 million study funded jointly by the
Department of Energy and a number of private indus-
tries including, I am happy to say, the American Gas
Association and the Gas Research Institute.
This study is aimed at investigating a completely
new way of looking at the interfuel competition issue;
namely, the approach called "energy service." The
premise is that an energy service is what people require.
For example, people want a warm house; they are, in
effect, neutral as to whether this heat comes from gas,
oil heat, electricity, and so forth. The same holds true
for industrial energy services.
Thus, separating energy use into its service sectors,
the Mellon Institute people have taken another look at
the 78-quad economy that the U.S. had last year and
have concluded in their preliminary study that this could
have been a 59-quad economy if the least-cost use of
energy had been made, at some huge savings to
consumers.
Interfuel competition was only part of the study;
conservation approaches were examined as if they were
a fuel as well. Naturally, since many of them are not
very expensive, conservation gained a substantial
portion of traditional energy markets.
Oil use would have decreased by 30 percent in this
country and electricity use would have been only about
half of what it actually was, if the least-cost energy
strategy had been followed. Gas use would have
increased slightly, or would have been higher than
it was.
EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, is a
major funder of the Mellon Institute study. I don't think
that AGA's involvement had anything to do with the
rather surprising conclusion that Sant's preliminary
study came up with. But that is the best analytic exam-
ination I have seen yet to the interfuel competition
question because it really breaks apart the whole fuel
question into its components. What are the demands
for energy?
AGA has also done a study looking just at the gas
side as to what the actual demand, the economic
demand, for gas is in industry, homes, and so forth,
based on present usage systems. We found that the
actual economic demand for gas is high and rising, and
will increase some 25 to 28 Tcf nationwide by the year
1990. Incidentally, that excludes power plant demand;
we just assume that declines.
DR. REZNEK: Although I realize you weren't
here, we heard some tantalizing testimony this morning
that said that in fundamental resource allocation process
48
-------
Statement of Ms. Jones
inside of DOE that it should be structured on issues,
issues quite similar to how do you heat houses and
where do you find the substitute to heat houses. 1
assume the Carnegie study that you referenced takes
that kind of look and approaches it across fuels and
across conservation.
DR. SCHLESINGER: That is correct. Fuels per
se don't enter into their initial investigation. The investi-
gation simply examines the energy uses in buildings
considering some, I think, 9 or 12 different kinds of
energy use in buildings (homes, factories, and some
industrial uses). So they break apart the traditional
energy sectors, and industries. One portion of the
study, is devoted to buildings and another is devoted to
industries. There are some 23 kinds of energy use in
industries that were considered.
In terms of the resource allocation process being
devoted toward fuel issues, I think there needs to be a
more structured approach to resource allocation than
simply an examination of specific problems as they arise.
DR. REZNEK: The issues are how do you heat
homes and then you begin to pull that one apart.
DR. SCHLESINGER: We are saying the same
thing: energy services, energy uses.
DR. REZNEK: Your energy services and the sug-
gestion this morning have some notes in common. Any
other questions?
(No response)
DR. REZNEK: We have one remaining witness,
Jo Jones.
MR. PATE: Could 1 ask one question?
DR. REZNEK: Certainly.
MR. PATE: I understood in the prehearing docu-
ment that there was supposed to be a public interest
representative on the Panel. I don't see that person
listed here.
DR. REZNEK: We have tomorrow, Zack Willey,
and we have on Friday Tom Kimball.
MR. PATE: Oh, there just wasn't anybody — that
was the question.
DR. REZNEK: Ms. Jones?
MS. JONES: I am Jo Jones and I am representing
the Georgia Clean Water Coalition. 1 often have prob-
lems with my Southern accent being heard or under-
stood sometimes especially so with a little competition
from this noise on the side.
I want to thank EPA for inviting me here today to
express our views. As an active volunteer environmen-
talist, I have for the past 10 years watched the citizen-
agency relationships evolve from one of being locked
out of local, State, and Federal agency decisionmaking
to various levels of involvement and participation.
Some agencies, such as EPA, have made commit-
ments at top management levels to institutionalize
public participation in the earliest stages of planning and
development of projects realizing that it offers major
benefits to agencies in expediting valid projects and
working out "bugs" and if carried out honestly can lead
to public acceptance and support of projects. If not, the
public will often fight to delay or stop projects.
Even so, public participation in agency decision-
making is still in its infancy. Basically, DOE is an agency
which is very young and does not seem to have
matured in its understanding of the public needs and
reactions as EPA has.
It was a great disappointment to learn that DOE's
attitude seems to be similar to that of DOT, except that
at least DOT is now paying lip service to public par-
ticipation but with as yet no honest commitment to it.
In such agencies we find that the general attitude is
that the public is a bunch of naive amateurs and that the
agency professionals are the only ones with the
knowledge and ability to deal with the issues.
This attitude, which seems to have manifest itself in
DOE, is a grave error and is unacceptable. If it con-
tinues, DOE will find its programs stymied and its
credibility destroyed.
DOE'S research and developement work is of major
importance to America's future. The public cannot be
fooled and will not accept lip service or sham public par-
ticipation programs. There must be a commitment from
the top and a commitment at all levels to involve the
public at the earliest stages in its processes.
The public does have important contributions to
make and can play an important role in helping to
shape DOE's programs in a publicly acceptable manner.
DOE's national advisory committees which are
heavily dominated by industry are unacceptable. DOE
must establish mechanisms to effectively inform and
meaningfully involve the public in its decisionmaking
processes.
We recommend that they look to EPA for leader-
ship in this area—specifically, the 208 water quality
planning process and the transportation-air quality plan-
ning process—to improve on the effectiveness of these
procedures, undertake citizen participation demonstra-
tions immediately, and prepare a plan of action. All of
this can, if DOE wants to, be completed within the next
year. Their success in this undertaking will be a measure
of DOE's commitment to the public's interest.
I would like to digress for a few moments from my
prepared statement and go to the subject of the hearing,
the official subject of the hearing, which was "adequacy
of attention to environmental protection and energy
conservation, use of technical and scientific informa-
tion, decisionmaking, communication of rationale for
technology development, integration of technology
development and environmental research planning."
Without adequate public participation, it is very
difficult for the public to be able to understand these
processes upon which we are supposed to be commenting.
Apparently it has been very difficult for the public to get
documents, to be able to understand the documents, to get
them before decisions were made, and I feel that it is very
49
-------
Hearing of October 3, 1979
difficult to comment on the more technical aspects when
you have not had the kind of ongoing information all during
the process in which the public could have affected the
process and which would have given the public a lot more
information than they were able to understand.
The other comment that I would like to make is that it
was a great disappointment to many of us that solar was not
included in this evaluation because ! think that it needs that
visibility and it is important that the Congress know that
DOE is evaluating solar in the same way that it is evaluating
the other technologies which are being considered,
evaluated, and so on.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Are there questions?
(No response)
DR. REZNEK: I would like to ask a few questions.
How do you measure the effectiveness of the public
participation?
MS. JONES: It is difficult, and, as I said, it is in its
infancy and I have certainly participated in building public
participation and I have personally been locked out of agen-
cies before we had public participation. I find many more
doors opening. I feel that one way of evaluating public par-
ticipation is by asking the public if they are satisfied with it.
There are many people, many of us who are
grouped into the category of being environmentalists of
public interest groups who have a lot of knowledge
about the specific issues and who are, as I said in my
statement, not included in the decisionmaking process
but yet who can often shape or guide projects in a direc-
tion that may be somewhat different than that that
would be taken by the technical people but which are
still valid and which will make a project more publicly
acceptable.
I think it is a matter of asking the public whether or
not they feel that the public participation opportunities
have been adequate. If they say they haven't, then I
think that that offers your evaluation. That could be
done by sending out questionnaires to the publics that
you have on your list or various ways of asking the
public if they feel in general that the participation has
been adequate.
DR. REZNEK: We heard a little earlier from Mr.
Moss who has had a long history in terms of advisory
groups and external input into public agency decision-
making processes and he expressed a feeling that even
when very successful that the members of the advisory
groups feel a certain sense of frustration in terms of
knowing that their ability to impact the process, and you
seem to believe that the active public participation and
the translation of the ideas and the understanding that
the decision-making was done in an open forum, is
important in itself.
MS. JONES: Yes, I do because I have been
involved with agencies that officially and formally had
public participation but which did not believe in public
participation and which lived up to the letter of the
regulation but yet have walked all over the citizens who
were supposed to be participating and stymied their
efforts to the best of their ability. It is extremely frustrat-
ing and it defeats the entire purpose because the agency
then does not have the value of the input that they are
requiring so that this same frustrated public is not going
to shoot down their projects when the time comes to
build them or to implement whatever the agency wants.
I think that if the public were sure that the agency
had listened to and carefully considered their input and
could give rational reasons if they did not follow the
recommendations, I think the public would be far more
satisfied, but I think it is very important to answer and to
give rational reasons in writing if you do not accept what
is recommended by the public.
DR. REZNEK: You mentioned our 208 program.
One of the concerns that I have in public participation is
a question of what is the integrated federal role versus
project-by-project and local public participation on a
single project.
Do you feel that "beat levels of government or local
organizations such as 208 agencies have an inherent
advantage in the public participation process over
Washington-based organizations?
MS. JONES: I am on and have been, I have been
vice chairman of the 208 Advisory Committee for a
couple of years on a regional planning commission and
I have served on a technical task force, 208 technical
task force as Chairman of the Georgia Clean Water
Coalition, I have representatives on each of the State's
technical task forces, 208 technical task forces. So I
have had a lot of experience with this. I feel that it
depends on the commitment of the State and local
agencies. As I said, it has a long way to go. EPA has
attempted to set up regulations but until there is a
commitment from the local government, then there are
going to be efforts to get around it, to live up to the letter
of the regulations—to do what is required in the regula-
tions but yet to totally defeat the purpose of public
participation. It is a battle that is being fought all over
the country.
I feel that they {public participation regulations)
offer hope if EPA is willing to stand behind its commit-
ment to public participation. I feel in a sense that the
input into local levels is very important and that it should
be required but yet I feel that EPA should be stronger in
standing behind the citizens when the intent of the
public participation is abused by local agencies.
I think that it has to be looked at on a case-by-case
basis. I think in some areas people are very satisfied with
their public participation. It is a matter of convincing the
agencies that it is to their best interest. DOE is a lot fur-
ther behind than EPA, and EPA is still learning and will
continue to learn for a while because the public
participation, formalized public participation is so new.
50
-------
Statement of Ms. Jones
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. If there are no other
questions, we will adjourn to 9:00 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., on Wednesday,
October 3, 1979, the hearing adjourned to reconvene
at 9:00 a.m. on the following day.)
51
-------
-------
October 4, 1979
Panel:
DR. STEVEN REZNEK, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Engineering and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency
ROY GAMSE, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Planning and Management, for Environmental Protection Agency
ALAN MERSON, University of Denver
DR. JAMES MacKENZIE, Council on Environmental Quality
ED GRISHAM, New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department
DR. ZACK WILLEY, Environmental Defense Fund
DERRY ALLEN, Policy Planning Division, Environmental Protection Agency
53
-------
Contents
MORNING SESSION
PAGE
PAGE
57 Opening remarks, DR. REZNEK
57 Statement of DR. CHESTER RICHMOND
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Questions and remarks
60 DR. REZNEK
60 MR. MERSON
61 MR. MERSON
61 DR. MacKENZIE
62 DR. REZNEK
62 DR. WILLEY
62 Statement of DR. KENNETH BRIDBORD
National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health
Questions and remarks
64 MR. GAMSE
64 MR. MERSON
65 MR. MERSON
65 DR. RICHMOND
65 DR. WILLEY
65 DR. REZNEK
66 DR. REZNEK
67 Statement of DR. RALPH PERHAC
Electric Power Research Institute
Questions and remarks
69 MR. GRISHAM
70 MR. GRISHAM
70 DR. MacKENZIE
70 DR. WILLEY
71 DR. WILLEY
71 MR. GAMSE
71 MR. GRISHAM
72 DR. WILLEY
72 DR. REZNEK
73 DR. REZNEK
73 Statement of MR. MICHAEL PAPARIAN
California Sierra Club
Questions and remarks
76 DR. MacKENZIE
76 DR. WILLEY
77 MR. MERSON
77 MR. GRISHAM
77 DR. REZNEK
78 DR. REZNEK
54
-------
Contents (Continued)
AFTERNOON SESSION
PAGE
PAGE
79 Statement of MR. BOB REYNOLDS
Lake County Air Pollution Control District in
California
Questions and remarks
80 MR. MERSON
81 MR. MERSON
81 DR. REZNEK
81 MR. GRISHAM
82 DR. WILLEY
82 DR. REZNEK
83 DR. MacKENZlE
83 DR. REZNEK
83 DR. WILLEY
84 DR. WILLEY
84 Statement of MS. JANE MacGREGOR
Atlanta League of Women Voters
Questions and remarks
85 MR. GRISHAM
85 DR. REZNEK
86 Statement of MR. RICHARD PRATT
Pennsylvania Sierra Club
Questions and remarks
87 DR. WILLEY
87 DR. REZNEK
88 DR. REZNEK
88 DR. WILLEY
88 MR. MERSON
89 MR. MERSON
89 DR. REZNEK
89 MS. MacGREGOR
89 Statement of MR. SCOTT CRYTSER
Pennsylvania Gasohol Commission
Questions and remarks
91 DR. REZNEK
92 DR. REZNEK
92 DR. WILLEY
93 DR. REZNEK
93 Statement of MS. PATRICIA PELKOFER
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Questions and remarks
95 MR. MERSON
96 MR. MERSON
96 DR. REZNEK
96 MR. GRISHAM
Adjournment
55
-------
-------
Proceedings
Statement of Dr. Richmond
9:08 a.m.
DR. REZNEK: Good morning. My name is Steve
Reznek. I'd like to welcome you to the second day of the
hearing under Section 11 of the Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act on the relative empha-
sis given to environmental protection and energy
conservation.
Yesterday we heard from a very interesting slate of
witnesses. Kevin Markey testified on an approach to
decisionmaking to take account of questions of energy
conservation/environmental protection which would
examine the energy problems on a source utilization
basis; that is, as in home heating—and look at trade-offs
between environmental impacts of various approaches,
including conservation, liquid fuels, gaseous fuels or
electricity.
Doctor Gordon McDonald talked about ways of
quantifying the environmental problems of alternative
approaches to using a coal resource, for example, and to
doing comparisons, formal comparisons between alter-
native technologies. He also testified at some length
about global energy problems and comparisons of fuel
cycles in terms of their impact on global problems.
This morning we are pleased to have a new panel
with us. Sitting at the end of the table is Doctor James
MacKenzie of the Council on Environmental Quality. Sit-
ting next to him is Doctor Zack Willey of the Environ-
mental Defense Fund from California. Next to him will be
Ed Grisham (who hasn't sat down yet) of New Mexico
Energy and Minerals Department; next to him is Alan
Merson from the University of Denver, formerly from
EPA, I might add. Next to me is Doctor Roy Gamse of
the Planning and Management in EPA.
As you know, this year we tried to approach Section
11 responsibility in a slightly different manner than has
happened before. Rather than examine the DOE budget
in terms of its allocations between energy technologies or
between the different fuels, we examined the decision-
making processes that have been used inside the Depart-
ment of Energy which generated those allocations. We
are encouraging the witnesses during these three days to
comment specifically on the decisionmaking process and
how that process might improve—be changed to im-
prove the relative emphasis given to these two con-
cerns— energy conservation and environmental
protection.
The first witness this morning is Doctor Chester
Richmond of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Ches?
Presentation by Doctor Chester Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
DR. RICHMOND: Thank you. Mr. Chairman,
panel members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Chester R. Richmond. I'm Associate Director for
Biomedical and Environmental Sciences at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
During the past several years I have participated in
the planning, organizing, and implementing aspects of an
integrated multidisciplinary life sciences program in sup-
port of synthetic fossil fuels. My view this morning will be
from a research management position with emphasis on
synthetic fuels.
I welcome the opportunity to testify at these hear-
ings. The timing, I believe, is extremely important
because Secretary Duncan is in the process of restructur-
ing the Department of Energy. His predecessor organized
DOE according to technical readiness and these hearings
are addressing the linkage of environmental issues and
research to a technology as it progresses from early
research to commercialization.
The evolving DOE organizational structure now ap-
pears to be a hybrid of the Schlesinger DOE and the
Energy Research and Development Administration.
Therefore, the questions being asked via the Section 11
review may provide useful input to DOE on a subject of
environmental evaluation.
I'll now discuss the issues that have been raised as
part of this Section 11 review. The background docu-
ment for these hearings clearly states that the develop-
ment of an energy technology as it progresses from its
early research stages through commercialization requires
that associated environmental concerns be addressed at
three levels. Specifically, there are site-specific concerns,
regional or cumulative impacts, and national concerns.
These are all valid and very important, but in my
opinion, need to be broadened even more to include
global aspects. I recently discussed this situation relative
to the carbon dioxide as a global concern as part of
testimony presented to the House Committee on Science
and Technology hearings on synthetic fuels.
I would argue that environmental and health con-
siderations cover a span from site-specific to those that
57
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
are truly global in nature. One might also look to the acid
rain problem as another indication of growing interest in
regional concerns.
1 strongly endorse President Carter's recent directive
that a ten-year comprehensive acid rain assessment pro-
gram be undertaken and managed by a standing Acid
Rain Coordinating Committee. The comprehensive
research plan is scheduled to be completed by the end of
this year.
The above discussion points out the complexity of
the situation. It is clear that there is a requirement for
much coordination and integration of our nation's
resources as we attempt to develop energy-generating
systems to supply our needs with minimum stress on our
environment and the health of our citizens.
We must also include the internal environment of an
energy-generating facility which brings us into the impor-
tant area of worker protection, health and safety. This re-
quires the input of still other State and Federal agencies
as well as 'additional research and development
components.
I am, however, generally optimistic that we can, at
least in the R&D area that addresses health, safety, and
environmental concerns, combine the resources and
talent of various Federal agencies, such as EPA, DOE,
and others, and private organizations, such as EPRI and
the private community, business community, to max-
imize the chances that we can indeed produce systems
that wilt provide more benefit than stress to society.
Obviously, this demands a great deal of planning
and coordination. It is difficult and requires much atten-
tion. However, I believe we are learning in the life
sciences to work more efficiently in this mode.
I think an excellent example is the current activity of
the University of Minnesota-Duluth low Btu gasifier
which is part of the Department of Energy's Gasifier in In-
dustry Program. Figure 1 in my submitted testimony
shows the many contributors to this particular activity
where an existing gasifier and heating plant is being con-
verted to burn low-Btu gas produced by coal gasification.
The three ton-per-hour demonstration plant is jointly
funded by DOE and the University of Minnesota.
An environmental advisory committee, comprised
of DOE, EPA and NfOSH, provides important guidance
to this program. It involves both the environmental and
the technological side of the Department of Energy,
many components of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and other organizations, but more importantly, the local
departments and the physical plants and health and
safety components of the University.
Another point is we must appreciate that many of
the individuals involved in the health, safety, and
environmental studies related to energy are in much de-
mand because of concerns related to the use of industrial
chemicals, foods, drugs, and other materials by society.
Federal legislation such as TOSCA, RCRA, and
others place strong demands on the life sciences research
community. I understand there are now about two dozen
laws on toxic substances alone.
Cost should not be the only factor that determines
whether a project is reviewed by the DOE Program and
Project Management System. Other factors such as
uniqueness of an environmental or health consideration
in kind, location or time, need to be considered. The
potentiality of a system also needs to be addressed.
For example, small systems that may be duplicated
many times as part of a larger commercialization effort
may demand specific attention. One might also need to
pay attention to the review of small projects at sites where
the availability of certain resources may be limiting.
I think perhaps the DOE Gasifier in Industry Pro-
gram I mentioned earlier is an example of how effective
management systems can be designed to incorporate the
health, safety and environmental considerations into
small demonstration projects.
Environmental research planning even for small
projects such as the gasifier I mentioned is difficult. Com-
mitments must be made to many organizations and they
span three or more years. This planning has been difficult
to implement; however, I believe progress is being made
by the Department of Energy's Office of Environment
which conducts the research and development related to
such demonstration facilities.
Greater efficiencies would be realized, however, if
multiyear commitments could be made by both the tech-
nology office in question and the Office of Environment.
The DOE Office of Environment funds both generic
environmental, health, and site-specific research at many
locations, including laboratories and universities around
the country. This core program should not be allowed to
erode as the requirements for site-specific studies
increase.
The Department of Energy, I believe, should coor-
dinate its funding sources so that both site-specific, which
are extremely important, and generic work can both be
pursued. We must remember that answers to the regional
and global concerns most probably will arise from the
generic research conducted as part of the core programs
at various laboratories.
These core programs provide the bridge between
the identification and planning, the EDP's and the PEP's,
and the assessment functions, such as the environmental
readiness documents, the environmental assessments,
and the impact statements; however, the generic
research provides for continuity, institutional balance and
strong scientific input. It bridges the planning and the
assessment functions. It must not be allowed to be
transformed solely into site-specific activity.
As pointed out in the background document pro-
vided for this hearing, the Department of Energy has
relied heavily on several criteria when evaluating
environmental concerns—reviews, excuse me.
Although the criteria could be made more explicit it
may be important, in the final analysis, to make them
58
-------
Statement of Dr. Richmond
broader. For example, more information must be ob-
tained on the kinds and quantities of potentially harmful
mutagenic and carcinogenic chemicals in various process
and product streams.
At the same time, control technologies designed to
remove or ameliorate these chemical classes, such as
basic nitrogen-containing polycyclic hydrocarbons pro-
duced by some coal conversion processes, need to be
developed.
Attention must be directed towards classes of com-
pounds and materials for which environmental or work
place standards have not yet been developed.
President Carter called for the Department of
Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to
develop procedures for establishing environmental
protection standards for all new energy—coal—
technologies.
I don't believe that any new standards have been
developed to date; however, I understand a draft
memorandum of understanding between DOE and EPA
on Coordinating Procedures for Establishing Environ-
mental Protection Standards for Emerging Nonnuclear
Energy Technologies now exists.
Whatever criteria for evaluation develop, it is most
important that the entire fuel cycle be considered. Atten-
tion to the integrated cycle rather than any one compo-
nent provides a broader perspective on potential regional
or global considerations in addition to those that are
more site-specific.
Also, we will need such broad-based information
when comparing the benefit or detriment to society from
competing processes. We must ultimately face squarely
the issue of competing and the minimum risk for energy-
producing processes.
There are many questions about the proper role of
the DOE and the Federal Government in determining
environmental protection standards and policies. The
trend is toward more active participation by State and
local governments. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 is an example of a Federal initia-
tive in this regard.
I believe that many—excuse me—I believe that non-
Federal levels of government will become the foci of deci-
sions on environmental trade-offs among energy policy
alternatives. Harmony between energy development and
regional concerns will be largely defined at the regional
level with the Federal Government defining the bound-
aries of acceptability, offering incentives for actions and
decisions that are in the national interest and in helping to
resolve conflicts that arise between States and regions
whose actions and decisions affect one another.
The extent to which the DOE's Office of Environ-
ment affects policy development is not clear. It would ap-
pear that the input to policy development is relatively
minor as compared with input of a supporting or ad-
visory nature.
I believe there must be a strong input to technology
development from the life sciences disciplines. Further-
more, this interaction must begin early in the develop-
ment of the technology and continue throughout the
pilot and demonstration stages. There should be equal
authority and responsibility.
Two major kinds of research and development must
be supported by the Office of Environment in collabora-
tion, wherever possible, with other agencies. These are
generic and site-specific studies.
This problem raises still another question. That is,
which Federal agencies should provide support to the
generic studies which include analytical chemistry,
biology, environmental sciences, physics, and instru-
mentation development as well as activities in the soft
sciences, such as sociology and economics?
A possible solution to this problem would involve a
transfer of financial support from the DOE technology of-
fices to the environmental area for site-specific related
work. I am very pleased that EPA and other agencies are
contributing to valuable program funding through pass-
through funds and other mechanisms to assist in support-
ing these important health and environmental studies, in-
cluding site-specific work.
This action will ultimately conserve the ASEV fund-
ing for support of generic research which is not, for all
practical purposes, supported by other agencies.
DOE can pursue two major paths towards the dem-
onstration of technologies that are economically prac-
tical, technically feasible, and environmentally accepta-
ble. I believe DOE can demonstrate on a small-scale that
it is feasible for a technology to operate before commer-
cial development.
In addition, I believe it would be useful to build ex-
perimental facilities to use as working laboratories to
refine the technology, to characterize the process and
product streams, to establish the health and environ-
mental impacts and to develop environmental control
technologies.
The hearing background materials provided us sug-
gest that this would not be the case and that the inte-
grated approach would result in a design of experimental
facilities.
Furthermore, I suspect that the integrated approach
may be the most efficient way to ensure that the resultant
facility is acceptable environmentally. Hopefully, this
integrated approach would allow for important feed-
back between the development engineers and the life
scientists.
In conclusion, I would like to touch on a subject of
assessment studies. Basically these are important and
serve many useful purposes. However, we should not
get into the position where an assessment study is simply
a mechanism to avoid making a decision or taking an
action.
59
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
Very often one assessment leads to one or more
assessments. I am reminded of the Sorcerer's Appren-
tice. We have learned how to do something but it is not
clear that we know how to turn the system off.
We must be careful that the shift from doing science
to doing paper studies is not done to the extent where it
adversely impacts the science.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you, Doctor Richmond.
Are there any questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: I have—maybe I'll start with some
questions. I have a couple of areas that I want to ask
about. Do you feel that the state of the art is such that you
could do a comparative risk in a particular area, say, car-
cinogenicity between competing technologies; for exam-
ple, two competing low Btu gasification technologies? Do
you feel that that is practical and possible? And if fairly
standard protocols could be adopted and implemented
for doing those evaluations and allowing an environmen-
tal impact or in this case, a carcinogenic risk impact
analysis between the two?
DR. RICHMOND: That's a very involved ques-
tion, but I think the short answer is that any such assess-
ment conducted today would not be precise enough, I
think, to be of great use. We need more experience. For
example, if we return to the example I used of low-Btu
gasifier program, we need to accumulate more informa-
tion on several [gasifiers] to get important base-line data.
The kinds of information we have been able to ob-
tain throughout national programs suggests, however,
that there are classes of compounds associated with—
generically, with coal conversion, whether it's gasification
or liquefaction.
We can make broad statements such as the nitrogen-
containing polycyclic hydrocarbons appear to be the
compounds that are most hazardous to man. There are
ways of altering the process to eliminate these materials,
but the mix of these materials will vary among the
processes.
So to do what you're suggesting will take much
more characterization and much more knowledge. But
ultimately, I believe we must do these comparative
studies.
DR. REZNEK: At any level, for example, emission
of criteria pollutants, sulphur dioxide or sulphur com-
pounds, are there any methods available that would
allow a comparative environmental impact of competing
technology?
DR. RICHMOND: I think in terms of the available
information, it's relatively easier to look at the emissions
of—for example, particulates; the relative amount of coal
required for a given process to produce, say, a unit of oil
or whatever; the amount of emissions CO for example,
or sulphur—1 think that kind of a comparison is relatively
easier than the one you mentioned earlier, looking at the
carcinogenicity.
In the latter case, we're talking about identifying
classes of chemicals from among tens of thousands of
chemicals that are related to the process.
DR. REZNEK: Would you recommend the. stan-
dard protocol for collecting this information, as I say in a
standard protocol fashion for submissions to the deci-
sionmaking process on whether or not to go with a par-
ticular technology or to compare alternative
technologies?
DR. RICHMOND: Yes, I think that's critically im-
portant. Perhaps I can give you an example. There has
been established, again through DOE and EPA funding,
a repository for chemicals for use by investigators
throughout the country.
I guess the most recent example I can point to is the
use of oil produced from shale from the western part of
the country. The samples that are made available are well
characterized so that everyone is using the same material.
By "everyone" I mean the environmental scientists and
the biological scientists.
It's also widespread in that there are many universi-
ties and, in fact, contractors for several agencies who are
using these materials. So it's important to have a com-
mon base line, well characterized materials everyone is
using so that it will help minimize the introduction of
error and perhaps confusion. Because we must remem-
ber that one talks glibly about producing oil from shale,
but you produce a crude product and then many things
can be done to that product through further treatment
and you end up with many classes of material which
must be studied.
DR. REZNEK: You've also commented on experi-
mental facilities to make available to explore in a fairly
rigorous way the environmental problems in performing
environmental assessment. Do you feel those facilities
exist now and there's a systematic approach to looking at
the environmental problems, particularly in a compara-
tive manner from one facility to another?
DR. RICHMOND: I think that's evolving very
rapidly. I again will return to the one example, either the
low-Btu gasifier at the University of Minnesota-Duluth.
There's a similar project within the same program at Pike
County which involves a municipality, actually. So that
information will be gained at two low-Btu gasifiers. There
are also activities related to H-coal process and several
other developing processes. SRC, for example.
So in time, there will be an opportunity to have data
collected during the development of various processes
which hopefully will allow some intercomparison and
cost comparisons to be made.
MR.MERSON: Mr. Chairman?
DR. REZNEK: Mr. Merson?
MR. MERSON: Doctor Richmond, at the outset
you suggested that perhaps global considerations or
global concerns were overlooked or at least not given the
emphasis that local, regional and national concerns
receive. I am very much intrigued by that idea and I'd like
60
-------
Statement of Dr. Richmond
to get some of your thinking about the institutional
framework that you think might evolve in representing
those global or international concerns. I think we do have
some devices. I think you suggested in the health and
safety area the kind of intergovernmental cooperation
that can take place.
What do you see as a way for having DOE include
some of these broader global concerns in the decision-
making process?
DR. RICHMOND: That's a very important ques-
tion. Much of what will happen as we continue, not just
industrialization-commercialization of energy related ac-
tivities, but more broadly, other activities in the country
that will add to materials which can be exported in a true
sense.
There is, as you know—some of you know—a program
set up for several years within the Department of Energy
to study the effect of climate and specifically CO2. But
how one implements this on the international level is still,
to me, not clear.
My own view is that the—well, let me mention a few
details first. Currently the U.S. and Canada produce
much of the COZ that's generated and released to the at-
mosphere. Roughly half is produced from terrestrial
sources—oxidation, rotting of trees, etcetera; massive
deforestation.
But around the turn of the century or thereabouts,
the contributors will change and the developing third
world countries and Northern Europe will be producing
much more CO2 than the U.S. and Canada.
So we will probably be in a position of lecturing to
the rest of the world not to produce CO2 from fossil fuels,
assuming they can get them somewhere.
Now that kind of involvement on an international
scale, 1 think, will make the question of nuclear weapons
material proliferation look minor.
There are attempts to grapple with this problem on
an international level, but I think the magnitude of the
potential problem just requires a more concerted effort
somewhere within the Federal system. I would not like to
see another bureaucratic entity develop and I'm sure
most people share that view. But it's just not clear to me
how one should go about perhaps a more efficient means
of facing these issues on a truly international basis.
The first step, obviously, would be to do it in our
own country on a national basis.
MR. MERSON: I guess I raise the question based
on some experience I've had. I attended a conference in
Berlin this spring on sulphur dioxide and how we deal
with sulphur dioxide across national boundaries and
came away with the feeling that we don't deal with it. In
fact, we have no framework. You have a European Eco-
nomic Community in Western Europe that is there to
promote trade and, 1 guess, some type of economic
unity, but the environmental impacts are simply not being
dealt with.
My concern is that we don't seem to have within this
decisionmaking process at DOE any way for having those
global concerns brought into the equation. At EPA, for
example, we have dealings with the State Department
when we're concerned with some impacts in Canada or
vice-versa.
But I don't see right now—and perhaps someone
else would like to answer this (Steve or someone else on
the Panel) —I don't see a mechanism right now for hav-
ing these considerations brought to the floor. That's why I
was asking you, since you raised it, if you could suggest
some way right now that we could begin to get those
issues represented in a forceful way.
DR. RICHMOND: That's again—I have no con-
crete recommendation to make. I think, obviously, one
place to start is to have some organization look
hard—and I'm not usually one who recommends gap
studies—but first of all find out who's doing what. My
perception is—and this is purely perception—that
although the various groups in different agencies who are
addressing the problem, they are doing very probably a
job, but I think the potential impact and magnitude of this
problem demands much more effort.
Let me give you one concrete solution. The facts
that we have are related to the increase in the at-
mospheric level of carbon dioxide. Beyond that, there
are many models. So the current interest is for people to
use the models and make predictions of the increase in
temperature in the future and what will happen. But
what is clearly needed is more understanding of the
phenomena that are involved. We heed more
measurements.
To do this requires atmospheric chemistry; it in-
volves ocean chemistry; the interface of the atmosphere
and the water; the deep sea, since that's where some of
the carbon is ultimately bound as carbonate. What we
need is greater attention on the R&D effort.
I think we all agree that there has been—and we can
document factually—an increase and if the increase con-
tinues, then there will very probably be some serious
changes in the global environment. But what we need is
to have a better understanding of the phenomena in-
volved so that we can fine tune and build better reliability
into the models.
There's too much slop right now.
DR. MacKENZIE:! was going to ask a very related
question which perhaps you've answered sufficiently,
which is how, in the face of all this uncertainty on carbon
dioxide and sulfates and perhaps long-term wastes of
radioactivity and so forth, how do you incorporate those
into policies that are being made to move the country in
one direction or another? I guess that's very closely
related to institutions, but in the face of such uncertainty,
how do you incorporate the risks into decisions? And the
decisionmaking process.
DR. RICHMOND: Again, that's a very, very dif-
ficult question. I would guess that would be the topic of a
61
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
very interesting seminar. There are no easy answers to
that question.
DR. MacKENZIE: Okay, fine.
DR. REZNEK: 1 would like to return for a few
moments to your last comment which is related. The
energy crisis is with us. It is time for some decisions.
There are certainly decisions which can be postponed a
few years and COZ may be one of them, but there are
other decisions which have to be made now. Saying we
need more knowledge is certainly true, but it seems that
there needs to be some guidelines for prioritizing the
types of knowledge that we are going after.
Can you comment on how you would suggest the
research be divided between applied research whose job
it is to generate numbers in a fairly consistent and
straightforward way on facilities we have now versus
more basic research in looking at the fundamental
phenomena such as the CO2 balances?
DR. RICHMOND: That's again—a key question. I
think—1 hate to put a numerical value on this, but one
needs to have in running a modern research organization
an appropriate mix of the two kinds of research. If you
become all oriented solely toward the current questions
and short-term answers, you won't survive because you
won't have the knowledge base in the future.
On the other hand, if you do only long-range re-
search, you won't survive because you won't be funded
continuously.
I think as a rule of thumb, it's important to have
somewhere around a quarter of the program where you
can depend on sort of non-targeted—
DR. REZNEK: Are you speaking for your own
organization or for DOE?
DR. RICHMOND: I'm speaking for my own
organization.
DR. REZNEK: Would you like to comment on
DOE's allocation in the process?
DR. RICHMOND: No, I guess I can't because I
don't have a broad enough view of all their requirements
and needs.
I guess the basic question is—the important question
is that the availability of—I guess I should use specifically
the words "basic research money," but for research
related to core programs [on] understanding how you
measure the potential carcinogenicity and mutagenicity
of materials from coal conversion units as opposed to
site-specific work where the money is obviously tied into
a given process at a given location.
The core programs are the ones that we have to be
careful not to endanger. Again, they are the ones that will
be generating knowledge that will be useful somewhere
along the system. One example I'll return to; I think there
is good evidence emerging that we probably can, indeed,
identify classes of chemicals that when input back to the
technologist, will allow the technologies to alter a system.
In this case, it appears to be a hydrotreatment process
which will reduce drastically and perhaps eliminate the
whole class of compounds, the nitrogen containing poly-
cyclic hydrocarbons. So that's the kind of thing that you
won't learn necessarily from any one site. It's the in-
tegrated knowledge that you derive from the core type
programs.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
DR. WILLEY: Doctor Richmond, you mentioned
in your talk a great number of criteria applied in
evaluating any technology. You mentioned cost and
environmental consequences and also the ability of the
technology to be replicated on a large scale. Do you have
any thoughts as to how those criteria would be reconciled
with one another, not only for a particular technology,
but also across technologies? In some cases, they will be
conflicting. Is there some kind of methodology or the
beginning of a methodology you would suggest to try to
take all of those things into consideration in making
decisions?
DR. RICHMOND: I think that's related to the
question that Dr. Reznek asked earlier. I mentioned look-
ing carefully at the general classes of chemicals and prod-
ucts and process strains. So that hopefully enough infor-
mation is gained and we can make the proper cross-
comparisons, on a more specific level of comparison, I
think, than is used currently.
Currently, the kinds of criteria, as you know, are
rather broad. They were listed in the background docu-
ment, There are comparisons of pollutant emissions and
energy efficiencies and comparing dollar costs for
meeting environmental standards and looking at prob-
able adverse impacts that may rule out commercializa-
tion. They are the show-stopper sort of things.
So again, my feeling is we have to look at a finer cut
of criteria and one point I made specifically is that we
shouldn't overlook some of these relatively small projects
that are on the order of several million dollars because
they may be replicated many times. So that if we study
several of those very intensely, later on when they
multiply and if they multiply and are widespread
throughout the country, we will not have sort of
miscalculated on the potential environmental impact,
i.e., if they slip through a detail and review process solely
because they were not above a certain dollar level.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you, Doctor Richmond.
Our next witness is Doctor Kenneth Bridbord from
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.
Presentation by Doctor Kenneth Bridbord
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
DR. BRIDBORD: Distinguished Hearing Panel
Members, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure for me to
be here today to present the views of the National In-
stitute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, on
the important issues of environmental protection and
energy conservation.
62
-------
Statement of Dr. Bridbord
NIOSH, located within the Center for Disease Con-
trol of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, is the principal Federal agency involved in
research and standards recommendations to protect the
health and well-being of American workers.
In this regard, NIOSH works closely with the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, and
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, in
the Department of Labor, which are responsible for the
setting and enforcement of standards within general in-
dustries and mining industries, respectively.
During the past five years, NIOSH has been coop-
erating with the Environmental Protection Agency, with
the Department of Energy, and with the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, also within HEW, in a
coordinated Federal research program to identify and to
prevent potential health problems in energy industries.
One of our major concerns in all energy technol-
ogies, both nuclear and nonnuclear, is the health and
safety of those workers who must construct, operate, and
maintain these facilities including workers in pilot and
demonstration, as well as commercial facilities.
Unfortunately, it has been our experience that the
issue of occupational safety and health has generally
been given relatively low priority and visibility in the
development of new energy technologies.
It is clear to us that failure to consider occupational
safety and health adequately during technology develop-
ment will result in needless injury and/or disease, as well
as jeopardize the basic success of that technology in the
long-term by requiring costly retrofit controls later that
could more easily have been incorporated during initial
construction.
Occupational safety and health considerations must
be one of the earliest issues to be discussed, studied, and
resolved before large-scale commitment to any energy
technology is made. Because occupational safety and
health issues are largely independent of siting, occupa-
tional safety and health assessments should really
precede overall environmental assessments.
Consideration and solution of occupational safety
and health problems early in the technology develop-
ment phase may actually contribute in a major way to
resolution of potential general environmental problems.
This is because workers are best protected by control
of harmful emissions at the source before they ever can
enter the general environment, thus, also, protecting the
general population and the ecology.
Potential occupational and environmental health
problems must be identified early in technology develop-
ment to give adequate opportunities to solve such prob-
lems. Considering occupational safety and health at the
design stage before technologies leave the drawing board
can do much to prevent future problems.
Relying upon Environmental Impact Statements as
the primary means to resolve these issues may already be
too late in the technology development process to do
much good.
Specifically, NIOSH recommends that, one, occu-
pational safety and health should become a major com-
ponent of DOE Environmental Readiness Documents
and DOE Environment Assessments to assure that these
issues will be considered as early in the technology
development phase as possible.
In making this recommendation, NIOSH recognizes
that there may be engineering scale-up problems in ex-
trapolating from pilot and demonstration to commercial
scale facilities. In this regard, control technology research
to prevent harmful emissions in the workplace and the
general environment must be coordinated to help assure
that efforts to protect the environment do not inadver-
tently harm workers, nor efforts to protect workers harm
the general environment.
Workers must be adequately protected from the
onset of technology development. We cannot afford to
wait 20 or 30 years or more, the latent period for many
chronic diseases, before identifying potential problems.
To better accomplish the goal of protecting workers,
NIOSH recommends that, two, a separate Occupational
Safety and Health Impact Statement should be required
for all developing energy, and for that matter, other
technologies. This impact statement should be prepared
before the development of Environmental Impact State-
ments and should consider not only information on
health effects, but also whether adequate control
technology is available.
NIOSH's experience in the review of Environmental
Impact Statements is that occupational safety and health
considerations are rarely, if ever, mentioned, let alone
adequately dealt with.
In reviewing the type of health and related research
that is necessary to assess developing energy technol-
ogies, it is extremely important that multidisciplin-
ary teams of biological and engineering scientists work
closely together in the identification and solution of
potential problems.
NIOSH recommends that, three, research be orga-
nized more along technologies than along biomedical
science disciplines. Health researchers must understand
the technologies before being able to focus research
questions upon the most important potential problems.
Health research questions should also be asked in a
way to assist the engineers in the design and develop-
ment of adequate control technology.
At this point, it would be unrealistic to expect bio-
medical researchers to define exact dose-response rela-
tionships early in the technology development process.
However, if researchers could, at least, identify the most
likely toxic components in process and product streams,
the engineers could further focus their efforts on process
modification and control technology development.
Here, I might add, I believe both Doctor Richmond
and I are very closely in agreement.
63
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
In this regard, engineers require better training to
more fully appreciate the need to consider health and
safety in process design.
I might just dwell on this point for a moment. Before
entering the area of the biomedical sciences I was a
chemical engineer. I do not recall at one time in my
education process at both an undergraduate and gradu-
ate level, any mention of general environmental, let
alone the occupational health issues.
I think part of the longer-term solution is to sensitize
the scientists in the engineering community to begin to
ask a basic set of questions very early on in their thinking
process about the potential health and safety implications
of that developing technology.
I think if we don't get the engineers to ask that set of
questions routinely and develop sensitivity to that issue,
then we will always be in a catch-up situation. That obvi-
ously isn't going to resolve all of our current problems.
but I think in the long-term that can do a great deal to
help.
A case in point is in coal liquefaction and gasification
where the severe operating conditions, temperature and
pressure, and the erosive/corrosive nature of many
process streams require extensive efforts to develop im-
proved containment systems.
A fourth NIOSH recommendation is that occupa-
tional safety and health considerations should not be
ignored in our overall efforts to conserve energy. Manu-
facture of insulation materials, especially with pressures
to push production to meet increasing demand, may
result in harm to workers.
Efforts to conserve energy by exhaust gas recircula-
tion may also result in buildup of contaminants, possibly
to harmful concentrations.
Recycling and resource recovery may also expose
workers to hazardous substances. Even solar energy may
have associated occupational safety and health
problems.
The final NIOSH recommendation is that, five,
worker representatives, must be given an adequate op-
portunity to participate in the public debate relating to
developing energy technologies.
One reason why workers have not been more vocal
in that debate is that there is a common misconception
that environmental goals can only be achieved at the ex-
pense of job opportunities. This, of course, is not the
case.
One of the advantages of a separate occupational
safety and health impact statement is that this will
encourage workers to express opinions about energy
technologies, particularly on matters affecting their own
safety and health. The current environmental impact
process does not encourage participation from workers
in this national policy debate.
In this regard, 1 was most pleased that represen-
tatives from organized labor were present at the regional
workshops preceding this hearing, and that occupational
health and safety was identified as an explicit criteria that
requires further discussion.
This concludes my formal remarks. I shall now be
pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Are there any
questions?
MR. GAMSE: Doctor Bridbord, Doctor Richmond
in his comments made reference to the Memorandum of
Understanding that EPA has been developing with the
Energy Department which we expect to be finalized very
soon. It attempts to map out a process by which first
guidance and then standards for environmental protec-
tion would be developed along with emerging tech-
nologies, which the Energy Department is involved in
development on.
I'm wondering if there is a similar activity going on
with regard to occupational exposures or if you see a
need for a more formalized process for incorporating
concerns about occupational exposures and developing
standards in the process of developing these
technologies?
DR. BRIDBORD: I would certainly support the
concept very strongly, both as an organizational repre-
sentative and because of my strong personal views on this
matter. I think one has to approach the developing
technologies looking at both the occupational and the
environmental standards together. I have to, from this
perspective, express a little disappointment that to my
knowledge the Department of Labor, including the Oc-
cupational Safety and Health Administration as well as
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the in-
stitute that I represent, NIOSH, have not been involved
in the basic discussions between EPA and DOE about the
overall concept as to where we're going in terms of
environmental standards and making appropriate recom-
mendations with respect to technology development.
I think one has to look at the standards across-the-
board in terms of new standards that might be necessary
to protect workers as well as standards for the general
population. I think they are very complementary.
MR. MERSON: I'm a little concerned about your
second recommendation, namely, preparing a separate
occupational safety and health impact statement before
moving ahead to other environmental concerns.
I'd appreciate it if you could just expand a little on
why you think it's necessary to interject another step in
this decisionmaking process to deal exclusively with oc-
cupational health and safety considerations; why it can't
be, as you suggested in your first recommendation, just
part of the process that looks at overall environmental
concerns?
DR. BRIDBORD: I would feel more comfortable
in relying upon the current process or something close to
it if those processes were adequately asking questions
about how best to protect workers. What I've seen hap-
pen is that there is so much, and I think very appropriate
64
-------
Statement of Dr. Bridbord
concern for the general environment, that the questions
and public debate does not give adequate opportunity to
discuss the occupational safety and health issues. Also,
considering the fact that at times in a very simplistic view,
concern for the environment may appear to be at odds
with concerns about workers' protection. I think that that
question just never gets asked by the "Environmental
Concerned Groups,"
That's really the reason why I feel so strongly that we
need to take a closer look and perhaps modify that
process. I certainly don't mean that recommendation in
any way to diminish the importance of the general envi-
ronmental concerns. But 1 haven't seen one environ-
mental impact statement that I've been comfortable as
having really looked at the occupational safety and health
aspects.
If we look at the occupational aspects carefully, 1
would argue that we will also help a great deal to protect
the general environment. If we have solved a lot of the
fugitive emissions questions, with process modification
steps to reduce, at least, certain classes of compounds
from forming, I see in the long-term the occupational and
environmental concerns being very, very complemen-
tary; not antagonistic.
But I have to state again that up until now, that
question has been ignored. And I feel very uneasy about
just saying, oh, yes, leave it to the environmental impact
process because it just hasn't worked, in my opinion.
MR. MERSON: Steve, 1 think Doctor Richmond
has a question.
DR. RICHMOND: If I may, I'd like to reinforce
not the recommendation, but the importance of the
worker aspect of the problem. Many people don't appre-
ciate the environment fs inside, indoors, as well as out-
side. It's a working environment, and the model which I
put forth in my testimony of the gasifier at Minnesota, we
have the opportunity in the research world to see the
whole problem without worrying too much about how
it's divided in terms of bureaucracies.
I mention there is an advisory committee that's com-
prised of both EPA, DOE and NIOSH. That's very im-
portant because some of the early-on problems that have
been identified are those such as releases of carbon
monoxide and mercury vapors which obviously impact
the people on-site, the worker population.
DR. BRIDBORD: Please don't misinterpret my
remarks as opposing sticking with the basic environ-
mental impact process, if one could be assured that that
process can be modified and expanded to include an
adequate look at occupational safety and health. At least
up until now, it has not been modified and that's why I
have chosen to separate this out as a very specific
recommendation.
DR. WILLEY: Your fourth recommendation,
Doctor, is a special concern for conservation
technologies. I'm just wondering why special concern for
the emerging conservation technologies as opposed to
any emerging energy technologies?
DR. BRIDBORD: I think my feeling here—and I'll
be glad to give some examples—is that while certainly
conservation has a great deal of merit, it's very important
and I strongly endorse it, but we shouldn't leap into any
situation without fully understanding what we're doing.
Perhaps two illustrations would be helpful. Let us
look at the whole area of home insulation and energy
conservation in the home itself. Here, one has not really
focused upon the whole question of indoor air pollution
as opposed to outdoor pollution. Here, indoor pollution
can primarily be the result of indoor sources of emis-
sions—a couple of examples come to mind. Cooking
with gas, for example, may have associated problems
with exposure to nitrogen oxides.
In a very simplistic first approximation as a model
system, any time you cut down the air turnover within a
confined space to less than two times per hour, any
pollutant emitted in that space really builds up in an ex-
ponential fashion and there are many, many sources of
potentially harmful chemicals in the home. Solvents used
in cleaning, for example. •
1 mentioned cooking. Any combustion products in
the home. These are all sources—smoking can be a
source of sidestream smoke. I certainly don't endorse
smoking. I strongly support the position of HEW.
But I think we should keep in the back of our minds
that all exposure isn't just what's coming from the outside
and that we shouldn't push so far on the home insulation
area that we have closed up that box too tight without
thinking about some of those sources.
In addition, in the insulation area, there's the whole
question of the safety and integrity of the basic materials
that are used in insulation and some of the off-gas prod-
ucts that may result. Also, the question of fibers, particu-
larly in certain sizes, which may cause potential problems
somewhat along the line that asbestos has caused.
That's one set of examples. In the area of solar
energy, which has so much appeal, and I think many,
many strong points, let us not forget to ask a basic set of
questions in terms of looking at the basic materials that
may be used to construct certain units, looking at the
question of perhaps heat transfer fluids and the potential
toxicities there and being aware of the workers who have
to put these materials together and install them as well.
So that we've identified the problems before and we've
solved those problems before. That's the point I'm trying
to get at.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to ask just one question—it
seems to be my continuous question. I find your
testimony very good in terms of adding a set of new
dimensions to the concerns on a particular evolving
technology, the conservation of our supply. However,
do you feel that there are acceptable standardized proto-
cols which will allow you to do intertechnology compari-
sons? Can you evaluate in a meaningful and acceptable
65
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
way the relative worker health and safety risks of one
gasification process versus another or between gasifica-
tion and electrification?
DR. BRIDBORD: Okay. Here I have to agree very
much with the comments of Doctor Richmond and
perhaps expand a little bit here, too-. That the health
science community has not really had an opportunity to
ask the full set of questions that might be asked. Are we
going to make the health comparison, let's say, looking
only at the problem of chronic respiratory diseases, for
example? Perhaps we may not have asked the basic set of
quesions not only about the potential carcinogenic,
although that will probably be asked because of the im-
portance of that, but what about the effects of various
materials on other target organs in the body, either the
nervous system, the liver, the reproductive process, etc.
In general, we have not asked the full set of health ques-
tions, but I find it very difficult to say we have all the infor-
mation we need to make that kind of comparison.
What I do feel we can do at this point in time is to in-
tegrate much more strongly the technology, control tech-
nology and process modification with what we suspect to
be harmful classes of materials and to start to ask the sets
of questions in a way. What are the break points in terms
of that technology development that allow us to control
at increasingly stringent levels of control so that we buy
the greatest margin of future protection and to try to force
the engineering community working with the biomedical
community to work together to really develop the engi-
neering know-how and the systems analysis to control
many, many emissions, even if we don't fully understand
the health implications, to the lowest possible level
without getting to the point where you break the possibili-
ty of having that technology at all.
In the EPA area, for example, there's a lot of discus-
sion about the criteria pollutants and a lot of focusing on
those pollutants. But those are still just one set of con-
cerns. Just thinking that you've made your comparison,
just looking at the criteria pollutants, really leaves a whole
number of other questions unanswered.
In terms of the future perspective on this, there are
likely to be continued discoveries as the health scientists
ask questions that identify heretofore unrecognized
problems.
So I really feel very much that you need to continue
to ask the health questions, but ask the engineering ques-
tions in an entirely different way that I don't believe has
yet been asked.
DR. REZNEK: During—this is perhaps repeating
my same question in a slightly different way—during the
workshops that were preparatory for this hearing where
we went out to the lay public or people not as profes-
sional as some of us, there was a lot of stress on the DOE
management system and its ability to use environmental
information to actually make judgments about the alloca-
tion of resources. The fact that the balance between
development versus—development for energy produc-
tion or energy conservation—versus resources allocated
to solve environmental problems or health and safety
problems, that that point was well addressed by the
system, not necessarily any individual cases. This cer-
tainly incorporates that.
But the information for comparisons and for allow-
ing one technology to go ahead seemed to favor very
definitely the economic aspects of the energy production
rather than the comparison of the environmental or
health and safety aspects. So the question is really
staightforward—can you conceive of a standardized in-
formation risk assessment protocol which would help in
the betweerj-technology allocation process?
DR. BRIDBORD: I wish I could give a simple
answer "yes" to that, but unfortunately my response is
going to be in the negative. One major reason is that it
would be very difficult to identify and translate into dollar
terms the true health impact, let alone ecological impact
of any technology because, as far as I'm concerned, all of
the basic sets of health questions have not been asked
yet.
So we have, if you—there is perhaps a three-dimen-
sional matrix involved in this. On one axis might be the
technology; another axis might be the set of pollutants
that are associated with that technology, both inside the
plant and in the general environment; and the third set is
a whole host of effects, not only just environmental and
health, but in the health area for example you have
literally every target organ and system in the body that
could potentially be affected.
Now the probabilities are that they're not all in-
volved, of course, but until one has at least tried to ask
some general questions to define the magnitude of risk,
recognizing you can never ever prove anything com-
pletely safe, but at least to ask some intelligent questions.
I'm very comfortable as to how our damage func-
tions are in terms of current knowledge, with respect to
what the true situation would be. I don't think there's any
simple answer to simple protocol from my perspective
that you can plug in.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much. We seem to
have run a little over time. Why don't we take a break
now?
First, let me say, though, is there anyone from the
audience who would like to address a question to the first
two witnesses?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: If not, we'll break for 15 minutes or
maybe 12 minutes, by my watch, and reconvene at half
past.
(Whereupon, a break was taken at 10:14 A.M.)
DR. REZNEK: Our next witness is Doctor Ralph
Perhac of the Electric Power Research Institute.
66
-------
Statement of Dr. Pcrhac
Presentation by Doctor Ralph Perhac
Electric Power Research Institute
DR. PERHAC: Are you ready?
DR. REZNEK: Sure.
DR. PERHAC: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Panel, ladies
and gentlemen. I am Doctor Ralph M. Perhac, Acting
Director of the Environmental Assessment Department of
the Electric Power Research Institute.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to testify
and express some of the views of EPR1 with regard to
research planning.
The specific question I plan to address is what is the
basis by which EPRI decides which technologies it will
support? Hopefully by discussing this question, it will give
you and the Panel some insight into our approach to
research planning and also help in your evaluation of the
overall DOE planning process.
Let me start first by saying a few words about EPRI in
general and, secondly, get into the specific issue of how
EPRI decides which technologies it will support.
First, a word about the Electric Power Research In-
stitute. EPRI was founded approximately six years ago to
serve as the research arm of the electric industry in the
United States. It is a non-profit educational institution. In
essence, it is a research funding institution. We do prac-
tically no research at EPRI at all. We fund research. Our
support comes from the utility companies in the United
States, which means ultimately from the consumers
themselves.
Approximately half of the American utility com-
panies, both private and public, are contributing
members to the Electric Power Research Institute.
Although we only have about half the total number of
utility companies, our support represents about 75 to 80
percent of the total electric capacity in this country.
Membership in EPRI is entirely voluntary on the part
of the individual utility company.
Our charge is to fund research that relates to the
generation and transmission of electrical energy. That
research ranges anywhere from developing more effi-
cient burners to studying pulmonary dysfunction related
to atmospheric particles. We cover the full range of
technological as well as environmental research.
We focus on two principle types of research in the
broadest sense. Number one, research that is generic or
relative to the industry as a whole. Obviously, we get our
support from the industry throughout the United States.
Our main interest is in doing research that benefits the
broad base of industry rather than one specific utility
company.
A prime example of that would be development of
improved precipitators for collecting atmospheric
particles.
The second type of research we fund is research that
may relate to just a few specific industries in a specific part
of the nation, but is so expensive that no small combina-
tion of companies could afford to do it.
An example of that would be visibility studies in the
Southwest. This is extremely costly research. It may relate
only to a few specific utility companies, but because of
the high cost, this group of utilities in the Southwest
could not afford to undertake it; therefore, we will sup-
port that type of research.
Let me make one or two other comments about
EPRI before I move on to the research planning mode.
Number one, we do not support research that relates to
advocating policy. Number two, the results of EPRI
research are the property of the researcher, not of EPRI,
which means that we exercise no control over the
research that we support. What the researcher wishes to
do with that research is his business. He may publish it;
he may not publish it. We do not exercise control over it.
We obviously have the right to publish it if we wish,
inasmuch as we pay for it, but we do not own the
research results. As a result of this twofold approach to
research, that is, the absence of doing advocacy research
plus the fact that we do not own the results of our
research, have given us a high degree of credibility. I
think we're justly proud of the credibility that our research
has gained throughout the research community and the
governmental community.
Let me now move on to the more specific question:
how does EPRI decide what research it wilf support or
what technologies—into what technologies it will put its
money?
Rather than sit down and just make a list of criteria
on which we will do our planning, we use a threefold ap-
proach. Number one, we examine first the specific re-
quirement of the Electric Utility Industry. Number two,
we then generate a series of assumptions or basic
premises that we must consider. By putting these two
together—that is, the special requirements and the basic
assumptions—we find that the research planning ap-
proach falls out very nicely and very conveniently.
Let me, therefore, discuss first the special re-
quirements and secondly, the assumptions that we use in
deciding how we will move ahead.
The Electric Industry does have some special re-
quirements. Obviously EPRI has one overall general
special requirement and that is to do research related to
the electric industry in general. But within that broad re-
quirement, there are some very specific things—and I will
list four. Number one, the electric industry does have the
special requirement of providing electricity to the
customer. This is its charge, of course. The electric in-
dustry is in a very special position. It more or less func-
tions as a Government-approved monopoly within a free
enterprise system. But in having that monopoly, its
charge is to provide electricity to the customer.
67
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
It means, therefore, the electric industry must antici-
pate the demand; it must go out and operate and con-
struct and transmit electricity to society. So that's require-
ment number one—the providing of electricity.
Requirement number two is that it must provide
electricity reliably and at minimum cost. This reliability
aspect is an important special requirement of the electric
industry.
The third special requirement is that the industry
must secure access to resources. That is, to land for raw
materials and things of that sort.
The fourth and final special requirement that I'll
mention is that the electric industry must protect the en-
vironment and public health. This is an important con-
sideration in its providing of electricity and providing
electricity reliably and at minimum cost.
I think if you think for just a minute about these
special requirements, you will see that certain ap-
proaches to research fall out almost automatically. I'll get
into that in more detail later.
Let me move on to the second step in this research
planning process, and that is the assumptions or the ma-
jor premises under which the electric utility industry and
EPRI specifically operate. I will list six of them.
Number one assumption is that electricity demand in
the United States will grow. We do not see this as a static
situation. We see the demand continuing to grow. How
much it grows, of course, is a matter of debate—whether
it's two percent, three percent, four percent, I don't think
is material in our overall planning. What is important is
that electricity-demand will grow. This is an assumption.
Incidentally, let me emphasize right now that in
specifying these assumptions, I am listing a series of
working hypotheses. I am not specifying a policy that is
followed by EPRI. These are simply assumptions that we
follow in planning our research. We are not advocating
any of these assumptions one way or the other. We ac-
cept them as a working hypothesis.
Assumption number two: over the future decades
with regard to electricity demand, we assume that capital
costs to the industry will be high. This is a very important
consideration that bears on the type of research that will
be undertaken.
Assumption number three: long lead times are
needed if we're going to change the present energy mix.
We have a general mix now of nuclear, oil, natural gas
and coal. For all practical purposes, this covers most of
the electricity production in the United States.
If we want to make significant changes in that
mix—and I emphasize the word "significant"—we
assume that long lead times are going to be needed. We
can't make these changes in one decade.
Assumption number four: for at least the next few
decades, we assume that the existing technologies will
continue to provide the major source of electricity.
Assumption number five, we assume that the United
States should not establish a strong dependence on
foreign supplies of fuel. That means, in turn then, that
the United States must concentrate its electricity produc-
tion on domestic fuels as much as possible, which of
course, means basically on coal and uranium if the other
assumptions above are correct, these assumptions being
that long lead times needed; that existing technologies
are needed.
The final assumption we make is that environmental
consideration will continue to become increasingly im-
portant, even more so than they are now.
I have listed a series of research criteria—excuse
me—a series of special requirements for the electric utility
industry. I'v.e listed a series of major premises or assump-
tions. Putting these two together, I think you'll see that
the requirements for our research planning fall out rather
simply.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that any governmental
agency or any research funding group can take this ap-
proach—that is, establish certain criteria, establish certain
assumptions or premises, and then use these to decide
how it will support a research program; what technol-
ogies will need to be developed; how the money should
be distributed.
Let me now move on to the final part of my testi-
mony and that is the specific research criteria that EPRI
uses in deciding which technologies to support or how it
will spend its research money.
Our overall planning is based on five basic points
and I will list these in order. Number one, our research
planning or our decision on which technologies to sup-
port is based on, first of all, the extent to which the
technology can provide the needed energy. Now you
may recall that I mentioned previously (under the specific
requirements of the electric utility industry) that we are
required to provide electricity. Obviously, we have got to
put money into supporting those technologies which can
provide the needed energy and in the time-frame in
which it's needed.
Let me give you an example. We have the tech-
nology now to provide electricity from fuel cells. But the
amount that comes from that is minimal, compared to
what is needed.
On the other side of the coin, we see fusion as a
possible means of providing tremendous quantities of
electricity, but that is decades away. So it's quite obvious
when we look at things like fuel cells and fusion, we will
relegate them to a minor position compared to other
technologies.
I must emphasize "compared to other
technologies."
So the first criteria is the extent to which the tech-
nology can provide the needed energy in the necessary
time-frame.
The second criteria: financial considerations, and
these include two things. Number one, the financial con-
sideration to the industry in terms of capital outlay. This
obviously is going to have a bearing on the technology
68
-------
Statement of Dr. Perhac
that we will support. Secondly, is the cost to the con-
sumer. Now, again, we have the technology to devise a
number of means of providing electricity—and large
amounts of electricity. But the cost is so great, either in
terms of capital outlay by the industry or more important-
ly, cost to the consumer, that there's no point in putting a
tremendous amount of money into those technologies
right now in order to supply the demand that we see for
the next ten to twenty to thirty years.
Number three criteria: the EPRI research budget.
We have a finite amount of money, as does any organi-
zation, and we have to judge the emphasis in our
research funding on the amount of money that is avail-
able. We have to have somewhat of a balanced program
and that, of course, depends to a large extent on how
much money is available.
The fourth criteria is the extent of research which is
being done by others. Now, to a large extent this means
the Federal Government, but not exclusively. Let me
give you an example of that.
In my own department, the Environmental Assess-
ment Department, we are putting very little money into
research related to environmental problems of nuclear
energy. This doesn't mean we don't see that as an impor-
tant issue; it doesn't mean that we have no interest in
nuclear energy. What it means, instead, is that we see the
Federal Government putting quite a bit of money into
nuclear energy. The amount that we could allocate is
very small and we could hardly dent the program which
is going on and which has gone on by the Federal
Government. Therefore, those projects which we sup-
port in nuclear energy are very few and are aimed at fill-
ing a gap within existing Federal programs.
Again, I emphasize it's not because of any lack of
concern over the environmental effects; it's because we
see that the impact we can make is so small compared to
other research which is going on that we can profitably
put our money into other technologies and produce a
greater effect for the overall welfare of society.
The fifth, and final, concern is the environmental
concern, and this includes a full gamut of environmental
problems from the physical chemical aspects of the en-
vironment to health effects. For example, material
damage; visibility degradation; human health, ecology
and socioeconomic aspects.
Now, I don't pretend that the environmental consid-
erations will necessarily rule out a technology. I must
make this point. Let me give you an example. We are
considering, for example, many technologies of gasifica-
tion. The prime consideration is not environmental.
There are other things that go into which technology we
will support with regard to gasification. This doesn't
mean we're not interested in the environmental aspects.
It just means that it's not the prime consideration because
our feeling is that we can take care of the environmental
aspects of the particular technology. We don't see that as
the deciding factor on which gasification technology the
nation will use.
Our concern is to go ahead, develop the technology
at the same time that we are examining the environmen-
tal concerns of the different gasification technologies and,
at the same time, developing the technology to take care
of whatever environmental problems will arise.
But the environmental concern is very definitely an
important aspect in our overall research planning.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the basic
thinking that goes into the EPRI research format or into
the EPRI research planning. Again, I thank you for this
opportunity to address the panel and the audience.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
MR. GRISHAM: Doctor Perhac, could I ask you a
question regarding your working relationship with the
Department of Energy?
DR. PERHAC: My relationship with the Depart-
ment of Energy?
MR. GRISHAM: Right. Do you-
DR. PERHAC: We have just recently signed a
working agreement with the Department, all within the
last two, three, or four months, and this agreement
basically outlines the areas of interest of the Electric
Power Research Institute and the Department of Energy,
the extent to which we may be cooperating and the
mechanism by which we will be cooperating. How, for
example, we would operate a jointly funded project and
things of this sort.
MR. GRISHAM: Do you have projects now that
are jointly funded with EPRI and DOE?
DR. PERHAC: Yes, we do. And we look forward
to more, but we do have some projects now that were
jointly funded.
MR. GRISHAM: Okay. One other question.
Could you give us an idea of what kind of projects are
underway now through this joint funding?
DR. PERHAC: We have none in the environmen-
tal area just yet, none in the specific environmental area.
The projects are in the fossil fuels division which relate
more or less to technological development. Pilot plant
type operations and test facilities, precipitator type equip-
ment. It's in that area where the joint funding has
gone on.
We are now pursuing with the Department of
Energy the possibility of funding some specific en-
vironmental studies. For example, I'll give you one
specific example on animal toxicology studies; inhalation
toxicology.
MR. GRISHAM: Steve, one other question, if !
might. The question regarding your statement about
research in the area of policy. Could you define what
you mean by "policy"? I don't understand how you can
avoid policy in your research.
DR. PERHAC: Oh, we do some policy research.
There's no question about that. We will look, for exam-
ple, into the effects of the Resource Conservation Recov-
ery Act on the electric utility industry as a means of judg-
ing what sort of research we will support in regard to solid
waste disposal.
69
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
What we do not do, however, is research that
would result in our advocating a policy. For example,
under—again under the Resource Conservation Recov-
ery Act, there is a proposed provision whereby utility
solid waste will be subjected to a chemical test to see
whether or not the solid waste is a hazard.
We may study that test with regard to its reproduci-
bility, the cost of doing it; things of this sort. But we will
not say or recommend that this is a good or bad test. We
don't feel that's our position.
We may do research, for example, with regard to
studying the emissions from different types of coal plants.
But again, our position is not to recommend one type of
coal plant over another with regard to national policy.
We will present the data and let whoever makes decisions
make their own judgment.
MR. GRISHAM: Thank you, sir.
DR. MacKENZIE: From your assumptions, it is
clear that you are worried about the—you are assuming
that existing technologies will provide the energy
resources for the next few decades. That was one of the
assumptions. And yet, environmental considerations will
loom very important.
Given the slowness with which new energy technol-
ogies can make an impact, I'm a little puzzled why you
really don't take a very long-term point of view and see
whether or not environmental considerations, such as
carbon dioxide, might, in fact, have significant implica-
tions for the utility industry today. If it takes four or five
decades to switch energy sources—I'm just wondering
whether or not global concerns, for example, CO2 or
acid rain or what have you—might not really have signifi-
cant implications for what you should be supporting
now. It might be a very important part of your whole
program.
DR. PERHAC: I almost have to say yes to your
question because I'm not quite sure exactly what you're
asking. I hear a lot of things and I agree with most of what
you're saying, but may 1 ask that you be more specific in
the question. Then perhaps I can answer it.
DR. MacKENZIE: Okay. Does EPRI do much
work on renewable resources—wind, for example?
DR. PERHAC: We do research, yes, on the more
unusual technologies, but a limited amount. Again, we
have to decide on which time-frame we're going to—
DR. MacKENZIE: That's my question.
DR. PERHAC: —we're going to focus our efforts.
Whether it's in the next, say, zero to 5 years or 5 to 30 or
40 years or beyond 40 years.
For all practical purposes, most of our emphasis is
going into what one might consider the mid-range; say,
research problems that will arise over the next 5 to 30
years or so, something to that extent. That's basically
where we're putting most of our emphasis.
That being the case, we focus most of our emphasis
on existing technologies and the problems relating to
those, both technological and environmental.
Now, this doesn't preclude looking, for example, at
the environmental effects of fusion. We do have a small
effort into that. We are also looking, for example, at the
COZ problem to a limited extent. That's an existing
technology, of course, or a problem related to an existing
technology, but the problem may be longer range than
30 years, but we are looking at it, to see what we might
be able to contribute as far as supporting research.
Does that answer, in part, your question?
DR. MacKENZIE: 1 think-
DR. PERHAC: I think the time-frame on which we
focus our efforts, the so-called midterm, has a profound
effect on what research we will support and what con-
siderations go into that research.
DR. MacKENZIE: Do you have an idea of the
fraction of your budget that goes into, say, fossil fuel sup-
port as opposed to longer term, such as renewable
resources?
DR. PERHAC: Yes. In round figures—and these
are very round—approximately 45 percent of our
research budget which this year in 1979, calendar '79, is
a bit over $200 million, goes into our fossil fuels and ad-
vanced systems program, or rather, division.
About 20 to 25 percent goes into nuclear and the
rest is split between the electrical transmission division
and the energy analysis and environment division.
So the fossil fuels division is getting about half the
budget.
Now, I want to caution or emphasize one point.
Although the energy analysis and environment division
may only get between 10 and 15 percent of the budget,
the actual amount of money spent on environmental
concerns at the Electric Power Research Institute is about
50 percent of the total budget. We have a separate envi-
ronmental assessment department, which gets its own
budget, but there's environmental work going on in all
the divisions.
So, actually, with regard to environmental con-
cerns, close to 50 percent is a fairly accurate figure as far
as what we're supporting.
DR. WILLEY: I'm curious about the process of
specifying assumptions because obviously that's going to
be very important to DOE in establishing their research
agenda. In particular, I assume when EPRI talks about
long lead time, this is referring to long lead times that are
required in the development of coal or nuclear proj-
ects—8 to 10 years? Is that what you're referring to
when you assume long lead times?
DR. PERHAC: No. When I said long lead times, I
was referring to—specifically to the fact that long periods
of time would be needed if we're going to make a major
change in the mix of energy technologies that we now
use.
DR. WILLEY: I see.
DR. PERHAC: If we're going to bring in, for exam-
ple, extensive liquefaction or extensive gasification to a
70
-------
Statement of Dr. Perhac
large extent, or extensive use of solar energy, we don't
see this happening in the next couple of decades. We see
this requiring quite a few decades.
DR. WILLEY: As far as the Department of Energy
goes, in trying to establish assumptions under which they
should work, do you have suggestions as to how the
Department ought to go about establishing assumptions?
In your case, it's much easier. I assume that you poll the
industry on some kind of criteria for what they assume
and then determine your research agenda.
For the Department of Energy, since its constituency
is much broader, would you have any suggestions as to
how it would establish a set of assumptions from which a
research agenda could flow?
DR. PERHAC: I'm going to have to say no, I don't
because it's an area in which I don't specifically deal
myself. At EPRI, to some extent, we poll the industry in-
formally, but we have a separate planning department
that devotes most of its energy to the question of research
planning. I don't deal much with that aspect of it. I'd bet-
ter not answer. I'd be guessing and that's all. So let me
avoid that one.
MR. GAMSE: As you talked about the criteria that
EPRI uses itself, I was trying to translate those to what
recommendations there might be for the Energy Depart-
ment's decisionmaking. Particularly the environmental
criterion that you use. Do you have any suggestions on
how environmental concerns should be factored into
DOE R&D planning? Specifically, you said that you
moved the research along on all of the technologies
simultaneously and did the environmental research side-
by-side. Is that the path you would recommend for
DOE? When should environmental considerations or the
results of environmental research affect the priorities with
which projects are funded or whether they go on to the
next stage or not?
DR. PERHAC: I think you've asked probably one
of the most difficult questions that a person could ask. It
would be almost a truism for me to say that the decision
to abandon a project, for example, would be when the
environmental concerns are insuperable. That's an easy
answer, but I'm not sure how one decides that.
I can't give you an easy answer to that, I just don't
know. Could you try phrasing the question differently?
MR. GAMSE: Well, for instance, at the early
stages, I gather that EPRI does not adjust its funding
priorities on the technology development side based on
the environmental considerations? Your assumption
seems to be that you do the environmental research and
assume that that will lead to the solution of the environ-
mental problems that you identify.
I hope I'm fair in characterizing this.
DR. PERHAC: Only in part. Let me give you a
specific example where it works the other way. No, I'll
give you two examples. Let me go back to the gasifica-
tion case.
We don't really know enough yet about the envi-
ronmental consequences of extensive use of gasification
technology. Therefore, we are supporting a fair bit of
work on gasification technology and at the same time
we're developing an environmental program to go
along with that.
That's one example where the two are going hand-
in-hand, where the environmental concern is not yet
affecting our research funding on the technology.
Now, on the other side of the coin is, for example,
conventional coal-burning. From our environmental
work, we're discovering more and more that a major
cause of pulmonary dysfunction may be some very fine
respirable particles which are in the atmosphere.
This is some information that we're just discover-
ing, and other groups are discovering it as well. We are
supplying this information to our fossil fuels division
which then uses it in its design to minimize the amount
of fine particles which get into the atmosphere.
So there the environmental work is preceding the
technology development. So I don't think I can give you
a simple answer. There are just individual cases where
one precedes the other and vice-versa.
MR. GRISHAM: Doctor Perhac, are you satisfied
now with the way R&D is developed in the Electric
Power Industry on a national level? If you're not, what
could be done to change it to improve the system? •
DR. PERHAC: You ask a question that I'm really
not qualified to answer. You said the "Electric Power
Industry." I can't speak for the Electric Power Industry
as a whole because the Electric Power Industry has
many different research segments. TVA, for example,
has a very extensive research group. We're not in a
position really to judge the overall research effort of the
industry. All I can do is pass judgment on the EPRI ef-
fort and we are just one segment of the research effort
of the industry.
My own personal opinion is yes, I am presently
satisfied with the EPRI research approach. Any changes
I would make would probably be minor.
DR. WILLEY: You've raised the main criteria of
EPRI being supply over liability and of course, that has
got to be a main criterion for any research group. Cer-
tainly DOE's research program will have to be con-
cerned with supply over liability. The question that's
been raised in these hearings and elsewhere has been
whether or not one should consider increasing the effi-
ciency of use of energy as an aspect of supply; that is,
the technologies that use the existing supply of energy
more efficiently essentially increase supply. Does EPRI
consider increased efficiency technologies to be supply
of viable technologies, and therefore, eligible under
those criterion for research funding?
DR. PERHAC: Is your question does EPRI con-
sider efficiency of supply—
DR. WILLEY: Increased efficiency.
71
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
DR. PERHAC: Yes, very definitely. Incidentally,
let me correct one thing you said. You said that I listed
the providing of electricity and providing electricity
reliably as the two most important special requirements.
No, they're not the two most important. They're just
two of four that I listed.
DR. WILLEY: They were the first two, then.
DR. PERHAC: These were not in priority order
necessarily. But they are—they are two important con-
siderations, but certainly not the most important.
Yes, we're certainly interested in more efficient
supply for more efficient production. There's no ques-
tion about this, A major effort is devoted to more effi-
cient production. I might add also that we're moving
very extensively into the conservation area. So those
are two considerations.
DR. WILLEY: My question was mainly consumer
efficiency in-use, more than efficiency of production.
DR. PERHAC: Oh, of in-use?
DR. WILLEY: Yes. In other words, does EPRI do
research on in-use efficiency?
DR. PERHAC: Right now, very little; very little.
Again, it's because we have a finite budget and we see
enough problems to support just within the production
and transmission of electricity without getting into the
in-use of it.
We do consider it to some extent. As I mentioned,
we're looking into conservation within the homes which
has to do with energy use. We do have some small ef-
fort, for example, into electric cars, which is a use of
electricity. But the efforts are small compared to others.
DR. WILLEY: Given the information that pres-
ently exists and is being talked about nationally now
about the cost and financial advantages of increasing in-
use efficiency, wouldn't that indicate or give you con-
cern with capital requirements for the industry that that
would be a top priority item?
DR. PERHAC: Again, I'll give my personal
opinion. No. I don't think it is a top priority item.
DR. WILLEY: Given your criterion, shouldn't it
be?
DR. PERHAC: Not if we consider the availability
of the money we have and the time-frame in which
we're thinking.
DR. REZNEK: Doctor Perhac, I have some ques-
tions, one of which I'd like to explore a little bit, a sub-
ject you raised—maybe it's a little unfair—the gasifier
question.
1 personally have some feelings about the dif-
ference in gasifier technologies which, to make a long
story short, are the high temperature pressurized proc-
esses, burn out the polycyclics that are maybe car-
cinogenetic; they slag the ash, thereby binding heavy
metals; and that low temperature ones have a number
of environmental disadvantages, which we normally
associate with things like coke oven 6perations. 1 see
that those environmental questions should be fairly
important in the selection of the technologies that finally
get used.
Your statement was that the primary view of which
technology should be used are not related to the envi-
ronmental criteria, but once it's decided on their
economic or performance criteria or other engineering
characteristics, then you certainly do worry about
improving their environmental performance.
This is a problem, but it's a problem that many of
our witnesses have talked about; namely, that you
define the -area in which you want to develop. For
example, LURGY (phonetic) or so-called TEXACO or
Gallushia (phonetic) and then you pursue a develop-
ment area, development in those three or four areas
and then sort of as an afterthought or as part of the proj-
ect itself, worry about the environmental controls, but
never ask the fundamental question: should I drop one
of the three or one of the four because it can't compete
environmentally with the others?
Is that estimation reasonably accurate of your
position?
DR. PERHAC: Let me restate the position and
see if that, in part, answers your question.
Our knowledge now of the adverse environmental
effects that may result from gasification technologies is
very incomplete. Doctor Richmond, for example,
pointed out some of the deficiencies in our knowledge.
We do not feel that we are in a position to pass
judgment environmentally on any of the specific
gasification technologies, that is, which one is better or
worse than the other in the long-run.
As a result of that, we are not using the environ-
mental consideration yet in deciding which technologies
we will support as far as funding research. Again, it's
mainly because of our ignorance of knowing what the
effects are. Therefore, we are considering putting
money into a number of different technologies all at the
same time, and at the same time, doing extensive envi-
ronmental work along with it.
If at some point, we find that the environmental con-
sequences of a particular technology are so adverse that
they cannot be corrected in any sort of economical or
reasonable way, then I think obviously, this would affect
considerably the extent to which we would support a
technology.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. The second question,
you also touched on, which is a problem in designing
any research program; a relationship between those of
us who are trained as engineers and those of us who are
trained as health specialists. You mentioned that within
EPRI you seemed to have worked out pretty well the
transfer of information on the health effects of fine par-
ticulates into the engineering program to develop con-
trols for fine particulates.
Do you within EPRI have a separate environmental
engineering capability that would examine such ques-
tions as the environmental benefits of using product gas
72
-------
Statement of Mr. Paparian
of a gasifier to generate the process steam, versus using
the feed stock which would be coal, to generate the
process steam? Do you have a separate environmental
engineering division and does that division, if it exists,
help close this gap between the engineer and the
biologist?
DR. PERHAC: In answer to your question, no,
we do not have a separate environmental engineering
division, as such. But we have engineers within the
fossil fuels division who work fairly closely with the
health effects and ecological people in the environ-
mental assessment department.
DR. REZNEK: And do you feel that that linkage is
working fairly well?
DR. PERHAC: Yes, in general. Again, you're
touching on an area that's very difficult. This is a ques-
tion of transfer of information between divisions, be-
tween departments, between agencies.
We attempt to do as well as we can. How well
we're doing is open to question. Anybody might say we
could do better or we could do worse.
DR. REZNEK: You've also mentioned that
throughout your budget about 50 percent is allocated to
environmental questions. 1 applaud that from my point
of view.
Two questions: one, do you feel it's important to
be able to keep your resource allocation records and
your resource allocation procedures in such a way that
you can easily identify that percentage—reasonably ac-
curately and reasonably easily identify it; and second,
would you care to comment about whether or not you
feel the 50 percent average may be in the general ball
park of where you would like to see DOE's split?
DR. PERHAC: Let me answer the first question.
No, it's not easy to identify the exact percentage that
goes into environmental studies. For example, let's
assume that we're supporting research on a new elec-
trostatic precipitator. Does one consider that research
on environmental questions?
DR. REZNEK: Yes.
DR. PERHAC: Some people would say no, that
isn't. That is more technology. Or what if one is, for
example, doing research on an improved type of burner
that would say increase the temperature, thereby break-
ing down polycyclic aeromatic hydrocarbons. Is that an
environmental research effort?
Some would consider it yes; others would say no.
So there are areas like that where it's hard to decide
whether or not it's purely an environmental subject or
an engineering, technological subject. The 50 percent is
an estimate and I don't think there's an easy way to pin
that down to a fine percentage.
That takes care of the first question. As far as the
second question, the overall effort of the Department of
Energy—what's my opinion on that?
Again, I think before I could answer that, I'd have
to know specifically under what time-frame the Depart-
ment of Energy is operating; what it considers its most
important time-frame? Should its research effort be
focused on the near term, mid term or long term? If I
know the distribution of that, then I think I'd be in a bet-
ter position to answer how much I think ought to go in
environmental work. Because I think it will differ de-
pending on the specific time-frame.
DR. REZNEK: Finally, I think my last question
may be a trifle unfair, but let me return to your selection
of time-frames for EPRI research.
The basic assumption that things change slowly,
isn't that perhaps a little self-fulfilling? In fact, if you
don't go after new and radically different technologies,
then, in fact, it'll take a long time to get there?
DR. PERHAC: Again, I'll answer that from a per-
sonal opinion, not from the position of EPRI or the Elec-
tric Utility Industry. In one word, no. I don't think it's
self-fulfilling. I think it's based on very careful analysis of
the capabilities of society.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to compliment you on your
testimony. I thought it was extremely well presented
and very well thought out. I'd just like to express my
appreciation for your testimony.
DR. PERHAC: Thank you for this opportunity.
DR. REZNEK: Our next witness is Michael
Paparian of the California Sierra Club.
Presentation by Michael Paparian
California Sierra Club
MR. PAPARIAN: Thank you. I am Michael Paparian,
Assistant Energy Coordinator for the Sierra Club in
California. I wish to thank the Environmental Protection
Agency and its staff for inviting me here to testify today.
I'd like to start out with two quotes that'll put some
perspective on the nature of my comments today. The
first one is from Alexis de Tocqueville in his book,
Democracy in America: "The health of a democratic
society may be measured by the quality of functions
performed by private citizens." Secondly, from Energy
Secretary Charles W. Duncan, Jr.: "I plan to maintain
an active and an open dialogue with all elements of
American society that have an interest in energy mat-
ters, with public interest groups, consumer groups, en-
vironmental groups, labor groups, industry and
business groups, all interested publics."
I've come here not to assess the details of how the
Department of Energy operates—there are plenty of
other people in this room who have much greater ex-
perience than I in dealing directly with the Department.
Instead, I have come to offer a solution to many of the
criticisms that have been raised regarding DOE.
A fundamental problem with the Department, as
well as many other government offices, is inadequate
attention to citizen involvement and inadequate atten-
tion given to information dissemination. The new
Secretary has shown his eagerness to invite dia-
logue with the public. I hope to see this come about
effectively.
73
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
The purpose of today's hearing is to assess how
well the Department of Energy takes into account
energy conservation and environmental protection in its
programs. Specifically, the Program and Policy
Management System is being looked at.
The PPMS was designed as a management
strategy to assist in ongoing evaluation of large projects.
It is intended to allow for review, at specific stages, of
the technical, economic, and environmental factors of
each technology.
Further, the PPMS is intended to ensure environ-
mentally responsible decisionmaking.
These goals are admirable and proper for a well:
functioning process. However, there is one factor that is
ignored in the process—public review and scrutiny.
The PPMS process has no formal mechanism for
involving the public other than at the end when it is
mandated to meet the procedural requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act. Because of this, the
process as a whole adversely affects environmental
considerations.
At various stages in the PPMS process, documents
are produced to plan for further research and develop-
ment or define and evaluate environmental factors. The
work that leads to the preparation of these documents is
important as it helps to determine where the project will
go and how it will be implemented.
The Environmental Development Plan is used to
review the major documents and the provisions for
public review of them. This plan defines major environ-
mental concerns associated with a particular energy
technology and general environmental research re-
quirements for addressing those concerns. The docu-
ment is produced by the Environmental Coordination
Subcommittee composed of Department staff.
It is an internal document, with public access only
by request after it is produced.
The Environmental System Acquisition Project En-
vironmental Plan is used to plan environmental
research and development for a specific project. Again,
it is an internal document, with public access only by re-
quest after it is produced.
Environmental Readiness Documents review en-
vironmental status of the technology and serve as for-
mal Office of Environment input to DOE technology
development decisions. They are internal documents,
once again, with public access only by request after they
are produced.
Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements are produced to decide if NEPA
applies and if it does, to produce further documents.
Public review is required by NEPA, and therefore, hap-
pens, following the drafts of these documents.
In all the planning, research, and development of a
project, the public has no access to the process until
documents come out, and even then, there have been
many complaints about the lack of availability of the
reports.
At the Pittsburgh Section 11 workshop held last
July, there was general agreement that mechanisms for
public participation and information dissemination are
inadequate.
There was an expressed desire for a more open
process. However, a question was raised, "Does DOE
really want public participation?" According to the
report on the workshops, "Some participants expressed
skepticism about this and said that if information
dissemination and public participation do not appear in
DOE's budget, then DOE doesn't perceive them as a
priority."
Similar comments were aired at all the workshops.
From Atlanta: "Work group reports indicated general
consensus that public involvement in the Program and
Project Management System was inadequate. . . . Many
participants felt that the public should be brought into
the process earlier—by the time the public has an
opportunity to participate, primarily through review of
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact
Statements, it is too late for their opinions to affect
many important decisions."
From Denver: "There was general agreement that
public participation in the project was inadequate . . .
One group suggested that a set proportion of each proj-
ect's budget be set aside to support public participation
activities. . . . Several participants reported that they
had not been able to obtain documents through regular
channels."
From San Francisco: "Most of the groups agreed
that better information dissemination was needed and
documents should be made more readily available for
public re view. . . . There is no systematic method for in-
volving local officials and citizens after siting decisions
are made."
From Pittsburgh; "One work group summed up the
feeling of many participants in the statement that 'public
input seems to get lost in the maze of a vast
bureaucracy.' It seems to go into a 'black box' and there
is no accountability to the public."
It is this "black box" that shrouds DOE programs in
the eyes of many. It is very difficult for anybody outside
the organization to penetrate such a large and diverse
Department.
Further, it is difficult for a Department employee,
who has primary responsibility for something other than
public participation, to be adequately sensitive to the
needs of the public.
In California, our Energy Commission has solved
many of the public participation problems through
establishment of an Office of Public Advisor.
The Public Advisor is intended to, (a) insure full
and adequate participation by all interested groups and
the public-at-large; (b) insure timely and complete
notice of all meetings and hearings is distributed to the
public; (c) advise groups and the public as to effective
ways of participating in commission proceedings; and
74
-------
Statement of Mr. Paparian
(d) recommend additional measures to assure open
consideration and public participation.
The Department of Energy has not shown much
effort to insure the type of public participation as is man-
dated by the California Energy Commission. Perhaps
the Department would do well to study the California
case and adapt such a program to its own needs.
Such a program would help instill the public con-
fidence that the Department so desperately needs at this
time and would meet the needs expressed by members
of the various publics interested in DOE programs.
The need for the DOE to expand its efforts to in-
form the public and encourage their participation has
been shown by the comments at the regional hearings.
The need is manifest in expressions of confusion of how
to enter the "black box" of decision making or how to
extract information from the box.
By providing a mechanism for public involvement
in all aspects of Department operations, DOE can
realize the following benefits:
One, issues and facts will be brought out early. By
involving a diverse group of non-Department
employees early in any process, key issues can be
brought out that may otherwise be overlooked until late
in the process. In many cases, these issues may be ones
that could cause long delays if left unchecked during the
program development.
Two, conflicts can be resolved. Ongoing com-
munication with interested parties throughout any pro-
cess can help to resolve conflicts that would otherwise
have 'cast doubt on the validity of the decisions made
within the Department.
The opportunity for face-to-face communication
can help to insure that conflicts are looked at in a
rational manner with a common goal in mind instead of
being arbitrated in an adversary relationship later on.
Three, there will be greater support for Department
actions. By encouraging full public participation in deci-
sion processes, DOE would have a basis of support for
the decisions. The people who helped to form a deci-
sion would understand the reasons for it and would help
to validate the outcome.
There has been much cynicism expressed about
how decisions are arrived at in all government agencies.
Opening the decisions up to public scrutiny early would
insure that those interested would understand how deci-
sions are arrived at and would help decisionmakers to
understand the concerns of the public.
Four, the public's demand for an increased rote in
government decisionmaking will be met. Much if not
most, of the present distrust in government stems from
the belief that the government is meddling in the lives of
our citizens without taking into consideration the conse-
quences of government action. Full public participation
can alleviate the concerns that government is regulating
without concern for the outcome of the regulation.
Five, there will be expedited process. Through
dialogue, concerns will be raised early and in many
cases these concerns will result in modification in pro-
gram development. Costly and time-consuming delays
will be avoided when the concerns of all are under-
stood and taken into account in the development of
programs.
A public advisor for the Department of Energy
would serve the need of interested parties to participate
in decisions that affect them. A public advisor's office,
under whatever name, would serve as watchdog for the
public interest.
It would both bring in the public to participate in
Department processes and insure the activities of the
Department are made known to interested parties.
The function of a public advisor's office is a vital
one and as such, it should not be treated lightly in the
organization of the Department. It should be
autonomous from all other departments and should
report directly to the Secretary to insure its
independence and credibility.
The budget of the office should be adequate to in-
sure that the office doesn't become a showplace with no
substance. In California, the public advisor receives
roughly one percent of the Energy Commission's
budget and has roughly one percent of the
Commission's staff.
Why spend tax dollars on such an effort? Many
would argue that those without financial resources have
just as much opportunity to participate as those who do,
and that an agency should not spend funds to bring in
people to participate.
It should be clear that without some expenditure of
funds, there is no way the Department is going to insure
public understanding and awareness of decisions.
Further, those who participate from outside the
Department as part of their jobs, are in most cases par-
ticipating on tax-deductible dollars. As such, it makes
perfect sense to afford others similar opportunities with
tax dollars from the government.
A public advisor's office at the Department of
Energy would have the following functions:
One, to be a clearinghouse of information. The of-
fice would serve as a clearinghouse for information on
Department activities, programs, policies, publications,
etcetera. The office would be a place for the
public—here, I define the public broadly to include all
interested parties—be a place for the public to turn for
information on what the Department is doing, how to
obtain information on specific programs and policies,
and what opportunities there are for participation in the
Department processes.
The office would be easily accessible to the public,
with toll-free phone lines and adequate staff to deal with
public inquiries. The office would also help the public
extract information from divisions within the Depart-
ment when necessary to do so.
75
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
Two, to be an advisor to the Department on public
participation. The office would advise the Department
and its divisions as to the best ways to solicit and obtain
public input. The office would be the one to bring in the
public where opportunities arise to do so.
The office would be aggressive in searching out
programs in need of public input and by insuring that
the public is brought in to participate.
Three, to give advice to the public on how to par-
ticipate. In recognition of the fact that many people do
not have extensive experience in dealing with the
Department, as others do, the Department—the office
would serve to coach the public on how best to par-
ticipate in Department activities.
This will help the public participants to effectively
convey their ideas and help to avoid unnecessary waste
of departmental staff time.
Four, to give notice of hearings, workshops,
etcetera. The advisor should be responsible for insuring
that adequate notice is given to all interested parties of
the date, time, and location of hearings of interest to
them. It is important that the public be given adequate
notice of activities and the advisor should be the watch-
dog to insure this happens.
Five, to advise the Secretary on methods to insure
full public participation. The advisor should advise the
Secretary on how to further facilitate and encourage
public involvement. In areas where the Advisor does
not have the power to effect a change in procedure, the
Advisor should provide the Secretary with the informa-
tion necessary to make a rational decision on the issue.
Six, to solicit input from interested parties. The Ad-
visor should identify those individuals or groups who
may have an interest in an issue and may not otherwise
be participating. These groups should be encouraged to
become involved in appropriate areas.
In many areas, the California Energy Commission
has set up an advisory committee structure to en-
courage early airing of issues and problems. These ad-
visory committees have ranged from committees to
assess and recommend changes in specific program
directions, including wind, cogeneration, and load
management programs, to committees that assess the
overall performance and direction of the Commission
itself.
By establishing a formal participation and informa-
tion dissemination process as I have described, the
Department of Energy will better serve the need of the
public to be involved in the energy decisions that will be
important in the next few years.
The Department has a choice at this time—either
having business as usual with the probability that most
decisions will be assailed or bringing in the public and
having a validation of decisions that meet the public
need.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you. Jim?
DR. MacKENZIE: As you know, the Department
of Energy has an Assistant Secretary for Environment
who produces many of the documents you have
referenced. I have two questions relative to this office.
First, has the Office of Assistant Secretary failed
somehow to carry out the responsibilities assigned to it
by law; and secondly, in the various documents that
you've referred to—Environmental Development
Plans, Environmental Readiness Documents—have
you, in fact, reviewed them and found them to be in-
adequate or is it that there simply was no review by your
own group and others? Have you, in fact, found them
factually inadequate so that there really are grounds,
beyond public participation, for getting input into them?
MR. PAPARIAN: I think the question becomes
whether or not the public should be involved in these
processes and not one of whether the Secretary—the
Assistant Secretary for the Environment has failed or
whether the documents have been inadequate.
The Assistant Secretary for the Environment has
done an admirable job, but that person's job is limited in
that being within the structure of the Department, it's
very difficult to fully understand what the concerns are
of the different publics.
As to the specific documents that have been com-
ing out, I reviewed a few of them and without going into
specifics, here, in many cases with additional public in-
put from, say, a group such as my own, I feel that some
of their premises could have been different, some of the
things they emphasize could have been different and
perhaps some additional factors could have been
brought in. •
DR. WILLEY: I know at various points in history
over the last 5 years the California Commission has
thought about and even several times actually done
funding of intervenor groups in specific proceedings. 1
haven't watched that enough to know how it turned
out. I'd just like to know whether you think the Depart-
ment of Energy ought to consider funding of intervenor
groups on specific issues or specific proceedings?
MR. PAPARIAN: Absolutely. It's interesting, a
study by the EPA several years ago indicated that 50
percent of citizen environmental groups have annual
budgets of under $2,000.
In cases where somebody wants to bring in an ex-
pert witness, say, an expert witness fee can range up to
about $1,000 or half the annual budget of half the en-
vironmental groups in the country.
As a minimum, in committees or hearings where
expert witnesses would benefit the process, the public
should be reimbursed to bring them in. The public
should also be reimbursed for participation in DOE
activities.
DR. WILLEY: Just a follow-up. Is the California
Commission continuing to fund particular interventions
by outside groups? When I say "outside," non-
governmental, non-industry groups?
76
-------
Statement of Mr. Paparian
MR. PAPARIAN: It has funded—in many cases,
the travel time of the outside participants. The
intervenor funding issue has been open to debate within
the California legislature and a formal program of
intervenor funding has not happened.
What has happened, in many cases, though, is
where someone from the public has wanted an expert
witness brought in who would definitely benefit a pro-
ceeding, the Commission staff has taken it on
themselves to fund, as a staff witness, that expert.
MR. MERSON: If we are permitted to look at the
political climate right now, I'd like to ask a question
about the California Public Advisor. With respect to the
length of time the permitting process now takes in
California compared with the process prior to the
existence of that office, and keeping in mind the discus-
sions that are taking place right now about an Energy
Mobilization Board, there is some concern over delay in
the permitting of energy facilities: Do you, from your
own experience, have any comments on the process
being extended significantly by either intervenor groups
or the public advisor in California. It is a consideration
that we have to keep in mind with respect to the Federal
process.
MR. PAPARIAN: I think it's an important con-
sideration and I think it's my feeling that intervention
and early bringing in of the public has actually served to
expedite processes rather than delay them.
In many cases where lawsuits have been brought,
on projects, I think they could well have been avoided if
the public was brought in early, their concerns
understood, and some of their objections met.
MR. MERSON: Do you have any data to either
confirm or refute that? I'd like to think that, too. I'd like
to feel that just as with the new CEQ regulations, where
we have a scoping process that tries to get everybody
who has a concern about a major Federal action in-
volved early, that perhaps we can avoid some last
minute confrontations that tend to extend the process.
Would the experience in California tend to either
support or refute that?
MR. PAPARIAN: There was a mostly qualitative
study done by the Public Advisor which I don't have
with me, which compares the things the Commission
has done, with some of the things that were done
without some public input. I could probably get ahold of
that for you, if that's what you are looking for.
MR. GRISHAM: 1 have one question, Steve.
You've talked about establishing an office of public
advisor near the Secretary in the Department of Energy.
I've a question on relationship of other factors in this
process. It seems like DOE is highly centralized in its
operation. The regional offices have very little responsi-
bility or authority to operate or make decisions and,
therefore, the States aren't involved as much as they
might be in the decisionmaking process.
What benefit do you see in establishing these of-
fices of public advisors at a closer level to the people and
the groups that are interested in these problems?
MR. PAPARIAN: 1 think it's very important and I
think—what I meant by establishing it close to the
Secretary was to have the person in charge of the pro-
gram not associated with any other programs in the
Department. The person's sole charge would be to bring
the public into the process.
I would envision a decentralized operation. It's very
difficult working from Washington, D.C. to understand
what's happening in the various regions of the country.
In that sense, I would hope to see much of the activity of
the office occurring at the local level and working di-
rectly with local participants in developing relationships
with them at the local level.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to expand on that a little
bit. I also wrote down questions of State and local rela-
tionships in the public information dissemination and
public review process.
There have been some experiments where we
heard testimony on the cost of the workshops, which
endorsed them quite highly. I'd tike you to comment, if
you would—if you'd care to, on the question of a third
party organization, either coalition of States or a
regional coalition or some body, be it composed of
other organizations at lower levels of government or in-
dependently established, to handle this process for
DOE, reporting back through the central authority the
public awareness office? Do you feel there would be ad-
vantages to that kind of, if you will, joint venture or
independent organization?
MR. PAPARIAN: Are you talking about such
third party groups advocating positions from the public
or bringing the public into the process?
DR. REZNEK: Both disseminating the two points
that you made—disseminating information and
soliciting public opinion.
MR. PAPARIAN: So essentially the office I
described would be a contract organization; is that what
you're getting at?
DR. REZNEK: It would have that capability.
MR. PAPARIAN: I mean in a sense, instead of an
office within the Department, it would be an office out-
side the Department; in a sense a contracted office?
DR. REZNEK: Weil, we saw, for example,
several instances: one where the permit review author-
ity was delegated by the Federal Government into a
single authority and that authority was, in this case, a
State organization, namely, Colorado.
Colorado would take the lead in carrying through
the process for all permits; Federal as well as State, as
well as local. And through an interagency agreement,
between the Federal organization and the State
organization, the permitting authority was, for lead pur-
poses, vested in .a non-Federal entity.
77
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
We saw another planning group which was com-
posed of a coalition of counties in one area supported
with DOE funds that carried on the public participation
and public planning function for geothermal.
In many cases, we heard testimony that these were
quite effective. There was a case where there was a
Federal involvement, but the Federal involvement was
through a third party.
MR. PAPARIAN: Yes. I think it's vital to separate
public involvement activities from any research activities
or advocacy or permitting procedures. I think the office
or whoever does it should be independent of the
substantive actions involved.
You spoke of the geothermal case. In that case it's
the Gripps Commission in California, which essentially
is a planning agency which does geothermal research
and development, and works more directly with local
and State agencies than it does with the public. Their
work is admirable, but they are more an extension of
the local governments than a public representative.
I think it's important that an impartial person within
an impartial office, without any preset notions as to
what conclusions they are arriving at—that that type of
office be involved in what I'm talking about.
DR. REZNEK: Would you compare that question
of impartiality for perhaps third party organizations ver-
sus actual members of this field office of the public
awareness office? Do you feel there might be a dif-
ference there? I'm not sure I'm making myself terribly
clear.
MR. PAPARIAN: Yes. Could you say that again?
DR. REZNEK: There are two ways to pursue the
type of activity: one, to have this public awareness office
and have Federal employees in the regions and
associated within—with individual products or with in-
dividual regional processes or at the national level. The
other way to do it would be to operate it through third
parties; grants from the central authority to local groups.
Do you feel that there's a difference in terms of the
impartiality of operating either of those two modes? I'm
not saying that you should have only one mode—that is
do everything through a third party or do everything
through a Federal employee, but at least you would like
to see a mix of modes and whether or not there'd be an
advantage of using one of the two in certain instances in
terms of impartiality.
MR. PAPARIAN: If the third party group came in
without a really preset accountability to a group such as
a local government or a State government or an in-
dustry group or anything else like that, then I think it
would be fine.
But if you bring in, say,—say you contracted with
our State Energy Commission to do this. Then you
would be contracting with someone with more of a
State perspective than a local perspective and would
open yourself up to criticism that you are taking the
State concern more loudly than you are the local con-
cern for the public concerns.
I think it's vital that the office be independent of any
of those.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much. I enjoyed
your testimony.
I think we'll break now and we'll reconvene—let
me check my schedule—at about 1:00 p.m. 1 was
tempted to ask whether or not your organization is one
of the under $2,000, but I'm not going to.
Oh, yes. We have one more question from the
audience. It says there is a view that effective conduct of
government's business is effectively throttled by com-
peting activities of public interest groups. What does the
continued call for greater public participation mean with
respect to the system of elective representatives? I think
this is maybe two questions, if you'll allow me to inter-
pret: one is how do you see the relative roles of the
executive and the legislative in making some of these
energy decisions, perhaps some of the larger decisions;
and second is a subject that we touched a little bit, that
there are competing public interest groups—industry is
certainly one of them and the Sierra Club may be
another—and does not the competition of these groups
necessarily slow down decisionmaking?
MR. PAPARIAN: Let me turn that around. It's my
strong view that bringing all of the interested groups in
on a particular project of issue, such as coal gasification
or such as air quality—by bringing all the interested
people in, you are letting their concerns be known early
so maybe they don't have to seek other remedies fur-
ther on if the concerns aren't looked at early in the
process.
As to the—1 sense the other half of the ques-
tion—to be looking at our elective and appointed form
of government and asking whether or not I think that
that meets some of the needs that I'm talking about. It is
very difficult for a public official to have a full under-
standing of each of the issues that are important to our
society, but by delegating some of our governmental
responsibilities to our citizens, I think we are meeting the
needs of the citizens more directly. That we're meeting
the needs of our citizens more directly. And we're able
to address their concerns more directly than through a
structure that insulates the public from the decision-
making.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
We'll reconvene at 1:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., a lunch recess was
taken.)
78
-------
Afternoon Session
Statement of Mr. Reynolds
1:05 p.m.
DR. REZNEK: We have a new member of the
panel. Derry Allen will be replacing Roy Gamse this
afternoon.
Our first witness is Bob Reynolds from the Lake
County Air Pollution Control District in California.
Presentation by Bob Reynolds
Lake County Air Pollution Control District
in California
MR. REYNOLDS: Members of the Panel, I want
to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.
My name is Bob Reynolds. I'm the Director of the Lake
County Air Pollution Control District which includes
two-thirds of the California Geysers-Calistoga Known
Geothermal Resources. This area receives a major im-
pact from air pollution as a result of twelve production
power plants and associated development activities.
Several additional power plants are in various
phases of construction and planning. Hydrogen sulfide
air quality standards continue to be violated and viable
inexpensive technologies to mitigate this impact still do
not exist.
As such, I am deeply concerned with the question
which these hearings'are being held to address. Has the
DOE RD&D program given adequate attention to
energy conservation methods and environmental
protection?
From my standpoint as a public servant, charged
with enforcing air pollution control laws in an area
where violations are common and ensuring acceptable
air quality in Lake County where it is not acceptable, the
answer must be an explicit, No!
We have received and continue to need the
assistance of both the DOE and the EPA, as well as our
State Air Resources Board and Energy Commission.
Efforts of DOE, worthy of mentioning, include the
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories' activities in prepar-
ing an overview document and the resulting ASCOT
program. These programs were supported by the DOE
Assistant Secretary for the Environment.
Also, one technology, the EIC Upstream
Hydrogen sulfide steam abatement technology research
co-funded with PG&E should be noted. However,
these programs lack complete and swift followthrough.
They are not sufficient by any measure to provide timely
and comprehensive environmental information for
regulatory decision makers or the geothermal industry.
We cannot assure adequate environmental protec-
tion if geothermal resources utilization is to expand as it
is presently anticipated.
Several relevant documents, in addition to the
previously mentioned overview, published by the EPA,
DOE, and its predecessor ERDA, etcetera, clearly in-
dicates air quality degradation as both the most serious
environmental impact and most limiting factor to future
geothermal development, especially in the Geysers
KGRA.
Why then hasn't DOE become more aggressive
and put into place a comprehensive RD&D program to
develop control technologies to mitigate such impacts?
I certainly don't know the answer, but I suspect it may
be related to a lack of awareness or sensitivity to en-
vironmental issues at the top management level within
DOE. Perhaps it is a simple case of conflicting objectives
when top-level management is obligated to promote an
industry while admitting and addressing the constrain-
ing factors of detrimental environmental impacts.
Because of this latter factor, I would recommend
that somebody within DOE's or EPA's RD&D manage-
ment process be clearly identified as the advocate for
environmental concerns in DOE projects and that they
be buffered from both budgetary and subtle pressure
from within DOE.
During our regional workshop the DOE program
and Project Management System was discussed.
Though somewhat confusing, the system did appear to
address environmental concerns. However, several
participants as well as myself wondered if the system
really worked and if the Office of the Environment really
played a strong advocate role within the PPMS system.
Many participants as well as myself were con-
cerned about what criteria were used to make decisions,
why was the system apparently secluded within big
government, and who or what assures adequate
followthrough once decisions are made and the
necessary programs initiated?
It is likely that parties with vested interest and
know-how to track and influence systems like the PPMS
are the only parties outside DOE who have the
resources to become involved in and influence such
decisions.
79
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
After considerable discussion, the consensus of our
workshop, after much muddling, was that the PPMS
simply did not apply to our problems, since our prob-
lems were not requiring $200 million to address.
The DOE needs a very active program of catch-up
environmental programs enabling a full assessment of
problems and development of mitigating technologies.
They should not cost below amounts such as the type
PPMS covers.
I also agree with the points summed up in the
prehearing document that DOE internal documents are
not readily available; that often even published informa-
tion doesn't find its way into needed hands; that a public
outreach program involving DOE staff is needed; that
public advisory groups for specific technologies should
be established; that DOE should sponsor energy-
environmental conferences at the local and regional
level—and I don't mean in Oakland, I mean in the areas
that are being impacted; and most importantly, that
greater use of local expertise and DOE technical staff be
incorporated into selection and planning DOE research
and development studies.
I mentioned earlier the DOE's Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories' overview project for the Geysers-Calistoga
KGRA. It recognized the needs mentioned above and
identified H2S abatement technology RD&D and
several additional priority research items.
Has DOE completely followed through on this pro-
gram? In my opinion, no. DOE has initiated the At-
mospheric Studies of Complex Terrain—the ASCOT
Program—which is relevant to the nation and the
Geysers. The program promises to provide relevant and
useful information. We will interact (the LCAPCD), and
maintain our interest and hopefully play a role in seeing
this project to completion and trust DOE will continue to
support this program. However, in the Geysers-
Calistoga KGRA, PG&E, who's the primary utility, has
selected, financed and generally failed to achieve
needed H2S abatement technology. They are now pro-
ceeding with the EIC process which initially had limited
DOE support.
Why is the DOE now pulling out of this RD&D
and leaving PG&E to fulfill DOE's mandate, especially
when they have been so unsuccessful thus far? Why is
PG&E expected to develop abatement technology for
its competitors? What will happen if the EIC process
fails? Why isn't an H2S abatement technology applicable
to all geothermal steam, which is clearly of national in-
terest, being RD&D'd by DOE? What management
system made these proceeding decisions? If there was a
conscious decision, why weren't the public, local or
state air regulatory agencies involved in these decisions?
We should not wait until a developer-regulatory
controversy occurs prior to pursuing technological
answers. Yet that is exactly how matters are occurring at
the Geysers.
If any of the Panel members doubt this is the case,
they need only put themselves in an Air Pollution Con-
trol Officer's position where one must deal with an irate
applicant or public simply because viable mitigation
technologies are not available.
Until such support and action for mitigation
technologies are aggressively pursued on a timely basis
by DOE, my position necessitates the response that the
attention to environmental protection is not adequate.
I certainly hope the DOE will be more conscien-
tious and aggressively involved in conservation and
environmental matters as other alternative technologies
are realized beyond geothermal development in the
Geysers-Calistoga KGRA.
Another topic which disturbs me is industry's claim
that regulatory bureaucrats are causing unnecessary
and unfair delays. However, these delays have their
origin in the absence of environmental information and
lack of mitigating technologies.
We are not necessarily delaying; we simply want
responsible development of the resources. Thus, DOE
misses on the mandate of Public Law 93-477.
Another concern of mine relative to these hearings
is that the Federal agencies commonly fail to realize that
a balance between national goals and local environ-
mental effects must be reached. I feel this can only be
accomplished by local involvements of Federal agencies
in the impacted geographical areas allowing decisions to
be made in concert.
Once again, I wish to recommend that workshops
be held to address DOE regional RD&D programs of a
lesser and greater magnitude; identify procedures which
are utilized to make decisions on conservation and
environmental protection as part of these programs and
that DOE also be more actively involved in funding and
promoting H2S abatement technologies for geothermal
energy. Finally, DOE should identify resource people
or groups to advise local government.
In short, DOE should let their technical staff in-
teract more extensively with the environmental agen-
cies. A major effort should be directed towards identify-
ing how the public, local and State agencies can
influence DOE processes.
I thank Doctor Reznek and his staff for the excellent
job I believe they performed during the San Francisco
workshop, and especially for his willingness to redirect
the workshop when the attendees made it clear that
they were not as interested in the PPMS system as in
simpler and less costly solutions and projects.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Are there questions?
MR. MERSON: I don't want to take too much
time, but I don't have any real background on the pro-
ject that you were discussing, the geothermal project
that you were referring to.
MR. REYNOLDS: The overview project?
80
-------
Statement of Mr. Reynolds
MR. MERSON: Pardon?
MR. REYNOLDS: The overview project?
MR. MERSON: Yes. I was interested in hearinc;
that in your view DOE, in essence, pulled out or
delegated responsibility to a private utility for further
research on pollution abatement technologies. Is that—
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
MR. MERSON: I'd like just a little more informa-
tion on that because I am concerned about that mode of
conduct and whether or not that—
MR. REYNOLDS: Let me regress just a second.
Maybe I can explain the complete background. An Air
Pollution Control Officer gets involved in many things
and just last Tuesday, in fact, I was over in Santa Rosa
where we were having a hearing. There were several
promising technologies discussed. The EIC process is
clearly one of the more promising technologies at the
present time. It was funded to the tune of about a
million dollars by DOE. The EIG corporation itself put
some of the money into this project.
Well, as soon as that technology looked a little
more promising, DOE, for many reasons—and some of
them may be the fact that they didn't want to get in-
volved in a program where royalties may go to some
people or there may be some patent rights or there may
be a lot of complications—simply lost interest or
whatever. I don't know how the decision was made.
But now it's going forward with PG&E and EIC. As
the funding parties. As a result, the first thing that—
DR. REZNEK: Excuse me. Is DOE removing the
money that they originally put in the project or—
MR. REYNOLDS: No, it's essentially a pilot proj-
ect which is now at the next step, which is to demon-
strate or initiate and actualize the entire system.
There're a few additional tasks to be done in the pilot
project phase before they can go on to finalizing the
power plant system.
Apparently as part of this process, DOE has
withdrawn and the EIC process— future development
will be funded essentially through PG&E and the EIC
Corporation.
One of the subsequent things that happened as a
result is that PG&E had to go back and get another
variance. I heard that Joel Robinson mentioned there
were no problems in the Geysers-geothermal area.
Those power plants have operated under variance after
variance. The Air Quality Standards are violated com-
monly. It's not like it happens once or twice a year, but
is violated by factors of two.
This area that they're impacting, by the way, is an
area where there are resorts; church sanctuaries and
childrens' summer camps. I mean it's not like they are
out in the desert. So you must have a better feeling for
the entire situation.
PG&E has essentially, during this variance process,
as mentioned earlier, claimed that they could not get
the technology on line until 1985, at the earliest. I don't
know whether DOE's going to be involved or is going to
track that progress further. I seriously doubt if they will. I
don't even know that I'll be able to track the progress as
the EIC process has actually demonstrated.
But the past H2S control technology history in the
Geysers has amounted to failure after failure. There
have been four or five technologies that they've tried to
apply and they simply haven't worked. It is not possible
to take an abatement technology from one industry,
such as sour gas treatment in a refinery, and stick it onto
a geothermal power plant.
These problems are not unsolvable, it simply takes
time and effort. In fact, if you look closely at the record
you'll find that DOE's Dr. Olehe Weres of Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories warned that the surface con-
denser, which is an integral part of the Stretford process
they chose to use on several new power plants, was
unlikely to work if there is significant ammonia in the
steam.
However, people concerned over the develop-
ment didn't really pay attention to him. But it turns out
he was right. They don't work. They're about 66 per-
cent efficient, while everyone was counting on them
being 95 percent efficient.
MR. MERSON: What you're saying is that this
PPMS process, then, is not working as advertised in
terms of—
MR. REYNOLDS: No. The PPMS process, as I
understand it, only addresses these $50 million and
$200 million projects. Fifty million a year, $200 million
in total; is that right, Steve?
DR. REZNEK: That's right. It is addressing a
major demonstration of the geothermal technology, but
it is not addressing the clean-up.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right. It's building a power
plant and everything else, but it's—well, I don't know. I
don't really want to get off the issue to what's happening
in New Mexico, but that would be a good example of
what the DOE is supporting. They're building a power
plant—where they have identified right away that one
of the environmental constraining factors is found
to be that New Mexico has an extremely low hydrogen
sulfide standard—about one tenth that of the state of
California.
So the way they're going to resolve this problem, I
understand at least, is by trying to have the standard
changed. Whereas they really ought to seek different
technology on that line.
Now, that's something I'm not really that aware of
and do not care to put forward to this Panel as a fact,
okay. But that's the way I understand the situation.
I have talked to Ron Conrad from New Mexico and
he is concerned with efforts to relax their state H2S
standard.
MR. GRISHAM: Just to set the record straight
on that, it's about a $100 million project, between
Union Oil Company, the Public Service Company, and
81
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
New Mexico. And it seems like DOE has a great deal of
trouble with geothermal projects. In the EIS work, they
didn't involve the Indian tribes in the area, and where
the well was going to be sunk was right in the middle of
a sacred area, a very sacred area for them.
The hydrogen sulfide is a problem. It looks like the
agency will not give a variance there, and so the indica-
tions I had Monday before I left to come up here was
that DOE will probably pull out of the project. So
they've left that one fairly well where it is right now, too.
DR. WILLEY: This is not so much a question as a
comment. It seems to me that what you're saying is that
at least with respect to geothermal and the kind of
geothermal in the Geysers area, that DOE, for whatever
reasons, hasn't come to a point where it's put enough
money into abatement to make a meaningful abatement
program to go alongside the development program.
I guess what I'm wondering is if this is an example
of a lack of coordination of DOE with the National
Energy Plan? If we look at the overall national needs,
and we look at some of the information on the availabil-
ity of geothermal potential in the western U.S.—not just
in California, but in New Mexico and Colorado and
Utah and other areas—we'll see tremendous potential.
Maybe what we're saying is that at the highest level,
which is the National Energy Act and National Energy
Plan, that DOE has not, for whatever reasons, looked at
the overall potential of geothermal and funded abate-
ment accordingly.
MR. REYNOLDS: I definitely agree with that
statement. That was my point. If you go back to DOE's
own documents and those produced by the Lawrence
Livermore Lab that was supported by the Assistant
Secretary for the Environment of DOE. The facts are
there. The priorities are there. DOE just isn't pursuing
them.
I don't think we need to demonstrate, for instance,
in the Geysers areas, how to build a power plant. PG&E
has done a fine job of that. They've built plenty of
power plants up there. The problem is to demonstrate
how to mitigate the impact of those power plants.
The ASCOT program, which is one of the resulting
programs of the overview and scoping out of the KGRA
problem is a study of the complex terrain. It turns out
things are never simple whenever you go out to do
something new. This study should provide the first com-
plex terrain model.
One problem is the fact that we really don't know
where the air emittants are going. There are several air
pollutants that are of concern in geothermal develop-
ment, especially in the KGRA. One of the worst ones,
of course, is hydrogen sulfide because every person up
there has their own monitor and often feels like com-
plaining. Lake County, rather than accept complaints,
just simply mails out a monthly survey where people
can circle the day and the month on which they have a
complaint and mail it back.
There's also Radon 222 coming from geothermal
development. We really don't know how extensive a
problem that is yet. The ASCOT project will, in part,
help address that problem. They'll begin to develop a
model that we can use to help find out where the air
pollutants are likely to be going and what receptors are
likely to be impacted. I would certainly hope that we
continue that program in a rational fashion. I would
hope that DOE will also get into mitigating technologies.
DR. REZNEK: One—several witnesses have
commented on the relationship between the en-
vironmental interests who are normally represented by
people trained in biology or atmospheric processes or
that type of discipline as opposed to developers, who
are usually engineering-oriented. We've had some
discussion yesterday on institutionalizing the engineer-
ing interest in finding mitigation solutions.
It's my understanding that the EIC process is, in
fact, funded out of the organization in DOE that is
responsible for energy development, and not the Office
of the Environment.
Would you care to comment on the—on any
observations you might have on institutionalizing the
engineering expertise in mitigation programs? Would
you prefer to see it separate, combined with?
MR. REYNOLDS: You know, I really have got to
be honest with you. Programs aren't what make
things—it's the intent; it's the spirit of the people carry-
ing them out.
So if institutionalization quiets that spirit, lowers the
enthusiasm and makes a situation where you have com-
peting objectives and one of those objectives is
competing with environmental concerns, then I would
say don't institutionalize it. But if, in fact, they can coex-
ist with the management process by themselves, I
wouldn't have a preference, just as long as the problem
is addressed.
DR. REZNEK: One of the—another question I'd
like to ask is the same type of question. Geothermal, in
particular, is at least presently allocated to certain very
specific areas of the U.S. and yet, decisions on the
geothermal program are being made in Washington, to
some extent. Do you feel the regionalization of deci-
sionmaking authority within DOE would be helpful in
dealing with problems such as yours?
MR. REYNOLDS: I definitely do. You know, I
have contact with Cal Jackson, for instance, and those
people sound like they are interested, and I believe that
they would do as much as they can, I think that would
help an awful lot if you're talking about a local agency.
You've got to understand the contraints we
operate under. Just the cost of coming back here to
Washington would wipe out 80 percent of our travel
budget. We can't even go to Oakland on a regular basis
and it's just unreal to think that we can be involved, et-
cetera, with some agency back in Washington. We can't
82
-------
Statement of Mr. Reynolds
even afford to call you. So my response to that would
be yes
DR. MacKENZIE: You indicate quite forcefully
the lack of resources for the abatement technology. Do
you have any idea how much money DOE put into
developing, the power plant itself?
MR. REYNOLDS: In this particular instance, they
put none.
DR. MacKENZIE: So if they put none in, then
PG&E developed the hardware for the plant, whv
shouldn't PG&E develop the hardware for the scrub-
bing? I mean, I'm just curious as to why—
MR. REYNOLDS: Why I feel they shouldn't?
DR. MacKENZIE: Yes. I mean-
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, part of the Energy Plan
for the nation, as I understand it, is to utilize geothermal
energy quite extensively. Okay, PG&E is just going to
solve their problem, and they're going to try to get their
investment back. Their problem is one with regulators
right now. It's not one with solving the national energy
problem.
A good example is that if they had an upstream
abatement process which could be applied to flash
steam, Geyser steam, etcetera, it would be very much
in the national interest since a lot of problems that are
intertied, such as the abatement technologies, would
remove such things as CO2 or at least give you an op-
portunity to remove those things. That's probably going
to be essential if you're going to use hot water resources
and flash steam as a method of producing electricity.
I don't think PG&E should be'put in a position
where they have to decide whether to proceed to abate
a plant or to shut it down. It may turn out that abate-
ment technology is too expensive and PG&E would
choose to just not build or to decommission a plant.
That puts pressure on people like me when technology
might have solved the problem.
I'm in the position of letting them go ahead and
operate the power plant at some lower level or essen-
tially be the one that's responsible for shutting down
what a great number of people generally conceive of as
being a very useful alternative energy—one that's going
to be on-line soon.
So my response to you would be that PG&E is in
the business of producing power. They shouldn't be in
the business of developing abatement technologies. I
think that clearly falls on some Federal level like DOE,
when it's in the total nation's interest.
I think it's kind of a limited view when you feel that
the DOE also has to build a power plant before they can
research mitigating technologies.
The way I understood the law that we're discussing
here today is that it is to bring on nonnuclear energy
forms that are environmentally acceptable. Now, if you
can accomplish that by developing mitigating
technologies and PG&E and Union 76 are smart
enough to figure out how to get the steam out of the
ground and plug it into a turbine, maybe all DOE has to
do is learn how to mitigate those environmental impacts
and you've got your clean alternative energy.
DR. REZNEK: On the same line, would you like
to see DOE budgeting procedures clearly delineate
where they are spending engineering efforts on
mitigating technologies and where they're spending it
on development technologies?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. I think that from the last
question, I clearly would. I think there're two types of
projects that we're talking about here, at least that I'm
talking about. I understand DOE's position where they
must look at the whole project every time they fund a
project, but what I'm saying is you need both kinds of
projects and they don't necessarily have to occur at the
same geographical site.
So, yes, I would.
DR. WILLEY: I have a question which is kind of
related to what Doctor MacKenzie was talking about.
Isn't part of the problem in California or any State that
the State—in this case, the State Air Board, which I
think is the umbrella organization for the Lake County
Pollution District—
MR. REYNOLDS: That's right.
DR. WILLEY: —sets its own standards. In this
case, hydrogen sulfide. It raises kind of a paradox in a
sense for DOE which is that if a State or a locality wants
to set environmental quality standards that are
somehow stricter than, say, the national average, then
what should DOE's responsibility be in funding abate-
ment technologies to meet those stricter standards?
In other words, if a locality wants to pursue higher
environmental quality, then in some sense, part of the
burden will have to rest on them. Now, how that works
its way out—whether it means DOE has a process of
giving localities money to fund research on their own, to
pursue higher environmental quality, I'm not sure, but it
is a paradox that's unresolved in my mind.
MR. REYNOLDS: There are two things I would
say, okay. One is that probably what will happen if you
take that approach, is that they only have to get some
mitigating technology that cuts off at Point A, which is a
Federal level, not Point B, which is a State level or Point
C, which is a county level. Each of these agencies can,
as you know, make rules that are more restrictive. They
can't make rules that are less restrictive.
Well, my response would be that DOE, if their real
mandate is to put energy, clean energy on line, should
be to address the mitigating measures—what is at-
tainable technologically? In other words, they should
provide technological answers. I think the local agencies
and the State agencies can try to compromise and
understand actual needs. At times, Air Quality degrada-
tion will have to be allowed. I think it's occurring right
now.
But there's no way you can expect organizations
like the Lake County Air Pollution Control District to
83
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
develop some mitigating technology other than those
required of the industry, and the State. The State Air
Resources Board budget, the whole research budget, as
I understand It, is about $3 million. It's nowhere near
the $20 billion you're talking about in this bill.
Therefore, they cannot develop those mitigating
technologies and as such, their response will commonly
be—I don't know if you're that familiar with processes in
California with the California Energy Commission and
the Air Resources Board—not to allow irresponsible
development. If that conflicts with the Federal Energy
Plan, I guess they'll have to be resolved in the best way
possible.
I think there are technological answers and that's
what I'm here today trying to say. 1 believe there are
technological answers to technological problems and I
really think if DOE gets aggressive and puts a lot of at-
tention towards environmental impacts then those
problems will be resolved.
DR. WILLEY: I take it that you don't think it's
feasible, then, to have, in this case, PG&E, pursue the
particular type of abatement that's necessary to
Geysers—
MR. REYNOLDS: They are doing it. I'm afraid
that if it's not feasible, it's not going to be done. That
would be my comment.
PG&E will pursue it. They're committed, hopeful-
ly! Geothermal energy, as I understand it, and I think it's
correct, is quite economically attractive. But PG&E,
you ought to understand, also has competitors who are
up there—the Department of Water Resources and the
Northern California Power Association. PG&E is
developing the technologies for them as well and PG&E
isn't in a hurry.
I think that mandate clearly lies at the Federal
levels. My understanding of the law is that if nothing
else, DOE should be involved in that process. If you
don't fund it, you should at least be assured that they're
doing it for you. Right now I don't know if that's hap-
pening. Maybe it is.
EPRI is currently funding the Courey process.
There're people involved. I'm not trying to say that no
one's paying attention. I'm here to say that DOE could
put a lot more attention into geothermal energy and
H2S abatement in particular. This sentiment is shared by
the other Air Pollution Control Officer in the area. He
also believes that DOE could have found an answer two
to three years ago or at least have started a program that
was aimed at finding an answer.
If you look at the Geysers KGRA overview, it
clearly recommends that H2S abatement technology be
pursued as the overwhelming priority.
My considered judgment is that it's just a lack of
followthrough at this point. 1 think that eventually the
mitigating technologies will be there but meanwhile we'll
have these undesirable environmental impacts. We'll
have unnecessary delays as far as some people are con-
cerned and very necessary delays as far as other people
are concerned. 1 think if you really want to go forward
with a lot of these alternative technologies—and I don't
think the Geysers KGRA is going to be any less difficult
than other technologies as they come on line, like
gasohol—then you've got to start programs before the
conflicts occur.
In general DOE has an excellent technical staff.
The university and national lab research centers are also
quite excellent and it's a crying shame that they're not
being directed at those problems.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Jane MacGregor from the
Atlanta League of Women Voters.
Presentation by Jane MacGregor
Atlanta League of Women Voters
MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you for this oppor-
tunity to address the hearing today.
The League of Women Voters believes that
government policy, programs and performance must
include coordination among the various agencies and
levels of government. It must also include well-defined
channels for citizen input and review.
It is from this viewpoint I will address the Depart-
ment of Energy's decisionmaking process. The League
of Women Voters of Atlanta-Fulton County, Georgia
recommends specific avenues for public participation.
Citizen input is limited by the public's lack of
knowledge of what DOE is doing, what research and
development is funded, and in what stage is the
research and development.
What are the choices that need deciding, their
costs—financial, environmental and human—and their
limitations in solving energy needs? The public should
also be informed on contracts awarded and the criteria
for those awards.
Public information should not be just for a general
audience; it should also focus on those most interested
and affected. It should address other Federal agencies,
political officials on the State and local level, public in-
terest and civic groups, industry, labor and academia.
In terms appropriate for the particular audience,
DOE could utilize news releases, public service an-
nouncements, and a periodic newsletter and magazine.
The informed public must have a mechanism for
voicing their opinions and concerns. Technologies that
have reached a point for decision could appropriately
be discussed in a workshop format, possibly followed by
formal hearings. DOE must then respond to these opin-
ions by considering them in their decisions.
The Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board,
ESAAB, which authorizes each successive phase of
technology development, is the logical place to utilize
public opinion.
84
-------
Statement of Ms. MacGregor
First, the League of Women Voters of Atlanta-
Fulton County believes that ESAAB, which includes the
DOE Under Secretary, several Assistant Secretaries, the
Controller and Director of Procurement and Contracts
Management, could better consider the various social
and environmental factors contingent on an energy
system if the board was broadened to include other cofi-
cerned agencies such as EPA, HEW, the Department lof
Labor and Commerce. j
This involvement of other departments not oijily
helps consider all the factors of energy decisions, it a|so
helps coordination among the various agencies to ex-
pedite the chosen technology developments.
This broadened ESAAB should hear a pro and con
presentation which should include the opinions from
the workshops and previous public hearings. Direct
testimony could be given by national industrial, labor,
environmental and public interest organizations.
The League understands that an Environmental
Impact Statement is not always considered necessary.
We believe that such a statement would be beneficial
under all circumstances, and the EIS should incorporate
the Environmental Readiness Document prepared by
DOE's Office of the Environment.
It appears to the League of Women Voters of
Atlanta-Fulton County that DOE's decisions are based
on information from internal sources and there is no
channel for the interested public or agencies to affect the
decisions or participate in the choices. Yet, what is the
purpose of the energy development? The energy
development is ultimately for the promotion of social
well-being, the benefit of our nations's populace as a
whole. •'
Therefore, it is inappropriate for DOE to be making
unilateral decisions. All the impacts of a particular
energy source should be investigated and considered,
and the input of all affected parties should be included
as early in the development as feasible.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the League's basic
stand for coordination among government agencies and
the levels and well-defined channels for citizen input
and review. It has been said that democracy is govern-
ment by discussion and that public policy does not rise
above the level the public understands, tolerates or
demands. If we are to move in new directions, we must
have information and discussion.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there questions?
MR. GRISHAM: I interpret your remarks as sug-
gesting, then, that ESAAB become to some extent an
interagency board—
MS. MacGREGOR: Right.
MR. GRISHAM: —rather than strictly a function
of DOE. I'd be interested in your reaction to the com-
ments from a gentleman this morning if you were here
when the gentleman from the Sierra Club spoke. He
suggested—I think he called it a public advisor—to the
Energy Department basically to sort of represent a
broader array of interests, parallel really to your con-
cern. Somehow in the process, in an early stage, there
be raised a number of issues that might not otherwise be
factored into the process that early.
Do you see a need for some external force
somehow in addition to other bureaucrats, other—I
mean, after all, EPA is another Federal agency and you
were suggesting, I think, that you broaden it by in-
cluding agencies that might have somewhat different
perspectives.
Would you favor broadening it even further to the
extent of perhaps introducing an institutionalized voice
of the public?
MS. MacGREGOR: We discussed that among
ourselves and could not decide how such a person
should be selected. So, therefore, we limited ourselves
to the bureaucrats in the broadened participation on the
ESAAB board; however, the public voice in the pro and
con presentation would, in effect, give the direct public
input.
MR. GRISHAM: You'd open up, in essence, the
deliberations of that body so that there was participation
generally by the public in its—
MS. MacGREGOR: We want to make sure that
the ESAAB board hears not only the good things, but
the bad things about our energy system.
MR. GRISHAM: Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: There was some testimony yester-
day that indicated that rather than structure along the
lines of major energy acquisition that the review of pro-
grams and projects fall within a structure that looked at
in-use demands—for example, home heating—and
looked at all possible ways of fulfilling that demand,
including conservation, gaseous fuels, liquid fuels or
electricity, than to lay out a program to evaluate the
relative competition of those in the future and then the
relative usefulness of Federal investments in each of
those alternatives.
That proposal yesterday seemed to have certain
attractive features and I assume would be quite com-
patible with your view, that there should be a represen-
tation of a wider participation in the review, rather than
a wider participation in just the question of whether or
not to continue to invest in a larger—in a purchase of a
larger scale technology.
Would you care to comment on if the ESAAB were
reviewing the relative importance of supply, demand
and various types of supplies for a particular fuel use
rather than the question of actually purchasing a larger
version of a gasification technology; would you find that
more attractive and a more meaningful decision for
public involvement?
MS. MacGREGOR: It certainly seems logical that
you look at needs before you decide the systems. Public
involvement could be in either by just reviewing the
85
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
system to be acquired or by looking at the demands. I
don't see that public involvement should be limited, in
either.
DR. REZNEK: Okay. Our next witness is Dick
Pratt of the Pennsylvania Sierra Club. I've got to make a
phone call. Alan, could you chair for me, please?
Thank you.
Presentation by Richard Pratt
Pennsylvania Sierra Club
MR. PRATT: Thank you very much. My name is
Richard Pratt. I chair the Pennsylvania Chapter of the
Sierra Club and professionally I'm a physicist. In both
capacities, I'm concerned with many of the issues that
are being addressed here.
As a participant in the Pittsburgh hearings, I'm also
here to reiterate the concerns which we expressed
there. I believe that those workshops, at least the ones
we attended, were educational. It would have been
helpful, I believe, if after those workshops had had a
chance to formulate questions and think about the sub-
ject, we could have heard some DOE response, as well
as to have some idea of the extent to which DOE ac-
cepts EPA's characterization of the DOE Environmental
Program.
However, I think this simply underlines the main
issue or the main point, namely, that we as a public
have no independent knowledge of DOE activities. We
can see that DOE is not involving a wider public in the
decision making process and it's our view they should be
doing so and doing so very early.
Early participation outside the agency, we believe,
is necessary for the effective management of any pro-
gram which is ultimately going to impact the public.
Now, later, the public has its say and, often, that is inef-
ficient and leads to many delays, which could have
been prevented if this much broader public input had
begun early.
Now, I should also say, turning then to the
substance of what we covered in Pittsburgh and what is
to be discussed here, that I believe the EPA summary
document prepared for these hearings quite well
describes most of the concerns that were brought up in
Pittsburgh, both the general concerns and those related
to specific technologies discussed there.
Although the focus this year in these hearings is on
the management of specific technologies, it seems in-
evitable that one, to some extent, has to begin with a
prior question of how environmental concerns are being
addressed in energy policy planning.
I understand this to some extent was explored last
year. Certainly one needs to talk about the strategies of
conservation and the decisions among technologies, the
priorities for use of renewable resources, the impact of
large-scale versus small-scale technology and the like.
One can't totally forget about that even if one wants to
concentrate on the management of specific
technologies.
But for our purpose today, in this regard, it seems
to me the question is: How are such more general con-
cerns identified in the course of the management pro-
cess and then fed back into the policy process. I
presume both of these processes are going on, and one
would hope that what is learned about environmental
concerns in a particular technology doesn't just stay
within the confines of the development of that
technology,, but gets fed back into the more general
policy issues of which technology should be developed
and pushed and at what rates, with what resources and
the like.
My second area of concern is what I understand
the main question here to be, namely, the general DOE
process for including environmental concerns in its
management techniques. 1 believe it is really difficult to
judge or answer that question fairly from the outside
and without hearing some DOE response to the analysis
which the EPA has provided the public.
It seems clear that that process is systematically
structured. What is not clear is whether the process
functions or simply exists on paper. It is not clear
whether that process suffices to protect environmental
concerns. We saw no guarantee that an identified en-
vironmental problem must be dealt with, that a mitiga-
tion strategy must be adopted, and so forth.
It was not clear to us that the process identifies
necessarily the needed environmental research related
to a given technology or, if it does identify it, that it pro-
ceeds to accomplish it or, if it accomplishes it, that it
proceeds to integrate the results into actions in future
decisions. Nothing in the structure indicates that this is
necessarily happening.
It is also not clear whether this process doesn't, in
fact, create incentives for the managers of technologies
to proceed with the development of those technologies
rather than hesitate in view of possible environmental
consequences as they come to light. It's not clear that
there is any real incentive for a manager whose future
depends probably on his success in developing one of
these projects in saying no, I think those matters are so
serious we'd better slow down what I'm doing.
A related issue which did not seem to have been
addressed at all concerns the Office of Environment
within DOE. What is its structure? How does it function?
It certainly doesn't seem to be remarkably visible to the
public. We have no real sense of its resources, the
caliber and strength and numbers of the staff. Those
issues we did not get any feel for, and it seems to me
that one cannot discuss the process without knowing a
bit more about the office that is so intimately involved in
that process.
My third point, which I believe a number of other
speakers have touched on, is the issue of public par-
ticipation in the process or even the participation of
86
-------
Statement of Mr. Pratt
other agencies and technical resources. It seems clear
from the description, at least, that such participations at
present are minimal and that they should include ad-
visory groups, not just for the environmental section,
but for other offices within DOE.
It seems clear that such participation should include
opportunities to review studies, recommendations, op-
portunities to comment, if not participate, and we think
there should be many forums for participation. I don't
want to assert that there should not be DOE decision-
making points that are DOE responsibility.
We do think, though—if there are such
points—there should also be explanations and view-
points on-the-record related to ultimate decisions which
DOE chooses to make.
In discussing participation, so far what I've said
could apply nationally. It is clear that DOE should
devote more attention also to the regions and to
localities and to more systematic involvement, hopefully
in a non-bureaucratic way, of the many involved
publics.
The last of these general questions that we raised in
Pittsburgh, and I don't believe it's been resolved yet, is
where are we about to go? To what extent will the new
proposals, now being considered in the Congress to ex-
pedite energy development, at the same time protect
and assert and assess the legitimate environmental con-
cerns? That is, to what extent are these new proposals
aimed at bureaucracy, red tape and the like, or at the
substance of our environmental concerns?
Here we could, I suppose, ask what lead is DOE
and its Office of the Environment taking in making sure
that expediting is done in the first sense. That is, cutting
bureaucracy red tape, rather than the second—that is,
short-cutting the environment.
Finally, I should say a word about the particular
concerns of our own area and our own workshop in
Pittsburgh, in the field of coal liquefaction and gasifica-
tion, which of course, is of great interest to us.
We have a sense, which was not dissipated in the
workshop, that the technology is being rushed at the ex-
pense of economic and environmental costs. We have a
feeling that scale-up is proceeding too rapidly before
considering impacts in terms of waste disposal,
transportation, byproducts, air and water quality,
community infrastructure—in other words, premature
commercialization.
We would like to hear more of the implications of
the earlier DOE finding, that there was a 50 percent
chance that this technology will violate environmental
regulations. If there's a 50 percent chance, it suggests
one should maybe go a little more slowly than we seem
to be.
Once again, with regard to these particular
technologies, we feel a great lack of public participation,
a great lack of any discussion with the various publics of
our region, of our area, of any of these issues.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there any questions?
DR. WILLEY: I was interested in your comment
on perceived lack of incentive of project managers to do
anything other than pursue full-scale development. At
least in theory, isn't the project managers's incentive to
comply with environmental standards the fact that en-
vironmental standards exist and that he has to assume
that his technology will, if it's going to be operational
and pursued, comply with standards?
MR. PRATT: I don't know that it's an incentive. It
is certainly a requirement or duty. But the incentive of
the manager is to push on, I would think, and hope that
things will work out. If there's no incentive to wait or to
go slow, you push along with the technology and you.
hope along the way that you will either change the
regulations or find a way to meet them.
DR. WILLEY: I see. So your perception is that
environmental regulations aren't a constraint as far as
managers go?
MR. PRATT: They are constraints; they are not
incentives. I was speaking of incentives to a manager.
DR. WILLEY: I suppose what we observe now
with the overriding environmental regulations would
support your hypothesis?
MR. PRATT: Yes. I should think so.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to follow that a little bit. It's
a nice idea to say that when an energy technology is
developed and introduced that it should be optimized or
reach maximum performance, both environmentally
and in the economic or energy yield or energy produc-
tion area.
Yet, if you try to explore that concept very far, it
becomes quite difficult to expect a single manager to in-
terpret what it means to optimize environmental per-
formance as well as economic performance of the
energy technology.
Do you have any suggestions for how to incor-
porate an ethic that says the number of particular
energy facilities you're going to put in a particular area is
as limited by environmental constraints as they are by
availability of pipes and steel, and that, therefore, an
important role is to assure that the environmental
aspects are minimized—environmental detriment
aspects are minimized as well as maximizing the
economic performance? Is there a way of doing that
better than is currently done?
MR. PRATT: Let me comment in two ways on
your remarks. First, more as an aside, of course, the
requirement in putting a technology on-line is not
necessarily to optimize its handling of environmental
matters, but simply to meet some "minimum
standards." Regulations don't say what we would like so
much as what is the least that we can deal with. Natur-
ally, one would hope in the long run to go beyond those
standards, especially as our experience usually teaches
87
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
us that we discover further problems which require
tighter standards.
Commenting in a second way, more to the
substance of your question, 1 think that you must pro-
ceed in parallel, back at the policies stage, with the deci-
sion to develop a technology and to look at the alter-
natives, at the same time. You cannot, as you say,
expect that the same person who is pushing the utiliza-
tion of a given technology or the building of a given
plant is going to be the one who is going to have the
greatest concerns with whether this power could have
been provided some other way or through some other
technology or was it needed in the first place.
So what you need presumably is a system which is
a little more balanced in its branches, between branches
that are building things and branches that are consider-
ing alternatives, rather than having a whole agency, let's
say, whose mission it is to build and secondarily to do
the best it can with the consequences. It seems to me
you need a more balanced situation, where at the same
time you are setting your energy priorities and energy
goals and your environmental priorities, your en-
vironmental goals, and then you look at those on the
same footing and try to ask, well, how can we optimize
both of these, rather than look for the best energy
technologies and then later worry about how to handle
the environment.
DR. REZNEK: If I understand you right, you'd
recommend an environmental control or mitigating
measured technology that would do things like develop
H2S stripping, sulfur dioxide stripping, for these emerg-
ing technologies and that those programs would be well
identified, particularly in their budgeting, if not in their
organic function within the agency?
MR. PRATT: I was actually talking, ! think, one
level higher in the hierarchy you're discussing, back at
the policy stage. You're talking now within the
framework of given technology and—it seems to me
that the kind of environmental priorities we're talking
about don't reside within the technology, but outside it.
So it seems to me once you have an office concerned
with a specific technology, that it's inevitable that the
priorities of that office are going to be with the develop-
ment of that technology.
So I think what I'm saying is at another level, you
need an office that is concerned with the environmental
implications of that technology and other tech-
nologies—and the future course and fate of a given
technology depends not only on how well the one office
develops it as a technology, but how well the other
office succeeds in making sure the environmental
problems are handled.
DR. WILLEY: If I understand you correctly, isn't
the closest process that exists now to try to deal with that
question of balance the application of the National
Environmental Protection Act to the National Energy
Act; that is, in determining a mix of energy supply and
demand for the country over a 20-year time horizon
and evaluating that from the environmental perspec-
tive, that that is where the analysis ought to be done
before offices and individual technology programs are
launched?
MR. PRATT: That would be an example of an
overall balanced look of the type I'm talking. His ques-
tion, of course, is directed, then, towards how is that
carried out by an agency? How should one structure an
agency to ensure that something like that, in fact,
happens?
MR. MERSON: Yes, I guess that's my concern. In
looking at it institutionally, how do we represent these
interests in some coherent way? You commented that
you have a question about the Office of the Environ-
ment within the agency and how effective it is in really
representing these perspectives forcefully in decision-
making processes. We've heard some suggestions—Ms.
MacGregor suggested perhaps that we broaden the
ESAAB, the review board. We also heard a suggestion
earlier today about the public advisor or some other
intervenor in the process.
I'd be interested in any reaction that you have to
those kinds of institutional changes. You talked about
perhaps setting up another office that would do a more
effective job of representing these interests. How do you
react to some of these suggestions for institutional
change?
MR. PRATT: The questions I raised about the Of-
fice of the Environment were exactly that, namely, I
have no real sense of what it's doing or what weight it
carries in the actions of DOE. I'm not sure that what you
want to do is create a new office outside DOE. I think
you have great dangers in that route, that it is maybe in-
effective.
What I would like to see is that an office charged
with those concerns is of equal priority within DOE to
some of the .other offices. I didn't particularly get that
flavor in the documents, but 1 don't know that much
about it.
Regarding the question of public involvement in
participation, one can distinguish that from public
involvement in decisionmaking. It is possible, that if we
are charging DOE with making, in the end, various
decisions subject to the pleasure of the President and
the Congress and the review of other agencies of a
statutory nature, that they should do so.
However, one would like to believe that they are
doing so after a full and open process and with a full and
open and deliberate consideration of the evidence that
has been developed.
What I was urging more was early involvement of
the many publics, by which I don't just mean a group
like the Sierra Club or other Government agencies, but
technical societies and many other groups. You name
it. So that all of the concerns get fed into the process
early and people can begin to decide what to do about
88
-------
Statement of Mr. Crytser
these concerns when it's not yet such a costly matter or
when early decisions have rigidified or hardened posi-
tions to the point that an agency just won't change its
mind.
It seems to me that's what's most important—to get
in there early and proceed in a way that encourages
some sense of confidence and trust, namely, that when
people make suggestions, they are taken seriously.
I don't know whether putting people on boards as
voting members or not is the way it's going to help.
MR. MERSON: Looking at this chart on page 10
of the background document, I think it's striking when
you look down the column marked "Public Access" that
you really don't have any significant public access until
you get to the environmental assessment or EIS. I
gather that you're saying it would be awfully helpful if
starting with the environmental development plan you
had the ability to comment.
MR. PRATT: Sure. As chair of a statewide
organization, I get notices all the time from EPA, from
the Forest Service, from various groups—almost never
from DOE. Yet, DOE is doing an awful lot of things that
impact on our State.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to go over a subject that
was covered a little bit earlier in the testimony. There
have been several suggestions for increasing just the in-
formation dissemination aspect and one of the sugges-
tions—maybe mine—was to inquire about the utility of
having DOE use a third party organization for its infor-
mation dissemination and comment collection activities
of a particular State or local government. I'd like to
address that both to Ms. MacGregor and Mr. Pratt.
When using an association of counties or regional
associations or State associations—do you feel that
there will be cases, where that kind of arrangement
may, in fact, expedite the process of information
dissemination?
MS. MacGREGOR: I noticed that there was an
energy information administration within DOE and
although it seems to be getting information in, it didn't
seem to be putting it out.
So I thought it could be broadened to also
disseminate information. Through what channels—I'm
not sure I have been very impressed with EPA Regional
IV's magazine on environmental concerns in the
Southeast, and is what I had in mind when I made the
reference to DOE publishing a magazine. They do not
have regional—well, they do have regional offices,
don't they? And possibly each regional office could put
out at least a paper on what is going on, in that region.
To use an outside agency on a contractual basis—is
that what you had in mind?
DR. REZNEK: Or a grant basis, if it's a public
body like a State?
MS. MacGREGOR: I really feel that DOE should
have dissemination under its own roof. I think they'd
have more feel for the public if they did.
MR. PRATT: I would agree with that viewpoint. I
would tend not to be too enthusiastic about a third party
arrangement. I'm not that impressed with other ex-
amples that one sees from time to time of it.
Furthermore, I think that DOE needs to be
strengthening its involvement in the communities in the
regions and, therefore, it ought to be taking these kinds
of activities more seriously. So that it's the sort of thing
DOE should be doing and giving higher priority or
higher weight; just as I was arguing they should be giv-
ing environmental considerations greater weight; they
should be giving educational information considerations
a greater weight. That will help them to establish this
participation also with their many different publics,
which they're just not doing.
There are some DOE offices in the regions, which
one of their spokesmen characterized to me as a "win-
dow dressing."
DR. REZNEK: I have one more question for Mr.
Pratt. In your testimony, you said that in the liquefica-
tion area, it's premature to commercialize or
demonstrate the facilities and that that statement on
prematurity was based on the lack of knowledge of en-
vironmental effects of the technology.
I assume that in your evaluation of prematurity,
you also take into account the world situation in terms
of demand and supplies of liquid fuel?
MR. PRATT: Yes. Certainly we know that the
general view of most industrial spokesmen is that this
route is premature also for the same types of reasons.
There is no point to freeze a technology at this point or
go up to full-scale until we're far enough along that we,
(a) know its consequences, and (b) know that we're go-
ing to use it.
DR. REZNEK: Any other questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: We'll take a break until about half
past and I believe we have two more witnesses for
today.
(Whereupon, a break was taken at 2:13 p.m.).
DR. REZNEK: Our first witness is Patricia
Pelkofer from the—
MS. PELKOFER: We switched.
DR. REZNEK: You switched. Okay Scott Crytser
from Pennsylvania Gasohol Commission.
Presentation by Scott Crytser
Pennsylvania Gasohol Commission
MR. CRYTSER: Thank you. Doctor Reznek.
I'd like to say good afternoon to the Panel
members, the audience.
Like most of you, I've read and re-read these Sec-
tion 11 documents that have been sent to me. I like to
think I've actually studied it and I've tried to—I've re-
written all the passages forward and backward just to
make sure that I'm completely aware of what that
Section 11 means.
89
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
I'd like to read to you and to the audience what
Section 11 (a) states. "The EPA is supposed to check
out the effects of new energy ideas, to make sure that
conservation was given enough attention; and to see if
the environment was considered and to what extent it
would be hurt by using these new ideas."
Doctor Reznek, would I be close in that translation?
That's Section 11 (a)?
DR. REZNEK: Yes.
(Laughter.)
MR. CRYTSER: Then Section 11 goes on to ex-
plain how the EPA can get this information and what it
can do with it.
What we are talking about today is energy and the
environment. How the consequences of research and
development of a new and old energy system may
pollute or otherwise threaten the world. Air pollution,
water pollution, noise pollution, land-waste and
desecration, and even the social and economic disrup-
tions—all these have to be considered.
. I think it's important for us to recognize how natural
it is to pollute. To exist is to pollute. Going for a walk
endangers some of the earth's species. Eating and
breathing will foul the air and the earth to an extent.
And certainly, this nation's more advanced and
sophisticated projects have a greater and greater impact
on the world we live in.
We can scour and treat the air and the water; and
we can dampen or isolate the noise and location. But all
we have is an ability to move the pollution or change it
and not quite to eliminate it.
So what we do is look at the level and the form of
the pollution produced by a particular energy activity
and to determine if its tolerable or if it can be modified to
be so. We look at the good that comes from it—the fact
that we have lights when we hit the switch; we have
heat when we need it—and decide if it's worthwhile to
disrupt our lives and our world and our children's world
to go this or that particular route.
Section 11 initiates such a judgment and assess-
ment process. The Council on Environmental Quality
may report on the trends in the energy applications and
their consequences but does not have the simple power
to invoke any mandates of reason on the weighing of
the gain versus the loss.
Even the esteemed Program and Project Manage-
ment System (PPMS), does not make comparisons be-
tween technologies, according to the documents that I
have received.
There is no criteria that the DOE is required to
employ consistently in its decisionmaking process. The
DOE is not required to judge a system by its efficiency.
They are not required to judge a system according to
the power it produces in view of the pollution it creates.
The energy RD&D policy in this country has no in-«
violable principled criteria. This is the most glaring lack
in our evaluation process of energy research. There is
no policy established that accords the importance of cer-
tain basic principles; there's no criteria whatsoever.
Benjamin Franklin once remarked, "When the Govern-
ment passes a law or employs a law in violation of basic
principle, it must soon pass other laws to cover up the
mistake."
Our RD&D policy is in violation of such a principle.
The most basic principle of energy, and one that
should be imposed and mandated upon the DOE deci-
sionmaking process, is simply to recognize the two
sources of energy: renewable and non-renewable.
The non-renewable fuels such as oil-shale, coal,
natural gas, uranium, petroleum—these are immense
storehouses of power that the geological process has
handed to mankind. They are best viewed as usable
potential, as stored reserves.
The reserves are to be treated the way a family or
business or industry might use their cash savings. To
carry this analogy, they are used to help when they're
needed, to maintain one on one's feet.
We've been abusing nature's helping hand by over-
using these reserves. Such energy reserves are to be
used as a buffer to avoid being rushed or faced with a
shortage of power. They are to be used only to the ex-
tent that they help create productive, renewable energy
systems.
The continued harvest and mining of our natural
bountiful fossil heritage is the pollution danger that the
Section 11, the DOE, the EPA never deal with. We are
aware of the finite nature of these reserves and we are
aware that technologies that deal with these reserves are
simply delaying the inevitable transition we must make
to renewable and benign resources.
According to the background document, there are
no criteria that the DOE is routinely or formally required
to include in the PPMS. Let us start here.
The number one environmental criterion and one
that respects a basic natural principle of the irreversible
limits of this planet, is to simply limit the use of these
ancient reserves. To do otherwise is very dangerous
and this clearly falls into the realm of environmental
protection. This is one clearcut criterion that may be
uniformly imposed across the entire energy industry
and research.
A second basic-principle would be to include in
Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
Policy the beginning of a transition in economic and
political advantage from the fossil and nuclear programs
to the more benign renewable fuel forms.
The purpose of this Hearing is to establish a docu-
ment for Congressional and Executive review and I
think it has to be established here that the people have
gone on record as being concerned about a future that is
dominated by deadends and disappointments.
A self-sustaining renewable fuel should be priced
below the use of our rapidly depleting reserves by
90
-------
Statement of Mr. Crytser
policy. To give the petroleum or synthetic fuels pro-
grams artificial supports and financial benefits is-to work
counter to basic principle and it is to succumb to political
irrelevance and cowardice, to oppose the inevitable, to
delay the day until we must face our cold and hungry
children in the darkness of our own selfish short-
sightedness because we waited too long.
The quality of life in the not too distant future is in
grave jeopardy. Would this not be an enlightened inter-
pretation of environmental quality laws? We must judge
these technologies by realistic criteria; to allow old and
new programs to strip and scar this planet while dump-
ing toxic wastes into our oceans, rivers, air and coun-
tryside is one thing; but to do so in pursuit of an energy
form that is by its very nature only postponing the day
when we must make the transition to another source, is
purely ridiculous and irresponsible.
There is one more big problem with proceeding on
a course of action that neglects these basics. By delaying
the transition, we will not always have the somewhat
comfortable buffer of our stored energy reserves to
assist us in making the change that we must do anyway.
In an article release by the Friends of the Earth this
idea is addressed. I'm not a member or sufficiently in-
formed to be an official spokesman of theirs, but I
believe that their organization has somewhat the same
philosophy as the Environmental Protection Agency.
The article by Mark Reis and Enid Goldman com-
ments on Washington's role. I quote, "Long-term
(energy) planning in contrast to the fragmented Federal
program of the last year must be explicitly based on
renewable resources. The .National Energy Plan only
tinkers with Solar (and renewable) energy. This
haphazard promotion cannot hide the major subsidies
given to the other depleting energy resources. Like
other technological revolutions, the fate of renewable
energy use in the United States is directly linked to
consciously instituted incentives and the removal
of barriers."
What are the incentives and what are the barriers?
One of the purposes of these hearings is to evaluate the
DOE management system and the environmental con-
sequences of an energy RD&D program.
This role can bring tremendous potential to bear in
the challenge of the future. The definition and inter-
pretation of the Environmental Protection statutes with
a commitment to the basic principles of renewable
versus non-renewable sources can begin the incentive
process that is so important.
For starters, the DOE can begin to remove the in-
ternal staffing obstacles to this principled program. In
the DOE, there are almost 2,000 personnel in the
Nuclear Development Programs and fewer than 50 for
all the renewable fields of wind, solar, thermal, and
photovoltaic.
Every day there are fantastic gains being made in
every one of these fields and also in many other
renewable energy fields.
That is the type of obstacle the government can
remove once our policy aligns itself with principle.
On the incentive side, there's tremendous potential
for action on the part of the DOE and the EPA from the
standpoint of Section 11. The DOE and the EPA could
begin to identify every Federal, State, local and city
ordinance that might discourage renewable energy
sources, and simply declare it environmentally unsound
or illegal.
The EPA could impose national building codes en-
forcing proper insulation, encouraging passive solar
design. Further, the DOE/EPA should make available
free estimates on conservation methods and on the per-
formance and expense of renewable home systems.
The Public Affairs Division could circulate the
displays and exhibits of the various applications of these
new clean alternatives to the nonrenewable
resources—at shopping centers, city halls, county fairs,
and throughout the media.
Let's not fight the renewable resources. The EPA
has a responsibility for assessing the DOE's programs in
light of energy conservation and their environmental
consequences. What could be more relevant to that
mandate than merging assessment policy to principles
of depletability? We don't have to stir the imagination
too far to visualize a society that has failed to develop
alternatives for its vanishing reserves. Is that not an
environmental consequence?
With the greatest respect for the work of the EPA
and the DOE, I say that this message has to go to Con-
gress and the President. If the DOE and the EPA are
going to finally have a concrete point of analysis, a
critical point, and if that point is going to include the
principles of renewable versus nonrenewable, let's not
waste any more time. Let's make the future a place
where there are not massive threats to our health and
our homes due to an unprincipled and haphazard
energy policy.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: Let me start with a few. There
have been a number of attempts to calculate the energy
yield of various systems, for example, solar satellites or
coal-fired power plants or the nuclear system. One
trend that seems to be developing is not only to
calculate the energy yield per unit of energy investment
in the capital equipment or other aspects of the system,
but to separate that accounting into renewable and
nonrenewable and calculate the renewable energy
source—the renewable energy yield versus the
nonrenewable investment to make that yield.
I assume that you believe that that should be done
sort of universally in evaluating any project?
91
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
MR. CRYTSER: Yes, Doctor Reznek. I think it
should be an established criteria that cannot be violated.
To violate that would be to violate a basic principle that
we would be using our stored reserves when there are
ample alternatives available.
If the use of the stored reserves was shown to be
clearly advancing pursuit of a renewable resource, then
I think it would be making a net gain toward a sound
future.
But to use a stored reserve without any respect to
advancing a renewable resource—then it's just the
wrong direction.
DR. REZNEK: There are large reserves of both
nuclear and coal energy exhaustibles in the United
States and the criticality of transition from the ex-
haustibles to totally renewables depends, in part, on the
size of those reserves. There are people who believe
that it's not important to begin the transition—not only
not important; it's not economically wise to forego the
benefits of using those resources now.
Would you like to comment on that and perhaps
give us some idea of your timeframe for which it will be
critical to forego the remaining supply of fossil and
uranium fuels?
MR. CRYTSER: I have heard and read varying
studies that report that we have 800 years to 1,000
years of varying fossil reserves and uranium. Doctor
Teller's studies indicate that inexpensive uranium
energy will be available for 600-800 years, if not longer.
I don't feel that the point is when, if we are making
no attempt to have a concrete criteria that requires a
transition to renewable benign energy sources. 1 feel
that no time is too soon to begin if, in saying that we're
not beginning now because we don't absolutely have to,
and we'll start some other time. That's not making the
commitment that I think we need to make.
So I think yesterday was a good time to begin.
DR. WILLEY: Could you say a few words about
your perception of the environmental problems with
energy crops as we understand agricultural technology
now and what you see as the necessary adjustments in
agricultural production to alleviate some of those
impacts?
MR. CRYTSER: I was invited here because of my
association with the Pennsylvania Gasohol Commission
and the National Gasohol Commission, which pro-
motes conversion of agricultural products into liquid
fuels.
The environmental problems associated with the
production of distilled ethanol by Environmental Pro-
tection Standards are usually well in line with the
standards.
I've been granted a permit to operate a distillery
and the environmental concerns were so negligible
when I indicated that the byproducts would be used
either as a feed source or for composting purposes. The
water is not spoiled; the air is spoiled only with nontoxic
carbon dioxide. So with methanol, that's something I'm
not well enough versed in to inform you on, but with the
production of ethanol, which is used today to make
gasohol, there are no environmental restrictions upon
its production.
DR. WILLEY: More than the conversion process,
was the production process in the field any problems—
MR. CRYTSER: Well, there're tractors that pro-
duce carbon monoxide. The cars and tractors have
been, for some time now, securing Environmental Pro-
tection Agency approval and been in production. That's
not a concern of the production process. But yes, in the
production process, you will have electricity produced
by the public or private sector; you'll have—if you're
going completely to the basics, you'll have gasoline
used to run the tractors that are out in the field and the
harvesting equipment.
To that extent, everything is negligible. There are
no exotic techniques; no heavy metals or gases; no
radioactivity and no toxicants released into the environ-
ment. What we are talking about is simple farming and
moonshine technology.
I wasn't here to boost any particular benign source
of alternative energy over another. Gasohol is one
answer and even as a member of several boosting agen-
cies of gasohol, I won't say that it is the answer. It is
ONE of the solutions that we have.
DR. WILLEY: The reason I raised the question is
in order for DOE and EPA to follow out their mandate,
at some point—not just for gasohol, but for any sources,
environmental assessments will have to occur. In the
case of gasohol,if we visualize in a National Energy Plan
a large-scale plan for production of gasohol, then the
other part of that, in analysis of the environmental im-
pacts would be the consequences in pesticide use, in
soil erosion, and some of the other problems that are
associated with agricultural production. I don't think
anyone has a handle on the magnitude of that en-
vironmental problem.
I'm just wondering what your reaction to that
would be.
MR. CRYTSER: I recently gave a speech at a
university in Pennsylvania and afterwards the professor
that invited me said well, hey you didn't mention any of
the negative points about gasohol production. I told him
I searched for two weeks to find some. So there're not a
whole lot of negative—there're economic considera-
tions with every project that should be considered. At
some point they have to be addressed. The economic
considerations with a domestic energy source, I'm sure
you can just imagine—the last year I have a study on
('78), we spent some $42 billion for overseas
petroleum. If you're visualizing a liquid energy source
that could completely terminate our overseas
dependency, there's an economic gain right there.
We pay farmers—in the same year that the
previous report came out, we paid farmers $22 billion
92
-------
Statement of Ms. Pelkofer
not to grow crops. So by going into something that
would be agriculturally based, there're two great
economic considerations.
Environmental concerns are just as important.
There are tremendous environmental advantages to a
nonpolluting, unleaded agricultural liquid fuel.
Finally, I think 1 would rather have American
farmers in the driver's seat, as far as being our energy
suppliers, than the Arabs.
DR. REZNEK: Do you feel that DOE, through its
allocation process, has not allocated enough money to
development of renewable or do you feel that the
Federal Government's role in something—in the
renewable development is probably just about right
now, but what is wrong is that the Federal
Government's role is too strong in the competing ex-
haustible fuels?
MR. CRYTSER: I think you're approach-
ing—some serious related concerns—in answer to your
first question, yes, I do feel that there is insufficient sup-
port. To the second point, yes, there are artificial sup-
ports and even OPEC's prices for oil, in view of
depletabtlity, I think they're far too low.
Right now the alcohol that is going in to blend with
gasoline is economically not competitive with gasoline.
But this is not in view of stepped-up production with
massive regional distilleries and some equivalent
Federal promotion of the idea; of the lack of the envi-
ronmental hazards that would waylay a lot of the
dangers attributed to petroleum; as far as the sludge on
the surface of our nation; the disgusting air quality. It
can completely wipe out the use of lead as an additive
that has been blamed for mental retardation and drop-
ping l.Q. scores across the nation.
There are a lot of things that would have to be con-
sidered and I think the price could become competitive
with a combination of the things that I've mentioned
and you've mentioned, Doctor Reznek.
DR. REZNEK: Questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much.
Our last witness today is Patricia Pelkofer of the
Group Against Smog and Pollution from Pittsburgh.
i
Presentation by Patricia Pelkofer
Group Against Smog and Pollution
MS. PELKOFER: Thank you.
I am vice-president of GASP, Group Against Smog
and Pollution. These comments are presented on behalf
of GASP, which is a nonprofit, all volunteer citizens'
organization founded in October 1969 to work for en-
vironmental protection and improvement in Pittsburgh,
Allegheny County and the State of Pennsylvania.
GASP's efforts have been directed towards im-
plementation and enforcement of Federal, State and
local air and water quality regulations and towards
educating the public on the health-related aspects of
environmental pollution.
Because energy is an environmental phenomenon,
the GASP Board of Directors set up an energy commit-
tee in 1971 to begin a process to inform our members
and the public on energy resources, pollution problems
and aspects of energy conservation.
In September 1973, GASP directors adopted an
overall energy policy to guide the group's actions in this
important area of concern. This guideline included
maintaining an impartial attitude toward all energy
resources—coal, oil, gas and nuclear—currently
available in our region.
We look at all energy resources in the light of
GASP's objective to reduce and prevent to the fullest
extent possible, within the existing state of technology,
all forms of ecological degradation.
GASP was represented at the Section 11 Regional
Meeting held in Pittsburgh July 31, and members have
reviewed the background documents available for this
hearing.
We are in agreement with the prehearing docu-
ment's assessment of the strengths of the Department of
Energy's Program and Project Management System,
setting levels, phases, decision points and identifying
technological and environmental concerns.
We are not, however, so certain that the DOE pro-
cess is actually prepared to deal with the environmental
problems which have been identified, as a new process
moves up the scale-of-size.
The most difficult problem in commenting on the
DOE Management Program and Process, and how ade-
quately environmental concerns have been considered,
have been the number of unanswered questions and
concerns that continue to come up.
For instance: what is the place of synfuels in the
nation's overall and long term energy development
plan?
It is GASP's belief that both nuclear and fossil fuel
processes use up our globe's limited energy resources.
Synfuels should be considered an interim step—a tran-
sitional energy source for several decades—to a
relatively unlimited energy source such as solar, winds,
hydroelectric, ocean currents, and fusion.
One senses a capacity commitment to these syn-
fuels projects and developments, which may not be the
best investment, of either capital or intense, expensive
technology.
A second question is: where and how has energy
conservation been factored into DOE's planning pro-
cess—either in weighing one process against another,
or one source against another, in light of net energy
use, or whether projected capacity of potential commer-
cialized plants include a conservation factor?
Energy conservation, in GASP's view, must be an
inherent part of our national energy policy, and must be
93
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
viewed as complementary to energy research and
development and not as an alternative to it.
To cite one example on a more regional or local
level; in reviewing locations for pilot or demonstration
plants for synfuel technologies, is the environmental im-
pact of any new process thoroughly related to the total
potential environmental and socioeconomic problems
of an area? Are current and longstanding existing
problems well-reviewed?
For example, the background material indicates
Morgantown, West Virginia as a site selection for a sol-
vent refining demonstration plant. This location,
therefore, involves the Monongahela River basin. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
in March 1978 published a report on Water Quality
Issues for Pennsylvania indicating that the
Monongahela River faces one of the most serious water
supply problems in the Commonwealth.
It is intensively used to meet the water needs of
steel mills and other industries in the Pittsburgh
area—17 public water suppliers and three electric
generating facilities.
The Monongahela River is simultaneously the na-
tion's most heavily used inland waterway, with com-
mercial navigation carrying approximately 38 million
tons of raw materials, goods and fuels annually.
The Monongahela basin is subject to flash floods
immediately following storms and extremely low flows
during the dry periods. Although most Pennsylvania
streams have a continuous base flow which is supplied
from ground water aquifers, the base flow of the
Monongahela is almost nonexistent. As a result, during
dry periods, almost all of the flow in the Pennsylvania
portion of the river above the Youghiogheny River
Confluence comes from Tygart Reservoir in West
Virginia, which provides a maximum release of 220
million gallons per day.
Tygart Reservoir was authorized by Congress and
developed by the Army Corps of Engineers to support
navigation. (The 38 million tons a year.) The United
States claims a Federal navigation servitude over the
waters released from Tygart and the natural flow of the
river, in an amount necessary to operate the locks and
dams—a minimum of 220-340 million gallons per day.
This means that the Federal Government may
under low flow conditions prohibit any diversion of river
water which may reduce or interfere with flows required
for navigation.
Current and projected interbasin transfers and con-
sumptive uses for public water supply, which is 37
million gallons a day, power plants, 17 million, and in-
dustry, 117 million gallons a day, would substantially
conflict with navigation during low flows.
But putting it bluntly, in the next significant
drought, Pennsylvania will face the difficult choice of
shutting down or curtailing navigation, industrial
production, power generation, and municipal water
supply.
Already, the Department of Environmental
Resources has been forced to deny any additional water
allocation requests to public water suppliers in the basin,
and advise current and prospective users to seek alter-
nate locations and sources. The timing of a major water
crisis is solely dependent on the weather. What might be
the added burden of an intensely water-using liquefica-
tion plant in this area?
Obviously, water quality in such an overworked
river leaves much to be desired. In the Level B study of
the Monongahela Basin conducted by the Ohio River
Basin Commission in 1975, water quality problems are
derived from four major sources: domestic sewage, in-
dustrial wastes, acid mine drainage, and nonpoint
sources.
One hundred and four communities require new
construction or upgrading of sewage facilities, and there
are 48 major point sources of industrial pollution in the
basin. Noncoal mining related industrial discharges are
concentrated in the Allegheny County-Pittsburgh area
and also near Morgantown, West Virginia.
Acid mine drainage is the single most serious water
quality problem in the area, affecting over 2400 stream
miles or nearly 25 percent of the total stream mileage in
the basin.
While active coal mines and industrial sources are
now slowly coming under more strict regulations, the
extent of the inactive mine problem includes nearly
50,000 unreclaimed strips, 150 strip sites of 10 acres or
more, and 1550 acres with evidence of subsidence due
to collapse of underground mines, and mine refuse sites
of five acres or more at 68 sites.
There are a total of 668 inactive mines discharging
389 tons per day of acid. About 70 percent of this pollu-
tion comes from deep mines.
Along with water quality and quantity problems,
the Monongahela Valley is a noncompliance area, fail-
ing to meet air quality standards to protect human
health for any of the major pollutants.
How are such area-wide existing problems in-
cluded in environmental evaluation, or is a proposed
facility considered in a vacuum type situation?
Other questions: How much State, regional, and
local input has gone into'research, development, and
demonstration decision processes?
Should not potential for serious environmental im-
pact as well as development cost be a factor in rating a
project major or minor, and thus, subject to top level
review? We are reminded of relatively small operations
in Hopewell, Virginia and Buffalo, New York, produc-
ing or storing chemicals which have resulted in serious
environmental impacts and health problems.
How many serious environmental problems with
no immediate "solutions" or with tough and expensive
technological requirements, may become obvious in a
94
-------
Statement of Ms. Pelkofer
50,000-ton commercial plant which may not appear in
a 50-ton pilot or a 5,000-ton demonstration operation?
If a great deal of money has been invested through pilot
and demonstration stages, is rejection at the commer-
cialization stage likely?
Is there a line item in the Department of Energy
Research, Development, and Demonstration budget for
citizen participation and public education? Has a citizen
participation guideline been developed as a basic
criterion for all citizen involvement into energy develop-
ment and planning? Many such guidelines are in place
involving the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Department of Transportation and
EPA's Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and RECRA
Programs. These are just a few of the major recurring
concerns expressed by members who reviewed the
background material for this Hearing.
Many of these concerns were expressed across the
country at the prehearing meetings. We hope that the
Energy Department will have the opportunity to re-
spond to the people on some of these points.
There is a strong agreement with public sentiment
voiced at the prehearing workshops that explicit en-
vironmental criteria should be developed and applied to
all major decisions in the technology development pro-
cess and that criteria should be known to the public; that
State and local agencies and organizations should be
given a greater part in planning and reviewing projects
that directly affect their jurisdiction.
Without some of these types of inputs, we will have
nothing but a series of political decisions instead of a
policy based upon scientific information.
The underlying reason for all the questions asked
at the national workshops and by those reviewing hear-
ing documents is the late entry of citizen input into the
decisionmaking process.
In recent years, the American public has en-
countered the environmental revolution, the energy
crunch, the world food shortage and the economic con-
fusion. The United States, with its high standard of liv-
ing and the most educated people in the world's history
has also become the most confused about its future.
There is a general recognition about the serious
problems ahead. There are many classic calls for action,
but before we can have action, we must have a plan.
The typical American approach to such problems is
the participatory process. The issue of energy develop-
ment is perhaps the best vehicle to explore new avenues
of policy development, because energy is so all-
pervasive. Public participation and public education is
crucial and it must be strengthened.
Our political and national boundaries have not
been drawn with an eye toward air basins, watersheds,
energy regions. Topographic features many miles away
often act to concentrate allowable effluent levels which
are far above acceptable standards.
Such effects can be found in public health threats
or environmental impacts thousands of miles from the
source, or many years after the emission, often in a dif-
ferent region or country or in a different era.
Citizens must be aware of these aspects and costs
for prevention of these effects must be factored into the
development.
Possibly the regional level is optimum for a public
participation process in energy development because
various interests may be brought together to discuss and
interact through a common concern for the welfare of
the region.
GASP, along with many citizens of this country,
are both amazed and frustrated at the lack of mean-
ingful citizen participation in the development of energy
programs and policy. We will continue to work for more
public participation in all energy/environmental inter-
related decisions affecting our region, the state of Penn-
sylvania and the Nation.
We thank both the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Energy for the oppor-
tunity to comment at this meeting.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there questions?
MR. MERSON: I guess I'll ask my usual question.
Based on your reading of the background materials,
which obviously you've read with some care, do you
have any specific institutional changes that you would
want to see incorporated into the PPMS process cur-
rently employed by DOE? You've called, I think, very
eloquently for much greater public participation, for a
careful consideration of environmental impacts. Would
you suggest any structural changes?
MS. PELKOFER: I think definitely that the
regional level should be strengthened. GASP
thinks—(this is not just my opinion)—that people are
best able to have input about things with which they are
familiar, and from that basis, they learn of the greater
problems.
If there would be more effort to communicate with
the public—even the meetings that EPA held, if DOE
would hold a number of these across the coun-
try—something like that, it would be helpful to get
people to come together and look at some of these
problems. Although nobody wants a coal gasification
plant in their backyard, if they go through the whole
process and see what might be—what's the need behind
it, then there's a chance of compromise or possibly get-
ting new ideas to set off on something entirely better for
the area.
MR. MERSON: Perhaps getting some of the plan-
ning documents that are mentioned here, assessment
documents, for discussion early on at a local or regional
level.
MS. PELKOFER: A very early stage, so residents
know what's being planned and how many of those
95
-------
Hearing of October 4, 1979
things might impact your area. In addition, documents
regarding all energy "R&D" should be available. While
geothermal energy may not be of interest in the coal
region, you still should know a little bit about it...What
all the development ideas are.
Plus, I still feel, as several people have mentioned
today, that the public must have a feeling of overall
planning that everything is relating to in the energy field.
I think any message to Congress—that's one thing that
GASP has been trying to get through every chance
possible—to our local Congressional representatives,
that this plan is needed.
Somebody has to bite the bullet and since they're
the ones who are elected, I guess it's their job, before
EPA or DOE or anyone else can really feel any sense of
direction. You have to have an overall plan which in
spite of the reports that have come out, it just isn't there.
There isn't that feeling that there's a goal some place
where we're really going in considering the whole
problem.
MR. MERSON: Strategic planning in the sense
that, I think, as Mr. Markey suggested yesterday, look-
ing at what our needs are going to be in terms of the
end-use for various fuels. Working backwards from that
to some extent.
MS. PELKOFER: That's the thing, and also work-
ing in the conservation factor, because too many
things—possibly what people think they need, they
really may not. How valid conservation figures are, has
to be factored in, before you start thinking about
capacities or anything else.
MR. MERSON: Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: One—there have been several
suggestions or parts of suggestions for allocating levels
of development; that is, numbers of power plants or
coal production or what have you, ethanol or methanol
production facilities, on a regional State-by-State basis
and asking the States to move rather aggressively on
presiting hearing process so that we can transfer
whatever range of quad future we want to talk about
into a regional and then local impact; and asking a
thorough process for the States, the production States
to establish goals for themselves to get agreement on
what those goals might be and where the development
might be occurring and where we're going to prestudy
the siting of individual facilities.
Would you like to see such a process developed? I
might also want to ask Ed Grisham whether or not New
Mexico has been examining the question of where, in
fact, its load of the supply, future supply may, if fact,
occur?
MS. PELKOFER: Would you please restate your
question? I did not understand it entirely.
DR. REZNEK: No, I'm just saying you take
whatever National Energy Plan with the mix of conser-
vation, coal supply, biomass supply and translate that
into a State-by-state allocation and ask the States, not
necessarily on a one-for-one, but in a range of values,
and ask the States to go ahead with preplanning and
presiting of the facilities that the plan calls for.
Would you like to see that—
MS. PELKOFER: That might be a good idea, but
again only if there's public participation, because, what
happens on so many of these things—everybody's plan-
ning, independently. There may be something else
being planned for that land, too, and somehow or other
they meet in collision at some future date. One group
has a park in mind and somebody else a high-rise. I
think that probably it would help to plan on a State
level, but there still is a great deal of communication
needed among agencies and also with the general
public so that residents have an idea of what's happen-
ing in their area when it's going to affect the quality of
their lives.
Also, you don't have a few people on the inside
able to acquire land and such and make big profits out
of it when it's not in the best interest of the whole State
or country.
DR. REZNEK: Ed, would you like to—
DR. REZNEK: —would you like to comment
on New Mexico's ability to plan or specify future
development?
MR. GRISHAM: Just make a comment, Steve.
We feel sort of that it's going to be an obvious choice
where the development is going to go in New Mexico,
like it is in the country. You're going to have your coal
gasification plants where your coal is; you'll have your
uranium mines and mills where your uranium is; and in
New Mexico, it's in a very small area of the State up in
the Northwest corner.
We're not attempting to do any plant siting at all
because industry is doing that as they develop the
resources. The only thing we've done is develop a
Community Assistance Council to help plan for the im-
pacts and we intend not to see growth occur at a rate
that's going to be detrimental to the environment or to
the economic and social well-being of those people liv-
ing in that area.
So that's about the only position we've taken at this
point. But we do have an Industrial Planning Council
made up of major industry in the State that works with
us monthly in reviewing applications for Community
Assistance and long-range plans for plant siting.
MS. PELKOFER: Could I add something? I've
been working for three years on the 208 Water Quality
Management Plan for our area. There have been
volumes of material gathered on all of these types of en-
vironmental development and economic problems. It
makes you wonder where all this material goes and why
some of these various agencies can't share this informa-
tion back and forth instead of starting from scratch. Also
in public meetings and hearings on these plans every
township and county want a growth projection. "You
can't say that our population is going down." You can't
96
-------
Statement of Ms. Pelkofer
estimate that in the plan because "we're" going to be
greater. "We're" going to have a new coal mine in our
township and we have to have a sewage treatment plant
all of our own. "We" don't want to go in with somebody
else.
One thing you would have to be careful about is to
have a very strict criteria that everybody doing any kind
of evaluation and projection use the same basis—the
same kind of population projections; so that when it
comes back up for a whole picture at the national level,
you're going to have it all on the same basis.
DR. REZNEK: Are there any more questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to thank the witnesses to-
day. I feel we've solicited and received some very good
testimony.
We'll reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock for our
third and final day.
Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 3:25 P.M., the hearing was ad-
journed, to reconvene the following day at 9:00 A.M.)
97
-------
-------
October 5, 1979
Panel:
DR. STEVEN REZNEK, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Engineering and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency
REBECCA HANMER, Deputy Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
DR. PAUL STOLPMAN, Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency
DR. A. BRUCE BISHOP, New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority
DR. SAMI ATALLAH, Gas Research Institute
DR. SHELDON KINSEL, Director, Congressional Relations
National Wildlife Federation
CLAUDE BARFJELD, Government Operations Committee of the Senate
GREG ONDICH, Section 11 Coordinator
99
-------
Contents
MORNING SESSION
PAGE
PAGE
103 Opening remarks, DR. REZNEK
103 Statement of DR. SAMUEL MORRIS
for DR. LEONARD HAMILTON
(of the Brookhaven National Laboratory)
Questions and remarks
105 MS. HANMER
105 DR. ATALLAH
105 DR. KINSEL
106 MR. BARFIELD
106 DR. REZNEK
107 DR. REZNEK
107 DR. KINSEL
107 Statement of MR. WILLIAM ROGERS
Gulf Mineral Resources Co.
Questions and remarks
108 MS. HANMER
108 DR. ATALLAH
109 DR. REZNEK
109 DR. ATALLAH
109 DR. STOLPMAN
110 DR. STOLPMAN
110 DR. KINSEL
110 DR. ATALLAH
111 Statement of MS. SUSAN TACHAU
National Center for Appropriate Technology
Questions and remarks
112 MR. BARFIELD
112 DR. BISHOP
112 DR. STOLPMAN
113 DR. STOLPMAN
113 DR. REZNEK
113 DR. ATALLAH
113 MS. HANMER
114 DR. KINSEL
114 DR. REZNEK
114 Statement of DR. NEIL SELDMAN
Institute for Local Self-reliance
Questions and remarks
117 DR. ATALLAH
118 DR. REZNEK
118 MS. HANMER
119 DR. BISHOP
119 MR. BARFIELD
120 Statement of MS. MARY JADIKER
Lake County Planner, Lake County, Califor
Questions and remarks
121 MR. BARFIELD
121 DR. KINSEL
122 DR. REZNEK
122 Statement of DR. ALLAN HIRSCH
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior
Questions and remarks
124 DR. ATALLAH
125 DR. ATALLAH
125 DR. REZNEK
125 DR. KINSEL
126 DR. KINSEL
126 MS. HANMER
126 Statement of MR. ROBERT THOMASON
Occidental Oil Shale
100
-------
Contents (Continued)
AFTERNOON SESSION
PAGE
PAGE
129 Opening remarks, MR. GREGORY ONDICH
129 Statement of MR. DAVID ANTHONY
University of Florida
Questions and remarks
133 MR. ONDICH
134 MR. ONDICH
134 MS. HANMER
134 DR. BISHOP
135 Statement of MR. MARK McCLELLAN
Pennsylvania Citizens Advisory Council
Questions and remarks
138 DR. BISHOP
138 DR. KINSEL
139 DR. ANTHONY
139 DR. KINSEL
139 MR. ONDICH
140 Statement of MR. ALBERT SLAP
Pennsylvania Public Interest Law Center
Questions and remarks
142 MR. ONDICH
142 Statement of DR. MICHAEL DEVINE
University of Oklahoma
Questions and remarks
144 DR. ATALLAH
144 DR. BISHOP
145 DR. ATALLAH
145 DR. KINSEL
146 Statement of MS. LORE KEFFER
Group for Recycling in Pennsylvania
Questions and remarks
148 MR. ONDICH
148 Statement of MS. EDITH CHASE
League of Women Voters of the United States
Questions and remarks
150 DR. BISHOP
151 DR. BISHOP
151 MS. HANMER
151 Statement of DR. CARL NORBECK
Thome Ecological Institute
Questions and remarks
153 DR. BISHOP
154 DR. BISHOP
154 MS. ONDICH
154 MR. SEAMAN
154 Statement of MR. MICHAEL SEAMAN
California Solid Waste Management Board
Questions and remarks
157 DR. KINSEL
Adjournment
101
-------
-------
Proceedings
Statement of Dr. Morris
9:05 a.m.
DR. REZNEK: Good morning. My name is Steve
Reznek and I'm with the Environmental Protection
Agency, and I'd like to open the third day of the hearing
under Section 11 of the Nonnuclear Energy Research
and Development Act.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the
relative emphasis given to energy conservation and en-
vironmental protection in the research and develop-
ment programs of the Department of Energy.
The hearing panel this morning includes—who's
sitting at the end of the table?—Claude Barfield, who is
with the Government Operations Committee of the
Senate. Next to him is Dr. Sami Atallah from the Gas
Research Institute. Next to him is Dr. Bruce Bishop
from the New York State Research and Development
Authority.
Next to him is Paul Stolpman of the Office of Air,
Noise, and Radiation Programs in the Environmental
Protection Agency. Next to him is Sheldon Kinsel of the
Wildlife Federation. And next to me is Rebecca Hanmer
of EPA's Regional Office in Boston.
The first witness this morning is Samuel Morris of
Brookhaven National, Laboratory.
Dr. Morris?
Statement of Dr. Samuel Morris for
Dr. Leonard Hamilton of the Brookhaven
National Laboratory
DR. MORRIS: Thank you.
I'm here this morning on behalf of Dr. Leonard
Hamilton of Brookhaven National Laboratory. He's
asked me to convey his apologies to you for not being
able to be here today, since he's in Luxemburg address-
ing a seminar of the Commission of the European
Communities.
A primary mission of the Department of Energy is
to develop and commercialize new energy technologies
that are economically practicable and technically feasi-
ble, together with being environmentally acceptable.
DOE's technology development and environmental
research areas need to press forward in a coordinated
way in order to assure that this goal is achieved in an
efficient and timely manner.
How can one go about this? First, it's necessary to
have some idea of how the technology can be
developed. Then the environmental impacts must be
assessed, along with the information available to deter-
mine these impacts.
This originally gave rise to what was called the
Environmental Development Plan, or EDP. The EDP
initially examined the technology development
schedule, went through the technology schedule and
process and identified areas of potential environmental
problems. To reduce the uncertainty associated with
these environmental concerns, it established
environmental research needs and provided compatible
schedules for this environmental research and
technology development.
Subsequently, the Environmental Readiness Docu-
ment, or ERD, took over the responsibility of defining
areas of environmental concern and research needs.
The role of the EDP was then confined to providing
compatible schedules for environmental and technology
research and development, as well as scheduling future
ERDs and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).
Thus, DOE, in accomplishing its goal of developing
technology in an environmentally compatible way, has
evolved two planning documents, ERDs and EDPs.
What are the criteria for effective ERDs and EDPs?
An ERD should be an analysis of environmental con-
cerns relevant to the technology based on critical review
of research results. Each ERD should address five areas:
One, the current state of knowledge about the
health, safety, and environmental impacts that would
be created by deployment of the technology.
Two, available control technologies—capabilities
and costs.
Three, the current and proposed regulations which
will affect commercialization.
Four, the areas of environmental concern for
which information is inadequate and further research is
required.
And five, the likelihood of significant delay in
attaining program objectives because of environmental
concerns.
The Environmental Development Plan, or EDP is a
management planning document, scheduling activities
needed for determination of environmental accept-
ability, including environmental research, future ERDs
and EISs.
EDPs were initiated several years ago to provide a
common basis for planning by the Assistant Secretary
for Environment and those responsible for energy
103
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
technology development. EDPs include, in addition to
brief descriptions of the technology and plans for its
development, the identification and description of
environmental issues. In addition, each describes and
schedules actions required to allow development to pro-
ceed in an environmentally acceptable way. EDPs, as
documented agreements between principals with dif-
ferent responsibilities for managing environmental
issues, serve as a vital component of DOE's overall
planning process. They have also been used as support
for judgements regarding the environmental accept-
ability of evolving energy technologies presented in
Environmental Readiness Documents (ERDs). It is im-
portant, however, to understand what EDPs are not.
While they provide an essential common base for pro-
gram planning, they are not program plans.
The EDP should draw on the ERD for identification
of environmental concerns, analysis of specific
environmental concerns and impacts, research recom-
mendations, and prioritization.
The success of both EDPs and ERDs requires an
environmental assessment program. One of Ruth
Clusen's first acts as Assistant Secretary for Environ-
ment was to establish a Health and Environmental
Effects Assessment Program (HEEAP). This program
will operate at a level of approximately a million dollars
in 1980. The program will provide analytical, quan-
titative, and documented assessments of what is
known, unknown, and uncertain regarding potential
health and environmental impacts of energy technology
being developed by DOE.
The assessments will be structured to provide
descriptions of health and environmental effects in
terms of total energy technology fuel cycles.
Assessments will be continuously updated to provide
new information and improvements in the methods of
analysis.
Health and environmental assessment will take
research data from DOE's research program, and
others, in this country and abroad, on source terms,
atmospheric transport, environmental transport,
metabolic models, dose-effect relationships, and
ecosystem models. The health and environmental
assessment activity will then produce quantitative
assessment of occupational, accidents, public health,
and ecosystem effects associated with the energy
technology, along with analysis of the sensitivity of the
results to factors such as geographic location,
demography, and control levels.
We have assessed these technologies, determining
their interrelationships, and included assessments that
are specific to individual technologies, while cross-
cutting general assessments that are common to several
technologies.
This program should eventually provide the infor-
mation on which ERDs and EDPs are based. Since the
program is starting only with a few technologies,
however, it will be several years before many ERDs and
EDPs can derive information from these assessments.
How do current ERDs and EDPs shape up to the
objectives we have described?
Since EDPs already existed when ERDs were
begun, and since ERDs were funded at a lower level of
effort than EDPs, the ERDs have tended to contain less
environmental assessment than the EDPs and much
less than our objectives. Where there is an extensive
assessment to draw on, the ERD can be rather complete
and include detailed analysis.
Where'a major assessment has not been done, the
ERD should strive to be comprehensive, but cannot be
expected to cover the subject in much depth.
Our brief analysis of some of the September 1978
ERDs suggests that these fifteen to thirty page
documents deal with most environmental issues in
insufficient depth, however. The ERDs tend to present
data unsystematically and to emphasize qualitative,
rather than quantitative analysis.
The guidelines suggest that analyses in ERDs
should include a review of emissions, control tech-
nologies, dose-response data, and ultimately, impacts,
but to date ERDs usually deal with only one or two of
these requirements.
With respect to the five specific areas I mentioned
earlier to be reviewed in ERDs, the first is the assess-
ment of current state of knowledge about environ-
mental concerns. Most ERDs treat this area insuffi-
ciently. They omit definitions of the origin and size of
environmental concerns. ERDs list concerns, but fail to
list underlying reasons for the concerns. ERDs give
mostly qualitative data and make minimal effort to
measure the relative importance of identified
environmental issues.
The second area is the analysis of the control
capabilities and costs. Some effort is made to assess
expected emissions from individual technologies and
the capabilities of feasible controls. ERDs also give cost
estimates of control, but do not document these costs
very well. (Total cost analysis is usually several pages.)
Since there is usually no explicit statement of the per-
cent reduction in various residuals available in the
documentation, one cannot determine what is being
"bought."
Third is the current and proposed regulations. In
ERDs, current and proposed regulations are listed in a
reasonable tabular fashion. These tables could be im-
proved by listing, where possible, the actual standards,
rather than merely stating what residual will need to be
controlled. This could provide some feeling about the
difficulty of reaching goals.
The fourth is the additional research required.
ERDs now merely list a potpourri of research needs and
their dollar costs. They should make some effort to
prioritize these needs.
104
-------
Statement of Dr. Morris
Finally are the potential "show-stoppers." ERDs
identify these potential show-stoppers, together with a
probability estimate of delay in the attainment of the
program goals because of environmental concerns. One
is not given the assumptions used in defining this prob-
ability, and, as a result, one cannot understand how the
table derives from the text.
ERDs could be improved significantly by limiting
the task requirements and systematically identifying
issues to be assessed. Environmental issues are now
identified haphazardly. A more logical approach, used
in many of the analyses at Brookhaven, would go
through the entire fuel cycles of each of the technologies
and identify possible environmental conflicts.
After this review, judgment should screen out less
important issues. The remaining environmental issues
should be assessed as quantitatively as possible, with
particular attention to source terms, transport
mechanisms, receptors, and responses.
Environmental issues should be fully referenced;
such a presentation would delete much of the present
qualitative speculation in ERDs. ERDs should explicitly
state when environmental data are not available. And
finally, ERDs should be updated every two or three
years.
To turn to EDPs, because the EDPs were the first
ERDA, and subsequently DOE, planning document to
combine technology development and consideration of
possible environmental impacts, they now include data
far in excess of the needs for a document intended to
serve primarily as a guide for program management
planning. As DOE has recognized, much of the scien-
tific assessment should be shifted to the future ERDs,
and EDPs should confine their coverage of these areas
to summaries of the analyses contained in the ERDs. To
implement this change in the emphasis of the two
documents, it is necessary to shift the bulk of the effort
to the ERD.
From an administrative perspective, a single sub-
contractor should be given full responsibility for the
preparation of the individual ERD or EDP. Since the
ERD is principally a scientific review, National
Laboratories—which has the necessary talent and
capabilities—should be responsible for their prepara-
tion. Furthermore, the same group should have con-
tinuing responsibility for revising ERDs when revisions
are required.
EDPs, on the other hand, which are management
planning documents, could more appropriately be
prepared by management consultants in cooperation
with DOE staff.
Figure 4 in the prepared testimony diagrams how
information will flow from the health and environmental
assessment to the ERDs and EDPs. It shows how
resulting research is incorporated in Health and En-
vironmental Effects Assessment Documents
(HEEADS}, ERDs and EDPs, and how HEEADS and
EDPs will guide the course of research by delineating
uncertainties that need reducing and gaps in knowledge
that need filling.
The health and environmental assessment area is a
scholarly, objective assessment of health and en-
vironmental impacts of energy technologies. This is a
very large task, and it's an obvious area where DOE and
EPA should combine efforts. EPA has a definite interest
in health and environmental assessment, and has in-
place assessment activities for many energy
technologies.
Cooperative efforts in this area would avoid
duplication and could have intellectually synergistic,
beneficial effects. An immediate advantage to EPA
would be closer awareness of details of the
technological processes that they would need in any
confirmatory evaluation. Such an active cooperative
program would not preclude an ultimate secondary
confirmatory evaluation by EPA.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there questions from the panel?
MS. HANMER: Dr. Morris, I'd be interested in
your assessment of the extent to which these
documents have had an impact on priorities and plan-
ning—substantive impact.
DR. MORRIS: That's a question I'm really not in a
good position to answer. I really don't know to what
extent these documents have actually been used in
framing and planning the DOE research plans.
DR. ATALLAH: Yes, Dr. Morris, you mentioned
that ERDs treat the assessment insufficiently from the
quantitative standpoint. I think there's one problem that
whoever does the assessment has, especially with new
technologies—-I know about biomass ones, as the im-
pact of marine plants, or the recovery of gas from
geopressure brines—the data are not there to do a
quantitative analysis. There aren't enough wells sunk to
measure subsidence, for instance, potential subsidence
effects, environmentally.
So it's very difficult to do an assessment when you
don't have the data. You guess. And so the nearest you
can do is do a qualitative analysis of it; identify the
potential problems.
DR. MORRIS: I agree. You can't do a quan-
titative analysis unless there are data. But one of the
things that the ERDs have to do is identify where there
are no data and systematically evaluate what the data
needs actually are.
DR. KINSEL: You mentioned that—or you
recommend, I guess, that the ERD, since it's principally
a scientific review, should perhaps go to the National
Laboratories, but as I'm sure you know, there's been
some criticism of the National Laboratory system over
the years, and a suggestion that perhaps too much
research is sent to the labs where there may be a certain
amount of inbreeding or at least not the range of new
105
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
ideas present that you might find if the research was
sent to schools not necessarily associated with the Na-
tional Labs, or perhaps to other research institutions.
Why is it you think that the National Labs are par-
ticularly well-suited to do this type of research, as com-
pared to outside groups?
DR. MORRIS: Well, I think the National
Laboratories have several advantages. They provide a
continuing organization to do this over a long period of
time. Also, since in a sense they're owned by DOE,
they're immediately available for this kind of work.
I don't think there's anything that would necessarily
preclude continuing responsibility for the preparation of
an environmental readiness document being given to a
research center at a university.
Most of the labs have extensive interactions with
universities, and in fact in many cases have cooperated
closely with universities in preparing and conducting this
kind of effort.
I think that the National Labs are a logical place to
put this responsibility, but my main point is that this is a
scientific effort and should go to a scientifically oriented
group, be it at a National Lab or a university.
The other important point, I think, is that it should
be a continuing effort. I think there have been too many
times, even in the short life of these kinds of documents,
where it's given to one group to do and then the follow-
ing year it's taken away from that group and given to an
entirely different group unfamiliar with the process.
There should be some kind of continuing responsibility
in a single group over a long period of time for the
development of these documents.
MR. BARFIELD: Wouldn't the document also be
better informed if there was some provision for public
comment, at least from the scientific and technological
community, in addition to whether it's from the labs or
the university group, whatever?
That someone knew that the DOE was preparing
these documents, that the time had come for this, and
had a chance to make comments one way or the other,
purely technical, or even scientific?
DR. MORRIS: Well, I think the document should
be a continuing thing. It can be reissued. The EDPs are
almost necessarily reissued annually in order to match
the budget planning.
The current schedule for ERDs is not for a regular
reissuance, but we think that the ERDs should be issued
on a regular basis—perhaps not annually, but at least
every two or three years.
MR. BARFIELD: But that doesn't get really to the
point. I mean let's say—I presume you're saying that
somebody could take a look at the first cut at it and
comment, but should there not be some built-in—would
it not be helpful to have some built-in process for public
comment?
DR. MORRIS: Well, I think a built-in process for
public comment in the process of developing the ERD
could be useful. I'm not sure how easily it could be done
administratively.
MR. BARFIELD: Couldn't the DOE announce,
or the Assistant Secretary for the Environment, just
announce that she was in the process of preparing or
having prepared an ERD, and anyone who wanted to
submit information on this particular technology should
do so, give the name in the Federal Register, or
wherever. It's not a difficult, complicated procedure.
DR. MORRIS: I don't see any reason not to do
that.
DR. REZNEK: I have some questions along the
same lines. _
This EDP and ERD process is an internal process,
and seems to go on before the decision to enter the
NEPA Environmental Impact Statement formulation.
One suggestion is to, in fact, make the environmental
research planning and the documentation assessment
of the results part of the NEPA process, and therefore
requiring a public review.
Do you feel that this internal planning and evalua-
tion process should precede the NEPA process and the
public review that that requires? Or that the two should
be integrated?
DR. MORRIS: Well, I think they have to be in-
tegrated in the sense that one feeds into the other. At
some point in the development of a technology, one or
maybe a series of Environmental Impact Statements
have to be prepared.
It's not clear that early in the research part or early
in the research stage there's a sufficient base to actually
begin a formal preparation of an environmental impact
statement, though, I don't think.
DR. REZNEK: In your testimony and in the proc-
ess itself there's an assumption that it is necessary to go
ahead on a particular technology and the environ-
mental evaluation follows that assumption, and there
are no explicit criteria for when a particular technology
should be stopped on environmental grounds, and
there is no cross-technology comparison on either the
performance grounds or environmental grounds to say
that this competing technology looks better than the
other one and therefore let's stop the first one.
Do you—your testimony seems strongly to
endorse that environmental evaluation does not have a
very effective role to play in deciding the scheduling of
the development. Do you feel that—is that a correct
interpretation of your position?
DR. MORRIS: No. I think that the comparative
assessments across technology can be very important
and very useful.
They're actually done at a slightly different level
than the Environmental Readiness Document and the
EDPs. Those documents clearly are associated with a
single technology, and evaluate potential environ-
mental problems with that technology.
106
-------
Statement of Mr. Rogers
That process has not really incorporated the notion
of setting criteria for a point at which a technology
becomes unacceptable.
I think what is incorporated is the weight of
evidence environmentally against a technology which
might, from the outside, determine unacceptability, so
that the technology development people will be aware
of the potential for future development of a given
technology running into trouble on those grounds.
And so while I don't think in this stage there is
necessarily an internal criteria for stopping the
technology, I think that it partly is recognizing outside
forces that may stop the technology.
Now somewhat independently, there is a con-
siderable effort at doing integrative, comparative assess-
ment of technologies across different fuel cycles. We're
deeply involved in this effort. The environmental
readiness documents really provide a base—right now a
limited base—for that, but potentially a substantial base
for doing such a comparative assessment.
DR. REZNEK: You would like to see a com-
parative assessment have both a formalized and a high
level role in the Department of Energy?
DR. MORRIS: Yes.
DR. KINSEL: You say that you are preparing to
make such a kind of comparative analysis of various
technologies. You're doing the work right now? Did I
understand that correctly?
DR. MORRIS: That's right. We've been doing
comparative assessments. We have carried out a com-
parative assessment a few years ago across the major
electric power sources. We have been continuing to
provide the basis for a comparative assessment by
building up necessary information on the different
technologies that can be fed into a comparative
assessment.
DR. KINSEL: Where does that information go in
the DOE decisionmaking process? Vou have the infor-
mation. How is it transferred to the people who have to
make the recommendations for budget purposes or
others?
DR. MORRIS: Well, the work that we've done on
comparative assessment goes into DOE through the Of-
fice of the Assistant Secretary for Environment.
DR. REZNEK: I have one more question. Within
any particular technology or range of tech-
nologies—and by particular technology I would say
Lurgi gasification and range all the gasification
processes. One question that you raise is are those
technologies being configured in an environmentally
optimal sense?
An earlier witness raised the question of whether or
not you generate the steam for the process out of the
feedstock out of coal, or whether you generate the
steam out of the product which is much cleaner,-the
synthetic natural gas.
Where are questions of environmental engineering
performance to be addressed in the scheme that you've
put forward?
DR. MORRIS: Weil, I think that those kinds of
questions are addressed at a couple of levels. For one,
they're addressed in the environmental effort that goes
on closely associated with the technology, and there
have been some efforts, for example, in the gasification
area, to look at engineering tradeoffs within the system
that will lessen the environmental impact, and those
efforts have gone on in the technology development
side of DOE, as opposed to the environmental side of
DOE.
Such considerations are or also can be easily part
of the environmental readiness documents in their
examination of the potential environmental concerns of
the technology.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much.
Our next witness is William Rogers of Gulf Oil
Corporation.
Statement of William L. Rogers, Manager,
Environmental Affairs,
Gulf Mineral Resources Co.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, members of the panel,
ladies and gentlemen, the opportunity to discuss en-
vironmental protection measures within the Department
of Energy's RD&D management process is appre-
ciated. My comments will be limited to the perspec-
tive I have gained through participation in the coal
liquefaction program The Pittsburg & Midway Coal
Mining is performing for the Department of Energy,
SRC-II.
I appeared before you in March 1978, a couple of
months before our contract for preliminary work leading
to a demonstration plant for SRC-II was signed. 1 em-
phasized at that appearance the desirability of setting
standards for emerging technologies as soon as the facts
are known, to encourage and speed the application of
new fuels.
This year I appear before you a couple of months
after we delivered results of "Phase Zero" of our con-
tract with DOE on SRC-II. Approval has now been
granted for us to proceed into Phase One, engineering
design for the SRC-II demonstration plant.
Since last year's Section 11 hearing, we have
gained considerable exposure to the DOE planning proc-
ess and have had the opportunity to define projected
environmental problems with SRC-II and lay plans to
solve these problems in timely fashion.
A comprehensive baseline data-gathering program
was instituted in July 1978, specific to the Morgantown,
West Virginia site for the SRC-II demonstration plant.
107
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
Baseline studies which have now been conducted
for a full year, have identified no environmental con-
cerns which would prevent construction of the pro-
posed SRC-II demonstration plant at this site. No critical
habitats and no rare or endangered species were en-
countered from the organisms collected at the site, and
literature searches indicated that none have existed in
the area in recent historic time.
Air quality measurements for background concen-
trations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon
monoxide, ozone, lead, and total suspended par-
ticulates are within National Ambient Air Standards,
although ozone levels have approached the standard.
The "guideline" for nonmethane hydrocarbons has
been greatly exceeded on occasion. It appears the
relatively high hydrocarbon concentrations are primarily
due to natural sources—for example, plant emana-
tions—and possible outgassing from old coal mines.
The water quality of surface streams in the vicinity
of the site is highly variable. Many streams offsite tend to
be polluted by acid mine drainage. Other offsite
streams, such as the Monongahela River, have better
water quality with a near-neutral pH and generally low
concentrations of trace elements. The two onsite
streams appear to have better water quality than other
streams in the vicinity.
Coal-derived liquids have long been known to
have some carcinogenic potential. Nonetheless, ex-
perience has demonstrated that proper industrial
hygiene procedures can adequately protect persons
who come in contact with the materials. DOE has com-
prehensive research and animal testing programs
underway to more precisely assess the carcinogenic
potential of process streams and products in the SRC-I
and SRC-H processes.
A research study is underway at the Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Washington; and
Gulf has been asked to initiate and direct a comprehen-
sive toxicology program. These studies will provide in-
formation to insure that carcinogenic effects can be
avoided in the operation of the SRC-II demonstration
plant.
Until these data are available, the present health
protection program at the Fort Lewis facility will serve as
the basis for a program to protect workers and nearby
residents from potential hazards. Based on data ob-
tained from the Fort Lewis Pilot Plant, we are confident
that larger plants can be operated without adverse
health effects on workers or residents in the vicinity.
From my vantage point, the Department of Energy
procedures and their implementation are quite
thorough in insuring environmental protection in the
performance of DOE programs.
The Environmental Impact Statement is a keystone
in DOE planning. The influence of the Assistant
Secretary for Health and Environment and her staff is
felt throughout the DOE energy development program.
Input from the public is sought in early phases of proj-
ects. During our Phase Zero program we assisted DOE
with a public scoping meeting held in Morgantown,
West Virginia on June 26, 1979, on which occasion
those people who will be most affected by the SRC-II
demonstration plant had the opportunity to hear
preliminary plans for the project and to comment. Addi-
tional public meetings have been scheduled by DOE for
Morgantown, West Virginia on October 22nd, 1979,
and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 23rd, 1979.
I had the privilege of working with the DOE Assis-
tant Secretary for Energy Technology and Assistant
Secretary for Environment representatives in the
development of the Project Environmental Plan for
SRC-II. This plan is quite comprehensive, addresses
potential environmental concerns, and certainly
underscores the strong influence that the Assistant
Secretary for Environment has on DOE projects.
The environmental laws we now have on the
books are, in my opinion, indeed adequate to control
the environmental consequences of DOE energy proj-
ects. Regulations now in force and being prepared for
promulgation by EPA will insure that emissions of all
conventional pollutants meet standards. What is
needed is close cooperation among DOE, EPA, and in-
dustry so that if the need arises to control additional
pollutants, beyond those now covered by regulations,
standards can be established and regulations pro-
mulgated in a timely fashion so as not to delay critical
projects such as the SRC-II demonstration plant.
In point of fact, there is widespread concern that
we have gone too far and that environmental laws,
rules, and regulations are unnecessarily delaying energy
projects which are critically needed by the nation. The
President has recommended, and the Congress is con-
sidering, an Energy Mobilization Board as an answer to
this, among other problems.
I believe the present DOE research and develop-
ment management system and the process within that
system for addressing environmental issues already pro-
vide more than adequate attention to environmental
questions, and that concerns expressed in the
workshops can be satisfied within that system.
Thank you very much.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Any questions?
MS. HANMER: Have you found in this particular
project—since you cited a "widespread" Concern that
we have gone too far—the environmental requirements
that have been placed upon your project and the
evaluations you have had to make to be either un-
necessary or irrelevant to the project?
MR. ROGERS: No, we have not at this point in
time. Any concern is prospective.
. DR. ATALLAH: Mr. Rogers, in your environmental
impact assessment, did you consider abnormal events
and the releases that could result on a one-time basis,
108
-------
Statement of Mr. Rogers
an accident resulting in the release of some of the
fluids—gases or liquids—into the streams or the air?
MR. ROGERS: That work is underway at this
time. It has not been completed. The environmental im-
pact statement for this project is in preparation, and we
are assisting the DOE by preparing an environmental
report. We will consider such releases.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to ask some questions
about carcinogenicity testing.
In your own mind, do you feel that at the end of
your test there will be sufficient data available from your
tests—and more importantly, perhaps, from other
sources—to do comparisons of the carcinogen risks
from synthetic liquids from coal versus petroleum
products, or direct liquids such as yours compared to in-
direct liquids such as the ones generated in the South
African process?
MR. ROGERS: Of the efforts of which I am
aware, the program that we are embarking upon for the
DOE will focus on SRC-I and SRC-II process in-
termediates, and materials, so from that program itself
we will not have comparative data on other materials.
However, the Department of Energy has quite a
comprehensive program underway at the Battelle
Northwest Laboratories, which is working to
characterize SRC-I and SRC-II and other materials, and
working to obtain toxicology results on them.
I believe substantial information of the kind that
you're talking about will be available upon completion
of the Battelle Northwest Laboratories effort.
DR. REZNEK: Do you believe that the EIS pro-
cess and the environmental review has substantially or
even in any way slowed down the development of your
project at Morgantown?
MR. ROGERS: Not to this point in time.
DR. REZNEK: Are you familiar with the new
CEQ guidelines on EIS preparation and do you feel that
those are a substantial improvement in the process?
MR. ROGERS: I do indeed. 1 believe that the em-
phasis on alternatives, the emphasis on seeking advice
and input from all sources at the outset of the prepara-
tion of an EIS is most constructive.
DR. REZNEK: Do you believe that the internal
Environmental Development Plans and Environmental
Readiness Document could or should be incorporated
in the new EIS process?
MR. ROGERS: I think that they could be, and it
might well make some sense.
Actually, the thing from my own experience that I
think we need to put more emphasis on is not so much
the formal system of preparing documents and cir-
culating documents, but to provide opportunities for
various segments of the public who are concerned with
these projects—like government agencies, the industry,
environmental community—to meet in forums where
questions can be discussed and interchange of views
can be had and mutual respect can be generated.
I was privileged to be appointed the chairman of
the Oil Shale Environmental Advisory Panel when I was
with the Department of the Interior some years ago
when the prototype oil shale program was just begin-
ning. This panel included representatives from the
Federal Government, the State governments, and the
environmental community, and I believe has proven to
be effective in bringing out, on the one hand, the con-
cerns of the environmentalists about that particular
development; and on the other hand the thinking of the
industry and the government as they planned the
program.
The National Coal Policy Project is another ex-
ample of this type, and I believe that attention should be
focused on trying to provide similar types of forums with
respect to other elements of the energy development
program.
DR. REZNEK: Yesterday we heard several
witnesses also comment on this, and I raised the ques-
tion then about in certain instances having third par-
ties—be they State governments or federations of coun-
ties or any other third party—as a management agency
for such forums. Do you feel that a third party involve-
ment can, in certain instances, improve that process?
MR. ROGERS: In certain instances I'm sure it
could, but it is so sensitive to the qualifications and
characteristics of the individual who is placed in charge
that I would be reluctant to establish that as a policy.
I think in general it might be best to have an official
from the Department of the government, which is
responsible for the project, chair the operation to insure
that it moves along, has continuity, and so forth, but on
occasion there might be an individual from a "third
party" group which could be effective in that role.
DR. AT ALLAH: In the hearing that you had in
West Virginia, I was wondering whether the public was
prepared educationally and technically to respond to
some of the problems that the environmental impact
assessment did consider. Is the public really capable of
taking an adverse position, if they wanted to? Do they
have the funds to hire consultants to do that for them?
MR. ROGERS: Generally not. I believe, though,
that this meeting—which was a scoping meeting at the
outset of the environmental impact statement pro-
cess—perhaps should not be expected to provide the
kind of input that you're speaking of. I think that the
objective there is to be sure that areas of concern on the
part of the public have not been overlooked in the
preparation of the impact statement. I would expect that
the kind of analysis and criticism that you're seeking
might well come out in the hearing on the draft en-
vironmental impact statement.
DR. STOLPMAN: I've got a couple of questions.
On page 2 you indicate that air quality
measurements on concentrations of—and I think you're
going through all the criteria pollutants, but you indicate
109
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
carbon dioxide. Did you mean carbon monoxide there
for the measurements you took? Or were those—
MR. ROGERS: Yes, that's right. I'm sorry about
that.
DR. STOLPMAN: And later on you indicate that
the nonmethane hydrocarbon guidelines are greatly ex-
ceeded. Do you remember or do you recall what those
levels are that you're talking about there?
MR. ROGERS: I don't recall the levels. I
remember that it was around five percent of the total
time or the total number of measurements that were
taken and were—
DR. STOLPMAN: Does "greatly" imply double?
Triple?
MR. ROGERS: As I recall Jt was within double.
DR. STOLPMAN: Okay. Then you go on to say
that it appears that those concentrations are primarily
due to natural sources. What technique did you use to
determine that or come to the conclusion that they were
natural sources and not transport or manmade sources
or something like that?
MR. ROGERS: That was an analytical conclusion
of the experts that we had working on the program. It's
really not supported by any body of data.
DR. STOLPMAN: Okay, thank you.
DR. KINSEL: I'd like to follow up on a question
that was asked a little earlier. On your page five you
say, "In point of fact, there is widespread concern that
we have gone too far and that environmental laws,
rules, and regulations are unnecessarily delaying energy
projects which are critically needed by the nation."
I'd ask you to expand on that, whether the stand-
ards are such that you feel plants cannot meet them, or
whether the permitting process is so slow that it's caus-
ing delay.
MR. ROGERS: ! believe that the main area of
concern, at least so far as I'm concerned, is in the per-
mitting process, and in the total governmental legislative
and regulatory scene, which can on occasion result in
unnecessary delay.
DR. KINSEL: So you were not objecting—I
assume Gulf Oil is not objecting to the level of the stand-
ards that the laws and regulations imply.
MR. ROGERS: That is correct. Not at all.
DR. KINSEL: What, in your experience from the
other side of the permitting process, is the problem with
delay? Is it too few people in government agencies to
process the permits in a timely manner, do you feel?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, in some cases. In some cases
that is responsible, and in some cases it's the profusion
of permits required at various governmental levels and
conflicts between the governmental levels as to the ap-
proach. In some cases it is ambiguous language in the
law. It—there's a number of sources.
DR. KINSEL: Okay, I have one additional ques-
tion. I don't want to take too much time, Steve, but it's
my understanding that the product of the SRC-II pro-
cess is very similar to conventional residual oil? Is that
correct?
MR. ROGERS: That's right. It's used for the same
purpose.
DR. KINSEL: Yes. I also have heard criticism of
this process that there is now and will be in the future a
surplus or an expected surplus of resid. Is that correct?
Since it is a by-product of cracking of petroleum and we
have certain fixed demands for some of the other prod-
ucts of the product, that we may not be in such short
supply on residua] oil as some of the other products,
such as gasoline.
MR. ROGERS: I really am not in a position to
answer your question. I believe that SRC-H provides an
opportunity to produce a product that is now supplied
from petroleum sources, and that through its develop-
ment we help lead the nation to the position where we
do not require so much petroleum for satisfying our
energy needs.
Now, I grant it may not be that simple and there
may be other things required as well in order to truly
remove totally the requirement for offshore petro-
leum, but this is one step which can help us in that
direction.
DR. ATALLAH: Going back to the same question
about the profusion of requirements for permits, are
there superfluous permits required, that shouldn't be
there?
MR. ROGERS: In some cases there are.
DR. ATALLAH: Or is it just the number that you
have to go through? Could they be combined in,any way?
MR. ROGERS: In some cases there are. I'm strug-
gling with a situation right now in the nuclear licensing
area, the uranium mill and mine that we have projected
in New Mexico, in which the Congress passed a law
called the Uranium Mill Tailings Act that is a fine law
and has proper provisions—nothing wrong with the
standards—but unfortunately, because of a defect in the
language, it appeared that in agreement states, where
there was agreement for the state to license the facility,
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was directed
by the Congress to assume licensing authority over
byproduct materials in those agreement states imme-
diately for a three-year period, and the State could not
assume that until three years after the date of the law.
And whereas we had been working with the State
and the State had been employing the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission as a consultant in their licens-
ing action, so there was no substantive technical con-
cern, we found ourselves required to obtain, in addition
to the license from the State, a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which—since of course that's
a Federal action—required an environmental impact
statement, and we were unfortunately saddled with a
delay in the licensing action, under those cir-
cumstances—which really does not address substantive
characteristics of the project. It is just a procedural mat-
ter that causes delay. That's just one specific example
that I know about.
DR. STEVEN REZNEK: Thank you very much,
Mr. Rogers.
110
-------
Statement of Ms. Tachau
Our next witness is Susan Tachau of the National
Center for Appropriate Technology.
Could you see—perhaps we're not getting out to
the audience—
MS. SUSAN TACHAU: No, it's not on.
DR. STEVEN REZNEK: One of them is the
recording mike, and one is the public address system.
MS. SUSAN TACHAU: Okay.
Statement of Susan Tachau, Assistant Director
Washington, D.C. Office of the
National Center for Appropriate Technology
MS. SUSAN TACHAU: I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding Sec-
tion 11 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and
Development Act.
The National Center for Appropriate Technology,
NCAT, is a nonprofit corporation with its headquarters
in Butte, Montana. NCAT was established two years
ago through a grant from the Community Services Ad-
ministration to develop and apply appropriate
community-based technology to meet the specific needs
of low-income people and to promote locally-based
programs that develop individual-based and community-
based self-reliance.
At our Montana location, our staff of seventy-five is
developing a number of environmentally sound and
energy conserving technologies which all have a great
potential for producing or conserving significant
amounts of energy for our country. However, in order
for these technologies to make a significant national im-
pact, the Federal government must make the effort to
spread them as fast and furiously as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the comments I wish to make re-
garding the Program and Project Management System
followed by the Department of Energy are based on a
single guiding principle. The principle is that the end-
use for which the energy is required should determine,
as much as possible, the source and form of the energy
to be employed for that use. The choice should be
based on considerations of conservation or, in other
words, of energy economy. This means that preference
should always be shown for forms of energy that, while
remaining compatible with the end-use to which they
are put, are as direct as possible, involve as little capital-
intensive technology as possible, and come, as much as
possible, from renewable sources. There are some end-
uses, for example, for which electricity is the only
suitable form of energy, but heating homes with elec-
tricity supplied by oil-fired or nuclear-powered plants is
not such an end-use. There are less costly and more
efficient forms of energy for heating homes than such
plants offer.
Many appropriate technologies are very large
energy savers and do not have the adverse envi-
ronmental effects associated with conventional large
scale technologies. Many of these technologies are
being developed at NCAT today. Allow me to list them:
passive solar heating and cooling, weatherization train-
ing and technology development, microhydropower,
solar reliant greenhouses, alcohol fuels, organic
agriculture and community gardens, low-cost solar
water heating, and biogas production. Development
and application of these technologies need to be made a
part of our national energy program. All of these
technologies conserve or displace petroleum and all
have very small detrimental effects, if any, on the
environment.
The major review process for R&D projects by high
level DOE officials is called the Program and Project
Management System, PPMS. The PPMS only reviews
major system technologies. These are systems that are
generally of high technical complexity and of very high
cost. Appropriate technologies, on the other hand, are
by definition low-cost and uncomplicated, and, as such,
are very unlikely to be included in the PPMS review
system.
Also, the PPMS review process does not take into
consideration alternative small-scale technologies when
it evaluates a particular major system technology. !n
other words, it does not consider other ways to obtain
the energy which is proposed for production by the
technology under consideration. The PPMS is con-
cerned with determining if the technology is sound, the
cost acceptable, and the environmental effects
manageable; but it is not concerned with matching
technologies to end-uses for energy in order to achieve
maximum conservation.
If technological alternatives are not reviewed, then
energy conservation possibilities will not be addressed,
nor will appropriate technologies or other alternatives
be addressed which might produce more economically
the same amount of energy as the large-scale
technologies being considered.
There are also some problems with the assessment
of environmental impact of major system technologies
in the PPMS review process. Most of the assessment of
the environmental impact is generally done on the
national level. Most of the serious environmental effects
of the new large-scale technologies will be felt most
severely at the regional and local levels where the
energy facilities are actually located. These effects must
be examined closely. Coincidentally, it is at the regional
and local level where appropriate technology's environ-
mental soundness will be most obvious. Thus, small-
scale appropriate technologies could be implemented
much more rapidly and economically than complex
mega-scale projects.
Mr. Chairman, we understand that DOE faces a
very great challenge, and a bias in favor of large-scale,
expensive technologies is, perhaps.to be expected. But
we would urge DOE to consult with NCAT and other
advocates of appropriate technologies more freely and
more frequently than they appear to be doing. We at
NCAT also recommend the following changes in the
DOE PPMS review system: First, change the PPMS
review process so that it includes consideration of small-
scale technologies capable of producing equivalent
111
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
amounts of energy, either by generation or conserva-
tion, thereby reducing adverse environmental effects,
and; second, make sure that the environmental analysis
done under the PPMS review process includes regional
and local impacts of technologies under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, that con-
cludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you and will try to answer any questions
you have.
DR. STEVEN REZNEK: Thank you very much.
Are there questions?
MR. CLAUDE BARFIELD: How does the DOE
evaluate the list—let's take the list that you gave of
appropriate technologies now. Is it just done by the
Assistant Secretaries—relevant Assistant Secretaries—
MS. SUSAN TACHAU: There is one Assistant
Secretary who should be evaluating appropriate
technology—that's the Assistant Secretary for Conser-
vation and Solar Applications. Under that section is the
Office of Small-Scale Technology, which has been very
helpful to us. In addition, the Office of Consumer Af-
fairs has been involved to some extent in promoting ap-
propriate technologies. Other than that, though, I don't
really believe appropriate technologies and energy con-
servation are seriously considered in DOE.
MR. CLAUDE BARFIELD: I think-it occurs to
me that it might make sense not to try to integrate
yourself in the PPMS, which may be asking sets of ques-
tions and have the kind of analysis that might not be
even relevant to the kinds of things you're after. But, it
might make sense to beef up a second process for, so-
called, appropriate technologies and small, more cost-
effective technologies.
MS. SUSAN TACHAU: That is a good idea. But
we are still interested in having some input in the
analysis of the large-scale technologies.
MR. CLAUDE BARFIELD: But that's a different
set of questions, I think. It doesn't preclude having a
separate kind of system for the kind of technologies
you're interested in. Do you see what I'm saying? You
could still try to have some input into the other analysis.
MS. SUSAN TACHAU: I think you're right.
We're trying to have as much input as possible, and
we seem to have very little contact in other organiza-
tions like ours, so we have very little input.
DR. BISHOP: You emphasize in a number of
places that there is a need to examine technologies
based on their overall energy efficiency or economy,
and looking at smaller appropriate technologies which
could supply the same equivalent energy as large-scale
technologies.
Have you attempted to actually do that in any
of—with any of the appropriate technologies and deter-
mine if sufficient capacity of small dispersed nature
could actually displace—
MS. TACHAU: Yes.
DR. BISHOP: —certain large-scale technologies?
And could you comment on that?
MS. TACHAU: Yes, I am fairly new to the
organization, but our R&D staff in Burte has indeed
done this, and I don't have the exact figures, but for
instance with various passive solar and active solar
systems you can heat a home more efficiently and more
economically than with many other energy sources, like
centrally-generated electricity or oil.
DR. BISHOP: Have you been able to examine
the environmental effects of small technology explicitly,
or are these statements of a kind of general sense and if
it's small it!s not—
MS. TACHAU: No, in fact we-
DR. BISHOP: —going to have as large an
impact?
MS. TACHAU: No. In fact, we have been
monitoring committees which go out to study the envi-
ronmental effects of our projects. We have one right
now that is monitoring small-scale alcohol stills. We feel
this is very important.
DR. BISHOP: And does that analysis take into
consideration an aggregation of such facilities—
MS. TACHAU: Yes it does.
DR. BISHOP: —in terms of their total impact,
even though dispersed, and further, does it look at the
total materials cycle involved in producing these
technologies?
MS. TACHAU: Yes it does. That's one of the
things that we're very concerned with, is that we
try—we are monitoring the entire system, the entire
process. We do want to have the technologies dispersed
and while we're looking at the local, community impact
of those technologies, we're also not forgetting to look
at the aggregate, nationwide effects of these things.
DR. STOLPMAN: You indicate that the PPMS
review process doesn't take into consideration alter-
native small-scale technologies when it evaluates par-
ticular major system technologies. What do you have in
mind as the—as what you would like to see that proc-
ess—I mean would you like to see an evaluation of
small-scale energy alternatives that could be funded
at equivalent levels, or exactly what are you looking
for there?
MS. TACHAU: They wouldn't need to be funded
at equivalent levels, but when you evaluat^ a
technology with every step, see if that is the end use that
you want, see if that is the type of technology that can
best produce the amount of energy that you want, and
protect the environment at the same time.
DR. STOLPMAN: But if you determine that—
MS. TACHAU: Then you would stop—
DR. STOLPMAN: —passive solar is the bet-
ter, more cost effective, less—more environmentally
sound—
MS. TACHAU: Then you would be promoting
passive solar instead of the others.
112
-------
Statement of Ms. Tachau
DR. STOLPMAN: Then you'd stop funding the
major—are you basically saying that that then should go
into the budget considerations and you would stop
funding the major utilities?
MS. TACHAU: Well, I'm not sure I would stop
funding all of them. It would depend on what the other
technology was and what it was capable of producing.
I would certainly not rule out stopping funding of par-
ticularly objectional technologies and generating the
energy they were to produce by various appropriate
technologies.
DR. REZNEK: One other witness on the first day
of testimony commented very similarly to you that the
major management decision now is whether or not to
move on in-scale in a particular technology, and he sug-
gested that the major management review be in the
in-use sector—for example, home heating—and it
include—that major management review include a
comparison of all alternatives to provide home
heating—conservation, appropriate solar, gaseous
fuels, liquid fuels, and electricity—and in each of those
reviews to lay down the research problems associated
with each one of those, what the return on Federal
investment in R&D would be, and then to select a pro-
gram not on a single technology, but on a total program
designed around home heating, for example.
Would you endorse that concept?
MS. TACHAU: Yes I would.
DR. AT ALLAH: Some of these programs that you
list, the eight programs, appear nice on paper, but when
you think about them—I'm not qualified to talk about
solar energy, but you look at the weatherization, alcohol
fuels, and biogas production. There may be more risks
involved to the individual farmer who might build a little
still in the backyard1 or a biogas production facility,
where you're now exposing a person who's not trained
technically to a new technology, whereas in the other
case, where you concentrate your environmental prob-
lems under the control and assessment of technical peo-
ple, it might be less risky for that farmer.
MS. TACHAU: I agree with you. That is why
when we have these grants and we promote these pro-
jects, we also have a training manual and we send
people out to help them.
It is very important that people know how to
operate these technologies.. Of course, much
appropriate technology, like weatherization, isn't so
difficult.
DR. ATALLAH: Right, but you could accumulate
toxic gases in the house.
MS. TACHAU: Well yes, but that's not really a
problem. We're not talking about airtight houses, here.
Previously there may have been some problems with in-
sulating, but our studies have now shown that even in
very well-insulated houses, there is enough leakage that
there's always enough fresh air ventilation to prevent
buildup of noxious gases. I don't know the details here.
If you want, I can get back to you on this.
Of course, there can be risks, like with alcohol stills,
simply because more people are getting involved in the
energy-producing process. But that's why we think
training is so important, that's why we produce so many
detailed manuals that tell people exactly what to do. Let
me add one thing. There may be direct threats to
people's safety with some appropriate technologies, but
there are also many fewer indirect threats, like air pollu-
tion from coal burning, radiation release from nuclear
accident, or water shortage caused by high water use
from synthetic fuel plants. So, things more than balance
out. In fact, I'm sure you're not surprised to hear that I
think that greater safety will definitely come with
appropriate technology.
DR. ATALLAH: We also have seat belts, but-
MS. TACHAU: —but it's very important that
people are in control of their energy resources.
MS. HANMER: I thought your statement was
very good. I wonder, what acceptance are you finding
at the State and local level, both for the concepts of
appropriate technology and for specific projects?
MS. TACHAU: Really very good acceptance. In
Montana, for instance, we have a great deal of support
from the Senators, the Congressmen, and the people in
Butte, and we're showing that these technologies
actually work. Our—it's very hard to convince people
appropriate technologies work when you don't see any
examples.
We've been in existence for two years. People are
finally hearing about us. They know about our
greenhouses. They know about our solar panels.
Weatherization is showing significant conservation
effects. So now it's getting much easier. It's much easier
to work with the people and to show them that it works
now.
We have a project in Portland, Oregon, or Eugene,
Oregon, where all the technologies are being in-
tegrated, and the whole community is working on this.
DR. STOLPMAN: In your development of these
appropriate technologies, what kind of environmental
monitoring are you doing?
Let me give you an example. In the weatherization
I think the point that was being made down here is
when you lower the turnover of the exchange rate of air
in your home you can get build-up of perhaps—
MS. TACHAU: Right.
DR. STOLPMAN: —radon or some other—
maybe NO2 or some other noxious pollutants.
Do you, as—in developing or pushing these
technologies, do you have a monitoring program going
that would indicate whether indeed you're creating
environmental problems with these technologies?
MS. TACHAU: We are constantly evaluating the
environmental effects of our programs. If you want
113
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
specifics, though, for example, on the radon-toxic gas
issue, as I said before, ! will have to get back with you.
DR. KINSEL: I'd like to ask a question about the
analysis you alluded to that you're doing.
One of the things we find in Washington that gets
the attention of members of Congress or policymakers is
some analysis of the cost of a barrel of oil equivalent
saved. We have discussed already this morning and
apparently previous witnesses have gone into con-
siderable detail about the need for some type of cross-
fuel comparison.'
That's very difficult based on perhaps straight en-
vironmental assessments, but one thing which is
relatively simple to use as a cross-comparison are the
dollars invested versus the energy which is saved or the
cost of energy produced.
When that type of analysis is applied, all kinds of
interesting things happen from the perspective of those
concerned about the environment. Conservation takes
on a much more impressive role in the future energy
policies of the country, and some other things—like,
synthetic fuels—are put into what my organization, at
least, and others feel is a more proper perspective in
terms of the role that they should play.
Are you doing any of that type of analysis, even
taking into account the labor costs of building passive
solar devices or greenhouses to assist in heating? Are
you coming up with any kinds of numbers on this?
MS. TACHAU: Yes.
DR. KINSEL: —what the cost of oil equivalent
saved is?
MS. TACHAU: Yes. Our research and develop-
ment organization in Butte is doing that, and I know
some round figures, but not specifics, but I could get
back in touch with you on those.
DR. REZNEK: In your second recommendation
you stress the inclusion of local and regional impacts in
the entire process of review within the Department of
Energy, and this is a subject that several people have
commented on, obviously a difficult question.
Do you—have you thought of ways in which you
can accomplish both local and State review without pro-
longing that review process indefinitely?
MS. TACHAU: It would prolong it, but I would
think it is important to still have those inputs, and it's
important that the local people and the whole region
has some input into those technologies which would af-
fect them directly.
Right now it's my understanding that when we for
instance are developing a coal gasification .plant, you
are trying to determine on the national level how many
BTUs it will produce, rather than how that plant will
affect that community. Consideration is not placed into
what will need to be done for that community, what
Federal programs will be affected, what new schools,
what new highways, what the people actually want in
that community, whether they—you know, how much
energy that community will receive from that plant.
So it's important that they have the input and I
think it is important that the process continue, even
though it will prolong it perhaps a little bit.
DR. REZNEK: There has been a suggestion that
at the national level certain concerns—for example, im-
pacts on CO2 and temperature of the global environ-
ment; general health assessments of the pollutants that
are emitted—that the national assessment deal with
those kinds of questions and that both the authority and
the responsibility for the review of the individual site im-
pacts be delegated to a more decentralized authority, a
regional authority of the Department of Energy, or
some other responsible individuals, that that delegation
process take place and that these reviews be done con-
currently.
Would you favor such, or—
MS. TACHAU: I think I would. I'd have to know
more.
DR. REZNEK: If there are no other questions, I'd
like to thank the witnesses very much. I feel that the
testimony this morning has been very good, and ex-
tremely helpful to us.
We will reconvene at 10:45.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
DR. REZNEK: Our next witness is Neil Seldman
from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
DR. SELDMAN: Thanks, Steven.
Statement of Neil Seldman
Director of Waste Utilization
Institute for Local Self-reliance
DR. SELDMAN: It's good to be here. I am
presenting testimony that was developed by myself and
Richard Anthony, Solid Waste Coordinator for Fresno
County, California. We understand that EPA's involve-
ment in evaluating the adequacy of DOE programs is
certainly appropriate, especially since DOE and EPA,
along with the Department of Commerce, are jointly
responsible for resource recovery planning and
implementation.
Earlier this year in Atlanta—Section 11 hearings
identified very specific questions and concerns with
DOE's urban waste programs. In brief, these are:
• The extent to which actual project implementation
concurs with legislative policy mandates.
• The lack of involvement of a broad range of
alternative energy and conservation public ad-
vocates in Program Development and Program
Management.
• The failure of DOE to encourage funding of re-
cycling—that is source separation recycling—and
community scale waste utilization development.
• Source separation programs have proven to be
viable. They can and have increased the efficiency
of combustion of remaining fractions of solid waste.
114
-------
Statement of Dr. Seldman
• Criteria for establishing priorities for funding which
determine that only projects which cost $50
million, minimum, are considered.
• The lack of emphasis on the development of lower
cost technologies and processes which have proven
viable and are based on the development of long-
term conservation and recycling habits by citizens.
Let me give you a rather graphic example of how
DOE programs are intended to discourage recycling.
Currently, DOE's urban waste technology program is
contemplating an entitlements benefit for producing
BTUs from burning garbage, based on $2.07 per barrel
of oil equivalent, or 5.7 million BTUs. Well, I've done
calculations which are included in an attachment to this
testimony, which you can look at, which indicate that if
D.C. was to burn its 2000 tons of garbage per day, it
would generate about 20 billion BTUs per day which
would entitle it to about $7000 a day in entitlements.
However, if it were to recycle its material, it would save
about 21 billion BTUs of energy, and that calculation is
based on the energy cost of producing materials from
secondary raw materials, as opposed to virgin. And,
yet, D.C. or any other city would get no entitle-
ment benefits from "producing" that energy through
recycling.
I think another thing that came out of the Atlanta
session was the utter frustration that professional
recyclers, private enterprise recyclers, and municipal
recyclers have in trying to communicate with the
Department of Energy. The reporting on waste utiliza-
tion in Atlanta did not have full data. It did not identify
the limits and risks of large-scale combustion
technologies, and it certainly did not report on the
progress and breakthroughs by community-based,
municipal, and private enterprise recyclers.
The Federal government's urban waste technology
program as is currently established is bypassing the
approach for conservation through recycling and for
implementing community-based recycling, in favor of
centralized, large-scale, so called "black box" ap-
proaches. Despite about a half a billion dollars worth of
public and private investments, over the last decade,
these large systems have a rather mediocre track
record. I should point out that currently seven percent
of this country's solid waste stream is recycled through
source separation recycling by businesses and
households. One percent is recycled through combus-
tion and energy recovery. And yet, virtually the total
program of DOE, EPA, and the Department of Com-
merce has been to invest monies in the latter approach,
providing no funds for the former, although the former
is currently recycling seven times as much materials as
the latter.
I should also point out that the costs for recycling
are much smaller than for centralized treatment, and of
course you should remember that the investment in
recycling is an investment in long term socialization and
habits of consumers and industry.
The national network containing technical
assistance, information dissemination, technology
developments using input from a decentralized network
of professional recyclers, and a national advisory
research board for resource recovery programs would
aid in the fast implementation of such an energy conser-
vation effort. Federal policy implementation activities
can be maximized through joint private sector,
community-based enterprises which would create
permanent local markets for solid waste materials,
reducing the need for government regulatory action.
A specific case which demonstrates problems
caused by the present method of priorities is the situa-
tion in Memphis, Tennessee. There, EPA and DOE are
actively promoting a co-disposal plant which would pur-
port to burn mixed waste and sewage sludge for energy
recovery, despite the opposition of local government,
local private sector, and local public interest individuals.
This situation is extremely urgent, and I suggest that this
panel, or another panel, take a very close look at the
planning process and public participation process going
on in Memphis, right now, around those proposed
series of plants around that city. In a note, which you
can refer to here, there are extensive and professional
critiques of the EPA/DOE plan, and they must be
addressed.
Based on the preceding information, we make the
following specific recommendations: One—DOE and
EPA present development of technical and scientific
information is insufficient as it does not consider ad-
vancement of such technologies as cryogenic rubber
processing, glass plastic extruding technologies, com-
posting, vermicomposting technologies, small-scale
recycling industries for paper, glass, and metals
recovered from waste. Similarly, DOE's Urban Waste
Technology Program has ignored these needed
technical developments. Investment in participatory
systems should be preferred over investment in expen-
sive hardware so that resource and energy conservation
can be maximized.
Two—Each agency should rethink the steps
necessary to maximize conservation. Involvement of
community in recycling will raise the efficiency of any
ultimate disposal system by incineration effort by
removing noncombustibles from the waste stream. In
some respects, land burial where recovery could be
made when necessary may be more practical than a
capital intensive system which would destroy resources
for a rather ephemeral BTU value.
Three—Development of a Technical Assistance
Network tapping local recycling expertise to provide
help to local jurisdictions. Local agencies that now exist
can provide professional assistance to Federal agencies.
EPA, DOE, and the Department of Commerce can
115
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
revamp their programs to include maximum involve-
ment of such professionally competent organizations as
the four state recycling associations in California,
Washington, Oregon, Colorado, the one in New York
City, and the West Michigan Environmental Action
Council in Michigan. These people have been investing
the better part of a decade in developing professional
competence, track records, and run very successful,
economically viable programs. At this point, they have
virtually no input to EPA, DOE, Department of Com-
merce planning for resource recovery. They've been
specifically excluded.
Four—Development of a nationwide education
and information program, modeled after the best
aspects of state programs in Washington, Oregon,
California and Maine to produce and disseminate
literature, reports, films, slide shows, technical forums
and computerized reporting. For an example, the In-
stitute for Local Self-Reliance for Fresno County
developed and distributed materials regarding grant
information and technology developments to local
officials, and community representatives in Fresno. The
local government there has no capability for
disseminating this information. An EPA survey dated
1972 revealed that 90% of housewives surveyed would
be willing to source separate their household waste for
recycling. (Whether most of that 90% would pay a
higher monthly fee in order to support recycling is vir-
tually unknown.) A Fremont, Seattle report on a typical
neighborhood of mixed income and racial composition,
a neighborhood program now getting 68% participation
for voluntary curbside recycling and a California State
Solid Waste Management report indicating breakeven
levels—tonnage breakeven levels—for economically
viable recycling programs—none of these reports are
made available to the public.
I want to point out that recycling is usually criticized
for not being able to support itself economically. Well,
no waste system supports itself economically. However,
recycling is the one system that comes closest to sup-
porting itself in direct costs, and in terms of indirect costs
benefits the community in terms of employment, educa-
tional spinoffs, and community effects. Those non-
quantifiable benefits are not included when I say that
recycling comes closest to paying for itself in a sector of
the economy which is completely subsidized and tradi-
tionally has been completely subsidized.
Another major source of information is the "650"
grant proposals in California. Recyclers in that state,
along with industry, presented a program now in effect,
which is funneling $5 million a year for infrastructure in-
vestment in recycling. There are about forty very
technically competent proposals submitted to the Solid
Waste Management Board which would make wonder-
ful reading, and excellent training for recyclers, com-
munity groups, and cities across the country. This infor-
mation must be disseminated.
Five—DOE must establish new criteria for projects
based on net energy benefits, maximum payoff in
energy returns per dollar invested, and establish a
small grants program for urban waste technology
development.
Six—A national citizen's advisory board should be
formed to review and recommend to DOE, EPA and
DOC policy for a resource recovery program. It could
also suggest impacts of proposed projects in regard to
conservation, environmental protection, economic
development, and citizen participation. The board
could be chosen from among community-based,
municipal and private enterprise process or manufac-
turing recyclers, energy recovery combustion unit
manufacturers, environmentalists, educators and
equipment manufacturers. Subcommittees for each
region could be established to evaluate programs and
identify and prioritize research needs, hear or publish
reports on new and developing technologies and par-
ticipation processes. They would serve to channel infor-
mation to DOE, EPA and DOC, as well as to State and
local levels. This program could be integrated into
existing Section 11 processes.
Seven—DOE should develop a waste utilization
research and development program to stimulate
economy-of-scale analysis and demonstration of
manufacturing technologies which could, at little or no
increase in per unit cost of production, produce
products for local markets using the solid waste stream
as materials in the solid waste stream as the primary
feedstock to the industry. The RCRA mandate to
develop markets for recycled materials and DOE's
primary responsibility for development and commer-
cialization of projects for funding could create funding
for these types of programs which would create a local,
steady demand for raw materials coming from the solid
waste stream. I point out that in the City of Seattle, right
now, 19% of the solid waste stream is being recycled
through private enterprise buy-back centers—with no
involvement of the Federal or local governments.
Local governments and the Federal Government
could reduce regulatory activity by utilizing private sec-
tor and community-based mechanisms as a positive
price incentive which would replace the need for
Federal Government intrusion in local government and
the private sector. Such a program could also
encourage joint private/public ventures and could
integrate positive private enterprise and community-
based organizations.
We believe that these steps will allow DOE, EPA
and DOC to better achieve their mission to develop and
commercialize technologies that are economically
practical, technically feasible, and environmentally ac-
ceptable, while at the same time increase public partic-
ipation in planning, implementation and evaluation.
Right now, the country is making an investment in
solid waste technology. Roughly, a half billion dollars of
116
-------
Statement of Dr. Seldman
Federal money will be used over the next three or four
years to develop technologies. I would say that virtually
no thought has gone into the opportunity costs
associated with investment in high technology cen-
tralized development. That is, the cost of not making
those funds available to decentralized recycling ap-
proaches. The opportunity costs can be tremendous. I'll
give you one very quick example in the City of New
Orleans. Since 1973, the City of New Orleans has been
working under a contract with a private resource
recovery firm. The City has to deliver 650 tons per day
of solid waste to that facility. The City can undertake no
activity to change the amount in the City's solid waste,
or the composition of the City's solid waste. If they do,
they have to pay financial penalties. I've just come back
from New Orleans where there is a strong coalition of
community groups that want to start implementing
cryogenic processing of rubber tires, alcohol derived
from organic waste, small-scale paper manufacturing,
small-scale smelting and product manufacturing, along
with a host of other technologies, which have been
demonstrated or are about to be demonstrated. They've
gone to their City for assistance, but their City cannot
give them that assistance. They would be in violation of
their contract with the resource recovery firm. That is a
major opportunity cost for those community develop-
ment corporations in those cities which have the
resources if they could have access to Federal, local and
state money for implementation of these technologies
which provide employment, orientation toward conser-
vation, and as I said before, community effect.
It would be a great tragedy if citizen's groups, and
community development corporations in the City of
New Orleans, and in other cities, could not pursue that
alternative path toward resource recovery because of
"up front" biases on the part of Federal administrators
who simply do not want to consider recycling. This bias
is pervasive, not only in the government, it's in private
industry and it appears in the highest levels of
academia.
I'll give you another example. Last week, people
participated in an AAAS Research Agenda Conference,
for resource recovery. New technologies and develop-
ing technologies were not considered. Reports were
given in which people outwardly stated they have a bias
against recycling, therefore, they didn't consider it.
These attitudes have to change, and recyclers and
citizen's groups and environmentalists have formed the
Committee for a National Recycling Policy to make sure
that they do change, and that the public becomes aware
of the choices now available in the resource recovery
investment.
This Committee was formed earlier this year, and
it's based on the following five principles: 1. That com-
prehensive recycling of solid waste is essential for the
preservation of the nation's natural resources. 2. That
comprehensive recycling of solid waste is essential for
the stability of economic growth which is currently
threatened by the scarcity and high costs of energy and
raw materials. 3. That comprehensive recycling of solid
waste is essential for the education of citizens to less
wasteful consumption and disposal habits. 4. That com-
prehensive recycling and utilization of solid waste is
essential for the community and economic develop-
ment of the nation's declining inner-city and rural areas.
5. That comprehensive recycling of solid waste is com-
patible with energy systems planned to burn wastes after
recyclables are extracted from the solid waste stream.
Committee members include 100 of the leading
private sector, university, community-based en-
vironmental groups, researchers and practitioners from
around the country. The resources and cumulative ex-
periences and professional skills of the Committee are
available to this Panel, and/or any other forums you
might recommend to help develop management and
technical programs to implement comprehensive recycl-
ing in the economy. The Committee represents those
individuals who have invested ten years to the realiza-
tion of environmentally sound and economically viable
solid waste management. They would now like to see
these accomplishments broaden through participation
in Federal policy forums, and thereby help prepare our
country for the future decades which will be charac-
terized by energy and material resource shortages.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there questions?
DR. AT ALLAH: Yes, I was wondering if you have
in mind any research and development programs that
ought to be done in the urban waste area, because ! feel
that we're past the demonstration stage. The
technology is there, the problem is local acceptance and
economics.
DR. SELDMAN: Can I ask you to clarify what
you mean by resource recovery technology?
DR. AT ALLAH: Well, you said 1% of the current
waste is recycled and recovered—recovering the BTUs
out of it.
DR. SELDMAN: One percent is recovered
through centralized, capital intensive combustion
systems. I think, and industry agrees with me, bankers
agree with me, manufacturers agree with me, that fur-
ther subsidization of centralized technologies is no
longer necessary. That is, those technologies that are
proven, the private sector will move into and develop
because the money is there and the technology works.
If you're talking about recycling, there is a wide range of
research, implementation and evaluation of programs
that is required. In fact, the National Science Founda-
tion has recently funded the Institute for Local Self-
Reliance, where I work, to conduct a research agenda
conference for recycling. This conference is in the pro-
cess of being formed, the first orientation meeting is in
San Francisco on November 9th. The followup meeting
is a month later in D.C., and the research agenda will be
117
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
presented to the National Science Foundation. I would
say over 60 professional recyclers, university re-
searchers, manufacturers, materials purchasers and
government scientists and policy officials will be in-
volved in the formation of that recycling agenda. It will
be completed by January 1980, and I will be happy to
present it to you. The agenda will identify the research
needs and implementation needs in the area of source
separation recycling and small unit combustion for
energy recovery.
I want to stress one thing when I say small unit
combustion. The economy of scale of energy recovery
plants is 250 tons per day. That means it's going to cost
you the same amount, on a per ton daily capacity basis,
to build a 250-ton plant as it is to build a 1,000 ton
plant. By going to a 1,000 tons, you realize no
economy of scale. And yet, most of government spend-
ing and research has been in the area of large scale
1,000 ton-per-day facilities, in pyrolisis and wall-to-wall
incineration and RDF. And, for this reason, there has to
be a change in Federal programming—it's just backing
the wrong horse, and it's putting virtually all of its
resources on the wrong horse. And, this research
agenda will articulate the areas that you asked about.
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to ask a few questions. Do
you feel that a methodology exists for evaluating the net
energy benefits of a technology transfer program, that
is, the dissemination of information program on the pro-
grams that currently exist? That is, you could evaluate
what the net energy benefit would be of such an infor-
mation transfer program itself.
DR. SELDMAN: Yes, I think you could, if you
can give some kind of formula on how much technical
assistance will lead to how many tons of materials
recycled. And, 1—for instance, earlier draft of this
testimony, I pointed out that a proposal that was set
forth to EPA two years ago to set up a decentralized in-
formation system and technical assistance network,
meaning professional recyclers in California would give
assistance to cities in California, same thing for Oregon,
Colorado, and so forth. If that plan had been im-
plemented, that 7% per year could have been raised to
8% per year. I could work out the energy savings
numbers and the economic value of that 1% of 150
million tons per year. So, those things can be worked
up, given some assumptions. I think that the current
technical assistance panel's program of EPA and the
peer matching program in EPA, if properly ad-
ministered could increase the level of recycling above
7% if it would involve the people who have the actual
experiential knowledge, and those who have been do-
ing it for ten years. At this point, these people are not
involved in those programs.
DR. REZNEK: My second question, you partially
answered. Do you feel that it is possible to do today a
calculation of net energy benefit—say in doubling the
7 to 14%?
DR. SELDMAN: Oh, those are very simple ex-
trapolations. They could be made. We could use the
chart that I have for D.C., in the testimony I gave
you—my testimony to the DOE target hearings, and
simply extrapolate from that—that would be a relatively
simple task. I should point out that although DOE you
might think would perform a net energy balance and
would do these comparisons, whether you should burn
or recycle. DOE has been asked to do that, they have
yet to do that. It's relatively simple to do, I don't know
why it hasn't been done.
DR. REZNEK: Given a perception that DOE is
preoccupied with energy supply, and that the
Environmental Protection Agency is preoccupied with
enforcement against industry, do you feel that any of
these agencies are likely to convert and pursue, ac-
tively, a recycling program?
DR. SELDMAN: I think, yes. I think the three
agencies that have primary responsibility for this, can
work together and develop a good memorandum of
understanding. I think I differ with you a bit in that I
think if you read the legislative mandate for DOE's
Urban Waste Technology Program they're not told to
produce energy through garbage. They're in the Office
of Conservation, and considering that by recycling-you
conserve more energy than you would—with lower cost
than you get if you burn it at much higher cost—I don't
think it's at all amiss to ask those people to consider con-
servation as part of their existing mandate. Now, they
have not interpreted it that way, but 1 don't think it's a
problem with their mandate to develop urban waste
technologies.
MS. HANMER: This is a little bit aside from the
Department of Energy, but it seems to me that many of
the things you said are indeed addressed to EPA policy
and practice.
I'd be interested to know what kind of response
you have had from the Office of Solid Waste and EPA
to the same concepts you have put into this testimony.
DR. SELDMAN: The Institute and Institute staff,
and members of the Committee for National Recycling
Policy have been addressing their needs and concerns
to EPA for the better part of five years.
Some modifications in EPA programs have
resulted directly, as a result of this dialogue. The most
significant has been the model scope of work under the
Urban Grants Program through the combined work of
the Institute, the Department of Natural Resources in
Michigan, and the county of Kent in Michigan, and the
West Michigan Environmental Action Council and
Recycle Unlimited, community-based recycling
operation.
It was pointed out to EPA that their model scope of
work again fit into the traditional pattern of putting
source separation planning and implementation as an
asterisk to comprehensive planning on solid waste.
118
-------
Statement of Dr. Seldman
This has been changed. EPA has also agreed to in-
volve more community-based recyclers in their peer
match program. That has not been implemented, based
on my best information.
EPA has also been asked to change their technical
assistance panels, because there's an inherent bias in
the contractors who get that contract. Is everyone
familiar with how those panels work? Okay. Those con-
tractors don't like recycling. They don't have experience
in it. They don't make money out of it. They should not
be responsible for providing technical assistance on
recycling.
EPA has not moved on that.
I would say that the dialog with EPA is open. We
talk to them. However, their record in following our
advice to move toward integrating recycling professions
into their programs, I feel, could be improved.
DR. BISHOP: I'd like to clarify one point. Maybe I
missed it, because 1 don't see—have a copy of your
written testimony. You made your references primarily
to recycling as being a more efficient approach than
direct combustion. Does that hold true in terms of the
economic value of the end-product uses of the—of solid
waste materials?
That is, is the energy value greater than the recycl-
ing value, even though the net energy may be less? See
what I'm saying?
DR. SELDMAN: No, 1 don't understand the
question.
DR. BISHOP: In other words, if you burned the
solid waste, and used that energy in whatever form, or if
you used the solid waste to produce methane or—
DR. SELDMAN: I see what you mean.
DR. BISHOP: —or some other end product, is
the economic value- of that greater than if you had
recycled that material in as a primary—
DR. SELDMAN: To answer that I would have to
break it down into the components of the solid waste
stream. In the area of paper there's a raging controversy
now between reports from various agencies. Some say
you get more energy from recycling paper a number of
times than you do from burning it. I happen to believe
that's true, but it's controversial at this time.
In terms of organics, wet organics primarily, it
doesn't make much sense to burn them at all. Forty to
sixty percent is water anyway; the transportation costs
are a major problem. The economic benefit and energy
savings benefit of producing organic matter, com-
posted, vermicomposted organic matter from organic
waste, has recently been documented in an NSF report
by Roger Blobaum. ! don't know the full title. It was
done a few months ago. They did a model on the
Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area and the value
of organics in that solid waste stream to the agricultural
area immediately surrounding that area.
When you get to other materials, such as metal and
glass, you have the problem that centralized systems
destroy those materials and they are no longer available
for recycling. The technology of extracting glass and
aluminum from mixed solid waste has not been proven.
It's still in its developing stages.
The technology for pulling out metals in some
cases works, but in other cases the metal is too con-
taminated to be marketable in the secondary industry.
Therefore, the metal and glass is completely lost, so the
energy values—and economic values—of those
materials are forfeited.
So you have to take a calculation based on the
specific parts of the waste stream. Because centralized
waste recovery does not deal with the metal or the
glass, and because it gets a very, very ephemeral value
out of wet garbage in terms of BTU, I would say that
we'd be much better off keeping those materials and
feeding them back into the secondary materials stream.
I can give you references on energy evaluations,
comparing recycling to centralized recovery. I could
give you those references later.
DR. REZNEK: One more question.
MR. BARFIELD: I take it the—your contact with
the Department of Energy is largely through the Assis-
tant Secretary for Energy Conservation and Solar
Energy. Is that correct? Is that where this urban re-
cycling is—
DR. SELDMAN: Yes. In the Conservation and
Solar Applications Division.
MR. BARFIELD: That—the programs collected
in that area, and that Assistant Secretaryship, per-
sonalities aside, is certainly counted outside as one of
the weaker elements of the Department of Energy.
Have you had—do you have any sense of—in
terms of the people you deal with—of the programs you
deal with—of what their problems are and why they
seem to be ineffective or maybe even—
DR. SELDMAN: Yes, I think they're profes-
sionally competent. I think they're managing a program
for investment in one form of resource recovery. I don't
mean to question that.
However, they made a decision, and that decision
is a rather limited one in terms of the availability for
investment in the total area of resource recovery.
MR. BARFIELD: When you say "they," you
mean the people, the program people who are par-
ticularly involved in your area. Have you tried to kick
that upstairs, say to the deputy level or the assistant
secretary level?
DR. SELDMAN: I talked to a whole lot of people
at DOE, and I've been told to try to get the message
from the Congressional energy committees to them,
rather than to try to change the policy program from
within.
MR. BARFIELD: And has it been successful?
DR. SELDMAN: We're talking to a lot of people.
And I notice, for instance, that in a very recent
solid waste report that came out, Representative Florio
119
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
who is the Chairperson of the House Transportation
and Commerce Subcommittee, is calling for a new ad-
visory committee. I have the statement. It's something
that's pushing in the right direction, and we've been
feeding them a lot of information. When 1 say "we" I
mean the Committee for National Recycling Policy have
been feeding a lot of information to his staff, to Senator
Durkin's staff, and to Senator Bradley's staff—they
serve on the Senate Energy Committee.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Mary Jadiker from Lake
County in California.
Statement of Mary Jadiker
Lake County Planner
Lake County, California
MS. JADIKER: Good morning and thank you for
the opportunity to present a microcosmic perspective of
DOE effectiveness in geothermal energy development
in the Geysers area of California—and, by reference,
other areas in the West.
My name is Mary Jadiker, and although it
sometimes has been my role in the past, I trust I'm not
your token environmentalist today.
I'm here to represent what I consider a truly lost
minority in the DOE project management system, and
that's local government, and the residents of areas of
energy resources in the process of being developed.
I'm a Planning Commissioner of the County of
Lake, a member of the California Geothermal
Resources Board Technical Advisory Committee,
Geothermal Advisory Council member to the California
Energy Commission, and Advisory Committee member
of GRIPS, which is a four-county joint powers geother-
mal agency, and I served by gubernatorial appointment
on the State Kapiloff Geothermal Task Force. That's
relevant only as a sort of flash of credentials and to show
that I have actively participated for the last five years in
the cause for appropriate and sensible development of
geothermal energy. And in the process I've become a
member of the new elite, the Informed Public, that
people always worry about.
There's another side to all of those organizations in
which I participate, and that is none of us—none of
them—have ever been able to establish an effective
means of communication with DOE in terms of their
role in geothermal energy development.
What I consider appropriate and sensible develop-
ment of any resource is that which occurs as the result of
decisions made by responsible people after the probable
consequences of those decisions are revealed through
predevelopment assessment and periodic reassessment
of the entire spectrum of economic, environmental, and
social short- and long-term impacts on the area being
developed.
This assessment must include more than looking
for rare and endangered species, because so far we
humans and our habitat are not on the endangered
species list.
The Department of Energy has a role to play here.
Geothermal electrical generation is a realized fossil fuel
alternative. It is an interim source of a few hundred or
thousand megawatts. We have 605 megawatts at pre-
sent from fourteen operating plants in the Geyers.
National policy should encourage alternative genera-
tion facilities, as well as conservation and increased
efficiency.
That, however, should not foreclose the need to
realistically accept the environmental impacts of alter-
native forms of energy.
Somehow, at least in the geothermal energy field,
the Federal role has been misdirected. Once someone
decided that The Geysers should be able to produce X
megawatts in X years, DOE funded a cottage industry
producing scenarios which inevitably showed that it can
be done with only benign or beneficial side effects in the
timetable set out, and then when real life doesn't match
the scenarios, it somehow determined that real life—not
the scenarios—are in error.
Local government, the folks who must actually
make the ultimate go/no-go regulatory decisions, are
the ones who have to live with the immediate results of
those decisions. We're the ones who see and hear and
smell, pay for, or benefit from our "go" decisions.
Obviously we feel those ultimate decisions must be
made at the local level.
And just as apparent is the fact that local govern-
ment does not have the resources to develop the infor-
mation base necessary to make wise decisions.
We have a lot of questions. We do not appreciate
the outside political and economic pressures put on us
when we make a "no-go" or "go-slow" decision.
Lake County is a small, poor, rural county which
has the mixed fortune of containing a projected three to
four thousand megawatts of geothermal energy. We
have about 35,000 people, but the population has
doubled in the last five years. We're entering a period of
intense population growth and development. We don't
want our decisions on geothermal development today
to preclude other growth options tomorrow.
We have a lot of questions, and those questions
could be answered by adequately funded and defined
data base acquisition programs and pollution control
strategies.
DOE has spent millions studying The Geysers.
We're practically an annuity for the National Labs. But
local government still doesn't have the basic environ-
mental and economic information it needs in the form it
can use.
We tend to think it might be because no one ever
came to us and asked us.
Local government is too often treated as the object
of some anthropological field trip. Our geographic
jurisdiction seems to be considered as some
120
-------
Statement of Ms. Jadiker
underdeveloped colonial possession, just right for
exploitation.
There's no one geothermal location that will ever
be likely to produce thousands of megawatts, or that
heat energy equivalent. Geothermal energy is simply
not best suited for large, central distribution use. It's a
much more Jeffersonian energy source.
Unfortunately, that means that most geothermal
projects are the wrong scale for DOE's present manage-
ment system.
If I could give DOE just one direction for geother-
mal program assistance, it would be "Think small." If I
could add another, it would be, "Stop the scenarios and
go ask the locals what they need to plan appropriate
and sensible energy development in the area of their
jurisdiction."
Some specific suggestions which would improve
the local interface between the Department of Energy
and everyone else is to establish more regional contact,
give more autonomy to the DOE regional offices, set up
means for more DOE participation with local govern-
ment and the public, more public access to the DOE en-
vironmental review processes, and expand the concept
of an environment to include the total socioeconomic
and human elements. Change the basic project
management system so the same people stay with the
same energy source and its development scenarios.
And establish a method of periodic review of the project
by others in the agency and the public so that the public
does not come into the process late, late, with only the
opportunity to comment on a draft EIS.
Many projects never have an EIS.
Establish regional information centers with a public
advisor-type ombudsman, live person. The California
Energy Commission has established such an agency. It
seems to be always at war with the rest of the Commis-
sion and everyone else, but local government and the
public appreciate and use the facilities of the Public Ad-
visor's Office whose function is to assist members of the
public—and that turns out to be anyone who is not the
Energy Commission and a project proponent—to assist
members of the public to participate in the regulatory
decisions that the Energy Commission must make.
And last, again, think small.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you for your very eloquent
testimony.
Are there questions?
Claude?
MR. BARFIELD: I just have a comment. Your
testimony on another—relates to another subject. I
hope while you're here you'll go to whoever the
representative is for your—in the House to lobby him
against the House making the same mistakes that we've
been making for the last two days in the Senate, to
create an energy mobilization board that will sweep right
over you, whether you're talking about geothermal
energy or whatever kind of energy.
So if you've got an hour today while you're here,
you might stop by over there.
MS. JADIKER: I happen to know he's a pro-
ponent of the idea.
MR. BARFIELD: Well that's too bad.
MS. JADIKER: Yes.
MR. BARFIELD: Have you had any—where is
your contact in terms of Department of Energy, nor-
mally, for State and local concerns? Is it-has it been
through the now-abolished Assistant Secretary for—I
forget what the combination is—Congressional, In-
tergovernmental, and Public Relations?
MS. JADIKER: No, it has not.
MR. BARFIELD: Or has it been with the program
people? Or do you see any—is there much interconnec-
tion between what the Assistant Secretary for Inter-
governmental Relations, as far as you know, does,
or—I forget what the title is—and the local program
people who are handling say geothermal and local
government concerns?
MS. JADIKER: DOE seems to be constantly in a
very fluid state, as they say. One of the problems we
have had is maintaining a constant contact source.
Most of our contacts come from the project pro-
ponent, and most of that has come from the regional of-
fice, the San Francisco office.
We have not effectively established—on the state
level or particularly the local level—any ability to deal
on a small government to large government agency
basis. It has been entirely on specific programs, whether
it's pollution control abatement assistance, or whether
it's deep-hole drilling, or whatever it is, or whether it's
trying to seek funds for a particular environmental
research project.
We are very often cut off at the regional level, with
the kinds of words such as, "Well, it won't do you any
good to go any further because we make the decisions
anyway, and so don't bother." And we have found
when we go around the regional office and do go di-
rectly to the Washington headquarters and speak to
people, and obtain assurances of cooperation, that
while the regional office has existed in the manner that it
does, the funding is not able to get through the regional
office to us.
We have been extremely distressed, but since the
management aspects of DOE seem forever changing,
we are not able to know if it's hopeless, or if it's just a
product of change.
DR. KINSEL: I also enjoyed your testimony. I
found it very informative.
One of the criticisms that has led to the popularity
of the Energy Mobilization Board is that local and State
governments, as well as the Federal Government, are
unresponsive to the big picture perspective and the
need to reduce dependence on foreign imports, and
121
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
they take too long to make decisions, which is why
Claude mentioned there is interest in the ability to run
over them.
Would you comment on that, from the perspective
of someone at the other end? You alluded to the fact
that you don't have the kind of information you need,
even though the Department of Energy has spent
millions of dollars studying geothermal power. Could
you give some specific examples of the kinds of things
that might be beneficial to you, to speed the process
from your perspective, that's not now being done?
MS. JADIKER: Yes I could, and it's an involved
answer, and one of the problems with that myth, which
has led to such schemes as the Energy Mobilization
Board and projected ideas that the whole Geysers area
should be declared a national energy resource and con-
demned—you know, that kind of thing goes on too—is
that I don't know where the idea that State and local
governments are the reason for slow development,
occurred. But 1 think it is not true in terms of the time it
takes to issue a permit from the time an application is
received until the developer has his permit to drill a well,
build a power plant—power plant permitting takes two
years now. California's made all kinds of expediting
laws. Well drilling permits take less than a year because
we also have a twelve-month you've-got-to-make-up-
your-mind law in California, and I tend to think that it is
the economic problem of the resource that has been the
real delaying factor, rather than local foot-dragging on
the terms of local government.
There has been a tremendous amount of foot-
dragging at the Federal level in issuing leases for
development, but there is not a tremendous
amount—there isn't any foot-dragging at the local
county level. We issue land-use permits without which
no one can drill a well. Unless you drill a lot of wells and
find some steam there's no point in applying for a power
plant permit, which is issued by the State.
And those processes do go ahead with a
reasonable expedition.
In Lake County we have I guess it's about 120
geothermal wells permitted and drilled, most of which
are good. There has been one denial out of all of that in
all this time. The average time it takes to get a permit to
drill a well is probably nine months, and considering the
amount of environmental assessment—we operate, of
course, under CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act)—that doesn't seem at all unreasonable.
It's—one of the problems we find in the geothermal
business particularly is that since you—since it looks as
though you're drilling for oil and gas, and you have the
same equipment and the same derrick and the same
crews, and the same technology, and you can get a per-
mit to drill an oil well in ten days in California, that
people thought perhaps it should take ten days to get a
permit to drill a geothermat well and establish a geother-
mal field.
I tend to think that a lot of that myth of local
government foot-dragging has come about as a result of
industry's dismay that they're simply operating under a
different system and it's a different resource.
But there is very little truth to that. If you want to
run out of time lines, there are a hell of a lot of permits
that have to be obtained.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
came into the process about the same time as the push
for geothermal energy began seriously in California.
The Public Utilities Commission ceased being the giver
of power plant permits at about the same time. The
California Energy Commission came into being—all of
this was in 1973 through '75, really. It took a very long
time for everyone to learn how to do those dance steps,
figure out the new regulatory system, and I feel because
of that, plus the fact that there has not—economics of
geothermal electrical energy development is now
proven, but was not, and I think perhaps adding all
those things together led to some over-reactive industry
statements and some over-reactive legislation.
That's certainly true in California, where by the
time the lobbying has gone through, the bill has gone
through, it's finally passed, the problem for which it was
passed to correct has already corrected itself.
DR. REZNEK: Any other questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: We heard some other testimony
on an office similar to that established in California. You
would—I assume you have envisioned the local body
who is a real person, but a management structure within
the Department of Energy that would assess the viability
of the program and report on the progress and actually
translate to the local authority and the local situations
the assessment process plus the dissemination of infor-
mation and the evaluation.
MS. JADIKER: That's true.
We'd like to think of State and local agencies and
governments being able to be partners with the Depart-
ment of Energy, rather than having the Department of
Energy be our patrons.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Allan Hirsch from the Fish and
Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior.
Statement of Allan Hirsch
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
DR. HIRSCH: Mr. Chairman, let me begin by
very briefly describing the role of the Fish and Wild-
life Service in the energy research and development
process.
One of the missions of the Fish and Wildlife Service
has been to gather, analyze and present ecological in-
formation that would aid in resolution of environmental
problems associated with major resource changes in the
122
-------
Statement of Dr. Hirsch
country, and as a consequence, the Service has been
heavily involved in energy-related issues. It has
been—as you know—a participant in the Interagency
Energy Environment Research and Development Pro-
gram, administered by EPA, and in a number of
Department of Interior energy development activities
such as coal development, geothermal development,
oil shale, and outer continental shelf oil and gas leasinc
activities, where we have an opportunity to bring the
results of our information gathering and research and
development to bear on these programs.
My comments this morning are not going to try to
critique the Department of Energy's Program and Proj-
ect Management System. We haven't been involved in
that system and 1 don't feel equipped to critique it. In-
stead I'd like to comment more generally on some ways
in which ecological considerations can enter into the
process of research, development, and commercializa-
tion of emerging energy technologies.
Further, I will focus specifically here on the
ecological impacts, as distinct from direct human health
effects or other effects.
The Prehearing Documents that you prepared
identified the need for more explicit environmental
criteria for application to major Department of Energy
decisions relating to the development of energy
technologies, and among those would be criteria
relating to ecological impacts. One of the questions
raised was how this process could more effectively
assess the ecological impacts.
It is possible to formulate a number of explicit
ecological criteria that would guide the decision process.
Some examples are bioaccurnulation of toxic materials,
evidence of food chain'magnification, irreversible effects
on significant populations or species of organisms, or
modification of important environmental processes such
as geochemical cycling. I think there would be general
concurrence that any impacts falling into the categories
like these would be serious and possibly unacceptable.
But for such criteria to be used effectively in deci-
sions relating to energy technology, we have to relate
those to the magnitude, the scale, and the cumulative
effect. We can really state very few absolutes. At what
point along a continuum, for example, would the con-
tribution of a new energy technology to acid rain or to
the CO2 problem become so unacceptable as to in-
dicate that no further investment should be made in
research and development on that technology?
A great deal remains to be learned if we are to
strengthen the input of ecological criteria into the risk
assessments that have to address questions like that,
and the effectiveness of these risk assessments is often
limited by our ability to accurately predict ecological im-
pacts, particularly second and third order effects. The
difficulties of predicting the response of ecosystems to
stress from development are well known, and in this
area these difficulties would be compounded by the fact
we're often dealing with new and as yet unexperienced
technologies.
Therefore, from the standpoint of taking account of
ecological considerations in the energy research,
development, and commercialization process, it's im-
portant that we try to think in terms of adaptive
mechanisms and adaptive management techniques.
Such techniques should include provision for monitor-
ing and tracking impacts through each stage in the
energy research and development process. They
should include highly focused research studies to fill im-
portant gaps, as well as retrospective studies to evaluate
the actual impact of past practices, and the findings of
these efforts have to be fed back in a systematic way into
the process of developing and commercializing energy
technologies.
In this regard, I strongly support some of the pro-
posals that were identified in the Prehearing Document,
such as assuring the inclusion of integrated and parallel
environmental research, development, and monitoring,
along with the technology development, as the
technologies move from the basic research stage to the
pilot plant, the demonstration plant, and ultimately to
commercialization.
The need has to be stressed for experimental
facilities which test not only the technological capability,
but also the environmental issues. There's also a need
to emphasize decisionmaking systems which focus on
incremental and adaptive decisionmaking to the
greatest extent possible, rather than .go/no-go deci-
sions, so that we can reflect, as we move through the
various steps, the findings of environmental research,
assessment, or monitoring.
Thus far, what I've been emphasizing is the need to
improve our understanding of ecosystem response to
energy technologies and to integrate that with the deci-
sion process. Perhaps that sounds like, "more
research," or, "we don't know enough to provide ad-
vice." I would like, however, to focus on one of the
ways in which we could do a great deal more today to
apply our existing understandings. That involves the
development and use of ecological criteria early in the
planning process of facility siting. What I have to say
here applies more when we get to the stage of a
demonstration facility or commercialization of a proc-
ess, than it does to the fundamental bench research at
the beginning of the chain.
This basically involves developing and using
ecological criteria prior to siting decisions. Today these
considerations usually enter in after individual sites have
been selected and are being evaluated, and after the
battle lines have been drawn. If we use these criteria
early in the process of identifying candidate sites for
demonstration projects or for full-scale projects,
we could ease—if not avoid—many of the last-minute
confrontations.
123
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
I'll describe how I think this can be done in three
basic steps. The first step is to describe the ecological
characteristics of regions in which the technology is
likely to be applied. If it is a given form of coal gasifica-
tion or liquefaction for example, and we know generally
the regions in which that technology is likely to be
brought to bear, we can describe the ecological
characteristics of these regions. This can range from a
simple inventory of vulnerable components—such as
endangered species—to a more complete characteriza-
tion of the structure and the function of the major
ecosystems within that region. I would advocate the
latter.
Such a characterization, based on the use, syn-
thesis, and interpretation of existing data, can be ac-
complished within a one- to two-year period. Thus it
can be scheduled in a way that cannot be said to unduly
delay the developmental process. And yet the absence
of a meaningful framework of such ecological data ha;
often been a major obstacle. It has resulted in delays ii
the development process and it has resulted in very in-
effective environmental assessments. So it seems to me
that in thinking about the further development of energy
technologies, one important step is to make provision
somewhere in the governmental structure for planning
and conducting appropriate regional ecological surveys
or characterizations well in advance of siting decisions.
By and large, provision for that does not exist today.
I'll give one example of this. In response to the re-
cent controversies concerning refinery siting on the
Atlantic Coast—and you may have read in the paper
this morning that the Department of Army has essen-
tially decided to go ahead with its approval of a refinery
site at Portsmouth—the Fish and Wildlife Service has
just initiated a survey to identify the ecological
characteristics of individual segments of the entire
Atlantic Coast. This study is not oriented towards the
detailed site-specific analysis that is needed after a site
has been selected, but rather towards the kinds of
regional analysis that could support advance planning
well prior to the selection of individual sites. The survey
will provide a framework of information about
ecological characteristics of the Atlantic Coast.
The second step would be the development of
siting criteria, and the application of those criteria within
the region concerned to designate in advance areas that
are particularly unsuitable for various kinds of energy
facilities or development.
The way this would be approached for any emerg-
ing technology is to identify the physical and chemical
effects of the component processes as well as we can,
and then, taking into account the ecological
characteristics of the region concerned, to
describe—again, to the extent that we can within
existing knowledge—the likely impacts on various
ecosystem components or ecosystem functions. To do
this, one can use impact matrices or models or other
existing techniques of environmental assessment.
To a relatively straightforward or simple example of
the application of regional siting criteria has been the
Department of Interior's recently adopted coal leasing
program, in which criteria for designating lands un-
suitable for mining have been developed. These criteria
include such things as areas containing valuable habitat
for threatened and endangered species, areas important
for the maintenance of migratory bird populations,
flood plains, and other sensitive ecosystem com-
ponents. Now the coal resource regions subject to leas-
ing by the Department of Interior are being inventoried,
and these kinds of criteria applied to exclude areas from
leasing early in the planning process.
A third step, in addition to providing for regional
ecological characterizations and for identifying impact
categories and criteria, is to try to develop an applied
planning mechanism through which these environmen-
tal or ecological criteria can be weighed in concert with
other siting criteria on a regional scale.
For example, we can use multiple objective pro-
gramming models which balance economic,
technological, and environmental objectives to address
regional siting issues, once we have developed the ap-
propriate data base for ecological criteria. In this way
we're not talking about ecological criteria which are
presented or considered as absolutes, but rather criteria
that can be appropriately weighed and balanced in a
systematic way with the other kinds of concerns that go
into siting decisions. By and large, that is not done
today.
In summary, then, for that aspect of the energy
research and development program that involves the
location of large-scale or full-scale facilities, if we con-
duct, in advance, rapid characterizations of the regions
where these facilities are likely to be located, if we iden-
tify siting criteria appropriate to the various classes of
impact, and if we pursue the application of those criteria
through various kinds of planning mechanisms, we can
make an important improvement in the location of
energy facilities.
Thank you.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Any questions?
DR. ATALLAH: As a point, to site an LNG facility
at the location—or a refinery—I can estimate the risk to
the public and society and get a number for that, or at
least a feel for it. I can compare it with other risks.
If I were to-transfer or transpose a kelp species from
Newport Beach, California to the Atlantic, how can
I—what criteria would I use for risk acceptability to the
ecology—not to the public?
DR. HIRSCH: Well, acceptability, of course, is a
social or political determination. For example, in outer
continental shelf leasing we can project the trajectory of
oil spills that might occur if a given tract were to be
124
-------
Statement of Dr. Hirsch
leased and the probability that those spills would occur
at a certain time of the year, and we can give an assess-
ment that those spills would have such-and-such a
probability of eliminating a large population of marine
birds. That we can do.
Now, as to the consequences to society of
eliminating that population of marine birds, unless it
happens to be a species that is commercially of impor-
tance or a species in which the secondary impacts on
the ecosystem can be determined, that becomes very
much a matter of social and political determination. But
at least we can reveal for trade-offs what the significance
of that action is, not necessarily what the public accept-
ability of it would be.
DR. AT ALL AH: Somebody has to make a
decision whether this new technology is going to go
or no-go.
DR. HIRSCH: Right.
DR. ATALLAH: And so they must have a set
standard of criteria for accepting that risk to ecology.
DR. HIRSCH: Well, as I tried to indicate, it's quite
difficult to come up with very finite criteria, because
most of these things tend to operate along a continuum.
It's hard to answer, for a criterion which involves certain
kinds of food chain impacts. On what scale and with
what degree of irreversibility does it become unac-
ceptable? 1 think we can do more and should do more
to try to document these classes of criteria, but I'd argue
that there's no one answer—-it becomes very much a
matter of risk assessment. What I'm saying is that the
ecological component of risk assessment can be quan-
tified much better than it has been in the past, and in ad-
dition we need to do a lot more to improve that quan-
tification through integrated research at every step in the
energy process.
DR. REZNEK: Allan, if you can call me "Mr.
Chairman," I can call you, "Dr. Hirsch."
Dr. Hirsch, from your comments you seem to be
saying that in terms of where to do a particular thing
there are systematic approaches, there are quantifiable
approaches that will lead to very much improved
decisionmaking.
DR. HIRSCH: Yes.
DR. REZNEK: But in terms of either what to
do—that is, should we build a high-temperature gasifier
or a low-temperature gasifier, the status of ecological
assessment has not yet progressed to the point where it
is stable enough or intellectually compelling enough to
make a solid argument that will allow you to design the
engineering.
Is that correct?
DR. HIRSCH: I think in application that's prob-
ably correct, but that in potential, it's not correct. One of
the paradoxes of NEPA is that NEPA was set up in
policy to take into account the effects of man on the
ecosystem and its consequences. I think that's been one
of the weakest components of the NEPA EIS process,
and there are various reasons for this that are fairly com-
plicated, in my judgment.
One is that ecosystems are very complex, subject
to all kinds of variables and extraneous events, although
I'm not sure they're any more complex than the
economy is. Frankly I think that the ecologists can prob-
ably have about as good a batting average of prediction
as economists can do these days, and yet, you know,
the economic aspects—
DR. REZNEK: The economists work for a lot
more.
DR. HIRSCH: Yes, but there are a whole host of
reasons why we aren't bringing ecological assessment to
bear as effectively as it can be, Steve. I would argue that
we can do a lot better job of it. There are techniques.
We, in our program, are trying to explore some of
these. I was interested in some of the comments that
were just made here. Some of those techniques involve
a number of fundamental principles, one of which is
that ecosystems are dynamic, that you have to operate
on a risk basis, and it's not a black and white snapshot
approach.
I think that the EIS process in a way has almost
hindered that, because of the pressure to get an en-
vironmental impact statement. The new procedures
under NEPA do allow or encourage more use of a flexi-
ble, adaptive response to ecological assessment that
would build in incremental decisionmaking, that would
build in monitoring, and that would build in some sense
that we're dealing with a dynamic process and not a
one-shot deal.
I'm not stating this very clearly, but my answer is I
think we can do a lot better within the state-of-the-art
than we have been doing.
DR. KINSEL: 1 am very interested in your out-
lining of the steps that could be used.
One of the problems—and you cited one of them
which frequently arises, once a plan is announced to
build a refinery in a specific place—occurs for what we
think is somewhat the opposite of the reasons you were
talking about, that the process goes backward.
Instead of looking for good places to build
refineries, a company decides it can get land cheaply—
DR. HIRSCH: Yes
DR. KINSEL: —and then starts through the per-
mit process and runs into objections for often very
legitimate reasons.
You refer to the Portsmouth situation specifically.
As I understand it, an analysis was done of East Coast
refinery sites and Portsmouth came in last, as I recall.
DR. HIRSCH: That's right.
DR. KINSEL: Is that assessment the kind of thing
that you're talking about doing ahead of time?
DR. HIRSCH: Yes, well that's certainly true. An
analysis was done of 37 alternate sites. Perhaps that is
an example of a failure to capitalize on the analysis.
125
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
But I'm arguing for something on an even larger
scale than that. We are talking about looking at the
Atlantic Coast, and—instead of coming in and trying to
attack the tail end of the process—indicating what the
relative vulnerabilities are. I don't think this has been
done well ecologically anywhere. I'm not arguing that if
it is done well that the development interests will
necessarily take cognizance .of it, but I can think of
power plants where there has been long litigation going
on, where, if they had stopped to think about it, they
would have seen that the plant is located at the absolute
place where they would maximize the ecological
problems.
So I think it's that kind of thing—rather than
engineering in solutions after you locate the plant, try to
put that up in the siting criteria at the front end.
Now I'll admit that the case you're giving is an ex-
ample where—at least in my judgment—attempts to do
that didn't work very well.
DR. KINSEL: One other very quick question.
You talk about integrating the environmental con-
cerns with some of the others. Obviously the weight
that's applied to various of those factors in your model is
going to be critical.
What agency could do that, giver1! that we have a
number of single-mission agencies all of which think that
their mission is more important than anyone else's?
DR. HIRSCH: There is an institutional barrier
there. Some states do have siting commissions. The
State of Maryland, for example, has a facility siting act. I
believe New York does.
We're experimenting right now with the Electric
Power Research Institute on something called a
multiple-objective programming model for the
Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania area, trying to
show a configuration of sites in relation to demand that
would optimize these various features!.
Until we came along they were looking at things
like distance from load centers, distance from popula-
tion centers, adequacy of water supply. We're now
cranking in various environmental criteria.
How the results of that kind of approach get taken
into account in "real world" decisionmaking within the
kinds of regulatory or planning institutions we have, is
quite variable, but there are places where it certainly can
be done.
I would think a utility, in its own interests, would be
interested in that kind of analysis in doing its own
planning.
MS. HAMMER: Allan, I'm interested in how the
information and research that the Fish and Wildlife
Service is developing is factored into the assessment
and evaluation process for energy technologies in the
Department of Energy.
Do you have any kind of cooperative arrangement
or memoranda of understanding or anything like that?
DR. HIRSCH: In that regard I feel a little bit like
the previous speaker. We have had various ad hoc
dealings with the Department iof Energy. Of course we
get to review their Environmental Impact Statements
just as everyone else does, which is at the tail of the
process.
We don't have a systematic relationship with the
Department of Energy that allows our views to come to
bear in the most meaningful way. There are probably all
kinds of reasons for that—changing organizational
structures in the Department of Energy, the fact that we
are operating in an area where our mandates are not
that specific, and so on. If it comes to consultation on an
endangered species, there's a specific legal mandate,
and that functions. But if it comes to cranking in what
might be called a broader ecological viewpoint into the
assessment, there's no real mandate for that, that I'm
aware of.
So the answer is, we don't have as systematic in-
volvement, by any means, as we should have. Our
Assistant Secretary has recently corresponded with the
Department of Energy suggesting that we try to find
ways of strengthening that relationship.
DR. REZNEK: Any other question?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: I'd like to call one more witness,
Robert E. Thomason of the Occidental Oil Shale Pro-
jects, or Occidental Oil Company,
In the history of hearings before me, it's a surprise
witness.
Statement of Robert Thomason
Occidental Oil Shale
MR. THOMASON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished panel members, ladies and gentlemen. I
want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
for a few minutes.
Again, my name is Robert Thomason. I'm
representing Occidental Oil Shale. As a representative
of the oil shale industry, I feel fairly comfortable in sitting
in the spotlight as oil shale does with 360 degree high
intensity and talking to an EPA panel. I would like to
represent this particular case from Oxx's position that oil
shale would be dealt with in-depth in this particular
hearing. As a result, we did not feel disposed to making
a formal testimony. However, having been conditioned
to—in oil shale, to monitoring everything, we decided
to come forward and sit in on the hearings and if we felt
it was useful, to be responsive to some of the remarks
that were made, essentially to be responsive to support-
ing some of the activities that DOE and EPA are under-
taking in an effort to further this ground of cooperation.
We think this cooperation is very important to the suc-
cess of the synthetic fuel energy development industry.
We've been listening for the better part of three
days to testimony which is intended to focus the ade-
quacy of attention to environmental protection, and
126
-------
Statement of Mr. Thomason
energy conservation measures within DOE's RD&D and
demonstration process.
It seems to me, after listening to much of the
testimony—much of what has been suggested is being
done or has been done. Much of the remarks have been
1 think productive. However there are some ideas that
came across in particular with regard to the preparation
of multiple environmental impact statements, as sug-
gested by Mr. Markey that occur to me as not being par-
ticularly productive or directed towards conservation or
timely energy development.
The oil shale program as a whole, and in particular
the prototype oil shale program, serves as a rather
classic example, I think, of what can be done, and it
started indeed with one very adequate—and well done
dynamically environmental impact statement. That of
course moved dynamically through very exhaustive
review by what Bill Rogers mentioned to you as the Oil
Shale Environmental Advisory Panel. Subsequently the
concerns put forward in this EIS and public comment
were integrated into the detailed development plans for
the prototype program.
The detailed development program has been
exhaustively reviewed by the Oil Shale Environmental
Advisory Panel, which is made up of a very multidisci-
plined group of folks. This has been a very excellent ele-
ment of public exposure and a very excellent element in
providing communication between the various agencies
that are concerned, public and private, and special
interest folks as well.
I think that this particular program has been
extremely successful-
As a directly involved shale oil developer and
cooperator with DOE and EPA, I'd just like to speak out
in behalf of DOE's effort to use technical and scientific
information in decisionmaking and the communication
of rationale for technology development decisions, and
the integration of DOE's Energy Technology Section
and DOE's Environmental Section in research planning.
The DOE/ET cooperative agreement with Oc-
cidental provides for environmental research and plan-
ning work with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Ruth Clusen, and an environmental task
force has been formed to carry out environmental
research and planning, combining the forces of DOE,
EPA, National Labs of the State of Colorado, the
Department of Interior's Area Oil.Shale Supervisor's Of-
fice, and project developers into a unified teamwork ex-
ercise, in particular directed towards gathering and
analyzing environmental data.
This particular interagency cooperative task force
effort being led by DOE involves the workshop process
for data analysis and problem solving, and it does in-
deed provide public exposure through a broad-based
advisory committee. That committee includes one of
the other folk's agency that was testifying here a day or
two ago, and N1OSH sits in on the committee. As is I
suppose characteristic with governmental agencies that
are complex, they have difficulty communicating what's
going on. However, indeed the EIS that was involved
and the programs that are planned therefrom and the
development plans, do consider occupational health
and safety in great detail, and the working environment
and the working folks in a very, very sensitive way.
This particular task force has also a very high level
of technical capability, and it is working to build a com-
mon element of trust and credibility. It's working to
provide data to constructively answer environmental
questions. And it's working towards the sharing of
research data and plans to help prevent costly and
wasteful duplication of effort.
Indeed, dynamic changes in the DOE organization
are frustrating at times, and the organization could be
streamlined. However, we really see progress taking
place, particularly by this specific DOE effort, and we
want to give it a chance to mature. We feel that such in-
teragency cooperation is a very positive effort that's vital
to the success of orderly phased energy resource
development.
I think we want to guard against the initial pitting of
technologies against one another. We need to address
the total energy problem, which includes conservation,
the use of nonrenewable and renewable sources.
They'll all have a place and they're all required.
At this point, however, we've got to concentrate ef-
forts in the direction of making early and large impact in
the short term in order to span to the long term. I think
that may be one of the explanations why DOE attends
to certain major impact areas insofar as energy produc-
tion technology is concerned, and has perhaps set less
emphasis on some of the other areas. But they're all im-
portant, and we don't want to lose track of that fact. We
support the development of all those areas in a par-
ticularly thoughtful priority sequence that reaches the
end result.
DR. REZNEK: Thank you.
Are there any questions?
(No response.)
DR. REZNEK: Is everyone hungry?
1 might make an observation that in addition to all
those interagency committees, there is a body, there is a
person to talk to out there.
Thank you very much. We'll reconvene at 1:30.
(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
127
-------
-------
Afternoon Session
Statement of Dr. Anthony
1:32 p.m.
MR. ONDICH: First I'd like to introduce myself.
I'm Gregory Ondich. I'm the Section 11 coordinator.
Dr. Reznek will not be able to be here this afternoon, so
I'll act as the moderator.
Some of the witnesses asked if I could reintroduce
some of the panelists, and so I'll do that, and after I do
that we'll start with Dr. Anthony from the University of
Florida as our first witness.
To my extreme left is Dr. Sami Atallah, from the
Gas Research Institute. I believe your agenda shows Dr.
Robert Rosenberg. Dr. Atallah is filling in for Dr.
Rosenberg.
Next to Dr. Atallah is Dr. Bishop from the New
York State Energy Research and Development Author-
ity, and we are expecting Paul Stolpman, and 1 believe
he'll probably be back. He's with our Office of Air,
Noise, and Radiation Programs.
Next we have Dr. Sheldon Kinsel from the Na-
tional Wildlife Federation. Dr. Kinsel is sitting in place of
Dr. Kimball who had a previous engagement today.
And to my immediate left is Rebecca Hanmer, the
Deputy Regional Administrator from the EPA Boston
Region. I'd like to particularly welcome Ms. Hanmer
because she participated last year in our hearings and
we're happy to have her again.
MS. HANMER: They gave me a Purple Heart.
(Laughter.)
MR. ONDICH: So with that, I'd like to start with
our first witness, Dr. David Anthony, University of
Florida.
Statement of David Anthony
University of Florida
DR. ANTHONY: I am David Anthony from the
University of Florida, although I am not representing the
University. That's for identification only.
I also—well, just again as one of the witnesses this
morning commented, just to flash credentials, I have
been involved as essentially an environmental com-
municator for now some seventeen years in Florida and
the Southeast.
As I approached this hearing, I've been somewhat
puzzled as to how you, the panel, the EPA, the DOE,
and Congress in particular, might view this process. I
can see the possibility that you—that it might be re-
garded by some or all of you as sort of a standard
bureaucratic process, that you're required by law to do
this and therefore, do it, I could see DOE people being a
bit resentful of getting any recommendations from EPA
as to how to run their ship—the turf problems. I can see
that there are—in fact, reading this morning's paper
there's abundant evidence that there are heavy political
pressures to—"Let's just get on with making lots of
energy, and to heck with all sorts of other considera-
tions." Particularly. "To heck with the environment."
Witness the probable choice of Portsmouth, environ-
mentally the worst place on the East Coast they could
put the oil refinery.
But 1 bring you a very strong countermessage from
the people that I've been talking to. They are your
employers, and indeed they're—in the case of Con-
gress—your electorate.
As I was talking to many different stations of people
in Florida there was one almost universal reaction,
when I outlined briefly what this hearing was about.
Curiously, almost to a person they said, "Give 'em hell!"
As a matter of fact, I started to write out a—the
reason I don't have a presentation to give you all, nicely
typed up, was that I heeded a little too well their advice
and I felt on reading it over that it was a little bit stronger
than I liked to leave with you, so in more reflective
moments, when I get back home, I will eliminate a few
of the cuss words and send you something that's a little
less outspoken.
But 1 think it would be worthwhile to look at why
did these people say that? I asked them, "Why do you
say—what do you want me to give them hell about?
How do you want me to give them hell?" This sort of
thing. Not that I would necessarily—they knew perfectly
well that I would go ahead and do what I planned to do
anyhow, but at least I would be influenced by what they
said.
They felt that the energy decisions being made now
may well determine the social, economic, political, and
environmental future of this country, yet these people
felt they 'often don't even know what decisions are being
made, and feel those they do know about are made in
some—well, clearly to them a process which defies logic
and reason. In other words, they felt they were being
made in a thoughtless manner, perhaps in a—oh, sort
of divide-up-the-turf manner, the standard way you
might decide where to run a particular highway, for ex-
ample : that you comply with the letter of the law only;
129
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
that you keep the big special interests happy; that you
don't rock the boat; (business as usual); that you—well,
I'll censor that about what you do with members of
Congress.
What does the public seem to want in the energy
area? The public that I was able to contact is admittedly
a very small slice of the public. However, I have a suspi-
cion it more accurately reflects the public point of view
than perhaps you and your superiors do, isolated this
far from the public.
First and foremost—by the way, I'm knocking quite
a bit here, and I want to stop and pause for a moment
and suggest that you pay a lot of attention to this
background document. It seems to me it was very
thoughtfully prepared. This is counter to what I've just
said about some of the other things. I think it's very
thoughtfully prepared, and indeed with reference to the
Atlanta regional hearing, which I attended, 1 think it's an
amazingly accurate condensation of the points of view
of a very large number of people and their ideas going
everywhere. I think it was a beautiful job and I would
commend your reading it. I think it carries much the
same message that I'm going to give you. I may empha-
size it a little differently in various places, but I would
commend it to your reading. I think it's a fine job.
It seemed to me first and foremost, that people
wanted to have ready access to reliable current informa-
tion, pro and con, on energy alternatives. You pick up
the popular press and you find all sorts of energy
miracles suggested, and the people I know, at least, are
sophisticated enough not to believe all this stuff.
Before coming to these hearings, I read, of course,
the reports of all the other regional hearings, and in
every blessed one of them this was one of the foremost
considerations, the need for more information about
what is going on—not so much about the process of
review, but about what's going on and indeed what are
the pros and cons of various alternatives.
And again, it's not original with me, but it appears 1
think at least twice in the abstracts of the regional hear-
ings that there ought to be—this is a concrete suggestion
I hope you might carry forward—that there ought to be
a well-publicized 800-number "hotline" to some real
person at DOE Regional Headquarters, at the least.
Now on this I can speak with some considerable
feeling, because in trying to do some of the
homework—which I like to do before 1 appear in any
such thing as this—I was frustrated in trying to find out
things. I—indeed, it's going to come 'home to roost
when my boss sees the phone bill.
1 called all over the country to find out certain
things, and got snippets here and snippets there, and
yet I'm supposed to be, I guess, in the language of Mary
Jadiker, one of the, quote, "informed public," and I was
going up the wall trying to find out things which seemed
to be reasonable for a citizen to be asking.
And I would suggest this "hotline" as a start. A per-
son on such a "hotline" could at least have pointed me
in the right direction, given me the phone numbers and
the people, and so on, and I could have been away
from—I still would have had a big phone bill, but my
task would have been made much easier.
Now, I am going to make a suggestion that is
original with me. It does not appear in any of the
resource documents. I'm suggesting that there ought to
be published on an annual basis a document whose title
might well be "Assessment of Energy Alternatives," and
it should be put out by an independent agency— not by
EPA, not by DOE—God Forbid! In my mind I had been
searching around as to what agency might be the
reasonable one to do this, and happily—in an other-
wise unhappy transportation adventure, since it took
me nine hours to get from Florida to Washington yester-
day, many of them in the air circling Atlanta, and so
on—my seat mates happened to be two people from
the GAO, and suddenly the light turned on. Why not
the GAO?
They're not beholden to anybody—or supposedly
are not. And why not have the GAO or—what?—Office
of Management and Budget? You know the shops bet-
ter than I do, but I was trying to fish for one that would
seem to be neutral, and yet is used to looking at long-
term things, at weighing costs and benefits and this sort
of thing, and has a substantial staff and expertise.
This document I would feel, this assessment of
energy alternatives, put out on an annual basis, should
include short descriptions in layman's terms—now
there's where I had an advantage. I'm a biochemist, so I
know something of the physical sciences and something
of the biological sciences. I was getting stuff which
would 'have been gobbledygook, except I just had
enough—I just knew enough to ask the right questions,
and I knew where I didn't know, and these kinds of
things, so 1 was able to dig out substantial amounts of
information—but you should have heard the gobble-
dygook I got some of the times. :
So I think the assessment document should be in
layman's terms. The descriptions of various alternatives
should include indications and contraindications for
their use.
For example, say in discussing windmills, the cur-
rent thought is there has to be a certain number of miles-
per-hour average wind velocity which is fairly high for
them to even have a chance of being very useful. Okay,
there might well be a map published with this alternative
indicating in what regions of the country one might find
such wind velocities.
Estimates—there ought to be current estimates of
fossil-fuel-in versus energy-out type of efficiency. And if
they can do so, there should be some estimation of the
rate of development. I'm thinking here of photovoltaic
cells where the rate of progress has been enormous,
and so that a mere statement of what it is today is
130
-------
Statement of Dr. Anthony
misleading, unless one looks at the rate of progress and
what would appear to be likely very soon.
I think there ought to be—in other words, some
sort of estimate as to how this is going to go over time,
plus there ought to be some sort of estimates of the
dollar per kilowatt hour produced, per unit of thermal
energy, or whatever it is that they produce. In other
words, the dollar efficiency. And again, versus time.
For example, the solar buffs are constantly talking
to me about dollars per peak watt produced. Okay,
there's a number you can play with and have its rate of
movement over time portrayed, perhaps in a graph.
This annual document I would think ought to also
have some estimate of the time it would take to reach X
percent of the national energy demand utilizing this pro-
cedure, with some probable limits suggested, a lower
and upper limit. In other words, is this likely to
be—ever—a very important thing nationally in the
energy picture, or is it not? In the case of photovoltaics it
might well be so. In the case of windmills, locally, but
perhaps not generally. This kind of assessment. And
then, some kind of comments on the environmental
pluses and minuses.
For example, one of these photoelectrochemical
things I have learned about required at one point in the
process, hydrolysis of hydrogen bromide to, among
other things—to bromine. Well I'm enough of a
chemist, as soon as the guy said, "You're going to have
bromine on your rooftop," my enthusiasm turned to
caution. This is a potential hazard that would require
very well-thought-out control strategies.
I would think that this annual energy alternatives
assessment document must also include names, ad-
dresses, and phone numbers of where to go for more
information on each of these alternatives. It should also
include the dollar value of Federal support to each. I
think that would be highly revealing in some cases.
This obviously comes under the heading of access
to reliable current information. That was a motif that just
appeared over and over again. The people! talked with
felt in the dark, and they felt in the dark about extraor-
dinarily important things.
I'd like here to deliberately lift a comment that Ms.
Jadiker made this morning. This is again a recurring
thing that you find here. And, the people that I talked
to, over and over again, said that they felt that the
Department of Energy just was unable to think small,
THINK SMALL. If it isn't megabucks, to hell with it,
seems to be the attitude.
What the people were saying was they felt that
there needed to be a reordering of DOE emphasis. I've
forgotten which one of the speakers this morning spoke
about their seeming penchant for backing the wrong
horses. I constantly was receiving this comment, "Look,
they're pushing very hard for an energy alternative
which involves—" and it's not a very great over-
simplification—"grinding up and frying the Rocky
Mountains, dumping out a volume larger than that
which you fried, utilizing a process which requires a lot
of water in a region that doesn't have a lot of water, to
produce synthetic fuels at great cost of both energy and
dollars, a thousand to two thousand miles from their
major demand centers." I'm referring to shale oil. My
contacts gave it a large vote of "no confidence."
From our review of DOE, it seemed there was
heavy emphasis on these megabucks, centralized, very
high technology, so-called hard energy alternatives,
and there seemed to be a very great lack of emphasis on
the soft, the decentralized, the not very expensive in
terms of capital-cost-to-the-government-type of energy
alternatives. I would include here such things as energy
conservation. I would include a whole spectrum of
things related to solar—passive, active, even some of
moderate technology.
This again is not original with me. You will find it
shot through this review document. And, incidentally,
the public that 1 talked to, at least, just were reflecting
very accurately what this document said.
I also constantly heard this wish to have much
greater public participation in the energy decisions. Of
course immediately the question is, how?
By the way, this expressed need to have much
greater public participation, arose out of some of the
considerations we've already talked about. They felt, A,
that they hadn't been involved and hadn't been in-
formed; and B, what decisions had been made hadn't
been too smart. And so actually they felt that they knew
better.
They also were reacting to what they felt was an at-
titude of arrogance. Of course I had long contact with
the old Atomic Energy Commission, and so I'm well-
schooled in arrogance. In fact, I was at one time an
employee of the Atomic Energy Commission, and
again am well schooled from the inside. But anyhow,
it's sort of a "Papa knows best." Ms. Jadiker was point-
ing out this over and over and over again this morning,
with reference to the gcothermal business. "Go away,
little boy, don't bother me. Papa knows best. You don't
get the big picture."
I believe, Dr. Kinsel, you were asking about the
"big picture" this morning. I think it's precisely the big
picture that's being missed. Here we go putting this
heavy reliance on—again—our nonrenewable fossil
fuels, a heavy reliance on high technology, a very great
centralization, as opposed to other alternatives. We're
in a new ballgame, and yet we're applying the same old
fossil-fuel-dependent-society notions. In many cases,
the people in the DOE and elsewhere in government
that are pushing this came right out of the very fossil fuel
industry that they're trying to force us to be dependent
on for the foreseeable future.
The people felt that there's a need for some fresh
new thinking, that we're in a new energy world, not in
the old one.
131
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
Now, the suggestions about how there can be
greater public participation had to do with fund-
ing—that's a repeating concern here. One specific sug-
gestion which would require very little funding is to
demand public representation on the ESAAB—and I
use DOE's gobbledygook here. Translated to (just
barely) understandable English, you will find ESAAB is
the Energy Systems Acquisitions Advisory Board. If you
look at DOE flow charts you will see that the Energy
Systems Acquisitions Advisory Board is the one which
determines whether it's time for a particular program to
move from laboratory to pilot to demonstration to
commercialization.
,- The public feels that they ought to be represented
on the—this is now an in-house organization. It's in-
cestuous. It's the same revolving door arrangement of
people from the very industries that they're talking
about being branches of deciding whether it's time to go
ahead or not, and the public be damned. And the public
is not very happy about that.
So public representation on at least the ESAAB,
and there was a suggestion this morning which I picked
up as well from the people 1 talked to—that there be a
national citizens advisory board, advisory to the DOE
and EPA on energy matters. And I would simply
underscore comments which you've already heard two
or three times—this morning—that there be prepared
information for all sorts of media dissemination about
the energy program alternatives, that there perhaps be
regional or State public information meetings. This has
to do with public participation. That would be informa-
tion the public could use to participate much more often
and in a much more informed manner.
And finally, I would emphasize and re-emphasize
the notion of much earlier more effective consideration
of environmental concerns. I wish Dr. Hirsch were here,
I would ask his permission to condense his presentation
into two words, and I would then mimic Ms. Jadiker for
the two words. She would say, "Think small," and then
I .would underscore that. I think Dr. Hirsch—if I could
find him, we might drink to it shortly—"Think early," in
matters of environmental concern.
He alluded to, for example, a power plant—the
siting of power plants, and commented that too often
some corporate body said, "Find a piece of land
cheap," and they bought it, and said, "Now we're going
to put a power plant here. Give us the permits." And he
alluded to a couple of power plants that he knew about
that are in absolutely the worst possible locations.
!'m virtually certain that I know the same two, and
they're in Florida. You couldn't have picked two loca-
tions on the coast of Florida that were worse than the
two that were picked by these companies in just the
manner described. It got to be so terrible, and was get-
ting to litigation and all this sort of thing, that I'm—well,
I'll speak for a moment, if you will allow me, from per-
sonal experience. I got called in at the last moment as
sort of a neutral third party. There was about to be a
lawsuit and all that kind of thing. So I had to see if there
wasn't some way, now that they've made this terrible
decision about the power plant and they'd started to
build it, was there any way that we could ameliorate it a
little bit.
And the answer turned out to be yes, and in the
process, save the company in excess of a million
dollars.
So the—that particular power company's ex-
ecutives are rather ambivalent when they see me come
into the room where they are. They don't know
whether I'm a kook or not, since I actually saved them
some money and got some environmentalists off their
backs, and—so anyhow, the point of this story is that
this got such very bad press in Florida, and very bad
repercussions in state government, that both power
companies involved independently set up their own
site-selection criteria, and it was really a very responsive
sort of thing. It was a very thoughtful thing; it took into
account all sorts of environmental considerations, and
they voluntarily came up with lists of—a very small list
of possibly acceptable locations, acceptable environ-
mentally, and they simply outright rejected a number of
other sites in Florida.
Ultimately Florida did pass a power plant siting bill
which essentially said—formalized into law this kind
of matrix preparation and so on, very—rather sophisti-
cated selection of sites.
It would seem to me that sort of thing needs to be
done with reference to some of these energy park sites
that we're talking about. The NEPA level is too late. By
then the sides have been chosen, real estate has been
bought and camps have been set up, and "'tis so, 'tain't
so" has been going back and forth, and it's much too
late.
We were supposed, by the way, to talk about the
DOE decisionmaking process, which incidentally kind
of bothered me. That sounded very bureaucratic, to talk
about process. I mean I didn't care so terribly much
about the process. 1 cared about the results. By the way,
I was not alone in that—you'll find that in your docu-
ment as well.
Although, in looking at the process, it seemed to
have a lot of holes in it. The results have been pretty
sorry too, to start with.
You heard a litany of objections to the way it's ac-
tually been working out, and so I would suggest that
maybe the process needs some surgery, but I would
also suggest that the decisions that have been made so
far, the very basic decisions to go to this high energy,
centralized high technology, almost to the exclusion of
the other things, just isn't the way the public is thinking.
One last little example of that, some rather forward
thinking individual in the Department of Energy pushed
for and got as part of their appropriation, some money
for small grants to little people for innovative ideas of
132
-------
Statement of Dr. Anthony
this appropriate technology type of thing. To the region
that I know best, which is the Southeast, there was $1
million in the kitty, and it wasn't at all well publicized
that this kitty was there, but—you're familiar with this
sort of thing, 1 think, Ms, Hanmer.
Anyhow, word somehow leaked out that indeed
there was this money available, and in the Southeastern
eight-State region, Region IV in the EPA, although
there was a $1 million kitty, the last time I heard the
numbers they had received over 1500 applications for
this. The aggregate value of the proposals submitted
was in excess of $70 million. These numbers are out-of-
date by about two months. It's much worse now.
Now I admit that a fair number of those would be
for perpetual motion machines, or whatever. You
know, a fair number of them you would have to
eliminate out-of-hand. But it suggests very probably the
real need for this kind of money for the small-scale ap-'
propriate technology little fellow type investigation or
research, in many cases, was badly, badly
underestimated by the DOE, that very probably in the
Southeast they could have spent profitably thirty, forty,
or even fifty million dollars to support such proposals,
and they had quite a time getting a one million dollar
appropriation!
This suggests to me again a gross miscalculation of
what the state—of what the situation really is, and I
would think there ought to be just a painstaking
reassessment of where we're going in energy, for a
number of reasons.
Think small. Think early. And think differently.
Okay? That's it.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you, Dr. Anthony.
Do we have any questions from the panel?
(No response.}
MR. ONDICH: I'd like to make an observation,
and then a question or two.
You reflected certainly on some of the people,
some of the witnesses we had today, but I'd like to add
that we have heard from other witnesses, some people
who actually were concerned with the national coal pro-
ject, and some larger projects, larger than what may be
considered small-scale appropriate technologies, about
the need for more information, more information before
you get to the NEPA process, more public participation,
so I would add that as you hopefully look at some of the
other testimony of the last few days you be reassured
that those comments were carried out.
DR. ANTHONY: Well I certainly hope so, and if I
may make a comment on your comment, I did not want
to leave the impression that I thought one should, say,
junk the notion of looking at shale oil or coal gasifica-
tion, and the like. No, I didn't mean that at all.
I simply meant that I wanted some reordering of
the priorities, where these other things seem to be rather
poor relations. I simply wanted to elevate them to
legitimacy—not that I wanted to, say, dump shale oil, or
dump one of the others, although I would suggest that
this panic pressure to get them on-line and to hell with
environmental or any other considerations, doesn't
make much sense either.
I'm simply saying that 1 think there should be some
greater balance of approach than there is now. I did not
want to leave the impression that I thought these were
forever and totally and always bad ideas. I'm just saying
to go at them as the top priority item hell-bent, forget
the environmental and social and economic impulses,
was also a dumb idea.
I'm very reassured that there was this expression
from these other areas.
MR. ONDICH: The question—I really have two.
The first one has to do with NEPA. You talked about
NEPA requirements and how it may be too late in the
process. 1 wondered if you have any feeling about the
regulations, the CEQ regulations, which became effec-
tive several months ago, where they're talking about
records of decisionmaking, where environmental fac-
tors are brought in to that process.
Do you think this would in any way help in making
the NEPA requirements more responsive to—
DR. ANTHONY: I think it's a step in the right
direction. 1 think it remains to be seen how well it works
out.
I'm concerned about the NEPA process being so
late—being after the acquisition of real estate, and these
sorts of things, where you end up in—you're being
asked to pass on is this particular thing proposed at this
location—what are the environmental consequences?
You know, it's—well, I get back to wondering, sup-
pose even back within the DOE, suppose their environ-
mental branch says the impact statement prepared by
their program office stinks. I have a strong suspicion that
the program office may well say, "Go away, boy, don't
bother me. We're going to build the plant."
1 want to see some sort of regulation or legal bar
against that kind of thing, and in the case of the
NEPA—I mean bless NEPA. It helped very much to
stop a misbegotten project in the State of Florida called
the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, and I'll drink to that this
evening. NEPA is necessary and useful, but I'm saying
that that shouldn't be the only thing. There should be a
whole lot stronger earlier things, when there's much
greater chance of success in— really, what I'm asking is
to adapt the energy developments to the needs of the
environment on occasion, instead of always the other
way, always saying well, we'll only destroy nineteen
percent of the mangroves in order to put the plant here.
1 think the suggestion ought to be well now, sup-
pose the plant is ten percent less efficient if you took it
away from the mangroves altogether. That's adapting
the energy program to the needs of the mangroves,
rather than vice versa. And I think this approach needs
to come in very early.
133
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
MR. ONDICH: My—okay, just one more short
question.
In our prehearing document we were concerned
about the appropriate level of government, the Federal
level, the State level, County level, for dealing with
some of the environmental problems. We talked about
familiarity with the Southeast, the eight-State region
view. Do you have any reaction to that? Because I
would hate to think that all this information should
come from the Federal level.
DR. ANTHONY: I have some information, too.
I'm ambivalent here. I recognize the—and I reacted very
strongly to—in a positive sense—to the testimony of
Ms. Jadiker about the—just wanting to stomp down the
individual—the local level of government, this pater-
nalistic, you know, "Don't bother me, boy," you know,
"it won't do you any good," and so on. That attitude, I
deplore.
But I don't want to go all the way and put it way
down in the control of little individual governmental
units. I am painfully aware that in certain counties in
certain States which obviously shall be nameless that
one could subvert the county commission for about
$1.98 ahead-
daughter.)
DR. ANTHONY: —and this kind of worries me.
And there are political pressures within a State,
sometimes, or within a county that would be irresistible.
They may be totally illogical, but they would be irre-
sistible, whereas someone up here, you know, could
care less about whose brother-in-law is Department of
Natural Resources head, or whatever, you know. These
things end up being important at the local level.
So I think there needs to be some balance. I
wouldn't opt for total local control, and I certainly don't
opt for an arrogant paternalistic attitude on the part of
the Federal Government.
In Florida we've been developing a kind of a model
of governmental partnership in an effort to preserve
some parts of the Suwanee River, the one fabled in
song, and so on, from unwise development and ex-
ploitation. First, some years ago the Federal govern-
ment proposed to make it a national wild and scenic
river. But, it was an arrogant proposal. It paid no atten-
tion to local requirements, or anything else, and got a
fury of local opposition.
And it just fed these $1.98 subversive-type groups.
So, what happened? The Suwannee, for ten years, was
developed badly and with total lack of synchronization
of taws and that sort of thing, but finally it became ob-
vious that indeed local control wasn't working. It
became obvious even to the local people, and now
there's a movement afoot in a sort of a multipartite ap-
proach of partners, partners of the county commissions,
the regional planning boards, the environmental
organizations of the State, our Congressmen, and the
appropriate federal agencies, that are now trying to,
together, draw up legislation that will accomplish and
accommodate as much as possible with several points of
view, but it's a cooperative thing, deliberately and con-
sciously attempting to be pretty much equal partners.
And this is the kind of thing that I think I would
prefer to see, rather than the present almost wholly
Federal, paternalistic arrogant sort of thing, which I've
seen too much of. But I also worried about—now
maybe you don't have that kind of county commissions
in your State, but we have some in our State, that are all
too easily pressured locally to be on the side of non-
logic, and they need to be balanced.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you.
MS. HANMER: You opened your statement by a
description of the efforts you had made calling around
talking with people.
DR. ANTHONY: Yes.
MS. HANMER: Would you say that there is a
consensus among the people you talked to or the
people you know of on your recommendations about
thinking small or thinking early, or about the direction in
which our energy policy has taken? Do you think that
represents an upsweli of public opinion?
DR. ANTHONY: Yes I do, very strongly so.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
DR. BISHOP: Greg?
MR. ONDICH: Yes.
DR. BISHOP: I'd like to pose one questiomthat
you might respond to out of your experience.
You emphasize strongly the need for more public
participation, and one of the things that I guess I've
wondered about in this called-for public participation is
to what extent that itself is also an elitist process, to a
certain extent? That is, those people who in fact do re-
spond to opportunities to make input to these kinds of
processes come from a certain level of education, in-
volvement in" decisionmaking activities that are carried
out in private industry and government, and so forth,
and even in the call for public participation there's
still—you're still really missing some large group of
people that are not particularly informed on these
issues, and may not be.
Are you concerned that they should be? Should
there be an effort to attempt to inform these people and
draw them into the process? Or to what extent do you
think it is balanced or elitist, as I characterize it?
DR. ANTHONY: As Mr. Ondich would confirm, I
believe, a rather substantial part of the Atlanta Regional
meeting that occurred in July revolved around just such
questions as you talked about. We were talking
with—yes, there was this need for public participation, a
strongly felt need. Yes, I and most of the people at that
Atlanta hearing, and I suppose here, would fall in this
elitist group. I'm a college professor. I've been involved
in environmental—I've been an environmental com-
municator, I've been involved in environmental hassles,
I've had some relationship to State government, and so
134
-------
Statement of Mr. McClellan
on. So I'm not—and this is not meant in any way to be
derogatory or pejorative. I'm not Joe Six-Pack.
But some—but these decisions are going to greatly
affect Joe Six-Pack, and in a democracy he should have
a voice, and the kind of thing we were arguing—we just
could not resolve how this could be accomplished.
In the first place, to inform Joe Six-Pack in this very
complicated and often technical arena would seem to
be an almost insurmountable thing. And secondly, is
sheer numbers. How can you have any sizable cross
section of the population, you know, including—and
you name whatever comes to mind when you think of
other than elitist professions—to have them repre-
sented, and so on.
We never—we simply couldn't come to grips with
it. I don't know how this can be accomplished. I see it as
a very major problem, that there is a certain almost
built-in elitism in the hearings and in the so-called
"public participation programs," close quotes. There's a
certain elitism. It's pretty hard to get around, but I think
that very real efforts need to be made to try to get
around the elitist characteristic.
I'd agree that there are problems in that area, and I
frankly haven't got very much in the way of suggestions.
I've been involved a few times in public participation
efforts and have not been very successful. I'm trying to
reach—for example, in our State, we try to reach—we
have a little contact with organized labor, but not very
much. Very little contact with the black community.
We've tried and failed. I don't have suggestions in that
area.
DR. BISHOP: Thank you.
MR. ONDICH: Again, I would like to thank you,
Dr. Anthony.
And I'd like to move to our next witness, Mark
McClellan, from the Citizens Advisory Council of
Pennsylvania.
DR. ANTHONY: I will send you expurgated
copies.
Statement of Nark McClellan
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Citizens Advisory Council
MR. McCLELLAN: My name is Mark McClellan. I
am the Executive Director of the Citizens Advisory
Council to the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources.
The Citizens Advisory Council was established in
1970 by an act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, and is
mandated to advise the Governor, the General
Assembly, and the Department of Environmental
Resources on environmental affairs.
The overall mission of the Council is to promote an
environmentally sensitive point of view in the work of
the Department, and other agencies, and to inject a
nonagency citizen-oriented perspective into the public
decisionmaking process.
It is from this perspective that I've reviewed the
Department of Energy's Environmental Planning and
Assessment Process, as well as its role within the overall
Department of Energy's Program Project Management
System (PPMS) as it was outlined to us at the July 30th,
1970 workshop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I must state at the beginning that it is somewhat dif-
ficult as well as uncomfortable to review a process which
is so deficient in terms of opportunities for public in-
volvement, as well as interagency coordination, that
most participants in the workshop, as well as the EPA
personnel, were not even sure that the system is opera-
tional, let alone whether the actual decisionmaking pro-
cess follows a formal design.
In my testimony today I will address my comments
to the major deficiencies, which seem to exist and which
in my opinion must be improved if the program and
project management system is to result in environmen-
tally acceptable decisions on major energy technology
projects.
The intent of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act which mandates these
hearings is clear. It is to develop on an urgent basis the
technological capabilities to support a broad range of
energy options which are both socially and environmen-
tally acceptable. This indicates that for an energy
technology to be acceptable it must meet the dual
criteria of technological feasibility and environmental
acceptability.
It is therefore essential that any technology project
which proceeds to the commercialization through the
Department of Energy's Research, Development, and
Demonstration Program (RD&D) must give equal atten-
tion to resolving environmental problems associated
with the technology, as is given to eliminating
technological problems.
In the materials which were provided to the
workshop participants, it indicated that in April 1979
the President's Second National Energy Plan expressed
this same intention by stating, "Satisfactory develop-
ment of all these energy technologies depends on solv-
ing environmental and worker safety issues in parallel
with economic and technical issues."
To insure that research and environmental issues
are synchronized with the development phase of the
technology, I believe it is essential that environmental
considerations be integrated into all stages of the
decision process, from basic research through
commercialization.
The purpose of the Section 11 review, as you are
aware, is to review the Department of Energy's Environ-
mental Planning and Assessment Process to determine
whether DOE has actually given adequate attention to
environmental protection in the PPMS decisions. Due
to a lack of public access to the DOE planning
documents, such as the Project Environmental Plans
(PEP) and the Environmental Readiness Documents
135
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
(ERD), I am frankly unable to determine to what extent
and at what stages environmental considerations are
considered.
Consequently, I believe that the major decisions in
the PPMS can be a good barometer to determine to
what extent, and at what stage environmental concerns
have been considered by the Energy System Acquisi-
tion Advisory Board (ESAAB) and the Under
Secretary, in their decisions to move a technology to the
next development phase.
As a measure of the success of the process, I
believe a case can be made that the review process and
the preparation of the Environmental Development
Plan (EDP) and the Environmental Readiness
Documents (ERD) are only useful and are only accomp-
lishing their objectives if the processes as applied can
result in a negative decision.
1 believe this is the critical test of the success of the
environmental planning and assessment process. The
obvious purpose of this assessment process is to insure
that the PPMS system results in an environmentally ac-
ceptable decision. In other words, if the process is
operational, and if the EDP and ERD are given ade-
quate consideration by the Board and Under Secretary,
then one would expect to see at least some projects
being temporarily halted or permanently canceled, if the
environmental impacts are determined to be unaccept-
able, or if some problems remain to be resolved which
require additional research prior to moving a
technology to a subsequent phase of the development
process.
In my judgment, this does not appear to be the
case within the Department of Energy today. Once a
project enters the funding pipeline for basic research, it
appears to be a foregone conclusion that the project will
proceed unmolested through the key decision points in
the PPMS to commercialization.
For example, to date, over twenty ERDs have been
prepared on energy technologies involved in geother-
mal, coal liquefaction, coal gasification, and oil shale
projects, yet not one has been held up or canceled,
despite the fact that each has serious environmental
drawbacks which remain to be solved and in some cases
problems which are yet to be completely understood.
All indications are that the necessary environ-
mental research identified in earlier EDPs, is moving at
a pace considerably behind the technological develop-
ment. In addition, coal liquefaction and gasification pro-
jects, where there is serious potential for adverse health
effects, have moved at least partially to the commer-
cialization phase with minimum effort to resolve the
environmental problems at a similar speed.
The ERDs prepared on these projects and pro-
grams have not been readily available to the public.
Therefore, if one assumes that the major environmental
problems and research needs have been addressed by
the Office of Environment in the ERD, then either the
PPMS system is not being used, or the Office of Envir-
onment's planning documents have not been given
adequate consideration by the Board or the
Under Secretary of DOE.
I must emphasize again, that it is extremely difficult
to verify this information because the Board's activities
are shrouded in mystery. Their meetings are not widely
publicized, there is no public or outside agency involve-
ment in their decisions, and there's no evidence that
there are any formal criteria or performance standards
upon which their decisions are based.
Consequently, the public as well as other Federal
agencies have no way to determine the rationale for the
Board's recommendations to the Under Secretary.
For example, in the past week the Board has met
and has approved the moving of two solvent refined
coal projects to the next development phase. An ERD
on the technologies was available for Board review.
However, it is impossible to determine whether the
document's findings have had any effect on their deci-
sion to recommend proceeding into the development
phase.
In summary, I believe there are three principal
problems which seriously reduce the ability of the PPMS
system to result in environmentally responsive
decisions.
The first is the lack of formal criteria or standards
upon which the Board and Under Secretary base their
evaluations of individual technologies.
The second is the insufficient authority to mandate
the synchronizing of environmental research with the
technological development.
The third is the existence of major barriers to public
review of DOE planning and review documents, and
the lack of opportunity for public involvement in the
decisionmaking process.
The first problem, the absence of explicit criteria,
gives the appearance if not the reality, that decisions are
arbitrary. If such criteria or standards were applied to all
technologies, it would insure that pertinent environ-
mental issues are given considerations at all key deci-
sion points in the PPMS process.
In addition, the consistent application of the criteria
to all technologies, large and small, will provide a sound
basis to compare the relative superiority of alternative
energy technologies and options at each development
phase.
It is my recommendation that specific criteria
should be developed and formally applied to all
technologies at each key decision point. In addition, the
Board's recommendations should be based on the
satisfactory meeting of these criteria. Accompanying all
Board recommendations should be justifying documen-
tation. This information should be widely distributed for
a specific time period for public review and comment
prior to the Under Secretary's decision.
136
-------
Statement of Mr. McClellan
The second major problem stems from the absence
of any formal requirement that would stipulate that no
energy acquisition project can proceed to the next
development phase until environmental concerns and
research needs have been satisfactorily resolved.
A combination of the EDP and the ERD are the
essential basis upon which this evaluation should be
made. The EDP defines the major environmental con-
cerns associated with a particular technology and the
environmental research requirements for addressing
these concerns through each subsequent phase of the
development process.
The ERD is the independent judgment of the Office
of Environment as to whether it is suitable for an energy
technology to move to the next phase. This is actually
an evaluation of how adequately DOE has addressed
the concerns and resolved the problems identified in the
EDP, and more specifically the PEP.
Presently, the Office of Environment's planning
and assessment documents are only advisory and are
used as guidance to the Board, the Program Offices,
and the Under Secretary. It is my recommendation that
the progress of all energy acquisition projects be condi-
tioned on the satisfactory completion of the research
and resolution of major environmental problems iden-
tified in the EDP.
The EDP should be modified to identify
"thresholds" which should outline the environmental
conditions which must be met and the extent of the
research which must be completed during each
development phase. Any deficiencies or unacceptable
environmental problems, identified in an ERD, should
be a condition for temporarily halting and in severe
cases canceling a project. In the case of a project that
does not meet the threshold, the Department of Energy
Under Secretary should have the discretion to allow the
project to proceed. But only to the next phase, and
under conditional approval which would stipulate that
specified environmental concerns must be resolved in a
specified time period, or the project will be placed on
permanent hold at that phase.
No technology should be ever approved for com-
mercialization unless all thresholds are satisfactorily met.
It is essential that these conditions be made compulsory.
Otherwise, environmental research will continue to lag
far behind the development of energy technologies,
making it increasingly difficult to discourage the use of a
technology until the environmental problems have been
resolved, if at all possible. One only has to look at the
history of nuclear power in this country to recognize that
once the genie is out of the bottle, pressures come to
bear which make it difficult to put it back. For example,
if nuclear power had proceeded through a process of
development with the additional conditions I've men-
tioned, commercialization could not have been possible
until the question of permanent waste disposal had
been satisfactorily resolved.
Finally, if the public is to be able to adequately
review and comment on the DOE energy technology
decisions, DOE planning and assessment documents
must have wider distribution. More importantly,
however, DOE must provide for greater opportunity for
the public to participate in the decisions themselves, and
not just to react to the DOE decisions. The increasing
lack of confidence in government can be clearly traced
to the public's mounting frustration over its inability to
participate in the public decisionmaking process. The
Energy System Acquisition Advisory Board, which
reviews the Environmental Readiness Documents, and
authorizes each of the successful phases of the develop-
ment, has Yio public representation and no system for
widespread review of their decision outside of DOE. It is
my recommendation that the Board's membership be
expanded to include members of the public, and
representatives of other Federal agencies.
In addition, all Board recommendations accom-
panied by justifying documentation should be made
public and open to formal public review and comment.
Presently, the major opportunity for public review and
comment on DOE decisions is within the EIS process. I
recommend that this review be expanded to provide
formal public review of the Office of Environment's
Planning and Assessment Document, the EDP, the
PEP, and the ERD. In this manner, the public can in-
sure that all relevant environmental factors have been
considered, the appropriate research has been pro-
posed, and all major environmental problems have
been resolved prior to commercialization of any energy
technology.
In closing, it is disheartening to realize that as we sit
here attempting to improve this management system,
Congress is considering the establishment of an Energy
Mobilization Board, with the authority to waive environ-
mental laws, to preempt state and local land use
authority, to reduce opportunities for judicial review
and public participation, as well as to eliminate the pro-
cedures which are the essential elements of the process
we're discussing today. These procedures must not be
viewed as hindrances to meeting the Nation's energy
needs. Procedural duplication and unnecessary admin-
istrative practices, which prolong the siting instruction of
essential energy supply projects, should be eliminated.
However, substantive laws and review procedures
established to protect public health and safety should
not be waived. These procedures were meant, through
their required review procedures, to insure better deci-
sions and to eliminate decisions which will result in
severe costs, in terms of environmental and public
health damage, and social disruption.
The DOE, in its RD&D program, must provide for
a formal process to insure that the critical questions of
need and the environmental and social acceptability are
adequately debated, with sufficient opportunity for
public participation. Increasingly, evidence indicates
137
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
that the types of projects which the DOE is presently
funding, such as synthetic fuel facilities, are not needed
on the scale proposed, and cannot make substantial
contributions to our near-term energy problems. As a
result, the waiving of any review requirements will result
in the continued expenditure of vast sums of Federal
funds for energy supply projects which are unnecessary
and which pose serious environmental problems.
if I can add one thing to my formal comments, I
may have a different opinion from a lot of these people
coming here in the last three days and from comments
made earlier in the sense that I believe that the process
is all important. Even maybe more important than want-
ing the right decisions. Because if we don't have a good
process in place, then the decision will be made at the
whim of those people who are in the position of making
these decisions at that time. We can have a solar advo-
cate, if he's in DOE now, supporting solar. Once he
leaves, we'll have the kind of synthetic fuel processes
we're having now. If you have a good process with
specific criteria on which a decision should be based,
and it's in place, decisions cannot be made arbitrarily by
people due to individual bias or outside pressures. The
explicit criteria which 1 recommended will make it clear
what the right decisions are, and I'm sure, then, that
under this process soft technologies will fare very well.
Again, 1 want to thank you for this opportunity,
and ! will welcome any of your questions at this time.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you, Mr. McClellan.
Are there any questions from the panel?
DR. BISHOP: Yes. You've referred to the need
for criteria to determine what— whether a technology is
environmentally acceptable, and you make a decision
at some point based on acceptability as to whether you
continue. And you've referred to the concept of
thresholds as one way of establishing perhaps a 'no-go'
or a 'go' decision point.
Many of those criteria that you might set up of
course—range on a continuum of values, of impacts or
emissions or whatever, and I guess I'm interested in
what your comments are on—as you look at a con-
tinuum or a range, if there isn't a clear threshold per se.
How do you establish those levels that will tell you
whether it's acceptable or not acceptable, and make
those judgments?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's a combination of
things. You're very right. I don't think all of the impacts
can be quantified, and many of them just can only be
balanced against other risks that other technologies
impose.
However, I think there's a combination of things
that can insure that a reasonable evaluation can be
done.
My main concern in establishing criteria is basically
to insure that decisions are made on the basis of a
careful evaluation of all important factors.
Presently, the Board is now operating in the dark.
We don't know how they're making the decisions. They
appear arbitrary. They may not be, but they never give
any justification for their decisions.
For example, the Environmental Readiness
Documents on coal gasification, the one in 1978,
according to the data that I was given, came out and
said there was a .5 or fifty percent chance that adverse
environmental impacts would take place, meaning im-
pacts—in their definition—which would go beyond and
exceed present or planned environmental standards.
The decision was still made to go ahead through
commercialization with those technologies. There was
no justification of why, whether they felt that was ac-
ceptable or unacceptable adverse environmental
impacts.
For example, one criteria which I would suggest be
used, is to establish a level of risk of unacceptable envir-
onmental impact whether it be .5 or .6; this should be
debated, and use this as a threshold which must be met
prior to moving a project to the next development
stage.
In addition, I believe that even if a criteria is not
quantifiable it is important, even if it just requires you to
look at certain environmental factors before the decision
is made to move it to the next development phase. If
this is done in conjunction with public review of the
planning and assessment documents that DOE prepares
we can, for example, look at the EDP and see if all rele-
vant environmental factors have been considered. If the
answer is yes then we can then look and see if the ap-
propriate research is being done; and then when the
Board and the Under Secretary make their decision
on the environmental acceptability of the tech-
nology—we'll have some basis for determining whether
their justification is a lot of hot air or it's based on an
adequate evaluation of the information and research
that's been completed.
But you're quite right. I think there is difficulty in
determining what is unacceptable environmental risk or
impacts. I would argue, however, that the inability to
quantify a factor or criteria such as environmental risk
does not preclude us from making an intelligent and
reasonable choice. I think the public can make good
decisions and can determine what's better, the risk of
nuclear accident or the risk of the health hazards from
sulfur dioxide problems with coal burning, if given suffi-
cient information,
MR. ONDICH: Anything else?
DR. KINSEL: I'd like to make one comment,
which really encompasses both your statement and the
previous one.
As a representative of an organization which seeks
to have an impact on the policy process, I can certainly
underscore from our experience the kinds of things you
suggest as being important to improve the process.
138
-------
Statement of Mr. McClellan
I suggest, though—and I would like to get your
reactions to it—that perhaps one of the participants in
the policy process which has not been used to the fullest
potential and perhaps is not really meeting its obliga-
tions is Congress. The kinds of documents or the kinds
of information which you recommend be put together
by the Department and made publicly available should
perhaps—and I'd be curious to get your comments on
this—go to the Congress and lay out in a fairly simple
form for them what the alternatives are and the risks.
It's very difficult to insure, even based on the pro-
cess, that people are going to make decisions which are
really responsible, and it frequently seems to be impor-
tant that you have a check and balance system, at least
from the perspective from which we deal with the policy
process.
DR. ANTHONY: Are you really speaking to both
of us, or—
DR. KINSEL: Yes, I am.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that is important and
you're right. 1 think you saw the Congress in the recent
gasoline crisis trying to do anything, regardless of
whether it was right or not with the synthetic fuel bills.
Slowly however they've pulled back and slowed it down
as proper information has been fed to them by people
who know some of the problems related to synthetic
fuels.
Information is a key there, and I think—and that's
why I believe the process is so important, because I
think the facts are there, and I think we can put it out
and have the information an open and comprehensive
debate—both in Congress as well as nationally and at
the state level—which lays out the options and lays out
the risks, and then approaches a decision by asking:
"What are the least cost energy options with the least
probability of adverse environmental and social impacts
which meet our reasonable future energy needs?"
I think that's the way it should be handled. I don't
think we should be supporting specific decisions, but
supporting a proper process in which to make the decision.
DR. ANTHONY: If I may respond briefly, when I
was suggesting that publication of an annual assessment
of energy alternatives, I finally fished around for some
independent agency to—who might well put this out
and I suggested GAO. I had in the back of my mind as a
second suggestion the Congressional Research Service
as the agency that—and that might well have more
impact on Congress.
I was a little concerned about the possible—that
they might possibly be directed for political motives, and
that's why I rejected them in favor of the GAO, but I
certainly did think that of this very important thing you
suggest, that you need to feed to Congress information
which they can believe and act on.
I don't relish—I wouldn't relish their responsibility
in trying to deal with this synthetic fuel business, for
example, as Mr. McClellan has said, on the basis of the
welter of—for the lack of information or misinformation
that they probably have.
I don't know whether the Congressional Research
Service would be a reasonable one to do this, or not,
but again I would bow to you bureaucrats who—not
you. I know you're not a bureaucrat, Dr. Kinsel—
DR. KINSEL: I |Was going to point that out—
DR. ANTHONY: Yes, well I know Tom Kimball
very well, and so I know exactly where you come from.
DR. KINSEL: As far as bureaucracies go, ypu've
made a very, good selection.
DR. ANTHONY: Well I just happily had a plane
seatmate who was GAO, and the light bulb went on.
DR. KINSEL: There is an agency of the Congress
that might—I might just mention—do the job called the
Office of Technology Assessment, which while they see
their mission as somewhat more long range, would be
one of the obvious groups to take a look at this. If I
could make one other very quick comment for the
record, I think what the two of you have underscored
and which—as was pointed out—runs as a thread
through many of theiother public comments, if nothing
else, shows the inadequacy of the Department of
Energy in fulfilling the responsibility given to it by Con-
gress to report back periodically on its assessment of
where the Nation should be going.
If you've ever looked at one of those reports back
to the Congress, they're absolutely inadequate and
don't begin to deal with most of the issues which you've
raised. It seems to me that that's one specific recom-
mendation which ought to go back to the Department,
that they need to take a fresh look at the mandate, the
responsibility given to them by Congress in the act of
setting up the Department, look at the criticism which
has been leveled at the information available to the
public, and try to adjust the discrepancies in that docu-
ment with the mission they should have been undertaking
all along.
DR. ANTHONY: It does seem to be something
that needs to be updated, because the rate of change is
very rapid in these areas, and 1 wouldn't want it to be
cast in concrete or coal, or whatever, but I would plead
for it to be frequently updated.
MR. ONDICH: I would just like to comment on
Mr. McClellan's remarks, and reflect on something that
perhaps he knows.
In our first day of testimony Mrs. Klusen, the Assis-
tant Secretary for Environment from DOE, indicated
that there is a project management study that's currently
going on within the Department, and—so I think your
comments are timely, and we will insure that these are
at least brought to the attention of the people who are
conducting that.
Again, I'd like to thank you, and I'd like to ask that
the panel and perhaps the audience and some of the
witnesses bear with us. I have a note that one of our
later witnesses, Dr. Devine, has asked that he follow
139
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
Mr. Slap because of a plane he has to catch, so what I'd
like to do now is move to Albert Slap from Pennsylvania
Public Interest Law Center, and then following that we'll
have Dr. Devine.
Mr. Slap?
Statement of Albert Slap
Pennsylvania Public Interest Law Center
MR. SLAP: Thank you very much.
My talk is entitled "Synfuels: Will it be the Nuclear
Power of the 1980's?" And with the Senate passing the
Energy Mobilization Board, I intend to send this to all
those who voted in favor of the Energy Mobilization Board.
The energy crisis of the 1970's was no surprise to
most conservationists who had advocated for many
years the wise use of nonrenewable fossil resources.
The writings of John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and others
attest to this fact. America did not heed these admoni-
tions and in fact continues to ignore the energy problem
as the troubled waters rise around us.
This trouble takes many forms: environmental,
political, social, and economic. Directly or indirectly the
degradation of the environment with toxic chemicals,
the near meltdown at Three Mile Island, or fourteen
percent inflation rate, high unemployment, and social
disharmony can be associated with our misguided
energy policy.
Even the widening rift between blacks and Jews
has its roots in the failure of Americans to conserve
energy.
Theoretically, in our society it is the job of Congress
and the President to set policy in the energy area. It is
the job of the Executive Branch agencies, like the
Federal Energy Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency, to carry out that policy.
In actuality, the Federal agencies charged with
implementation have much more control over policy
than is commonly thought.
Take, for example, nuclear power. When Con-
gress passed, and President Eisenhower signed, the
Atomic Energy Act in 1953, it established the Atomic
Energy Commission to facilitate nuclear power develop-
ment and to protect the public welfare and health. In the
energy leadership vacuum that followed for two
decades, the Atomic Energy Commission—and later
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—fostered the
growth of commercial nuclear power. When the acci-
dent at Three Mile Island directed the spotlight of
national and international attention on nuclear power,
the picture that emerged was not pleasant. The public
saw that, in truth, not all of the harmful aspects of
nuclear power had been fully examined by the agencies
charged with guarding public health.
As incredible as it seems now, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission had accepted the nuclear
industry's assertions on the improbability of a Class 9
accident occurring, and never required the evaluation
of Class 9 accidents in individual plant licensing and
environmental impact statements.
Three Mile Island was a Class 9 accident.
All of this relates in a very direct way to the
development of synfuels and the Department of
Energy's decisionmaking process. Just as the Atomic
Energy Commission/Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ushered Americans into the nuclear age with incom-
plete knowledge of the true cost of nuclear
power—[i.e., problems with uranium tailings, fuel
reprocessing, low-level radiation hazards, evacuation
and medical response, and radioactive waste
disposal]—the Department of Energy may be on the
verge of fast-tracking synfuels with the help of a Con-
gress facing reelection and constituents still smoldering
from gas lines in the summer of 1979.
A quick look at the major energy systems being
developed at the Department of Energy by the Office of
Energy Technology clearly illustrates this point. Of the
ten nonnuclear projects on OET's drawing board, a full
six are synfuel projects based on coal; only two are
solar projects.
The Environmental Protection Agency has the
responsibility under Section 11 of the Nonnuclear
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, to
"assess the adequacy of attention to energy conserva-
tion methods and environmental protection, and the
environmental consequences of the application of
energy technologies."
In 1979, EPA examined the Department of
Energy's program and project management system for
determining research and development demonstration
and commercialization investments. No matter how
good DOE's management system is, and no matter how
well EPA fulfills its responsibility to point out flaws in
it—and I point out that EPA's Pittsburgh workshop,
which I attended, was one of the most superbly orches-
trated and high-powered sessions I've ever attended—
the sometimes creative agency-to-agency tension can-
not produce a positive result unless Congress
understands the very nature of the energy crisis itself.
There is no indication that Congress does under-
stand the energy crisis. The fast-tracking Energy
Mobilization Board will undoubtedly accelerate syn-
fuels—including oil shale development in a desperate
attempt to achieve energy independence without really
understanding the ties that bind us to our present
dilemma.
In Barry Commoner's 1976 treatise on energy,
The Poverty of Power, he gives an excellent overview
on the energy crisis and coal's place in the solution to
the crisis. Coal is abundant, he says. We have enough
in the United States to: "last about four to six hundred
years at the present rate of use."
But how does coal fit into the energy picture?
Should it be used to fire hundreds of synfuel plants
140
-------
Statement of Mr. Slap
across the country? Or should it be used to generate
electricity for electric cars and trucks?
Commoner would argue that synfuel is a very
inefficient use of coal, that enough is known now about
synfuels and oil shale to rule them out of our energy
future, and that society's limited resources, government
tax revenues and private capital should not be directed
there.
Because of its nature, coal is not well-suited for
internal combustion engines that move our private
vehicles and consume one-quarter of the country's
energy. Nor is it suited to directly heat or cool the
Nation's buildings. The question is presented then
whether we try to change coal to meet the needs of our
oil-and-gas-dependent society, or whether we try to
change the utilization of oil and gas.
Commoner argues that:
"The existing U.S. reserves of natural petroleum could
readily take care of our total needs for such fuels for a
period of fifty years or more, a time in which they could
be replaced by renewable energy sources. There would
then be no need to develop coal conversion or shale oil
production. Nevertheless, in the absence of such a
rational energy program, the production of synthetic
fuels from coal and shale is often put forward as a viable
substitute for imported oil."
Commoner argues that, with existing knowledge,
wise policymakers would rule out coal conversion and
oil shale development on three grounds: (1) thermal
inefficiency; (2) environmental and health impacts;
and, (3) economics.
Thermodynamically, coal is a high quality energy
source and should be matched to the tasks needing
such sources, namely, generation of electricity, heat for
industrial processes, and industrial steam.
Commoner writes:
"The notion of converting coal to liquid fuel to run
vehicles flies in the face of thermodynamics. By the time
the fuel has been produced, about a third of coal's
original energy content has been used up to run the
liquefaction process. Then, when the fuel is used to run
cars and trucks most of it is wasted because these
vehicles operate with an efficiency of about ten percent.
The waste heat that their engines produce is spewed
into the environment and cannot possibly be applied to
any practical tasks."
The environmental effects of synfuels include those
traditionally associated with coal mining—harm to land
from spoil banks and strip mining, black lung in
underground miners, acid mine drainage, etcetera.
Water usage in oil shale and coal conversion is also a
serious problem. Synfuels can consume thirty to two
hundred gallons of water per million BTUs while strip
mining alone uses only .7 to 1.6 gallons per million
BTUs.
The possible widespread development of coal con-
version in oil shale in the dry Western States threatens
to destroy an important renewable resource, the
agricultural land base.
Another well-known environmental health effect of
coal conversion, and one which is of particular concern
to my organization, is cancer. Coal hydrogenization
byproducts, polycyclic hydrocarbons, have been shown
to produce cancer in humans since 1775 when Percival
Potts discovered scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps. Skin
cancers among workers were associated with a coal
conversion operation in West Virginia between 1952
and 1959. Shale oil has been a recognized carcinogen
since 1876.
Apart from these very serious environmental prob-
lems, the capital costs of producing synthetic oil and gas
from coal is very much higher than the cost of produc-
ing coal itself. For example, Commoner writes:
"In 1970 a typical strip mine produced per year per
dollar of capital-invested coal two million BTUs of heat
energy. In contrast, if that coal were then liquefied, the
amount of fuel produced per dollar of invested capital
would represent only about 245,000 BTUs of heat
energy, a reduction of more than 87 percent in capital
productivity. Similarly, coal gasification involves a 92
percent reduction in capital productivity. Shale oil pro-
duction yields about 420,000 BTUs of fuel per dollar
capital invested."
The Congressional Budget Office has recently
estimated that the cost to the taxpayer to meet a House
established goal of 500,000 barrels a day of synfuel
could be 18 to 22 billion dollars. A recent article in
Science magazine—volume 205, page 168—restated
the position of some energy analysts that, "develop-
ment of synfuels should be left almost entirely to the
private sector. The government's most useful contribu-
tion would be to stop interfering with market
mechanisms."
Commoner's assertions have also been supported
by a new study produced at the Harvard Business
School entitled Energy Future. The study argues that
the most advantageous future scenario would be to
emphasize conservation. According to Dr. Stovall, one
of the Harvard study's authors, conservation can: "save
five million barrels a day by the late 1980's, faster than
you can get even one billion barrels a day from synthetic
fuels."
Having reviewed the problems associated with syn-
fuels development, it is perhaps best to conclude by urg-
ing EPA to call to the attention of Congress through its
Section 11 review that a major national commitment to
synfuels and oil shale brought into commercial develop-
ment by the Department of Energy would be a potential
disaster, environmentally, economically, and would
drain needed-public and private resources away from
energy conservation.
In this regard, I am submitting for the record a copy
of the Energy Summary Table from the Sierra Club's
alternative energy plan. This table compares, strategy-
by-strategy, the Sierra Club's plan to President Carter's
plan. It shows that conservation can reduce 1990 oil
imports by 2.46 million barrels per day more than the
141
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
Administration's plan, and reduce 12,449 billion more
total barrels by 1990 than the President's plan.
The additional ten-year costs of this conservation
program would only be 2.5 billion dollars.
Whether one is pro- or anti-nuclear, there is
general agreement that commitments to commercializa-
tion of nuclear power were made without adequate
study of the full costs. As a result, the nuclear industry
is a sick institution teetering on collapse. If it does
collapse, the pieces will have to be picked up by all of ui
at great expense.
With what we know about synf uels, we could easily
find ourselves in 1990 with an industry similar to the
nuclear power industry, having cost billions more than
initially anticipated, having crowded out other investments
that were needed for industrial productivity and controlling
inflation, and having very serious health impacts.
Thank you very much for permitting me to make
these remarks.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you.
Are there any questions from the panel?
(No response.)
MR. ONDICH: I have a very—perhaps not so
general, but a question about your remarks or your
comments on a project that has just recently been
announced, the solvent-refined coal project, which
would certainly affect Pennsylvania, to some extent.
What do you think the Federal Government should
do about that? I mean there has been a commitment
made, the projects are scheduled for development and
construction. What can be done at this point in time?
MR. SLAP: Well, there's always the problem of,
do you throw good money after bad, and my position
would be that if one looks at the energy crisis and the
solutions to it—if we, were going to use coal, we would
be putting it into creating more electricity and using it as
coal in power plants, and not reducing its thermal effi-
ciency and increasing the capital cost by building syn-
fuel plants.
One of the problems that I see in going forward
with these solvent-refined coal plants, at this point, is
that it may stimulate—falsely stimulate or give signals to
private investors and to the energy companies that the
government is going to back this program, that they're
going to continue to provide subsidies in various forms
and bail them out if there's any problem.
This has happened in the area of nuclear power.
You know, we have many half-built plants, and in the
wake of all of the problems that Three Mile Island raised,
do we continue to build those plants, or do we stop?
Another example is the Tellico Dam. We have a
new cost-benefit study that says it's not going to be cost-
beneficial to let the gates close and to flood the
farmland, but because of special interests we go ahead
and do it anyway.
So I would say synfuels at this point in time should
probably be scrapped.
MR. ONDICH: Does that reflect the—1 wouldn't
know if I should call it a constituency, but of the
individuals you represent, particularly from Pennsylvania
or States with resources which have economic value
and are currently being used?
MR. SLAP: Well I'm testifying on my own behalf,
as director of the environmental project of the Public
Interest Law Center; of Philadelphia, but 1 also sit on
several committees of the Sierra Club. Sierra Club has
about 5,000 members in Pennsylvania, and I would say
that this position pretty much accurately reflects the
position in this Energy Summary Table, which is pro-
duced by the National Sierra Club, so I would say that
this is a view—while it is my own personal view, that
it's shared by many people such as Commoner, the
authors of the Harvard Study, conservationists who
believe that we make a commitment to energy conser-
vation, mass transit, automobile efficiency, retrofit of
residences for thermal efficiency, solar research and
funding, cogeneration, industrial conservation, and that
through these that we will achieve much more than we
would achieve by commercialization of synfuels.
I'm not an economist, but one of the scariest
prospects of the heavy DOE emphasis on synfuels and
fast-tracking is the attraction of capital in the wrong
direction, that if there's a limited amount of government
tax resources and if there's a limited amount of private
capital (with the prime interest rate at such a high level,
private capital is not going to be readily invested) to
foster development in one area, it almost inevitably
means that it's not going to be put into another area,
such as solar research or conservation.
MR. ONDICH: Anything else?
(No response.)
MR. ONDICH: Again, I'd like to thank you, Mr.
Slap, and ask if Dr. Devine is here, and we can move to
his testimony.
I'd like to mention that we have scheduled three
more witnesses today—Edith Chase from the League of
Women Voters, Dr. Carl Norbreck from the Thome
Ecological Institute, and Mike Seaman, California Solid
Waste Management Board.
Following Dr. Devine's testimony, I think we'll take
just a short break, perhaps as short as five minutes, to
stand up and stretch, and then we'll proceed into Edith
Chase's testimony. ,
Statement of Michael D. Devine
Director, Science and Public Policy Program
University of Oklahoma
DR. DEVINE: Thank you. I'm Mike Devine. I'm
Director of the Science and Public Policy Program at the
University of Oklahoma, which is a multidisciplinary
research group.
I'd like to note that my testimony is based to a large
extent on a major study of energy RD&D funded by the
142
-------
Statement of Dr. Devine
National Science Foundation, which my colleagues in
the Science and Public Policy Program and 1 completed
about two-and-a-half years ago, and the results of this
study have been published in a book titled "Our Energy
Future."
To begin with, I believe we must give explicit
recognition to the fact that many of the decisions to
be made on future energy sources and conservation
options will be highly politicized. Therefore, energy/
environmental research must be viewed broadly, to pro-
vide information not only to a small research group, bui
also to energy policymakers and the public at large. In
order to be most useful, the research must be both
reliable and credible. Let me briefly define these two
terms and their differences.
Reliability, as I will use it, indicates the scientifically
estimated range of error included in any set of data or
body of information; that is, reliability is a measure of
confidence a scientist or engineer has in the data or
information.
In contrast, credibility is defined as the measure of
the confidence interested parties have in the informa-
tion. Credibility is a synonym for believability. If the
range of parties interested in a decision includes only
scientists and engineers, reliability may be synonymous
with credibility. When parties are introduced who have
broader social or environment concerns, then credibility
requires more than a technical judgment of reliability.
In the background document provided prior to
these hearings, five major issues were identified, and i
will assume that people are generally familiar with those.
I believe that although credibility is not explicitly
mentioned in the discussions of these five issues, it is an
underlying concern in several of them, and I think that's
been brought out in much of the testimony that I've
heard today. Although again that term itself wasn't really
used very much.
For example, issues of state versus national
impacts, environmental criteria used, and the role of non-
DOE interests all reflect a lack of confidence on the part
of at least some interests that environmental impacts
have been adequately addressed. Whether this is fac-
tually true or not is irrelevant and, in fact, impossible to
prove one way or the other.
In raising the issue of credibility, I am, of course, in
no way questioning the competence, motives, or inte-
grity of DOE personnel, but the simple fact is that DOE's
primary mission is to promote energy development,
and therefore many persons are naturally skeptical of
DOE-sponsored and DOE-approved studies dealing
with the environmental consequences of energy
development.
Environmental RD&D appears to require four
characteristics if it is to have maximum credibility.
One, it must involve a diversity of interests in the
planning and the conduct of the research to prevent the
study from being limited to just those impacts of interest
to a specialized research community.
Second, the data and impact assessments must
include site-specific components so as to inform those
likely to be directly affected by energy development.
Third, the research should be produced by persons
or institutions who are viewed as being professionally
competent.
And fourth, the studies must be funded and carried
out by parties who do not have a vested interest in the
outcome of the decisions which will be informed by
the RD&D.
Now there are a wide variety of actions that DOE
might take to enhance the credibility of the environmen-
tal research it carries out or funds. However, I would
like to recommend a series of rather broad changes.
First, for every step in the development phase of an
energy technology, there should be a parallel environ-
mental assessment by a group without a vested institu-
tional interest in the technology.
The purposes of such assessments, are: One, to
provide an early alert regarding impacts on a regional or
site-specific basis that may either enhance or constrain
utilization; and two, to assist in the creation of profes-
sionals who have expertise about the technology and its
potential impacts, but who do not have a vested interest
in its promotion or demise—that is, a professional group
with credibility to a broad range of interested parties.
A second related recommendation is that an inde-
pendent agency should be established to fund and
monitor the environmental assessments.
This new Federal agency should have neither a pro-
motional nor a regulatory role in energy policy. The
agency would be analogous to the National Science
Foundation in its relation to other parts of the Federal
Government.
The agency would identify needs for assessments,
select the groups to do the studies and assure that each
study is conducted so that the results are reliable and
credible. Reliability and credibility require that the
research group not only be professionally competent,
but they also require that representatives of the range of
interested parties be involved as consultants and
reviewers, including representatives of the industry,
local government, and consumer interests.
Participation by a range of potentially affected par-
ties prepares the way for disseminating the information
from the assessment, because it alerts interested parties
to the fact that the data will be forthcoming and it gives
them confidence that the work is comprehensive and
unbiased.
In order to carry out these research programs, my
third recommendation is that new research institutions
be created that have the capability for conducting
reliable and credible energy/environmental research.
143
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
Most existing research organizations are viewed, at
least by some of the parties interested in energy deci-
sions, as having bias because of their ties with funding
sources that have promotional or regulatory interests.
For example, the National Laboratories are charged
by DOE with carrying out much of its environmental
research, but there is a perception among some that
research findings that run counter to agency policy are
unlikely from these captive institutions.
The credibility of various profit and nonprofit
private research organizations is also regularly questioned
because it is believed that the continuing need for new
research contracts imbues them with a sense of cau-
tion—that is, in practice, they become the kept orga-
nizations of those who fund them.
University research groups are often more credible
because their job security is somewhat more removed
from continuing success in generating contracts, but
they are hampered by organizational traditions. For
example, the types of studies called for, fit poorly with
reward systems based on academic disciplines and
traditional basic academic research.
A model for the type of institutional support being
recommended is the U.S. Air Force relationship with
the RAND Corporation. A fixed yearly support level
allows the building and maintenance of a research staff,
and based on that support level the organization is
obligated to do research in problem areas identified by
the funding agency, but the research staff is also
expected to carry out independent research of their
own choosing.
I would like to emphasize that credibility requires
openness. Publication of research results should not be
constrained by contractual arrangements which require
prior agency approval.
My final recommendation has to do with the data
base upon which all of these environmental studies will
be based. At the present time, data on developing
energy technologies is difficult to access, and compar-
ability among alternatives is lacking. And we heard that
point emphasized by some of the previous speakers.
What is needed is some sort of "national energy
data center" to act as a central repository for energy
resource data and performance data for energy
technologies and processes.
The primary function of such an organization
would be: One, to collect and verify basic data on the
input-output characteristics of energy technologies;
two, to facilitate access to energy data for all interested
parties; and three, to conduct data analyses useful to a
range of participants. Such an organization should have
complete access to environmentally related data gener-
ated by federally funded research or demonstration projects.
In summary, I just want to emphasize that the
primary theme of my statement is the need to enhance
information credibility. The utility of environmental
research on new energy technologies is as dependent
on the manner in which the information is generated as
it is on the technical content of the information.
I'll quit here and try to respond to any questions.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you, Dr. Devine.
Do we have any questions from the panel?
Dr. Atallah.
DR. ATALLAH: I have something on the last item
that you mentioned, on the national repository for data,
that many of the data that are developed today are on
small pilot plants, PDUs, and the use of these data for
large-scale predictions, future predictions, may not be
appropriate without proper scaling and without quality
assurance of the data and how it was derived.
So before you get to that stage you want to be sure
of the quality of the data, and eventually scale it up
properly. And that may be a problem.
DR. DEVINE: As you know, a lot of that data
floats around now, talking about emissions from syn-
thetic fuel plants, and so on, but we really don't have a
very good idea of what emissions really will be from
such facilities, because they all are based on very small
bench-scale or pilot-scale units. So that information is
available now and people use it. But the purpose of this
organization would be to gather that data in a central
place. 1 think it ties very closely to some earlier
testimony about the need for some kind of annual
report which summarizes information on energy
resources and describes energy technologies.
When I mentioned that it shouldn't just collect
data, the agency should also analyze and publish reports
that would utilize this data; to try to make publicly
available what this data means; what we know about
various energy technologies; and, depending on their
state of development, how reliable the data is. These
sorts of tasks would be the purpose of this group or
this agency.
DR. ATALLAH: Thank you.
DR. BISHOP: We've heard some earlier sugges-
tions, Dr. Devine, about agencies that might possibly
undertake the types of activities that you describe here
as requiring a new Federal agency.
Being one concerned with expanding government
agencies and bureaucracies, can you comment on your
feeling of the possibility of some existing entities taking
on those responsibilities, and with credibility, as you
put it?
DR. DEVINE: Yes, there're two different agen-
cies or organizations. One was the agency which would
merely supply the funds, and then there was a recom-
mendation having to do with the creation of research
organizations which would carry out the research.
In terms of the agency, I would think you probably
could do it with something like the National Science
Foundation now, without creating a new agency.
However, they would be given a certain lump sum of
money to spend in supporting energy/environmental
research.
144
-------
Statement of Dr. Devine
DR. BISHOP: Thank you.
DR. ATALLAH: Coming from an agency which
derives its funds from the hidden surcharge on your gas
bills, that's not very much unlike a tax, really. We are
being pressured into using consumers on our advisory
board. And one of the biggest problems that we have is
finding knowledgeable consumer representatives and
representatives who can truly represent the total
American public.
Can you suggest where we can get people to serve
on our committees and advisory boards?
DR. DEVINE: 1 think that question's been brought
up several times today. You agree, we should get the
public participants involved, and yet we don't—a lot of
these end up being a pretty small circle of people. And it
requires some expertise on the part of the participants.
We in our study did make recommendations on
this point. I know this is a whole other issue, this idea of
how do you get public participation. Do you provide
funding for public participation groups, and so on? I
think that it probably is necessary to find some
mechanism to provide financial support to "public par-
ticipants." I think that might take the form of providing
funds to groups where they can buy their own professional
expertise.
DR. ATALLAH: But I look at the list of public
representatives who appear here. Which one should
I select?
DR. DEVINE: Oh, you mean which group should
you select?
DR. ATALLAH: Which group should I go to?
DR. DEVINE: Oh, I don't know.
DR. ATALLAH: There're at least a hundred.
DR. DEVINE: Well you have to try to select a
representative sample, I think, representing environ-
mental groups, consumer groups, local governments,
and so on, and I know it can get out of hand, but I-think
more important than that is just how these groups
actually get involved. I think a lot of points have been
brought out here today that they get involved too late in
the process. One of the points made throughout my
statement was that these groups should be involved
early in the process.
DR. KINSEL: Let me make just two comments.
One is that there is a certain belief that there is a con-
sumer movement or an environmental movement, as
such, and yet those of us who are in some of these
segments of the public interest movements understand
that there are differences of opinion even within the
organizations or the, quote, "community," unquote.
So part of the problem might be that you want to
convene a spectrum of views within the community and
begin to get some feeling for what the overall viewpoint
is. That might be one way to get around the problem.
In fact, that's one of the things which the Depart-
ment doesn't do, and many Federal agencies don't.
They select one or two groups and assume that
therefore they have a full range of views, when in fact
there may be a wide divergence of views, admittedly
within a narrower spectrum or narrower range,
perhaps, than in the public at large, but in terms of the
information which might be helpful to policymakers,
they may not be getting the diversity of views from
within the environmental community that they might
really benefit from.
I would like to ask you one specific question. I
discussed with an earlier witness the problem which
some see with the National Laboratories, and you referred
to that.
From your perspective as one clearly who has
looked at this problem from the policy as well as the
scientific point of view—how would you classify the
peer review in the scientific community of the environ-
mental assessment work done by the National Labora-
tories? Can you make any generalizations about
whether that work is seen as being competent,
pedestrian, what?
DR. DEVINE: I'm not really sure I can. I guess I
haven't really seen any comprehensive public reviews of
the environmental work by the National Laboratories. I
am familiar with some of the work directly. 1 haven't
seen other people's views of it.
From what I've seen of it, it looks technically com-
petent; you know, I'm really not challenging its
technical content; I'm really not saying that it's not good
competent work, but it's a question of the credibility of
it. The question is, will the range of interests who see
the results of this work that may, for example, be in
favor of synthetic fuels, will they believe that? Will they
believe it as much if it came from some other organiza-
tion which they see as having less of a vested interest or
less of a direct tie to the Department of Energy?
And that's the real issue. It's not whether it's
technically competent work. I think from what I've seen
that the research that comes out of the Laboratories is
technically competent.
MR. ONDICH: Again, thank you, Dr. Devine,
and at this point I'd like to suggest a five-minute break
and we will reconvene at 3:35 and our first witness will be
Edith Chase, followed by Dr. Norbeck and Mr. Seaman.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
MR. ONDICH: I'd like to resume the hearings,
and I'd first like to apologize to Lore Keffer. I realize
you've been here all day—
MS. KEFFER: That's all right.
MR. ONDICH: —and it was completely my
mistake in not calling you to the witness table.
First I'd like to have Edith Chase of the League of
Women Voters, and then we'll follow with Lore Keffer?
MS. CHASE: No, she was ahead of me.
MR. ONDICH: Oh, okay.
MS. KEFFER: Do we wait for Rebecca?
145
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
MR. ONDICH: No, I think we should proceed.
MS. KEFFER: Okay.
Statement of Lore Keffer
Group for Recycling in Pennsylvania
MS. KEFFER: Group for Recycling in Penn-
sylvania is a public interest group whose purpose is to
promote conservation of energy and materials. The
group was founded in 1971 on the premise that it is
unconscionable to uncover new sources of materials
and energy—ever more remote, less accessible, and
therefore ever more costly—if these supplies are to
be wasted.
Conservation has been our only source of new
supplies in the recent past and will be our only source in
the near term. Conservation, along with the use of
renewable sources should be our major source in the
long term.
In view of our stated interest, the prior question
immediately comes to mind, even before trying to
evaluate the adequacy of attention paid to environmental
protection and consequences of the RD&D program for
energy development, underway at DOE.
Where does a given RD&D project intended to
develop a new source of energy fit into overall energy
procurement policy?
How is a stated RD&D program offset with a
similar RD&D program in conservation or in the use of
renewable sources of fuel?
There appears to be no mechanism for the public's
participation in such policy planning. Yet, any comment
on environmental impacts of new fuels is absurd,
indeed, an imposition on the public, without proper
knowledge, as well as input, into overall energy pro-
curement planning. We cannot return to eighteenth
century living. We need energy to exist, but we are also
aware that any technological commands—any tech-
nology, excuse me, commands a trade-off between a
steady supply of energy and usually adverse environ-
mental, social, and economic impacts. The question is
one of scale:
Are the dislocations necessary? Do we need this
given technology at all? If we do, on what scale? Is the
price worth it? Can the energy be supplied in some other
way, everywhere or, perhaps, in a specific location?
According to the Council on Environmental Quality,
DOE's total fiscal year 1979 budget for conservation is
less than one-third of its budget for energy production.
Furthermore, conservation research, per se, is only a
relatively small part of the conservation budget, and
most of it is directed to the near term rather than the
long term efforts. A large fraction of the projects DOE
terms "research" are actually projects which are
demonstrating existing technology.
This is a quote, this prior paragraph.
Another quote. "Even though there has not been a
.detailed review of DOE's conservation RD&D pro-
grams, several recent studies suggest that large addi-
tional energy savings are achievable through a sharply
expanded program of basic and applied research of an
advanced technical nature. These studies suggest a
number of rather major changes in DOE's conservation
RD&D effort: What—develop a substantial program of
basic and applied research aimed at the better
understanding of fundamental processes and properties
of inherent interest in conservation. Restructure the
RD&D program explicitly to encourage unsolicited
proposals directed toward new ways of doing things,
rather than incremental improvements. Three—Provide
increased emphasis on energy transformation and con-
version at the point of "end use." Develop more effi-
cient small-scale conversion systems. Expand nonhard-
ware research to improve understanding of the relation-
ships among energy, its substitutes, and the economy.
This research includes an examination of existing public
policies, such as, real estate taxation, direct and indirect
transportation subsidies, and corporate tax policy with
respect to RD&D and capital investment. And finally,
public education aimed at the aggregate of small savings
by many of the efforts of countless individuals."
And that is the end of the CEQ quote.
To sum up, until the public knows the scenario of
our energy future, it cannot make judgments regarding
the adequacy of environmental protection. If the aim is
to be satisfied with some 85 quads of energy supply by
the year 2000, then the synfuel program, for instance,
is very expensive indeed—both in terms of actual capital
investment and in terms of its costs in environmental
degradation.
If we, as a nation insist on burning 120 quads of
energy by the year 2000, then environmental protec-
tion must be traded against the extra BTUs, and the
environmental provisions are probably adequate and
realistic. We will just have to be prepared to pay
the price.
The general decision process of going ahead or
not going ahead with a given RD&D project appears
rational and orderly. Decision gates are set up at each
step of the way, on paper. Whether the process actually
works, is less clear.
We have a few comments about this process.
The Systems Acquisition Advisory Boards,
ESAAB, are all internal boards, made up of senior DOE
officials and do not include the Assistant Secretary—oh,
I'm sorry, and do include the Assistant Secretary for
Environment. But we wonder whether this Board ought
not to be opened up to include a few who bring along
other points of view.
It is—we almost had the impression that there was
a secret cell passing on a given project.
It is good that the Assistant Secretary for Environ-
ment is a member of ESAAB, but we wonder whether
146
-------
Statement of Ms. Keffer
he is not outnumbered and also outvoiced from the very
outset. He being only one person, as opposed to the
number of project officers.
If the dollars spent on 70 nonmajor quote,
unquote, major systems constitute 50% of the RD&D
budget, why are these not reviewed for environmental
impact as well? It seems to us that in the aggregate,
these nonmajor systems could do quite enough
environmental damage to warrant this attention.
As a corollary, are the positive effects of certain
smaller conservation projects factored into acquisition
decisions? And in this respect we overlap with
almost—with every other testimony I have heard
this morning.
Along the same lines we wonder whether members
of environmental coordinating subcommittees are out-
numbered and outvoiced by project officers.
Are projects funded to be truly research and
development projects or is th'e agency tacitly expected
to bring the projects under consideration on-line? Or to
put it in another way, how do you halt a project which
is, say, in the demonstration stage?
The structure of decisionmaking in any DOE pro-
gram requires investigation into possible environmental
impacts, but does not appear to require that these
impacts must actually be dealt with. By the time a proj-
ect has progressed through the various decision gates,
that is ERD and then EA and then EIS, and does arrive
at the point where an EIS is called for, it seems rather
late. We feel the structure tends to propel a project to
completion, rather than making the managers hesitate
or even halt. We found it difficult to visualize a decision-
maker actually scrapping an RD&D project on environ-
mental grounds.
The provisions for public participation during the
development of a given project seem sincere and well-
intentioned. Yet, it is not clear that it all works.
Many of us have been very vocal about not being
able to obtain sufficient information in order to make
judgments. Others receive no notice of developments at
all. True, the public may obtain an Environmental
Readiness Plan and later an Environmental Assessment
and Environmental Impact Statement documents but
the public has to be truly in the know to be able to
find the right person from whom documents are to be
obtained. Further, the public must monitor a project
continually to know when to obtain information. It is not
clear that either DOE or its agent in environmental
matters, EPA, is prepared and equipped to furnish
necessary information.
We do appreciate the fact that you are always
going to act on incomplete information, we don't want to
be nags and want more and more and more information.
We are talking about a reasonable minimum.
The burden to find out seems to be on the public.
There are some advantages inherent in such a burden-
some process. When information is handed out, it tends
to be presented in the best possible light. Still, given the
extremely slim resources of public interest groups, it
does seem reasonable.
I would like to make a little footnote.
Since we are a conservation organization, and
have quite a lot of expertise on the subject of garbage,
we would much rather have gone to Atlanta. We would
have had a lot to say about recycling and garbage. But
we couldn't afford to go there. Enough said about that.
I'm sorry—we'll just very briefly touch on envi-
ronmental concerns in the field of liquefaction and
gasification of coal.
We, who attended the Pittsburgh workshop, had
persistent questions about whether the synfuel projects
were being rushed, no matter what the economic and
environmental costs. As long as the public is not privy to
information regarding energy development in general,
there was no answer to that question really.
Another question nagged at us: what is the nature
of research into the scale-up of a given technology?
Techniques do not always proceed linearly from
laboratory to pilot plant to demonstration plant to com-
mercialization. Yet, we found that no research on this
subject was in progress. Scale-up on a linear progression
is simply assumed.
That seems to us, to be living dangerously.
Finally, DOE finds that there is a 50% chance that
synfuel technology will violate environmental regula-
tions. Are we, in the Pittsburgh area, made to realize
this? Is there any funding in the synfuel program public
education on this subject?
We feel that there should be a line item specifically
for this public education purpose.
Finally, recommendations for improvements in the
provisions for public participation. The resources of any
public interest group, particularly a local one, are
externely slim, as we have already mentioned. It would
be a good idea to give public interest groups some help
in doing their job and DOE's job better. We have mixed
feelings about funding private citizens groups from
public money altogether. But DOE or its monitor, EPA,
could help in other ways.
One of them might be when—that when attending
hearings or conferences, duplicating and postage
money would be welcomed, so that those attending can
share with others what they, themselves have learned.
You must remember that a—to a public interest group,
$20 is money. And it would cost us at least that to
duplicate the handouts and send them out to say our
Board members. That would be very helpful if our
Board—each one of our Board members could learn
what the representative who was sent to a given hearing
or conference learned.
And I might also add that the public interest group
is your best bargain in the world. You are getting a
wealth of expertise and free labor, a lot of labor.
147
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
DOE and/or EPA might develop a good representative
mailing list.
Then—airfare and per diem to participate in out-
of-town hearings are most welcome.
We thank you for this opportunity.
We also think that any serious regard for envi-
ronmental effects must provide for enforcement of
regulations. It is in this context that we deem it vital to
provide funds to educate the public as to what they
must know in order to monitor the enforcement of
regulations when a project does come on-line.
MR. ONDICH: Are there questions from the panel?
You mentioned that some of your testimony had
overlapped or covered some of the other testimony
presented today, as well as some other days of the
Hearing.
I would like to just ask a question about energy
conservation in use which you talked about, particularly
since your organization is local, I presume, in the Pitts-
burgh area. Do you have some statistics or information
on the impact in your area—in Pittsburgh?
MS. KEFFER: —No I don't have numbers, I will say.
But it does seem to us that a synfuel program is
akin to killing a gnat with an elephant gun in many
respects. The capital investment is enormous. The jobs
created are minimal. And certainly they are not created
in the sector where they're most needed.
On the other hand, there are many jobs to be
created in the conservation of materials. And it just
seems to us unconscionable to try to fix whatever
energy problems we have by simply digging a deeper
hole and going after more of where the previous stuff
had come from.
And this is what we are essentially doing.
No, we do not have hard numbers—say if we
recycled the 640 tons of newspaper that we generate in
Allegheny County—that would produce more BTUs
than X barrels of liquefied coal.
But I wonder if anybody else has those numbers.
And, at the same time, I think that would be RD&D
money well employed.
MR. ONDICH: Again, I thank you.
And may we have Ms. Chase now?
Statement of Edith Chase
Environmental Quality Committee
League of Women Voters of the United States
MS. CHASE: 1 am Edith Chase, a member of the
Environmental Quality Committee of the League of
Women Voters of the United States. The League of
Women Voters of the United States is a volunteer
citizens group organized in over 1300 local Leagues in
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico. The League has been involved
in water resources management, water quality, air
quality and solid and hazardous waste issues for a
number of years. These, of course, are the key envi-
ronmental factors that must be considered in any
evaluation of new energy technologies.
League work in the energy field, a natural
outgrowth of our longtime environmental interests,
dates back to the early '70s and resulted in adoption of
an energy position in 1978.
Briefly, the League supports policies that: One,
bring about a significant and progressive reduction in
the U.S. energy growth rate. Two, give priority to con-
servation, renewable resources and the environmentally
sound use of coal in the United States energy mix
between now and the year 2000. Three, effect a shift to
predominant reliance on renewable resources beyond
the year 2000. We also believe that public understand-
ing and cooperation are essential to the success of any
national energy strategy. We are equally convinced that
citizen participation in decisionmaking must be assured
at every governmental level.
Thus, we especially appreciate the fact that a
number of League members have had the opportunity
to participate in the Section 11 regional workshops this
year and, of course, in the Hearing this week in
Washington. I attended the Pittsburgh workshop and
was impressed by the excellent job done by the
workshop leaders. The agenda was carefully designed
and the purpose was clearly stated. Carefully prepared
materials were sent in advance of the meeting. The
visual aids were well-designed, ample opportunity was
allowed for both discussion and questions, and the
participants came from a wide variety of backgrounds
and interests.
This afternoon, I would like to speak to two prin-
cipal issues. First, the consideration given to environ-
mental and conservation factors in DOE decisions on
nonnuclear technology RD&D projects and second,
opportunities for effective public participation in the
decisionmaking process.
First, to what extent are environmental and energy
conservation factors included in DOE decisions on non-
nuclear energy technology and RD&D projects? Judg-
ing from the charts that outline the DOE planning and
decisionmaking process vis-a-vis RD&D, or presumably
in budget allocations, little emphasis has been placed on
conservation and renewable energy sources. The
Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board apparently
meets in closed session and the criteria on which their
decisions are based are not made public. It appears
doubtful therefore that the DOE technology develop-
ment planning process integrates all environmental
concerns at the program or energy systems level.
Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency
has no role in DOE's decisionmaking process. It
seems to us that EPA's environmental expertise should
be utilized and that EPA should have, at the very least,
an advisory role on the key decision points. Under the
present system, EPA is consulted only after the fact,
148
-------
Statement of Ms. Chase
which may be too late to influence the consideration of
environmental factors that are of critical importance to
the decision to proceed with a technology. Further,
DOE's formal decislonmaking process seems to concen-
trate on large, high-cost, high-technology programs to
the exclusion of smaller systems. There appears to be
no mechanism for consideration of decentralized
systems and appropriate technology. Neither the chart
nor the process indicates, for example, any considera-
tion of energy conservation, reuse and recycling,
renewable energy sources, waste heat utilization, or
nonquantifiable benefits such as clean air and water.
Thus, the environmental review process may not be as
comprehensive as called for by the Program and Project
Management System, and potentially cost-effective
approaches may well be overlooked. In addition, some
smaller scale projects could pose serious environmental
impacts that would not be adequately evaluated.
We also question whether the DOE process ade-
quately addresses the following areas of League concern:
Criteria for decisions which include net energy
analysis, long-term energy productivity, health effects,
both acute and chronic, and the interrelationships with
water, air and land use. Is consideration given to the
delivery of energy to the user, including transmission
losses and social, economic and environmental impacts?
Also, mechanisms for conflict resolution.
Provisions for independent review at key decision
points.
Provision for coordination with other agencies.
Cost/benefit analyses that identify hidden subsidies
such as Federal RD&D dollars for certain energy
technologies, the discount rate used and spelling out
what costs are included and excluded.
Another, consideration of potential capital costs in
relation to alternative uses for those funds and the
sources of capital and operating funds.
Changes in institutional arrangements needed to
protect public health and safety for future generations.
The role of State and local governments and the
private sector in construction and operation of various
energy systems.
We would also like to know whether the chart
outlining DOE's decision making process represents how
decisions are really made and the consideration actually
given to environmental factors and alternative means of
meeting energy needs before a go-ahead decision is made.
Although we have a number of questions concern-
ing what happens during the PPMS process, we do sup-
port a systematic approach to decisionmaking and
documentation requirements. While environmental
concerns resulting from the development of specific
technologies may have been identified, they do not
appear to have been dealt with adequately. PPMS is
project-oriented and the Office of Environment's role is
largely limited to one of influencing project develop-
ment rather than affecting policy development. In addi-
tion, we question why Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements are prepared by the
Technology Program Office rather than the Office of
Environment. Close coordination between DOE, EPA
and other agencies at all steps in the process is, from the
League's perspective, essential in light of the environ-
mental impacts of the various energy technologies.
The list of criteria for evaluating individual
technologies on page 15 of the "Background Docu-
ment" is an excellent point of departure. However, we
believe major emphasis should be focused on waste
management, a key national issue. Serious problems
today result from focusing attention on the front end of
energy cycles and neglecting the back end of the cycle.
We believe a major research effort is needed on ways to
reduce, not just treat wastes, and to deal with existing
problems, such as fly ash, sulfur emissions, carbon diox-
ide, mine tailings and stripped lands, before proceeding
at full throttle to create more wastes. The environment
is not an infinite sink.
Some of our recommendations: We recommend
that the Office of Environment play a greater role in
policy development, especially with respect to com-
parison between various technologies. Funding should
reflect those added responsibilities. Environmental con-
cerns should be considered from a whole-system
management perspective, including long-term impacts
and human as well as natural factors. The ESAAB
should review a larger portion of DOE RD&D pro-
grams, both major systems and smaller projects, using a
defined set of criteria, including waste management.
Appropriate technologies, energy conservation, and
solar programs could be aggregated as a major system,
with formal high-level review.
The second issue I wish to address is: How can the
Federal research management process be modified to
include opportunities for the public to effectively
participate in the decision process?
The League is concerned about the limited oppor-
tunities for public involvement in the decisionmaking
process. Government and industry have clear environ-
mental responsibilities, of course. The purpose of effec-
tive citizen action is not to subvert those responsibilities
but to make sure they are honored. Government and
industry have experts, but citizen organizations often
have their own expertise to contribute to environmental
decisionmaking. Moreover, while environmental deci-
sionmaking must be based on the best available scien-
tific and technological information, value judgments
and social decisions are ultimately required. And these
social decisions must reflect the public will, for the envi-
ronment belongs to the public, not just the experts in a
government agency or industry immediately involved in
a particular decision. When risks must be measured
against benefits or when economic and environmental
149
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
values must be weighed and balanced, the public has
the right and the obligation to make its views known.
Mediating differences between citizens and government
early in the planning process can avoid confrontation
at a later date and also subsequent citizen distrust
of government.
Opportunities for public involvement, according to
the DOE chart, are limited to comments on the draft
EIS. Public comment might well be invited on basic
assumptions such as determination of need, population
projections, per capita energy usage and price elasticity.
Further, no role is defined for State and local officials
and agencies. They might participate in a review and
comment procedure on general issues; their input
would certainly be essential on site-specific issues.
In order to participate, citizens need to be informed.
For example, while 1 receive the DOE Weekly Announce-
ments, Energy Insider, and Consumer Briefings and
appreciate these, I am not aware of any efforts to inform
the public of the availability of important materials such
as the Environmental Readiness Documents.
For effective citizen participation, we believe there
should be 1) a clearly defined mechanism or process.
2) Commitment to the mechanism or process by all par-
ties directly concerned. 3) Direct access by citizen par-
ticipants to the decisionmaking process or body and
access to materials or documents on which decisions are
to be based. 4) Broad geographical and interest group
representation. 5) A clear definition of the participating
citizen's role. 6) Adequate preparation and briefing
available for citizen participants. 7) In-depth information
and staff help available in order for participants to carry
out assigned responsibilities. 8) Well-defined proce-
dures as to whom and how citizen participants are
accountable. 9) Procedures for reporting back disposi-
tion of citizen recommendations. 10) Provision for
periodic public meetings for direct citizen input and
review as plans or programs develop. 11) Adequate
notification of meetings and where information is
available for public inspection.
There are, of course, many ways to broaden'citizen
participation in this process. We would like to suggest
the following possibilities: setting up a working group of
citizens and elected officials to draft a proposed public
participation program, including information outreach;
establishment of an interdisciplinary advisory board;
installation of a toll-free number; funding an ombudsman
and finally, providing funds for some research, travel
and per diem expenses for representatives of the public
so that they may attend key meetings or hearings.
And then some recommendations: Public partici-
pation in the planning process should begin at an early
date. Citizens should be involved in developing the
criteria to be used for evaluation, setting priorities and
reviewing internal documents including the Environ-
mental Development Plan and the Environmental
Readiness Documents. Environmental Assessments
and Environmental Impact Statements should be based
on these documents and serious consideration should
be given to environmental concerns identified during
the PPMS review before further development takes
place. The public should also be involved in developing
the criteria for siting energy and waste management
facilities. Following the review and comment period of
public hearings, a summary report that includes the
answers to the questions raised by the public should be
prepared and distributed. The DOE budget should
include adequate funds to underwrite increased
information dissemination and public participation.
Recent discussion of fast-tracking energy decisions
raises questions about the possible exemption of energy
facilities from complying with new laws and regulations
designed to protect the public against problems such as
toxic chemicals or drinking water contamination. We
are concerned that environmental considerations are
proceeding at a snail's pace while energy development
is moving ahead like a jackrabbit. The League believes
that expedited review of energy facilities could be
appropriate, but not if citizen involvement, information
gathering and environmental protection are sacrificed in
the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our
views.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you Ms. Chase.
Do we have any questions from the panel?
1 might mention—I understand that you have a
plane very shortly, so we'll try to keep it just to a
question or two.
Dr. Bishop?
DR. BISHOP: Just one question that relates to, I
guess an observation between the two of you as we've
heard your testimonies this afternoon. Both calling for a
greater role of citizen involvement as we've heard quite
a bit today.
You represent an organization that is nationally
based, and has, of course, perhaps a broader base of
support because of that organization to participate.
And 1 understand that your organization is essentially a
local one.
MS. KEFFER: Yes, it is a local one.
DR. BISHOP: Both of you have indicated the
need for more resources to be provided so that public
interest groups, however you define those, and who
represents the public interest, can be involved in this
kind of a process, and I agree that that's important.
The question I have is how—if you have any
thoughts on how you distribute what I would expect to
be very limited and constrained resources that might be
available for this kind of participation? How do you
decide who gets it? And which ones are going to receive
some of these funds to participate and represent all of
the diversity of public interest that's out there?
MS. KEFFER: Could I ask you a question by way
of answer?
150
-------
Statement of Dr. Norbeck
Your total RD&D budget is what, a million—a
billion and a half?
DR. BISHOP: Mine?
MR. ONDICH: DOE's-I believe in the fiscal year
1979 the nonnuclear energy RD&D budget was 1.8 biion.
MS. KEFFER: Okay. I understand you spend
$20,000 on this, these hearings, once a year, $20,000.
MR. ONDICH: I don't have the numbers
available.
MS. KEFFER: Okay, well let's assume that. That
doesn't seem to me a great deal of money in terms of
one and a half thousand million dollars. I just don't see
why, with the will to do it, why you talk so terribly much
about limited funds. It's a question of where do you
apply your funds first. It's a question of putting priorities
on things.
DR. BISHOP: I think that's exactly it, and the
question is how do you do that? I think if you took
the local—
MS. KEFFER: Yes, okay, that's the more difficult
problem.
DR. BISHOP: —level of interest on up to national
organizations and groups, there are literally hundreds of
thousands of such public interest groups.
MS. KEFFER: Yes.
DR. BISHOP: I just don't think the funds—no
matter how large—whatever percentage you take of a
billion dollars is going to really be sufficient to fund all of
those organizations.
DR. BISHOP: No, okay. I grant you.
MS. CHASE: My comment might be that it might
be on the basis of applications, and I know that DOE
already sends out requests for proposals, because I've
seen a few go by my desk, and in general these are
requests for specific projects and demonstration of cer-
tain solar—including solar projects, but in general I
haven't seen anything requesting—requests for policy
development.
And I feel that this is where we need more attention
than anything else, that on the policy issues I have not
seen any funding go by. Now that doesn't mean it hasn't
been, but I'm just not aware of it.
So I—to turn the sentence around, I'm suggesting,
as in agreement with Ms. Keffer, that there could be
certainly a sum of money, whatever the size, set aside
in requests for proposals, and we would be happy to
submit them.
I've carried out some under contract with other
agencies. I don't have any with DOE.
MS. HANMER: With the League's extensive
experience in public involvement and decisionmaking,
I'm wondering if you have any agencies or projects that
you might suggest to us as models to which DOE or
EPA might turn.
MS. CHASE: My experience has really been with
EPA, and I've done several projects on 208 Water
Quality Management and Coastal Zone Management
and Air Quality and Coal Use, and you know, I've done
half a dozen, and we worked with the agency to design
a project. So working with them, so it would meet both
our needs and the agency needs is important. I don't
know that—right off the top of my head—I could be
more specific than that.
MR. ONDICH: Again, I'd like to thank both of
you and call for our next witness.
MS. CHASE: Thank you very much.
MR. ONDICH: Our next witness is Dr. Carl
Norbeck from the Thorne Ecological Institute.
Statement of Carl Norbeck
Thorne Ecological Institute
DR. NORBECK: Thank you, Greg. I don't know
about the rest of you, but I'm pleased to be heading
down the homestretch on this Hearing. I would like to
assure all of you that I respect the rights of
listeners—especially late on Friday afternoons—so I'll
keep my remarks brief.
Of the five issues that were identified in the
background document for this Hearing, the ones that I
would like to focus on relate to what I would call an
outreach dimension, that is, the opening up of the plan-
ning process. The issues that I am focusing on are:
Number one, involving appropriate governmental levels
for treating environmental issues. Number two, involv-
ing nonDOE interests in evaluating environmental
issues. Number three relates to the criteria used in
evaluating individual technologies, and here I'm think-
ing of these criteria from the point of view of grassroots
concerns. For example, socioeconomic considerations.
At the outset I would like to dwell just for a moment
on some of the things that I think have been lost in tran-
sition between the regional workshops and the National
Hearing, and then I would like to move on to some very
specific recommendations regarding the issues.
For starters, I want to dissect the term "issues." I
think that's a bloodless term. At the Denver workshop
"issues" were identified as failures on the part of the
Department of Energy: a failure to involve appropriate
government levels, a failure to involve nonDOE
interests, and a failure to develop explicit grassroots
criteria.
Greg, you'll recall from having been in Denver
yourself, that there was a tremendous feeling of frustra-
tion on the part of many of the people there, and a
poignant sense of voices in the wilderness in terms of
wanting to have access to the decisionmaking process
and feeling like we were very, very removed from it.
There was a good deal of passion at the Denver
workshop, and I'm sure at many of the others also. I
think that's something that does get lost in terms of the
translation to a background document for the National
Hearing, and it really should be kept in mind.
In terms of specific recommendations, criticism of
DOE on the three issues that I am zeroing in on reflects
151
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
the Machiavellian maxim that the absent are always
wrong. People out west feel that DOE is an extremely
remote presence, and in the case of oil shale in
Colorado or coal in Wyoming and Montana, this is
particularly irksome.
Let me talk for just a moment about oil shale. The
list of unanswered oil shale environmental issues related
to water, land, air, and people is extremely lengthy. In
reviewing DOE's Environmental Readiness Document
related to oil shale, 1 am of the opinion that it does not
effectively depict the magnitude and significance of the
environmental concerns, that it does not effectively
depict the lag times involved in developing adequate
mitigation measures, and that it does not effectively
depict the possibility of actual failure of these control
measures.
One example would be the euphemistic term,
"embankment spoil piles," which sounds like a small-
scale phenomenon where you push a little spent shale
over the edge of the hillside, throw some grass seed on
it, and everything is restored. In actual fact, the volume
of materials that would be generated is so huge that it
would fill canyons, and the attendant problems related
to stability, to erosion and sedimentation, to the
possibility of ineffective revegetation—they- are
absolutely staggering. Those of us who live in Colorado
have a very intimate sense of the scale of these prob-
lems and I don't think that comes across in the Environ-
mental Readiness Document.
If the three issues related to outreach concerns
were grouped together, the goal statement related to
them would read something like this: To formally involve
local, State, and national levels, as well as the public, in
the planning, assessment, and problem resolution process.
Such a program would, of course, give DOE a
more intimate and accurate perspective of environ-
mental problems related to a particular technology.
In Colorado there is a lot of publicity being given to
a process which seeks to accomplish just these goals, of
involving people, and this is called the Joint Review
Process. At a time when the Energy Mobilization Board
is being viewed as The Answer in trying to get things
together, I think that it's worthwhile for me to talk a little
bit about the Colorado Joint Review Process, because it
is designed to streamline the process of review and
approval of projects; and it is certainly a lot more
democratic than an Energy Mobilization Board.
The Colorado Joint Review Process, as it was
originally conceived, was designed to coordinate inter-
jurisdictional review and approval of major winter
recreation developments. More to the point, it is now
being used on an experimental basis for the
AMAX/Crested Butte molybdenum mine, which is an
absolutely huge undertaking.
What it does, it provides a "one window" coor-
dinating forum regarding regulations, evaluation
criteria, and public involvement; and in addition, it is a
handy vehicle for eliminating a lot of duplication.
At Crested Butte, the parties involved in the Joint
Review Process are AM AX as the proponent, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, and Gunnison County. Gunnison County is
the lead agency in coordinating the reviews.
Another interesting aspect of this is the fact that
each of the four agencies that are represented serves as
the coordinating agency for its sister Federal, State, or
local agencies. In other words, when the Forest Service
comes to a session, they have done their homework
and represent BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, and whatever Federal agencies
are concerned with that particular project.
In similar fashion, the State agency that is the coordi-
nating agency represents all the other State agencies, and
Gunnison County brings together the local jurisdictions.
As part of the Joint Review Process there is the
option to develop a strong public participation program
to complement it.
The suggestion, the recommendation that I have is
that DOE consider using such a process in the Program
and Project Management System, commencing at the
pilot plant phase. I think many of the earlier generic
phases could be handled with newsletters and regional
workshops. However, with the actual siting of facilities,
an outreach program that goes down to the grassroots
level becomes quite important.
What I would like to do now, very briefly, is just
walk you through some of the steps of the Joint Review
Process.
• Step one in the Joint Review Process is the initial
proposal. In this case DOE or a contractor or an indus-
try would be the proponent. They would give the pro-
posal to a selected agency and that would trigger the
process. BLM would most likely be the key Federal
agency related to oil shale.
Step two would be an interjurisdicripnal alert by the
contacted agency—BLM—to all the affected jurisdic-
tions and municipalities, and this includes everyone, all
the Federal and State jurisdictions, and the different
counties and towns involved—a comprehensive list.
Step three is a meeting of all of the parties to iden-
tify their concerns, to address the data requirements, to
hammer out the evaluation criteria, and also to
designate the appropriate coordinating agencies. With
oil shale, for example, BLM would be the coordinating
Federal agency, the Colorado Department of Local
Affairs would probably be the coordinating State agency,
Rio Blanco County and the Town of Meeker would
represent the local jurisdictions. So here would be a
small body that could bring together the state of the art
in terms of regulations and evaluation criteria in a "one
window" context, and really streamline the process.
Already at step three and we have addressed one
of the issues that we're concerned with, that is, how do
152
-------
Statement of Dr. Norbeck
we involve different levels of government in terms of
their responsibility related to environmental matters.
Step four would be a summary statement of that
meeting, and this would provide the grassroots input
that DOE would need for an Environmental Develop-
ment Plan and for a Project Environmental Plan.
Step five is really the official kickoff, the official
notification of intent related to a project. This is the
optimum time to initiate an Environmental Assessment,
and also to notify all of the citizen groups.
Step six relates to the preparation for common
public hearings. I think it's useful to be able to have
common public hearings, hearings that bring together
not only local concerns, but concerns of State and
national level as well.
Step seven is the public hearings themselves.
At this point in time, in terms of the Joint Review
Process, we have involved the different jurisdictional
levels, we have had grassroots input in terms of the
evaluation criteria, and we have had public input. All
three of the outreach issues that I was concerned with
are addressed.
Step eight would be the submission of a detailed
plan by the proponent incorporating many of the con-
cerns that have been expressed by the different jurisdic-
tions, and also, this would be the time of the possible
formation of an ad hoc citizens committee.
Step nine, the Joint Review Team scopes out the
Environmental Impact Statement. The citizen commit-
tee can certainly be involved. The agencies and the pro-
ponent assign money and manpower to get the job
done. A cooperative agreement is signed, laying out the
role and expectations of everyone. The proponent then
applies for all of the permits.
Step ten is the draft Environmental Impact State-
ment which would provide input to the Environmental
Readiness Document,
Step eleven is the public hearings on the draft EIS.
An interesting aspect of this is the fact that each
level—the Federal, State, and local—issues a unified
statement in terms of their position on the project. The
final EIS is part of this step.
Step twelve relates to the issuance of permits con-
taining stipulations relating to environmental protection,
and implementation is underway.
Those are the formal steps of the Joint Review Pro-
cess, and it seems to me that it is a fairly easy task to
integrate the DOE decision process into the Joint
Review Process.
I've listed basic references related to the Joint
Review Process. Colorado has a Manual for the Colorado
Review Process. The Forest Service has become very
interested in the process and they have a document called
The Joint Review Process. And also there has been
considerable local coverage related to how the process
is working in the Crested Butte area.
In view of the fact that there is a precedent in terms
of a process by which many of these issues can be
adroitly handled, those of us in the West have a feeling
that to plunge ahead without something like this smacks
of the old scraping and raping game that has given so
many areas in the country lots of problems.
If there's a bottom line on all of this I think it is the
fact that people in the West—and I don't want to be
totally aligned with the West; I think people are con-
cerned everywhere. I think that people want to have
standing in the decisionmaking process. They want to
have some ownership in the decisionmaking process.
The Joint Review Process is one mechanism, one
precedent that says this can be done. Time and again,
where people have not been given the opportunity to be
involved on the front-end of these things, they have
come in on the tail-end as the spoilers.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you, Dr. Norbeck.
Do we have any questions from the panel?
Dr. Bishop.
DR. BISHOP: I think you've outlined. Dr. Norbeck,
a very interesting program that you're engaged in.
I'd like to ask just a couple of questions. Is
the—does the program have—has it been institution-
alized in some way through law or otherwise to have
some actual legal standing?
DR. NORBECK: Yes it has. It was established
by Executive Order of the Government of Colorado.
DR. BISHOP: How's the outcome of the process,
then, incorporated into decisions about going ahead
with certain developments?
DR. NORBECK: It's a voluntary process. AMAX,
the Forest Service, the State, and Gunnison County
have all entered into a cooperative agreement.
Once this is done, the process is fairly well
legitimatized in terms of peer pressure. However, that is
also one of the weaknesses of the process, the fact that
it is voluntary and some of the parties can delay on it.
DR. BISHOP: So it's a morally binding process
and—
DR. NORBECK: Yes it is, and we've found out
that there is lots of peer pressure to really do a good job
on it. We're very encouraged by it.
DR. BISHOP: Okay, can you just comment on
one more thing? The nature of the cooperative agree-
ment, that is between the—well, who are the signatories
to that and what does it in effect accomplish?
DR. NORBECK: Well, the signatories are
whichever corporate representative needs to sign as
well as the Federal agency administrator, the County
Commissioners for the County, and the Governor for
the State. And there is enough pressure in terms of liv-
ing up to the terms of those agreements that I think just
that pressure is an accomplishment that makes it work.
Your're probably going to have to re-ask that
question. We're not tracking.
153
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
DR. BISHOP: Well I think maybe the answer is
longer than we have time to hear, but I guess it's really
more in the nature of what's contained in that agree-
ment, the key elements of it. Does it outline the
program, the study to be followed, the—
DR. NORBECK: Oh, yes. There are, in the
documents that I mentioned, extensive criteria related
to all of the resources, the entire program in terms of
what's of specific concern to the area, the evaluation
criteria, the time frames involved, who's going to be
doing what, who's going to be paying for what. It's very
specifically laid out.
DR. BISHOP: Thank you.
MR. ONDICH: Dr. Kinsel?
DR. KINSEL: I'd just like to ask a question also on
the process, which I find very interesting.
I wonder, though, whether it would be more
successful with a project which is site-specific by virtue
of the resource being only in one place, such as a
molybdenum deposit, as opposed to—as we talked
about earlier today—there being possibly twelve or fifteen
potential sites for an oil refinery on the East Coast.
It would seem to me to be very complicated to
enter into this process in all of these sites, yet it's essential
to get local participation.
Do you feel—that this would be fairly narrowly
applicable only to where you have a particular high
quality oil shale deposit and the decision is basically
either it goes there or nowhere. You have a relatively
narrow range of choices, whereas on some decisions,
there may be a much broader geographic distribution, a
much larger range of possible choices.
DR. NORBECK: That's true. It is an excellent
process, an excellent model in terms of something like
oil shale. If you're looking up and down the east coast at
fifteen different alternatives, that's quite another
problem, but once something happens on the ground, a
process like this can be put into place and all the pieces
come together very fast.
So it's just one of many tools.
MR. ONDICH: Just two quick questions.
One is, is this process similar to the one that's used
by—I believe it's the Northern California Powei
Authority, in siting a geothermal—
MR. SEAMAN: No, I don't think so.
DR. NORBECK: I'm not familiar with that project. I
know that the Joint Review Process has been used in
Wyoming in terms of coal development.
MR. ONDICH: My second question is is it appli-
cable to cases where you're using federally-owned land
for some purpose, a resource development, where they
have to be crossed to have some development, or
whatever?
DR. NORBECK: Yes, 1 think it certainly is,
because as the scale of these projects increase, the
impacts are going to spill over from the Federal lands
themselves into the communities and the counties that
are involved, and I think that is one of the powerful
aspects of this process. It enables you to deal in a
cohesive way with the impacts that are spilling out from
Federal lands.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you very much.
We'll move to our next witness, Mike Seaman.
Statement of Michael J. Seaman
California Solid Waste Management Board
Testifying In His Own Behalf
MR. SEAMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Michael Seaman.
I live in Sacramento, California and I'm here on my own
behalf to discuss the decisionmaking process as it per-
tains to implementation of the Act. The major points I
would like to make are that:
The Program and Project Management System—
PPMS—as it is being applied to the Act, is an inappro-
priate decisionmaking process because it is not keyed to
the resolution of conflicts between technological
development and environmental protection.
The PPMS does not provide for adequate public
involvement. This problem is compounded by the
apparent misunderstanding by DOE of the role of the
public in decisionmaking.
The PPMS isolates contributions from those not con-
nected with DOE, especially those of State governments.
The PPMS does not adequately address the spec-
trum of environmental concerns, especially waste
management..
It is my feeling that if the PPMS continues to be
used to implement the Act in the present manner, it will be
difficult to accelerate the development of vitally needed
energy alternatives. The outcome of the current process
will be solutions with diminished effectiveness and
weakened popular support. My specific concerns are
as follows.
The decisionmaking process. The Program and
Project Management System guides the commitment of
expenditures for technologies through the various
development phases. It is a useful tool for controlling a
sequence of work such that the product can occur on
schedule. I have used such a tool as a construction
manager designing and building public works projects
and as a local government planner for administering
planning grants. As noted in the Section 11 background
document, the PPMS is not a policy planning system,
however.
The fundamental flaw of the use of the PPMS as
the mechanism to address both technological develop-
ment and environmental management is its lack of sen-
sitivity to the balancing of diverse values between those
two broad subject areas. Conflict resolution is fun-
damental to public policy and decisionmaking. The
PPMS is incapable of achieving consensus among
conflicting values.
Traditional decisionmaking processes may be
characterized as shown in Figure 1. Component factors
154
-------
Statement of Mr. Seaman
of policy, supply, demand, environment, technology,
or whatever, are exogenous inputs to a "green box" that
eventually yields an outcome. The PPMS represents an
orderly description of what happens inside the "green
box"; it provides for a systematic way of receiving the
inputs and directing a flow of work towards the output.
Notice that the diagram does not show a relation-
ship between any two input factors. Supply and
demand do not constrain each other, for example.
In recent years the notion of scarcity has suggested
a reevaluation of the traditional decisionmaking paths;
this is particularly necessary in the energy field. Perhaps
policy should be related to supply and demand. Per-
haps technology and the environment are connected.
The latter concept appears to be what Congress had in
mind in passing Section 11 of the Act.
The PPMS is a linear scheduling tool with very little
tolerance for feedback and reevaluation, and limited
criteria to evaluate progress along the way. The criteria
are not used routinely and are not formally required in
the management process. This is consistent with the
system's flow charts. There are no paths to preceding
steps in the event a mistake or problem might come
to light.
Construction or production scheduling demands
this sort of steady flow. It allows for time to catch up, but
not for time to redesign the program. In contrast to the
guarantee of performance by a bond, public decision-
making is normally characterized by incremental change
that follows from competition among differing values.
The results cannot be guaranteed. Without an iterative
process, some values run the risk of being shunned or
shoved around in the rush to demonstrate project success.
Environmental factors are especially affected
adversely by the PPMS. The system pretends to inte-
grate environmental factors with technology develop-
ment factors. However, no opportunities exist for the
steady exchange of information between the two. It is
only at~ a few decision points that such potentially
diverse values confront each other.
Since these decision points occur towards the end
of a series of steps, there is scant room for the flexibility
necessary to achieve a compromise. At a minimum,
there should be a mechanism for the early and con-
tinuous flow of ideas from one set of values to the other.
Figure 2 portrays another systematic decision-
making process, one which I have used to gain a
perspective on a wide variety of complex environmental
management projects. The factors within the box
representing the energy management system are the
biophysical subsystem, the energy use subsystem, and
the energy decisionmaker.
Each factor is interrelated within the system. The
system inputs are the definition of the problem and
statement of goals—a law, for example—a budget, and
the lobbying or monitoring efforts of watchdogs.
The outcome of the system is the maintenance of
an internal state of equilibrium, or change to a different
evolutionary stage, as expressed by a redefinition of the
only controllable inputs—the problem statement and
the budget.
The biophysical subsystem is defined by the envi-
ronment's ability to give and take. The land may yield
valuable coal, for instance, but there is an equal and
opposite measure of environmental damage from pollution,
land devastation, and waste generation.
The energy use subsystem may be similarly
described. It represents societal interactions such as
supply and demand relationships, price versus elasticity,
and so on. Besides internal constraints, these two sub-
systems constrain and benefit each other.
Energy decisionmakers must understand the
nature of their interactions to perceive how technology
and the environment complement or conflict with
each other.
The energy decisionmaker has the important role
of achieving and maintaining the steady state or recom-
mending program redefinition. In the PPMS there is no
such obligation to create a balance. There is, instead,
a duty to move a project along from research to
commercialization.
Public involvement. The PPMS, being of private
sector and defense origins, is ill-equipped to integrate
public concerns with those of management. This
weakness is compounded by its application to energy—
a topic of recent crisis proportions that has traditionally
been controlled by scientists and engineers. The Section
11 background documents and the remarks of other
speakers have addressed the shortcomings of the DOE
management process in some detail. I shall not belabor
the point.
Besides the inherent limitations of the PPMS, I
believe that the flaws in the DOE approach stem from a
fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the public
in the decisionmaking process. This misunderstanding
may have to do with the notion that public involvement
is a legal, possibly moral, requirement which must inevit-
ably yield to the sacred cows of profit, technology,
and expediency.
Like an Environmental Impact Statement, public
participation is done to diffuse challenges to manage-
ment, rather than to improve the results of the decision-
making process. In other words, it is seen as a nuisance
or, at best, a nice to have but not very practical item.
Another view is that public participation is an inte-
gral component of a decisionmaking process. The three
inputs in Figure 2 define the limits of the decision-
maker's ability to understand and maintain the system
equilibrium. As can be seen, the decisionmaker has little
or no interactive relations with the watchdogs. This is
because people watching the process normally have
their minds made up ahead of time, and they have
155
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
shifted their attention to promoting their own points of
view in a competitive setting.
It is essential to comprehend this point if public
involvement is to be useful in the decisionmaking process.
A successful decisionmaking process is one which
addresses and reconciles the full range of values in
society. Too often, a shotgun approach is used to solicit
public views, however. Public participation activities
take the form of formal hearings that are too late or too
structured to be useful. The audience is not defined
ahead of time to insure that the spectrum of values will
be represented.
The result is reactive, rather than proactive involve-
ment. The watchdogs are indeed watching, though. If
they cannot find something they can relate to in the
decisionmaking process, they will carry their causes to
the political arena and perhaps the budget. This hap-
pened in California last year with the overwhelming
passage of the Proposition 13 tax revolt initiative.
Decisionmakers weren't listening, so the voters pulled
the rug out from under the traditional pillar of local
government—property taxes. Local government in
California is muddling through after its slap in the face,
but! wonder if national energy needs can risk the same
kind of reaction and subsequent slow readjustment.
Short of overtly imposing an energy project on a
State or area that does not want it, it may be very dif-
ficult to deliver an energy system that has been
developed using the DOE approach. Nuclear power's
failure to win widespread public support is a good
example. There is something very wrong with a proposed
solution to the Nation's energy dilemma if it makes
growing numbers of people march in protest of it,
assault power plants, and even go to jail to stop it.
The nonnuclear alternatives cannot afford the lux-
ury of casual indifference to public attitudes that has
characterized nuclear power development. Early and
continuous involvement of the range of public values
is essential if the softer alternatives are to gain and
hold support.
Cooperation with others. It is customary for the Federal
government to implement a program and expect a State
or local government to comply with it after it has been
developed. The PPMS is consistent with this tradition,
but in so doing it isolates the vital contributions of these
other levels of government. It would be better for the
Federal level to first consult State and local policies
and needs. Without wishing to open a debate about
autonomy or decentralized responsibility, I submit that
DOE can gain knowledge, credibility, and support by
establishing better relations. The other levels can make
positive contributions that can simplify and expedite
program progress.
At the State level, for example, California has
made progress in advancing geothermal development
and in conserving or recovering energy through waste
management. I participate in monthly policy and program
development meetings of a committee of California's State
agencies interested in geothermal energy resources.
My impression of DOE's relationship with that
interagency body is that while DOE staff has been cor-
dial and helpful, the most that has come out of DOE's
participation has been an awareness of DOE's complex
organizational structure, its apparently continuous
reorganizations, and the resulting confusion for State
program funding. Instead, DOE and the State agencies
ought to be sharing information about how to accelerate
environmentally sound geothermal energy development.
As for waste management, I think it is significant
that the West Coast was effectively excluded from
access to the Section 11 process when it addressed
the issue.
Having worked in waste management in Washing-
ton, Oregon, and California, 1 can assure you that DOE
can learn a lot from the experiences of those States in
achieving energy savings through recycling and waste
reduction, or in seeking to derive energy from wastes.
California's program is particularly significant. The
State Solid Waste Management Board supports a $6
million annual grant program for local level resource
recovery and recycling activities. Within this, the Board
is funding certain preconstruction activities for resource
recovery facilities. Through the President's Urban Policy
Program, DOE and EPA are promoting a similar
facilities development program in California. Unfor-
tunately, the two programs were not well-coordinated
from the start. Most of the bugs have been worked out
by now, but the initial conflicts might have been
alleviated had the Federal government begun by seeking
the advice of California.
One further note, California is actively pursuing the
recovery of energy from rural agricultural and
silvicultural wastes. There is no linkage between DOE's
agricultural and urban waste activities, because separate
program offices are involved.
This has—at least in California's case—led to fund-
ing difficulties for our rural waste to energy projects. A
total waste-to-energy package should consider both
rural and urban sources and needs.
The Section 11 background document addressed
the need to involve State and local entities, stating that
involvement should begin when initial siting decisions
are made. My feeling is that DOE should get together
with the other governments well before that stage, the
better to make sure of State and local initiatives. Return-
ing to my remarks about the decisionmaking process
and public participation, there should be an early and
continuous cooperative exchange between DOE and
the other levels. This could be achieved by systematically
involving the State and local governments as publics
that, like the other publics, have information vital to
developing the policy equilibrium so essential to
program success.
156
-------
Statement of Mr. Seaman
Environmental concerns. Finally, with respect to
the attention to environmental factors, my impression is
that the PPMS is not sensitive to the range of environ-
mental concerns. I base this impression on the fact that
waste management continues to be left out.
At the regional hearing in San Francisco the issue
was identified as a concern, but it was not noted in the
Section 11 background document. Rather than dwell
on this point, I shall just say that if wastes are not ade-
quately addressed, then there is a chance that other envi-
ronmental factors are having difficulty gaining attention.
Again, energy decisionmakers should be cognizant
of the whole biophysical subsystem and its interactions
with the other components and subsystems of a com-
prehensive energy management system.
In summary, I have stated that DOE's decision-
making process is deficient so long as the headstrong
Program and Project Management System is the means
for achieving results. There appear to be few systematic
ways to understand the complex relationships between
the environment and society's use of energy. There are
too many opportunities within the PPMS to ignore or
belittle public, State, and local values.
The underlying problem is that there seems to have
been a failure to recognize that energy development is a
matter of policy as well as of project dimensions.
Thank you for your attention. I would be glad to
answer any questions you may have.
MR. ONDICH: Thank you.
Are there any questions from the panel?
DR. KINSEL: Yes, I'd like to explore a couple
things—you have some very interesting insights, 1 think,
in your statement, and I agree with you that from our
own experience, dealing with policymakers at the
national level, many of them do see public participation
as a nuisance or something which they have to do, rather
than as a tool to help them perhaps achieve the best
policy decisions.
I think, though, that it might be important to dif-
ferentiate between public participation as an insurance
that ideas which might not otherwise come to the
policymaker's attention are brought to that individual's
attention, as opposed to putting on the policymaker the
burden of deciding whether, say, occupation at
Seabrook signals a greater sense of opposition to
nuclear power than public polls which show that the
majority of the public still favors nuclear power as a
source, so long as it's done in a safe manner.
It seems to me that there may be a problem with
putting that type of burden on a policymaker, and it
may be—if I understood your statement correctly—may
be that that type of a decision is more properly placed
with elected representatives. There may be a break-
down there in communication between those people
who institutionally should be reflecting the conflict, if
there is such, between points of view on a controversial
issue, as opposed to the policymaker who should be
executing the decisions of, say, a legislative body,
something more representative of the people.
I'd just be curious on your comments on that.
MR. SEAMAN: If you refer to the diagram of the
interactive decisionmaking process, you can see that 1
feel that policy is something that is probably better left to
the elected decisionmakers. It is the role of an agency
such as DOE to insure that the equilibrium is maintained.
If there are signs that the equilibrium is not going to
be maintained, that is, if they hear the drums beating, or
something, they should inform the elected officials.
The Section 11 process is a good example of that,
because a report will be made to Congress. Everybody
has come in here and complained for three days in a
row that they feel isolated from what's been going on;
the report is the way of requesting a redefinition of
the program.
Of course, the ultimate way to deal with the policy-
makers is to vote them out of office, which is often done.
DR. KINSEL: If I could follow up on that—I think
that, with that type of general approach, part of the
problem eliciting the response of a number of witnesses
here today on, for example, the synfuels program is that
people in policymaking roles are taking upon them-
selves to make decisions that really are not in their
province—that for whatever reason the decisions points
have been skewed so that Congress, which should be
making these kinds of evaluations, is not doing it, and is
too often leaving it to people who are making them
based on an insufficient feel for what the concerns of the
public are.
So we have a very vicious circle here where we
have people being forced to fill a role that they
shouldn't, under our system of government, perhaps,
be filling. At the same time, they don't have the benefit
or they're not availing themselves of the public input
which would allow them, if they are going to be making
that type of decision, to make the best decision.
MR. SEAMAN: Well, I think that's why we have
three branches of government and ballot boxes, to deal
with that very thing. If Congress is derelict, then the
executive branch can point the finger, and that happens
quite frequently. If the legislative branch and executive
branch are too busy pointing the finger at each other,
then sooner or later someone will sue and the courts will
get involved. These things do have a way of working
themselves out.
Unfortunately, the process is extremely tedious,
and very expensive, but it does seem to have met the
test of time.
MR. ONDICH: I'd just like to second Dr. Kinsel's
remark in that I think you've provided some very useful
and thoughtful remarks.
I would like to now ask if there are any comments
from the floor.
(No response.)
157
-------
Hearing of October 5, 1979
MR. ONDICH: Again, I'd like to thank both of
you gentlemen. This concludes the hearings.
I'd like to mention what Dr. Reznek did the first
day, that the Hearing record will be open for.two weeks
following the conclusion of this Hearing, and any com-
ments, or if people would like to add, you can send
them in to the Environmental Protection Agency in care
of the Section 11 coordinator.
{Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m. the hearing was
adjourned.)
158
-------
Addendum
-------
-------
Written Statement Submitted by
Kirk Cunningham, Chairman,
Conservation Committee
Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Chapter
Denver, Colorado
I would like to submit the following remarks for the
Hearing record of the October 3-5 National Hearing on
Section 11 of the Nonnuclear Energy Research and
Development Act of 1974. They are made on behalf of
the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Club and
arise from my participation at the Denver Section 11
workshops this summer, from my understanding of
relevant Sierra Club policy, and from my personal
experience as a layman who has tried to comprehend
and respond to numerous Federal management planning
and rulemaking documents.
There are no doubt ways in which DOE RD&D
management could be improved to better consider envi-
ronmental issues and public participation, but I believe
that it could bejimproved in the following important
ways:
(1) Criteria to determine which projects receive
"major management attention." In addition to the
customary factors such as cost and immediate environ-
mental impacts, DOE should also consider, as a crite-
rion, how much long-term irreversible damage may be
Intrinsic to the technology. It is my experience that too
many impact discussions in EISs tend to focus on miti-
gation by technical means during the life of the project,
but fail to address the consequences of eventual shut-
down and abandonment. In Colorado, a good example
of this problem is oil shale technology. I understand that
one such project came in under the cost threshold and
so was not considered a "major project." Yet all types of
oil shale production have intrinsic, probably insoluble,
long term impacts on ground and surface water quality
which will not be apparent until after mine closure. In
contrast, a power plant emits pollution only while in
operation (neglecting the coal mining problems, of
course), and even very large and costly solar or conser-
vation projects will have negligible impacts during and
after operation. Therefore, technologies like oil shale
deserve close and continuous environmental scrutiny
even for projects below the cost threshhold.
(2) Evaluation criteria used at decision points. The
same emphases on cost and long term impacts as listed
above should be used in decisionmaking, in addition to
the usual environmental impacts. But direct and indirect
impacts of the advent of heavy industry into presently
sparsely populated areas should also be considered. I
can use oil shale again as an example: increments in
Colorado River salinity 50-100 years hence regardless
of present mitigation attempts, and decrements in
wildlife habitat and numbers due to residential
developments and increased hunting pressure. Oil shale
and other energy operations are projected to increase
northwest Colorado's populations by a factor of three.
Social and economic impacts on present rural towns are
too obvious to mention.
(3) Public participation processes. It may well be
that public participation should occur prior to the E1S in
the planning scheme; however, I am not certain that
new structures or bodies need to be created. The follow-
ing suggestions are essential: (a) The interested public
must be informed actively, not passively, of the progress
of a major project through the decision points. For ex-
ample, a short, clearly-written blurb or press release
might be sent around to an appropriate mailing list.
(b) EDPs, PEPs, and ERDs must be more easily avail-
able to the interested public, and must be written in a
clear way with the issues outlined so that we can
understand them. (I assume that this would also help
DOE personnel understand their own documents!)
Many people now complain that such documents have
not been easily available. If they were readily available,
and if we knew of their existence, then we could use
them to prepare ourselves for EIS input later on and
perhaps thus obviate the need for much more public
input before the EIS. As a volunteer environmentalist, I
have limited time to devote to public input exercises, but
I would like to have more time to prepare myself for
those that do occur—90-day comment periods for com-
plex topics when approached cold are simply inade-
quate, (c) Hearings and workshops to facilitate public
input are useful, but must get to the point and should
not be held during the day. For example, the Section 11
workshop in Denver could probably have been com-
pressed into one-half day. (d) Finally, those people or
local governments whose interests are most immedi-
ately and severely affected by a proposed project must
be convinced that the project will not be jammed down
their throats no matter what, i.e., that the alternative of
not building the project at all will be given serious con-
sideration by DOE if major problems arise. Other inter-
ested people must also be convinced that their input at
the EIS level is given serious consideration by
DOE—otherwise there will be strident demands for
more rigidly defined public input mechanisms earlier on
(i.e., more bureaucracy!).
159
-------
In summary, impacts analyses and the criteria for
new energy projects must be conceptually and tem-
porally broader. Public input must be made easy for the
public, and mustv have impact on decisionmaking.
Thanks for your consideration of these remarks.
Written Statement Submitted by
A.H. Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics,
University of California, Berkeley, and
Principal Investigator, Energy Efficient
Buildings Program, LBL, and
Paul P. Craig, Professor of Applied Science,
University of California, Davis.
We are submitting this note to emphasize a few
well-known problems.
First we would like to point out that many of DOE's
failings in managing a basic research program have
been succinctly and convincingly described in the 1978
OSTP Working Group report known within the Depart-
ment as the Buchsbaum Report. At high levels within
DOE the Buchsbaum report is said to have been extremely
influential, but we, at the receiving end of research
budgets and controls must say ruefully that we have yet
to see much effect.
The Buchsbaum Report seems so convincing to us,
that we are starting this commentary by reproducing the
Executive Summary, their comments on the dangers of
setting rigid timetables and overmanaging, and the
importance of stability of funding and the support of
graduate students.
The Buchsbaum Report
Executive Summary
There is a lack of balance in the DOE programs
between research on the one hand and development,
engineering, and demonstration programs on the other.
This stems in large measure from a preoccupation with
certain near-term programs and neglect of longer term
fundamental work that is vital to the DOE mission. The
dearth of research is especially evident in the solar and
fossil fuel programs.
A strong component of basic research within each
technical program is essential if the DOE is to fulfill its
mission. Each Assistant Secretary should include a basic
research category within his budget and should acquire
staff with expertise in the management of basic research.
The management and conduct of basic research
within the technical areas should be under the guidance
and budgetary control of a Research Coordinating
Committee (RCC) consisting of the Technical Assistant
Secretaries with the Director of OER as chairman. The
functions of the RCC should be assigned to the existing
R&D Coordinating Council.
The Office of Energy Research must be expert in
the fields of research under its coordination. The OER
should conduct research in the sciences, technologies
and other areas (such as environment, health and
policy studies) which apply broadly to many .programs.
The overall basic research program of the DOE
should be of a size and scope sufficient to assure the
health of disciplines of importance to the long term
development of energy technologies. Stability of fund-
ing is a key element in the development and main-
tenance of a research program of the highest quality.
Excellence of research should be a principal concern
when judgments are made on the support of specific
proposals.
The existing research program is not well balanced
among the DOE laboratories, industry and universities.
The budget for basic energy research in the universities
should be increased. If necessary, funds should be
diverted for this purpose from the development activities
or even from other parts of the basic research program.
Several DOE Laboratories with applied roles and
missions require a redefinition of those missions in order
to maintain their effectiveness. Within a well-defined
mission, conduct of basic research is vital to the health
and vitality of a laboratory. Laboratory management
should have flexibility in the conduct of basic research.
Because of the dominant importance of fossil fuels,
the DOE should establish a National Program for Fossil
Fuels Research. Effective implementation of this pro-
gram may require the creation of a new organizational
structure to provide a focus and a mechanism for the
conduct of needed research.
A key element in the development and mainte-nance
of a basic research program of the highest quality is the
stability of funding. High quality basic research is a long
term endeavor and sharp fluctuations in support level
are particularly damaging. Redirection of resources
should, therefore, be accomplished at a rate that will
enhance the overall effort, but not so rapidly that it
unduly impairs the work of outstanding performers.
The issue of stable funding is particularly critical for
universities. Since they must make long term commit-
ments to significant research programs and to graduate
students, who typically spend three to six years on spon-
sored research leading to a PhD degree, research proj-
ects at universities should be funded for at least two or
three years (as DOE is authorized by law to do) or,
preferably, be supported by step-funding. Under a
system of step-funding, a research project is allocated
support for several years ahead but in declining steps.
Annual reviews then determine the merit of the project
and, if the assessment is favorable, funds are aug-
mented to maintain the long-term financial assurance
initially established. The stability that this provides
promotes effective research.
A particular problem of university-based research
programs is that of graduate student support. University
research programs play a major role in graduate educa-
tion. We perceive that the support of first-year graduate
160
-------
students who have not yet chosen their research topics
has become a problem in some universities. At present
the DOE Trainee Program is trivially small. An expanded
Trainee Program would increase the effectiveness of uni-
versity participation in DOE basic research programs.
We are now going to give three examples of how
long it takes {a year or so of tedious urging) to obtain
funding for long-range or innovative projects.
The first example concerns the "Watt-Watchers
Tables" (LBL Report 5926). We did this work in 1976
and 1977, and came up with some remarkable conclu-
sions on the size and cost-effectiveness of the potential
for more efficient use of energy in California. It became
clear to us that we should expand this work to the entire
U.S., and produce "supply curves of conserved
energy." We have since received funds from the
California Policy Seminar for extending the California
work, and have received urgent requests from DOE to
generalize the results, but still no stable funding. We'll
return to this after we mention cases two and three.
Case two concerns research on radon in homes —
monitoring it, uncovering its pathways into homes, and
the effectiveness of air-to-air heat exchangers in flushing
it out. We first became convinced that this was an
important problem in the early spring of 1978, and have
been working on the problem "by moonlight" for 18
months. Only now are we beginning to receive funding
... from DOE, and nothing yet from EPA. We are send-
ing you a copy of LBL 7809 (Rev Aug. '79), a paper
whose first draft was actually written in the spring of 1978.
Case three is a report entitled "Building Energy Use
Compilation and Analysis (BECA) - An International
Comparison and Critical Review" authored by 12
distinguished experts in the field. It has been clear for
some time that the U.S. and the world need a Building
Energy Use Data Center which would issue regular
critical reviews. But this is another long-range project
which is so far unfunded, and operating on volunteer
labor. We are sending you a draft of its first report: LBL
8912, which will soon be submitted to the international
journal, Energy and Building.
Our general comment on these three cases is that
DOE's Office of Conservation and Solar Applications
has been very good about funding us to study building
envelopes, ventilation and computer modelling, provided
that we satisfy many short term deliverables. We are
proud of this program; its reputation is excellent, and
we have produced books, special issues of journals,
hundreds of papers in refereed journals, and hundreds
of reports. We are grateful to DOE for funding us, and
the results have been in the national interest of learning
how to use energy efficiently. But we are no longer
unknown quantities, and we feel that we should be
encouraged to put some fraction of our effort, perhaps
one quarter, into long-range research, with no deliver-
able except high-quality publications in archival journals
and review articles.
In particular, in most of the scientific fields funded
by DOE or NSF, it is understood that up to 5 percent of
the research funds must be set aside for data centers
which compile results and issue regular critical reviews,
tables, and references. These centers are funded on a
continuing basis. The best example is the National Stan-
dard Data Reference System, ably administered by the
National Bureau of Standards, in collaboration with
DOE and other concerned agencies. Both cases one
and three should be fundable under the analog of such
a program, but no program exists.
If a data center is continuously funded, or at least
step-funded, then it can produce important timely
reports as it foresees the need. Back to example one. It
was clear last summer, when OPEC suddenly doubled
oil prices, that there was going to be a sudden increase
in retrofitting existing homes (to make them more
energy-efficient) particularly New England, with heating
oil prices going through $l/gallon this coming winter.
As previously mentioned, we were already in the
process of producing the two figures for California.
Figure one is called a "decay curve." It shows what
we know about reducing energy use as we invest in
improvements in various parts of the home — space
heating, water heating, cooling, appliances, and
lighting. We have found that it is convincing to the
homeowner, although it does not tell him exactly what
to do first, or his return on investment.
Figure two is the same data, replorted as a "supply
curve" of the cost of conserved energy vs. annual sav-
ings. It is more satisfactory to economists and
policymakers. It shows clearly that more of a homes
resource energy can be saved for a total investment of
about $1500, and that the cost of conserved energy for
these retrofits is less than the cost of new supply.
We point out again that we are still having difficulty
finding the right combination of offices within DOE to
support this sort of information system for the U.S. as
a whole.
We thank you for your time and attention.
161
------- |