of this report are designed to introduce an environmental policy into existing organizations which will decrease conflict without undue interference with mission objectives. The chief environmental official in the Department of Interior might well be the Secretary himself. 5. An "Environmental Cabinet" A Governmentwide "czar" of environmental quality is not recommended. The subcommittee does believe it is necessary to have a highly placed official (assistant secretary or administrator) in each agency which has substantial activities in the environment. This official would be the policy focal point with sufficient authority to conform the individual action programs to the national policy for the environment. His office would also become the contact point for all external organizations and inquiries. The present low organizational status of air pollution and solid wastes in the DHEW inhibits these programs. They do not have visibility or competitive position with other agencies. The engineering aspects are subjugated to health relationships. A reorganization which would place these programs with so-called consumer protection agencies does not appear to make sense. The balance of health protection and engineering feasibility requires an independent organization at a high level in a department which can consider the total uses of the environment. The environmental officials from each agency, plus the Chairman of the FCST Committee on Environmental Quality should be recognized as a Cabinet for the Environment. A formal organization may not be necessary if the national policy is well defined and interpreted by the President. Informal meetings of this group would accomplish the coordination of day-to-day operations. When specific conflicts of mission arise, the department officials involved would constitute a readymade panel to resolve the problem. Conformance to policy by this Cabinet would have some aspects of the operations of the National Security Council, the National Aeronautics and Space Council, and the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. 6. An Environmental Assessment Board for the Congress The subcommittee recognizes that the present congressional committee structure causes fragmentation of environmental management programs. The legislative process does not consider parts of the overall program on the same basis as the executive branch. There is no likelihood of changing the congressional approach, but again the introduction of an expanded, objective, common information base will bring more coordination to legislation. A technology assessment capability for the Congress is under active consideration by committees in both Houses. The exact form is not yet discernable but the common thread of concern in all proposals is that present policies for the environment are inadequate. Technology does have an impact on environmental quality in many ways and not enough is known about the consequences. Regardless of improvements in executive branch organizations, the Congress needs an independent and comprehensive source of information and advice. Executive policy dominates the priorities for R. & D. and action programs of the agencies. The Nation should have an institution which transcends any political administration to continuously assess environmental quality, to provide an early warning of consequences, and to respond quickly and objectively to questions from a public policy standpoint. The Congress is the place for such an institution. The subcommittee recommends that informal discussions continue among interested leaders from the Senate and the House of Representatives. The objective should be the design and formation of an environmental assessment function. Existing organizations, such as the Library of Congress, should be used as a base if at all possible. 7. The Atomic Energy Commission The energy requirements of the foreseeable future in the United States and the world are so great that all sources of power will be taxed to meet them. The choice of nuclear or fossil fuels will be based on closely reasoned economics. The cost of raw thermal energy will be the main ingredient but waste disposal or pollution effects will enter into the decisions of the electric power companies (see p. 223). A nuclear electric powerplant is designed to retain virtually all radioactive wastes. The problem of thermal pollution is important but technology is available at a reasonable price to protect receiving waters from too great a temperature rise (see pp. 234-256). Future innovations may find uses for waste heat.17 The more difficult problem is due to the fact that nuclear plants accumulate radioactive wastes in their fuel elements as power is produced. At intervals, the fuel elements are removed, shipped to a processing plant, and the wastes are extracted. These high-level radioactive materials are contained in a liquid-solid sludge state for about 30 years. After this period, the wastes may be reduced to an insoluble solid but still must be kept apart from the biosphere for hundreds of years. The subcommittee is impressed with the manner in which the Atomic Energy Commission has approached the requirement for very long term management of radioactive wastes. Several options are now being tested in pilot plants which could provide the ultimate answer at reasonable costs. Research is continuing on all aspects of handling and storage as well as the biological consequences of radioactive wastes (see p. 225). There do not appear to be any potential problems which could interfere with the development of nuclear electric power at as fast a rate as is economically attractive. Radioactivity is a unique environmental hazard because it is present naturally in only insignificant amounts in the landscape, is not detectable by any human sense, can cause profound damage to living things, can be concentrated by biological systems, has a very long lifetime, and cannot be "neutralized" in any way. These factors lead the subcommittee to the conclusion that extra vigilance will always be necessary in this field. While the current program is satisfactory, the following cautions were developed from the testimony. 1. The AEC is at a disadvantage in estimating the rapidity with which nuclear powerplants will be installed and thus the rate of generation of nuclear wastes (see pp. 229 and 243). The economics of electric power and the total demand curve are outside the province of this agency. Therefore, the requirement for processing and interim storage of high-level wastes might grow quite rapidly. Preparations, in terms of trained manpower, responsible management, and facilities should be reassessed constantly. 2. The transportation of high-level wastes from powerplants to processing plants and from the latter to storage will be an increasing activity. Accidents will occur in the vicinity of human populations (see p. 230). It is obvious that the design of containers must absolutely preclude release of any radioactive contents under the most imaginative conditions (for example, a collision of an atomic wastes carrier with a high-explosives truck). The ironic "law" of modern technology which predicts that if something can go wrong, it will, must be the guide for research in transportation of nuclear wastes (see p. 249). 3. The permanent, or perpetual, care requirement for wastes raises the question of eventual political instability or financial problems which might result in neglect of the storage site (see p. 240). The necessity for constant human surveillance accounts for a great deal of the 17 Thermal Pollution-1958, (part 1) hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, 90th Congress, second session, Feb. 6, 13 and 14, 1968. concern about long-term storage. It may be possible that increased knowledge of geological formations and processes could lead to a storage method which would allow society to actually "forget" about the wastes. 4. The organization and operation of nuclear science and technology make it difficult to obtain an independent evaluation of hazards. Virtually all of the persons with full knowledge and expertise are subjectively involved in the program. Therefore it is important that the AEC continue to strengthen its internal system of assessment and checks and balances (see p. 247). The proposal that the NAS and NAE be equipped to participate in this process is welcomed and will be followed with interest (see p. 236). 8. The Department of Agriculture No discussion of organization for environmental management could exclude the enormous programs of the Department of Agriculture. The quest for food and fiber has led to the biggest ecological manipulation of all. In the United States, this use of the landscape has been raised to a high level of science and engineering. As a major function of government, and as a principal concern of society, agriculture cannot be placed under the jurisdiction of an environmental management agency. But agricultural practice can be coordinated with other environmental engineering activities through the "Cabinet for the Environment" (see p. 269). The changing technology in agriculture has presented new problems in environmental quality (see p. 259). Cheap synthetic fertilizer has decreased the demand for manure at the same time that feedlots have concentrated the production of animal wastes and suburban expansion has brought populations close by. The result is a solid wastes disposal and odor problem which is not going to be easy to solve (see p. 265). The heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer has raised the question of whether agricultural runoff contributes to algal growth and euthrophication of lakes and estuaries. Also, nitrates in ground water may be a health hazard to infants (see p. 263). These effects are not at all clearly established but they point up the need for coordination of seemingly widely separated events in environmental science and technology. 9. The Importance of Local Government The intent of the Congress in all of the legislation relating to environmental quality has been to leave the detailed decisions of usage, standards, and enforcement of local government. Interstate flows of air and water have brought the Federal Government into the enforcement picture where regional "problem shed" approaches have needed assistance. But the State and local governments are vital to the long-range effort in environmental management (see p. 11). The variety in the landscape of the United States precludes uniform prescriptions for emission restrictions. Federal review of ambient standards is useful in order to guarantee a minimum quality for healthrelated factors such as drinking water. Even in this case, the acceptance of a quality level locally is the best indicator that it is satisfactory. The needs for industry, agriculture, recreation, and esthetic values can best be evaluated at the local level. Conflicting uses need to be judged fairly, and criteria for such decisions will be developed nationally for use by all jurisdictions. In carrying out programs the States are often in the vanguard of environmental engineering (e.g., California in automobile emission control and Pennsylvania in mine drainage control (see p. 540). Local government is the first to feel the impact of public demand for environmental improvement, and has the clear constitutional authority to enforce abatement laws. The allocation of resources for control and the choice among conflicting uses requires an intimate knowledge of the people, economics, weather, and terrain which is available on the scene (see p. 415). 10. The Private Sector The resources of private industry are those which will solve environmental management problems. A climate of government-industry cooperation must be created so that the commercial sector is not automatically the villain. The welfare of our economy is an integral objective of managing natural resources. The subcommittee notes from its studies a number of specific contributions which industry can make. The history of industrial hygiene shows that responsible companies construct and observe standards for the exposure of human beings to many of the same contaminants which are of concern in the environment. The extension of this medical knowledge to air and water pollution criteria establishment should be meaningful. For example, carbon monoxide in the urban atmosphere will be the subject of criteria published by the DHEW (see p. 85). Industry has accumulated experience which shows that workers can be exposed to 50 parts per million for an 8-hour day, 5 days a week, for their entire working lifetime without adverse effect. Measurement along city streets and in traffic which were presented to the subcommittee indicated that 50 parts per million is rarely exceeded for long periods and, of course, persons do not spend 8 hours at a time in this atmosphere. Therefore the industrial hygiene data should ease the concern of the public about carbon monoxide as an air pollutant (see pp. 474-479). Subtle psychomotor effects may occur at lower exposure levels. Cigarette smoking brings about this condition in smokers. To eliminate driver inefficiencies which may be related to low level carbon monoxide, it would be necessary to refuse licenses to smokers (see p. 479). It is often stated that air or water pollution abatement regulations are the cause of industry relocating or closing down plants. The subcommittee was unable to document this assertion (see p. 501). However it is obvious that environmental quality considerations will have substantial effects on markets and new products as well as manufacturing design. Supplies, equipment, and abatement processes will be required as control regulations go into effect. This market should justify private investment in related R. & D. and should stimulate a search for the lowest cost methods and techniques. Other markets will be disrupted. Products such as nontoxic gasoline additives, phosphate-free detergents, or biodegradable plastics may be able to displace present products which have a liability due to their adverse effect on the environment. Such liability should be thoroughly established before disrupting an industrial pattern. In the case of unleaded gasoline the cost to the Nation would be hundreds of millions of dollars each year. At the present time, the lead hazard is the subject of some scientific controversy. More research remains to be done (as is |