1229 
reorganization, the Marine Commission rejects the idea of consolidating all 
Federal marine and atmospheric functions into a single organization. We agree 
that certain marine- and atmospheric-related programs are integral to the mis- 
sion of the agencies performing them and that these are best left where they 
are. 
The Report includes recommendations regarding (1) thermal pollution legis- 
lation, (2) submerged nuclear power plants and (3) the development of power 
systems for undersea operations and resource development. My comments on 
these recommendations, each of which bears directly on AEG programs, are set 
forth below. 
1. THERMAL POLLUTION LEGISLATION 
The Marine Commission observes that the Department of Justice has agreed 
that the AEC lacks authority to consider thermal pollution as part of its licensing 
procedures. (More recently, this view was upheld in State of New Hampshire 
v. Atomic Hnergy Commission et al., 406 F.2d 170, cert. denied, 37 U.S... Week 
3481 [U.S. June 16, 1969].) With this in mind, the Marine Commission recom- 
mends “that legislation be enacted to enable the AEC to consider the environ- 
mental effects of projects under its licensing authority.” (page 77) The Atomic 
Energy Commission alreadw has, and vigorously exercises, broad authority to 
consider environmental effects of radiation and radioactivity in licensing. Also 
under AHC’s developmental authority, as distinguished from its regulatory fune- 
tions, we have been conducting studies on environmental effects of thermal dis- 
charges. We strongly support the need for such studies as a basis for establishing 
controls on thermal pollution. 
Legislation along the lines recommended by the Marine Commission would 
address only a portion of the problem of thermal discharges produced by steam 
electric power plants. All such plants, whether employing nuclear or fossil 
fuels, must discharge heat into the environment and the AEC does not believe 
that legislation limited to nuclear plants in an effective way to deal with the 
problem. 
Provisions for control of thermal effects along the lines favored by the ABC 
are contained in H.R. 4148 entitled, “Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969,” 
which was recently passed by the House. Similar provisions are contained in a 
Senate bill (S. 7) introduced by Senator Muskie and currently under consider- 
ation. The approach of these bills is consistent with the provisions of the Fed- 
eral Water Pollution Control Act which assigns primary responsibility for 
control of water pollution to the states. It would require applicants for federal 
licenses to obtain advance certification from the appropriate state or interstate 
water pollution control agency that the proposed activity will comply with ap- 
plicable state water quality standards. Failure to provide such certification 
would preclude issuance of the federal license. Since all nuclear power plants 
and probably most of the nonnuclear power plants of similar size would require 
a federal license or permit of some sort, these bills would establish an effective 
and equitable procedure to cope with the total problem of thermal effects and 
their control. 
2. SUBMERGED NUCLEAR PLANTS 
The Marine Commission report discusses the siting of nuclear power plants 
and recommends collaborative efforts involving the proposed National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Agency and the AHC. In particular, the Marine Commission 
recommends support for the development of technology for and construction of 
“an Hxperimental Continental Shelf Submerged Nuclear Plant... to pilot test 
and demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of ... the underwater 
siting of nuclear facilities to provide power for coastal regions.” (page 162) 
There are several ways of obtaining the ecological advantages of ocean siting 
in addition to submerging reactors. These include coastal siting, island siting 
and floatings stations. AEC investigations of off-shore siting for large nuclear 
power plants make clear that submerging such large commercial facilities on 
the continental shelf is, at this time, several steps ahead of current state of the 
art from both an engineering and an economic standpoint. As a result, the AHC 
has directed its attention toward the use of existing islands, or the construction, 
in water depths of 20-60 feet, of man-made islands upon which the plant facil- 
ities could be located. Many of the advantages noted by the Marine Commission 
for submerged plants can be obtained by off-shore siting on islands with fewer 
technical difficulties and with far less economic penalty than would be associ-. 
ated with a submerged plant. 
26-563—70—pt. 2-47 
