Immediately after the House contempt vote, Justice Department attorneys and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Stanley S. Harris filed a lawsuit against the House of Representatives claiming that the House action was unconstitutional and an intrusion on executive privilege. This is a highly unusual legal situation—a lawsuit in which the government of the United States of America is suing the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Consequently, Gorsuch will apparently not be prosecuted for contempt of Congress until the lawsuit is settled. It may be appealed to the Supreme Court because it is the first time Congress has attempted to press criminal contempt charges on the issue of executive privilege. On Dec. 30, the House filed a motion in U.S. District Court, asking that its authority to prosecute Gorsuch be upheld and arguing that the Reagan administration has made "a misguided attempt to restrain the operation of the legislative process." Some House leaders have called for the impeachment of Attorney General William French Smith and U.S. Attorney Stanley S. Harris. The U.S. attorney is required by law to prosecute an individual who is voted in contempt by the full House. To defend Gorsuch against the contempt-of-Congress charge, EPA decided to hire two private lawyers at a cost of up to $70 000. Also assigned to the case is a team of lawyers from the Justice Department, which is charged by law with representing Gorsuch. When a case is being defended by the Justice Department, it is highly unusual to hire outside counsel. Hours after the decision to hire a private law firm was made public and after the move was questioned by both Congress and the White House, EPA canceled the plans. The law firm EPA intended to hire is representing a company, Aerovox, Inc., that E P A is prosecuting for discharging toxic wastes into the harbor of New Bedford, Mass., one of the 160 interim priority sites. Documents from the Aerovox case are among the many that Gorsuch refused to turn over to Levitas's subcommittee. One administration official said, "Here's a counsel for one of the defendants, who in the course of representing Mrs. Gorsuch could very well examine the same documents that are supposed to be so sensitive we can't show them to Congress. That's pretty tough to explain." —Bette Hileman 0013-936X/83/0916-0075A$01.50
Renewable energy What are its environmental
Ten years ago, before the oil embargo of 1973, little serious thought was given to the sources of renewable energy. But since that time, renewable energy has been popularized; it is always a form of solar energy. The considerations that ultimately will decide solar energy's fate include: • where and when the energy is available, • its cost, and • the environmental effects. Late last year, the National Audubon Society released its report, "Side Effects of Renewable Energy Sources (SERES)." In announcing completion of the study, Audubon President Russell W. Peterson said, "But if we go into the solar age with our eyes open, aware of possible pitfalls as well as the tremendous potential, then renewable energy offers far and away the best alternative to the pollution, land abuse, and national security threats attendant on fossil fuels and nuclear power." Prepared by Dr. Larry Medsker, the report surveyed nine types of renewable energy, identified the possible problems with each type, and showed how the problem could be minimized or avoided. The report covered wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, photovoltaic, energy efficiency, direct solar heating and cooling, solar electric thermal conversion, and ocean thermal energy conversion. A detailed ranking of these technologies was intentionally omitted in the report. However, biomass would supply the largest contribution of all of the renewable sources of energy (except energy efficiency, which is really not a renewable energy source, although it was included as one in the report). However, biomass energy systems have potential side effects in all categories of environmental concern; a danger is that overuse and poor
© 1983 American Chemical Society
side effects?
management could lead to unsustainable, and therefore nonrenewable, systems. Also omitted in the report, by choice of the author, was the ranking of environmental side effects. The main goal of the report was to provide a comprehensive listing of possible side effects with a minimum of value-based interpretations. The information it contains will serve to establish a S E R E S data base for renewable energy. Science for the public Although Medsker, a public service science resident of the National Audubon Society, was the principal author, the study was done in consultation with Dr. Jan Beyea, senior energy scientist, and Dr. Glenn Paulson, vice-president for science of the National Audubon Society. The report was developed as part of a Science for Citizens program established by the National Science Foundation Office of Science and Society. This" program aims to increase the knowledgeable participation of both scientists and nonscientists in the resolution of major public issues involving science and technology. One of its goals is to provide the public with scientific and technical expertise so that citizens can better understand and participate in decisions on policy issues. The 73-page report contains numerous tables that list the consequences of development and the accompanying environmental stresses on land, air, water, wildlife, and flora. It also tells how such problems can be minimized or avoided. Copies of the report, E P R D (Environmental Policy Research Division) No. 15, are available from the Science Division, National Audubon Society, 950 Third Ave., New York, N . Y . 10022 —Stanton Miller Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 2, 1983
75A
