384 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



I was amazed, too, to see the fi<5ures that were given to us yester- 

 day of the small amount of money being spent by AEC, and your 

 Department as well, in a study of this situation. It Avas an intinitesi- 

 mal part of the overall AEC program, perhaps $200,000 or $300,000, 

 if that much, on an annual basis. 



I, for one, intend to ask the chairman of the Joint Committee on 

 Atomic Energy to bring the proper officials of AEC and your Depart- 

 ment before that committee to see if economy is the only reason. Cer- 

 tainly you cannot justify a situation like this on the basis of the extra 

 cost of maybe even $200,000 a year. These contracts are made by AEC 

 with disposal corporations, are they not? Is that not the way it is 

 done? 



Mr. McKernan. Yes. 



Mr. Lennon. I hope that in the future, before any publicity is given 

 to where radioactive materials, even low level wastes, are to be disposed 

 of, you would review with the departments of conservation and de- 

 velopment, particularly the bureaus of commercial fisheries and sports 

 fisheries, of the States and extend them the courtesy of getting their 

 views before you publicize such a thing. It is a matter of grave con- 

 cern to our people. I know the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Casey, 

 who is certainly moderate and sympathetic and cooperative both with 

 your Department and the AEC, is very much concerned about the de- 

 cision to dump this material within 23 miles from the coastline of his 

 district, right in the fishing grounds which he fishes himself. The 

 sports fishing industry in the South Atlantic — certainly I can speak 

 for my own State — as well as the commercial fishing industry are 

 great factors in our total economy. I do not believe that you folks 

 ought to commit yourselves and give your approval or withhold your 

 disapproval until such time as the related counterpart agencies in the 

 State are at least solicited for any view that they may have. 



The ultimate and final decision is with AEC. I do not believe that 

 the AEC or the National Academy of Sciences would have announced 

 any such intention if you folks had said, "Hold this up until we can 

 study it thoroughly." I do not believe they would have done it, be- 

 cause everybody wants good public relations. I should think they 

 would, anyhow. Certainly good public relations are not gained in 

 the way this thing was handled. 



I ask you, sir, with all the sincerity that I have, to go back and re- 

 view this proposed decision and see if it cannot be determined if it 

 would be in the public interest, the psychology of the thing if nothing 

 else, and its effect on the general public, to spend a few more dollars 

 and go out another 25 miles, in some instances less, and dump it in 

 deeper water on the Continental Shelf. I hope you will do that. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have made my speech, but I was 

 concerned about it. 



Mr. Miller. All right. Counsel. 



Mr. Drewry. Mr. McKernan, yesterday when the question was 

 asked how come certain sites were named, the Atomic Energy people 

 said the selection of the sites was done by the Bureau of Connnercial 

 Fisheries. Is that correct ? 



Mr. McKernan. Not to my knowledge. 



Mr. Drewry. Did I not also understand from you that Dr. Chipman 

 was on this group ? 



