OCEANOGRAPHY 217 



In the same report, on page 62, we note the following statement. "The safety 

 of these operations (that is, the disposal of solid packaged wastes into the 

 ocean) has been supported by (1) the views of experts in the marine sciences 

 and other related fields to whom the problem has been referred, (2) the actual 

 operating experience of the British in disposing of considerably greater quantities 

 of liquid radioactive wastes to the Irish Sea, and (3) the preliminary but direct 

 information from actual field studies made in both Atlantic and Pacific Ocean 

 disposal areas." 



The Commission's comments on H.R. 9361 have been sent to this committee 

 and we would suggest, for the committee's con-sideration, insertion of that letter 

 into the record of this hearing. I would like to confirm the position taken in our 

 letter, that although we believe that greater emphasis will be placed on 

 oceanography in the AEC, we do not require statutory authority beyond the 

 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as revised to increase our effort in this field. 



If, however, it is felt that legislation should be enacted, we are providing 

 certain comments on that portion of the bill which has special application to the 

 Commission's program. With respect to section 11 as a whole, we believe that 

 it should be deleted since it grants no new authority to the Commission. We 

 should like to note, however, that the Commission has particular concern with 

 the proviso in section 11 because the language could be read as placing in the 

 Coast and Geodetic Survey, the U.S. Public Health Service, or both, respon- 

 .sibility for regulating and monitoring the introduction of radioactive materials 

 in the ocean. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 19-54 the Commission already ad- 

 ministers an extensive regulatory program covering the use and disposal of 

 source, special nuclear and byproduct materials, including the dispo.sal of siich 

 materials in the ocean. The language in the proviso therefore is inconsistent 

 with the Commission's present authority and might result in an implied repeal 

 of certain provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. 



Monitoring activities are essential to the effective administration of the Com- 

 mission's regulatory program. While we do not object, of course, to the Coast 

 and Geodetic Survey and the U.S. Public Health Service continuing to conduct 

 such monitoring activities as may be neces.sary to i>erform their resiwnsibilities, 

 it is of utmost importance to our regulatory program that the Commission's 

 authority to monitor not be impaired. The fact is that the Commission has here- 

 tofore effectively cooperated with the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the l^.S. 

 Public Health Service in performing ocean studies, and we expect this relation- 

 ship to continue. 



In view of the foregoing we are recommending that section 11 of the bill be 

 deleted entirely. If it should be concluded, however, that even though the au- 

 thority provided by this bill merely duplicates that already conferred by the 

 Atomic Energy Act, the Commission's role under the bill should be defined, we 

 strongly recommend that the proviso clause of section 11 be eliminated. 



With regard to the second bill, H.R. 12018, the Commission has participated 

 in many discussions concerning the establishment of a National Oceanographic 

 Data Center. We feel that there is need for such a center to provide access to 

 and more efficient utilization of the large quantities of data being gathered by 

 oceanographers under governmental and private funding arrangements. We 

 feel that such a center should have an operating board to assist in meeting the 

 data requinnents of various private and public agencies. We are presently, 

 however, a participating member of a planning committee of governmental agen- 

 cies that feel that the Navy Hydrographic Office has the basic authority and 

 expertese to carry out the activities involved, and that the data center should be 

 established in that office. We would expect to assist in its operation and to 

 have ready access to the data. 



Again to repeat our written comments, we support the establishment of a 

 National Oceanographic Data Center but feel that it might properly be estab- 

 lished as an extension of the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Ofl3ce. 



]\Ir. Miller. The subcommittee "will adjourn, subject to the call of 

 the Chair. 



(Whereupon, at 11 :30 a.m., the subcommittee acljounied, subject to 

 the call of the chair.) 



