87 



a series of dumpings, radioactive waste in the Arctic, with subse- 

 quent studies both by ship traverse and other means to determine 

 whether that past dumping poses a significant threat to the Arctic 

 nations. 



The bulk of the information right now, as just described by 

 Sherri and others, is that it is localized. It does not seem to have 

 gotten into the full food chain and poses, at least for the moment, 

 no serious environmental risk to the health and safety of the Arctic 

 nations. 



The problem is to make certain that we monitor and fully docu- 

 ment where they all are and make sure there are no surprises here 

 that we do not know about yet, and second, to ensure that as we 

 go forward with further decommissioning, further retirement of 

 vessels, that the ocean is not used as the disposal grounds for 

 them. That means in the Arctic, a facility both for the liquid and 

 the solid. In the Far East, as the chairman has pointed out, an 

 area of an equal problem. And what we have done with our efforts 

 in Murmansk is to ensure that we create the right policy and polit- 

 ical framework and technical capability to move away from the 

 ocean, in this case, Arctic dumping. 



Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you finally, do we have hard science 

 on how soluble and what the chemical compounds of all these dif- 

 ferent toxics are and the environment in the ocean that they are 

 in, how deep it is, how cold it is, how much current there is, so that 

 with each of these sites we can say that it is safe? 



What I need is to hear that there is hard science that says, we 

 know where this is. We know that this will not dissolve. We know 

 the containers. The containers are two inches thick here and we do 

 not have to worry about this thing deteriorating any time soon, and 

 if it does, it is going nowhere because the current is not — I mean, 

 do we have all that? 



Dr. Hecht. I would say that my best answer to you is, let us do 

 it in writing. But I think on the information that we have, one can 

 draw certain conclusions, and the information that we have in- 

 cludes some of the information you are requesting, in addition to 

 some modeling about how the currents are moving. 



Mr. Kennedy. But can we have predictive models? You can tell 

 me now, we have an inventory of 10 sites, ones at this step, ones 

 at this step, and here is how much we have of this radionuclide 

 and you can give me the power of it and the like, and then we can 

 use, given what we know about the ocean and the salinity and the 

 temperature and the rest, and you can do predictive models saying 

 when this is going to become a problem and when it is not. I mean, 

 can you do that kind of a model? 



Dr. Hecht. On principle, yes, but let me defer the question and 

 get back to you in terms of really what is the quality of the data 

 that we have now, what are the models that are available. It goes 

 beyond what I have at my fingertips. Let me give you kind of the 

 assessment that forms the basis of our current thinking. 



Ms. Goodman. Congressman, I believe Admiral Pelaez will be 

 able to address those questions for you in his testimony and, in 

 fact, has prepared a briefing on those issues. 



Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. 



