157 



Research Lab report discuss in part the disposal of materials that 

 are illegal under current U.S. law and under international law. 

 This is a profoundly disturbing point, that we are spending tax dol- 

 lars into researching a proposal that is illegal under domestic and 

 international regimes. 



Also, if we talk about beginning a deep ocean dumping policy, 

 what we are really doing is leaving a legacy of shame for our 

 grandchildren. I remember the proponents of nuclear power talked 

 about waste that would be too cheap to meter and we are talking 

 about beginning a new, hugely expensive and hugely intrusive 

 waste disposal practice that ultimately our grandchildren will be 

 left to bear the brunt of. 



Now, I say that because I have looked at some of the proposals 

 that are included in the Naval Research Lab report. One of the pro- 

 posals is this so-called tethered container proposal, which I was 

 glad to see the report rejected as being unworkable. Unfortunately, 

 that same proposal is what is in the Commerce Committee report 

 that has come before you for a vote today. 



I was very disturbed, however, to see what the first choice was 

 that was described in the lab report and it is a so-called surface 

 emplacement project. Essentially, what would happen under that 

 proposal would be this. A barge would sail from a major metropoli- 

 tan area; Philadelphia is listed as one of the cities. It would be 

 loaded with 55 million tons of Waste; 50 bags would be packed on 

 this barge and the waste would be loaded in the 50 bags. The barge 

 would sail anywhere from 200 to 2,300 miles offshore. 



It would dump the 55 million pounds of waste through SV2 miles 

 of water onto an ocean dump site that is almost as big as 100 foot- 

 ball fields, and for the amount of wastes that are discussed in the 

 lab report solely for dredged materials, we are talking about a uni- 

 verse of wastes that would be dumped every year in the deep ocean 

 of 44 trillion pounds of dredged sediments. This is outrageous to 

 even consider undertaking this kind of an activity in the deep 

 ocean and we are very disturbed to see that time has been given 

 to that. 



I was also disturbed to read that in the Naval Research Lab re- 

 port, it cast grave doubts about the bags into which the waste 

 would be put. Those bags have only been tested in 295 feet of water 

 as opposed to 20,000 feet of water, as proposed in the Naval Re- 

 search Lab report, so they are not tested in deep water. They also 

 have a propensity to rip, and it is not at all clear that they would 

 be able to withstand on the ocean floor the effects of the deep 

 ocean. 



So we are talking about embarking on a waste management 

 strategy with devices that may or may not work, have never been 

 tested, for waste that we do not need to dump in the deep ocean, 

 because, finally, my concluding remark is that we cannot legally 

 dump industrial waste or sewage sludge in the oceans. That leaves 

 dredged material. If the dredged material is clean, it should not be 

 dumped in the ocean. It is a resource. It is fabulous for beach re- 

 nourishment, for landfill cover, for nurseries, plant nurseries. It 

 can all be used. We should not throw it away. 



If it is contaminated, it should not go into the ocean no matter 

 what the size or the type of the container is. Again, under the 



