269 



led to believe, and possibly more hazardous since they were not 

 solely from the Navy's laboratory experiments. 



But I am not sure anyone really knows what types of deadly 

 radioactive materials were disposed of in this manner. 



How much waste was disposed of in the Pacific? I am not sure 

 anyone knows. The Air Force did not know their quantities, a 1957 

 Atomic Energy Commission report — WASH-734 — states that "the 

 estimated curie content could be off as much as a factor of 10." 

 And under the curie content column of some of the company 

 terminal manifests we have reviewed, are nothing but question 

 marks. 



There are many unknowns. This is why I introduced H.R. 8119. 

 We need a comprehensive fish monitoring program to insure that 

 these deadly wastes do not make their way back to the human food 

 chain through the fish. But, in order to fully protect those of us 

 who like to eat fish, it is necessary to determine where exactly the 

 wastes are located, their concentration, and if the area being moni- 

 tored adequately represents all the waste dumpsites. 



If we were to implement such a monitoring program based upon 

 the research EPA has conducted to date, we would have no assur- 

 ances that in 20 years a disposal site, would not be causing cancer 

 among those individuals who eat fish caught in this region. We 

 could have a marine "Love Canal." 



In my view, we must insure for future generations that the 

 practices of handling these volatile materials does not adversely 

 affect the health and welfare of this and future generations. Ladies 

 and gentlemen, I submit the other alternative is much too high a 

 price for the human race to afford. 



To dispel any further notions that these drums were disposed of 

 in the safest possible manner, I would like to read a section from 

 the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory's application for renew- 

 al of their nuclear waste disposal license. It summarizes the kind of 

 care given to these drums. "After each dump, a thorough inspec- 

 tion is made of the dump area to ascertain that all containers have 

 sunk. In the rare event of a floating radioactive waste container, it 

 is sunk by gunfire." So much for care in handling and making sure 

 these wastes did not float ashore. 



I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and, of course, 

 we have the things to back up the statements that I have made 

 here today, quoted out of various official documents. 



[The following was received for the record:] 



Testimony by Congressman Glenn M. Anderson 



I would like to thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman for the opportu- 

 nity to testify on the present problems that have resulted from ocean disposal of 

 radioactive nuclear waste. As most of us in this room today are aware of the present 

 crisis at the Love Canal chemical waste disposal site and the many others across 

 this country, we too should be made aware of the dangers of the haphazard prac- 

 tices of disposing of nuclear wastes in our ocean environment. 



It is for this purpose that I introduced H.R. 8119 to provide for a thorough study 

 to determine the effects of certain past ocean dumping of radioactive wastes in our 

 ocean environment. As a Member of the full Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- 

 mittee, and former member of this subcommittee, I feel the time is now to deter- 

 mine the extent to which this practice took place, and the adverse impact it may 

 have on the marine and human environment. 



