=2ic 
54/ 
of the U.S. dumping program. Those earlier studies were based 
on the most advanced scientific knowledge at the time, provide 
much more original thought, and were much more focused on ocean 
dumping of E@avastinne wastes than the two-to-three pages devoted 
to that issue in the '71 NAS study. Quoting from each of those 
studies, the concerns presented reflect insight that is equally 
valuable today in light of the renewed interest in dumping: 
It has been a practice on the Pacific Coast to dispose 
of low-level waste by jettisoning containers of it onto 
the bottom of the sea in designated disposal areas. 
There is no evidence that this disposal practice has 
resulted in any inimical effect upon the environment; 
but neither is there evidence that harmful effects 
cannot eventually result from it. 
The concern here is not with any magnitudes of disposal 
already undertaken, but rather with understanding the 
implications of the continuing and increasing use of 
the oceans as a receptacle for disposal. History is 
replete with cases in which unrestricted pollution of 
various kinds, rapidly developing from innocuous 
beginnings, has subtly damaged or destroyed resources 
before understanding and controls could be developed. 
{emphasis added] 35/ 
There must be sufficient monitoring of disposal sites 
to ensure public health and safety, and to protect 
Marine resources. Such monitoring should not be per- 
formed solely by the regulating agency. Records of 
the quantity and type of radioactive wastes and the 
areas in which they are disposed of should be maintained 
in a national center. These records should be available 
to interested groups, and periodic summaries should be 
issued. 
Renato EIR ele OR OR Ohss 3 
54/ National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, 
Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste into Pacific Coastal 
Waters (1962) [hereinafter cited as the 1962 NAS Study]; 
National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Atomic 
Radiation (1960) [hereinafter cited as the 1959 NAS Study] 
[both of which are cited in the October 1980 hearings, supra 
note 20, at 296 and 300, respectively, in testimony presented 
by the Committee to Bridge the Gap]. 
55/ Id., 1962 NAS Study at viii. 
