being considered by the subcommittee. I urge favorable committee action on this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you Gerry, we are very grateful for your thoughts.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Hon. Lawrence G. Williams, will be our next witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE G. WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here this morning to testify in behalf of H.R. 4723, introduced by Mr. Garmatz, and H.R. 5050, which was introduced by Mr. Charles Sandman of New Jersey for himself and for a number of other members, including myself.

I believe that it is long past the time when we must stringently control the discharge of waste into our oceans in territorial and international waters. We know that there are methods in which to dispose of waste that will not contaminate our oceans or other bodies of water. These methods may be somewhat more expensive but this increased cost is a small price to pay to avoid pollution of our oceans.

I can remember as a young teenager seeing parts of Lake Erie posted for "no swimming" due to pollution. This pollution was ignored and during the 91st Congress, I heard a number of Members refer to Lake Erie as being "dead." Of course, back in the 1920's, everyone thought that Lake Erie could take everything that was put into it. This, of course, was a complete fallacy. During the intervening years, raw sanitary sewage and industrial wastes were dumped into Lake Erie until, today, Lake Erie has almost no marine life worthy of mention and the lake is entirely polluted.

Even during the 91st Congress when Members were deploring the sad condition of Lake Erie and called it "dead," raw sewage and industrial waste continued to flow into Lake Erie.

Privately, I asked some of these same Members how long it had taken the States abutting Lake Erie to kill it and why they were surprised that the Lake "died."

Precisely the same thing can happen in our oceans. In many cases, raw sanitary sewage sludge from sanitary sewage treatment plants is being taken by barge down our rivers and dumped into our oceans. I have heard some comments to the effect that this has no detrimental effect on our oceans. This is just plain nonsense.

If the solids from sanitary sewage have no effect on marine life, why has it killed all of the fish that used to be in our rivers on which metropolitan areas are located? Why has the shad disappeared from the Delaware River?

Further, what sense does it make to build sanitary sewage treatment plants costing millions of dollars in order to remove the solids from the sanitary sewage and then dump these same solids in the form of sludge back into the ocean?

We must make certain that all sanitary sewage is processed by sewage treatment plants that contain primary, secondary and tertiary facilites. This type of plant provides a 90-94 percent efficiency in treat

ment when measured by the biological oxygen demand (BOD). These sewage treatment facilities must include on-site sludge incineration facilities.

The fact is that sludge incineration facilities can be built with the ultimate in air pollution controls. A proper sludge incineration plant can reduce sludge to 3 percent of its original volume and produce an inorganic ash that can be used as fill without fear of contamination.

Modern incinerators, with adequate air pollution controls, have been developed that will do almost the same thing as the disposal of trash, garbage and other solid waste materials.

Industrial waste which is now being dumped in our oceans must be treated by the industry that is producing such waste. The cost of properly treating industrial waste to avoid pollution must be part of the cost of doing business and this is just one reason why national standards must be established to control air and water pollution.

As far as dumping dangerous materials into the ocean, I am confident that proper scientific research will produce means of treating these dangerous materials chemically so that they can be rendered harmless. Of course, this chemical treatment of such things as nerve gases and other types of gases could be a slow and rather costly program. However, again, the cost would be justified by keeping these dangerous materials out of our oceans.

It is a matter of public record that thousands, and perhaps millions, of pounds of seafood have had to be taken off the market due to mercury contamination and other forms of contaminants. Unless we stop dumping waste materials of any kind in our oceans, this problem wil continue to become more acute and have an adverse effect on our entire population.

I want to commend these subcommittees for devoting the time to consider these matters and I want to express my appreciation for having the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you Congressman, that was an excellent statement.

Our next witnesses are from the Atomic Energy Commission. Welcome to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES T. RAMEY, MEMBER, JOSEPH F. HENNESSEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND HAROLD L. PRICE, DIRECTOR OF REGULATIONS, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Mr. RAMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am James T. Ramey, member, of the Atomic Energy Commission. I have with me Mr. Joseph F. Hennessey, General Counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission.

On my right is Mr. Harold L. Price, Director of Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, we are happy to welcome all of you to the committee.

Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have a prepared statement which I will read.

We are pleased to accept the subcommittee's invitation to appear before you today to testify concerning legislation dealing with the

problem of ocean dumping. The committee counsel has asked that we address our remarks to section 7(b) of H.R. 4723, “a bill to regulate the dumping of materials in the oceans, coastal, and other waters, and for other purposes."

We strongly support effective measures to protect and preserve our environment. The problem of ocean dumping has been extensively examined by the Council of Environmental Quality in its report, "Ocean Dumping; a National Policy" October 1970. In implementation of the recommendation in this report, a proposal for legislation dealing with ocean dumping was included in the President's message to the Congress on pollution control, dated February 8, 1971, and has been introduced in the House as H.R. 4723.

Since the committee is fully familiar with the provisions of H.R. 4723, rather than present a summary of the bill, I shall address myself directly to the caption "Relationship to Other Laws," in the middle of page 10 of the bill. Under that caption the bill provides in section 7 (b) that:

Nothing in this Act shall abrogate or negate any existing responsibility or authority contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 4 and subsection 7(a) of this Act shall not apply to any activity regulated by that Act: Provided, the Atomic Energy Commission shall consult with the Administrator prior to issuing a permit to conduct any activity which would otherwise be regulated by this Act. In issuing any such permit, the Atomic Energy Commission shall comply with standards set by the Administrator respecting limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material. In setting such standards for application to the oceans, coastal, and other waters, the Administrator shall consider the policy expressed in subsection 2(b) of this Act and the factors stated in subsections 5(a)(1) and 5(a) (2) of this Act.

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Atomic Energy Commission regulates the receipt, use and disposal of source, special nuclear and byproduct material to assure the common defense and security and public health and safety. AEC regulations governing the disposal of radioactive materials have been established in 10 CRF parts 2, 20, 30, 40, and 70.

Because of the nature of radioactivity, the AEC has vigorously exercised its authority in regulating the marine disposal of radioactive wastes and materials. No new licenses authorizing radioactive waste disposal at sea have been issued in the past 10 years. Only one commercial organization (which has never conducted any sea disposal), two Government agencies, and one university are still authorized to dispose of radioactive wastes in the ocean. The major contractors of the AEC have not disposed of any wastes at sea since 1962.

We believe that the AEC has exercised and is exercising effective regulation over the ocean disposal of radioactive substances to the extent that this type of operation poses no threat to the marine environment now or in the foreseeable future. In this regard, the AEC has as one of its primary responsibilities the protection of the ocean and its ecosystem from any harmful effects of radioactivity.

Thus, we believe that the policy and purpose of the proposed bill, that is, "to regulate the dumping of materials in the oceans, coastal, and other waters and for other purposes," already is being effectively carried out with respect to radioactive substances regulated by the AEC. Section 7(b) recognizes this fact and continues, in effect, the

full licensing and enforcement authority of the AEC over ocean disposal of radioactive material. This provision eliminates the possibility of dual regulation over these materials, yet it provides for full particípation by the Environmental Protection Agency in the program. The provision in section 7(b) of the bill requiring consultation and the setting of standards is a useful one in that it will assure an "across-theboard" approach to the problems associated with ocean dumping. Also, it will assure that the relationship between EPA and the AEC will be consistent with the relationship set forth in Reorganization Plan No. 3. In continuing to regulate the disposal of radioactive materials at sea under the provisions of section 7(b), the AEC would plan to continue its practice of prohibiting the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in the ocean. We believe that ocean disposal of other solid radioactive wastes should be prohibited to the extent that practicable alternatives are available which provide less risk to man and his environment.

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. DINGELL. We are very grateful to you for your very helpful testimony.

Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to be as specific for the record as I can. Your representation here this morning that you gentlemen are making is on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission, and you are the representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission, is that correct?

Mr. RAMEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Are either one of you three gentlemen members of the Commission?

Mr. RAMEY. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. LENNON. Well, I am delighted to see this spirit of cooperation and recognition on the part of the Atomic Energy Commission, and for the sake of the new members, I am going to just quickly recapitulate my experience with the Atomic Energy Commission last year. When the Congress learned after the fact the decision had been made to dump off Cape Kennedy some 416, as I recall, coffins of nerve gas, which was, and I recall that the Secretary of the Army, and the recognition that the fuses on the rockets, and the propellers were deteriorating, and, therefore, there was some reason to believe there was imminent danger, so that the Secretary of the Army called on the National Scientific Foundation to recommend an ad hoc committee, of scientists to determine how best we could dispose of the caskets, or coffins of the nerve gas. He convened this committee of scientists, and they came up with recommendation No. 1, that they could be disposed of by the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Atomic Energy Commission was asked to look into the matter, which they did. This committee of scientists said we do not have experience in ordnances, munitions, or explosives, and they suggested to convene an ad hoc committee of these gentlemen who have experience, and they came up with the same specific and definitive recommendation, that the Atomic Energy Commission be called on to dispose of these 416 plus coffins of nerve gas, and the Atomic Energy Commission in turn went to its, I believe you called the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, and they came back, and said yes, we can dispose of it.

They said, we have a place, where it can be done, but it will interfere with if you gentlemen want to read the record, I will not misstate anything, but it will interfere with our on-going projects.

We suggest you ship it out here. This is a recommendation of your laboratory, ship it out here, and we will store it in a safe isolated spot, and in time we will dispose of it.

I recall in those hearings, some of them were held in the evenings, nighttime, and we confirmed this, and the Commission made a decision that this was not politically the smart thing to do for the Atomic Energy Commission, instead of writing to the Army, and putting it in writing, saying, we do not want to do this, because of the problems we are having around the country with atomic energy reactor power, we suggest you move it from Alabama, out of Blue Grass Kentucky, down to a point in North Carolina, and ship it to Cape Kennedy, and dump it in the ocean, but you did not put it in writing.

You called the Army late one night, and you told them you just could not get involved in it, and the Army did not have the intestinal fortitude

We call it guts in my part of the country, to take that decision to the President, and let him resolve it, and I lost most of the respect I ever had for the Atomic Energy Commission, because of your unwillingness, or gutless attitude in that respect, and as much as I love the services, and I am on the Armed Services Committee, I lost a great deal of respect for them, that they did not have the courage to take that decision to the President.

I am sure he would have followed the recommendation of your laboratory, the Lawrence Laboratory.

Now, you have moved right far, and I am delighted to see it. If you gentlemen do not believe what I said is the truth, all I ask you is to do is to take the record and read it.

It is all in there.

That is the reason I am delighted that you have finally accepted the fact that Government agencies should be as responsible for ocean dumping as private enterprise.

I am pleased to see the change in attitude, but having lived with this thing between the Federal district court, and North Carolina was a trying experience. We brought the Surgeon General here before the committee, and he having just made a public statement that they were giving every hospital in the entire area some sort of antidote to be injected in case anybody inhaled this gas. We asked him, how long it took him to park his car, and get to his office, and he then said you would take this injection of antidote within 2 minutes, from the time you inhaled it, or within 10 minutes, or it was lethal. When he came here, I asked him the question if he drove to work occasionally. He said he did. I said how long does it take you to get from your car where you park it in the office, and he said about 10 or 12 minutes. I said then the only way this antidote would avoid a lethal dose of this gas would be to be fortunate enough, unfortunate enough to be sitting in the emergency room of a hospital, but not for that purpose, and after you inhaled the gas that came through the window, you might avoid it by getting an immediate injection. I want to make that crystal clear to you gentlemen, it was your decision which caused those coffins to be dumped off the Florida coast.

62-513-71-16