Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Notes to pp. 64–67 207
16. The terms assimilative capacity, environmental capacity, accommodative
capacity, and absorptive capacity are used to identify the capacity of the oceans to
receive wastes safely.
17. On the influence of the assimilative capacity concept, and for doubts expressed
about the concept, see Spiller and Rieser 1986.
18. For a balanced assessment of known and unknowns about marine pollution, see
Knauss 1973, pp. 313–328.
19. In his “Message on the Environment” (Congressional Quarterly: Weekly
Report, February 13, 1970, p. 436), Nixon said: “I propose that State-Federal water
quality standards be amended to impose precise effluent requirements on all industrial
and municipal sources. These should be imposed on an expeditious timetable,
with the limit for each based on a fair allocation of the total capacity of the waterway
to absorb the user’s particular kind of waste without becoming polluted.”
20. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Ocean Dumping of Waste Materials: April 5, 6, 7,
1971 (92nd Congress, 1st session), p. 454.
21. For the EPA’s view of the assimilative capacity concept, see William Ruckelshaus,
“Statement,” U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Ocean Dumping of Waste Materials: April 5, 6, 7,
1971 (92nd Congress, 1st session), p. 454. Ruckelshaus criticized the “false premise”
that the oceans have an unlimited assimilative capacity but seemed positive toward
ocean disposal if there was a clear “benefit” to the ocean. Compare Congressional
Record: Senate, March 16, 1971, p. 6572, and “Statement,” in U.S. Senate, Ocean
Waste Disposal: March 2, 3; April 15, 21, 22, and 28, 1971 (92nd Congress, 1st
Session), p. 280. Neither did the CEQ favor a ban on all dumping; see MacDonald,
“Statement,” in U.S. House of Representatives, Ocean Waste Disposal, pp. 146–148.
22. Ruckelshaus concurred with this view. See Ocean Dumping of Waste Materials,
p. 451.
23. For a good discussion of these scientists’ values (which, however, overlooks
that politicians’ values influenced whether the scientific and expert advice given was
transformed into public policy, and which also ignores the public view of the acceptability
and desirability of ocean dumping), see Spiller and Rieser 1986.
24. David D. Smith, “Statement,” U.S. Senate, Ocean Waste Disposal: March 2, 3;
April 15, 21, 22, and 28, 1971 (92nd Congress, 1st Session), p. 206.
25. On the lack of knowledge of effects of wastes on the ocean environment, and
the possible benefits of waste disposal, see, respectively, Parkhurst, “Statement,” in
U.S. Senate, Ocean Waste Disposal: March 2, 3; April 15, 21, 22, and 28, 1971
(92nd Congress, 1st Session), 1971; Ralph Porges, “Statement,” in U.S. Senate,
Ocean Waste Disposal: March 2, 3; April 15, 21, 22, and 28, 1971 (92nd Congress,
1st Session), pp. 122–142.
26. Senate Report no. 451, Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (92nd Congress, 1st session), 4239–4240.