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

Notes to pp. 74–75 209
3. Some have claimed that the global ocean dumping regime was created in direct
response to these dumpings (Barston and Birnie 1980, p. 113). For international
reactions, see Joesten 1969, p. 152; Böhme 1972, p. 98.
4. One congressman said during the House debate on the ocean dumping bill:
“That emergency situation demonstrated that we had virtually no national policy
or means of control for ocean dumping, and we had to stand by and watch the Army
dump nerve gas into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida.” (Congressional
Record: House, September 9, 1971, p. 31154) See also Congressional Record:
House, October 16, 1973, p. 34298.
5. For international responses to the Army dumpings, see Friedheim 1975, pp.
173–174. This incident demonstrated to lawyers the inadequacy of international
law in this area; see Schachter and Serwer 1971, pp. 107–108.
6. See Smith 1970.
7. Rep. Alton Lennon, Rep. John Dingell, and Sen. Ernest Hollings (chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee on oceans and atmosphere) were the driving forces behind
U.S. ocean dumping legislation. On Hollings’s strong interest in marine science and
technology, see Gillette 1972, pp. 729–730. Lennon and Dingell had for several
years prior to 1971 been concerned with the degradation of the marine environment
and were largely responsible for the development of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the establishment of the CEQ; see Congressional
Record: House, September 8, 1971, p. 30854.
8. During the Senate debate on the ocean dumping bill, Hollings said: “. . . the
actual goal of trying within 5 years to set a policy against dumping the committee
will welcome and gladly go along with” (Congressional Record: Senate, November
24, 1971, p. 43068). See also Lumsdaine 1976, pp. 771–772; Bakalian 1984, p.
213. This group’s continued interest in minimizing all ocean dumping is evident
from the following exchange between Hollings and Mr. Rhett, a spokesman for the
EPA, at the 1975 Oversight Hearing for the dumping act. Hollings: “If you had to
make the choice from your vantage point, would you ever choose the ocean over a
land site? I mean, I have been listening to this testimony about all the progress in
phasing dumping out, and we’re starting here and there, and now you act like you’re
going to start up something that never was.” Rhett: “Let’s say you have no heavy
metal contaminants or anything of this nature and no land available for disposal.
I’m not sure. Maybe it is better to burn it and pollute the air, but I think that we
should evaluate all methods. I am not saying that it should be in the ocean, but, I
am saying that I think all methods of disposal should be considered.” Hollings: “We
looked at all methods of disposal and we looked at oceans. . . . We made that determination.
We are not looking around to find places to dump. . . . You guys had
better stay in that one direction because we’ll amend the law to make sure you do.”
Rhett: “I think we are, but I do not believe that the act, as such, precludes ocean
dumping. It says ‘regulate’. Hollings: “Well, we’ll look at that and make sure
because we want to go in one direction on this one. We’re trying to clean up the
oceans. Go right ahead.” (quoted in Lumsdaine 1976, p. 772)
9. See speech by Robert M. White, Administrator-Designate of NOAA, to
American Oceanic Organization, February 4, 1971 (Congressional Record: Senate,
February 4, 1971, pp. 1670–1672).