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

212 Notes to pp. 82–83
September 9, 1971, p. 31155) Another congressman said during the House debate
on the dumping bill: “We can afford to wait no longer. We must pass this bill. We
must demonstrate to the American people that Congress is ready, willing-and, yes,
able-to act in this area of critical need. Let us not delay.” (Congressional Record:
House, September 8, 1971, pp. 30859–30860)
40. The House passed the ocean dumping bill by a vote of 305 to 3. The Senate
passed the ocean dumping bill by a vote of 73 to 0.
41. On the debate in the House, see letter from the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth,
and other ENGOs, Congressional Record: House, September 8, 1971, p. 30853.
See also Congressional Record: House, September 9, 1971, pp. 31151–31152. On
the debate in the Senate, see Congressional Record: Senate, November 24, 1971, p.
43060.
42. See also Newman 1973. The newspapers and magazines that focused on crisis,
in particular the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Time, were
instrumental in arousing public concern about environmental hazards. See Marcus
1980, p. 287.
43. The Senate’s ocean dumping report reads: “Most of the subjects . . . are important
not only environmentally but economically as well. Since much of current economic
concern stems from the relative competitive position of different nations in
world markets, it is important to get as many nations as possible to impose like
environmental restraints upon themselves . . . the U.S. domestic legislation can promote
international agreement by treating the subject of ocean dumping in international
waters separately. [In order to avoid law of the sea issues, the proposal
for U.S. dumping regulation was based on the right to regulate transportation from
U.S. ports and by U.S. registered ships]. By taking this route, the U.S. can tend to
equalize out competitive position relative to European industry.” (Senate Report
451, pp. 4242–4243) The issue of disadvantage to U.S economic interests was also
raised by a representative from the private sector at the International Conference
on Ocean Pollution. See Mark Morton, “Statement,” in U.S. Senate, Subcommittee
on Oceans and Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce, International
Conference on Ocean Pollution: October 18 and November 8, 1971 (92nd
Congress, 2nd session), p. 27.
44. See letter from President Nixon to Sen. William V. Roth Jr., Congressional
Record: Senate, April 1, 1971, p. 9209.
45. The reasons for preferring the OECD forum were explained on p. 57 of U.S.
Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.N. Conference on Human
Environment—Preparations and Prospects: May 3, 4, and 5, 1972 (92nd Congress,
2nd Session).
46. Charles C. Humpstone, “Statement,” in U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign
Relations, U.N. Conference on Human Environment—Preparations and Prospects:
May 3, 4, and 5, 1972 (92nd Congress, 2nd Session), p. 63.
47. See Hollick 1974, p. 65. According to an inter-departmental report, U.S. high
priority interests in the field of marine pollution were: preventing pollution from
ship operations and from dumping, studies of ocean pollution effects, monitoring
of pollutants affecting ocean quality, inventory of ocean pollution sources, economic