BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF HOWARD LAWRENCE SANDERS, BIOLOGIST, SENIOR SCIENTIST, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION

B.A., University of British Columbia, 1949; M.S., University of Rhode Island, 1951; Ph. D., Yale University, 1955.

Research Associate, 1955-63; Associate Scientist, 1963-65; Senior Scientist, 1965 to present, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Instructor, Marine Biological Laboratory, 1960 to 1968.

Editorial Board, Limnology and Oceanography, 1962-64; Consulting Editor, Pacific Naturalist, 1963 to present; Board of Editors, Journal of Marine Research, 1964-66; Member, Committee on Arthropods for the Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center (SOSC) 1965-1968; Member, Editorial Board, Archivio di Oceanografia e Limnologia 1968-present; Member, Biological Methods Panel of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. Chairman of the Working Group on Benthic Productivity; Member, Corporation of the Marine Biological Laboratory; Member, Bermuda Biological Station for Research; Associate in Invertebrate Zoology, Harvard University; National Science Foundation Environmental Biology Advisory Panel, Member, 1966-68; Member, Review Committee of the Duke University Cooperative Research and Training Program in Biological Oceanography, 1968-1970, Chairman, 1970; Adjunct Professor of the Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1969; Member, Advisory Panel of the National Academy of Sciences for the Central American Sealevel Canal, 1969-1970.

Research in Ecology: Ecology as applied to marine benthic, communities; Crustacean phylogeny deep sea biology.

Author or coauthor of about 35 publications in ecology.

Senator HOLLINGS. We will next hear from Russell E. Train, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Welcome, Dr. Train. We're glad to see you once more.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. LEE M. TALBOT, SENIOR SCIENTIST; AND DR. J. GORDON MCDONALD, MEMBER

Mr. TRAIN. For the record, I am accompanied on my right by Dr. J. Gordon McDonald, a member of the Council on Environmental Quality and on my left by Dr. Lee M. Talbot, senior scientist on the staff of the Council.

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss certain of the environmental questions associated with the proposed Project CHASE. As you are aware, this plan calls for the deep ocean disposal of 418 concrete vaults in which are embedded M-55 rockets filled with GB nerve agent and propellant and dispersal explosives. The vaults are to be moved by rail from the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama and the Lexington-Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky to Southport, N.C. At Southport they will be loaded on to a hulk and transported to a point 245 nautical miles east of Cape Canaveral. At this point, the hulk containing the vaults will be sunk. The ocean floor is over 16,000 feet deep and the area has previously been used for dumping of munitions. On July 8 of this year the Department of the Army forwarded to the Council on Environmental Quality a draft statement of the environmental impact of CHASE in response to the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. On July 30, the Army submitted its final draft and the Council sent its comments on the statement to the Army on August 4.

In his April 15 message on Great Lakes and ocean dumping, the President directed the Council on Environmental Quality to prepare

a comprehensive study on ocean dumping. The study will be submitted to the President by September 1 and will recommend further research needs and appropriate legislation and administrative actions. In that same message and in specific reference to the ocean disposal of sewage and sludge, the President declared: "We are only beginning to find out the ecological effects of ocean dumping, and current disposal technology is not adequate to handle waste of the volume now being produced.

While the Council has not completed its study of ocean dumping, we have already concluded that it is clearly inappropriate to use the oceans for the disposal of any toxic material. The oceans are a precious resource and our knowledge of them is still so limited that we cannot confidently predict the consequences of placing in them any dangerous materials.

However, with regard to Operation CHASE, the Council does not know of any more desirable means of disposal. Given the present set of circumstances and accepting the recommendations of the Gross Committee and the National Academy of Sciences, we agree that the proposed plan is the least undesirable of the available alternatives.

The ultimate deleterious impact of this operation on the environment is uncertain, but it appears less than the potential deleterious impact of the alternative actions that now appear possible. Put another way, given the present situation-the need to dispose of a large number of armed and ready rockets filled with GB agent, sealed within steel covered concrete vaults, with possibility of the explosives aging and becoming unstable, and the rockets corroding and releasing the nerve agent-the proposed ocean dumping appears to pose a lesser risk to the environment than any other course. Clearly, the potential long term environmental effects of sealing the rockets in concrete were not taken into consideration at the time the decision was made.

While the Council concurs in this case with the plan for ocean disposal because of the absence of practical alternatives—the council wishes to comment on several aspects of the plan.

The statement filed by the Department of the Army on the environmental impact of Project CHASE deals only with the possible environmental effects after the concrete vaults have reached the ocean floor. In our comments to the Department of the Army with respect to its statement, we make clear our conviction that the transportation aspect of the project is of a nature requiring an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. In any event, we have had available to us the opinion of the Surgeon General to the effect that any health or safety effects involved in the transportation are negligible, particularly in view of the precautions planned by the Army. We have no reason to disagree with the Surgeon General's opinion.

The Council is concerned with the structural integrity of the concrete vaults, including possible variations among them, in that, if the munitions in the vaults are in an unstable condition, there is at least some danger that at least some of the vaults might explode, implode, or rupture before the hulk reaches botton. If this occurred at or near the surface, there is a possibility of the gas entering the atmosphere. Even if this did not happen, the contamination would be in shallower waters far richer in marine life than the lower depths.

These waters contain species of value to sport and commercial fisheries. Because of mixing by currents, the volume of water contaminated would be greater at relatively small levels than at depth. I might simply interject here, Mr. Chairman, that the Gross report does report that the chance of rupture on the way down is highly unlikely. We simply make that point because, however remote, the possibilities were not covered in the environmental impact statement submitted by the Army.

Senator HOLLINGS. The leakage potential is there without the rupture itself. In fact, the Under Secretary of the Army just testified it is dangerous right this very moment and he is working against an August deadline, after which he has to dispose of it.

We know on the outside 15 months, isn't that correct?
Mr. Train. That is what we've been informed.

Senator HOLLINGS. If we could have waited 15 months, they would have had a land disposal approved rather than this ocean one. At least it should be done no later than this particular month, August of 1970. So it is not the rupture itself, the leakage discussed.

Mr. TRAIN. The Council considers that the question of impact of the nerve agent on living organisms has not been considered in sufficient detail. The data and conclusions drawn come from experiments with several species of shallow living fresh water fish. It is not safe to assume that marine fish will react similarly. It is less safe to assume that other forms of marine life will do so. We note that there was significant variation among the species of the experimental fish in their reaction to the nerve agent.

At the present state of our knowledge, it is believed that there are relatively few living organisms at the dumping site at 16,000 feet depth. It is important, however, to realize that our knowledge of life at that depth is very incomplete. Present sampling methods may not collect the larger and more active organisms. It is known that carnivorous fishes are found at that depth. Most of the deep water fishes have eggs which rise to or near the surface. Eggs and larvae of other deep sea organisms come to or near the surface. It is believed that many organisms may make seasonal migrations from shallow to deep waters, and from coastal to deep waters. Many commercial fishes, for example flounder, which occur in shallow waters off the southeastern coast of the United States migrate into deeper waters in winter. The exact depth limits of these movements are not known. But the point is that there is a possibility that fishes, directly used by man, might pass through the contaminated zone, or might consume other organisms which have come from or passed through that zone. And it should be remembered that there are commercial surface fisheries in the general area of the dumping site.

A further point considered significant by the Council is the question of the duration of contamination in the event of leakage. The Army has provided estimates on the area and volume of sea water affected, but we consider that more attention needs be given to the duration of the effect. Of course, the duration of contamination would depend on the rate of leakage, among other things, and the Council considers that this is another area where it should be clearly stated that insufficient information exists to make any firm predictions.

The Council strongly supports the recommendation of the Departments of the Interior and of Health, Education, and Welfare that the

hulk and the dumping site be monitored. It is important to monitor the hulk itself to determine (1) when, where, and if there is any rupture, explosion or implosion in the hulk, during and after its descent; and (2) to locate precisely its final resting place. It is also important to monitor the dumping site, over the coming years. A program of sampling should be developed to maintain proper surveillance over the area and the condition of the water and marine life. A similar program should be developed for the other dumping site where chemical munitions similar to those involved in Operation CHASE were dumped.

Project CHASE focuses attention on the far-reaching requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. This act was not in force at the time the decision was made to seal the rockets in concrete. It is the clear intent of Congress that in the future, before such decisions are taken, the full environmental consequences must be examined and reported.

Senator HOLLINGS. Dr. Train, we are probably going to have to get someone from the AEC on this land alternative. You are not too familiar with the problems involved in the 15 months' preparation? Mr. TRAIN. No, sir. I have read AEC's reportSenator HOLLINGS. I wonder what

Mr. TRAIN (continuing). To the Army. This is the only

Senator HOLLINGS. How much liaison did they have between the Army and AEC? They dispose of irradiated elements at the Savannah River site and several others in this country where they are environmentally approved to do that. And there are large areas of containment there. That's the policy. It will probably continue because it is certainly safer than putting it in the ocean.

We pointed out previously, they took part of the Mediterranean sea bottom, 600 tons of it off the coast of Spain, and disposed of it in South Carolina. I wondered why they didn't go ahead and use that same facility. They have Chalkeese in New York and a few other places like that and they try to dispose of it in that fashion.

Mr. TRAIN. Those are questions that would best be addressed to the representative of the Atomic Energy Commission.

May I interpose? I would like to say that our conclusion, that the ocean disposal of these materials is the best of a group of essentially undesirable alternatives available at the present time, is based upon the information that the retention of these materials beyond the August 1 date of this year would create undesirable hazards. And, also, it is based on the information included in the report of the AEC, that it would take a substantial period of time-they use up to 15 months, as I recall, to prepare for disposal on land by nuclear explosion.

Senator HOLLINGS. You make a very forceful statement, this is not good at all. The fact is, you talk of the fish at the deep ocean bottom coming into the shallow areas, the eggs are deposited there there has been a complete lack of biological study. There really has been no marine biological testing with nerve gas at 16,000 feet that you know of, do you?

Mr. TRAIN. Not that we are aware of, no, sir.

Senator HOLLINGS. I don't know of any. I don't know of any witness that can testify to it, either at this site or at the New Jersey site.

They haven't even found the hulks there. They said they can, but they haven't found them yet. Do you know whether or not they have found it?

Mr. TRAIN. I know no more than the testimony that was presented here this morning. We have also been in contact with both the Army and the Navy on this point and are aware that a ship, the Mizar, made a brief reconnaissance of the general area and did not at that time specifically locate the exact location of the two hulks. They took a number of photographs of the bottom and also collected water samples and made chemical analysis of those water samples, which I'm informed indicated no particular biological imbalance or chemical imbalance.

Senator HOLLINGS. But your statement says that it takes much longer than 10 days to make any real determination.

Mr. TRAIN. I believe we would like to make one point which is both of a very general nature and specific as to this case, that is, that we need to do far more research in depth and in duration on the environmental aspects of actions such as this. We are not really singling out this particular case. I think this case is symptomatic of our decisionmaking process over the years. I don't want to single out the Army to point a finger at in this case. I think this represents the way all of us have done business for too long and the Environmental Policy Act, our Council, and the policies announced by the President in the furtherance of this Act are designed to move us as rapidly as possible away from that way of doing business. We must do much more research into the long-range ecological and other environmental aspects of our proposed actions.

Senator HOLLINGS. We all agree with President Nixon in your quoting of his statement "We are only beginning to find out the ecological effects," and we just don't really know. And in light of that we still go ahead with this particular solution.

Senator Spong?

Senator SPONG. I want to commend you, Dr. Train, for your

statement.

Mr. TRAIN. I appreciate being called doctor. I have got a doctor on either side of me, but I'm just mister.

Senator SPONG. I picked it up from the Secretary over here.

Mr. Train, I very much appreciate your statement and I commend you for it.

Now, as I listened to the concluding remarks by Secretary Beal, he reminded us that Dr. Cheek's conclusions were based upon the worst possible eventuality. And I take it that the report filed with us this morning which the Army did pursuant to Public Law 91-190 and the very brief summary on the ecology included in the Secretary of State's statement were based upon what they thought to be the worse possible eventuality.

Now, as I listen to you, I am not at all sure that you think that the worst results would come from all of the concrete exploding, rupturing, after the hulk reaches the bottom, that even though these reports have assured us that the possibility is rather remote of anything else happening, that from the standpoint of the ecology, should there be ruptures or should there be substantial leakage prior to the hulk reaching the bottom that it could have, in your judgment, worse effects, is that correct?