(Discussion off the record).

Mr. LENNON. You may proceed.

Mr. BEAL. Secondly, we have complied with the other applicable law, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190). Section 102 (2) (C) requires that a detailed statement concerning the environmental impact of and alternatives to ocean disposal of the chemical munitions be prepared, circulated for comments to certain agencies, and then be submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality.

The statement notes that a significant amount of the chemical agent will probably be destroyed in the vaults by action of the sea water seeping through the concrete. The remainder of the agent, if released, will hydrolyze and/or be diluted beyond physiological effectiveness in the vicinity of the vaults.

The statement also says that marine life is sparse at the great depth of the disposal site. Due to this, and its present designation on navigational charts as a munitions, explosives and chemicals dumping area, the site is less susceptible to commercial or technological use than other parts of the ocean bottom.

The site is much deeper than any at which fish are caught for human consumption. Also, the animal species at this depth are scavengers, not used as food source for man.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by simply pointing out that we believe we have done everything reasonably possible to explore, within the time limit of the August deadline, alternative methods of disposing of these concrete vaults. Considering all the opinions of the experts, including oceanographers, and members of the Gross Committee and the National Academy of Sciences group, we feel confident that disposal at sea is the only feasible alternative and that the risk of continuing to have this hazard exist to mankind on the continent is much greater than the reasonably small risk of some damages to life on the ocean floor which we believe will be minimal and temporary. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to address any questions that you or members of the committee may have.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and gentlemen. I am going to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, who attended the briefing last week, Mr. Jonas.

Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your allowing me to make a brief comment.

I did, as you say, attend the briefing. I am convinced that the Army has taken all of the safety precautions that it feels are possible with respect to the movement by train. I have not heard any testimony yet about the problems that may arise with respect to marine life at the time decomposition takes place.

Mr. LENNON. If I may interrupt the gentlemen. I hate to do this but I am so sure, sir, and I am reminded by someone else who attended this briefing, that in the hearing that we held on July 30, the briefing, that the actual tow to sea and the dumping would be on August 10. I am reminded of this by other people. Yet I a presented here with a schedule which does not reflect that.

General MURRAY. Sir, may I address that? I think there might have been some confusion.

Mr. LENNON. I think there was a lot. Go ahead. I apologize.

General MURRAY. We do begin the tow of the hulk from the Reserve Fleet down to Sunny Point. I think that might have been part of the confusion. That begins on the 9th.

Mr. JONAS. We can clear that up by showing the slide. My recollection is that they said loading would take place at Anniston and Blue Grass on the 10th, but I could be wrong about it.

Mr. LENNON. I will let you ask the direct question now. (Discussion off the record).

Mr. JONAS. I am concerned primarily right now about what will happen later on, years from now, in the water. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to ask you, if it is agreeable, to put in the record a telegram I received this morning and copies which I have furnished you. I don't have the right to put anything in the record since I am not a member of the subcommittee but I would like to read this telegram and ask the Secretary and General Stone and others who are here as witnesses

Mr. LENNON. You have my permission to read the telegram and ask them to comment and after you have finished I will ask unanimous consent that the telegram be placed in the record following the comment. Mr. JONAS. Thank you.

(The following telegram was read into the record:)

DEAR CONGRESSMAN JONAS: I am writing, both as a constituent and a scientist, about the proposed disposal of nerve gas in the Atlantic. Background: Honors degrees in chemistry and physics, Northwestern University, masters in physical chemistry, University of Chicago. Employee Celanese Corp. since 1943. Most recently as staff scientist and senior research associate.

I oppose dumping the gas at sea. Depending on composition it may be sufficiently stable to affect the marine life cycle. Currents cause mineral rich waters from the bottom to rise and interface with warm surface waters. The richest marine growth occurs at this interface. The consequence of poisoning one component should be obvious.

A welded case is, in sea water, particularly subject to corrosion. Sea water can permeate cement and corrode the gas canisters. The bulk of corrosion product may crack the cement, which is low in tensile strength. The question of underwater release of the gas is not whether but when then we can expect not a uniform release of gas but a leak. Oxidizing agents offer the simplest means of decomposing nerve gas. The sea is conspicuously free of these. As to evil consequences it also seems to be a matter of when rather than whether.

I understand that several high ranking committees of scientists have been unable to offer a feasible solution for controlled decomposition of the gas. It is not thinkable that a technology to call on to solve such a problem. The answer is not in the literature. It will have to be created, just as the plants for nerve gas manufacture were. A young, aggressive, multi-disciplined team can solve the problem. Such teams harnessed the atom, put man in space, not blue ribbon committees. I urge that we provide the authority and the funding for such an endeavor to avoid placing any more time bombs in the environment.

It will take time. Leakage has occurred. But the welded cases will be less subject to change in an atmospheric environment than under water as well as being subject to surveillance and if needs be decontamination.

JESSE L. RILEY,
Charlotte, N.C.

Mr. JONAS. I will furnish a copy of this for the record. You might refer it to any of your experts in the field. I would like your comments on the questions raised in the telegram.

I am not sure he knows all about the problems of encasement and I think it is admitted now by General Stone, or stated by General Stone, that if this gas were not embedded, loaded in the weapons, in the rockets, and it was just a question of detoxifying nerve gas, you could do that all right.

It may be that he does not entirely understand what the problem is, but he speaks as if he has some information on this subject. He is a man of considerable practical experience in chemistry and science and I know he expresses the viewpoint of thousands of people in the Charlotte area that I am hearing from.

I am seeking answers to these questions.

Mr. BEAL. May I first assure you, Congressman Jonas, that these considerations have been very much in our minds during our review of this matter. A number of oceanographers have looked at the problem from the point of view of the Department of the Interior alone, to say nothing of our experts.

Dr. Frosch, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development, was a witness on this subject before another subcommittee of this committee last year. Dr. Raney was also, and his office is represented here today.

Mr. JONAS. You have called off a list of very prominent men in the world of chemistry and science. Mr. Riley says they are all from the academic world, not from the practical world. What do you say to that? And that these problems are never solved in the world of literature but in the world of practicality?

Mr. BEAL. He could be right. Of course, the other problem you have here is the time problem.

Mr. JONAS. On that, may I comment? It strikes me that if you had started immediately when you got that first word from AEC almost 15 months would have elapsed by now and you would not have had this time problem?

Mr. BEAL. Fifteen months from October would carry us well beyond

Mr. JONAS. I thought that was September.

Mr. BEAL. That was the date of the report. According to my records we did not get it until October.

Mr. JONAS. I know, from October until August is not 15 months, of course, but it is a good part of it.

I would like to know what magic there is about August 1. Why didn't they say July 30, for instance, or August 15, or September 1? Who can pick out from the entire calendar August 1 and say that is the magie date that this has to be done before then.

Mr. BEAL. That is the date that a group of learned men who understand about munitions and explosions thought that we should dispose of the munitions in the concrete vaults.

Mr. JONAS. Of course, we know if you don't start loading until the 10th you have already broken that deadline.

Mr. BEAL. That is the reason I want to move as quickly as we can. I think every hour is that important.

Mr. JONAS. If it is that important, why have you not started before now?

Mr. BEAL. We have been working on it

Mr. JONAS. How long have you known that the Atomic Energy Commission could handle it?

Mr. BEAL. October of 1969.

Mr. JONAS. If you had delivered it to them in October, a good half of the 15 months would have elapsed. Didn't they promise to guarantee it against danger once it got into their possession?

Mr. BEAL. No, sir; they did not guarantee that.

Mr. JONAS. Did not they say that they would take the responsibility. Mr. BEAL. I was not aware they had said that.

Mr. JONAS. It looks to me that if you had been anxious to transfer the responsibility to the Atomic Energy Commission you would have gone ahead and would have it in their hands by now.

Mr. BEAL. I think if people want to take responsibility for the vaults that is one thing, but I am not aware that the Atomic Energy Commission said they would take responsibility for them until the time of the explosion.

Mr. JONAS. Of course, it does not do any good for John Smith in one department to take the responsibility if bad results follow. What we are all interested in is saving lives and not merely having someone assume responsibility.

The Atomic Energy Commission stated that if you gave them enough time to dig this hole they would be glad to dispose of this material with an atomic blast and they could do it. What I am asking is why did you not take them up on that then and get rid of this very serious problem that is causing you a lot of trouble and a lot of other people.

Mr. BEAL. I think the answer then is the same as the answer now. August 1, 1970 is the date that seems to us to be very important.

Mr. JONAS. I understand why you don't want to do it now. But I don't understand why you did not start initiating attempts to do that last October. Maybe you will answer it when your witness about the oceanography

Mr. BEAL. You suggested General Stone. I am happy for him to answer any questions. However, we have Dr. Cheek, who is with the Naval Research Laboratory

Mr. JONAS. I have just been listening to General Stone. I know he is an effective witness. I did not mean to select your witnesses. You put up any witness you want to discuss those points raised by Mr. Riley.

Dr. CHEEK. It is obvious that Mr. Riley is not aware of the fact that this compound, this nerve agent can be effectively destroyed by hydrolysis. Hydrolysis is simply reacting with water. No doubt there is plenty of water in the ocean in order to do this. We intend to present data to show approximately how long it takes this material to be destroyed, say by a fraction of 2, and then I want to demonstrate to you about what fraction would be left after 10 half lives. I will explain later.

Also Mr. Riley was worried about material rising to the surface. We have very definite evidence that if this agent is put on the bottom of the ocean in that area the very stable density and gradient of the water column above it assures virtually no risk to this agent rising to the surface. There is no evidence whatever for this occurring and it is not expected.

Now I will discuss how rapidly this material will be destroyed and tell you about how long it will take before it will be at an ineffective level.

Mr. JONAS. Before you do this may I ask, Mr. Chairman, do you have any biographical information on Dr. Cheek?

Mr. LENNON. I have just learned he is a native North Carolinian; that he is from Wilkes County. I commend the Army for getting his services. I will ask you to put in the record after your statement, Doctor, your biography.

Dr. CHEEK. Yes, sir.

(The biography follows:)

Cheek, Dr. Conrad H(ugo), Ocean Sciences Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. Chemical Oceanography. Born, Weldon, North Carolina Oct. 26, 1926; married 1952; children, 6; B.S. (Chem) Howard Univ. 1949; Ph.D. (Chem.) Washington Univ. (St. Louis, Mo..) 1953. Analytical chemist, National Bureau of Standards, 1949, 1952. Grad. teaching assistant, Wash. Univ. 1949-1951; Wash. Univ. Fellow, 1951-1952; Research Chemist, Naval Research Laboratory, 1953-; Head, Chem. Oceanog. Branch, 1965- ; visiting lecturer in Chem., Howard Univ., 1958. Chem. Soc.; AAAS; RESA; Wash. Acad. Sci. Radiochemistry, radiation chemistry; kinetics; diffusion; dissolved gases in seawater; physical chemistry of seawater.

Mr. LENNON. You are now an official of the Department of the Navy?

Dr. CHEEK. Yes, sir; I am a chemical oceanographer at the Naval Research Laboratory.

Mr. LENNON. How long?

Dr. CHEEK. I have been at the Naval Research Laboratory for 17 years.

Mr. LENNON. Go ahead.

Dr. CHEEK. It is sometimes rather difficult for us to explain what we mean by saying that a material disappear by a first order rate law. We speak of a half-life for this particular material, GB, from data available from Edgewood Arsenal-Dr. Epstein's work. We know that this GB agent, when it is in sea water, will disappear with a halflife of about 12 hours, say a half day. This means that in the first half day, half of it will be destroyed; in the second half day, the half of what was left will be gone; and so forth. In order to demonstrate this, I show you here a sheet of paper that is 8 by 8 inches. It is subdivided into little quarter-inch squares. I am going to take this sheet of paper and simulate the effect of 10 half-lives. I take it through one half-life by simply cutting off half of it.

If you are talking about GB, after one-half day, we have half of it left. After two half-lives, about 1 day. We have a quarter of it left. After three half-lives, a day and a half, we have one-eighth left. I will go right on down the line; four, another half; five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Now, I have only one of these little squares left, as you see here.

For your information I have blackened in one of the squares on this sheet of original size, and it corresponds to the fraction that is left after 10 half-lives. The area of one of these little squares is one over 1024 of the total area. This means that less than one one-thousandth of the original amount is left after 10 half-lives. For GB, this would occur in about 5 days. If we were to continue this process to 20 half-lives, that is, if we were to halve this small square in exactly the same way, 10

49-760-70