board processing would reduce transportation problems by half, as well as apparently simplifying the disposal of the unused material. It would also lead to some unique environmental problems, for we understand that highly toxic substances are required in the hydrometalurgical refining process.

An article by Brian Johnson in the spring 1973 issue of Your Environment (London; Vol. IV, No. 1:27), entitled "The UN Conference on the Loss of the Sea" (pages 18-28; 37-39), makes a very cogent point, as follows:

"Economic considerations-especially transport costs will require primary refinement or 'benefication' of ores to be done at sea. Various highly pollutive chemicals with heavy alkaline and acid bases are used in primary benefication. These are likely to be fed straight overboard, via pipes to take them, together with the tailings, sufficiently far from the 'mining' site so as not to interfere with the dredging or sucking operations. Economic considerations will preclude the reprocessing of these wastes and tailings."

It appears possible to us, even so, that the nodules recovered from the deep seabed will be transported to shore for refining. Unless there are compelling political reasons for doing otherwise, we believe that the refining process should take place on U.S. territory where the potential environmental problems would be subject to appropriate pollution control laws and regulations. This would prevent or minimize contamination of the ocean environment by toxic chemicals and insure that the non-usable by-products are disposed of in an acceptable manner. Inadequate environmental regulations and constraints in certain other countries would offer attractive financial incentives to locate refining processes in the so-called "developing nations." In the interest of international pollution abatement, at least, this should be prevented. We believe that any legislation which is enacted should make some specific reference to processing the ore and provide for suitable controls over such activity.

EFFECT ON TERRESTRIAL MINING

It is our understanding that substantial amounts of manganese, copper, cobalt, and nickel will be obtained from the processing of deep seabed manganese nodules. In the seabed section of his paper on the "Ownership of Ocean Resources" (Our Ocean Resources, Dec., 1972: 3-10; Izaak Walton League of American and Sport Fishing Institute), Francis T. Christy, Jr. (Resources for the Future) says, "It has been estimated that the output of a single producer will be so great that the world market for the constituent metals would be affected and world prices will fall. Obviously, two or more producers would have an even greater effect. This would create hardships not only for the developing states that are now exporting these resources, but also for the producers themselves." Even if Dr. Christy's estimates of production efficiency are not realized, it is obvious that the potential is very great. One managanese-nodule authority (John L. Mero) estimates (The Encyclopedia of Marine Resources, 1969:410) that there are 1.5 trillion tons of nodules on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. He further states that, "if only 10 percent of these deposits prove economic to mine, it can be seen that many elements are accumulating in the manganese nodules now forming on the Pacific Ocean floor faster than they are presently being consumed. In fact, three times as fast in the case of manganese, twice as fast in the case of cobalt, as fast in the case of nickel, and so on. As is the case with many mineral deposits of the sea, the manganese nodules would be a renewable resource." It is obvious that the production potential from manganese nodules is, indeed, enormous and that it will have an unquestioned impact (sooner or later) upon the traditional and historic sources of the constituent metals. The United States presently imports all of its manganese, all of its cobalt, 90 percent of its nickel and 5 percent of its copper. The ores of all these metals come from open pit mines and some also from underground mines.

In the last few years, the United States has been consuming 2.2 million tons of manganese ore each year. This ore comes from open pit mines in Brazil, Gabon, South Africa, Australia, Mexico, etc. In the U.S. it is converted to a ferro-manganese alloy through a smeltering process. Open-pit mining operations are well-documented land polluters and some of our most difficult air pollution problems come from smeltering operations. It is our understanding that manganese can be refined from nodules by a "closed system" chlorination and reduction process which is much cleaner than a smelter.

The U. S. has been consuming 12 million pounds of cobalt annually; all of which is imported. Cobalt is a by-product of copper and/or nickel mining and processing, with all of the attendant sulphur oxide problems. The production of cobalt from manganese nodules would, by itself, probably not reduce openpit mining because cobalt is extracted from copper and nickel ore. It should, however, make possible some reduction in smeltering operations or, at least, retard its rate of expansion.

Eighty percent of the nickel consumed in the U. S. comes from Canada. The U. S. consumes 300 to 350 million pounds of nickel each year. Since nickel ore is less than 1 percent pure metal, more than 15 million tons of ore must be mined each year to meet our demand. The mining and processing of nickel ores create major environmental problems.

The U. S. consumes 2 million tons of copper per year, 95 percent of which comes from within the country. If deep seabed mining were to capture a meaningful portion of this huge market it would totally flood the market for manganese, nickel, and cobalt. If, however, all of our manganese came from deep seabed sources, roughly 5 percent of our copper demands would be met as a by-product. In light of the tremendous volumes of copper ores mined, and the sulphur oxide problems associated with its processing, a reduction of only 5 percent would be beneficial.

Mr. Chairman, in extending the environmental impact of deep seabed mining we cannot help but be awed by the tremendous scope of the deep sea. Seventy-oue percent of the earth's surface is covered by oceans and between 90 and 95 percent of the ocean floor lies deeper than 200 meters and is thus included under this proposed legislation. It is an area of 140 million square miles or roughly 50 times as large as our contiguous 48 states. As we presently conceive of the possible scope of deep seabed mining over the next few decades, to the end of this century, the ecological impact of such activities in this vast area should be small, indeed, although any associated effects would tend to be concentrated in localized areas rather than uniformly dispersed throughout the deep sea. We believe that the environmental threats likely to cause greatest concern would arise from operations of the vessels, themselves, and that these should be tightly controlled to prevent discharge of wastes of all kinds.

The Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act has great international implications. The greatest issues involved, however, are political rather than environmental. It is our hope that provisions will be incorporated in any resulting legislation for governmental and institutional researchers to work closely with the mining industry in all phases of the contemplated operations. Such research will add greatly to our knowledge of the deep-water resources and should provide for the timely detection and correction of any unexpected problems as they develop. We believe that dredging or hydraulic mining of the deep seabed surface presents relatively minor potential for environmental damage. With proper design, and careful monitoring, the environment can be protected and the secondary terrestrial benefits could be helpful in the world-wide effort to reduce pollution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present these views.

Senator METCALF. Mrs. Matisoff, we are glad to have you here. You have been before the committee before. You are a valued adviser to this committee. Go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF NANCY MATISOFF, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATE, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mrs. MATISOFF. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Metcalf, I am afraid I was unable to get your statement and the questions as to the industry prior to my preparation of the testimony before you. So, as a result, my testimony does not specifically address itself to question 6. I can, if you wish, provide additional information at a later time.

97-898 O-73-21

Senator METCALF. Would you like to look at that and then maybe supplement your statement in the next few days.

Mrs. MATISON. Fine, Senator.

Senator METCALF. If you do not have anything, well, that is all right too. But if you would like to add something, we would be pleased to have it.

Mrs. MATISOFF. All right.

I am Nancy Matisoff, and I am an Environmental Associate for the Izaak Walton League of America.

The League recognizes that it is essential that the Nation insure an adequate and dependable supply of ferroalloy metals for industrial production. And furthermore, the available literature seems to suggest that exploitation of the seabed resources may be far less hazardous to the environment than may be possible on land, even with the most advanced extraction techniques and equipment.

However, there are a number of significant problem areas, both in the legislation itself and in its potential ramifications that prevent the League from endorsing S. 1134 at this time.

One of the primary concerns to our organization is the lack of definitive and comprehensive data of the effects of deep sea mining operations on surface and bottom life. In our survey of the literature in this field, we noted that these concerns have been reiterated by such professionals as Columbia University's Dr. O. A. Roels and his associates.

If it is indeed true that there are "no comprehensive surveys" currently available, then our organization can only consider S. 1134 to be seriously deficient in its treatment of the need for ocean and technological research.

In addition to a full-scale research program, the League would support nothing less than a system which could insure full public accounting of the environmental, social and economic consequences of both deep sea mining and refining operations.

For example, if the government is supporting industrial investments of between $130 and $150 million, as we understand from testimony given by representatives of the American Mining Congress, does the public not have a right to be assured that there exist firm governmental controls and testing procedures to insure that equipment which is utilized is, in fact, cost-effective in the long run?

Secondly, is there not a need to immediately initiate long-range assessments of the expected energy requirements, including selfsustaining power supplies at sea and at the onshore refineries?

These questions lead us to believe that perhaps since much of the responsibility to develop such a program resides collectivey in the numerous agencies of Government, that certainly some provisions should be made to establish a commission, an advisory committee or a task force composed of those federal agencies with related capabilities.

Of more concern to the League is the provision in this legislation requiring the Government to "fully compensate the licensee for any loss of investment or increased costs incurred by the mining company" imposed by any future international regime more burdensome

than the act. While the League can fully understand the motivations of the American Mining Congress in wishing to provide a more secure investment climate as well as its desire to equalize investment opportunities among all U.S. mining companies, the League is unable to support the potential gift of public funds to such industries when the risks of eventual establishment of a different international regime remain so great.

In this respect, the League must support the recommendation made last year to both Congress and the President by the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, which stated:

NACOA therefore urges consideration by the U.S. Government of suitable interim arrangements that will allow development of these resources to proceed, but at the same time will offer reasonable probability of meshing with international agreements.

Such probability seems hardly likely in the opinion of Mr. Burgess, who testified this May on the Law of the Sea Conference and stated that:

The problems relating to the establishment of a national mineral policy are great, but an international mineral policy will prove to be impossible. Anything in the nature of control as proposed by the U.N. enterprise system, which would establish controls on marketing and pricing will fail. It will fail mainly because of the majority of the countries feel that an international control of this type with respect to their mineral resources are infringements upon their sovereignty and therefore will oppose the policy.

If Mr. Burgess is accurate in impugning the motivations of developing countries, then it seems inevitable that these same countries will be totally opposed to any situation which gives our country such a clear advantage.

My only guess is that passage of this legislation will force an impromtu solution from the members of the L.O.S. Conference which will delay progress and possibly force compensation by the government to industries for increased costs.

More than 3 years ago, the Stratton Commission also emphasized the need for orderly action to explore and exploit deep seabed minerals. However, they too recognized that permission to engage in such operations "should be guided by the Secretary of State's judgement as to the foreign policy implications of the particular situation in question." While our organization cannot speak for the State Department on this issue, we do feel that their opposition to the approach proposed by this legislation must be accounted for.

More importantly however, consideration must be given to the objectives of this legislation as it may affect the Nation's bargaining powers on such issues as international fisheries management, freedom of navigation and of open research and possibly on the progress in achieving an agreement on the definition of the Continental Shelf.

While we realize that the rules governing the uses of the seas are in transition, and that firm predictions may not be fully possible, no one can deny the need for a thorough review of the U.S. position in oceanic affairs to clarify and resolve the apparent diffusion of objectives under present policies. Indication in a study of this nature that passage of S. 1134 would jeopardize the Nation's posi

tion in resolving these other issues, in our judgement, would constitute sufficient grounds for opposition to this legislation.

For several years, the League's basic approach to ocean resource issues has been to place priority on conserving the resource through joint effort. Throughout our involvement in coastal zone management and in our participation in councils and conferences to improve international fisheries management, our philosophy has been to seek to balance other interests by engaging other countries in as many joint projects as possible.

In this era of increasing nationalism, it is recognized that there are limits to the success of consensus building activities. Furthermore, we understand that there may be practical difficulties in working out a system of compensation to the as yet undefined "common owners" of the deep seabed mineral resources.

At the other extreme, however, we cannot simply refuse to provide these opportunities by imposing a legal framework which is not subject to compromise. For example, by specifically restricting financial assistance to those "developing reciprocating states" the definition of which is not made explicit-it seems posible that section 9 may encourage an increase in instances of poaching by developing nations not wishing to be subject to stringent requirements expected of reciprocating states.

Furthermore, section 9 fails to provide any insurance against inequitable effects of individual states' economics caused by the introduction of new sources of specific minerals. By restricting the possibilities for international cooperation and mutual assistance, this legislation, in our opinion, can only further the day when an international regime and a safe investment climate is attained.

As a final matter, the League is somewhat concerned that section 7, requiring minimum expenditures, bears little relation to the actual costs incurred in development of a single block. As we understand it, present industrial estimates for such operations may well run over 100 times this amount.

In view of the uncertainties in the world market, we can only question the sensibility of such early specifications, if the object of this provision is to insure orderly and efficient development of deep seabed minerals. Section 7, in our opinion, represents simply another instance of premature activity on the part of industries which can only result in minimizing full consideration of alternatives and prejudicing future efforts in favor of sole attainment of its single purpose objectives.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views, Senator.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your appearance and your testimony.

If Senator Hansen can stay with us, we will refrain from questioning you until we have completed the full panel.

Mrs. MATISOFF. Okay.

Senator METCALF. Now, Mr. Dick Frank from the Center for Law and Social Policy. Mr. Frank, we are delighted to have you here. Go right ahead.

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Senator.