ourselves faced with a mistake that we will have to live with for many generations.

Today we will hear from the lead agency in the Federal Government with respect to ocean matters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-NOAA. I am very interested to have their assessment of how the United States and other countries are approaching this issue.

In addition, I would like to find out what NOAA is doing with respect to research concerning the effects of radioactive contamination in the marine environment.

Today we will also be hearing from one environmental group, the Center for Law and Social Policy, that will also be representing the International Institute for Environment and Development.

As our first witness this morning I would like to welcome Dr. Ferris Webster, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Webster, we welcome you. Are you still acting-

Dr. WEBSTER. That's a mistake, sir. I'm not "acting". [Laughter.] This is for real.

Mr. BREAUX. This is for real. OK.

STATEMENT OF DR. FERRIS WEBSTER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL BLEICHER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OCEAN MANAGEMENT, NOAA

Dr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, I was sworn in last month as the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. With me this morning is Mr. Sam Bleicher, the Director of NOAA's Office of Ocean Management.

Mr. BREAUX. Before you start, Dr. Webster, I would like to submit for the record an opening statement by Congressman Pritchard, and it will be a part of the opening comments.

[The following was received for the record:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL PRITCHARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Before we get started with the testimony, I would just like to highlight a trend which I find somewhat disturbing. First of all, there does not currently exist satisfactory technology to contain nuclear waste which will be produced in substantially greater quantities in the future. Although a number of alternatives have been put forth, and disposal in salt domes currently appears most likely, there may emerge many political problems with this form of disposal.

In addition, many European countries, as well as Japan, are rapidly increasing their dependence upon nuclear power as a source of energy. Many of these countries do not have natural geological formations which are as stable as salt dome geology. As a result of these factors, it is becoming increasingly important to thoroughly examine the important research questions which need to be asked to be able to evaluate the future prospect of disposal of nuclear waste in the marine environment. This does not mean that we favor marine disposal of nuclear waste, but rather, if there is any likelihood that marine disposal will occur due to growing opposition of other forms of disposal, then we need a better information base upon which to judge the relative safety of marine disposal. Primarily, this involves further research_regarding the geological stability in proposed areas for disposal, containment and transport technology research, as well as further chemical research regarding possible transmission of radionuclides in the marine food chain.

Hopefully, Dr. Webster will provide further insight in some of these extremely important areas of research.

Dr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to point out that Mr. Bleicher is the representative of the Department of Commerce on the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management, which I will be speaking of in a moment.

I am pleased to have been invited to testify before you this morning, and rather than read my testimony, I would like to summarize the testimony.

Mr. BREAUX. Without objection, your complete statement will be made a part of the record.

Dr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The following was received for the record:]

STATEMENT OF FERRIS WEBSTER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and observers: I am pleased to have been invited to testify before you on nuclear waste disposal in the marine environment. It is a subject that merits intensive study and a problem that demands a comprehensive and sound national policy. Activities that are ongoing both in the domestic and international arenas are reaching major decision points beyond which it will be difficult to retreat-or reverse the consequences.

The Nuclear Waste Management Task Force has been established by the President to study comprehensively all the options for nuclear waste disposal, including disposal in the marine environment. The Department of Commerce is a member of the Task Force and NOAA will be a participant. The findings of the Task Force and the Administration's recommendations for nuclear waste disposal should be available this October.

NOAA is particularly concerned that an adequate technical base is available to assist in making decisions on the initiation of seabed disposal. At present, our knowledge of the deep ocean floor is limited. This is due in great part to its remoteness and great size and the high costs involved in its study. Present information, though meager, reveals no scientific or technical reason to abandon the seabed disposal option for radioactive waste. I must emphasize that we endorse only the full investigation of the feasibility of the disposal of radioactive waste in the seabed. There are questions that must be addressed for a sound assessment of the total problem to be made.

In my remarks, I will identify some of the elements (domestic and international) that should be considered in developing a national policy, discuss some of the scientific and technical problems that should be considered, and summarize NOAA's activities in this field.

POLICY ELEMENTS

At present, there appear to be a number of considerations that should be taken into account in the development of a national policy: (a) retrievability of storage containers, (b) integrity of canisters, (c) disposal in stable areas, (d) requirement of waste "registration”, and (e) understanding of physical and chemical problems. I would like to stress, however, that these factors are presently undergoing examination by the Nuclear Waste Management Task Force and the relative importance of these factors has not yet been fully assessed.

Retrievability

Our limited understanding of the deep ocean environment and technology require caution in the development of different modes of long-term seabed disposal. Though we should consider the feasibility of using the seabed as a permanent respository for radioactive waste, until our knowledge and technology are more advanced, alternatives that are revokable may need to be emphasized.

Integrity of Canisters

To prevent leakage, it is critical that the integrity of radioactive waste canisters be maintained. Appropriate monitoring and inspection programs may be needed to

ensure retrieval prior to any leakage. Research into marine corrosion at great depths could better assure that we can estimate canister lifetimes.

Disposal in Stable Areas

Canister disposal should be made in stable regions of the ocean floor. The current leading approach to seabed disposal is the emplacement of waste in midplate areas of the deep seabed. This idea assumes that regions in the middle of lithospheric plates have been and will be uniformly affected by geologic processes and that the site will undergo little or no environmental disturbance over the next million years. Another proposal that has received some attention is the disposal of radioactive waste in the canyon-like fracture zones of the ocean floor. This idea assumes that waste would be contained due to the topographic relief. Relatively rapid burial of the wastes would occur due to sedimentation. This concept requires an investigation of geologic stability, since earthquake activity can occur along small segments of fracture zones that cross the axis of an oceanic ridge, although continuous seismic activity is not evident along much of these fracture zones.

Waste Disposal "Registration"

Since the longevity of harmful levels of activity of radioactive waste is significant, consideration should be given to what institutional arrangements should stipulate concerning dumping of radioactive waste in the seabed. Such information would include the location, amount, content, and physical-chemical characteristics of the waste.

Understanding of Physical and Chemical Problems

I am concerned that adequate scientific and technical knowledge be available before irreversible decisions about seabed disposal are made. Our current understanding of these problems is rudimentary. Efforts like the Department of Energy's Seabed Program are necessary. Investigations of the seafloor configuration and the properties of the surrounding water and sediment are needed. We must establish that the sediment has enough adsorption and low enough permeability so that migration of the waste products which leach into the pore water will take at least a million years to escape to the ocean. The in situ physical and dynamic response to emplacement must be studied to determine if the sediments fully close above an emplaced canister. The potential of the sediment for heat dissipation must also be determined.

In addition, we need substantial technology development if retrievable storage of high-level radioactive waste canisters is to be practical. We need to develop technology for emplacement on the ocean floor in a manner which allows for future location, attachment, and retrieval of canisters, while offering interim protection against radionuclide contamination of the ocean.

Disposal in fracture zones also requires the development and testing of appropriate technology.

Other technological areas such as transport ship design and canister handling procedures must also be addressed.

NOAA RESEARCH

Past NOAA R. & D. efforts on the problems of seabed disposal outside of hydrographic surveys have been relatively small. Research on radiation effects on marine organisms was jointly funded by NOAA and AEC for 10 years at our National Marine Fisheries Services laboratory at Beaufort, N.C. This effort was terminated when it was determined that the quantities of fallout radioactivity were less than that required to produce a measurable adverse response in marine organisms under controlled laboratory conditions.

Plutonium isotope concentrations have been measured in the New York Bight region as part of NOAA's Marine EcoSystems Analysis Program. These isotopes were measured in both shellfish and sediments, revealing no potential hazard at this time.

The theory of fracture-zone disposal mentioned earlier was proposed by Karl Turekian of Yale and Peter Rona of our Environmental Research Laboratories. It came from NOAA's Metallogenesis Project in the North Atlantic that was initially funded jointly with ERDA.

There are several efforts that are in the planning stage that are related to problems of seabed disposal. NOAA's Office of Ocean Engineering is working with EPA to develop the means to locate, identify, attach, and retrieve containers on the seafloor and to emplace such containers at precise locations on the seabottom or bottom-resting platforms. The initial activity will be a jointly funded workshop scheduled later this year.

The recently passed P.L. 95-273, the National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978, will serve to focus Federal efforts in the area of marine pollution including those related to radionuclides. As part of its planning efforts related to this legislation, NOAA is sponsoring a workshop for the purpose of developing a strong, comprehensive statement of the scientific problems of ocean pollution. In conducting the workshop, the Chairman, Dr. Edward Goldberg, has established eleven working groups to examine ocean pollution problems, one of which is a working group on radioactivity. The results of this workshop will include the identification of research needed to evaulate the feasibility of safely disposing of radioactive waste in the seabed.

In addition to efforts under P.L. 95-273, I have requested an internal evaluation of NOAA resources that can be directed at solving some of the scientific and engineering problems involved in seabed disposal. NOAA possesses broad oceanographic capabilities comprising scientific and engineering expertise, ships and equipment. All of these are necessary elements of a comprehensive investigation of the deep ocean disposal alternative. I intend to discuss with other agencies how these resources can be used to address the problems involved with this alternative.

Activities on both the international and domestic scene are moving to a point where the U.S. must have a national policy on the disposal of radioactive wastes, including possible disposal in the marine environment. Let me summarize some of these activities:

Low-level radioactive waste

(1) Since 1967, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), which is part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has been dumping lowlevel and intermediate-level radioactive wastes generated by European member nations at a site off the Bay of Biscay. NEA is now encouraging each member state to conduct its own dumping operations under NEA surveillance and standards. In addition to the European nations, Japan is planning to commence dumping in the Pacific beginning next year. The U.S. has been a member of NEA since mid-1976 but has ceased using the oceans for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. With State Department leadership, through an interagency group and an outside advisory committee, the U.S.A. has been working through NEA to develop an ocean dumping policy_concerning low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.

(2) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is preparing recommendations that will govern permits for ocean disposal of low-level and intermediate-level radioactive wastes under the 1972 London Ocean Dumping Convention. Section D of Annex II of the convention states that "In the issue of permits for the dumping of this matter, the Contracting Parties should take full account of the recommendations of the competent international body in this field, at present the International Atomic Energy Agency."

(3) Domestically, land siting of radioactive waste disposal is encountering increased public opposition. Anticipating the need to explore other disposal options, first the Environmental Protection Agency, and now more recently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have established programs for conducting studies of ocean disposal for low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.

High-level radioactive waste

Activities concerning the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes are likewise placing great urgency on the development of a cohesive national policy on seabed disposal even though the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act specifically prohibit the disposal of highlevel radioactive waste in the oceans.

(1) The IAEA is charged under the London Ocean Dumping Convention with preparing definitions of what constitutes high-level radioactive matter that is unsuitable for dumping at sea. The definitions will be presented at the Third Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Ocean Dumping Convention in London this October. The definitions adopted by the IAEA for the permanent isolation and confinement of high-level radioactive waste in the deep seabed, will stimulate consideration of seafloor disposal options.

(2) Certain provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 call for uniform policies and international agreements on spent fuel storage and reprocessing. Implementation could lead to international authority over discarded spent fuel and waste disposal. It is almost certain that any international authority would give serious consideration to seabed isolation and confinement possibilities.

(3) Inventories of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel have accumulated to the point where they are of concern. Consideration of future development of our nuclear power industry must include assessment of all acceptable solutions to the

problem of permanent disposal of radioactive wastes. Previous waste management programs primarily concentrated on siting of commercial and military high-level radioactive waste or discarded spent fuel repositories on land sites in the U.S. However, all potential, feasible options should be investigated and promising alternatives must be carefully evaluated and weighed against land-based alternatives. These factors underscore the need for a clear national policy if we are to undertake seabed disposal of radioactive waste.

It may prove possible to use the seabed for radioactive waste disposal without harm to that environment; however, such use demands that decisions be made on sound technical information. It is imperative that we develop adequate understanding so that the consequences of our decisions may not injure our descendents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions.

Dr. WEBSTER. This is an important question, a question which we do not have the luxury of making serious mistakes about, because the mistakes may be with us for hundreds of thousands of years. We, therefore, need to take this question seriously.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the Presidnet has established the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management. This review group has been charged with preparing a report on the subject of nuclear waste disposal by October 1. The Department of Commerce is a member of this review group and NOAA will be a major participant in the work of that group. We are looking forward to the results of that task force and evaluating the options on this question, particularly as it relates to disposal in the seabed. The question of seabed disposal is a very difficult one for an oceanographer to talk about. I would like simply to say that the most important thing right now is that we increase our information base so that we have full knowledge of the options that are available, both technically and scientifically, in disposing of highlevel radioactive wastes on the floor of the ocean. We need a technical base. We have limited information at the moment about the sea floor. The sea floor is at great depths, separated by thousands of meters of water, and it is large. We have limited resources at out disposal-which is true of our country and every other one— so we do not know enough yet about the deep sea floor before we can begin disposal.

I would also note that the disposal in the seabed of high-level radioactive waste is now prohibited by legislation. Both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, sometimes known as the Ocean Dumping Act, prohibit the disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the ocean.

I would like to say a word or two about some possible factors that need to be examined and I expect will be examined by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management. These are outlined in my testimony and I would just like to review them. They are the question of the location of disposal areas-the area that seems to be the most highly favored scientifically these days is that of the most stable areas on the seafloor, stable both geophysically and stable in terms of ocean currents. If we're going to put wastes in the seabed, we want to do it in an area where we can predict as well as possible that there will not be severe tectonic activity and that the effects of the ocean currents are likely to be stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

Mr. PRITCHARD. If I could interrupt, are you saying the most favorable places in the ocean are of this particular type, or the