various agencies, to date EPA appears to be the only agency which has engaged in any substantive research in this area. We commend the EPA for its survey efforts, beginning in 1974, in relation to previously used dumpsites at 900m, 2800m and 3800m depths. Its successful efforts using manned and unmanned submersibles to survey deepsea radioactive waste disposal sites, including retrieval of dumpsite containers and core sediments, underscores the need to substantiate hypothesized release and transport events in the deep oceans by actual studies of past dumpsites before the U.S. gives any serious consideration to the use of the ocean or its seabeds as disposal sites.

However, it is obvious that EPA, and especially the DOE, NRC and NOAA have barely begun to address the many outstanding questions pertinent to using the ocean floor or its seabed for disposal of radioactive wastes. We believe it would be a useful addition to this hearing record to request each of those agencies to specify, in much greater detail than their previously prepared comments reflect, (1) the nature of the research, studies and/or other projects they are handling, including a listing of the offices or divisions and the supervisory personnel responsible for such activities, (2) the levels of funding for past projects and projected funding for those same or future projects, (3) any preliminary conclusions that have been reached, (4) the recipients of any past and present government contract awards, as well as the amount of the contract and projected future contract costs in relation to existing contracts, (5) the specific statutory authorities from which the agency is receiving its funding to carry out such research, studies and projects, and (6) their best estimates as to additional research which they believe is necessary and the budgetary and personnel requirements for that research.

In relation to EPA's past survey studies, it would be worthwhile to have EPA analyze those surveys and to make recommendations, where feasible. In this same vein, we understand that NOAA has been involved in non-nuclear waste studies and research since 1973, part of which has been reported in their Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106 (3 volumes, 1977). Apparently this dumpsite is very close to a radioactive dumpsite. The Subcommittee should inquire whether any of NOAA's studies gathered information on the radioactive site, and what recommendations, if any, NOAA could make that would add to the information base involving radioactive waste disposal.

As early as 1959, and again in 1961, the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council published reports on radioactive waste disposal into the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coastal waters." The Subcommittee should ask for any followup studies by the NAS or by other federal agencies that have been undertaken since then to assess the validity and currency of the analyses and data contained therein. At the international level, it appears that few studies have been done to date that would assist the United States in its efforts to assess the benefits and disadvantages of ocean dumping of radiological wastes. Since 1967 the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD has been supervising the dumping of radiological wastes by eight European countries at a N.E. Atlantic site. Apparently no substantive analyses have been made regarding the effects of those radiological wastes on the surrounding marine environment. It would seem prudent for the United States to press for internationally sponsored detailed monitoring and other studies of that site, or perhaps to independently monitor and study the site, prior to committing substantial sums of money and resources in surveying potentially attractive future sites for ocean disposal of radioactive wastes. In this regard, we have been advised that the NEA, in what limited analyses it has undertaken, is relying on an indequate model for the evaluation of the deep ocean disposal of radioactive wastes that was prepared in 1973 by Messrs. Webb and Morley. What efforts has the United States taken to press NEA to revise its evaluation model? And finally, what efforts has the U.S. taken to seek harmonization of NEA's evaluation model and research activities with similar modeling and research activities by other international bodies, such as the IAEA?

Given the many unanswered questions in relation to the research and studies that have been done, or should be done in the next several years in relation to ocean disposal of radioactive wastes, it would be premature for the environmental groups to go on record at this time in opposition to or support of particular proposals.

NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY

The Department of Energy (through Messrs. Deutsch and Liverman) has advised this Subcommittee in general terms of the findings of its Intraagency Task Force

11 Radioactive Waste Disposal into Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Waters, NAS-NRC Publication 655 (1959); Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste into Pacific Coastal Waters, NAS-NRC Publication 985 (1961).

Report on Nuclear Waste Management, and has outlined generally the proposed work plan of the Interagency Task Force which was recently established by the President. The published Report, and the findings and recommendations of the Interagency Task Force which are to be submitted to President Carter by October 1, 1978, should assist the United States in establishing a process through which future research priorities on radiological waste management can subsequently be determined. Environmental groups look forward to having substantive and substantial input into the Interagency Task Force's work efforts.

While we agree with the President's desire to produce a national waste management policy, given the research to date we believe that any Presidential statements on this subject for the near term should be limited to a skeletal outline of the process that will be required to formulate such policies. One major contribution to describing such a process-and moving towards national policies-must obviously be the NEPA Section 102(2)(C) analyses which are presently being prepared by the DOE and other federal agencies in their generic environmental impact statement on commercially generated waste management. We understand that the draft EIS is presently undergoing substantial revision. Whatever those revisions may be, upon release that EIS will be subjected to thorough public scrutiny. In these regards, we agree with the DOE's Interagency Task Force finding that "[t]he NEPA process is an essential part of the nuclear waste management program and DOE efforts in this regard must be strengthened." (Report, p. 3).

NRC/EPA REGULATORY ROLES

In the testimony presented to this Subcommittee by the NRC (through Sheldon Meyers), the recommendation was made that the EPA should set forth the criteria for all forms of nuclear waste disposal, but that the NRC should actually promulgate and administer the rules and regulations for carrying out any ocean dumping of radiological wastes. We believe that the authority for regulating the ocean dumping of such wastes should be retained within EPA. EPA, and not NRC, possesses the independent capability to best determine the appropriateness of permitting radiological waste disposal within the marine environment. Unencumbered with the responsibility to regulate the use of nuclear technologies and with the pressures that surround its further development, the EPA, on behalf of the Federal Government, can best weigh the benefits and disadvantages of ocean waste disposal from an environmental perspective.

THIRD CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION

On behalf of the environmental groups listed above, the International Project of the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Wildlife Federation and the International Institute for Environment and Development have been participants in the regular Advisory Committee meetings that have been periodically held in relation to the United States participation in the London Dumping Convention. In general, the environmental groups support the positions which the U.S. has recently presented to the Convention's Board of Governors and which will be the subject of negotiations at the Third Consultative Meetings in October, 1978.

We believe the United States has played an important and constructive role in the progress IAEA has made with respect to (1) affirming the importance of packaging as a waste isolation and containment system to reduce releases of radioactivity to the oceans, (2) stressing the importance of environmental monitoring to assess and validate assumptions on deepsea radionuclide transport, immobilization, and potential environmental effects, and (3) resolving the problem of the minimum acceptable disposal depth for dumping packaged, solidified wastes by establishing a total prohibition on dumping such waste in waters of less than 4000 meters depth. We agree with the U.S. position that IAEA's provisional definition and recommendations on high-level wastes do not adequately incorporate the philosophy of waste isolation and containment into its existing quantitative definition which is based on a dilution and dispersal release rate philosophy. We believe that the qualitative definition of high-level wastes established under the Ocean Dumping Act (as quoted supra at p. 7) should be added to the IAEA's quantitative definition. 12 Additionally, we support the U.S. efforts to press the IAEA to establish a work plan for developing a specific limit on the number of acceptable dumpsites.

12 Even prior to the EPA's adoption of that qualitative definition in its guidelines and criteria (40 C.F.R. § 227.30), and prior to the U.S. ratification of the Convention, the U.S. advised the Convention that until an internationally acceptable definition of high-level radioactive wastes was negotiated under IAEA auspices, the U.S. intended to govern its activities on the basis of that qualitative definition. Senate Document, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Exec. C., p. 46 (1973).

At the Convention's Third Meeting this coming October, we urge the U.S. to propose increased activities on ocean dumping of radiological wastes by other signatories to the Convention. Recommendations to jointly sponsor with other countries various IAEA studies and projects would benefit the U.S. efforts to arrive at a fully informed and well reasoned decision as to whether our oceans should be used for radiological waste dumping (including seabed emplacement). We would also encourage the United States to send an adequately staffed delegation to the October meetings, to ensure that each of the U.S. proposals be given adequate attention. At some of the recent IAEA sessions, we understand that a single EPA scientist was given the impossible task of representing U.S. interests, both in plenary and various working committees.

CONCLUSION

The oceans, covering nearly three-fourths of the world's surface, occupy a critical role in maintaining a livable environment. National and international policies that determine the manner in which we seek to protect, preserve, develop and utilize our vital marine resources must be the product of comprehensive research activities. We must move cautiously, and with full public participation, as we develop those national policies. Regarding radioactive waste that might be dumped on or beneath the ocean floor, the necessary research activities have barely begun. Given the extremely hazardous nature or radioactive wastes, their disposal into our oceans is fraught with potentially irreparable consequences. Absent convincing research that such adverse consequences will not occur, the current U.S. policy (dating back to 1970) that prohibits the use of the oceans for the dumping of radiological wastes must be maintained.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CLIFTON E. CURTIS, ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, SIERRA CLUB, WILDERNESS SOCIETY, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CENTER

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Chairman Breaux and Congressman Pritchard. I think the best way for me to proceed is to summarize in part, but also to quote from my testimony with respect to particular portions.

I would like to list all of those groups on whose behalf I am appearing here today: The Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, National Wildife Federation, the International Institute for Environment and Development-a representative from that organization, Bob Stein, I believe was asked to testify and was unable to appear, so they asked us to appear on their behalf-and finally, the Environmental Policy Center.

These environmental groups have a combined membership in excess of 2,715,000 persons, and have had a long history of active interest in the development of sound ocean policies, both nationally and internationally.

I have set forth a few reasons why we believe that these hearings are important at this time, and would like to briefly list those

reasons.

First, the hearings which this subcommittee has convened provide a forum for a current articulation of U.S. policies and program activities, both domestically and in relation to the efforts of other nations and international organizations.

This record enhances the possibilities for effective coordination of the statutory and regulatory responsibilities lodged in EPA, DOE,

State Department, the Department of Defense, Commerce's NOAA, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Additionally, these hearings should assist our public officials in developing the comprehensive and explicit national policy-which relates to one of the questions you put forward in your request that the center testify at these hearings-which is a prerequisite to the international pursuit of mutually acceptable approaches to preserving and developing the resources of our oceans.

These hearings also provide the Congress with an opportunity to assess the adequacy of existing domestic statutory authority and to strengthen that authority where warranted.

Finally, and obviously of great concern to the environmental groups, the public airing of this country's efforts in addressing the issues associated with disposal of radiological wastes in the marine environment is essential. Given the national debate which continues over the appropriateness of nuclear technology in meeting our Nation's energy needs, the public must be kept fully informed as to matters that affect the viability of continued reliance on that technology, not the least of which is the effort to arrive at long-term solutions to the waste disposal problem.

In my prepared testimony there is a section that attempts to summarize the factual situation with respect to radiological waste dumping. Given the questions that both you, Chairman Breaux, and Congressman Pritchard raised in trying to get a handle on the amount of such wastes, I would like to briefly run through that portion of the testimony.

Substantial parts of the information that I gathered comes from the Department of Energy, tables 1 through 4, which were attached to John Deutch's testimony on May 15, as well as some IAEA figures that were current through 1977 for worldwide disposal of radiological wastes.

Since June 1970 the United States has not used the oceans for the waste disposal of any radioactive materials, high- or low-level wastes. From 1946 until 1970, however, the United States dumped nearly 95,000 curies of low-level radiological wastes. Of that amount, approximately 99.5 percent was dumped in the period 1946 through 1962.

Outside of the United States, the United Kingdom dumped approximately 45,000 curies of low-level radioactive wastes during the period 1951 through 1966. And then, beginning in 1967, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD supervised the dumping of approximately 300,000 curies of low-level radioactive wastes coming from seven European countries, which I have listed in a footnote on page 4 of my prepared testimony. Of those countries the United Kingdom is presently the one dumping the largest quantities of lowlevel wastes.

According to DOE calculations, the projected quantities of U.S. commercial and military wastes that will have been produced by the year 2000 will be approximately 500 billion cubic feet of lowlevel wastes and 129 million cubic feet of transuranic wastes. They were unable to make specific predictions beyond the year 1985 as to high-level radioactive wastes.

By adding to that the quantities of spent fuel generation which are predicted through the year 2000-that is, almost 100,000 metric

tons of heavy metal and 1,281,000 cubic feet of spent fuel. In relation to weight and volume, those spent fuel figures have a much higher potential adverse effect because of the heat problem and the release rate of their radioactive elements.

Given these figures, it is evident, even excluding the worldwide projections, that long-term solutions must be found for managing our nuclear wastes. The United States and most other countries currently favor land-based disposal of radiological wastes. Absent highly acceptable land-based repositories, however, the oceans will receive increasing consideration as the primary alternative to landbased geological sites-if for no other reason than their out-ofsight, out-of-mind limited constituency appeal.

In my prepared testimony I have set forth the pertinent domestic legislative authority. Obviously, the primary piece of legislation is the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and I won't describe that in detail since obviously the subcommittee is familiar with that legislation and received testimony at the May 15 hearing concerning it.

In addition to the MPRSA, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 does address indirectly the issue of waste management by indicating that the President shall negotiate with nations and international organizations and that one of those negotiating efforts shall address the issue of waste management. In that sense the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act provides the opportunity to address this problem.

The recently passed National Ocean Pollution, Research and Development, and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978, which I have shorthanded to the Ocean Pollution Research Act-or OPRA-just for the convenience of my testimony, has attempted to rectify certain problems associated with achieving a comprehensive ocean pollution program.

I would refer you, and will quote from, a statement on page 8 of my testimony that I think is pertinent to the problem concerning NOAA's lead role, which is mandated under this OPRA legislation. Contained in the legislative history in the Congressional Record in discussing the Senate Tanker Safety Act, which this legislation was initially included in, are the remarks that:

Under title II of the Ocean Dumping Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to initiate a comprehensive program and continuing program of research with respect to the possible long-range effects of ocean pollution. However, no funds have ever been expended for this kind of program. Instead, a number of projects undertaken by several Federal agencies are listed as the "comprehensive program" in an annual report by the Secretary. And as the OTA report indicates, there is little coordination among these agencies. Consequently, neglect and unnecessary duplication has resulted.

I have also set forth certain references to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and have quoted from pertinent portions of the London Dumping Convention, the main international treatise under which this country is seeking international accord in the area of radiological waste dumping.

Turning then to the portion of my prepared testimony which deals with radiological waste ocean research activities, representatives from the various Federal agencies responsible for the U.S. research effort in relation to ocean dumping of radiological wastes-including research on seabed emplacement-have ap