peared before this subcommittee. Of the 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 the 900-, 2,800-, and 3,800-meter depths.

Its successful efforts in using manned and unmanned submersibles to survey deep sea radioactive waste disposal sites, including retrieval of 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 United States gives any serious consideration to the use of the ocean or its seabeds as disposal sites.

However, it is obvious that EPA, and especially DOE, NRC, and NOAA, have barely begun to address the many outstanding questions pertinent to the use of the ocean floor or its seabed for disposal of radioactive wastes.

We believe it would be a useful addition to this hearing record and of assistance to NOAA, in getting up speed under the OPRA legislation, to specify and require that each agency specify in much greater detail than their previously prepared comments reflect: First, 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; second, the levels of funding for past projects and projected future projects; third, any preliminary conclusions that they have arrived at in the studies done to date; fourth, 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; fifth, the specific statutory authorities under which these research efforts are being done; and sixth, their best estimates as to the additional research which they believe is necessary and the budgetary and personnel requirements for that research.

Our concern with wanting to have this kind of information is to try to bring together in one place a comprehensive listing of what has happened within the Federal Government. I think the efforts of this subcommittee in bringing before it the representatives of the various agencies has been a contribution to that effort, but I don't think it has been sufficiently detailed in the testimony which you have received.

In relation to EPA's past survey studies, it would be worthwhile to have EPA analyze those surveys and to make recommendations, where feasible. I think that is one of the concerns that was apparent in EPA's response to your question, Chairman Breaux, on May 15, about the effect on the marine environment of the radiological wastes at some of these past-used dumpsites. They don't know. They have done some monitoring and factual data-gathering in relation to the dumpsite surveys, but they have not done any followthrough analysis of just what that data means in terms of the effects.

Similarly, NOAA has been involved in nonnuclear waste studies and research since 1973, part of which has been reported in their Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. This dumpsite is apparently very close to a radioactive dumpsite that has been used in the past.

I think this 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 NAS's National Research Council published reports on radioactive waste disposal into the Atlantic, the gulf, and the Pacific coastal waters. The subcommittee should ask for any followup studies by NAS or 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 very few studies have been done to date that would assist the United States in its efforts to assess the benefits and disadvantages of ocean disposal of radiological wastes.

Since 1967 the NEA, as I indicated earlier, has been supervising the dumping of low-level radiological wastes at a site off England, but apparently no substantive analyses have been made regarding the wastes that have been dumped at that site. 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 that site, and then to rely on that information before proceeding to assess the attractiveness of future sites for ocean disposal.

In this regard, we have been advised that the NEA, in the limited analysis it has undertaken, is relying on an inadequate model for the evaluation of the deep ocean disposal of radioactive wastes that was prepared in 1973 by Messrs. Webb and Morley. We are concerned as to what efforts the United States has taken to press NEA to revise its evaluation model, and finally we are concerned as to what efforts has the United States taken to seek harmonization of NEA's evaluation model 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, it would be premature for the environmental groups to go on record at this time in opposition to or support of particular proposals.

Next in my prepared testimony I address the issue of the national waste management policy as it affects the subject matter of this subcommittee's hearings.

The Department of Energy advised this subcommittee in general terms of the findings of its intraagency task force report on nuclear waste management, and has outlined generally the proposed work plan of the interagency task force recently established. Dr. Webster and Sam Bleicher also submitted information today for the record concerning the interagency task force efforts.

The published report and the findings of the interagency task force should assist the United States in establishing a process through which future research priorities on radiological waste management can subsequently be determined. The environmental groups look forward to having an opportunity to have substantive input into that task force's 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 toward national policies, must obviously be the NEPA section 102(2)(C) analysis EIS statement which is being prepared presently by DOE in relation to commercial waste management. We understand that this draft EIS is presently undergoing substantial revision, the first draft having had major problems.

Whatever those revisions may be, obviously upon its release that EIS will be subjected to thorough public scrutiny. In that regard, we thoroughly agree with the DOE's intra-agency task force finding that "the NEPA process is an essential part of the nuclear waste management program and DOE efforts in this regard must be strengthened."

At the May 15 hearings, Sheldon Meyers, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in response to questions that were asked and also in his prepared testimony, made the recommendation 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, the environmental groups, 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.

The final portion of my prepared testimony addresses certain concerns which we have in relation to the upcoming third consultative meeting of the London Dumping Convention, to be held in October. I don't believe it's necessary to go through and specify specifically what those recommendations are, but they are set forth in my prepared testimony.

One concern which I will emphasize, though, is our interest in seeing an adequately staffed delegation at the sessions in October, given the representations that have been made that in some of the past sessions the staffing was inadequate, such that the United States was placed in the position of having to make decisions of which plenary or committee sessions it would attend, rather than having a full staff complement there that could cover all of those meetings.

In 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.

33-546 - 78 - 22

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 of 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 that prohibits the use of the oceans for the dumping of radiological wastes must be maintained.

That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you very much, Mr. Curtis, for your testimony. I want to commend you on your prepared statement. It was very, very extensive and represents a very good summary of where we are on disposal at this stage and of the various Federal laws that are on the books.

You indicate a preference for EPA being the lead agency for regulating the disposal of nuclear wastes.

I really have no problem with their involvement, so long as NOAA, the oceans agency, has the lead on this ocean issue. I really don't think EPA has the trained personnel or the ships and equipment necessary to do a really good job of monitoring ocean disposal and ocean placement of nuclear wastes. I think NOAA should be the lead agency, because of its expertise, ships, and equipment. Mr. CURTIS. Under the recently passed legislation it's very possible that NOAA would come up to speed on that, but I don't think NOAA has been involved in any extensive research in the past dealing with radiological wastes aspects of the ocean.

One of our reasons for supporting the retention of that regulatory authority in EPA is the fact-

Mr. BREAUX. I don't think anyone has carried out extensive research. You say NOAA has not, but I don't think anybody else has, either.

Mr. CURTIS. EPA has done its survey monitoring, which is very limited-and Bob Dyer of EPA would concede that, that it has been limited.

Mr. BREAUX. As I pointed out earlier, at our last hearings, when I asked the question about the effect on the marine environment, EPA said it did not know.

After the hearings, they sent out a minisubmarine to pick up some of the canisters, to do some checking on the effect on the marine environment. I am sure it was just a coincidence.

Mr. CURTIS. I think that had been planned for some time.

It was interesting. I spoke with one of the EPA officials who was on that trip. I think they came back around July 4 and they did successfully retrieve some canisters at the 3,800-meter depth and were able to retrieve some core sediment samples and have sent out to Woodshole the canisters involved for a more thorough analysis.

Mr. BREAUX. I guess your recommendation is based on the past record, which is meager. Really, in all the agencies, I don't think they have done enough.

It would be a waste of resources to bring EPA up to speed with the manpower, ships, and equipment to become a lead R. & D. agency for the oceans. I don't think we should be moving in that

direction but, rather, we should be seeing to it that NOAA fulfills the task they are charged with.

Do you have an opinion from the people for whom you are speaking on what is at best a difficult issue, the choice between disposal on land-based areas or in ocean areas? I know we would like not to have to dispose of these wastes anywhere, but as long as we're faced with this difficult choice, do they have a preference? Mr. CURTIS. I think the only answer the environmental groups would be willing to give to a question like that at this time is they cannot make that kind of judgment, that the research data is not there yet to allow us to support, for example, seabed emplacement, if it were permitted-which it's not under the Ocean Dumping Act. There really is not enough information to make that type of cut and to indicate that type of preference.

Mr. BREAUX. Is there any indication the task force report will shed additional light to be able to make the choice?

Mr. CURTIS. I don't believe it will, from what I've heard. I think, just from my testimony, that you would sense I don't believe it would. I think the interagency task force, at most, should be trying to describe the process and trying to push NOAA and the other Federal agencies involved to again bring in that research data, so that within the near term we can have some of that data to make those initial priority choices, such as whether we should allocate more than 5 percent in looking at seabed emplacement, or less, or whether we should turn more to some of the geological formations. I don't see that the interagency task force is going to be that helpful in setting those kinds of priorities for the research.

Mr. BREAUX. While you mention that the U.S. law prohibits the dumping of either low-level or high-level radioactive wastes in our oceans, other countries like Japan and Great Britain, are presently dumping low-level wastes.

Mr. CURTIS. We only statutorily prohibit high-level radioactive wastes from being dumped in the oceans.

Mr. BREAUX. Yes, high-level. I'm sorry.

We have apparently a definition problem in the London Dumping Convention concerning what constitutes high-level wastes. You mentioned that and referred to it in your statement.

How is that working out as far as you're concerned? Are we coming up with an acceptable definition? They go back in session when?

Mr. CURTIS. The October session will be the point where that is fully negotiated amongst the 38 contracting parties to the London Dumping Convention.

As we indicate in the testimony that I presented, we do support the U.S. efforts to bring that qualitative definition into account for defining high-level radioactive wastes. Coupled with the kind of quantitative release and dispersal rate definition that IAEA is presently relying on, I think that a mixture of the two definitions would be adequate. We are saying this recognizing that there is dumping going on under the NEA supervision by some of the European countries; and as long as it does continue, we would like to see stringently set standards that would incorporate the qualitative definition that is contained in our Ocean Dumping Act.