250 



Answer. The Commission participated in the writing of the report of the Coun- 

 cil on Environmental Quality entitled "Ocean Dumping: A National Policy", 

 dated October 1970. At page 28, the report stated : 



Because of the need to keep all sources of radioactivity at the lowest pos- 

 sible level, ocean disposal of the wastes should be avoided except when no 

 alternative offers less harm to man or the environment. These cages shooald be 

 carefully examined to assure that no safe and practical alternatives do 

 exist. If ocean disposal is necessary, it should be carefully controlled. 

 As I indicated in my testimony, the AEC has not permitted ocean disposal of 

 high level radioactive waste and is phasing out licenses to dump vraste materials 

 containing low levels of radioactivity into the ocean and has no intention of 

 dumping any such material from its own operations. However, it does not follow 

 that a complete prohibition of such dumping is indicated. We are in the early 

 stages of a great deal of national research into the effects of various actions 

 on the environment We believe that until more is known about the environ- 

 mental effects of other types of waste disposal, it is not in the national interest 

 to make a decision at this time which would foreclose a particular disposal, in 

 the future, of radioactive waste under proper conditions and controls in some 

 part of the ocean. A possible candidate for such disposal could be a reactor 

 pressure vessel from the dismantling of a ciAdlian power plant located at an 

 ocean-side site or from the dismantling of a propulsion reactor in a military 

 vessel. Until scientific bases are suflBciently advanced for enlightened decisions 

 with respect to alternate methods of waste disposal, we believe it would be pre- 

 mature to foreclose all options. 



Question 2. Does the Commission object if it is brought under the Ocean Dum,p- 

 ing Act and required to secure a permit from EPA in connection with the dis- 

 posal of radioactive waste generated by its own operations? 



Answer. We do not believe that it is necessary, in order to assure that AEC 

 waste disposal actions are consistent with the Act, for the AEC to secure a permit 

 from EPA. Under the bill as presently drawn, if the Commission should wish 

 to make an ocean disposal of its own radioactive waste under some unusual cir- 

 cumstances, as described in the CEQ report, it would first consult with the Ad- 

 ministrator, and comply with the standards set by the Administrator respecting 

 limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radio- 

 active materials, in the same manner as under section 7b. of the bill required 

 for AEC licenses. If the Congress were to amend section 7b. to require an EPA 

 permit for all Government agencies proposing ocean disposal of radioactive waste, 

 we foresee no resulting undue interference with Commission operations. Other 

 Government agencies, however, planning ocean disposal of radioactive waste 

 would still be required, in addition to securing an EPA permit, to secure an 

 AEC license. 



Quesion 3. Is the Commission agreeable to the applicability of civil and cHm- 

 inal penalties to AEC employees for violation of laws on ocean dumping? 



Answer. As a Government-wide matter, it is not desirable to impose civU and 

 criminal penalties on Federal employees arising in the course of the substantive 

 performance of agency missions. To do so can seriously inhibit the performance 

 of necessary Government functions. Thus, the Commission opposes applicability 

 of civil or criminal penalties to Federal employees for violation of laws on ocean 

 dumping. To charge each Federal employee with knowledge of laws pertinent 

 to the discharge of his official duties, pursuant to direction of his supervisors, 

 and with the requirement that he pre-assess at his peril compliance with such 

 laws, is, in our view, unrealistic, unduly burdensome, and not likely to result 

 in the prompt and efficient conduct of official business. We doubt that, in the 

 private sector, subordinates would, in fact, be charged with violation of ocean 

 dumping laws — rather, the violation would be charged to the head of the 

 organization. Thus, the responsibility for violations of ocean dumping laws 

 should likewise be that of the head of the Government agency conducting the 

 operations. No useful purpose would be served by subjecting higher echelon 

 Government officials to such penalties. (Agencies are, in appropriate cases, 

 answerable civilly under the Tort Claims Act.) In any event, we think the 

 responsibility for assuring compliance by Federal departments and agencies 

 with such laws in the operation of their facilities should rest with the President 

 of the United States. 



Submissions for the record in connection with other matters discussed at the 

 hearing will be transmitted to you separately. 

 Sincerely, 



James T. Ramet, Commissioner. 



