248 



dumping low-level wastes at one site in the northeast Atlantic, and 

 the Japanese are planning to establish a site in the Pacific. 



What we plan to do with our high-level wastes in the future is an 

 even more important issue because such materials can cause irre- 

 versible biological damage and, in some cases, must be isolated for 

 hundreds of thousands of years. The current administration has 

 funded considerable research into land-based mined repositories — 

 such as salt domes or granite — for high-level wastes. 



However, the Department of Energy is also looking into other 

 potential disposal mediums — of which subseabed disposal is one. 

 This yet to be developed technology would require the implantation 

 of high-level wastes, probably contained in steel cannisters, in the 

 clays of remote, stable areas of the deep seabed. It is evident that 

 preventing the migration of radionuclides into the food chain is one 

 of the keys to toxic waste isolation, and in this case the retentive 

 nature of the clays would have to act as the primary barrier. 

 Whether deep sea organisms would either affect or be affected by 

 nuclide migration is an additional area for research. 



It is important to remember that the marine environment out- 

 side U.S. waters is also of vital significance. The knowledge gained 

 by our scientists about radioactive waste disposal can be extremely 

 helpful in our negotiations with those nations which may be more 

 eager than we to consider large-scale ocean disposal operations. It 

 is quite possible, for example, that high-level radioactive waste 

 disposal will be undertaken by the Japanese or by several Europe- 

 an nations, provided they are successful in interpreting the London 

 Dumping Convention in a manner which will allow them to do so. 



Domestically, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

 Act of 1972 — Ocean Dumping Act — prohibits the disposal in the 

 oceans of high-level wastes. Thus, an amendment to this law would 

 be necessary before any high-level waste disposal could occur. 



Essentially what we are confronted with, once again, as has 

 frequently been the case and experience of this subcommittee is 

 that it is an investigation not so much of man's knowledge, but of 

 man's ignorance. We may be humbled by what we do not know, 

 and we may have caused damage the magnitude of which we 

 cannot begin to understand. We want to know what has been done 

 in the past, we want to know what is being done now, and we want 

 to know what we know and do not know about what we have done, 

 and finally, what we ought to do. 



Mr. Pritchard, do you have an opening statement? 



Mr. Pritchard. I would only say that this hearing is aimed at 

 two quite distinct issues. First, we would like to examine some of 

 the technical and legal issues surrounding the question of the 

 subseabed emplacement of high-level nuclear waste and, second, 

 due to the initiative and the introduction of a bill by my colleague 

 from California, we would like to examine the question of the 

 monitoring of nuclear waste dumpsites, primarily low-level waste 

 dumpsites off the U.S. coasts. 



Since we have not dumped any nuclear waste off our shores since 

 roughly 1970, and according to DOE, we will not be making a 

 decision on subseabed emplacement of high nuclear waste, prob- 

 ably until the year 2000, we would like very much to clearly 

 distinguish between these two different issues in this hearing. 



