254 



THE IAEA DEFINITION 



In our judgment, the IAEA Definition of high-level radioactive material is incom- 

 plete and requires qualitative terms in addition to the present quantitative limita- 

 tions. Under the present Definition, no isotopes or particular types of waste are 

 excluded from consideration for at-sea disposal as long as their concentration is 

 sufficiently low. The U.S. position, reflected in the Marine Protection, Research, and 

 Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, is more specific about what constitutes high- 

 level wastes. The Act defines high level waste as "the aqueous waste resulting from 

 the operation of the final cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the 

 concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for 

 reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels, or irradiated fuel from nuclear power reac- 

 tors." The U.S. definition precludes the dumping of certain substances that might be 

 permitted under the Convention, substances that are often considered to be among 

 the most dangerous and toxic. We also are concerned that the IAEA Definition was 

 based upon assumptions that may be shown to be invalid as our knowledge of 

 marine ecology improves. 



NEED FOR RESEARCH AND MONITORING 



We have been frustrated in our attempts to better grapple with the impacts of 

 dumping by the lack of scientific evidence on critical features of the marine envi- 

 ronment and the effects upon it of radioactive materials. There is an acute need for 

 more information on basic biological and physical processes. 



Moreover, we believe that a more thorough assessment of the sites used for 

 dumping radioactive materials, including the northeast Atlantic site, must be un- 

 dertaken, and a regular monitoring program begun. In this regard, we are pleased 

 to note that the NEA has accelerated the development of a monitoring program 

 which is expected to come before its Steering Committee for approval in April. We 

 welcome this development. 



Our concerns are part of the record. We have raised them repeatedly in several 

 fora: the NEA; the Consultative Meetings of the London Dumping Convention and 

 the IAEA. 



The philosophical underpinning for these concerns is the idea that we should take 

 no irreversible actions which might destroy resources for future generations. 



Mr. Chairman: That summarizes the international rules applicable to the ocean 

 disposal of radioactive materials, as well as our concerns regarding their effective- 

 ness. Now I'd like to address a specific item about which you have asked — H.R. 

 8119, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to undertake a study to determine 

 the effects of past ocean dumping of radioactive wastes. 



This bill, if broadly interpreted, could be construed to call for a study of the 

 Northeast Atlantic site as well as dump sites used previously by the U.S. Such a 

 study would constitute a valuable addition to the overall body of knowledge on 

 ocean disposal of radioactive materials. Therefore we warmly support its objectives. 



As noted, there has been progress recently in efforts to encourage a thorough 

 review of the effects of dumping practices at the Northeast Atlantic site. A study 

 such as that called for in H.R. 8119 would be helpful if it effectively complemented, 

 and was carried out in cooperation with, the NEA program. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. 



That is not very encouraging testimony, in many respects. You 

 do not have to persuade this particular subcommittee of what you 

 call your philosophical underpinning, namely, "that we should take 

 no irreversible actions which might destroy resources for future 

 generations." 



That is precisely our concern. As you know, there are some 

 mistakes in dealing with the oceans, that you simply cannot make 

 twice, and that is what we are most concerned about here. 



Regarding your own concerns about the inadequacy of interna- 

 tional existing arrangements and ways in which they are less 

 satisfactory than our own domestic legislation with respect to 

 ocean dumping, you say at the bottom of page 4 that, ''the total 

 radioactivity of materials dumped, however, is significant"— speak- 

 ing of the Northeast Atlantic at this point— "and it increased this 

 year." 



