307 



Position of Department of Energy on the London Convention 



The Committee requested DOE's position as to whether the London Ocean Dump- 

 ing Convention (Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of 

 Wastes and Other Matter) prohibits the deep seabed emplacement of high level 

 radioactive wastes. The Convention does not deal expressly with sub-seabed disposal. 

 Moreover, the ambiguity of key provisions allows arguments supporting or rejecting 

 inclusion of sub-seabed disposal within the Convention's scope. Article IV, Section 

 (l){a), as supplemented by Annex I of the Convention, prohibits the "dumping" of 

 high level radioactive waste, which is "defined on public health, biological, or other 

 grounds, by the competent international body in this field at present, the Interna- 

 tional Atomic Energy Agency, as unsuitable for dumping at sea." Current standards 

 are contained in IAEA Document INFCIRC 205-addendum 1/Rev. 1. As defined in 

 the Convention, "dumping" includes disposal "at sea." The "at sea" phrase may be 

 interpreted to refer to the locus of the dumping operation or the final position of the 

 materials disposed of. In our view, the better reading of the Convention is that it 

 does not prohibit sub-seabed disposal which is carried out in a technically satisfac- 

 tory manner calculated to isolate the waste from the marine environment. The 

 State Department maintains that the strict legal scope of the Convention in this 

 respect cannot be determined until the technical options are clarified. In this 

 respect, we note that EPA, in a recent memorandum by its General Counsel, took 

 the view that the Convention's ambiguity should be resolved in favor of prohibiting 

 sub-seabed disposal of high level radioactive material. 



We have been unable to discover any evidence that the drafters of the Conven- 

 tion, which was a U.S. initiative, gave any consideration to sub-seabed disposal. As a 

 practical matter, the parties of the Convention would probably disagree as to the 

 Convention's coverage of sub-seabed disposal. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. 



Mr. Pritchard? 



Mr. Pritchard. Do you have a memorandum of understanding 

 with NOAA and EPA for research in this whole area? 



Mr. Meyers. We are working with them very closely, but we do 

 not have in existence a memorandum of understanding. We are 

 working toward one. 



Mr. Pritchard. Do you think you will have one? 



Mr. Meyers. I would expect so. 



Mr. Pritchard. It would be helpful, would it not? 



Mr. Meyers. Yes, it generally is helpful to outline areas of re- 

 sponsibilities, and who does what. 



Mr. Pritchard. It seems to me that it would be a helpful thing, 

 and I am sorry you do not have one already, but I know these 

 things do not come easily. 



That is all I have. 



Mr. Studds. Ms. Mikulski? 



Ms. Mikulski. Mr. Meyers, you talked about these geologic for- 

 mulations in which there is potential for placing nuclear waste. 



Why do you think the Earth — or what is the scientific explana- 

 tion for why the Earth is currently formulating these rock depos- 

 its? 



I will tell you why I am asking. I find when the Earth forms 

 something, it is usually the way to her own protection, the genera- 

 tion of new life. 



Therefore, my second question will be if we start putting this 

 nuclear gunk in these rocks, if it could not further upset some 

 balance in the Earth 



Mr. Meyers. That is the essence of the research and development 

 program underway now. We know that those areas have been 

 geologically stable for millions of years, and in several more mil- 

 lions of years they will form into sedimentary rock. 



