481 



-18- 

 1981, DOE and NRC should review existing and alternative low- 

 level waste disposal techniques and determine whether any should 

 be adopted in the near future. Given EPA's regulatory responsibility 

 in this area, it seems obvious that that agency should be one of 

 the key participg.nts in arriving at such decisions. 



CONCLUSION 



The oceans — which cover nearly three-fourths of the 

 world's surface — occupy a critical role in maintaining a 

 livable environment. Given the extremely hazardous nature 

 of radioactive wastes, their disposal into our oceans is 

 fraught with potentially irreparable consequences. National 

 policies that determine the manner in which we seek to preserve, 

 protect, and utilize our vital marine resources must be 

 rationally advanced, subjected to continuing and rigorous 

 public review, and based on definitive environmental and 

 technical studies that incorporate support activities on land. 

 Until all these concerns have been met, there should be no serious 

 thought given to changing our present U.S. policy opposing ocean 

 disposal or seabed emplacement of any radioactive wastes. Assuming 

 these concerns are one day met, all the variables associated with 

 a comprehensive nuclear waste management policy (e.g., economic, 

 social, environmental and political considerations) must then be 

 factored into any decision concerning the ocean alternative. 



