486 



ago, absent highly acceptable land-based repositories, the oceans 

 will receive increasing considerations as a disposal medium — if for 

 no other reason than "out of sight, out of mind" limited constituen- 

 cy appeal. 



There has been some discussion of the legality of high-level 

 seabed emplacement. While there is some apparent disagreement 

 within our Government as to the legality of seabed emplacement, 

 my reading and the reading of those groups who signed on to this 

 testimony, based primarily on my interpretation of the treaty and 

 language therein, is that under the London Dumping Convention 

 seabed emplacement is prohibited. 



Domestically, under the Ocean Dumping Act, it is the view that 

 has been expressed here, as well as in the 1978 hearings before this 

 subcommittee that seabed emplacement is prohibited. 



Some very preliminary work directed at assessing international 

 and domestic legal issues associated with seabed emplacement of 

 high-level waste is presently being done under DOE's seabed dis- 

 posal program. Under that SDP work schedule, DOE might recom- 

 mend statutory changes in the early 1990's of our domestic and 

 international law to affirm the legality of seabed emplacement. 



Contrary to the implication of Congressman Forsythe's question 

 to DOE witness Sheldon Meyers, we agree with that scheduling. 

 We believe that no changes in the controlling domestic and inter- 

 national laws should be considered for the foreseeable future, since 

 it would be premature to review such legal principles prior to 

 determining that emplacement is environmentally and technically 

 sound. 



Listed is a few concerns and recommendations in my prepared 

 testimony. They are set out more fully there and I will briefly 

 highlight them now. 



DOE's seabed disposal program received funding of over $5 mil- 

 lion in fiscal year 1980. In my prepared testimony I have shown 

 the projection of funding for the next several fiscal years, which by 

 1986, if their budget request is granted, would be $32 million. 



The infusion of significant sums of money into the SDP raises 

 several concerns about its current structure and activities. It is 

 questionable whether sufficient cost and environmental compari- 

 sons of land versus ocean options have been made. In my prepared 

 testimony I have cited the London Dumping Convention; I have 

 cited EPA's domestic regulations, and made reference to another 

 international set of negotiations involving incineration at sea, that 

 showed the need to look at land versus ocean and the need to make 

 the preferential judgment for land, unless you could show that it 

 was more harmful than turning to the ocean. 



I think that type of comparison needs to be made now for seabed 

 emplacement in more detail than it has. 



The second concern, it seems quite possible that no clear "stop- 

 program" points will emerge as the SDP unfolds. Specific activities 

 to be conducted under the four different phases of the SDP, as Dr. 

 Charlie Hollister laid out, along with Rip Anderson earlier today, 

 overlap in time, so that the phases themselves do not embody 

 definitive program points. 



