534 



The choice of a repository for HLW will be responsive to international 

 legal and political considerations in addition to technical criteria. For 

 example, the Antarctic Treaty currently prohibits disposal of radioactive 

 wastes in Antarctica, and it is unlikely that an effort will be made to 

 overcome this prohibition unless there are compelling reasons to do so, 

 especially in view of the United States' interest in obtaining a satisfac- 

 tory regime for the allocation and management of Antarctic resources. 

 Similarly, sub-seabed disposal must be seen in connection with legal devel- 

 opments in the law of the sea (LOS) and also in connection with the politi- 

 cal questions of international equity, linked with the call for a New 

 International Economic Order (NIEO) , which might be raised in any attempt 

 to use an area of the global commons for exclusive national use. Several 

 international political factors could, however, also tend to favor sub- 

 seabed disposal. Sub-seabed disposal could be promoted by the United 

 States as a comprehensive solution to the problem of ocean disposal of 

 nuclear wastes, notably by the members of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) . 

 Sub-seabed disposal, administered through an appropriate international 

 regime and open to all nations, could also be viewed as a service provided 

 by the advanced industrial states to LDC customers, and hence as a counter 

 the other way, in negotiating the equity claims mentioned above. Domestic 

 political considerations may also be important in choosing a HLW disposal 

 strategy. Different regions within the advanced industrial nations may, 

 oppose their use for disposal sites. The problem of local acquiescence 

 could become particularly acute in connection with any international organ- 

 ization of the nuclear fuel cycle which included acceptance for disposal 

 of HLW attributable to nuclear programs in other countries. Both these 



