548 



latter document through agency legal channels.) 



International treaty and U.S. law currently ban at-sea 

 disposal of high-level radioactive wastes by deep-ocean 

 emplacement. However, this disposal option should be 

 evaluated and compared with land disposal options for 

 future use in any overall comparative study of methods 

 for nuclear waste disposal. 27 



EPA has also issued a legal opinion on the applicability of the Ocean 

 Dumping Convention to sub-seabed disposal. EPA 's lawyers, while conced- 

 ing that the language of the Convention itself was ambiguous, concluded 

 that "the better view" was that the Convention prohibits sub-seabed dispo- 

 sal. In reaching this conclusion, EPA argued that a reference to U.N. 

 General Assembly Resolution 2749 (XXV) in the preamble to the Convention 

 (in which the resolution is "recalled" by the parties to the Convention) 

 justifies the view that the Convention was intended to prevent all pollution 

 of the oceans, including the seabed itself. The General Assembly resolution 

 spoke of prevention of pollution to the marine environment and protection 

 and consejTvation of the natural resources of the "area" (i.e., the seabed 

 and ocean floor and its subsoil) and prevention of damage to the flora and 



fauna of the marine environment. (The United States voted in favor of 



^- ,■ 29 

 this resolution.) It is unclear whether these provisions are binding, 



are an authoritative guide to interpretation of the Ocean Dumping Convention, 

 or even apply to sub-seabed disposal. Nevertheless EPA found in them suffi- 

 cient support to ascribe a protective interpretation to the Convention. . 

 Of course, this application is not directly supported in the operative 

 terms of the Convention or in any material accompanying the Convention. 

 Indeed, wor)c done by the IAEA shortly after the Convention was concluded 

 sought to exclude sub-seabed disposal since it was thought by IAEA that 



