567 



III. Conclusion 



It must be concluded that the Ocean Dumping Convention is at best 

 ambiguous with regard to sub-seabed disposal. As both the NOAA and EPA 

 opinions indicate, this ambiguity likely means that political considera- 

 tions will be important in deciding what institutional regime will apply 

 to sub-seabed disposal. The United States has already, through the Seabed 

 Working Group of the NEA, taken steps to obtain the cooperation of some of 

 the other major parties to the Ocean Dumping Convention. If such efforts 

 are successful both within the NEA group and the parties to the Convention, 

 then appropriate organizational channels could be followed to achieve 

 institutional acceptance of sub-seabed disposal and an appropriate regime 

 for it under the Convention. If the agreement of the other parties to the 

 existing multilateral arrangements is not obtained — for instance if the 

 other parties seek to pursue other ocean disposal strategies such as direct 

 dumping of HLW — then the Convention would no longer provide an adequate 

 framework for discussion of this issue and general principles of interna- 

 tional law would have to be addressed. 



Good models of international organizations that might provide the 

 technical and administrative support for the implementation of a sub-seabed 

 disposal program do exist. These include the NEA and the Multilateral 

 Consultation and Surveillance Mechanism of the OECD Council. The amend- 

 ment of the Ocean Dumping Convention to include control of and provision 

 of technical guidance for the incineration of hazardous chemicals at sea 

 was described above as an example of how the institutional implementation 

 of a sub-seabed disposal program might occur. 



