576 



Thank you again for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely 

 information on this increasingly important and controversial area of concern. 

 With kind regards. 

 Sincerely, 



Gerry E. Studds, 

 Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography. 



Enclosure. 



December 11, 1980. 



Dr. Charles D. Hollister, 



Senior Scientist and Dean of Graduate Studies, 



Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass. 



Dear Dr. Hollister: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the 

 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I wish to thank you for appear- 

 ing as a witness at our November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the 

 oceans. 



I am enclosing several follow-up questions the answers to which I would like to be 

 able to include in the record of the hearings. 



Thank you again for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely 

 information on this increasingly important and controversial area of concern. 



With kind regards. 

 Sincerely, 



Gerry E. Studds, 

 Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography. 



Enclosure. 



1. What specific findings might cause you to make the determination that the 

 subseabed option is unacceptable? For example, if after extensive research, there 

 still remain doubts about the ability of sediments to act as a barrier, would that be 

 a logical program termination point? 



2. (a) Please summarize if you can, the subseabed disposal research program of 

 other countries, and explain how they compare in scope and funding to that of the 

 U.S. 



(b) Do you believe that as long as any nation is considering subseabed disposal, 

 the U.S. should be researching this option? 



3. To the best of your knowledge, what would be the scientific advantages (predict- 

 ability, safety, monitoring, etc.) of subseabed disposal over land-based disposal, and 

 vice versa? 



4. How deep in the sediment would you project the waste cannisters should be 

 emplaced? Isn't there a trade-off between isolation and safety (greater depth), and 

 retrievability (more shallow burial)? Is retrievability being investigated? 



5. (a) Given the extremely slow maturation rate of some deep sea organisms, how 

 is it possible to measure in an experimental framework the potential effects of 

 radionuclides on such creatures? 



(b) What research is being performed on the possibility that biological mecha- 

 nisms could influence the movement of radionuclides?. 



6. If radioactive wastes were to escape from both the cannister and the sediment, 

 do we know enough about deep sea currents to predict accurately the fate of 

 radionuclides in the ocean? 



Sandia Laboratories, 

 Albuquerque, N. Mex., January 20, 1981. 



Hon. Gerry E. Studds, 

 Subcommittee on Oceanography, 

 Washington, D.C. 



Dear Sir: Enclosed are answers to the questions in your December 11 letter for 

 inclusion in the record of the November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in 

 the oceans. The responses of Dr. Hollister are included in these answers. 



We were grateful to have the opportunity to describe the project. If you or any 

 other members of congress have any questions about the subseabed program we 

 would be most willing to provide answers or an overview of the program. 

 Sincerely, 



D. R. Anderson, 

 Supervisor, Seabed Programs Division 4536. 



1. The finding that the deep sea sediments would not prevent the release of 

 radioactive wastes to the environment, below the standards to be set by EPA, would 



