41 
The bill also allows a one-house veto by Congress 
of any permit issued by the EPA for ocean disposal of 
low-level radioactive material. This proposal merely 
increases the uncertainty surrounding any effort to 
dispose of low-level radioactive material in the ocean, 
and is unnecesary, considering the requirements already 
mandated by the Ocean Dumping Act and NEPA and their 
implementing regulations governing such disposal. A one- 
house veto provision adds one more obstacle which could 
be used to thwart even the most conscientious compliance 
with existing regulations. Moreover, we understand that 
the Department of Justice believes that the legislative 
veto provision is unconstitutional. 
In addition, the bill establishes a number of new 
administrative requirements which appear to be already 
covered by existing EPA regulations or which duplicate 
actions that would be covered under NEPA. In some cases, 
these requirements are inappropriate, specifically: 
(1) Paragravh (E) of subsection (j)(1) requires a 
“plan for the removal or containment of the disposed 
nuclear material if the container leaks or decomposes." 
This provision follows paragraph (D) which requires “an 
analysis of the resulting environmental and economic 
conditions if the containers fail to contain the radio- 
active waste materials when initially deposited at the 
specific site." The current law and its implementina 
regulations already cover this subject adequately. It 
should also be araoted that some of the most environ- 
mentally preferable sites for ocean disposal which 
comply with international site criteria are in very 
deep water where removal or containment of the disposed 
material would be extremely expensive or not even tech- 
nically feasible in some cases. Thus, the proposed 
provisions could rule these sites out, despite their 
technical merits. 
(2) Paragraph (F) of subsection (j)(1) requires 
"a determination by each affected state whether the 
proposed action is consistent with its approved 
11-267 O—82——4 
