42 
Coastal Zone Management Plan." This requirement is 
inappropriate for several reasons. First, it is not 
consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, since 
any ocean dumping site meeting international site selec- 
tion criteria may be far beyond the three mile breadth 
of state coastal zones. A determination of consistency 
with state Coastal Zone Management Plans would only be 
required for disposal activities "directly affecting” 
the coastal zone. Second, under current regulations 
implementing the CZMA, it is the federal agency involved 
that determines whether a federal activity directly 
affects a state Coastal Zone (15 CFR 930.33). Ifa 
state disagrees, it can request that the federal agency 
make a determination as to whether the proposed action 
is consistent with the state plan (15 CFR 930.35) and if 
both the state and the federal agency disagree, 15 CFR 
930.36 provides a mediation process. On the other hand, 
the proposed paragraph (F) would alter the current proc- 
ess by requiring "each affected state” to agree that a 
disposal action is consistent with its plan. The term 
“affected state" is not defined, and could be broadly 
interpreted to mean any state on a coastline, even though 
the state would not be directly affected by the disposal 
action. Thus, in effect, this would give any coastal 
state veto power over any ocean disposal of radioactive 
material off that coast. 
The bill also contains a provision which would allow 
a writ of mandamus action in Federal district court to 
compel the Administrator to implement the site designa- 
tion provisions of the bill "in a timely manner”. We 
share the concerns of the EPA that this provision could 
create undesirable results and is unnecessary in light of 
the adequacy of existing civil remedies. 
This report has been coordinated within the Depart- 
ment of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense. 
