686 



Mr. D' Amours. Thank you. 



I want to thank the entire panel for being as terse, laconic or 

 whatever, as they have been, and staying within the time con- 

 straints imposed. 



I am sure there will be several questions. I would like to begin, 

 only because we ended there, Mr. Lawrence, with you on this fund- 

 ing. 



For 1985, 1986, and 1987, what funding do you anticipate for the 

 subseabed program? 



Mr. Lawrence. We project that the U.S. contribution to this ac- 

 tivity in the outyears from 1985 through 1990 would be on the 

 order of $12 million a year. Those numbers haven't been deter- 

 mined yet but our outyear projections do indicate a level of ap- 

 proximately $12 million per year 1985 through 1990. 



Mr. D'Amours. Thank you very much. 



Mary Rose, on page 2 of your testimony you discussed the Span- 

 ish resolution that came up at the London Dumping Convention, 

 and you say that we were unable to support the resolution on the 

 grounds that it prejudged the outcome of the study. That is, that 

 there was a presumption that there should be a moratorium or 

 halt and there was a real danger in low-level disposal. 



I was at the consultative meeting in London with you, as you 

 know. In view of the fact that the purpose of the Convention is to 

 protect the marine environment by taking, according to article I, 

 and I quote: "* * * all practical steps to prevent the pollution of 

 the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to 

 create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and 

 marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legiti- 

 mate uses of the sea." 



Don't you think that the burden then, given this language in ar- 

 ticle I, should be to establish the safety of such dumping before one 

 proceeds, rather than, as is EPA and State's position, at least at 

 the London Dumping Convention, which was that the burden of 

 proving harm was upon those who seek to prevent dumping? 



Who, in your opinion, should have the burden of proof? 



Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, perhaps my statement in its effort 

 to be succinct was too succinct. There were actually several reasons 

 for the United States position on this Spanish resolution, and I can 

 go into those if you 



Mr. D'Amours. This is one of the ones that you mentioned. I 

 would like you to respond to this one. 



Ms. Hughes. Under the terms of the London Dumping Conven- 

 tion, low-level radioactive waste disposal is allowed. It has been 

 consistently allowed as an annex 2 substance. Now, your question I 

 think is a broad, philosophical one of where the burden of proof 

 ought to lie in putting substances either in annex 1 or annex 2 and 

 I don't feel that I am technically qualified to answer that particu- 

 lar point. 



But I can say, with respect to the Spanish resolution, that proce- 

 durally the United States delegation had a problem with what we 

 felt was in substance an attempt to change the way the parties to 

 the London Dumping Convention could deal with annex 1 and 

 annex 2 substances without going through the procedural require- 

 ments contained in the terms of the convention itself and in previ- 



