624 



-21- 



environment take the pos-' 'on that others who question such 

 activity must prove that it is harmful. We believe that such an 

 approach is inappropriate, as a general principle, because all 

 too often it is only the proponent of the activity that is in a 

 position to perform the needed risk assessments studies. It is 

 especially inappropriate, however, when the activity at issue 

 involves substances as highly toxic and persistent as radioactive 

 wastes. Given the potential damage that such substances can 

 cause, we would strongly recommend that the U.S. delegation and 

 others support and adopt a more responsible burden of proof 

 approach, i.e., that prospective radioactive waste dumpers come 

 forward with authoritative evidence which clearly shows that 

 dumping is safe . It is our view that such an approach reflects a 

 consistent extension of our domestic Ocean Dumping Act 

 requirements, including those contained in the disposal impact 

 assessment amendments. 



Separate from these terms of reference-related concerns, it 

 is essential that the selection of U.S. delegation members for 

 the Eighth Meeting and the intersessional meeting (as well as 

 other Convention-related meetings) be based on the individuals' 

 knowledge and familiarity with the issues at hand, and an 

 understanding and acceptance of applicable U.S. laws. 

 Unfortunately, some of the U.S. spokespersons at the Seventh 

 Consultative Meeting were either not well versed in the issues, 

 and/or appeared unwilling to accept and constructively make use 

 of the substantial similarities between our domestic moratorium 

 and the international moratorium/scientific review that was under 



