361 



VII. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would 



Be Involved in the Proposed Action 



In some instances the Convention might add. somewhat, to the financial costs of 

 disposal and to the need to commit more resources to the development of land 

 disposal technology. Moreover, for the reasons cited, the Convention might 

 intensify the commitment of land areas for disposal operations. However, the 

 Convention would still permit the disposal of w^astes into the ocean under regu- 

 lated conditions that would tend to preserve its long-term beneficial use. 



VIII. Alternatives to the Proposed Convention 



There are two major alternatives in theory to U.S. ratification of the London 

 Convention: 2) reliance solely on the new U.S. legislation governing ocean 

 dumping; b) possible expansion of the Convention to cover types of marine 

 pollution not presently covered. Neither of these options is recommended as 

 politically desirable or feasible at this time since they would place the progress 

 achieved in carrying the Convention to its current stage in jeopardy and would 

 appear inconsistent with the leading role that the U.S. has taken in pushing this 

 initiative. The ability of the U.S. to induce other states to regulate their ocean 

 dumping practices would be placed in jeopardy and future progress in this area 

 thrown open to question. 



A. Reliance on Domestic Law 



As indicated, the Marine Protection Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 — 

 Public Law 92-532 empowers the Federal Government to prohibit all dumping 

 of certain materials and to de.signate safe disposal sites for others. This legisla- 

 tion was needed to control dumping in U.S. coastal waters, and will be an essen- 

 tial part of the fulfillment of United States responsibilities under the Convention. 



However, the Act only regulates dumping in U.S. waters and the contiguous 

 zone, and the transportation of material from the United States for dumping 

 into the high seas. It does not, and of course could not, regulate the dumping of 

 foreign-generated wastes by foreign ships outside of the jurisdiction of the 

 United States. Toxic wastes might therefore continue to be dumped which could 

 affect marine life in U.S. waters through the movement of currents or migratory 

 species, and generally degrade the environment of the oceans, which is inextri- 

 cably linked with that of our coastal waters. Furthermore, unregulated dump- 

 ing by foreign industrial competitors might unfairly disadvantage American 

 industries complying with reasonable controls over the disposal of their waste 

 product!?. 



Therefore, while the passage of PL-92-532 has been very desirable and should 

 go far toward reducing the amount of U.S. wastes dumped into the oceans, it 

 cannot replace effective international agreements to regulate dumping. Failure 

 by the United States to supi>ort and enter into a dumping convention may well 

 destroy its pro.spects, and might cause some countries to withhold participation 

 in regional dumping arrangements for fear of suffering a competitive disadvan- 

 tage from countries outside of the region. 



B. Proposed Expansion of the Convention To Cover Additional Types of Pollu- 



tion or Activities 



Some observers undoubtedly would have preferred to have seen the Convention 

 accord the parties greater flexibility to dumii — even the materials listed in Annex 

 I — if a careful l)alancing of all factoi;s .suggests that such a disposal would be 

 more attractive economically as well as environmentally than land disposal. 

 Others may feel, as evidenced from comments received on the earlier draft 

 impact statement, that the London Convention accords the parties too much 

 discretion. Moreover, still others may feel that additional sources of marine 

 pollution should have been covered in the initial Treaty. 



1. Feasibility of Covering Additional Sources of Pollution. — Admittedly the 

 dumping at .«ea of waters from vessels and aircraft comprises only a proportion 

 (an estimated 10%) of the pollutive materials entering the ocean. Deliberate 

 and accidental discharges from vessels and installations of various .sorts located 

 in the sea, effluents carried by rivers and land outfalls into the oceans, and fall- 

 out from land-generated atmospheric pollution account for the vast preponder- 

 ance of marine pollution. The United States therefore might liave proposed ex- 

 pansion of the Convention to deal with discharges from one or more of these 

 sources. 



The Convention, for example, applies to "any deliberate disposal at sea of mat- 

 ter from vessels or aircraft, including matter transported to fixed or floating 



