PAGENO="0001"
~O(~~2S ZZ~
OCEANOGRAPHY MISCELLANEOUS-PART 2
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS
ON
OCEAN BIOMASS CONVERSION OVERSIGHT
SEPTEMBER 26, 1979
OCEAN POLLUTION PLANNING AUTHORIZATION AND
OVERSIGHT-H.R. 6615
FEBRUARY 29, 1980
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DRILLING ACTIVITIES OVERSIGHT
AUGUST 26, 1980
OCEAN ENERGY OVERSIGHT
SEPTEMBER 25, 1980
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL OVERSIGHT
NOVEMBER 20, 1980
Serial No. 96-53
S
Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
6~848 0 WASHINGTON: 1980
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
JOHN M. MURPHY, New York, Chairman
THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio'
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MARIO BIAGGI, New York
GLENN M. ANDERSON, California
E (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, Texas
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi
CARROLL HUBBARD, JR., Kentucky
DON BONKER, Washington
LES AuCOIN, Oregon
NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
DAVID E. BONIOR, Michigan
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
MICHAEL OZZIE MYERS, Pennsylvania'
JOE WYArF, Texas
MIKE LOWRY, Washington
EARL HU~N'O, Florida
EDWARD J. STACK, Florida
BRIAN DONNELLY, Massachusetts
LES AuCOIN, Oregon
NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JOE WYATF, Texas
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey
DAVID E. BONIOR, Michigan
MIKE LOWRY, Washington
EARL HUTTO, Florida
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
EDWARD J. STACK, Florida
JOHN M. MURPHY, New York
(Ex Officio)
PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR., California
GENE SNYDER, Kentucky
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
DAVID C. TREEN, Louisiana'
JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington
DON YOUNG, Alaska
ROBERT E. BAUMAN, Maryland
NORMAN F. LENT, New York
DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
THOMAS B. EVANS, JR., Delaware
PAUL S. TRIBLE, JR., Virginia
ROBERT W. DAVIS, Michigan
WILLIAM CARNEY, New York
MELVIN H. EVANS, Virgin Islands
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana4
RICHARD D. NORLING, Staff Director
DONALD F. LIPPINCOTr, Professional Staff
JEFFREY R. PIKE, Professional Staff
CURTIS L. MARSHALL, Minority Professional Staff
1 Became Acting Chairman on June 18, 1980.
`Served until October 2, 1980.
`Resigned March 10, 1980.
~ Elected to committee March 10, 1980.
CARL L. PERIAN, Chief of Staff
LAWRENCE J. O'BRIEN, Jr., Chief Counsel
JULIA P. PERIAN, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JACK E. SANDS, Minority Counsel
SUBCOMMIrFEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts, Chairman
JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
NORMAN F. LENT, New York
DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
WILLIAM CARNEY, New York
PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR., California
(Ex Officio)
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
OCEAN BIOMASS CONVERSION OVERSIGHT
Page
Hearing held September 26 1979 1
Statement of
Adams Martin R Deputy Program Director Solar and Geothermal
Energy Department of Energy 2
Prepared statement 3
Brrnkhuis Boudewijn research professor Marine Sciences Research
Center State University of New York Stony Brook on behalf of Don
Squires 64
Flowers Dr Ab director gas supply research Gas Research Institute 29
Neushul Michael professor of marine botany University of California
Santa Barbara and president Neushul Mariculture Inc Goleta Calif 56
Prepared statement 59
Ryther John H senior scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Mass 41
San Martin Dr Robert L director Division of Distributed Solar Tech
nology Department of Energy 2
Squires Don director New York Sea Grant Institute State University of
New York and Cornell University presented by Boudewijn Brinkhuis 64
Tompkins Alan biomass program manager General Electric Co 29
Additional material supplied
Energy Department
Carbon dioxide pollution 29
Energy projected from wood burning in 1985 9
How anaerobic digestion fermentation and pyrolysis compare in
extracting energy from ocean biomass 25
Listing of DOE aquatic biomass funding 8
Production of grain alcohol 20
Questions on waste digestors 28
Ryther John H Growth and yield of aquatic plants 46
Communication submitted
Tompkins Alan N Letter of October 3 1979 to Gas Research Institute
with attachment 35
OCEAN POLLUTION PLANNING AUTHORIZATION AND OVERSIGHT
Hearing held February 29 1980 71
Text of
Executive Communication No 3581 74
HR. 6615 72
Statement of:
Brown Dr Dail W Acting Director National Marine Pollution Program
Office NOAA Department of Commerce 77
Swanson Capt Lawrence Director Office of Marine Pollution Assess
ment NOAA Department of Commerce 77
Walsh James P (Bud) Deputy Administrator NOAA Department of
Commerce and chairman Interagency Committee on Ocean Pollution
Research and Development and Monitoring 77
Prepared statement 80
Additional material supplied
NOAA
Marine pollution program funding summary 83
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
`V
Additional material supplied-Continued
NOAA-Continued Page
Question from Mr. Hughes and answer 91
Questions of Mr. Murphy and answers 89
Questions from Mr. Pritchard and answers 92
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DRILLING ACTIVITIES OVERSIGHT
Hearing held August 26, 1980 95
Statement of:
Christensen, Mike, Marine Environmental Division, U.S. Coast Guard 97
Compton, R. Sarah, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency 115
Corbett, Capt. Charles, Chief, Marine Environmental Division, U.S. Coast
Guard 97
Pritchard, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington 96
Additional material supplied:
Coast Guard:
Council on Environmental Quality-National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Revision 151
Fisheries Research Technical Report-Research Into Toxicity Evalua-
tion and Control Criteria of Oil Dispersants 181
Questions of Mr. Forsythe and Mr. Pritchard with answers 145
Questions of Mr. Studds and answers 144
Tankers spills with Coast Guard response 149
Communications submitted:
Andrus, Cecil D.: Letter of August 19, 1980, to Hon. J. Bennett Johnston... 130
Compton, R. Sarah: Letter of September 26, 1980, to Hon. Gerry E.
Studds 191
Forsythe, Hon. Edwin B.: Letter of September 4, 1980, to R Sarah Comp-
ton 191
Hayes, J. B.:
Letter of July 16, 1980, to Hon. Thomas L. Ashley 143
Letter of October 15, 1980, to Hon. Edwin B. Forsythe and Hon. Joel
Pritchard with enclosures 144
OCEAN ENERGY OVERSIGHT
Hearing held September 25, 1980 195
Statement of:
Burr, Ralph E., Division of Hydroelectric Resource Development, Office of
Resource Applications, Department of Energy 196
Higgins, Thomas P., manager, Ocean Energy Systems, Lockheed Missiles
& Space Co., Inc 228
Katz, Dr. Maurice J., Director, Office of Solar Power Applications, De-
partment of Energy 196
Richards, William E., Acting Director, Ocean Energy Systems Division,
Department of Energy 196
Schremp, Edward Jay, former senior defense research scientist (prepared
statement) 241
Additional material supplied:
Energy Department: Charts accompanying prepared statement of Dr.
Maurice J. Katz 204
Higgins, Thomas P.: DAM-ATOLL-A System for Extracting Energy
from Ocean Waves 232
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL OVERSIGHT
Hearing held November 20, 1980 247
Statement of:
Anderson, Dr. D. Richard, program manager, seabed programs division,
Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, N.M 315
Prepared statement 323
Anderson, Hon. Glenn M., a Representative in Congress from the State of
California 265
Prepared statement 269
PAGENO="0005"
V
Statement of-Continued
Brown, Leslie H., Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans
and International, Environmental, and Scientific Affairs, Department Page
of State 249
Prepared statement 252
Burton, John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Califor-
nia 507
Charlow, Ms. Robin, law student 484
Curtis, Clifton E., Center for Law and Social Policy, Washington, D.C 484
Prepared statement 464
Dyer, Robert S., senior staff oceanographer, Office of Radiation Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 341
Prepared statement 431
Eissler, Fred, Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference 520
Golich, Conrad F., consultant to Project Tektite, San Francisco, Calif 492
Hollister, Dr. Charles D., senior scientist, Dean of Graduate Studies,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass 315
Prepared statement 323
Mattson, Dr. Roger J., Director, Surveillance and Emergency Prepared-
ness Division, Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency 341
Prepared statement 353
Meyers, Sheldon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Waste Manage-
ment, U.S. Department of Energy 273
Prepared statement 299
O'Connor, Thomas, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ... 454
Ostenso, Ned A., Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research and Devel-
opment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. De-
partment of Commerce 454
Walsh, James P., Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 454
Additional material supplied:
Anderson, D. R.: Answers to questions submitted by Hon. Gerry E. Studds. 576
Energy Department:
Executive order establishing the State Planning Council on Radioac-
tive Waste Management 295
Position of Department of Energy on subseabed disposal 306
Position of Department of Energy on the London Convention 307
The disposal of the U.S.S. Seawoif reactor 303
The President's message to Congress on the national waste-manage-
ment program 275
The White House-Fact sheet on the President's program on radioac-
tive waste management 280
EPA:
EPA to survey deepsea radioactive waste dumpsite in Atlantic (EPA
Environmental News-June 19, 1978) 429
Fact sheet on ocean dumping of radioactive waste materials 358
Onboard corrosion analysis of a recovered nuclear waste container 391
Finn, Daniel P.: International Institutional Considerations for Sub-Seabed
Disposal of Radioactive Waste 531
Golich, Conrad F.:
Cartoon from the San Francisco Chronicle 506
Statement before Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Man-
agement 497
Statement before Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natu-
ral Resources of the Committee on Government Operations 493
Harvey, Thomas E.: Answers to questions submitted by Hon. Gerry E.
Studds 579
Smith, Craig F. and Jerry J. Cohen: Hazard assessment of the Farallon
Radioactive Waste Dumpsite 510
State Department:
List of parties to the London Dumping Convention as of November
1980 260
Tables pertaining to the dumping of radioactive materials at the
Northeast Atlantic site for the years 1978-80 255
PAGENO="0006"
VI
Additional material supplied-Continued
* State Department-Continued
Communications submitted: Page
Anderson, D. K: Letter of January 20, 1981, to Hon. Gerry E. Studds with
enclosure 576
Corash Michele Beigel Memorandum of February 25 1980 to Dr Donald
Oakley 345
Eissler Fred Letter of October 3 1980 to Hon Douglas Costle 522
Finn Daniel P Letter of December 16 1980 to Hon Gerry E Studds
with attachment 529
Harvey Thomas E Letter of February 10 1981 to Hon Gerry E Studds
with enclosure 579
Rogers, James A.: Memorandum of May 10, 1976, to Dr. William D. Rowe. 344
Smith, Craig F. and Jerry J. Cohen: Letter of December 24, 1980, to Hon.
Gerry E. Studds with enclosure 509
* Studds, Hon. Gerry E.:
Letter of December 8, 1980, to Dr. Roger J. Mattson with enclosure 575
Letter of December 11, 1980, to Dr. Charles D. Hollister with enclo-
sure 576
Letter of December 11 1980 to Dr D Richard Anderson with enclo
sure 575
Letter of December 16 1980 to Hon Edward Hidalgo with enclosure 579
PAGENO="0007"
OCEAN BIOMASS CONVERSION OVERSIGHT
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1979
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHy,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gerry E. Studds,
chairman, presiding.
Present: Representatives Studds, AuCoin, Hughes, Forsythe,
Pritchard, and Emery.
Staff present: Rich Norling, Don Lippincott, Diane Hull, Ann
Land, and Curt Marshall.
Mr. STUDDS. I understand the "Joint Chiefs" have made a grace-
ful retreat. The room is now ours.
The subcommittee will come to order.
Today marks our third hearing on renewable sources of energy
from the ocean. In past hearings, we have dealt with ocean thermal
energy conversion, a process whIch utilizes the temperature differ-
ence between warm surface waters and cold subsurface waters to
produce electricity. Today we will focus on ocean biomass conver-
sion, a process which is designed to convert seaweed into methane
gas.
Most Americans regard seaweed as simply a nuisance-~--who said
that? Speaking as someone who spent a large part of his youth
gathering seaweed, I think I will disregard those remarks.
Few of us realize that it has been commercially harvested off the
U.S. coast since the 1930's for use as a food additive and animal
feed supplement. Fewer still realize that seaweed could be used to
produce energy and that there could be a giant seaweed gasifica-
tion industry off our coasts before the year 2000.
Ocean biomass conversion is a process by which the solar energy
stored in a plant-like seaweed-is converted into a gaseous prod-
uct. The most likely method would be a process called anaerobic
digestion, which utilizes bacteria in an oxygen-free atmosphere to
convert waste materials into methane, a colorless, odorless gas,
already widely used as a substitute for natural gas. This process
would be somewhat like land-based biomass conversion which pro-
duces methane gas from useless garbage. Land biomass energy
conversion already fulfills a small, but growing portion of U.S.
energy demands and researchers believe ocean biomass energy
could one day provide double or triple the amount that land can
produce. The major difference is that commercial ocean biomass
conversion has not yet become a reality.
(1)
PAGENO="0008"
2
Since the harvesting of seaweed as a food source has been going
on for nearly 50 years, no new technological breakthroughs are
needed to bring this about. However, ocean "farms" of over 100
square miles might be necessary if we are to make cultivation for
energy purposes economically feasible. Obviously, this would create
a great many siting and space-use conflicts-issues we intend to
delve into today.
The major ongoing research and development project for ocean
biomass conversion is now being conducted by the Gas. Research
Institute (GRI), a nonprofit scientific research organization, in con-
junction with the Department of Energy. Thus far, their work has
focused on the energy potential of a large brown seaweed called
California giant kelp, one of the fastest growing plants in the
world. We will hear today about their progress as well as about
some of the problems they have encountered.
We will also hear from others who have successfully experiment-
ed with methods other than those employed by GRI, and with
seaweeds other than California giant kelp.
Important questions about methodology and about the nutrient
needs, diseases, and growing habits of seaweed will have to be
answered before the cultivation of seaweed for energy production
can reach a significant level.
Until these issues are resolved, the role which ocean biomass
conversion may one day play in our energy future will remain
highly speculative. However, it is clear that this form of energy
does have a great deal of potential, especially since the technology
needed for a major commercialization is already developed.
Given our dwindling energy supplies and increasing dependence
upon foreign sources of fuel, we as a nation cannot afford to
investigate alternative energy sources in as plodding and methodi-
cal a fashion as we could 10 or 20 years ago. The major purpose of
our hearings today-and those we have already held on ocean
energy-has not only been to investigate the feasibility and poten-
tial of these emerging technologies, but also to encourage DOE to
hasten the development of those which appear the most promising.
Our research to this point indicates that ocean biomass conversion
may deserve a boost from the Federal Government.
I would just warn the witnesses that the House is in session. We
will undoubtedly be interrupted by a series of votes as the House
attempts to undo what most of us have been doing.
Our first witness is Mr. Martin R. Adams, Deputy Program
Director, Solar and Geothermal Energy, Department of Energy.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN R. ADAMS, DEPUTY PROGRAM DIREC-
TOR, SOLAR AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ROBERT L. SAN MARTIN, DI-
RECTOR, DIVISION OF DISTRIBUTED SOLAR TECHNOLOGY
Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Accompanying me today
is Dr. Robert San Martin, who is the Director of the Distributed
Solar Division, under my direction, whose activities also include
the entire biomass area.
If it is agreeable with you, sir, I would like to make summary
comments, and submit for the record my detailed statement.
PAGENO="0009"
3
Mr. STUDDS. Your statement will appear in the record in its
entirety.
[The following was received for the record:]
STATEMENT OF MARTIN R. ADAMS, DEPUTY PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR SOLAR, GEO-
THERMAL, ELECTRIC AND STORAGE SYSTEMS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY
TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today
to discuss the Biomass Energy Systems program of the Department of Energy with
particular emphasis on the aquatic biomass component of the program.
Biomass is a term we use to describe organic material used for energy; the term,
includes animal wastes and plants, both terrestrial and aquatic. Biomass can be
burned directly to produce heat energy or it can be converted to fuels which replace
petroleum and natural gas. In 1977 about 1.8 Quads/yr or 2.4 percent of the United
States' energy supplies were obtained from biomass sources. This is primarily from
direct combustion of wood wastes in the forest products industry.
The potential United Sttes biomass resource base has been estimated to be as
large as 10 to 15 Quads/yr on a sustainable basis. This would include forestry
residues and wastes, agricultural residues and wastes, and crops, grown for their
energy value. This places biomass as a significant energy resource for the future.
The Domestic Policy Review (DPR) of Solar Energy, and other studies, have estimat-
ed 1985 levels of biomass usage in the range of 2.6 Quads and a total of 3-7 Quads/
yr are estimated by 2000. This makes biomass potentially the single most important
renewable solar energy contributor between now and 2000.
It is this exciting potential that has led to an increased emphasis on biomass
energy within the Department of Energy during the past few years. As an example,
the budget of the Biomass Energy Systems program increased by a factor of 13 in
just three years, from $4.5 M in fiscal year 1976 to $58 M in fiscal year 1980.
The biomass program objective is to develop biomass resources and related con-
version technologies for displacing U.S. use of petroleum and natural gas. In pursuit
of this objective the program has established four major lines of activity:
To perform research and development of innovative systems;
To develop production techniques to increase the resource base of biomass and
decrease biomass feedstock costs;
To develop bioconversion systems such as fermentation to make alcohol and
anaerobic digestion to produce gas and by-products; and
To develop thermochemical conversion processes which produce petroleum substi-
tutes such as heavy oils. This work also includes direct combustion of wood, to
produce heat for steam and for electricity production.
During the next two decades, wood and agricultural crops, residues and wastes
will provide the vast majority of this biomass material. However, as demand for
biomass resources increases, there will be increased competition for prime forest
and farm land to produce higher value products such as lumber, paper and food
crops. Increased competition for land, as well as fresh water to irrigate the land
may well be the limit on the ability of biomass to contribute to U.S. energy needs.
In such a circumstance, alternative sources of biomass such as the ocean as well as
ponds, swamps, and other bod1es of water will look increasingly more attractive as
biomass resource areas.
Aquatic biomass resources offer the long-term potential for supplying large por-
tions of U.S. energy demands. Aquatic biomass involves both marine or ocean-based,
and terrestrial or land-based biomass production, Land-based aquatic biomass might
include freshwater production as well as biomass growth in saltwater or brackish
water. Much of the land-based aquatic biomass could be grown on marginal land,
not suitable to traditional forestry or agricultural use. An example of this is the
work being done by private industry on the growing of algae in brackish water
ponds in the Southwest.
We estimate that, before the year 2000, aquatic biomass, based on continental and
ocean production could contribute up to 1 Quad/yr of additional alternate fuel and,
in the next century, 3 or 4 Quads/yr. We cannot now closely estimate whether land-
based or ocean systems will make up the larger part of this amount. While the
ocean potential is large, so too is that of land-based aquatic systems.
Whatever the form of the aquatic biomass, the key to achieving this potential lies
in developing high-yield species and in developing cost-effective growing and har-
vesting techniques. Our best present estimates for potential yields are in the neigh-
borhood of 25-30 dry ash-free tons/acre/year for marine biomass and, perhaps as
much as five to six times that for some land-based aquatic biomass. These figures
PAGENO="0010"
4
compare favorably with 8 to 12 dry tons/acre/year for fast growing trees and 27 dry
tons/acre/year yields for sugar cane, among the most efficient terrestrial plants.
Another way to represent these high yields is to note that it would take approxi-
mately 2.6 million acres of ocean to grow 1 Quad of marine biomass. This means
that an ocean area of 250,000 square miles or 7 percent of the area of the U.S. could
conceivably some day provide energy equivalent to the current energy needs of the
United States. ~
With this background I would like to turn briefly to a discussion of the current
DOE aquatic biomass program The program has two major objectives
To identify aquatic plants with good energy potential and determine the nature of
these plants and their cultivation potential
To develop techniques for their economic cultivation and their conversion to fuels
The thrust of the aquatic biomass program is toward developing systems which
use algae. This class of plants ranges from macroalgae like the giant kelps (Macro-
ciptis pyrifera) which can reach over 100 feet in length in the ocean and grow at up
to 2 feet/day to microalgae which are microscopic plants common to fresh or
brackish water. We have focussed on algae because they have such high yields. For
example, a freshwater algae farm could produce about nine times as much energy
as an equal area devoted to corn per year Further algae can be converted relative
ly easily to methane, alcohol and other useful products such as chemical stabilizers,
food additives and protein supplements for animal feeds.
DOE is actively studying the potential for algae cultivation and yield improve
ment Natural growth of ocean algae provides about 5 tons of dry ash free kelp per
acre In contrast recent DOE studies have concluded that there is a potential for
yields of 25-30 dry ash free tons per acre per year In New Mexico experimental
results have shown yields of as much as 150 dry ash free tons per acre per year
under natural solar insolation Other results by General Electric and Dow Chemical
show similarly promising results. Indeed, a major need which our program is trying
to satisfy is to determine these yields more accurately and to better define the
conditions that foster higher yields and growth rates.
One important DOE project in algae is the work on giant kelp by Dr. Wheeler
North of the California Institute of Technology. This kelp is a fast growing marine
plant with a wide geographic range (from Chile to Peru and from Mid Mexico to
Alaska) the kelp is large and can be harvested on a practical basis it is naturally
nourished but yields can be improved by increasing nutrient supplies; it has rela-
tively high conversion rate from raw material to methane gas and it is self renew-
ing
The Gas Research Institute General Electric work in collaboration with Dr North
of Cal Tech is addressing the problem of large scale marine cultivation and yield
Dr. Flowers has described to you how an engineered module can direct nutrients to
the plants and result in improved poroductivity This work is important in establish
ing an information base for the large-scale growth of marine biomass.
At present, a quarter-acre biological test farm is deployed off the California coast.
The Department of Energy is funding this effort jointly with the Gas Research
Institute (GRI) and to date $6.8 million has been invested. We plan to spend an
additional $3.5 million in fiscal year 1980 to obtain the information necessary to
verify biomass yield and cost projections as well as the capacity of such farms to
poroduce a net gain in useful energy
Whether or not this initial attempt at open ocean farming proves successful we
will have learned valuable lessons about the difficulties and costs of working in this
sometimes hostile environment The opportunities and prospects of utilizing the
open seas are simply too numerous and important to ignore There is certainly risk
involved before we can be sure that marine biomass will prove to be a viable
answer but we regard the main objective of this work to be information gathering
A complementary concept to open ocean farming is to use seawater for growing
marine or brackish water biomass within land based facilities Such systems would
make productive use of otherwise non-arable lands, avoid many of the engineering
challenges offered by the open sea, and permit an opportunity to develop more
information about the fundamental requirements of marine biomass energy produc-
tion and conversion.
An example of this approach is a new project to seek hydrocarbon products
directly from algae. This has just gotten underway, co-funded by the Department of
Energy and the State of Hawaii. The project is to prove the feasibility of culturing
and using a micro-algae Phaeodactylum tricormutum) which has the quality of
producing and storing oils Tests so far have achieved concentrations of between 40
and 70% of oils to total organic yield from the harvested algae
Other aquatic biomass production studies are being done for the Department of
Energy at the Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institute where both ocean and freshwater
PAGENO="0011"
5
algae are being studied to uncover their photosynthetic qualities in order to identify
high yield species We are also studying the large scale cultivation of selected algae
species under controlled conditions for energy farms composed of converted natural
ponds and man made lagoons where very high productivity rates can provide raw
material for direct conversion to energy products We ai e also working on harvest
and collection projects for water hyacinth plants as a natural source of aquatic
biomass for gas and alcohol production
To give value to this work it is not sufficient to produce the biomass but it has to
be converted to useful energy forms Therefore parallel to the efforts involved in
the production effort are investigations in conversion The technologies applied to
terrestrial biomass can generally be applied to the aquatic biomass modified to fit
the aquatic nature of the material. Indeed, the bulk of the funds in the overall
biomass energy program are directed to development of these conversion technol-
ogies.
One can divide conversion technologies broadly into thermochemical approaches,
which rely on high temperatures and pressures to convert the biomass to fuel
products and biochemical approaches which utilize bacterial action Because of the
nature of aquatic biomass and particularly its highwater content the biochemical
conversion technologies of fermentation and anaerobic digestion are most suitable
As Dr Flowers has discussed General Electric and the Institute of Gas Technol
ogy are giving specific attention to the problem of anaerobically digesting giant kelp
to produce methane We also have a project at the University of California on the
large scale bio conversion of algae which has importance for pollution control of
urban wastes
The aquatic biomass program is administered by the Biomass Energy Systems
Branch of the Division of Distributed Solar Technology within the Department of
Energy. A breakdown of the fiscal year 1979 biomass budget is shown in Figure 1.
The budget for production and conversion of aquatic biomass has been growing
rapidly as seen in Figure 2 We expect this trend to continue In fiscal year 1980
about six million dollars, or more than 10% of the entire biomass program budget,
is budgeted for aquatic biomass. For your information, Figure 3 contains a list of
aquatic biomass contracts whch have been funded in the program
I would like to conclude my remarks with a few comments regarding the issues
associated with the use of aquatic biomass for energy Obviously we regard aquatic
biomass as having high potential for making a significant contribution ultimately to
the energy supply of our Nation The vast areas of the ocean as well as suitable
marginal lands as in the U S Southwest could lend themselves to very large scale
aquatic biomass farming This coupled with the very high yields which seem to be
possible from algae could lead to highly productive enterprises
The key issue we are now facing is lack of information. We clearly know vastly
more about growing and harvesting corn than about growing and harvesting algae.
That is why I see the main product of this program over the next several years as
being information. We must learn about the variety of plant species available, about
their sensitivity to changes in growing conditions and about the most efficient and
economical ways to harvest and convert the biomass
We have for example performed a number of studies on the economics of meth
ane production from giant kelp farms There are two basic findings-that the
projected gas costs tend to be high compared to other sources of gas and that the
projections span a wide range depending on the assumptions made We are not
discouraged by these results because they are measures primarily of the extent to
which we need information
We are encouraged with what we have been learning about aquatic biomass. We
remain optimistic about an ultimate ability to capture the benefits of open-ocean
mariculture. We are also very excited about the potential for wide-spread aquacul-
ture on marginal lands. Finally, we welcome your continued interest in the Admin-
istration's Biomass Program.
Thank you.
PAGENO="0012"
FIGURE I
BIOMASS BUDGET - FY 1979
Production and
tic Biomass
TOTAL FY 1979 FUNDING: $1i2.It Million
PAGENO="0013"
FIGURE 2
AQUATIC BIOMASS FUNDING
($ in millions)
$6.0
5.0
lt.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
* Not from Biomass Program
2.8
0.9
0.5
1979
PAGENO="0014"
1972
iJ~flVersity of Pa. Conversion of Solar Energy to Fuel Gas'
June 15, 1972 (Approximately ½ to "Mariculture Investigation:
Ocean Farming and Fuel Production at United Aircraft
Research Laboratories, Hartford, Conn.)
1973
~5T~mbia University "Marine Pastures: A By-Product of Large
100 MW of Larger Floating Ocean Thermal Energy Plants
University of California - Algal Systems to Produce Methane
1974
~6Ttmbia University "Marine Pastures..."
Cal. Inst. of Tech. "Evaluation of Oceanic Farming of
Seaweeds as Sources of Organ ics and Energy"
1975
tf~ Navy "Ocean Energy Farm Kelp Production and Harvesting"
University of California Large Scale Algal Biomass
Producti on Systems
Ocean Policy Coninittee
1976
~T Tech. "Evaluation.of Ocean Farming of Seaweeds as Sources
of Organics and Energy."
University of California "Large Scale Algal Biomass Production
Systems"
Woods Hole-Ryther "Cultivation of Macroscopic Marine Algae
for Energy Conversion..."
Woods Hole-Goldman "Photosynthetic Systems-State of the
Art and Potential for Energy Production"
1977
rirlech. "Evaluation of Ocean Farming of Seaweeds as Sources
of Organics and Energy."
University of California - "Large-Scale Algae Biomass Systems"
Intertechnology/University of California Photosynthetic
Energy Factory
Columbia University "Algal Concentration by Ultra-Filtration"
Woods Hole-Ryther "Cultivation of Macroscopic Marine Algae"
Woods Hole-Gol Dynatech-System Study "Cost Analysis of
Aquatic Biomass Systems"
1978
~iT~Tech. (Partial Funding July to October only)
Woods Hole-Ryther "Cultivation of Macroscopic Marine Algae
for Energy Conversion"
Woods Hole-Goldman "Bioengineering Aspects of Inorganic
Carbon Supply to Mass Cultures"
Dynatech `Cost Analysis of Aquatic Biomass Systems
Dynatech Liquid Fuels from Marine Algae
University of California - "Large-Scale Algae Systems"
Intertechnology/University of California Photosynthetic Energy
Factory
1979
~T Tech
Woods Hole-Ryther
Woods Hole-Goldman
Dynatech Liquid Fuels
Univ. of California, Berkeley "Large Scale Fresh Water
Microalgae Biomass Production for Fuel and Fertilizer
8
Figure 3 A LISTING OF DOE AQUATIC BIOMASS FUNDING
Aquatic Biomass Funding
$ 195,000
99,000
52,000
38,000
110,000
410,000
60,000
5,000
325,000
157 ,000
195 ,000
26,000
578,000
60,000
226 ,000
88,000
206,000
149 ,000
371,000
223,000
79,000
45,000
227,000
154,000
231,000
512 ,000
252,000
95,000
252,000
195 ,000
PAGENO="0015"
9
Mr. ADAMS. I am pleased to be here today to discuss DOE's
biomass program, with emphasis on the aquatic complement. We
define biomass as organic material that is used for energy. The
organic material can either be burned directly, or it can be convert-
ed to gas or liquid products, for fuels, or for feedstocks.
In 1977, the Nation used in the order of 1.8 quads of biomass
material. Already a significant contribution to our national energy
supplies, amounting to about 2.4 percent of our total supplies. Most
of this was in the form of direct combustion of wood.
Mr. STUDDS. How much of that was in wood burning?
Mr. ADAMS. I do not have a precise figure, but I believe practical-
ly all of it was in direct wood burning.
[The following was submitted:]
ENERGY PROJECTED FROM WOOD BURNING IN 1985
Direct combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification of wood are expected to provide
about 2 quads of energy out of a total of about 3 quads expected from biomass
sources by that date. Direct combustion will contribute the largest quantities of
energy in the form of industrial and rOsidential heat and co-generated electricity.
Most of the energy is expected to be produced and consumed by the forest products
and paper and pulp industries.
Mr. STUDDS. So you consider the generation of heat by wood-
burning stoves to be biomass?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Now, the administration recently conducted a domestic policy
review of solar energy, and that policy review, together with other
studies, indicates a very important future contribution to the
Nation from biomass.
In 1985, the estimated numbers are in the range of 2½ to 3
quads of biomass contribution, and in the year 2000, in the range of
4 to 7 quads of biomass energy contribution.
Mr. STUDDS. May I interrupt you?
How much energy is projected from wood burning in 1985?
Mr. ADAMS. Direct combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification of
wood are expected to provide about 2 quads of energy out of a total
of about 3 quads expected from biomass sources by that date.
Direct combustion will contribute the largest quantities of energy
in the form of industrial and residential heat and cogenerated
electricity. Most of the energy is expected to be produced and
consumed by the forest products and paper and pulp industries.
This total contribution makes biomass the largest potential con-
tributor in this century from renewables. DOE is excited about this
potential, and biomass research and development efforts have re-
ceived increasing attention in the Department.
The biomass budget has grown about 13 times by a factor of 13 in
the last 3 years, from $4.5 million in 1976 to $58 million in 1980.
Mr. STUDDS. What percentage is that of your research budget?
Mr. ADAMS. Approximately 10 percent.
Mr. STUDDS. Of the entire research budget of the Department of
Energy?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, under my direction. Of the entire research
budget, I will have to get you, again, a precise figure on that, but it
would be in the order of three-tenths of 1 percent, I believe.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you. That is just a prospective, in addition to
the multiplication by 13?
PAGENO="0016"
10
Mr. ADAMS. Right. The biomass area has received increasing
relative attention in the Department. In terms of our strategy,
most of the large increase in biomass use in this century, we
believe, according to our studies, will be by wood combustion. Pri-
marily the burning of wood residues from forests, and from other
sources.
There will be some contribution from alcohol. DOE recently com-
pleted an alcohol policy review, and there will be other biomass
contributions in the forms of gases and liquid products. But the
increasing need for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels, and feed-
stocks, combined with increasing competition for edible crops, and
paper and building materials, et cetera, these factors in combina-
tion are driving us in the direction of research on sources of
biomass that achieve the following goals.
Those sources that are dedicated for energy usage, in other
words, they are not so highly competitive, those that exhibit maxi-
mum yields, and low cost, and/or amendable high conversion effi-
ciencies to fuels, and that show favorable economics, and those
feedstocks that maximize the effective use of space for their
growth.
Now, successful R. & D. efforts in this area will lead us to new
and more plentiful sources of biomass material. We feel that this
could potentially greatly expand our usable sources of biomass.
Department estimates indicate that a sustainable level of bio-
mass production in the Nation could be in the range of 10 to 15
quads per year, for forest growth, and this does not include, howev-
er, the growth of biomass on the oceans, or the more advanced
methods of biomass production.
So when we begin to reach up into the 5- to 6- to 7-quad range,
we begin to tap pretty heavily into that sustainable biomass pro-
duction level.
This consideration drives us in the direction of looking for other
advanced ways of producing biomass material. This is causing us to
search, both terrestrially and in waters for ways to produce bio-
mass.
Out of the $58 million included for biomass in our 1979 budget,
15 percent was for terrestrial and aquatic biomass. It is significant
in this regard, that 9 of the 13 percent was terrestrial and 6
percent was aquatic.
In our 1980 biomass budget mix, this is growing to about 10
percent. The 6 percent for aquatic is growing to about 10 percent.
So the aquatic biomass source that we are dealing with consti-
tutes both marine and fresh water systems, in open oceans and on
land. It is still too close to call, and I will have some additional
comments about this, about the respective contributions in the
future out of these different sources.
I would like to stress that our aquatic work, both terrestrial and
ocean, is research and development. It is aimed at finding sources
of biomass supply for the longer term. We do not see this as the
answer to the next energy problems in this year or in the next. But
it is important, longer term research.
In our sense of priorities we would utilize first and earliest those
biomass sources that we could tap quickest, and in the most ready
and economic manner. Our work does not preclude, however,
PAGENO="0017"
11
breakthroughs that could bring aquatic biomass to fruition in early
years. We are certainly open to that.
The present state of our knowledge about aquatic biomass is
simply reflected by the wide range of estimates of yield and cost.
There are tremendous uncertainties at the moment.
Just to give you some benchmarks for uncultured forest wood
growth, the figure of less than a ton per acre per year, that is an
oven dry ton of biomass growth is common. Under accelerated
growing conditions we think we know how to increase that to the
range of 7 to 12 tons per acre per year.
Corn producing 100 to 200 bushels per acre, just by comparison,
would be in the range of 2 to 5, or over tons per acre per year.
Now, we have also examined the question of the theoretical
maximum production of organic growing, organic material per
acre, and the estimates there are all over the map. I have seen
estimates that range all the way from 10 to in excess of 35 dry tons
per acre per year.
For land-based water systems, biomass water systems, I have
seen numbers that range up to several times that, as high as 150 or
180 dry tons per acre per year.
We hear about work in New Mexico, and we hear about work in
South Africa, and work in Israel, and in other parts of the world
that have achieved, on some experimental basis, what appear to be
extraordinary high growth rates. Some of the theoretical estimates
that we have seen for marine biomass would indicate maximum
theoretical yields of 45 to 50, and in fresh water 60 to 70, 75, in
that range. These wide ranges of uncertainty also give rise to
tremendous ranges in costs.
The cost of producing biomass feedstock is a major part of the
cost to the finished energy product. We see numbers that range
anywhere from $20 to $30 per dry ton, to several hundred dollars
per dry ton.
Now, by the research and development efforts that the Depart-
ment of Energy is conducting, we would hope to be in a position in
the early eighties, in 1982, 1983, to better judge the relative costs,
and the various factors, quantitatively the various factors that are
associated with producing marine and terrestrial biomass than we
are now, and to narrow that uncertainty.
We believe that this is the essence of why it is important for us
to do research both on land and in the ocean. Because we believe,
first of all, that the potential for biomass is very large, and that
the risks associated with ever achieving possible results are man-
ageable, they are reasonable research risks, but the uncertainties
likewise are very, very large at this time. So our research program
is designed to narrow these uncertainties, and we are very early
into the research, as far as being able to pin down priorities, and
say yes, with certainty we believe that one particular kind of
biomass can produce a lot more than another particular kind of
biomass, and that the cost would be thus and so.
Our aquatic biomass program also fits into the spectrum of
DOE's ocean energy program. Dr. Miller discussed the ocean ther-
mal program with the committee not long agO. There are natural
potential tie-ins between biomass production in the ocean and the
ocean thermal program.
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
12
The upwelling of nutrients, and the discharge of those nutrients
nearer the surface into the ocean, as well, on the other side of the
coin, the institutional factors involved with growing biomass in the
ocean bear some resemblance to the institutional considerations of
ocean thermal systems
There are also some tie ins with other aspects of the ocean pro
gram In waves, for instance, just as it is quite possible to capture
wave energy and utilize that in the form of electricity, it might be
possible to utilize that electricity to lift water for supplying nutri
ents to the growing biomass
However, there is also indication that it would be better to use
the electricity for some other purpose But there are natural tie ins
between the biomass program and our ocean thermal program
Mr STUDDS You are at the assistant secretary level You have
ocean biomass responsibility, but you do not have ocean thermal
responsibility over there, do you?
Mr ADAMS Yes, sir, we do
Mr STUDDS You are also sitting on ocean thermal energy con
version?
Mr ADAMS Yes
Mr STUDDS I will resist further observations
Mr. ADAMS. We have seen rapid growth, in the past few years, in
our marine program, in fiscal 1976, from a half million dollars to
upwards of $2 million in 1979, and then to three and a half or so
million in 1980.
The thrust in our program is primarily threefold. To identify
plants and their cultivation potential; to identify techniques for the
cultivation and conservation to fuels, and then to provide emphasis
on systems that are using algae at the present time
The macroalgae, consisting of giant kelp, for work in the oceans,
and the microalgae are plants such as water hyacinths, or other
immersed plants that use atmospheric carbon dioxide for nutrients
onshore, or in the ocean
Our focus is on algae at the present time because of such high
yields, and the ease of conversion of these particular kinds of
plants to liquids, and to gaseous fuels.
I have a number of major efforts in the biomass area, with work
at Cal Tech, with Dr North, and the giant kelp, an effort with GRI
and GE on the use of engineering modules to direct nutrients to
plants that are grown on a large scale, and a new effort in which
we are trying to get hydrocarbon oils, such as glycerols, directly
out of land-based systems.
We have efforts with Woods Hole Institute on ocean and fresh
water algae, and their photosynthetic qualities, and we believe that
this is extremely important, this and other related work that is
being done on the basic research side of DOE, because one of the
main factors in increasing the yield of biomass is the photosynthet
ic uptake, the conversion of the utilization of the sunshine to
produce organic material
We are doing extensive work on conversion of biomass, and our
work on biomass conversion that is not directly tied into aquatic
biomass would also be applicable.
I would just like to summarize my prepared remarks this morn-
ing by saying that we believe oceans, plus marginal lands, could
PAGENO="0019"
13
lend themselves to very large scale biomass farming in the future
The potential is high The potential for high yields and low costs is
what drives us in this direction, coupled with the scarcity of land
resources for growing, and competition for the fuel products
Our key thrust at this time is to fill the needs for information,
much more definitively than we have right now, about yields,
about costs, and those factors that go into determining the econom
ic viability of a project
For instance, we know vastly more right now about growing corn
than we do algae. There is a need for research and development in
this area, to narrow the uncertainties, to identify new species, and
to establish levels of performance
Thank you.
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much I tried to listen to you and
follow your testimony at the same time, an exercise I did not do too
successfully
Your total fiscal funding is $58 million, is that correct9
Mr. ADAMS. That is correct.
Mr S'FUDDS What percentage goes to terrestrial and what per
centage to aquatic biomass? You give us your little pie for 1979
here
Dr SAN MARTIN The plans at this time are about approximately
$6 million in 1980 will be devoted to aquatic biomass with $3 5
going to support marine biomass activities
Mr STUDDS $3 5 million9
Dr SAN MARTIN Yes, sir
Mr STUDDS All of that, if I understand your testimony, goes to
GRI~
On page 6 of your testimony you say "We plan to spend an
additional $3 5 million in fiscal year 1980 to obtain the information
necessary to verify biomass yield"
Mr ADAMS Yes, sir, that is correct
Mr STUDDS The entirety of your budget is going to one project9
Dr SAN MARTIN No, Mr Chairman
The entirety of the research budget and aquatic biomass will
likely involve a dozen different major participants in the overall
program It will be $3 5 million as we are directed by Congress, in
direct support of the GRI/GE marine work Many of the other
programs that are looking at establishing some of the technical
facts concerning higher efficiency photosynthetic plant and conver
sion processes are also applicable to work in both land base aquatic
systems and marine aquatic systems.
Mr STUDDS Let me see if I can understand in layman's lan
guage.
Looking at figure 1 in your testimony, which is the biomass
breakdown for 1979, I want to see if I can put into English some of
the phrases that describe the various portions of the pie here, 17
percent goes to assessment and support I assume that is admrnis
trative overhead?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, those are marketing analyses, more on the
software side.
Mr. STUDDS. What are the administrative costs in the biomass
budget for fiscal year 1979?
PAGENO="0020"
14
Mr. ADAMS. $687,000 was budgeted for professionals in fiscal year
1979. Those figures are not shown in the 1979 budget. By adminis-
trative costs, do you mean payroll, sir?
Mr. STUDDS. Well, it is not volunteer work down there, is it?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; it is not. But those figures are not indicated
here. I could provide those for you.
Mr. STUDDS. So when you say the biomass budget for 1979, you
mean only those funds going to research grants of one kind or
another?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; to contracts or direct support of those
contracts.
Mr. STUDDS. It does not say that the program which you are
responsible for does not spend more of the taxpayers' dollars, they
just do not show up here, correct?
Mr. ADAMS. Our payroll, sir, does not show in this pie.
Mr. STUDDS. How many folks do you have working in this field?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. In Washington we currently have six profes-
sionals on the payroll, working in the biomass branch.
Mr. STUDDS. Six?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Yes, sir. But in following the philosophy that
the Department of Energy is currently utilizing in decentralizing
the day-to-day technical management, we work with other organi-
zations that supply additional technical experts to support these
activities.
For instance, the portions of the biomass program are managed
for us on a day-to-day basis by the National Solar Institute, and
they have greater resources available to do this than we have at
headquarters.
Mr. STUDDS. I understand that, but how many people work for
the Department of Energy?
Mr. ADAMS. The figure that I hear is 20,000 people.
Mr. STUDDS. Of whom six are working in biomass?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. How many---
Mr. ADAMS. Six professionals, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. As opposed to clerical personnel, you mean.
Mr. ADAMS. That is correct. We have additional clerical.
Mr. STUDDS. Perhaps I should ask how many professional people
work for the Department of Energy in the broader sense of the
word.
Mr. ADAMS. I do not have that figure, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. I am just trying to get some relative figures obvious-
ly. How many professionals work in ocean thermal energy?
Mr. ADAMS. I do not have that precise figure for you, sir, but I
believe the figure is eight.
Mr. STUDDS. Eight?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. I do not think I dare ask any more questions here.
Let me go back to your pie. Thirty-two percent goes to thermal
chemical conversion. In layman's terms, that is what?
Mr. ADAMS. That would be the application of heat to a biomass
form, perhaps involving catalysis and perhaps steam to convert
that to either gases or liquid products.
Mr. STUDDS. For example, the distillation of alcohol or what?
PAGENO="0021"
15
Mr. ADAMS. Distillation of alcohol would be biochemical process.
Mr. STUDDS. Where does Mr. Emery's wood stove come in here?
Mr. ADAMS. A wood stove would be in the thermal chemical split.
Mr. EMERY. I thought we used a match, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. I do not know if you folks up there are aware of
thermal chemical conversion.
Are we doing research into wood stoves down there?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. No, Mr. Chairman. The wood stove business is.
Mr. STUDDS. Highly developed technology.
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Highly developed technology.
Mr. STUDDS. OK. Thermal chemical conversion includes things
like the distillation of alcohol?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Right.
Mr. STUDDS. Terrestrial biomass production, 9 percent; integrated
production and conversion systems, 13 percent.
What is that?
Mr. ADAMS. That is a combination of captive farms of one sort or
another.
Mr. STUDDS. Captive farms?
Mr. ADAMS. Captive farms in which the harvest would be cut and
produced and then converted into thermal chemically or by some
other means.
Mr. STUDDS. What is a captive farm?
Mr. ADAMS. It is an integrated facility where trees or some other
form of biomass would be grown specifically for energy conversion
as opposed to residues from the forest.
Mr. STUDDS. Do you really have, in a captive farm, which you
perceive to be an entity, such as a tree, for lack of another word for
it--
Mr. ADAMS. This would be a facility in which you could envision
a conversion plant of one type or another with its own dedicated
feedstock supply.
Mr. STUDDS. I apologize. We are dealing with a language barrier,
as you know.
I did not realize it was an integrated facility. Do you, by any
chance, have any research going on on the possibility of utilizing
sewage sludge for conversion into methane or is there such a
possibility?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; not under my direction. That could well be
in another part of DOE and, in other words, the municipal solid
waste program in DOE is under the direction of the Assistant
Secretary for Conversion and Solar.
Mr. STUDDS. Do you ever talk with him or her?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; I certainly do.
Mr. STUDDS. But we have a lot of that stuff which--
Mr. ADAMS. We do not---
Mr. STUDDS [continuing]. We are putting into the oceans, so that
is your department.
Mr. ADAMS. We do not ourselves conduct research into that area.
Mr. STUDDS. One final question and then I will turn it over to the
other folks here.
I assume that a good deal of this research, or am I incorrect in so
assuming, is going on in other parts of this country, and in other
countries?
PAGENO="0022"
16
Mr ADAMS Yes, sir, similar research is going on in biomass
Mr STIJDDS I refer specifically to ocean biomass now
Mr. ADAMS. I am not familiar with what other countries are
doing. However, we understand that Israel does have efforts, and
South Africa does have efforts in biomass, and China and Japan
have efforts in biomass, and we have looked at those
Mr STUDDS Is it just you that is not familiar because of your
administrative responsibilities, or are your people familiar with the
state of the art?
Mr ADAMS Our people are familiar with the state of the art I
personally am not
Mr STUDDS How do we stand vis a vis other countries on this?
Dr SAN MARTIN I am advised, Mr Chairman, that the total
acreage in particular of ocean biomass that is farmed in some other
countries exceeds what the United States is doing. I am also ad-
vised that the majority of that has typically gone for human food
consumption
My knowledge of the size of research efforts going on in other
countries to support these activities are on the order of what we
are doing in the United States or less
Mr STUDDS I did not mean so much magrntude of acreage as
sophistication of technology and whether they have answered some
of the questions that we seem to be in the very early stages of
trying to answer
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe on the technical
side that we have at hand all of the detailed information to support
that I am finding through new investigations more and more data
to support work that has gone on internationally in the entire
biological field to support its use for food and energy, that has not
been totally factored into the programs that we have developed
Mr STUDDS Is similar aquatic biomass research being conducted
by other countries? Are they ahead of us?
Dr SAN MARTIN There is aquatic biomass research going on in
India, South Africa, Canada, Israel, France, Czechoslovakia, China,
Japan, and Germany The Chinese and Japanese have been farm
ing the sea for food and medicine through mariculture of algae for
several hundred years. They are unquestionably ahead of us in this
work, but its objectives are almost totally devoted to surface culti-
vation for food and therefore the cost elements are not as impor
tant as they are for energy uses Israel has done progressive work
on both land based aquatic plants as well as some ocean work We
consider their work to be of a very high quality and directed along
lines that we have not yet begun to investigate We have a coopera
tive agreement with them for information exchange and research
cooperation. There have been reports that very high production
rates have been achieved in South Africa. We expect to have some
more detailed information about their program soon.
Czechoslovakia and Germany have advanced systems using algae
as pollution control agents. Similar work has also been done in this
country, partially by private initiative and partially under Govern-
ment assistance through the Environmental Protection Agency
U S technology in the pollution control field is probably equal to
any.
PAGENO="0023"
17
In certain areas, undoubtedly, there are advances beyond ours.
We understand that the U.S.S.R. is conducting work in the field,
but we have very little knowledge of their activities to date.
Mr. STUDDS. That sounds hauntingly familiar.
I assume that we are making an active effort to recover what we
knew 30 years ago?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; we are.
Mr. STUDDS. We are not inventing the ocean biomass wheel, or
are we?
Mr. ADAMS. I hope not.
Mr. STUDDS. I hope not, too, but you are in charge of it.
Mr. ADAMS I can assure you that we are not, particularly when I
see such wide degrees of uncertainty in growth leagues and cost
and other factors like this. We believe that we are into a very
fruitful area for research.
Mr. STUDDS. Very good.
The committee's expert on the California giant kelp, Mr.
Pritchard.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that dubious dis-
tinction.
Just a question here concerning the timeframe.
Unfortunately, I was tied up with another subject, and maybe
you discussed this. But can you tell a layman, if I have to explain
when I go home next week and I am talking about this, and
somebody says, well, what does this mean and when will biomass
conversion become a viable energy source? Is this something that I
am going to be able to utilize or are we talking about something for
our grandchildren? Where are we? Can you give me some time-
frames for development in here?
I realize this is very vague and it has to be, but so that I can
have a better appreciation for the time necessary to bring this
technology along?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; unless we see breakthroughs, and after all,
it is one of the purposes of research, unless we see breakthroughs
that we can get our hands around reasonably soon, I personally do
not see major contributions from aquatic biomass in this century.
In my prepared testimony, I indicated perhaps up to one quad,
and I believe that that is an outside kind of number. Significant
progress is going to be needed to be made in terms of yields and
costs, both on land and in the ocean in order for this to come about
sooner.
Now, by the same token, we are conducting a program in a
manner that would not preclude those breakthroughs if they come.
In other words, we would be able to capitalize on it and move it
ahead quicker.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Well, it is endless, the area of research in a field
like this because of the number of possibilities. It is almost endless
where you could apply this technology and what it could do.
When we start talking about producing on land, of course, you
are talking about land that is not being used for something else or
this would have a higher calling.
Now, I would think that if you are talking about land that will
produce the best, this is also the same land that is currently
PAGENO="0024"
18
productive farmland, is it not? You cannot do much out there
around Nevada?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; we. would see the terrestrial production of
biomass as being done on marginal land. That would be land whose
highest and best use might be for this purpose. That is certainly
not without its problems. Water, fresh water availability is certain-
ly a big factor in those areas with all the competition from water,
for fresh water, for processes and agricultural purposes, particu-
larly in the area out west. That certainly is a big factor just as
there are technical factors in the ocean, and this is why it is my
belief that at this early date, it is still too early for us to take a call
as to which way the thing could go.
Mr. PRITCHARD. So if you get into growth of saltwater production,
the possibilities are unlimited there-saltwater and sunshine and
some nutrients, and you are in business?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; that is right.
The question of yield is certainly not the only question. Harvest-
ing and the ability to harvest the material at an economic cost is
certainly a big question there. These offset each other to some
extent.
If we had extremely high yield, if we could achieve extremely
high yield in the open ocean, then that would relieve some of the
press on harvesting.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I would think also that if you are talking about
saltwater, you could do it in areas where labor is in great surplus
or extremely cheap. If it is something that could be portable, this
would also help its feasibility. Not all energy sources can be moved
reasonably, so this is almost a never, never land, at least for people
like myself. It just seems like it is out there so far it is hard to
grasp, and yet solutions like this are closely related to today's
problems.
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; I do not really believe it is a never, never
land.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I should say it almost seems to people like us
that it is out there and yet you are dealing in factors that are
something that is 75 years away.
Mr. ADAMS. We believe that before the mideighties, with the
sustained healthy research and development program, both on land
and in the open ocean, a balanced program that we will be able to
have answers that are clear enough to permit one to set priorities
in a much better way than we can right now. Even to try to
understand right now with any degree of certainty those factors
that inhibit yield and growth rates and what can be done about
them and new strains that can be utilized and how they can be
cultivated, we just do not have the information to do it, and I do
not believe that-I really do not believe that that sort of informa-
tion exists elsewhere in the world; that we could readily tap and
greatly accelerate what we know right now.
Mr. PRITCHARD. If you had to pick one thing among all the
activities that you are involved with, that would, at this point have
the best chance of coming to fruition, what would that be?
Mr. ADAMS. Sir, could you qualify that for me? Do you mean
with respect to aquatic biomass?
Mr. PRITCHARD. Yes.
PAGENO="0025"
19
Mr. ADAMS. I believe from where I sit right now that the prob-
lems of cost and yield may be simpler to work on the land than in
the ocean, and this is because I am looking at cost numbers in
terms of dollars per ton in freshwater, based on various studies
that in all these studies purport to be authoritative and we can get
100 different studies.
Mr. PRITCHARD. We get a lot of those.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; you can get numbers that look like $60 a
ton, $140 a ton, kinds of numbers in freshwater, and in the open
ocean I am seeing numbers that look like $170, $300, $500, $700 a
ton and I would have to say that--
Mr. PRITCHARD. If that is the case, land sources provide more
hope then, do they not?
Mr. ADAMS. I have to say this, sir, with great qualifications,
because it is simply too early for me to make a forced choice like
that.
If I made a choice like that, it would be-if I had to make a
choice like that, it would be under the direst of conditions right
now because I simply do not have the information to base a choice
on. This is simply the data that are before me. If I have to go and
had no way out of it in one direction or another right now, I think
I would probably try to go in the land direction. But I hope we do
not have to make that choice.
I think what I would say is that our effort so far has been
heavier on the ocean side than it has been on the land side in
aquatic biomass in that we are examining, we are trying to get the
best handle we can on information to maybe conduct a more bal-
anced effort. That is not to say that we are overspending in the
ocean. Perhaps even the contrary.
But what we do need to prosecute is a healthier based program
in order to achieve the balance.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I think the gentleman from Maine would prob-
ably agree with you.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Pritchard.
I am sure Mr. Emery will offer to deliver to you any kind of
seaweed for less than $700 a ton, if you would like.
Mr. Forsythe?
Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am as bewildered as
both my colleagues. It just seems to me that when we have been
going through a period of energy source deficiency in this Nation it
is critical that we continue research designed to develop domestic
energy resources.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Emery, I suspect, will have questions regarding
rockweed and Irish moss. Are you finished?
Mr. FORSYTHE. No.
Let me go to a question that is not directly in line with aquatic
biomass or ocean biomass conversion. You have referred to land-
based biomass conversion in many different ways this morning. I
cannot avoid trying to satisfy myself on an issue that Forbes maga-
zine pointed to grain alcohol as a negative biomass conversion
since the input in grain alcohol would actually be in excess of the
Btu available, principally because it is high level grain that is
needed as the stock to produce this alcohol. It seems to me that
PAGENO="0026"
20
there is some logic to that when you are only using the grain out of
the biomass in the whole stock
Are you familiar with that report?
Mr ADAMS Yes, sir, I am
Mr FORSYTHE I would appreciate your comments
Mr ADAMS In the interest of time, sir, I will try to be very brief
This is a subject area that you opened up is one that--
Mr FORSYTHE It goes to the whole problem that we have got to
look at or we will be trapped in finding ourselves needing more oil
to produce the biomass product
Mr ADAMS Yes, sir We have wrestled with that problem in
DOE a great deal A lot of the dilemma on the net energy account
ing which you referred to on production of alcohol, really depends
on how one accounts for it How the accounting is done, where the
circle is drawn around the total system, and even if one takes a
very conservative accounting, and counts every iota of energy that
goes into produce alcohol, it need not be a negative producer
One of the main reasons why alcohol---
Mr. FORSYTHE. We are limiting ourselves to grain alcohol or
ethyl alcohol?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. Even with grain alcohol, it does not have to
be a negative producer, and one of the fundamental reasons why so
many studies show that it is is because the way conventional
distillation is done to purify and get to an anhydrous state of
alcohol, that is essentially dry alcohol, which indeed it has to be
for-or it should be, it is desirable for it to be with use of motor
gasoline because otherwise one would get separation with the
water So it needs to be essentially anhydrous and that distillation
step is extremely energy intensive. It is the nature of alcohol and
water to boil at a constant temperature, they form a constant
boiling mixture. There are ways to get beyond that constant boiling
point that have been known for years in the petrochemical indus-
try, chemical processing industry that do not involve such an
energy intensive step.
We are working on those
Mr FORSYTHE Well, let us try to simplify this Is the technology
available today in use.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
[The following was received:]
PRODUCTION OF GRAIN ALCOHOL
The total output of energy in the production of grain alcohol is about equal to the
input of energy. This information is based on the use of corn as a raw material and
includes energies expended for plowing, seeding, fertilizing, tilling, harvesting, and
processing. Credit is taken for useful by-products such as Distiller's Dried Grains
and fractions of other chemicals derived from the fermentation and distillation
process. This credit can be offset if biomass issued for process heat instead of oil or
natural gas.
The use of ethanol in gasoline as an octane enhancer removes the need for the
additional octane additives in unleaded gasoline. As a consequence, more gallons of
gasoline may be refined from a barrel or crude oil.
The Btu input for the production of alcohol equivalent to 1 million Btu are as
follows: corn cultivation and harvesting-436,000 Btu; processing into alcohol-
647,000 Btu. The Distiller's Dried Grains yield 139,000 Btu and, if included in the
energy output from the process, result in a slight positive net energy balance. In
comparison, the energy content of the unprocessed corn is 1,770,000 Btu.
PAGENO="0027"
21
Mr ADAMS If one takes that alcohol all the way to essentially an
anhydrous state--
Mr FORSYTHE You have got to if you are going to burn it in an
automobile
Mr ADAMS No, you do not
Mr. FORSYTHE, No?
Mr ADAMS No, sir, you do not You can run it without fixing it
with gasoline and run it as 180 proof alcohol
Mr FORSYTHE 180 proof, all right
Mr ADAMS And stay completely away from the so called ace
tophric distillation Stay completely away from that and just burn
it as alcohol without mixing it with gasoline.
Mr STUDDS I am going to have to interrupt for a minute
Mr Adams, at the risk of delaying the entire national research
program, which we are interested in accelerating, we are going to
have to ask you if you possibly can return at 1 o'clock What we
face now is a series of votes so there will be little point in running
back and forth every 10 minutes.
So we are going to recess the subcommittee until 1 o'clock.
Would it be possible for you to return? I am told that both Mr
Forsythe and Mr Emery have a number of questions, and I would
urge you in the interim to do much research on the northeastern
rockweed and Irish moss
Thank you very much The committee is adjourned
[Whereupon, at 11 43 a m, the subcommittee recessed, to recon
vene at 1 p m, the same day]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will resume.
Thank you very much, Mr. Adams, for returning.
Mr Forsythe will now ask his questions and then do his best
possible imitations of Mr Emery
Mr FORSYTHE That is a challenge that I would not even touch,
Mr Chairman
I think we were in the middle of this problem of Btu's and
alcohol primarily I think it is of great concern that we try and be
very sure that we keep this record clear, and I am not talking
about your testimony specifically I am talking in the broad sense
I think it is very easy for members, mbst particularly those
perhaps who do not have a scientific background to get out in left
field with energy inputs that are just unreal I am not actually
positive, before we departed for lunch, where we left you, Mr
Adams Did you have further comments to make? If not, I would
like to talk about methyl alcohol and methane, as opposed to the
grain alcohol Is there not a basic net plus in the fact that we are
utilizing the total net base rather than just the general seaweed?
Mr ADAMS I have not personally, although people who work for
me in the organization may well have looked at the net energy on
the methyl energy question as opposed to the fermentation
processes.
I would say this much about it, though. The processes involved
are very different from an engineering standpoint, very, very dif-
ferent kind of processes, to produce methyl alcohol The most
straightforward way would be to gasify the biomass and produce a
PAGENO="0028"
22
mixture of a reactive gas called synthesis gas, which could then be
taken to the next step to produce the methyl alcohol, so it is
essentially a thermal chemical, to use that earlier term, as opposed
to a biochemical process common to the production of ethyl alcohol,
which involves fermentation.
Now, doing this avoids the costly kind of distillation that you end
up with if you ferment a mixture, and end up with 12 or 14 percent
ethyl alcohol in a mixture of water, which then must be distilled,
because in other words you are selectively manufacturing methyl
alcohol. The method of reaction is known as indirect, it is an
indirect conversion process, and can always utilize coal as the
feedstock.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Of course, the technology is here. Is there any-
thing new about methyl alcohol or ethyl alcohol? It gets down to
the feedstock involved, does it not?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. FORSYTHE. And these economies of scale in that regard, as to
what we can really get as the input. Whether we are going to kelp
so far as ocean mass, biomass input, or whether it is going to be
vegetation, nobody seems to have mentioned Brazil, for instance,
but they are talking about-yes, going the ethyl route, in using
sugarcane, where they have got a climate that is almost ideal-a
climate that we could not duplicate in the continental United
States.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Emery does get here, because I know
he has an interest in this very area. He has been a promoter, for
instance, of conversion of wood products, particularly in Maine,
into methyl alcohol for automotive use specifically.
What are the cost factors for the conversion of biomass produced
on land versus ocean?
Mr. ADAMS. The actual conversion costs for terrestrial and aquat-
ic biomass are probably on the same order of magnitude. The raw
material costs on a dry weight basis are likely to be lower for land-
based biomass than for fresh water/sea water derived biomass. The
reason is the cost involved in harvesting and concentrating the
aquatic biomass. The potential of aquatic biomass for very high
production rates is well documented and, if realized on a large
scale, could reduce raw material costs dramatically. However, tech-
nically and economically viable systems have yet to be demon-
strated.
Mr. Forsythe, if we know a better source of information, I am not
aware of it right now. We would be happy to put together a
compendium of information for you, which summarizes what we do
think we know.
Mr. FORSYTHE. I think that would be important.
Mr. ADAMS. And submit it for the record as a compendium of
material, but as far as levels of confidence that one would place in
the information right now, I cannot stress enough the still early
nature of it.
Mr. FORSYTHE. This is somewhat mystifying, because we are
really talking about technology of products that are certainly time
honored, in both ethyl alcohol, maybe a little more time honored in
methyl, but that is nothing new basically here in what you do in
the way of feedstocks, and where it comes in, in the cost range, and
PAGENO="0029"
23
the cost of growth, and considering a part of that cost that has to
be tied to that formula, is the energy cost of Btu input.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Because my suspicion is, you get into high dollar
cost without even looking at the energy formula. The high dollars
are going to represent Btu's in many, many ways.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. FORSYTHE. So if you can help us in that regard, I would
appreciate it.
Thank you for your testimony.
You have intrigued me greatly.
Mr. ADAMS. Could I have one more moment, sir, to respond to a
couple of points that you raised earlier, that I wanted to address?
One was the list of activities, and why, after this whole series of
work, since 1972, we do not have that tied down better than we do
right now. Why we do not have a better handle on the economics.
Well, up until just 1978, most of that work has been what you
might call breadboard work, very small scale work, or work of a
steady nature. Only recently have we begun to undertake the large
scale work that would let us begin to understand what the cost and
economics would be. That is the first point that I wanted to
indicate.
The second point that you made this morning, about if we made
a lot of alcohol from grain, would we not end up importing more
oil?
Just one more point, because I did take us into kind of a techni-
cal discussion, to indicate where the energy intensity is, as it
pertains to the distillation process. As a practical matter, the ethyl
alcohol used, according to the recently completed DOE policy study
on alcohol, will not be so large that it would cause such perceptible
changes, and indeed, we believe that grain alcohol can make impor-
tant local and community level, or regional even, contributions in
the near term. It is a near-term liquid hydrocarbon option, which
as you indicate we do know how to do.
By the mideighties we think we are going to be in a position to
make ethyl alcohol in a straightforward manner, much more
straightforward manner, from products which are not edible raw
materials that are so competitive, things like cellulose, cellulose
material. We think that we will have the technical knowledge
together to do that, and understand what the costs are.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Emery has arrived.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Emery, your turn.
Mr. EMERY. Thank you very much.
I wonder if you could tell us what you have done in the arena of
harvesting various kinds of seaweeds, especially rockweed, or kelp,
Irish moss, or any of these common indigenous algaes? Have you
done any specific work with the technique of harvesting them by
machine as opposed to harvesting them by hand?
Mr. ADAMS. I cannot answer that.
Bob, do you have an answer to that?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Mr. Emery, our work in that area has been
relatively limited. Even though we have been working since 1976
with individuals at Columbia University, looking at harvesting and
PAGENO="0030"
24
collection mechanisms for different types of biomass materials, the
direct harvesting mechanical work, some of that today is also being
supported by the GRI effort, where they are looking at techniques
that can be applied to that concept.
Mr. EMERY. The reason I asked is because in my hometown,
which is Rockland, Maine, there is a company which produces a
very significant portion of this Nation's output of seaweed prod-
ucts, carrageen and other materials They are in the position of
buying a certain percentage of their seaweed, their raw material,
from halfway around the world In the other areas of the world the
terrain allows the harvesting of this material by machine The
New England coast is anything but smooth, which makes harvest
difficult to do any other way than by hand
You ought to look at existing pieces of equipment around the
world that are used for harvesting various kinds of seaweed. You
should also do some work relative to the energy content, or the
feasibility of converting various types of material, different kinds
of seaweed into usable energy supplies in various ways. Do you
have any background on the feasibility of using one kind of sea-
weed versus another kind of seaweed?
Have you ever done any kind of work on different species, or do
you consider it all as one mass, treated the same way?
Dr SAN MARTIN Our program to date, Mr Emery, has focused
on just a few particular species We are looking to expand that,
because there are so many available that can be used, and look at
those, so that we can, from a stronger knowledge base, be able to
priority, range which are the most promising ones, as versus at-
tempting to utilize those species that are indigenous to a particular
area~
Mr. ADAMS. Our work at Woods Hole is targeted, you know, in
that area, and is looking for different species. I only know enough
about the species question to be dangerous with it, but it certainly
indicates, from the reading I have done, and the information that I
have been given, that certain kinds of seaweed appear to be prom
ising.
Mr. EMERY. That is what we are talking about.
Mr. ADAMS. Seaweeds, as opposed to other particular strains of
biomass material.
Mr. EMERY. That is what we are talking about, Irish moss, rock-
weed, kelp. All pretty much characterized as a seaweed. They are
all algaes.
One interest that I have is the possibility of using rockweed. It is
in great proliferation, tremendous proliferation, all up and down
the coast of New England. It also exists in the tidal zone, which
means it can be harvested by people at low tide It would almost
certainly have to be harvested by hand, rather than machinery of
any large scale, because of the nature of its growth.
With this tremendous abundance, on just about every rock in
North America, on the ocean, there ought to be some way to
harvest this at a much lower price than that which was mentioned
earlier. Then the question remains of the most efficient way to use
the biomass for energy.
Have you had a chance to do any studies to determine the most
effective way to extract some kinds of energy? I suppose it could be
PAGENO="0031"
25
used in an anaerobic process, to produce methane, or it could be
possibly fermented in some fashion, but I do not know the charac
teristics of those algaes, to determine whether or not that is feasi
ble, and I suppose actually you could even use the material if it
were dried in the pyrolysis process to produce methanol.
Can you give us a comparison of the relative energy advantages
to those three different steps?
Mr ADAMS I cannot provide that for you today, but I would be
happy again to submit that for the record
[The following was received for the record I
How ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FERMENTATION AND PYROLYSIS COMPARE IN
EXTRACTING ENERGY FROM OCEAN BIOMASS
Pyrolysis Cannot now be justified because of the high cost of drying the feedstock
to a moisture content of 10 to 20 percent by weight. For anaerobic digestion and
fermentation, equivalent amounts of energy could be produced: methane from an-
aerobic digestion and alcohol from fermentation. However, the alcohol has a higher
market value per Btu than the methane gas On the other hand the processing
costs for methane gas are lower than those of alcohol. Market needs and prices
would therefore determine which conversion technology to use
From an economic point of view it would make better sense first to extract
higher valued components from the ocean biomass such as algin and mannitol
before digesting or fermenting
Mr EMERY I guess what I am struck by is the fact that we have
been spending a lot of money I do not know how much it adds up
to, but it is more money than I have ever seen before, and these
are basic questions that I have asked, that you do not seem to have
the answers to. Nor do you seem to have done the necessary
research to determine the harvesting feasibility, the energy con-
tents, or various kinds of energy materials that might be manufac-
tured. I am a little surprised at that.
Mr. ADAMS. I personally have not reviewed all those reports, Mr.
Emery I am quite certain that people in my organization have
But I personally have not, and this is why I simply would like to
get back to you with a more concrete answer
Mr. EMERY. I would appreciate that very much. It just strikes me
that after the research that has been done, which I think we are
all interested in, I am a little surprised that you could not deter-
mine whether or not some of these questions have been answered.
You know the availability of the material, the energy resource that
is. manufactured, and the method of manufacturing. These are the
most basic questions that anyone could ask
It is apparent that we have to do more work in this area, or at
least do a better job in researching the material that has already
been assembled We have a tremendous resource on the coast of
the United States, if we could find a way to develop it in a feasible
manner I think it probably exists
I have no further questions.
Mr. STUDDS. The gentleman serves on the Armed Services Com-
mittee. I assume he means he has never seen sums of money this
small.
Mr. EMERY. Not having an immediate comeback, I will let that
slide. ~
Mr STUDDS Mr AuCoin, the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee
Mr AUCOIN Thank you, Mr Chairman
PAGENO="0032"
26
Mr. Adams, we have heard higher projections than yours, of
ocean biomass potential, from private researchers, who have given
information to the committee. You have stated that the ocean
biomass could conceivably provide energy equivalent to the current
energy needs of the United States, which is roughly 78 quads a
year.
At your current rate of activity, do you believe that this is likely
ever to develop?
Mr. ADAMS. I think the chances of that, sir, are pretty small, of
achieving a level of 78 quads from aquatic biomass. Certainly, in
my lifetime.
Mr. AuC0IN. And yet that is the potential you see? You have
indicated that that is the potential you see, for potential source of
energy, but at your current rate of activity, or level of activity, you
doubt seriously that that goal or objective could ever be reached?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, I certainly do. In fact, I think in my testi-
mony 1 indicate that a number up to one quad by the year 2000,
from aquatic sources of biomass is about what we think the real
listing potential to be.
Mr. AuC0IN. Potential to be at your-given the existing levels of
commitment to this source of energy?
Mr. ADAMS. Assuming reasonable successes with an R. & D.
program of the type that we are prosecuting, in trying to prosecute,
that would be based between ocean and terrestrial systems.
Mr. AuC0IN. What do you mean by your statement that the long-
range potential might be equivalent to the current energy needs of
the United States?
Mr. ADAMS. Well, I think it would be entirely feasible over the
long range to grow that much material in the ocean.
Mr. AuC0IN. But if we move forward on a policy basis at a snail's
pace, obviously we are not going to get there.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, that is correct, or at a slower rate. The
numbers are staggering in that.
Mr. AuC0IN. Is the rate that we are proceeding at right now, a
weakenss then in our energy position, or policy, as you see it?
Mr. ADAMS. At the present time, I do not think so. I think that
in a couple of years, by 1982, or by 1983, when we determine the
results of the present efforts, that we are into on land and terres-
trial systems, that we will be in a much better position to move
forward with wisdom about it.
The numbers are staggering, indicating, you know, numbers in
the range of all the way from 3,000 square miles per quad per year
to 90,000 square miles per quad per year. One number is even as
low as 900 square miles per quad per year.
So when we have such wide degrees of uncertainty in the yields,
of the biomass, it is hardly practical to make an assessment, it
seems to me, about how much contribution aquatic biomass can
make to our energy future in this century.
Mr. AUCOIN. Of course, the way to overcome that uncertainty,
and the way to make more informed decisions, is to accelerate our
efforts to find those answers.
It would seem to me that what we have here is in pretty much of
a go slow approach, and that would be a weakness that I would see
in our energy posture at this point.
PAGENO="0033"
27
Mr. ADAMS. From the prospective of the program.
Mr. AUCOIN. The slower you go the longer it is going to be to get
the answers that you just identified that we need to find.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, I agree with you. From the prospective I
gave this morning, however, I would indicate to you again that it is
my opinion that if we are going slow, in any of the areas, it is slow
in the terrestrial base system, relative to the ocean system.
Mr. AUCOIN. Let me ask you this. In your judgment, would it be
feasible on a technological basis, for individual households to oper-
ate bacterial digestors to produce methane for their own use in the
United States?
Mr. ADAMS. I simply cannot see that on a wide basis in this
country. But we have seen it in China.
Mr. AUCOIN. You have seen it in China?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. AUCOIN. I have seen it in China. Why can we not do the
same thing?
Mr. ADAMS. We have seen rather large programs of that nature
in China, hundreds of thousands of homes or more, oriented in that
direction.
Mr. AUCOIN. And China is one of the most primitive, backward
countries in the world, but we cannot do it here?
Mr. ADAMS. Of course, the technology is relatively primitive and
backward, and lends itself to more or less to communal types of
living, and it is also carried out in China by---
Mr. AUCOIN. That is my definition of the suburbs.
Mr. ADAMS. But the work is also done in China by groups of
people who live together and do that as voluntary work.
When you ask me about how practical, or how feasible, I think
that would be for this country, I am simply reflecting more or less,
on the type of lifestyles that we have become accustomed to.
Mr. AUCOIN. I do not think that this energy technology is a tool
of the socialist state, is a requirement for membership of the Com-
munist Party, or the Peoples' Republic of China, or that one has to
be living in a Chinese-style commune, in order to develop the
technology. The technology can be used there, it can be used here.
What are the cultural hangups that you see? I just do not under-
stand that.
Mr. ADAMS. I do not mean to be flippant about this, but I live
also in the suburbs, in northern Virginia.
Mr. AUCOIN. What is the name of the commune?
Mr. ADAMS. I am trying to envision how I would do that, orga-
nize my own townhouse community to do that. I simply do not
have the answer to that question.
Mr. AuCOIN. Has DOE done any work on the whole question of
small digestors of this kind? Is there any work done by DOE at all
on this question?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Our small digestor work has addressed prob-
lems that could be resolved for farm-type applications, more the
rural-type applications.
Mr. AUCOIN. For what?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. Farm-type application, where instead of at-
tempting to utilize the human waste or sewage, we would be utiliz-
ing animal residues in the digestive process, and low type cost of
69-8~48 0 - 81 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
28
systems so that the farmer or an individual in the rural communi
ty could generate a good deal of their own gas needs
Mr AuC0IN Would it be a good idea to expand that research,
and see if you could have nonrural application, nonfarm applica-
tions?
Mr. ADAMS. I think that we will be able to have-I do not have
the answer to that right now, but I think that--
[The following was received for the record]
Question. How practical are small waste digestors for urban dwellers?
Answer Single urban families do not generate sufficient waste to make small
digestors practical Furthermore small urban digestors are not practical for most
areas in the United States because they require heating to 95 F This heating
capacity is provided by the mild climate in many of the so called Developing
Countries where small digestors are used for example India Southern China
Taiwan and the Philippines
Question. Would it be a good idea to expand research on small scale digestors for
non-rural, non-farm applications?
Answer. The DOE has an extensive program in anaerobic digestion of animal and
agricultural wastes. Both large scale and small scale digestors for farm application
are being developed to advance the technology. Work is going on at Cornell Univer-
sity and other universities and agricultural stations This work is in collaboration
with the U S Department of Agriculture In fiscal year 1980 intensified efforts are
being directed to improve the designs for small scale use in order to provide off the
shelf equipment and simplified technology
DOE efforts are also being expended on the potential of using agricultural wastes,
for example straw as gas producing commodities While technical improvements
have been made costs will remain high for the value of gas produced
Further work has been proposed by Cornell University on an innovative anaero-
bic digestion system developed by the Chinese. The Chinese effort is a national one,
using ponds constructed in communes. It works and is effective in the Chinese
culture, but is directed more toward pollution control of villages and communes.
The program is to direct more efforts to producing systems that can be applied to
smaller communities, up to ten thousand population for the purposes of both pollu-
tion control and for production of gas that can be used to substitute for fossil fuel.
Mr AuC0IN You do not know if that would be a good idea?
Mr ADAMS I think that I would like to get back to an answer to
you, after the public meetings, that we are having on October 28
and 29, looking specifically to answers about solar energy applica
tions in the cities That is specifically the focus of DOE public
forum which we are having, and that is one of the panels that will
be held, and I am extremely interested in the results of that panel
work, because so many of the renewable technologies seem to work
extremely well in the countryside, but we also have to do some-
thing about problems in the cities, where people live.
Mr. AuC0IN. But you are unable to tell me whether it might be a
good idea, until that meeting is held7
Mr ADAMS I would like to have the input from that
Mr AUC0IN You mentioned in your statement that the bacterial
digestion process produces both methane and carbon dioxide
Has the Department determined how much impact this would
have on carbon dioxide problems in the atmosphere, and does the
amount of carbon dioxide released in the manufacturing and use of
biomass methane compare with the amount of carbon dioxide re-
leased in the comparable amounts of coal? Have you made any
comparable comparisons on that question?
Dr. SAN MARTIN. On the specific level that you are asking, I am
not aware of any definitive studies that have been undertaken
If I could have the liberty to answer a more general type of
question
PAGENO="0035"
29
Mr AUCOIN This is more of a specific question that I posed, and
I wonder if the Department has made comparisons of that kind Do
you have that information? Is that information at hand?
Mr. ADAMS. I am not aware of that data.
Mr. AUC0IN. Would it be a good idea to have that kind of
information?
Mr ADAMS Yes, I do think it would be
Mr AUCOIN Do you need to wait for that meeting that you
mentioned before providing that information to the committee?
Mr ADAMS No, sir, we will certainly see what we can find
Mr. AUCOIN. Thank you very much.
I have no further questions
[The following was received for the record:]
CARBON DIOXIDE POLLUTION
Carbon dioxide pollution is the subject of an extensive research effort on the part
of s Basic Energy Sciences Office in collaboration with the National Academy
of Sciences This study is treating all aspects of the problem including biomass and
coal The data is extensive but not yet complete The following is a simplified view
of the CO2 balance CO2 pollution is caused by burning substance which have not
taken up CO2 in the geologically recent past If the United States consumes 10
quads of biomass each year for energy and is also growing biomass at that same
annual rate the net annual contribution of CO2 is zero On the other hand if 10
quads of coal are consumed almost every molecule of carbon in the coal is released
as CO2 without a corresponding mechanism to reabsorb the CO,
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much
Mr. Adams, your testimony will not be discounted solely because
you are a resident of northern Virginia
I also want the record to reflect that I do not think Mr Emery
meant to indicate that the harvesting of Irish moss off the coast
ought to be mechanized It has traditionally been harvested by
dory, and several people have met their just desserts in attempts to
mechanize
Mr EMERY I agree with the gentleman It has been harvested by
dory and by hand.
Mr STUDDS A lot less than $750 a ton When I was doing it, we
got 2 cents a pound. I am interested to see who is getting $750 a
ton for giant kelp
Thank you.
Mr ADAMS Thank you
Mr STUDDS Our next witness is Dr Ab Flowers, director of the
Gas Research Institute
Mr Flowers?
STATEMENT OF DR AB FLOWERS, DIRECTOR, GAS SUPPLY RE
SEARCH, GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY
ALAN TOMPKINS BIOMASS PROGRAM MANAGER, GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO.
Dr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am Dr Ab Flowers, director of gas supply research for the Gas
Research Institute, a not for profit, scientific organization that
plans, finances, and manages a gas related research and develop
ment program I am pleased to appear before you today to provide
information on the marine biomass research program being con
ducted by the GRI, in conjunction with the Department of Energy
and New York State ERDA.
PAGENO="0036"
30
Before proceeding to a brief discussion of GRI and its research
efforts in marine biomass, I want to commend the subcommittee
for holding a series of hearings calling attention to the potential
that ocean energy resources have to contribute toward improving
our domestic energy supplies. It is important in the push to develop
synthetic fuels that all supply options be given consideration in
determining the future U.S. energy product mix. Certainly, fuels
from renewable biomass resources in general, and clean substitute
natural gas from marine biomass feedstock in particular, can help
to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, as can the clean use of
fossil fuels and conservation.
In the case of GRI, our R. & D. program aggressively seeks to
develop both new gas supplies and more efficient gas using equip-
ment. The GRI charter requires this balanced approach to serve
both gas customers, who ultimately pay for the research and the
gas transmission and distribution companies, who are our mem-
bers. GRI is unique in that its R. & D. plan is formulated with the
advice and consent of four advisory groups representing consumer,
labor, environmental, engineering, scientific, and industry inter-
ests. Its activities are funded through a mechanism that subjects
the annual R. & D. program to critical review and subsequent
approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State
utility regulatory commissions. This mechanism provides for a uni-
form funding unit to be attached on a one-time basis to all volumes
sold. The criteria established to judge the GRI program allows only
R. & D. which will clearly benefit gas ratepayers. In 1979, this
research effort was approved at a $40 million level.
I would like to now turn to a review of the marine biomass
project. It has been my pleasure to manage this program since its
inception in 1974. This program was started by the gas industry 5
years ago in recognition of the fact that a renewable source of
methane was essential to the long-range future of adequate gas
supplies from domestic resources.
Why biomass? Biomass, as a source of carbon for the production
of fuels, and specifically substitute natural gas (SNG), has several
attractive features. The primary energy source-the Sun-is inex-
haustible and the source of carbon is, therefore, renewable since we
are growing the fuel resource. The Gas Research Institute, as well
as the DOE and other agencies, has studied alternate concepts for
the production of biomass which could be suitable for conversion to
substitute natural gas. These studies have all shown a practical
upper limit of 7 to 11 quads per year of energy may be available by
utilizing all of the potentially available land. Because land-based
forms of biomass would be competing with food, feed, and fiber
crops for valuable acreage and water supplies, an ocean source of
feedstock was the preferable approach for long-term consideration.
It was from this perspective that the marine biomass project was
initiated. The project has as its primary objective to determine the
technical and economic feasibility of a system for the production of
methane-or substitute natural gas-from giant California kelp, or
Macrocystis pyrifera, grown on manmade structures in the open
ocean. Giant California kelp was selected as the marine biomass to
be used as the result of a study conducted by the California Insti-
tute of Technology in 1974. The characteristics which led to its
PAGENO="0037"
31
selection were its high growth rate; its size, structure, and growth
patterns which allow it to be mechanically harvested; its long life
and continuous or year-round growth cycle; photosynthate translo-
cation within the plant tissues that counters problems of self-
shading; and very high nutrient absorption capabilities resulting
from the extensive exposed blade surfaces.
Giant kelp is, and has been since the 1930's, commercially har-
vested off the coast of California for use as a food additive and
animal feed supplement. Recent harvests have been running be-
tween 100,000 and 160,000 tons a year. Institutionally speaking,
this existing practice is a plus. Moreover, kelp's widespread natural
occurrence and the success of laboratory growth experiments plus
the natural growth of other algae in waters of the three major
coastal zones of the continental United States indicate that many
of our waters may be utilized as site locations for commercial kelp
farms.
Studies and economic analyses of potential commercial systems
performed to date have shown that kelp yield per acre of ocean
farm area, using deep water as the source of fertilizer, is one of the
key parameters affecting both initial capital requirements and unit
gas costs. Projections of kelp yield potential were made based on
the range of Macrocystis crop densities observed in natural beds
coupled with observations of several investigations of the range of
growth rates in adult plants. This study suggested the range of
yields that are potentially achievable. The study predicts yields
ranging from 25 dry, ash-free tons per acre per year, up to 105 dry,
ash-free tons per acre per year, assuming continuous fertilization.
in order to provide a data base on yield of a large number of adult
plants, under controlled conditions, we have, in cooperation with
the Department of Energy, designed, constructed, and installed a
test farm in the open ocean approximately 5 miles off the coast of
southern California to be used as an experimental station to con-
duct kelp yield experiments on 100 adult kelp plants in a con-
trolled fertilization environment.
Yield experiments will be conducted by the California Institute
of Technology through funding provided by the Department of
Energy under a separate contract.
To date, the gas industry has provided $3.4 million and the DOE
has provided $3.6 million to this program. The DOE programed
$1.2 million in fiscal year 1978 funds to maintain the schedule of
deploying the test farm. In fiscal year 1980, the program is budget-
ed for a total of $6.2 million, with DOE contributing $3.5 million,
GRI $2.4 million, and New York State ERDA $355,000.
Since the farm was deployed approximately 1 year ago, much has
been learned. Last December, 100 adult plants were transferred
from shallow waters near shore, where they had been stored, to the
test farm. A curtain, designed to retain upwelled nutrients and
protect the plants from abrasion on the structure, was then in-
stalled around the farm and a period of observation and data
collection was begun, including weekly measurements of growth of
juvenile fronds, analysis of dissolved nutrients in water samples,
and blade tissue analysis.
Initial observations of curtain performance based on underwater
photography and plant tissue analysis provided clear evidence of
PAGENO="0038"
32
the effectiveness of the curtain in reducing currents Storms during
the month, however, began tearing the curtain at its points of
support and, by the end of the month, most of the curtain was lost
The effect of the loss of the curtain combined with intense storm
induced currents and waves as well as resulting motions of the
farm, was the abrasion of many of the plants against the test farm
structure. The intensity of the storms began increasing during
January, causing further attrition such that by month's end, the
useful population was reduced to 18 plants By the first week of
February, there were no viable transplants left on the farm.
During May of this year, extensive occurrence of new plants was
observed on the farm The new plants resulted from spores re
leased by the adult transplants. Measurements of growth and nu-
trient uptake by those plants which are being supplied with artifi-
cially upwelled water, indicate that they are thriving in the test
farm environment. This occurrence is a major milestone in demon-
strating reproduction and development of juvenile plants on an
open ocean structure~ The study of these plants has been incorpo-
rated into the test program.
Action will soon be underway to select a stronger curtain materi
al and to change the curtain assembly design to provide additional
protection for the plants. It is planned that after the redesigned
curtain has been installed, the farm will be replanted with as
healthy plants as can be obtained. These will be taken directly
from natural beds to the test farm.
Thus, in sum, first year deployment of the test farm has re-
vealed:
One, the test farm upwelling system has performed as designed;
providing 9,000 gallons per minute of water containing from 25 to
32 microgram atoms per liter of nitrogen in the form of nitrates
and nitrites
Two, the test farm's mechanical structure has performed as de-
signed, and the integrity of the test farm's mechanical structure
continues to be sound
Three, the curtain device used to reduce or deflect currents in
the immediate vicinity of the plants and thereby retain nutrients
around them, works, but the curtain design must be modified to
increase its survivability and to protect the plants from abrasion
on the structure during periods of high currents.
In order to determine overall system economics, integration of
kelp production research with development of biomass conversion
technology has continued In the past year, work in the gas genera
tion area has brought about the following achievements:
One, digestion of kelp is providing gas yields equal to or greater
than the other types of biomass.
Two, digestion has been conducted at ambient temperature with
marine derived inocula, at a liter scale, with no loss in gas produc-
tion.
Third, digestion has been conducted at salt concentrations of up
to 4 percent-seawater is 3 percent-at a 10-liter scale using
sewage derived inocula by feeding undiluted kelp directly to diges-
tors.
These findings have significant implications for the system eco
nomics. The higher gas yields and lower digestor temperatures
PAGENO="0039"
33
indicate kelp can be processed in digestors that are smaller and
less complex than conventional digestors considered for biomass
conversion. In addition, the fact that fresh water is not required for
processing reduces the potential environmental impacts of the
processing facility, as well as allowing for simpler and lower cost
operations
With these accomplishments, problems and objectives in mind,
the proposed fiscal year 1980 joint DOE/GRI/New York State
ERDA program will focus on the following areas
One, continued operation of the existing biological test farm for
kelp growth and yield experiments
Two, initiation of characterization and site studies of New York
State and other Atlantic waters and laboratory growth and conver
sation studies involving kelp and native species grown in Atlantic
waters.
Third, initiation of alternative site studies in other U S coastal
waters including the gulf coast, Hawaii, and Alaska
Fourth, performance of kelp planting experiments and design
studies leading to construction of an engineering size digestor in
fiscal year 1981
Fifth, initiation of studies to examine institutional and environ
mental issues Large scale ocean farming may pose questions re
garding the multiple use of ocean waters, the adequacy of existing
permit processes for commercial ocean activities, and the potential
impact of kelp farming on the surrounding aquaculture
Technical barriers facing us over the next few years involve the
design of cost effective and reliable farm structures and the demon
stration of continuous commercially feasible yields from controlled
cultivation of the kelp These challenges include developing a farm
structure that can withstand ocean storms, assure maximum plant
growth year round, and minimize energy requirements in growing
and harvesting
Other areas of work requiring added research in the future in
dude alternative site experiments, the development of a wave
powered pumping system, the development of various genetic
strains of macrocystis pyrifera to maximize the methane yield and
to allow cultivation in other U S waters, the investigation of other
plant species for open ocean farming, and the study of mariculture
production and byproduct recovery for utilization as a feed or
fertilizer or nutrient recycle to the farm
In summary, the Gas Research Institute is aggressively support
ing, in cooperation with the Department of Energy and New York
State ERDA, a research program to determine the feasibility of
farming the ocean for biomass to be used for the production of
substitute natural gas In recognition of the importance of this
program, the Gas Research Institute has budgeted approximately
~26 million for research in this area over the next 5 years with a
fiscal year 1980 commitment of $2,375,000. New York State ERDA
has budgeted $335,000 for fiscal year 1980. To keep the program on
schedule, Congress has recently appropriated $3,500,000 of DOE
funds in fiscal year 1980 Our enthusiasm for the program is based
on the following assessments
One, a virtually unlimited potential exists for growing a huge
biomass resource in the ocean.
PAGENO="0040"
34
Two, preliminary studies indicate gas costs would be competitive
with other SNG sources.
Third, the biomass is a renewable resource with no apparent
negative environment impacts.
If the technical challenges we face can be overcome, we believe
an ocean system of this type can provide substantial amounts of
renewable energy.
I am pleased to answer any of your questions. With me today to
assist in this regard is Mr. Alan Tompkins, biomass program man-
ager for the General Electric Co., who manages the project for DOE
and GRI.
Mr. STUDDS. On page 6 of your testimony you say "Digestion of
kelp is providing gas yields equal to or greater than the other types
of biomass."
On page 9, you say, "Preliminary studies indicate gas costs would
be competitive with other synthetic natural gas sources."
Can you give us some actual figures with respect to relative yield
between this and other sources of types of biomass and with re-
spect to relative cost projections?
Mr. TOMPKINS. In terms of the gas yields, we have gone to the
literature and have looked at yields in cubic feet per pound of
volatile solids added to the digestion process. Some of the research
data we looked at was terrestrial plants.
The ranges that we are talking about are in the range of-for
other than kelp-are in the range of 3 to 3½ standard cubic feet of
all solids. Under steady state conditions through the last 2 years,
operating at the 10-liter scale, we have achieved over 4½, close to 5
standard cubic feet per pound of solids using macrocystis. That is
the only kind of seaweed that we have been running any experi-
ments on to date.
Mr. STUDDS. What about with respect to your statement that
preliminary studies indicate gas costs would be competitive with
other SNG sources?
Dr. FLOWERS. The preliminary estimates that we have made
indicate that gas costs range from about $3 to $6 a million BTU.
Mr. STUDDS. That is for kelp?
Dr. FLOWERS. For kelp, yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. How about comparative costs of other sources?
Dr. FLOWERS. For instance, SNG from coal would range on the
order of about $5 to $6, intermediate Btu gas would range from,
say, $4 to $6, of that nature. It is in the same ball park as other
alternative sources of energy.
Mr. STUDDS. Synthetic?
Dr. FLOWERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Forsythe.
Mr. FORSYTHE. In your statement you referred to continuous
fertilization to secure the maximum growth from the kelp.
What type of fertilization do you do in this kind of a process?
Chemical fertilization?
Dr. FLOWERS. No; we upwell, mechanically upwell deep ocean
waters. From about 500 feet on down, the nutrients in the ocean
begin to increase with depths to about 1,500 to 2,000 feet where it
begins to level off. It is according to the ocean currents, but those
PAGENO="0041"
35
deep ocean waters contain large amounts of nutrients. If you
upwell those to the plants, it provides excellent fertilization.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Is that basically done with the curtain, chimney
effect rather than pumping?
Dr. FLOWERS. We do it on the test farm using diesel pumps to
pump it up and in a commercial system we visualize using wave
power pumping systems which would require no energy at all, and
this is one of the program plans. In fact, there is some initial work
underway.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Have you proposed any numbers on net energy
input and output with this kelp development?
Dr. FLOWERS. The net energy studies that we have done, General
Electric has done for us inhouse indicates about a 70-percent effi-
ciency and if we substitute wave power pumping for diesel power
pumping, that could be increased, we think, to about 80 percent.
Mr. FORSYTHE. I think you stated that there are no environmen-
tal impacts, is that correct?
Dr. FLOWERS. No, sir, I did not mean to imply that, sir. We do
not feel like there are any major environmental impacts. We know
that there will be some which we will have to take care of but we
do not think there are major obstacles.
Mr. FORSYTHE. How about fish, what does it do to the fish?
Dr. FLOWERS. As it turns out, kelp beds are one of the best
havens that fish have ever found. Matter of fact, a good amount of
the ocean, of the fish farming off the California coast is the kelp
beds. The fish just love the kelp.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Is this going to disrupt the fish harvest if this is
done on a massive scale?
Dr. FLOWERS. No; we think it will increase it very much. We
think it will increase the fish population and increase the harvest-
able fish.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Have you run into any governmental problems in
terms of permits or regulations that are going to be problems down
the road?
Dr. FLOWERS. I cannot actually answer that question. The gov-
ernmental bodies that we had to check with to get the test farm in
the water to allow that, all of those bodies that we checked with
were all very positive and very cooperative. Frankly, way down-
stream when you are talking about very large scale streams, I do
not think it is our own governmental body that we need to worry
about so much than some others.
Mr. STUDDS. Could you supply us for the record with a list of
those governmental agencies at all levels of government in which
you did or had to consult in order to do that?
Dr. FLOWERS. Yes, sir, I would be happy to do that.
[The following was received for the record:]
GENERAL ELECTRIC Co.,
REENTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION,
Philadelphia, Pa., October 3, L97,9.
GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
Chicago, Ill.
(Attention of Dr. Ab Flowers, Director, Gas Supply Research).
DEAR AB: Attachment A to this letter provides the data requested by the House
Subcommittee on Oceanography asked during your testimony on September 26th. I
PAGENO="0042"
36
hope this provides the information you needed. Please feel free to call me if you
have any additional questions.
Best regards,
ALAN N. TOMPKINS,
Program Manager, Marine Biomass Program.
Attachment.
ATFACHMENT A TO LETTER TO DR AB FLOWERS
NO GE-810-554
Approval for deployment of the Marine Biomass Program's Test Farm off of
Laguna Beach, California was granted by two Federal agencies with jurisdiction as
follows:
1. U.S. Corps of Engineers granted approval for the placement of this structure
under authority granted to them under Section 10 of the Rivers & Harbors Act
dated March 10 1899 33 USC 403 stipulating performance of work in or affecting
navigable waters of the U.S.
2 Permit from the U S Coast Guard was required identifying the Test Farm as a
private aid to navigation This permit was issued after the U S Coast Guard s
approval of appropriate drawings and specifications specifying necessary markings,
navigational lights, and hazard warning systems.
Mr FORSYTHE I see another 200 mile zone for kelp beds
Mr. Chairman, I think I should desist. I appreciate the opportu-
nity Thank you very much
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Emery.
Mr EMERY Thank you, Mr Chairman
I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the process by
which the gas can be manufactured from kelp? There are three
processes that I am aware of that are generally used to producing
energy from biomass One is pyrolysis, the other being fermenta
tion process, and the third anaerobic digestion
Can you tell me a little bit about the feasibility of each of those
methods and why you selected the one that you selected?
Dr. FLOWERS. We selected anaerobic digestion as being by far the
best process for the conversion of the kelp to SNG because, No. 1,
anaerobic digestion allows a liquid base, if you will, as it turns out,
all we have to do to the raw kelp is just grind it and put it in the
digestor. The saltwater in the kelp is just about the right amount
of water that we need in a digestor in operation so we do not have
to add additional water Fresh water is not required The bacteria
that we have modified from the sewage and developed from marine
sources thrive in the saltwater environment so it is just really a
natural for that purpose.
Mr. EMERY. What is the byproduct, what is left over after the
digestion process? Is it waste material, or something that could be
used as fertilizer, in addition to any other traits?
Dr. FLOWERS. There are both liquid and solid effluents from the
digestion process. Both of these could be processed, to feeds and
fertilizers, and to food supplements, or it could be returned back to
the farm, to save those nitrates and nitrites for additional fertiliza-
tion on the farm, and thereby reducing any upwelling require-
ments that we have in the deep ocean waters.
Mr. EMERY. I asked the question because I wonder if we are
going to get into a disposal problem for the material which remains
after this process. Many, many other processes that we are familiar
with have useful byproducts, but if it is a system that is going to
require ocean dumping, or some other disposal mechanism, that is
going to cause a problem, we ought to be aware of it. Do you see
any problem of it being marketed as a feed, or as a fertilizer of
PAGENO="0043"
37
some kind Or is there some problem about that we do not know
about?
Dr FLOWERS One of our General Electric subcontractors, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Western Research Center in
Albany, Calif, is working on this very problem for us, taking
protein as food and feed, and fertilizer
Mr. STUDDS. Those are the second bells for the vote on the floor.
We will resume in 10 minutes.
[Short recess]
Mr STUDDS The subcommittee will resume, and Mr Emery, you
may resume.
Mr EMERY Thank you very much
Before the vote, we were discussing the process from which fuel
can be made from kelp, and we were discussing the disposal prob-
lems
I wonder if you might reflect a bit on the problem of salt content
in the use of residue for a feed, or agricultural fill?
If you have a heavy supply, or heavy concentration of ocean
salts, it could become a problem for agriculture, and the feeds.
Mr. TOMPKINS. The primary salt in the kelp is potassium chlo-
ride, which we are told by people at USDA could be a useful
element in fertilizers.
Now again we are also considering the option of returning the
solid and liquid effluents to the ocean, primarily to take advantage
of the nitrogen as it passes through the process
Mr. EMERY. Would that material be a suitable food supply for
kelp growers?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes. We have done some analyses, which suggest
if we return the nitrogen, that is contained within the kelp plants,
and passes through the digestion process, back to the farm, it could
reduce our upwell requirement by about 20 percent. So it is a
significant consideration to be examined in detail in the future
Mr EMERY I asked the previous witness questions as to the
feasibility of using different kinds of kelp as opposed to another
Have you been able to do any experiments, comparing the use of
different kinds of kelp, other than the giant kelp that you have
done your work with, and if you have, is there any significant
difference in the supply of methane from the fermentation, or
rather the digestion process?
Dr. FLOWERS. We have done no work on this, except macrocystis,
downstream we intend to check other varieties of kelp, as well as
start work this coming year on other species of seaweed, to check
the production of SNG, or methane from those species, as well
Mr EMERY Do you have any reason to believe that the results
are going to be substantially different, either better, or worse, not
taking into account the cost of convenience of harvesting?
Dr FLOWERS It all depends on the chemistry of the plants
Mr EMERY Do you know how much that substantial difference is
in the chemicals of the various algaes? They are in the same
structure, but only in different biological forms, is that right?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Let me try to answer that. The main refractory
elements, the chemicals within the macrocystis that are biodegra-
dable are algae, some cellulose. We have a lot of data on the rates
in which each of those refractory elements can result in gas
PAGENO="0044"
38
For example, while one considers a kelp that has carrageenan in
it, I do not have any data on how fast that chemical might revert
through the hydrolysis step, and the-into methane. That will be
one of the things that should be looked at in the future, and this
may be part of other programs that we will be addressing on
seaweed.
So the question, to emphasize what Doctor Flowers said, depends
on the chemistry of the plants, some of the chemicals may go more
rapidly than others, higher rate, obviously, which has an impact on
the economics. Some may go more slowly. It is too early to project.
One can build some kinds of models that one can predict the rate
at which these things go, but the only way is experiments, starting
on a small scale, perhaps one liter, and then 10 liters, and then
building up, if the data is positive.
I do not mean to lean on your arms but it is chemistry depend-
ent, and one has to get at it experimentally. The microbiologists
are hard pressed to predict the rates at which some of these chemi-
cals can be converted to methane.
Mr. EMERY. I would suppose the ultimate desirability of any
species would depend on not only the general chemistry, but the
rates of growth, and other characteristics that would relate?
Mr. TOMPKINS. That is precisely right, you have to consider the
balance of the whole system. Although it looks as if the feedstock
cost is the greater of the two, that is to say the feedstock cost, and
conversion cost, when one considers an integrated system, one has
to look at both sides of the equation, how fast can you group it,
productivity, and the subsequently, how fast, and how much gas
can you get out of a pound of it, or a ton of it, that you put into
your processing system. So you cannot consider that independently.
Dr. FLOWERS. We also plan to look at the genetics of the species
to see if there is anything that we can do there.
Mr. EMERY. What can you tell me about the distribution of
nutrients in the ocean, obviously that the water temperature is a
bit warmer at the surface than at the depths, and I suppose that
the growth of seaweed is going to have to occur in the top layer of
the water so that the photosynthensis will be maximized.
Can you give me some idea of the natural distribution of the
nutrients in the ocean. Is it possible that you might be able to
group these seaweeds and kelp in a depth where the nutrients and
the photosynthesis reasonably are in balance so that you could
eliminate the pumping of the water from the depths?
Have you experimented with that or do you find that that is not
feasible?
Dr. FLOWERS. The information that we have from Dr. Wheeler
North of Cal Tech and from the references that he has, indicates
that the oceans at a given depth, discounting mixing, are essential-
ly about the same as far as nutrients. The surface of the ocean is
nutrient bare, essentially none as you get down to 500 feet. The
nutrients concentration increases beyond that. It seems to vary
somewhat but it is of a general range of the same level. This in the
Pacific depends on the mixing of the Arctic Oceans and the Antarc-
tic Oceans as to just where you are there. But the oceans are
nutrient rich.
PAGENO="0045"
39
Mr. EMERY. I guess what you are saying is that due to the fact
that the nutrients are concentrated more on the depth than on the
surface, you depend upon the flow of nutrients from the water
which is really too deep to provide adequate photosynthesis?
Dr. FLOWERS. That is correct.
Mr. EMERY. All I am trying to get at is whether or not it is
necessary to have some kind of a complicated pumping system,
whether or not it is possible to grow these things in an area and
eliminate that step by the energy consumption process.
Dr. FLOWERS. For instance, on the west coast of California, the
kelp beds get fertilized about 3 months out of the year. Natural
upwelling on the coastline. On the east coast, for instance, New
Jersey, New York, and New England area, as I understand it, the
water there for 100 miles out are nutrient rich. Mainly from wastes
from the land. In some areas, as the river outcrops in the ocean, it
is rich for that reason.
Nutrients are added to the ocean from runoffs from the land as
well as from dying fish and seaweed and things like that in the
ocean itself.
Mr. EMERY. Also, there is a great deal of water table and water
motion which results in a more thorough mixing than you might
find in other places.
Dr. FLOWERS. That is right.
Mr. EMERY. One other question. Have you had an opportunity to
compare the cost of the synthetic methane made from seaweed to
natural gas? Natural gas price now depending on who you buy
from may be $2.25 per thousand cubic feet. Have you cost com-
pared it?
Dr. FLOWERS. We would not be cost competitive with natural gas.
We would be with other forms of synthetic gas, and that is the
whole key.
Mr. EMERY. How much are we talking about in the cost compari-
son? Natural gas just picking a figure out of thin air is $2.25 per
thousand feet. What is the comparable price?
Dr. FLOWERS. We said that our preliminary studies indicate a
cost range from $3 to $6 a million Btu.
Mr. EMERY. So you would very definitely be competitive with
other forms of synthetic fuel but not necessarily with the cost of
petroleum natural gases as it occurs now?
Dr. FLOWERS. Not at the present time, no.
Mr. EMERY. Do you anticipate, as your technology proves and as
the petroleum derivative natural gas increases, that it will be a
reasonably short time before you will be cost competitive? Do you
anticipate that you will be considerable time reaching that point?
Dr. FLOWERS. Well, on the present master plan for this program,
we anticipate having a good indication of what the technical and
economic feasibility of the program will be about 1983 to 1985. On
our present schedule, we do not anticipate having a commercial
prototype system in operation until the late 1990's. Now, that
program could be speeded up if necesary to do so in the present
slow situation that we are undergoing today, that is the present
schedule. Whatever costs we come up with, it does not mean any-
thing.
PAGENO="0046"
40
Mr. EMERY. Do you expect that the economics of scale is going to
have something to do with the cost?
Dr. FLOWERS. Yes, sir.
Mr EMERY Do you think when you have a commercial scale that
the cost will drop commercially?
Dr FLOWERS We believe that a larger scale is certainly more
cost effective than a smaller one. A small one would not be cost
effective, and an integrated system is the most cost effective.
Mr. EMERY. You have testified about a very interesting project
and I wish you all success. I do want to ask you a couple of other
questions relating to other terminologies to determine whether you
have looked at them or if you have any interest or desire of
pursuing them.
Specifically using municipal solid waste, or any solid waste or
gas recovery or sewage.
Have you looked at those alternatives2
Dr FLOWERS Yes, we have to consider doing that as a separate
individual project. We have elected at this time to put the majority
of our dollars, of course, in the marine farm program.
However, there is a project currently underway at Disney World
which is funded by EPA and Walt E. Disney Productions. We have
looked at that. We have given a proposal to WED for involvement
of GRI in that program, of which we would first take the sewage
sludge that is produced at Disney World and optimize its conver-
sion to methane.
We would take the water hyacinths that they are presently using
to clean up the secondary effluent of that system and convert that
to methane, and then we would try mixtures of those two to try to
optimize it.
Also, the University of Arizona is enriching the water hyacinth
using CO2. So we would plan then to look at the CO2 product
coming out of the digester along with the methane to check its
recycle value to the water hyacinth to increase productivity.
So, yes, we `have given them a proposal on that. We hope it will
be acted on favorably and that we will be involved in that by as
early as next month.
Mr. EMERY. Just as an editorial comment, I would say, as I am
sure you are very much aware, we have a massive problem in this
country with waste disposal, whether it is liquid waste from a
sewer system or' solid municipal waste.
It has just occurred to me that if we could ever find a way to
utilize that tremendous waste material as a resource, find a way to
recover potable drinking water from it, or to recover useful energy,
or industrial chemicals or whatever we would find that our ability
to handle the waste problem and ability to supply some of our
other needs would be very much enhanced; I personally would
encourage you and others who are interested in this particular
arena to spend a lot of time studying the feasibility of various
alternatives. I hope to see you here sometime in the not too distant
future with another project wherein you solve some of our ocean
dumping problems and waste disposal problems for us. I think that
would be welcomed with open arms.
I thank you very much for a fine presentation and appreciate
your coming here today.
PAGENO="0047"
41
Mr STUDDS Does the gentleman think we ought to involve Walt
Disney more deeply in energy, or does he think that he has been
primarily involved in it for some time?
Mr EMERY As a longtime fan of Mickey Mouse and Donald
Duck, I can say that it may well solve some of Walt Disney's
problems
Mr STUDDS Or it may account for some of ours
Mr EMERY It may account for some of ours, right
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Hughes, do you have any questions?
Mr HUGHES Thank you, Mr Chairman
I just wonder if, Doctor, you could tell me what is the process of
bringing deep sea water up to the surface? What does that accom
phsh? I understand part of the reason is because of the nutrients
involved in the deep water
Dr FLOWERS The only reason is to bring the deep ocean nutri
ents up to fertilize the seaweed, yes
Mr. HUGHES. Has that been perfected, the rate of flow, where
you receive maximum growth?
Dr FLOWERS No, sir, that has not been perfected That is part of
our work' right now going on in finding out just exactly how much
upwelling is necessary to fertilize the farm. We are also beginning
to work on wave powered pumping systems to replace the diesel
power so it would use no energy to bring the water up.
Mr HUGHES Right now you are using diesel power to create a
circulation, to bring the water up and circulation-you are displac
ing water in the vicinity of the seaweed
Dr FLOWERS That is correct
Mr HUGHES It is just an expedient to get the project underway
I see.
Thank you.
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much, Dr Flowers I appreciate it
Our next witness is Dr. John Ryther, senior scientist at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr Ryther and others who are waiting, we apologize for the
slowness of these proceedings and their interrupted nature It is
almost inevitable.
Dr. Ryther, I apologize for greeting you on these grounds as
opposed to your natural habitat in Woods Hole No one should be
subjected unnecessarily to this environment and we hope you sur
vive it and get back there as quickly as possible.
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. RYTHER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, WOODS
HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, WOODS HOLE, MASS.
Dr. RYTHER. Thank you very much.
[The following was received for the record:]
TESTIMONY OF JOHN H RYTHER
My name is John H Ryther I am a Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole Oceano
graphic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, where I have carried out research
in the fields of biological oceanography and marine ecology since 1951. My areas of
specialization are biological productivity of the sea, marine aquaculture, waste
recycling, and effects of pollution on marine ecosystems.
For the past five years I have conducted research under contract with the U.S.
Department of Energy on the production of aquatic plants as biomass sources for
conversion to fuel. In connection with that research, I have recently prepared a
manuscript entitled "Fuels from Marine Biomass" that will be published later this
PAGENO="0048"
42
year in the Woods Hole Oceanogrpahic Institution's publication Oceanus. The fol-
lowing remarks have been taken from that manuscript.
Of the various existing and proposed methods of utilizing solar energy, the pro-
duction of fuels from new, photosynthetically-produced organic matter-"biomass"
in the current terminology-is, at once, one of the simplest and most complicated.
The technology itself is simple. Dried plant biomass may be burned directly. That,
indeed, is man's original source of energy, and firewood is still a familiar fuel in
much of the United States-one that appears destined to revive in its importance
and significance.
But plant biomass must be relatively dry for direct combustion. Unlike seasoned
wood, most freshly harvested plant material contains 85-95 percent water which
cannot be easily or economically removed and which may cost more in energy for its
removal than the energy content of the final product.
An alternative method for obtaining power, or at least fuel, from wet plant
biomass is that of anaerobic digestion. Sugar plants (cane, beets, sorghum) and
grains, particularly corn in the United States, have a distinct advantage in this
respect because much of their biomass is directly fermentable to liquid fuel, ethanol.
Some U.S sugar crops are already contributing to the production of "gasohol".
However, careful analyses of the existing technology for producing corn and con-
verting it to ethanol indicates a negative energy output-input balance, so the pros-
pects of fuel production from this source would appear to be limited to the use of
sugar crops from the limited area in the U.S. where they may be grown.
Virtually all wet plant biomass also readily undergoes a more complete anaerobic
decomposition or fermentation, with the ultimate production of gas that is a mix-
ture of carbon dioxide and methane. The gases produced from such anaerobic
digestion have heating values of 500-800 Btu per standard cubic foot and can be
readily upgraded to pipeline-quality gas by established processes.
The difficulty with all of these approaches lies in the fact that vast quantities of
biomass are needed to make a significant contribution to the U.S. energy budget.
The energy content of most organic matter, including seasoned firewood, is in the
range of 20-30 million Btu per dry metric ton. The best yelds from short rotation
silviculture are roughly 10 dry metric tons per acre per year. To provide the energy
equivalent in firewood of a single 1,000 megawatt fossil-fuel or nuclear power plant
would thus require a managed energy farm of the order of 100,000 acres, over
300,000 acres. (ca. 500 square miles) if that energy were in the form of electricity
generated from direct combustion of the wood.
With respect to the anaerobic digestion of wet plant biomass, only about half of
most organic matter is capable of being fermented to the above-mentioned low grade
(50-60 percent methane) gas mixture. Agricultural crops, grass lands, and other
forms of terresterial vegetation in continental U.S. are, on the average, less produc-
tive than the forest trees cited above. The mean annual yield of corn, the most
productive temperate U.S. crop, is no more than 5 dry tons/acre including residues
(about 45 percent of the total plant biomass). About one billion acres in this country
are presently used for the production of 1.2 billion tons of grains and grasses-an
overall average of just about one ton per acre per year. The energy potential of
these relatively low yields, converted to methane by the rather inefficient process of
anaerobic digestion, means that some 200 million acres of cropland would be needed
to produce just one quad (10's Btu) of energy, about 1 percent of the projected U.S.
energy budget for the year 2000-that being the gross output uncorrected for the
energy input for growing, harvesting, tranporting, processing, and fermenting the
biomass and for upgrading, transmitting and/or storing the product gas. Such an
area is roughly 20 percent of the total now in use in the United States for agricul-
ture and grazing and twice the area that has been designated as unused, available
cropland.
Not only do the above areal requirements appear to be unreasonably high for
either economic or energy-based cost effectiveness, but the more important consider-
ation is that good agricultural land available in the United States-that capable of
producing even the modest agricultural yields discussed above-is already almost
fully in use for the production of food and fiber crops that, for the most part, are
worth 10 to 100 times the value of the corresponding biomass for fuel. Even at a
deregulated price of $5.00 per thousand cubic feet, the amount of methane that
could be produced by anaerobic digestion from one ton of a typical agricultural crop
would be worth no more than about $25.00, roughly one cent per pound.
In short, with the exceptions of wood and certain agricultural wastes, that may be
burned directly, and a few special crops, surpluses of which may be converted
directly to liquid fuel, the conventional agricultural crops, grasses, and other forms
of terrestrial vegetation do not appear to hold much promise as a major source of
U.S. energy.
PAGENO="0049"
43
Does the general "fuels from biomass" concept, then, have any validity and, if so,
what kinds of biomass could conceivably be grown for that purpose? It would
appear, not only that species not presently cultivated must be grown for this new
purpose, but also that they must be grown in areas not suitable for the cultivation
of food and fiber crops. They must also be highly productive and they must be easy
and inexpensive to grow, harvest and process to a form suitable for their digestion
to methane.
The seaweeds would appear to fit most of these requirements. Certainly the
oceans are the largest uncultivated and under-utilized pastures on earth. Some
species of seaweeds do have commercial value as food, in eastern countries, and for
their contained chemicals, but most have no commercial value and some (e.g., sea
lettuce) are considered esthetic nuisances when they grow or accumulate to high
densities in heavily-populated bays and estuaries. In general, cultivation of seaweeds
for energy would not compete for production of food or fiber crops in terms of space,
effort or economics.
A few of the seaweeds used as food have been cultivated for a number of years in
Southeast Asia and the Orient, and, more recently, some of those used for their
chemicals have been grown, though that industry still relies primarily on the
harvest of natural populations. Cultivation of the food species has, for the most part,
employed intensive labor practices and a rather primitive technology. Yields from
such practices range widely, from less than one dry ton per acre per year for the
highly prized Porphyra or "non" in Japan (whose price of more than $20 per pound
justifies this high labor-low yield activity) to the more impressive 20 tons/acre/year
for kelp grown in Northern China. The latter rivals the more productive terrestrial
crops such as napier grass and sugar cane, experimental yields of which in Puerto
Rico have recently been reported at 26 and 22 dry tons/acre/year respectively
(mean annual sugar cane production in mainland U.S. and Hawaii, including total
dry matter, are 10 and 16 tons/acre respectively). Seaweeds grown for their chemi-
cals in Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines have intermediate yields averaging about
five dry tons per acre per year, the same as the mean production of corn, including
residues, in the United States.
The present author first grew seaweeds at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-
tion as part of a waste recycling-aquaculture project in which the plants were used
as a polishing stage to remove the nutrients generated by a shellfish culture system
prior to discharge of the aquaculture effluent to the environment. When ERDA,
precursor of the U.S. Department of Energy, developed its "Fuels from Biomass"
program in the mid-1970's, the search began for highly-productive plant species that
could be grown over vast areas as "energy farms" capable of providing the organic
biomass needed to make a significant contribution to the country's energy needs-
then pegged at some 75 "quads" (quadrillion or 1015 BTU) per year and estimated
to exceed 100 quads by the turn of the century. Because of the promising prelimi-
nary results with seaweed culture in the Woods Hole aquaculture project, support
was obtained to investigate the potential of seaweeds as a "biomass for energy"
source. At that point, the research was transferred to the Harbor Branch Founda-
tion laboratories in Fort Pierce, Florida because the milder climate and more
abundant sunshine of that location would permit year-round growth of the plants
and thereby better reflect the maximum potential of seaweeds for organic produc-
tion.
Over 50 species of seaweeds native to Florida coastal waters, including representa-
tives of all of the major taxonomic groups-green, red and brown algae-were
screened in small outdoor culture units to select the most promising species with
respect to growth rate throughout the year and the relative freedom from difficulty
of its cultivation. The best of the lot, by these criteria, was the red seaweed,
Gracilaria tikvahiae.
Gracilaria was then grown throughout an entire year under what appeared to be
ideal culture conditions-vigorous aeration, rapid exchange of enriched seawater,
frequent harvest, with an annual production that averaged 35 grams dry weight/
m ~lay-equivalent to 51 dry tons/acre/year.
It is, of course, misleading to extrapolate small-scale experimental results to large
areas where scaling factors and other complications may lead to significantly lower
yields. However, the productive potential of many terrestrial crops have been evalu-
ated in similar, small-scale experimental plots. None has surpassed that of Graci-
lana in the above experiment, It must be remembered, however, that Gracilaria,
like other seaweeds, contains a large fraction of its dry weight as mineral salts.
Ironically, the more ideal the culture conditions, particularly with respect to the
supply of essential nutrients, the greater the mineral or "ash" content of the plants,
those grown in the experiment described above having an ash content of approxi-
mately 50 percent of its total dry weight. But the purely organic yield of 25.5 tons/
69-848 0 - 81 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
44
acre/year still exceeds that of almost any other plant on earth for which there is
well documented evidence, the only possible exceptions being the best yields of
sugar cane grown in the tropics, the freshwater weed, water hyacinth, and perhaps
a few tropical grasses.
Gracilana is grown commercially in southern Taiwan in shallow ponds averaging
25 acres in size that were originally constructed for fish culture. The seaweed is
grown on the bottom of the ponds that range from one-quarter to one meter in
depth depending on the season Water in the ponds is exchanged sporadically with
the adjacent estuary at intervals of days to weeks as needed to control temperature
and salinity but the water is usually not enriched The seaweed is harvested seven
or eight times a year by dip netting a portion of the plant population from the pond
and spreading the remainder evenly over the pond bottom
This relatively passive, non-intensive culture technique results in a yield of about
five dry tons per acre per year, only 10 percent of that achieved in Florida. Thus it
would appear, as a rule to thumb, that the more intensive the culture system, the
higher the yield. Attempts are now being made to develop a culture system that is a
compromise between the low-cost, low-energy-input, passive Taiwanese technology
and the intensive Florida system and that may result in yields intermediate be-
tween the two that would be cost effective but could still be impressive relative to
plant biomass production elsewhere
Equally important however is the development of a culture method whereby the
plants can be grown offshore in the open ocean Since seaweeds normally grow
attached to the bottom they are restricted in their natural distribution to the
shallow fringes of the sea in depths of water never exceeding 100 meters and
usually in less than 10 meters. The few culture operations are similarly restricted to
shallow coastal waters or to impoundments on land as in the Taiwanese Gracilaria
industry. But coastal lands and waters are among the most costly and heavily used
parts of our country. If prime agricultural land is in heavy demand for food
production, the coastal zone is in even heavier demand for that and almost every
other form of human activity including industry, housing, recreation, transportation
and waste disposal, among others, many of which are already in confict with each
other. Large-scale energy farming could not possible compete with these other
multiple uses of coastal lands and waters. Rather it would have to be conducted
offshore in the relatively inaccessible and little used parts of the oceans This
immediately imposes a host of new problems both technical and economic New
methods must be developed for growing seaweeds offshore at or near the sea
surface, within the relatively shallow depths where there is sufficient light for
photosynthesis in trays or baskets or nets or woven into ropes in or on some type
of structure that is moored or suspended in such a way as to withstand normal
waves and currents and ocean storms.
Preliminary experiments have been initiated in Florida to develop such tech-
niques for offshore culture of Gracilaria, but perhaps, in the long run, some other
species of seaweed will turn out to be better adapted to cultivation in the open sea.
The ubiquitous brown alga Sargassum is a logical caiididate, since it occurs natural-
ly in the central gyres of the oceans, where it lives at the sea surface, buoyed by
small floats or bladders. Such a floating habit is an obvious advantage to open ocean
culture, eliminating the need for costly suspending structures or devices. One spe-
cies, S. natans, which gives the Sargasso Sea its name, grows only vegetatively,
never having been known to produce or bear fruiting, reproductive bodies. Unfortu-
nately, the evidence to date indicates that the drifting species of Sargassum grow
very slowly, but more work needs to be done with that otherwise promising genus.
Another very attractive candidate for offshore marine biomass production is the
giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera 1* This large alga, which may reach 50 meters or
more in length, is one of the most important resources of the California coastline,
not only for its own commercial value, but also as the dominant species and habitat
of the local ecosystem.
In the mid-1970's an ambitious Ocean Food and Energ~r Farm (OFEF) Program
funded jointly by ERDA, NSF, the American Gas Association (AGA), the U.S. Navy
and various organizations in public and private sectors was begun. The primary
objective of the farm was to cultivate kelp as a source of energy. An ocean farm
system was designed under the management of H. 0. Wilcox of the Naval Undersea
Center, San Diego and production costs and performance of the system were esti-
mated.
`The section on giant kelp is taken from a special topical report on sources and systems for
aquatic biomass as an energy resource by E. H. Wilson, J. C. Goldman and J. H. Ryther, which
is part of the cost~ analysis of algal biomass systems by Dynatech RID Company referred to later
in this article. It ~s based on material provided by Prof. Wheeler J. North, California Institute of
Technology.
PAGENO="0051"
45
The design consisted of an open ocean farm covering 100,000 acres, 12.5 miles on a
side, located 100 miles off the coast of Southern California. Following site survey
studies, 3 sites in Southern California were recommended. The farm substrate,
maintained at a depth of 34 meters was to be made up of flexible triangular moduls
1 000 feet on a side each covering about 10 acres Each module would be held in
place by diesel powered propulsors Nutrient rich water was to be upwelled from a
depth of about 91 meters by wave-powered pumps.
Kelp plants attached to the substrate at a density of one plant per 34 square
meters, would take about 4 years to mature and then the standing crop would be
harvested by a harvesting ship six times per year. The estimated yield of the farm
was about 15 dry tons/acre/year of which eight tons would be organic biomass. In
comparison, the productivity of natural kelp beds is estimated by Dr. Wheel North
and others as 1-2 tons/acre/year.
To test the technical and economic feasibility of the commercial-sized ocean
energy farm, a research program was initiated in 1976 jointly sponsored by ERDA
(subsequently DOE) and the American Gas Association and managed by the General
Electric Company Scientific and engineering support is provided by the Institute of
Gas Technology the U S Department of Agriculture and Global Marine Develop
ment Inc Under this program a quarter acre module (QAM) of the sea farm was
constructed at a site off Laguna Beach CA The QAM consisted of 8 diameter buoy
which stands upright in the water and is attached by a swivel joint to an umbrella-
shaped set of radial arms to which kelp plants are attached Nutrient rich water is
pumped up through 2 diameter fiberglass pipe using 3 pumps of 3300 GMP driven
by a 35 HP diesel. The test farm was deployed at sea in 1978, and soon thereafter
was seeded with juvenile kelp plants, but due to a number of technical problems,
the initial plantings failed to survive. A second test of the experimental system was
in preparation at the time this article was written. In the meantime, a DOE-
sponsored engineering and economic analyses of a number of proposed aquatic
biomass energy farms, including both freshwater and marine species and unicellular
algae as well as seaweeds and higher plants, carried out by Dynatech R/D Company
of Cambridge, MA cast some considerable doubt on the cost-effectiveness of the
proposed kelp farm both with respect to economics and the energy input output
ratio
Seaweed culture as a large-scale commercial operation is still very much in its
infancy The few practices scattered around the world are for the most part
primative and make little use of modern technology. Much remains to be learned
about the basic biology of the plants, particularly with respect to their nutrition and
growth and factors that control their organic productivity The much more difficult
task of developing a technology for growing seaweeds in the open sea must await
our ability to grow them in small controlled experimental units on land or in
protected coastal areas, and to fully understand and define their growth potential
under different conditions. In short, open-ocean energy farming of seaweeds must be
regarded as a long-term prospect that cannot be expected in a time frame of less
than tens of years.
It would be a serious mistake to neglect the challenging potential of producing
biomass from the open sea But it would be equally wrong in my opinion to plunge
headlong into large scale and costly experiments in this area where so much funda
mental science and technology remains to be done Repeated failure of such hastily
conceived efforts will lead inevitably to the premature elimination of open ocean
energy farms from further consideration That would be unfortunate because the
ocean is just about the only place on earth where truly large-scale biomass produc-
tion, capable of contributin~ significantly to the world's energy budget. on a non-
competitive basis with man s other space needs, could conceivably be carried out.
High yielding terrestrial and aquatic crops
[Units in dry weight tons per acre per year]
Experimental (small scale, maxima):
Sugar cane (Puerto Rico) 22
Napier grass (Puerto Rico) 26
Water hyacinth (Florida) 35
Gracilaria (Florida) 52
Commercial (large scale average)
Silviculture (U.S.) 10
Sugar cane (Hawaii) 16
Sugar cane (Mainland U.S.) 10
Corn (U.S.) 5
Kelp (People's Republic of China) 20
Gracilaria (Taiwan) 6
PAGENO="0052"
46
[The following paper written by Dr. Ryther was submitted for
the record:]
GROWTH AND YIELD OF AQUATIC PLANTS
Farmers and ecologists are familiar with the concept of plant productivity or
yield-amount of material produced per unit of area and time. Short-term yields are
usually expressed as g/m2.day, seasonal or annual crops as metric tons/hectare.year
(or the more familiar, to many, British units of short tons/acre.year, which are 0.36
times the metric units). Ecologists interested in the comparative productivity of
different kinds of plant species or communities usually express yields in dry weight,
often in ash-free dry weight, which is to say the strictly organic fraction of the plant
production.
Other botonists concerned with physiological processes of organisms think in
terms of the specific growth rate of plants. This may be exressed as g increase/g.day
or, more often, percent increase/day or doubling time in days.
Growth and yield are, of course, closely related, yield being the product of growth
rate and plant density. But the relationship is not constant because growth rate is
itself a variable function of density. This is illustrated for four quite different kinds
of aquatic plants in Fig. 1. Original data were obtained for the marine diatoms,
from Goldman and Ryther(1), for the red seaweed Gracilaria, from Ryther et al.(2),
and for the two freshwater macrophytes, from DeBusk et al.(3).
The diatoms were grown in Woods Hole, MA in 2000 1 (2.3 m diameter 0.5 m
deep) continuous cultures of seawater enriched with 2~ treated sewage effluent. In
steady state, growth rate was considered equivalent to dilution rate, density was
measured as particulate organic carbon and doubled to give total ash-free dry
weight, and yield calculated as the product of density and dilution rate. The diatoms
were essentially monocultures of Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Amphipora sp. and
Amphora sp. which succeeded each other as dominants during the course of the
experiment.
The Gracilaria was grown in Fort Pierce, FL in 50-1 outdoor cultures in which
the plants were suspended by aeration and through which enriched seawater was
circulated at an exchange rate of 20 volumes/day. The culture was removed from
the water, drained and weighed at weekly intervals. Ash-free dry weight was
considered at 5.0 percent of wet weight. Density is expressed as the mean of the
starting and final weight for each one week interval.
The freshwater macrophytes duckweek (Lemna minor) and water hyacinth (Eich-
hornia crassipes) were also grown in Fort Pierce, FL in 25,000 1 (30 m2 area, 0.5 m
deep) PVC-lined earthen ponds through which enriched well water was exchanged
at one volume/day.
The water hyacinths were held in Vexar-mesh cages ranging in size from one to
2.3 m2. At intervals of one week the cages with the contained plants were lifted
from the water, allowed to drain, and weighed. Duckweed was grown loose in the
pond. Each week, the plants were netted from the water, drained and weighed. Ash-
free dry weights of Lemna and Eichhornia were considered to be 9.0 percent and
4.25 percent of wet weight respectively.
Yields of the three macrophytes are expressed as the mean daily increase in ash-
free dry weight/m2 for each weekly interval and mean growth rate for that interval
obtained by dividing yield by mean density.
All of the above studies were carried out over a period of four to six months
during late spring, summer and early fall. Growth rates and yields were at or near
their annual maxima and are not typical or representative of average conditions
throughout the year. However, the relationships between the three variables were
subsequently found to be the same in winter as in summer.
In every case, growth rate decreased with increasing plant density. Yield, the
product of the two, was greatest at an intermediate density. The reason for the
decline in growth rate is not clear. It is tempting to invoke detrimental effects of
overcrowding-self-shading, nutrient limitation, accumulation of metabolites, etc.-
but the fact that the effect occurred equally at low as well as high densities makes
such an explanation unconvincing. One can say only that the phenomenon appears
to be a general characteristic of aquatic plants, possibly of all plants. The photosyn-
thetic portions of both duckweed and water hyacinth are, after all, air-borne the
same as terrestrial plants. Watson(4) obtained a very similar relationship between
the yield of kale and its leaf-area index, a unit that is proportional to total plant
density. Optimal yield was obtained at an intermediate leaf-area index above and
below which it declined rapidly. Davidson and Donald(S) described a similar rein-
PAGENO="0053"
47
tionship in clover, and Kasanaga and Monsei(6) developed a numerical model to
preduct optimal leaf-area index for maximum plant production.
The relationship described above is of considerable importance in the context of
current research programs investigating the potential of plant biomass as a source
of energy. The most sensitive factor in assessing the economic or energy cost-
effectiveness of such biomass systems is that of organic yield. In that connection,
~rowth rate is often confused with yield. Duckweeds, for example, have, due to their
`phenomenal reproduction rate" been credited as being "more productive than
terrestrial agricultural crops"(7) and able to "grow at least twice as fast as other
higher plants"(8). But it may be seen in Fig. 1C that the highest growth rate of
duckweed occurs at a very low density and that actual yields of the species are
relatively low when compared to the better agricultural crops, grasslands, and
forests (e.g., (9)).
The yields of food and fiber crops may be determined simply by weighing the
seasonal or annual harvest. No such expedient is possible with plant populations
that are not commercially grown and utilized. In order to assess the potential yield
of such species there is no substitute to cultivating them throughout the year or
growing season in either natural or experimental plots and harvesting and weighing
the resulting crop. For species in mild climates that are able to grow continuously
in a vegetative mode, such as all four of the examples shown in Fig. 1, it is
necessary to harvest the new growth frequently enough to maintain the density of
plants at or near its optimum for maximum yield, if the full potential of the species
for biomass production is to be determined.
Such experiments are difficult and time consuming and tend to be replaced by
simpler but more crude yield estimates. One such approach has been to measure the
growth rate of a given species experimentally, in the field or laboratory, and to
apply such growth rates to a measured or estimated density of a natural stand of
the plants to obtain annual yield values. In some cases short-term growth rates
have been used to calculate annual yields, thereby ignoring seasonal effects. This
general approach has been used to estimate the annual production of several kinds
of aquatic plants including rockweeds and kelps in Novia Scotia(1O), giant kelp off
California(11), seagrasses(12), and water hyacinths(13).
Reference to Fig. I clearly shows how the use of independent values of daily
growth rate and density and extrapolation of the resulting daily to annual yields
may result in greatly exaggerated projections. Using the maximum growth rates
and densities for the seaweed Gracilaria and the freshwater Eichhornia as given in
Figs. lB and 1D, for example, would result in annual yield estimates in excess of
500 ash-free dry tons/ha.yr. Actual ~easured yields of small, experimental cultures
of the two species maintained undler the best possible conditions throughout the
year in Central Florida were respectively 63 and 75 ash-free dry tons/ha.yr(2, 3).
To put these figures in perspective, the best commercial yields of sugar cane, the
world's most productive agricultural crop, are roughly 63 ash-free tons/ha.yr(14).
Commercial seaweed production ranges from about one ash-free ton/ha.yr from the
harvest of natural beds of giant kelp off California to some 25 ash-free tons/ha.yr
for the small kelp, Laminaria japonica, that is cultivated in Northern China(15).
Thus Wolverton and McDonald's estimate(13) of 154 dry tons (ca. 131 ash-free dry
tons) of water hyacinths/ha, for a seven-month growing season in Mississippi, ob-
tained from separate measurements of growth rate and density, must be considered
as suspect. Also untenable is the projection, similarly obtained, of up to 262 ash-free
dry tons of giant kelp/ha.yr from the ocean energy farm that is presently in the
pilot-testing phase by General Electric Corp., under contract from the Gas Research
Institute and the Department of Energy(16).
Such lavish estimates have tended to create an unrealistic opinion of the potential
role of aquatic plants as a biomass source for energy. This could prove unfortunate,
since many aquatic species are, in fact, comparable to the most productive terrestri-
al crops in their organic yields and do not need exaggerated projections to justify
their consideration.
REFERENCES
1. J. C. Goldman and J. H. Ryther, ,J. Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE 101, 351 (1975). The same
relationship has been demonstrated for these and other data concerning unicellular algae by J.
C. Goldman, Water Res. 13, 1(1979).
2. J. H. Ryther, J. A. DeBoer, B. E. Lapointe, Proc. 9th Internat. Seaweed Symp., 9, 1 (1978).
3. T. A. Del3usk, M. D. Hanisak, L. D. Williams, J. H. Ryther, Aquatic Botany, In press.
4. D. J. Watson, Ann. Bot. N.S. 22, 37 (1958).
5. J. L. Davidson, C. M. Donald, Aust. J. Agr. Res. 9, 53 (1958).
6. H. Kasanaga, M. Monsi, Jap. J. Bot. 14, 304 (1954).
7. Nat. Acad. Sci. Rep. Ad Hoc Panel of Adv. Comm. on Tech. Innov. "Making aquatic weeds
useful", 175 pp. (1976).
PAGENO="0054"
48
8. W. S. Hiliman, D. D. Culley, Jr., Am. Sci. 66, 442 (1978).
9. D. 0. Hall, FEBS Letters 64, 6 (1976).
10. K. H. Mann, Mar. Biol. 14, 199 (1972).
11. K. A. Clendenning, Nova Hed. 32 (Suppi.), 259 (1971).
12. A. Thorhaug, M. A. Roessler, Aquaculture 12, 253 (1977).
13. B. C. Wolverton, R. C. McDonald, NASA-ERL Rept. No. 171 (1978).
14. E. S. Lipinsky, T. A. McClure, R, A. Nathan, T. L. Anderson, W. J. Sheppard, W. T.
Lawhon, Battelle Columbus Lab. Task 77 Final Rep. BMI-1957 (Vol. 2) (1976).
15. J. H. Ryther, Oceanus 22, 21, (1979).
16. Testimony of Dr. Ab Flowers, Director, Gas Supply Research, Gas. Res. Inst. before
Subcommittee on Oceanogr., Comm. on Merchant Mar. and Fish., U.S. House Rep., Sept. 26,
1979.
17 Contribution No of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution The research was support
ed by SERI Contract No. XR-9-8133-1.
0 100
A 90 B
80
*30
30
20
10
`0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
~0 D
30
1/) 20j\\
0~
0 5 20 25 30
70
.60
50
40
30
20
I0
Cu
16
14
12
10
20
10
40
30~
20
te~ibo 150 200. 250 300
D
0~
x
8 ( `c~i\?~
10
4. ..0....
2'
0
00 150200250300
PLANT DENSITY: gash-free dry wt./m2
FIGURE 1. Growth rate (broken line) yield (solid line) of marine diatoms (A), the red seaweed
Gracilaria tikvahiae (B), and the freshwater macrophytes, duckweed (Lemna minor) (C), and
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (D) as a function of plant density. Note that both
horizontal and vertical scales differ for the respective species.
Dr. RYTHER. For most of my career I have been working at
Woods Hole on problems of comparative productivity in yields of
different kinds of marine and general aquatic ecosystems, and
problems in aquaculture, marine aquaculture in particular, and
problems of waste recycling
I am trying to combine some of these things together, trying to
use marine organisms as a method of removing the nutrients from
waste water and growing useful crops and, at the same time,
purifying the waste water and removing the nutrients from it.
PAGENO="0055"
49
For the past 5 or 6 years I have been conducting experiments
along these lines in Florida at the Harbor Branch Foundation, a
small private laboratory, working both with freshwater weeds, like
water hyacinths, duckweeds, and so forth, and also with seaweeds.
When the Department of Energy "fuels from biomass" program
then started up I found out about this and was able to get some
support to look at the possible use of seaweeds and fresh water
weeds as a biomass source for energy
So I would like to talk a little bit about my experience there but
try to put it first in some perspective and then begin perhaps
considering some of the problems of biomass production on land in
the terrestrial environment
And it seems to me that there are two major problems with this
One of them is the tremendous land requirement for this Consider
mg, for example, trees for burning wood, which seems to be the
most promising aspect of the fuels from biomass program at the
moment. There is nothing new or startling about it. It has been
going on for a long time but it does seem that renewed efforts in
this area may prove profitable and there are new technologies for
growing trees for this purpose.
Short rotation crops that can be cut off and the new trees will
grow up from the roots They are projecting yields and have, I
guess, experimentally found yields of as high as 10 dry tons per
acre per year from this This dry wood is very high in its energy
content, 30 million Btu's per ton or so.
In spite of these high yields and high energy content, to get a
quad of energy from wood, if you were going to use it to generate
steam in a conventional powerplant, it would take about 10 million
acres-iS 000 square miles, that is It is a pretty sizable piece of
real estate.
Other forms of terrestrial biomass, like sugar, which has been
talked about today, that is certainly the most productive terrestrial
crop in the world actually In the continental United States the
yields are a little lower than they are in places like Hawaii, but
they average about 10 tons dry weight per acre per year.
If you were going to ferment that and make ethanol out of it,
gasohol, again, it would take 44 million acres for 1 quad of energy.
There aren't many places in the mainland United States where you
can grow sugar.
The average production of terrestrial vegetation on land is about
1 ton per acre per year That is agricultural crops and grazing
grassland According to the Department of Energy, this is about 1 2
billion tons produced over 1 billion acres of cultivated land
That is not a very high yield, 1 ton per acre If you fermented
this and made methane out of it, which is perhaps the only thing
you can do with most of these terrestrial that are essentially wet
biomass, if you ferment it, which is also an inefficient system, it
would take something like 200 million acres to produce 1 quad of
energy. That is 10 percent of the area of the United States.
This is somewhat unrealistic, it seems to me, to be thinking
about producing large quantities of fuel on land
The other big constraint is the economic one All of the best land
available for this purpose is already in use for agriculture for food
and fiber crops, and these are generally worth 10 to 100 times as
PAGENO="0056"
50
much as the equivalent value of the same amount of biomass for
energy, even assuming a deregulated gas price value of $5, say, a
thousand cubic feet.
Biomass is worth about 1 cent a pound as dry material. That
means about a tenth of a cent is fresh weight and there aren't very
many crops that are worth much more than that. So it seems to me
that it is not realistic to think in terms of growing biomass for
energy using materials that already can be used for food or fiber,
nor does it seem reasonable to think that you can grow them on
land that can be producing food and fiber crops.
Also, these energy crops would have to be highly productive and,
I would think, of the order of 10 tons, at least, per acre per year.
This would make them comparable to the best yields of land agri-
culture.
And, finally, they would have to be easy to grow and easy to
grow in terms of the energy input. They would obviously have to
have a positive energy balance.
I would submit that most of these requirements would be met by
seaweed. Certainly, the oceans are the big unused pastures of the
world and seaweeds do have some value as food in some parts of
the world, and certain species of algae have value because of their
chemicals, but these are limited.
These markets would be very quickly saturated so it would not
be in competition for the food and fiber industry to produce large
quantities of seaweed for energy, and they are productive.
Now, let me get into that business a little bit. There are some
commercial seaweed culture operations going on around the world,
not in the United States, but in the Orient in particular-China,
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines-the Philippines is where
they grow it from marine colloids, one species-and a few other
places.
The yields of these seaweeds-this is usually pretty primitive
technology that is used in these countries but, nevertheless, quite
effective. The yields are quite variable and they range from about 1
ton per acre per year in Japan, for example, to as high as 20 tons
per acre per year in China where they grow a species of kelp, not
the California giant kelp but a smaller species, Laminaria.
That 20 tons is quite an impressive number. There is one thing
that I ought to point out right away and that is that the seaweeds
contain a large quantity of ash or mineral matter and that doesn't
do you any good as far as producing energy. So what we should be
talking about is ash-free dry weight.
Seaweeds contain almost half of their biomass as ash from min-
erals, so you have to take this high yield of 20 and cut it in half as
far as the yield of ash-free dry weight is concerned.
But, even so, 10 tons per acre per year for kelp in China is pretty
good. That is comparable to sugarcane in mainland United States.
It is as good as we can do on land. These other yields around the
world is intermediate between those numbers of 1 and 20, or one-
half and 10, if you are talking about the ash free yield.
The Fucuma, the seaweed that is grown in the Philippines now,
and Gracilaria, another species that is grown in Taiwan, have
yields of about 5 tons per acre per year total yield, total dry
weight.
PAGENO="0057"
51
We have been looking at a number of different species in Florida.
We screened about 50 local indigenous species to look for the one
that looked best, that grew fastest and was easiest to grow, and
ended up with one called Gracilaria. It is a red seaweed.
It also has the advantage that it contains the commercial poly-
saccharide agar, which gives it commercial value. The advantage of
Gracilaria is that it will grow in Florida all year round. It stays in
a vegetative condition. It never becomes reproductive. This is a big
advantage. It just proliferates itself and breaks up into little pieces
that you can continually crop it off and maintain it at its optimum
density all the time, and this is an ideal situation for getting
maximum productivity.
We were able to get a yield, in a small scale experimental
system, of the equivalent of 52 tons per acre per year, which is
very high. Taking the organic fraction, this would be half of that,
26 tons per acre per year. That is about as high as any documented
yield for any plant on Earth.
The only things that are comparable to it are water hyacinths,
which are extremely productive, and that was also the result of
some of our experimental work in Florida. The best yields of sugar-
cane in the tropics, around 20, and there are a couple of tropical
grasses that are comparable to this.
The last page of my testimony shows some of these high yields.
You have to be a little careful of these data because, again, these
are the total dry weight yields. I have not tried to show ash free
organic matter because this is not given for a lot of the terrestial
crops, so I didn't want to guess that.
But you can see from this that the aquatic plants, the Gracilaria,
the kelp and so on, are up as high as most of the terrestial plants,
either on a small experimental scale or on a large commercial scale
as well.
This same Gracilaria that we are growing in Florida is grown
commercially in Taiwan in large ponds about 25 acres in size and 3
feet deep that were designed originally for growing fish. The people
have found that they can make more money by growing Gracilaria.
They get yields that are much lower than we get in Florida, a
tenth as high. Instead of 25 ash free tons per acre they get about
2½. They do it in a very simple manner. They just let the seaweed
sit on the bottom of the pond and grow by itself and when it is
grown up a bit they harvest some of it out and spread the rest of it
around and let it continue to grow.
Our rule of thumb as a result of this and some of our own work
is that the more energy you put into the system the higher the
yield you get, and somewhere there is an optimum with respect to
the energy balance. This is what we are now going to be trying to
find out, where in this system do you get the best energy output
relative to energy input. This is something we have got to find in
the next year or so.
But, equally important I think, is, having found the potential for
these plants we have got to begin developing technology for grow-
ing them out in the open ocean. I think it is unrealistic to think
that one could grow these on a large scale in our coastal areas, or
on land along the coast. This is some of the most valuable land
PAGENO="0058"
52
with so many conflicting uses already that I think it is out of the
question that this could be used for large scale energy farming
I think one would have to get offshore into areas that are not
now being used to carry this out. And this immediately opens up a
whole new spectrum of problems, technological and economic. They
are going to be very difficult problems.
We are trying to develop techniques by which we could grow this
Gracilaria offshore using different kinds of suspending mechanisms
for holding it up into the surface areas
But it may well turn out that some other species of seaweeds are
better adapted for this sort of thing, and you have just heard of one
of these candidate species, the giant kelp There may well be
others One of the more intriguing ones, I think, is Sargassum,
which is a brown seaweed that already occurs naturally out in the
central gyres of the ocean. It is the seaweed that gives the Sargasso
Sea its name.
It floats because it is buoyed up by little bladders There is a
species that is the common species in the Sargasso Sea that re-
mains vegetative throughout its whole life It has never been found
to have reproductive bodies, so it has that advantage as well.
We know almost nothing about this species Nobody has really
tried to grow it yet This certainly bears looking into
So I think the real challenge is can we develop a technology for
growing these seaweeds out in the open sea where there is plenty
of room and where we can take advantage of their natural inher
eñt high growth rates.
I would like to end up by reading the last page or so of my
testimony.
Seaweed culture as a large-scale commercial operation is still
very much in its infancy. The few practices scattered around the
world are, for the most part, primitive and they make very little
use of modern technology.
Much remains to be learned about the basic biology of the plants,
particularly with respect to their nutrition and growth and the
factors that control their organic productivity. The much more
difficult task of developing a technology for growing seaweeds in
the open sea must await our ability to grow them in small, con-
trolled experimental units on land or in protected coastal areas,
and to fully understand and define their growth potential under
different conditions.
In short, open-ocean energy farming of seaweeds must be regard-
ed as a long-term prospect that cannot be expected to be solved in a
time frame of less than tens of years I estimate.
It would be a serious mistake, I think, to neglect the challenging
potential of producing biomass from the open sea. But I think it
~would also be equally wrong, in my opinion, to plunge headlong
into large-scale costly experiments in this area where so much
fundamental science and engineering technology still remains to be
done.
I think that repeated failures--this is my major concern-of hast-
ily conceived efforts will inevitably lead to premature elimination
of this whole concept of open-ocean energy farming from any fur-
ther consideration.
PAGENO="0059"
53
I think that would be unfortunate because the ocean is about the
only place left on Earth where truly large scale biomass production
could conceivably be carried out on a noncompetitive basis with
man's other needs for space.
I would like to expand on that, if I might, with just a couple of
other points relative to some of the earlier discussion today I do
feel that field experiments are obviously going to be needed in the
development of this kind of a technology.
You can't understand what the problems are going to be until
you try it, get your feet wet and make the effort, and these kinds of
experiments inevitably are rather large scale and rather expensive
And I think they must be done.
But I would like to see them done first within some kind of a
context of a broad general program studying the potential of
marine biomass This is something that I find lacking There never
has been a defined, broad-based program to look at all of the
various potentials.
The Sargassum that I mentioned The possibility of the weeds up
in the New England area A friend of mine at the University of
Maine tried very hard to get a grant to look at the potential of
seaweeds in the large estuaries along the Maine coast just to try to
assess the biomass that is present there and was unable to get
support to do this.
I think there are lots of approaches to this that ought to be
looked at simultaneously and I don't see anybody worrying about
the comprehensive problem as a whole. It seems the program in
the Department of Energy for looking at marine biomass, such as it
is, seems to have just grown up more or less adventitiously.
I certainly found out about it by accident. Many other people
didn't know of its existence I think that there should be some
effort made to bring together specialists in this field to try to
develop a comprehensive plan
And the other concern I have is that large scale studies should be
recognized as being exploratory at this stage in the sense that this
whole technology is new and we really don't know what the best
species are or the best method of drawing them.
Although these experiments won't necessarily be large, they
should not be viewed at the moment as a pilot project demonstrat-
ing some tried and true concept because I am afraid if this is the
motivation, very quickly people would become disillusioned with
the mistakes that will inevitably occur as a result of these early
studies.
Thank you
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Dr. Ryther.
Even with my layman's lack of knowledge, expertise, and sophis-
tication in these matters, I am, nonetheless, always upset when I
hear the Department of Energy on this or any other subject. Now
you have made me worry even more than I normally do.
You started out by summarily dismissing the potential of terres-
tial biomass production as opposed to aquatic biomass, and I don't
know if you have seen the figure 1 which accompanies the testimo
ny of the Department of Energy earlier today of that minute
portion of their budget which goes to this kind of biomass produc
tion at all.
PAGENO="0060"
54
Six percent goes to aquatic biomass and 9 percent, 50 percent
more, to terrestial biomass which, I gather, you think has very
little hope compared to aquatic.
Dr. RYTHER. I think, in terms of large-scale contributions to our
energy budget that probably terrestial systems are much more
limited than the marine. I think, in the short term the terrestial is
going to be able to produce a much-make a much bigger contribu-
tion than the aquatic.
In the long run, I think, we have got to look at the ocean where
we have the space to do this.
Mr. STUDDS. Did I understand you to say that you and others of
your colleagues who are experts in the field were unaware, at least
until recently, that the Department of Energy was even interested
in the subject?
Dr. RYTHER. I found out about it, as I said, by accident. I was
talking with a person I know in Louisiana State who was growing
duck weed and found out somehow by accident. To my knowledge,
there has been no advertisement of this, of the fact that they would
entertain proposals or that there was such a program.
Mr. STUDDS. You were not overwhelmed by the announcement
this morning that we have six full-time professionals working in
the field in the Department of Energy?
Dr. RYTHER. No.
Mr. STUDDS. Were you aware of the Gas Research Institute proj-
ect which was described earlier today?
Dr. RYTHER. Yes, I was and have been for a number of years. I
have been following it with a great deal of interest and I have
known Dr. Wheeler North for many years and Dr. Neushul.
Mr. STUDDS. So what you are saying to us, if I understand you
correctly, is that our most experienced folks in this field have
neither been gathered nor even had their views solicited by the
Department of Energy at this point.
Dr. RYTHER. I have found some lack in bringing together a group
of peers to either evaluate ongoing programs or to suggest new
ones.
Mr. STUDDS. I don't have the heart to suggest you stop by the
Department of Energy, even if you could find it, before you go back
to Woods Hole.
Dr. RYTHER. I have mixed feelings about the fact that the gentle-
men are no longer here. I am probably cutting my own throat in
saying that other people ought to be solicited to share this pie but,
nevertheless, I do feel that this is a lack.
Mr. STUDDS. I appreciate that.
Mr. Emery?
Mr. EMERY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I can only observe that this is further proof that we can't
turn to the Department of Energy for a solution to all of our
energy problems. Indeed, it is a little disconcerting to find the
Department of Energy has not been aware of some work that has
been going on for time.
I wonder if you have had an opportunity to examine the results
of some of these biomass funding projects that Mr. Adams listed for
us this morning. I know that you have been a recipient of some of
these grants. Have you had a chance to observe the work generally,
PAGENO="0061"
55
even outside of your own, and, if so, can you give us an idea of the
quality of the work that has been done, whether or not you think
that the funding that has gone into biomass research has been well
placed. What changes would you recommend to the program. What
should we do to improve the response in this area?
Dr. RYTHER. I have been asked to review a number of proposals
and progress reports in my own area of specialization and I think
that my opinion has carried some weight with the individuals, so I
certainly have no complaints in that respect.
I do feel, as I mentioned before, that a peer review system that is
comparable to that used in some of the other agencies might be
improved upon. There is some of that done but I don't think
enough in the Department of Energy.
Mr. EMERY. Do you think it would be a valuable thing for a
group of scientists, or biologists, or energy experts to regularly
review these projects, hopefully, before they are undertaken so that
we might have a better way of knowing?
Dr. RYTHER. Very much so.
Mr. EMERY. I think that is an excellent suggestion and one that
we might consider. If we have been spending this tremendous
amount of money and the Department of Energy experts can't even
tell us what has been accomplished, it is appalling.
I asked a series of questions earlier this morning, and was quite
alarmed by the fact that even some of the more fundamental
aspects of the subject brought blank stares. Many times the admin-
istrator responsible for answering the questions is not the man who
does the work. If the program is not being usefully used and if we
can't see any tangible results coming from it, I think we had better
start asking some questions to determine why.
I have no further questions. I do want to compliment you on
your work and I hope we will see you here in the near future with
further information and move encouragement.
Mr. STUDI~S. It may be, Ml~. Emery, that our witnesses come from
too high a level in the bureaucracy. I think we ought to move away
from the situation where we tend to get people in positions of far
too great responsibility to have to know anything of substance. It
may be that we ought to go down to the working level.
Mr. Hughes?
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wonder if you could tell us, Doctor, if the seaweed that you
have been successfully experimenting with can be cultivated in
other areas, like, for instance, the Northeast?
Dr. RYTHER. The seaweed that we ended up working with is
semitropical. It occurs throughout the world in the tropical belt
and it gets up into the Northeast in the summertime as an annual
summer plant. But, generally, speaking, it is more of a warm water
species.
Mr. HUGHES. So it doesn't appear as if it would be too very
successful, for instance, in this particular environment of the
Northeast or off the California coast?
Dr. RYTHER. No, I don't think so. We did grow it up there in the
summertime and some other species like it and they do very well
during the summer period. I don't think anything grows particular-
ly well in the Northeast in the winter. There just isn't enough
PAGENO="0062"
56
light. Chondrus doesn't grow, the Irish moss. It grows 6 or 8
months a year and then it just sort of shuts down. Those are the
times of the year when these other ones can be grown too.
I think biomass production in the ocean has got to be done in the
warm water areas where you can get year-round growth.
Mr. HUGHES. I take it that you have pretty much simulated the
environment?
Dr RYTHER Yes, we are trying to as well as possible We are
growing these outdoors in ponds, big tanks, and that sort of thing.
Mr HUGHES Thank you, Mr Chairman
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much
If you have time on the way to the airport I would appreciate
your stopping by the Department of the Interior to give them a
brief lecture on Georges Bank and the marine life out there.
Dr. RYTHER. Yes, that is a matter of very great concern to many
of us.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you. Have a safe trip home.
Our next witness is Dr. Michael Neushul. I hope I am pronounc-
ing that correctly President of Neushul Mariculture, Inc Did I
mispronounce you, sir?
Dr. NEUSHUL. That is correct, amazingly so.
Mr. STUDDS. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEUSHUL PROFESSOR OF MARINE
BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
AND, PRESIDENT, NEUSHUL MARICULTURE, INC., GOLETA,
CALIF.
Dr NEUSHUL Mr Chairman and members of the committee, it is
a privilege to be here to present my views as to the feasibility of
oceanic macroalgal farms, and their potential yields, and the
future potential
As a member of the Bioenergy Advisory Panel for the Office of
Technology Assessment, I can also comment briefly, but perhaps
not as effectively as John has, on how oceanic biomass might fit
into an overall scheme for meeting U.S. energy needs.
Since 1963, I have worked as a faculty member on the faculty of
the University of California at Santa Barbara on various aspects of
macroalgal biology, with research support from the biological
oceanography program of the National Science Foundation and,
more recently, with National Science Foundation support through
the small business program of the Applied Science and Research
Applications Division. This has made it possible to install an oper-
ational marine macroalgal farm in Goleta Bay, Calif.
In considering the potential of macroalgal farms, I think it is
very important first to review what has and is happening in Japan
and China where very large marine farms now exist.
As of 1970, there were 130,000 acres of sea surface under cultiva-
tion in Japan and, as of about 1976, there were 25,000 acres being
cultivated along the coast of mainland China. Plans were being
made to double this production.
I might add at this point that the primary architect of the
Chinese program-Dr. C. K. Tseng-graduated from the University
of Michigan and returned to China, and as I will indicate on the
graph on the next page, is largely responsible for their program
PAGENO="0063"
57
Chinese, Japanese, and Korean farms are primarily designed for
food production and for the production of plants that yield chemi
cals used as emulsifying and gelling agents.
The graph provided here shows Japanese and Chinese advances
in macroalgal mariculture and provides some approximate answers
to questions that were raised earlier about what sort of time frame,
and about types of breakthroughs needed for the development of
large scale marine farms
You will see that on this graph "J" stands for Japan and "C"
stands for China The Japanese marine farming efforts began back
in the 1700's and continued up until about 1950 as a "traditional"
process In other words, they would plant and harvest according to
seasonal events such as winds and so on, without a scientific basis
for doing so.
The life history of the major organism (porphyra) they were
farming was not known and so it was like a very primitive sort of a
thing As of 1950, the Japanese followed up on a discovery by an
English woman that the life history of this alga could be controlled
and their production increased considerably Just prior to 1960, the
Japanese began to use nets in the sea and to artificially seed their
plants on them At point "J3", they found that they could take
seeded nets and freeze them and store them and then later plant
them out in the sea. You can see that this resulted in a dramatic
production increase. Because of coastal pollution in Japan they
began to move their farms offshore and production again shot up
very dramatically What you are seeing here is a very interesting
thing.
The history of agriculture, of course, is shrouded in the mists
prehistory having its beginning some 10000 years ago What you
are looking at here is the beginning of mariculture in Japan and
China, where relatively few scientific advances account for most of
this major upswing
The production in China now is 150,000 dry tons per year
The Chinese and Japanese do not have the large float-bearing
kelps like Macrocystis, though we have been approached by repre
sentatives from those countries, and from Korea, and asked for
seed stock for Californian kelp I am quite sure that ultimately
they will start growing these larger plants
Macrocystis is, of course, the largest known marine plant, reach
ing lengths of up to about 140 feet These produce, as you know,
forest like communities where individual plants grow at rates of 3
percent per day These growth rates are whole plant wet weights
and are, as John Ryther indicated, really very spectacular things to
watch.
The growth rate times the standing crop, of course, gives you the
production The standing crop in wild populations varies, but some
actual numbers are of interest. Measured standing crop values
range in natural beds from 2 to 97 wet tons per acre The actual
harvest total in California is about 160,000 wet tons per year, this
being harvested by mechanical harvesters With reference to an
earlier question about mechanized harvesting, these harvesters
were designed in about the 1930's and haven't changed very much
since that time So, while harvesting is certainly mechanized on a
PAGENO="0064"
58
large scale there certainly seems to be considerable room for im-
provement, at least in my opinion.
To give you the harvest from an actual kelp bed of about a
square mile or so in area at Goleta, this ranged from about 12 wet
tons per acre per year in 1975 to 7.5 wet tons acre per year in 1977.
Due to the inefficiency of the harvester and the fact that only the
tops of the plants are taken only about 10 percent of the material
present is harvested. I would guess that in a farm situation, where
one were growing these large plants one would design a method
that would allow you to harvest much more than 10 percent of the
biomass produced.
The potential yields from oceanic farms, is the subject of specul-
tation. I think we could assume that if we were farming macro-
algae, as the Chinese are doing, we would be able to minimize
damage and loss due to wave action, sloughing, and other factors
that influence natural kelp beds at the present time.
It is important to remember that in estimating production per
acre the acre in this case is not a land acre and it is not an acre
that you have to buy, so that the cost per unit area is considerably
less than it would be on land. A major cost would be for nutrients.
This major point has been raised here by Mr. Hughes. I think
the potential yield of future ocean farms will be primarily based on
how efficiently nutrients can be supplied to these plants and how
efficiently they can be recycled in the large populations that might
be farmed.
As of now, we have the deep ocean "nutrient irrigation" ap-
proach, being studied by the G.R.I. group. We are presently using
fertilizers on our Goleta Bay farm. The Chinese and Japanese both
have experimented with various methods of applying fertilizer
from containers in the sea, sprayed on the sea surface from ships,
and so on.
So it doesn't seem to be the question of whether fertilization will
work but how to apply it most effectively that seems to be the most
important point. Dr. Ryther brought up the point that the Sargasso
Sea should be considered, which is very important since here you
are talking about a huge area of sea surface where much of the
nitrogen in the plants comes from nitrogen fixing blue-green algae
which grow on the surfaces of the sargassum plants. So that this is
yet another approach that might be used to supply nutrients to the
plants in an open ocean farm.
In conclusion, it is important to note that floating macroalgae
occur in natural kelp forests, in the Sargasso Sea over substantial
areas of the sea surface, and in Japan and China, man-made farms
that are thousands of acres in extent.
Thus it seems that scientific macroalgal cultivation, although it
is still very new, has progressed substantially in the last two dec-
ades. This progress has been made by a relatively few people who
are still alive, and kicking. You can talk to them and find out how
they did it in Japan and China. Apparently the task was not as
difficult as one might expect.
So I think it is unduly pessimistic to contend that the develop-
ment of marine farms has to be a tremendously long-term project.
Since 20 years in Japan and China has seen considerable progress,
PAGENO="0065"
59
I would assume that we in the United States could achieve at least
as much, in the future. Thank you.
[The following was received for the record:]
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEUSHUL, PROFESSOR OF MARINE BOTANY AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA, AND PRESIDENT, NEUSHUL MARICULTURE INC.,
GOLETA, CALIF.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here to
present my views as to the feasibility of oceanic macro-algal farms, their potential
yields, and the future potential of such farms for the production of food and energy
in an environmentally acceptable manner. As a member of the Bioenergy Advisory
Panel of the Office of Technology Assessment, I can also comment on how oceanic
biomass production might fit into an overall scheme for meeting present and future
U.S. energy needs.
Since 1963, I have worked at the University of California at Santa Barbara, on
various aspects of macro-algal biology, with research support from the Biological
Oceanography Program of the National Science Foundation and the Sea Grant
Program. The NSF small-business research program has recently made it possible
for me to install a near-shore macro-algal farm, designed to produce plants that
yield industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals (agar, algin, carageenan). This ap-
plied research is sponsored by the Applied Science and Research Applications divi-
sion of the National Science Foundation.
In considering the potential of marine macro-algal farms, for the production of
chemicals, food and energy, I feel that it is very important to first consider what is
now happening in Japan and China, where large marine farms now exist. Since the
giant, float-bearing kelps do not occur and have not yet been introduced into
Chinese or Japanese waters, it is important to review U.S. harvests from the as-yet
uncultivated kelp beds of California.
As of 1970, there were some 130,000 acres of sea surface under cultivation in
Japan. In 1976 there were some 25,000 acres being cultivated along the coast of
mainland China and plans were being made to double this. Additional sea surface is
farmed in Korea and the Philippines. These farms are all designed to produce
macro-algae that are eaten directly as a food, or that provide a source of chemicals
used as emulsifying and gelling agents.
Japanese (J) and Chinese (C) advances in macro-alga]. mariculture
~ (solid line) (dotted line) China
Porphyra La~inaz-ia
].Q5 sheets 10 dry tons,
produced produced
50
30
10
A graphic summary of the historical development and farm yields in China and
Japan, illustrates, the rapid progress made in the last few decades. In China, the
kelp, Laminaria ,japonica, was introduced from Japan in 1927. (C 1). In 1952 the
J
J4
t50
C
I
J
j
1920
1950
Year
1970
69-848 0 - 81 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
60
Chinese began to cultivate these plants on rafts (C 2). In 1957 new genetic strains
were selected that made it possible to greatly extend the range of cultivation (C 3).
Algal culture facilities were developed to produce seedstock. Continued selection and
improvements in culture techniques, in particular the development of methods for
applying fertilizer, has led to increased yields. High-iodine yielding strains were
developed in 1970 (C 4). Present production of Laminaria in China is in excess of
150,000 dry metric tons per year.
In Japan, the traditional cultivation of Porphyra on sticks placed in shallow
water started in the 1700s and continued to about 1950 (J 1) when net culture was
introduced In 1957 the application of recently discovered life history phases (previ
ously unknown) made it possible to artificially seed this plant for the first time (J 2)
and a rapid increase in production followed In 1963 it was found that seeded nets
could be frozen for long term storage and that this procedure also enhanced crop
production (J 3). Problems of pollution in coastal waters made it necessary to move
what had traditionally been near-shore farms, out into the open sea. This (J 4) also
produced a substantial increase in the production of Porphyra.
The harvesting of the giant kelp, Macrocystis in California
The giant kelp, Macrocystis, is the largest known marine plant, reaching lengths
of up to 140 feet These plants produce forest like communities where individual
plants grow at rates of 3 percent per day under optimum conditions Measurements
of the standing crop in natural kelp beds range from 2 to 97 wet tons per acre An
annual harvest of some 160 000 wet tons is collected by mechanized harvesters in
California Unfortunately this is not adequate to meet the present demand and
additional kelp is imported from Argentina South Africa and elsewhere
Examples of harvests from a single bed of about 680 acres in area (bed number 26
in Goleta Bay) range from 12 wet tons per acre in 1975 to 7.5 wet tons per acre in
1977. The amount of kelp harvested is only a small amount of the total produced.
From measurements of beach drift in Goleta Bay, we estimate that at least 9 tons
per acre per year are cast ashore. Additional kelp sloughs away, and is eaten,
degraded or dissolved. The standing crop in this kelp bed is between 30 and 40 wet
tons per acre, the plants being separated from one another.
The potential yield of oceanic kelp farms where Macrocystis or other float bearing
kelps would be grown
It is logical to assume that a farmed population of macro-algae would be planted
and managed in such a way as to minimize damage due to wave action, plant loss
due to sloughing, and other adverse effects, like those seen in natural kelp forests.
Also, as in the Chinese farming effort, genetic selection for improved yield is likely
to increase the production over that seen in natural kelp forests.
In making assumptions about yield, disputes commonly arise as to the amount
that can be produced per acre. It is important to remember here that in contrast
with land-based energy farming, a major cost factor (the cost of the land) is not
involved. Thus it does not really matter whether the yields are high or low, as long
as the unit costs for farming (both in terms of money and energy) are minimized.
The most important factor, influencing the yield of natural kelp forests, is the
availability of nutrients. It is logical to assume that this would also be the case for
farmed areas of the sea, particularly the open sea where nutrient levels are low.
Thus in my opinion the potential future yield of oceanic kelp farms will depend on
how efficiently nutrients can be supplied to the plants and whether or not these
nutrients can be recycled to the farm once methane is extracted from the harvested
crop.
PAGENO="0067"
61
Iii
YEAR
The General Electric, Cal-Tech, Institute of Gas Technology farm is one example
of what might be called nutrient irrigation It appears from preliminary data that
the application of upwelled water (which is nutrient rich) to young kelp plants will
increase their growth rates by a factor of four (Gerard personal communication)
We have used commercial fertilizer to produce increases in yield also in prelimi
nary experiments. The Chinese and Japanese have also applied fertilizers to macro-
algal crop plants. Thus it seems that the question is not whether or not nutrient
irrigation will work, but how to make it work most effectively.
In making estimates about large scale open ocean farms, it is useful to consider
the large area of sea surface now occupied by the Sargasso sea Here floating brown
algae occur over some 2 million square miles of sea surface The fixation of nitrogen
by blue green algal epiphytes on the plants provides a major portion of the needed
nutrients (at least nitrogen) There is a natural recycling of other nutrients in the
floating plant clumps One might say that while the productivity in the Sargasso sea
is low so is the cost (which is zero)
In conclusion it can be seen that floating macro algae occur both naturally in
kelp forests and in the Sargasso Sea over substantial areas of the sea surface Man
made farms in Japan and China occupy significant areas of sea surface as well.
Scientifically-based macro-algal mariculture has existed for less than thirty years,
mostly in the orient where substantial progress has been made In my opinion it is
unduely pessimistic to contend that the scientific establishment in the United States
cannot design test and operate effective open ocean macro algal farms for the
future production of food and energy. One need only look at the tremendous produc-
tivity of U.S. agriculture, as an example of what can be achieved in a short period of
time. U.S. mariculture is just beginning. The potential of a renewable food and
energy source from mariculture is such that it should certainly be given a chance
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much, Dr Neushul
Has it occurred, to your knowledge, to anyone at the Department
of Energy to go talk to some of these folks in China and Japan
while they are still, as you put it, alive and kicking?
CALIFORNIA KELP HARVEST (IN TONS) 1916-1977
* OPEN BEDS
X LEASED BEDS.
O TOTAL TONS
I
*LJ Li
360
280
2L10
200
160
120
90
LJ0
In
I-
P1
><
U,
cc
-J
LU
..l~I
151.10 j9~0
PAGENO="0068"
62
Dr. NEUSHUL. We had an international seaweed symposium at
Santa Barbara a couple of years ago where we had invited experts
from all around the world. We had about 900 attendees and there
was a Department of Energy representative who did attend those
meetings and, as far as I know, did listen to some of the presenta-
tions.
Mr. STUDDS. You say they have been doing this in Japan since
the 18th century?
Dr. NEUSHUL. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. That is probably considered primitive in the Depart-
ment of Energy. I assume that the sole purpose or the principal
purpose of the Japanese and Chinese production is for food?
Dr. NEUSHUL. Yes, that is correct, although they are interested
in biomass energy production and did form a study group which
came and visited this country, I believe, last year or the year
before.
Mr. STUDDS. You introduced them to the giant kelp, did you?
Dr. NEUSHUL. No, I didn't talk to them.
Mr. STUDDS. I assume that was a large part of their purpose,
from what you said.
Dr. NEUSHUL. I guess so. I know this happened but I didn't meet
any of the representatives of that study group.
Mr. STUDDS. The California harvest you say is 160,000 wet tons.
What is that used for primarily?
Dr. NEUSHUL. The principal product of this is for alginates,
which are used as emulsifying agents in all sorts of things ranging
from cosmetics to beer to paints and pharmaceutical products, and
so on.
Mr. STUDDS. The same product that comes from our Irish moss.
Dr. NEUSHUL. Yes, very similar.
Mr. STUDDS. And we don't even satisfy the domestic demand for
that.
Dr. NEUSHUL. No, we don't. At the present time we are importing
kelp from Argentina and South Africa and other places.
Mr. STUDDS. What accounts for the drop off, according to your
graph, in the last few years of the California kelp production?
Dr. NEUSHUL. I am not really sure. It could be a climatalogical
thing since these are wild populations. In the open beds, that is,
the ones shown at the bottom of the graph, it could be from
overharvesting.
But since the harvesting takes only about 10 percent of the total
production it is pretty hard to say that overharvesting is damaging.
Mr. STUDDS. You heard Dr. Ryther testify before you at the end
of his testimony. He injected something of a note of caution as to
not go too fast. I detect a great deal more enthusiasm on your part
than on his for ocean biomass in the near future.
Dr. NEUSHUL. I agree fully with what Dr. Ryther said. I think by
caution he is talking about a broadly based program where a
number of options are considered. I would be a little bit more
enthusiastic and proceed perhaps a bit more rapidly.
Mr. STUDDS. Did you hear the testimony this morning from the
Department of Energy?
Dr. NEUSHUL. Yes, I did.
PAGENO="0069"
63
Mr. STUDDS. What was your reaction to that in terms of the
quality and quantity of their commitment in this field and the
speed with which they seem to be going and the priority which
they seem to attach to it?
Dr. NEUSHUL. I think they are being very conservative, but that
may change in the future, hopefully.
Mr. STUDDS. There are a number of things that may change
around here. Thank you.
Mr. Hughes?
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.
Doctor, did I understand that you are yourself involved as a
small businessman in the production of kelp?
Dr. NEUSHUL. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. HUGHES. What, in your judgment, is the smaller size oper-
ation a small businessman could have to have an operation that
would be productive and successfully, economically viable?
Dr. NEUSHUL. We have-I don't know whether I should say this
proudly or with shame but, we have the largest marine farm in the
United States as far as I am aware, and that is 1 acre in extent.
Mr. HUGHES. Only 1 acre?
Dr. NEUSHUL. One acre. But this is still an experimental farm.
Mr. HUGHES. Where is it actually located?
Dr. NEUSHUL. It is located in Goleta Bay near Santa Barbara,
Calif.
Mr. HUGHES. Have you had any difficulties with other uses;
recreational, fishery, and other uses?
Dr. NEUSHUL. No, we haven't.
Mr. HUGHES. Have you found it is compatible with the other uses
of the bay?
Dr. NEUSHUL. As far as we are able to tell, it is barely visible
from the coast. It is a few buoys showing on the sea surface. The
area of ocean used is leased from the State of California.
Mr. HUGHES. Can you describe your operation for us a little bit?
Dr. NEUSHUL. Yes. We use pipe as the farm substrate. We have
anchors which anchor buoys and pipes into position in the bay and
on the pipes we attach the seed stock. We produce the seed stock at
the university in greenhouses and from culture dish material. This
is raised up to a certain size and vegetatively propagated and
placed on the farm.
The preliminary growth rates of plants that we have been get-
ting have been 1 to 2 percent wet weight increase per day. As I
mentioned earlier, the farm project is supported by the National
Science Foundation applied research program for the development
of chemicals from alternative sources, and it is primarily designed
at the moment to produce agar.
Mr. HUGHES. How do you actually harvest the kelp?
Dr. NEUSHUL. Right now this is an experimental farm so we are
just harvesting by hand. Ultimately, if it gets larger than an acre,
we would have some sort of harvesting machinery doing it.
Mr. HUGHES. From your testimony I gather there really isn't any
difficulty in marketing the kelp because we are presently import-
ing kelp from other countries.
Dr. NEUSHUL. That is correct.
Mr. HUGHES. Mostly from South Africa?
PAGENO="0070"
64
Dr. NEUSHUL. And Argentina.
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Dr. Neushul.
Our next and final witness is Dr. Bud Brinkhuis, assistant re-
search professor at the Marine Sciences Research Center, the State
University of New York at Stony Brook, who is presenting testimo-
ny on behalf of Dr. Don Squires, director of the New York Sea
Grant Institute, the State University and at Cornell.
STATEMENT OF BOUDEWIJN BRINKHUIS, RESEARCH PRO-
FESSOR, MARINE SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER, STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, STONY BROOK, ON BEHALF OF
DON SQUIRES, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK SEA GRANT INSTITUTE,
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AND CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
Dr BRINKHUIS What I would like to do is read into the record
Dr Squires' testimony He regrets that he can't be here today
because he has an annual site visit as part of the National Sea
Grant College program staff that he must attend yesterday and
today.
I have been active in the field of oceanography for the last 30
years, with the last two decades as an active researcher and the
past 10 years as director of New York's Sea Grant College program.
That program, a joint activity of the State University of New
York and Cornell University, has been a consequential factor in
the revitalization of New York's coastal region and in increasing
awareness of its economic potential
Conversion of marine biomass through methanogenesis offers a
very exciting opportunity for New York and its metropolitan
region Development of this energy source would further diversify
the coastal productivity of the State and would be compatible with
other uses of our coastal zone.
We are pleased to be a part of a budding program and intend to
be active participants in its conduct. In my comments, I speak for
myself, and not for the State University or Cornell.
In other presentations at this hearing you will have heard of the
substantial progress being made on the west coast in the farming
of macrocystis or giant kelp as a feedstock for methanogenesis.
This past summer a series of meetings between the Gas Research
Institute, General Electric Corp., the New York State Energy Re-
search and Development Authority, NYSEARCH, which is a public
utility-financed research arm of the gas companies, and Brooklyn
Union Gas resulted in a determination for New York State to move
ahead in marine biomass research.
There is unanimity among all parties that marine biomass pro-
duction must be explored fully and without delay. The Sea Grant
Institute was asked to participate in these meetings as a repre-
sentative of the academic research community. Together with the
General Electric Corp., we have developed a research plan toward
the goal of test farming of marine biomass in New York State.
Preliminary investigations under this plan were initiated in
June of this year, at a low level of funding. Final answers to some
PAGENO="0071"
65
of the research questions await further funding and completion of
the studies already initiated
But, in commencing we have taken an important step The re
mainder of my comments will, of necessity, be speculative since
data to be otherwise are lacking Let me sketch out the differences
between marine biomass production on the east coast and on the
west coast and then examine some of the alternatives that may
present themselves in the next several years
There are significant differences between the oceanographic
characteristics of the east and west coasts:
First of all, the east coast is bounded by a broad, gently sloping
continental shelf over 100 miles in width, and the water is less
than 300 feet deep. Water depths comparable to those off California
where biomass farming is being conducted, and where the conti
nental shelf is very narrow, only occur far from shore in the East
Second, nutrients, which are a limiting factor in the productivity
of marine biomass farming on the west coast, occur in abundance
in New York's coastal waters Nitrogen values similar to those
artificially induced in the west coast operation are found naturally
in most shelf waters of New York. Nitrogen, furthermore, in New
York's waters is primarily nitrate and ammonia. Thus, the high-
technology nutrient pump required for the west coast farm would
be unnecessary in a New York operation.
Third, the light penetration in the east coast waters is more
restricted than along most areas of the west coast The depth to
which photosynthetic action can occur in New York waters may
well be the most significant factor in designing test farms Al
though light penetration in the coastal waters of New York is
limited in part by suspended sediment carried from land, most of
the turbidity is due to phytoplankton growth stimulated by nutri
ent enrichment from human activity.
The fourth factor, the North Atlantic has a well-deserved reputa-
tion for tempestuousness. It may prove to be a hostile environment
for marine biomass farming more so than the placid eastern Pacif-
ic This will pose interesting challenges for the ocean engineers in
designing test farms
The results of these basic differences is that east coast biomass
production may involve techniques somewhat different from those
used on the west coast This will not inhibit development of the
program, rather, the west coast experience will provide important
baselines from which other environments can be compared and
evaluated. Much of the basic information generated by the west
coast test farm will be used in adapting biomass operations to other
oceanographic and sociopolitical regimes.
One important area requiring immediate research is the selec
tion of suitable feedstock species on the east coast Macrocystis has
been intensively studied on the west coast and its characteristics
have been found suitable for biomass production for conversion to
methane.
Recognizing that one species may not be optimal in all coastal
oceanographic environments, the master plan developed by the Gas
Research Institute calls for such research. Macrocystis does not
occur naturally along the east coast. Its absence is probably attrib-
utable to a lack of sufficient rocky substrate for attachment of
PAGENO="0072"
66
holdfasts and, where such substrate does exist, to the highly turbid
nature of most coastal waters along the east coast.
Further, the normally higher temperatures we find in the in-
shore waters during the summer months along the New York
coastline could well inhibit the growth and reproduction of macro-
cystis.
Thus, there are several important questions concerning selection
of optimal feedstock organisms on the east coast. First, what pro-
duction of biomass can be anticipated from native seaweeds? Two,
how does their production compare with that of macrocystis on the
west coast and is the quality of the material appropriate for effi-
cient production of methane?
Three, given the above information, should the introduction of
macrocystis to the east coast be considered? This is an important
question because it considers not only the relationship of macrocys-
tis to energy production, but also the fundamental issue of the
introduction of an exotic plant species to the inshore coastal ecosys-
tem of the east coast.
Could macrocystis be controlled if it is introduced? What, if any,
hazards would its introduction pose? How would its productivity on
the east coast compare with its productivity on the west coast? Will
macrocystis withstand the seasonal temperature, nutrient, and tur-
bidity regimes of the east coast?
These are the questions that need to be answered to select the
appropriate feedstock organisms for the east coast biomass farm-
ing.
As I mentioned, the sea grant Institute has initiated preliminary
work in this area. This experimental work is being performed by
faculty and staff of the Marine Sciences Research Center at the
State University of New York's Stony Brook campus.
Marine Sciences Research Center offers the most complete re-
search capability within the State in the fields of biological, physi-
cal, chemical, and geological oceanography. As the program moves
toward the development of small-scale test farms, engineering guid-
ance on the design of the test and prototype farms may be provided
by faculty from the Schools of Engineering at the State University
at Buffalo and Cornell who have been doing related research under
sea grant auspices.
The staff of the Long Island Regional Planning Board who have
been deeply involved in aquaculture studies have agreed to address
some of the social and legal problems and opportunities stemming
from the introduction of this type of facility into the coastal waters
of the State.
What are the potentials for the east coast? It seems reasonable to
assume that preliminary screening of a number of indigenous spe-
cies can be accomplished within a year. The future direction of the
programs in New York will depend heavily on the results of that
screening process. While no clear pathway presents itself, there are
a number of interesting alternatives.
Alternative No. 1 we envision being a low technology alternative.
This alternative might result if some of the floating seaweeds such
as Sargassum or Fucus-the latter is also known as rockweed-
were to prove sufficiently productive to be of economic significance.
If these species would vegetatively reproduce and could be cultured
PAGENO="0073"
67
as floating plants, the farm configurations involving extensive sur-
face areas in which the plants were separated in shallow pens
might be visualized.
This farming mode would require only `floating pens and perhaps
nets to confine the seaweeds. The size of economically significant
units would depend on factors of productivity and price, but it is
possible that these would scale to fairly small holdings.
If so, there is the possibility that waters within the State jurisdic-
tion could be used and that private holdings, through leases of
bottom lands, et cetera, would result. These, operating in the pri~
vate' sector, could complement larger offshore holdings which
would be operated by the public utilities.
Plants would be propagated and placed in pens for grow-out until
they reached optimal harvesting size. In a monoculture system, if
winter productivity were insufficient to warrant cropping, the
mature plants could be held in pens until growth resumed in the
spring.
Alternatively, it may be possible to develop a polyculture system,
including some seaweed species that grow quite well in the winter.
This would permit year-round production. Harvesting would in-
volve surface skimming of the floating ~~1ants and their transport
by barge to shoreside digesters.
Second level of technology alternatis~es we would consider a
medium level. This option envisions an intermediate between the
low-technology alternative and the macr~cystis-like farm operating
on the west coast. It assumes that a long~-stipe attached seaweed-
for example, laminaria-is found to be ~he most promising feed-
stock. This plant, not of the giant kelp dithensions but still requir-
ing anchoring of the holdfast in the fashi~n of macrocystis technol-
ogy, would probably be grown in farms farther offshore than the
low-technology alternative.
This type of farm is complicated by F~aving to maintain some
type of underwater anchoring surface to which the plants might be
attached. Such a more complicated stru4ture is, of course, more
expensive to construct and maintain. Thi~ structure, therefore, is
seen as more capital intensive than the lo~v-key technology system.
The third, which we call high technolc~gy alternative, is as fol-
lows: This option implies more sophisticat d technological systems
than the above and approaches the requir ments of the west coast
macrocystis farm. Should macrocystis pr ye to have productivity
characteristics significantly superior to th native seaweeds and it
is decided to attempt introduction of this s ecies to the east coast, a
number of alternatives might present the selves.
Should a shorter, perhaps juvenile, pla t perform adequately, a
shallower water farm might be preferable. If full-sized-that is, 15
meters or more in length-plants are requi ed, farm sites necessar-
ily may have to be further offshore than fo alternatives 1 and 2, a
factor that affects both the capital construc ion costs and the trans-
portation costs of the feedstock to shoresidc digesters.
Since, however, all alternatives involve transportation of wet
bulk biomass by barge, this latter becomes a marginal increase to
cost. Capital construction costs increase sig ificantly as one moves
farther into the open waters of the Nort Atlantic. To develop
farms on the margin of the Continental Sh lf will require substan-
PAGENO="0074"
68
tial engineering achievements, many of which have been addressed
in the west coast test farm operation.
In addressing these alternatives, I have not touched upon the
many problems associated with the conversion of biomass to meth-
ane-natural gas. This is an area of research to be carried out by
our colleagues at General Electric and presents problems of some
magnitude-but of the same genre regardless of the feedstock spe-
cies.
The problem here, as I understand it, is to produce a synthetic
natural gas that is economically feasible Biomass conversion, of
course, has the long term benefit of being based upon a self renew
ing natural resource Screening of candidate species is a necessary
first step in the development of this new energy source in New
York State.
I believe that we have an exciting opportunity to develop marine
seaweeds for bioconversion to synthetic natural gas. New York's
coastal waters are enriched with essential micronutrients neces-
sary for natural production at high levels. Selection of a species
with appropriate productivity which also proves to have a chemical
composition amenable to efficient microbiological conversion to
methane awaits experimentation and investigation From this re
search an array of opportunities opens up-opportunities that I
believe the State of New York and its public utilities anticipate
using to the fullest.
Mr. STUDD5. Thank you very much.
Are you by any chance using, at least in part, a euphemism
when you say New York's coastal waters are enriched with essen-
tial micronutrients necessary for natural production at high levels?
Is that, at least in part, a reflection of the phenomenon which in
another part of this committee's jurisdiction is viewed as a problem
rather than as an opportunity?
Dr BRINKHUIS Yes, that is true The high nutrient values we
find in New York's coastal waters are primarily the result of
sewage effluent.
Mr. STUDDS. So you are looking on the bright side of that prob-
lem.
Dr. BRINKHuI5. This is possibly an alternative for absorbing those
nutrients. You can look at that side too.
Mr. STUDDS. What is the nature of the research plan between
New York Sea Grant and General Electric?
Dr. BRINKHUIS. As I understand it, the research plan is in var-
ious phases over the next 3 or 4 years. The first year project, which
is supposed to get underway, I believe, this month-or, if not,
October-is to start selecting a number of species of seaweeds that
could be screened both for chemical composition to find out how
compatible it is already with what is known about macrocystis, and
to take a limited number of these species and run them through a
methanogenesis operation, in other words, anaerobic digestion.
Mr. STUDDS. So there hasn't been any testing as yet--
Dr. BRINKHUIS. No, this is a research program that was just
initiated this summer. In fact, we wrote up a proposal to conduct
the research only this summer.
Mr. STUDDS. How far away are we actually from your first test
farms?
PAGENO="0075"
69
Dr. BRINKHUIS. I believe the schedule calls for a small-scale test
farm on the order of about a quarter acre in size in about 1982.
Mr. STUDDS. Will that be in the New York Bight area? Where
will that be?
Dr BRINKHUIS We have as part of this research program, we are
supposed to try to determine what environmental characteristics
might lend itself to maximum seaweed growth, including nutrient
levels, temperature, currents, and we propose to explore the New
York Bight area, Long Island Sound as well as some of the shallow
coastal embayments along Long Island's coast.
We don't know at this point but we are going to explore at least
three or four different areas.
Mr. STUDDS. Is the Department of Energy involved in your under-
takings at all, the Federal Department of F~nergy?
Dr. BRINKHUIS. I am not sure whether I really understand how
they relate to this except that----
Mr STUDDS No one understands how they relate to anything,
but I was just wondering if they were directly involved
Dr BRINKHUIS I don't think they are directly involved, no
Mr STUDDS Are they indirectly involved?
Dr BRINKHUIS Yes, by being related to the New York State
Energy Research and Development Administration.
Mr. STUDDS. Which is at least partially federally funded?
Dr. BRINKHUIS. Right.
Mr. STUDDS. To your knowledge, have there been any attempts to
date to actually transplant macrocystis off the east coast?
Dr. BRINKHUIS. No, not in the field anyway.
Mr STUDDS God knows what will happen when exposed to our
rich micronutrients We may all be enveloped
Dr BRmucHurs I have brought some back from the west coast
and grown it in aquaria
Mr STUDDS But not in New York Bight?
Dr. BRINKHUIS. Not in New York Bight, no. We are using the
same nutrient levels in the tank.
Mr. STUDDS. Did it do remarkable things?
Dr. BRINKHiJIS. They grow quite well, yes.
Mr. STUDDS. Does it grow faster than on the west coast?
Dr BRINKHUIS It was just a small number of plants We only
took back 20 plants, and they were small plants They tripled in
size in about 3 or 4 weeks We are not that far along We just
started this research
Mr STUDDS Perhaps you should clear with the Navy, the Coast
Guard and a few others before you put that stuff in the New York
Bight. There is absolutely no telling what may happen.
Thank you very much We appreciate your testimony
This concludes the third in our series of hearings on ocean
energy and the subcommittee will stand adjourned
[Whereupon, at 345 p m the subcommittee adjourned]
PAGENO="0076"
PAGENO="0077"
OCEAN POLLUTION PLANNING AUTHORIZATION
AND OVERSIGHT
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1980
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommitte met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gerry E. Studds
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Studds and AuCoin.
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing concerns the National Ocean Pollution Research
and Development and Monitoring Planning Act.
Signed into law last Congress, this act has as its major purpose
the coordination of ocean pollution research efforts currently per-
formed by 11 different Federal agencies. The chief coordinating
mechanism is to be a biennial 5-year plan, the first of which was
published in late 1979.
The first plan contains a listing of how much money each Feder-
al agency is spending on specific pollutants, sources of pollution,
and their regional effects. As mandated by the law, the plan also
categorizes as high, medium, or low priorities gaps or needs in
current ocean pollution research and monitoring efforts.
Unfortunately, although the first plan does list these priorities, it
fails to state which three or four issues should be addressed first
and foremost-a difficult question, but one that must be addressed.
I realize the difficulties interagency committees encounter while
attempting to rank certain problems as more pressing than others,
but I do not think the underlying purpose of this law will be
fulfilled until we know where there are disparities between current
efforts and current needs.
The most obvious question that needs answering is where do we
go from here. Is there really a need for a new plan every 2 years,
and will such plans make a difference in our struggle to minimize
and eventually eradicate ocean pollution?
[The bill and an executive communication follow:]
(71)
PAGENO="0078"
72
96TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION * *
To amend the National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitor-
ing Planning Act of 1978 to authorize appropriations to carry out the
provisions of such Act for fiscal year 1981.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 26, 1980
Mr. MURPHY of New York (for himself, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. FUQUA, Mr.
STUDDS, Mr. PRITCHARD, Mr. AMBRO, Mr. WALKER, Mr. FORSYTHE, Mr.
BROWN of California, and Mr. BLANCHARD) introduced the following bill;
which was referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries and Science and Technology
A BILL
To amend the National Ocean Pollution Research and Develop-
ment and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978 to authorize
appropriations to carry out the provisions of such Act for
fiscal year 1981
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 10 of the National Ocean Pollution Research
4 and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978, as
5 amended (33 U S C 1709), is amended-
6 (1) by striking out "and" after "1979,", and
PAGENO="0079"
73
2
1 (2) by striking out "1980." and inserting in lieu
2 thereof "1980, and not to exceed $3,000,000 for the
3 fiscal year ending September 30, 1981.".
0
PAGENO="0080"
74
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION No. 3581
? ~ THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Washington, D.C. 20230
FEB 2 6 1980
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Enclosed are six copies of a draft bill
"To amend Sections 4 and 10 of the National
Ocean Pollution Research and Development
and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978, as
amended, to extend the appropriations
authorization to carry out the provisions
of such Act for fiscal years 1981 and
1982, and for other purposes.",
together with a statement of purpose and need in support
thereof.
We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget
that there would be no objection to. the submission of this
legislation to the Congress and further that its enactment
would be in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
Secretary of Comme c
Enclosures
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, 0. C. 20515
PAGENO="0081"
75
A DILL
To amend Section 4 and 10 of the National Ocean
Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning
Act of 1978, as amended, to extend the appropriations
authorization to carry out the provisions of such Act
for fiscal years 1981 and 1982, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and house of Rep~resentatives
of the United States of America in Conqress assembled, That
the National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and
Monitoring Planning Act of 1978, as amended (33U.S.C.
1701, et seq.), is amended as follows:
(a) in subsection 4(a), by deleting "February 15"
from the~last clause of that subsection and inserting in lieu
thereof "April 30;" and
(b) in Section 10, by inserting a semicolon in lieu of
the comma after "1979" and by striking the period after
"1980" and inserting in lieu thereof "; not to exceed
$3,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981;
and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1982..
69-848 0 - 81 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
76
STATEMFNT OF PURPOSE AN!) NEED
The National Ocean. Pollution Jiesearch and Development
and !~1onitoring Planning Act of 1978, as amended, authorizes
the establishment of a comprehensive 5-year plan for ocean
pollution research developric~nt and !ronltoling which would
coordinate all fcderil ~tctivit~ies in these -ireas This
plan, completed in 1979, must be revised every two years.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdrninisLr~t1Ofl (NOM)
is designated as the lead agency to prepare the above plan;
* to execute a program of ocean pollution research, develop-
ment and monitoring in a manner consistent with the plan;
and to ensure dissemination of infornation from federal
ocean pollution research, development and monitoring
* programs. The authorization of appropriations for this
Act expires September 30, 1980.
This bill will extend subsequent submission dates for
the biennial revisions to the above plan from February 15 to
April 30. Such an extension is necessary to assure adequate
review of theplan by the Executive Branch on a schedule
which promotes better coordination of the plan with the
* budget projections for relevant agencies. The bill also
will extend the appropriations authorization for carrying
out the Act through fiscal year 1982. Such an extension
will allow NOAA to carry out its functions under the Act for
two more years.
PAGENO="0083"
77
Mr. STUDDS. Our first, last and only witness this morning is Mr.
James Walsh, Deputy Administrator of NOAA, and Chairman of
the Interagency Committee on Ocean Pollution Research and De-
velopment and Monitoring.
Good morning.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P (BUD) WALSH, DEPUTY ADMINISTRA
TOR, NOAA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND CHAIRMAN
OF THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEAN POLLUTION
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING, ACCOM-
PANIED BY DR DAIL W BROWN ACTING DIRECTOR, NA
TIONAL MARINE POLLUTION PROGRAM OFFICE, NOAA; AND
CAPT LAWRENCE SWANSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MARINE
POLLUTION ASSESSMENT, NOAA
Mr. WALSH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. I will not ask you why San Francisco is on the front
of your report.
Mr WALSH It was a very pretty picture, and actually I did not
get much choice on it
Mr Chairman and members of the committee
I welcome the opportunity to appear today in support of reauth
orization of Public Law 95-273, the National Ocean Pollution Re
search and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978. You
can see why we call the act Public Law 95-273.
With me today are two individuals who spend most of their time
on pollution matters in NOAA. Dail Brown, who is on my left, is
presently the Acting Director of our national office. His present
responsibility is putting together the plan and overseeing its imple-
mentation.
On my right is Larry Swanson, who is currently in charge of
marine pollution assessment within our Office of Research and
Development It is Larry's job to oversee our actual research proj
ects, such things as the funding of the projects under this act as
well as under other pollution research programs within the Office
of R. & D. He has the added responsibility of coordinating through-
out NOAA all our marine pollution programs. We have a very
sizable set of programs.
The act mandated that a comprehensive 5-year plan for Federal
ocean pollution research, development, and monitoring programs
be developed in order to provide improved planning and coordina
tion of such programs within the Federal Government A further
purpose is to develop and disseminate information about pollution
and its impact on the development of ocean and coastal resources
This undertaking has proved to be no small task. At present, 7
departments and 4 agencies are conducting or sponsoring nearly
1,000 discrete projects relating to ocean pollution research, develop-
ment, and monitoring. Expenditures for these projects are project-
ed to be $188 million in fiscal year 1980.
The first 5 year plan is complete and work is already well under
way for revisions in 1981. We believe that the act has made a
positive contribution to improve planning in this area, but much
more needs to be done Consequently, the administration supports
reauthorization of the act for fiscal years 1981 and 1982 We have
sent a bill to the Congress for that purpose.
PAGENO="0084"
78
I would now like to review for you our efforts to carry out the
provisions of the legislation, and to outline our plans to improve
the plan and our programs.
The act requires the preparation of a 5-year plan which includes
a detailed inventory of existing Federal programs, an assessment
and ordering of national needs and problems, an analysis of the
extent to which existing programs assist in meeting these prior-
ities, recommendations for changes in the overall Federal effort
where necessary, and a report on budget coordination efforts. The
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration was named to lead this effort, in consultation with other
Federal agencies having ocean pollution, research, development,
and monitoring responsibilities.
An interagency committee was established. I chair that commit-
tee and Dr. Stephen Gage, Assistant Administrator for R. & D. at
the Environmental Protection Agency, is vice chairman.
Using subcommittees, a task force, and several workshops, the
first 5-year plan was developed along with a catalog of Federal
ocean pollution research development and monitoring programs for
fiscal years 1978-80. These documents have been provided to this
subcommittee.
The several hundred individual statements of ocean pollution
research, development, and monitoring needs and problems set out
in the plan form the framework within which the priorities re-
quired by the act were established. They reflect the many facets of
the ocean pollution problem.
National needs and problems were identified through an exten-
sive review of agency missions by the interagency committee and
through workshops involving industry, State and local government
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested con-
stituencies. As called for in section 4 of the act, initial priorities
were established for major ocean use activities that may cause
pollution. High-priority areas included land use practices, outfalls
of municipal sewage, disposal of industrial waste, disposal of radio-
active waste, steam electric powerplants, disposal of dredged mate-
rial, oil and gas development, marine transportation, and the con-
trol and mitigation of pollution.
These initial priorities are not intended to replace those of indi-
vidual departments and agencies. Rather, they are intended to be
used, first, as guidance in assuring that all of the areas of most
critical concern are addressed somewhere in the Federal effort;
second, as the primary criteria for financial assistance to be made
under section 6 of the act, and finally, as an additional tool to be
used in the evaluation of mission-related activities.
The plan recommends a number of tasks to improve the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal effort. Important re-
search areas are identified in which more emphasis should be
placed within existing resources to a large degree, including:
Effects of synthetic organics on human health; identification of
critical habitats for living marine resources; determining the poten-
tial impact of pollution on marine recreation; the cumulative ef-
fects of coastal land use practices; specific pollution problems relat-
ed to industrial waste disposal and municipal sewage outfalls; spe-
cific problems related to the control and mitigation of ocean pollu-
PAGENO="0085"
79
tion, and in particular, improved tools for assessing the damage
from oilspills; the need for long-term studies on natural, unpolluted
areas in order to distinguish natural variations from pollution-
caused changes; development of an improved capability to assess
the social and economic consequences of pollution; better methods
and approaches to identify potential pollutants and to evaluate
risks.
Both NOAA and the interagency committee have taken impor-
tant steps to implement recommendations of the first 5-year plan.
To provide a national focal point for coordinating Federal efforts
on a day-to-day basis, NOAA has established the National Marine
Pollution Program Office within its Office of Policy and Planning.
This new office, which is staffed by NOAA and interagency repre-
sentatives, is responsible for updating the plan every 2 years, im-
plementing the recommendations, and providing staff support to
the interagency committee.
The next 5-year plan is due February 15, 1981. We are proposing
a legislative change to extend the deadline for submission of the
plan from February 15 to April 30. We believe such an extension is
necessary to assure adequate review of the plan by the executive
branch on a schedule which promotes better coordination of the
plan with the budget process.
The interagency committee is committed to seeing that the next
5-year plan builds upon this first plan to improve its quality and
usefulness and is taking a number of steps to do so. First, agencies
are developing 5-year planning prospectuses for their major pro-
gram areas to allow the next plan to better project future direc-
tions and levels of emphasis.
Second, a series of regional workshops have been scheduled for
June 1980, to develop specific statements of regional needs and
priorities for consideration by the interagency committee. We are
using Sea Grant for this purpose.
Third, an extensive program review will be undertaken this year
to determine how well Federal activities in petroleum-related re-
search, development, and monitoring meet agency requirements
and national needs. I know this is of special interest to you, Mr.
Chairman.
And finally, efforts will be undertaken to improve the budget
coordination process.
We have also taken a number of steps to establish a comprehen-
sive and effective ocean pollution research, development, and moni-
toring program within NOAA, as required by section 5 of this act.
An appendix to my written testimony shows the pollution pro-
gram breakdown, and the elements of NOAA which conduct those
activities.
NOAA's diverse marine pollution-related activities, ranging from
investigations of the levels of trace metals and synthetic organics
in commercial valuable oil fisheries to assessment of the potential
impacts of offshore oil development, have been described in detail
and analyzed in the report and analysis of NOAA's ocean pollution
research, development, and monitoring activities-fiscal year 1978.
That analysis shows NOAA's base funding for marine pollution
research, development, and monitoring activities of approximately
$26 million for fiscal year 1980, with major activities underway in
PAGENO="0086"
80
the Office of Fisheries-NMFS-Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Services, and Office of Research and Development.
To insure that those efforts are well coordinated and effective,
NOAA has proposed the establishment of an Office of Marine
Pollution Assessment within the Office of Research and Develop-
ment.
That office would have authority to coordinate planning and
budgeting of all NOAA's marine pollution activities. We are now
developing a 5-year plan for NOAA's programs which will help
assure that they are responsive to the priorities and recommenda-
tions of the Federal plan.
The act provides authority to fund work in high-priority areas
which are identified in the Federal plan as underemphasized.
Funding can be provided to academic institutions, private firms,
and other Federal agencies. $1.5 million in fiscal year 1980 funds
will be devoted to the program, and we will be soliciting research,
development, and monitoring proposals shortly.
Section 8 of the act requires the Administrator of NOAA to
insure that the results of ocean pollution research, development,
and monitoring are made available in timely and useful fashion, a
critical problem in our opinion
Responsibility for that effort has been assigned to NOAA's Envi-
ronmental Data and Information Service in the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Services.
Two major initiatives are planned. The first will be development
of a central coordination and referral capability to facilitate
making data and information more readily accessible to potential
users. The second will be establishment of a capability to provide
data and information from diverse sources in a form more suitable
for analysis and assessment. This is particularly useful for the
Federal Government.
That assessment capability will be directed at reducing large
volumes of scientific data into forms which are more useful in
making decisions on utilization, conservation, and development of
ocean and coastal resources.
The Administration seeks reauthorization of Public Law 95-273
for $3 million in fiscal year 1981, and such sums as may be appro-
priate in fiscal year 1982. As I mentioned earlier, a legislative
change is also requested to move the due date for the 5-year plan
from February 15 to April 30.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I will be happy to answer
questions the subcommittee may have.
[The following was received for the record]
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WALSH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF* COMMERCE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity to
appear today in support of reauthorization of Public Law 95-273-the National
Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978.
The Act mandated that a comprehensive 5-year plan for Federal ocean pollution
research, development, and monitoring programs be developed in order to provide
improved planning and coordination of such programs within the Federal Govern-
ment A further purpose is to develop and disseminate information about pollution
and its impact on the development of ocean and coastal resources.
This undertaking has proved to be no small task. At present, seven departments
and four agencies are conducting or sponsoring nearly 1,000 discrete projects relat-
PAGENO="0087"
81
ing to ocean pollution research, development, and monitoring. Expenditures for
these projects are projected to be $188 million in fiscal year 1980.
The first 5-year plan is complete and work is already well underway for revisions
in 1981. We believe that the Act has made a positive contribution to improved
planning in this area, but much more needs to be done. Consequently, the Adminis-
tration supports reauthorization of the Act for fiscal years 1981 and 1982. I believe
we have sent a bill to the Congress for that purpose.
I would now like to review for you our efforts to carry out the provisions of the
legislation, and to outline our plans to improve the Plan and our programs.
Section 4-The plan
*The Act requires the preparation of a 5-year plan which includes a detailed
inventory of existing Federal programs, an assessment and ordering of national
needs and problems, an analysis of the extent to which existing programs assist in
meeting these priorities, recommendations for changes in the overall Federal effort
where necessary and a report on budget coordination efforts. The Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was named to lead this
effort, in consultation with other Federal agencies having ocean pollution, research,
development, and monitoring responsibilities.
An interagency committee was established. I chair that Committee and Dr. Ste-
phen Gage, Assistant Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection
Agency is Vice Chairman. Using subcommittees, a task force, and several work-
shops, the first Five-Year plan was developed along with a catalog of Federal ocean
pollution research, development, and monitoring programs for fiscal years 1978-80.
These documents have been provided to this Subcommittee.
The several hundred individual statements of ocean pollution research, develop-
ment, and monitoring needs and problems set out in the Plan form the framework
within which the priorities required by the Act were established. They reflect the
many facets of the ocean pollution problem. National needs and problems were
identified through an extensive review of agency missions by the Interagency Com-
mittee and through workshops involving industry, state, and local government
representatives, environmental groups and other interested constituencies. As called
for in Section 4 of the Act, initial priorities were established for major ocean use
activities that may cause pollution. High priority areas included land use practices,
outfalls of municipal sewage, disposal of industrial waste, disposal of radioactive
waste, steam electric powerplants, disposal of dredged material, oil and gas devel-
opment, marine transportation, and the control and mitigation of pollution.
These initial priorities are not intended to replace those of individual depart-
ments and agencies. Rather, they are intended to be used (1) as guidance in assuring
that all of the areas of most critical concern are addressed somewhere in the
Federal effort, (2) as the primary criteria for financial assistance to be made under
Section 6 of the Act, and (3) as an additional tool to be used in the evaluation of
mission-related activities.
The Plan recommends a number of tasks to improve the overall effectiveness and
efficiency of the Federal effort. Important research areas are identified in which
more emphasis should be placed within existing resources to a large degree, includ-
ing:
Effects of synthetic organics on human health.
Identification of critical habitats for living marine resources.
Determining the potential impact of pollution on marine recreation.
The cumulative effects of coastal land use practices.
Specific pollution problems related to industrial waste disposal and municipal
sewage outfalls.
Specific problems related to the control and mitigation of ocean pollution, and in
particular, improved tools for assessing the damage from oil spills.
The need for long-term studies on natural, unpolluted areas in order to distin-
guish natural variations from pollution-caused changes.
Development of an improved capability to assess the social and economic conse-
quences of pollution.
Better methods and approaches to identify potential pollutants and to evaluate
risks.
Both NOAA and the Interagency Committee has taken important steps to imple-
ment recommendations of the first Five-Year Plan. To provide a national focal point
for coordinating Federal efforts on a day-to-day basis, NOAA has established the
National Marine Pollution Program Office within its Office of Policy and Planning.
This new office, which is staffed by NOAA and interagency representatives, is
responsible for updating the Plan every two years, implementing the recommenda-
tions and providing staff support to the Interagency Committee.
PAGENO="0088"
82
The next Five-Year Plan is due February 15, 1981. We are proposing a legislative
change to extend the deadline for submission of the Plan from February 15 to April
30. Such an extension is necessary to assure adequate review of the Plan by the
Executive Branch on a schedule which promotes better coordination of the plan
with the budget processes.
The Interagency Committee is committed to seeing that the next Five-Year Plan
builds upon this first plan to improve its quality and usefulness. In this regard,
agencies are developing five-year planning prospectuses for their major program
areas to allow the next plan to better project future directions and levels of empha-
sis. Second, a series of regional workshops have been scheduled for June 1980 to
develop specific statements of regional needs and priorities for consideration by the
Interagency Committee. We are using Sea Grant for this purpose. Third, an exten-
sive program review will be undertaken this year to determine how well Federal
activities in petroleum-related research, development, and monitoring meet agency
requirements and national needs. I know this is of special interest to you, Mr.
Chairman. And finally, efforts will be undertaken to improve the budget coordina-
tion process.
Section 5-Comprehensive NOAA program
We have also taken a number of steps to establish a comprehensive and effective
ocean pollution research, development and monitoring program within NOAA, as
required by section 5 of the Act. There is an appendix that shows the pollution
program breakdown and which elements of NOAA conduct those activities. NOAA's
diverse marine pollution-related activities, ranging from investigations of the levels
of trace metals and synthetic organics in commercially valuable oil fisheries to
assessment of the potential impacts of offshore oil development, have been described
in detail and analyzed in the Report and Analysis of NOAA's Ocean Pollution
Research, Development and Monitoring Activities-fiscal year 1978. That analysis
shows NOAA's base funding for marine pollution research, development, and moni-
toring activities or approximately $26 million for fiscal year 1980, with major
activities underway in the Office of Fisheries, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Services, and Office of Research and Development. To ensure that those efforts are
well coordinated and effective NOAA has proposed establishing an Office of Marine
Pollution Assessment within the Office of Research and Development. That Office
would have authority to coordinate planning and budgeting of all NOAA's marine
pollution activities. We are now developing a 5-year plan for NOAA's programs
which will help assure that they are responsive to the priorities and recommenda-
tions of the Federal Plan.
Section tI-Financial assistance
The Act provides authority to fund work in high priority areas which are identi-
fied in the Federal Plan as under-emphasized. Funding can be provided to academic
institutions, private firms and other Federal agencies. $1.5 million in fiscal year
1980 funds will be devoted to the program, and we will be soliciting research,
development, and monitoring proposals shortly.
Section 8-Information Dissemination
Section 8 of the Act requires the Administrator of NOAA to ensure that the
results of ocean pollution research, development, and monitoring are made available
in timely and useful fashion, a critical problem in our opinion. Responsibility for
that effort has been assigned to NOAA's Environmental Data and Information
service in the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric services. Two major initiatives are
planned. The first will be development of a central coordination and referral capa-
bility to facilitate making data and information more readily accessible to potential
users. The second will be establishment of a capability to provide data and informa-
tion from diverse sources in a form more suitable for analysis and assessment. This
is particularly useful for the Federal government. That assessment capability will
be directed at reducing large volumes of scientific data into forms which are more
useful in making decisions on utilization, conservation, and development of ocean
and coastal resources.
The Administration seeks reauthorization of Public Law 95-273 for $3.0 million in
fiscal year 1981 and such sums as may be appropriate in fiscal year 1982. As I
mentioned earlier, a legislative change is also requested to move the due date for
the Five-Year Plan from February 15, to April 30.
That concludes my prepared testimony. I will be happy to answer questions the
Subcommittee may have.
PAGENO="0089"
83
NOAA MARINE POLLUTION PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
- Fiscal year-
1980 1981
MESA (RD):
New York Bight 1.8 1.8
1.3 1.3
2.9 2.9
5.0 7.6
2.5 2.5
2.7 2.7
1.2 1.2
0.3 0.3
4.8 4.8
Ocean dumping (RD)
Habitat investigations (F)
Great Lakes (RD)
Sea grant (RD)
Microconstituents (F)
Ocean engineering (RD)
Long term effects (RD)
Public Law 95-273 (PP, RD, OAS):
Section A
Section
Section
Section
Hazardous materials response ``°"
5
6
8
Total.
Mr. STUDDS. I guess, fundamentally, the most obvious question is:
So what? We have the first plan now. As you say, it has an
extremely nice cover.
The real question is: What is any different in the field of ocean
pollution research and monitoring than it would have been, had we
not enacted this act in the first place? Has it really made a differ-
ence of substance, in your judgment?
Mr. WALSH. I believe it has, for one simple reason. Before the
legislation was passed, it is fair to say that no one in the Federal
Government had any idea of what was going on in this field.
Now that we have an idea of what is going on, and we have also
taken the time to identify what our needs ought to be. We have a
far better basis for making planning and budgeting decisions than
we did in the past.
What might have happened in the past is that the field staff of
NOAA or EPA would decide to see if they could sell a program to
their bosses. The program then might have come up the system.
The bosses would not have had enough time to look at it, and by
the time it was approved, no one could have been assured of what
they had approved.
With this plan, we give the decisionmakers at the senior manage-
ment level, as well as the budget level, an opportunity to look at
the budget recommendations that come up from the field. The
senior managment can now say, "If I am going to approve this
research I want you to assure me that the following agency does
not do it, and that it is aimed in the right direction." It is an
extremely useful document for that purpose.
I find it particularly useful when assessing requests that come to
me for funding. Sometimes these requests reach $100 million.
Before this document, I had a heck of a time. I might have called
up somebody I knew for information. But this document is so
useful for me. It is almost indispensable for a manager. It helps us
identify the areas that need to be addressed.
0.6 0.6
0.1
1.5 1.7
0.1 0.7
1.0 1.0
25.8 29.1
PAGENO="0090"
84
I think that your question really relates to how quickly the
Federal Government reacts My experience is that the executive
branch's calendar is usually 2 years behind the legislative calendar
because of the bureaucracy involved. Consequently, I believe that
while change is hard to see now, within a year or two more, you
will see our programs begin to become more responsive to the
statements from the Congress about what the national needs are.
We will be able to give you a lot more information about things
such as drilling muds This plan is a much better technique for
improving the helter skelter planning process that is underway in
the Federal Government
Mr STUDDS Do you have any way of knowing whether any other
agencies view it the way you do and use it to the extent that you
do?
Mr. WALSH. Yes, we have heard that it is being used by budget
examiners throughout the Government.
Mr. STUDDS. Did you find-and I expect you did-duplication
where no one knew it existed in terms of the application of re-
search effort?
Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir. There are programs that look like they are
overlapping, and we have indicated that we think that those either
ought to be sorted out or changed or new projects should be under
taken in certain areas.
Mr. STUDDS. When you find such things, I guess all you can do,
and all that can be done under this program, is to make it abun-
dantly clear, and hope that in turn they will make the riqht
judgment.
Mr WALSH Yes, sir
We respect the fact that power in the Federal Government is
decentralized through many committees, agencies, bureaus, and
offices, and we certainly are not going to tell them they must cut it
out
But once the information is down on paper, and you have a
document to use a tool for evaluation--
Mr. STUDDS. I hope somebody has the authority to say, cut it out,
if three agencies are doing the same thing.
Mr. WALSH. I think more and more senior managers are saying,
"If somebody else is doing it, let's not do it. If we need to get into a
gap area, let's go for it." I think what it does is give senior manage-
ment in the Government a better handle.
Mr. STUDDS. How substantial a change would you anticipate in
next year's version of the 5 year plan, the first revision of it?
Mr WALSH I think it will be a lot more refined First of all, we
will have a much better idea of how much each agency is planning
5 years down the line We have established general guidelines
In addition, we are going to get into, in more depth, the largest
area, petroleum, and begin to get down to project levels and to
program purposes. There is a lot of money going into petroleum.
Energy has become the budget watchword. People down the line
say that energy is selling this year, and we need to do some
pollution studies.
The cumulative impact is that there are a lot of programs which
are not coordinated Through this plan we think in the petroleum
PAGENO="0091"
85
area we will be able to tell you where the problems are and how
we will have to redirect ourselves
Mr. STUDDS. Do you think there is really a need to mandate that
this be done every 2 years?
Mr. WALSH. I believe there is a need, simply because it is very
simple for people to fall back into traditional habits of taking a
shortcut NOAA has had the same tendency For example, NOAA
is charged with coordinating meteorology in the Federal Govern
ment under an 0MB order Recently, we discovered that we and
other agencies had fallen asleep on how much time we put into it
I find that the demands of legislation are extremely helpful to
keep this thing at the front burner, because so many things come
along to make it look like it should go on the back burner.
I find it useful to have that requirement, and to, quite frankly,
have the pressure from Congress.
Mr. STUDDS. I am intrigued to hear you say that, because I
expect, with the plethora of reports that are mandated by the
Congress on a regular basis, that someone's eye will be caught by
this little innocuous bill on the floor and that person will say we
are just requiring another report, and are we doing anything other
than creating more paper, and perhaps a few more staff positions
to fulfill yet another essentially formal but not particularly sub
stantive mandate of Congress
I take it you feel very strongly that is not the case9
Mr WALSH No, sir I think the critical thing is the process that
has been created. The process is as good a one as can be put
together, given the dispersion of power in the Federal Government
When you say reports, I think of something telling you what we
did last year What we are trying to do with the plan is tell us
what to do next year I think there is a critical difference
I don't like to file reports about what we did last year It takes a
lot of time I prefer to look into the future, and in my opinion,
anything that helps us look better into the future is a good report
if it is done right
Mr STUDDS In your judgment, the time that you and your asso
ciates have had to devote has been time well spent, and not time
spinning wheels?
Mr. WALSH. I believe so. It has completely changed the way
NOAA has done business in pollution Three years ago I remember
when NOAA appeared before Congress, they were not sure what
everybody else was doing
We now have a group that manages all of NOAA pollution
programs across the board We establish a priority ranking of new
funding on a collegial basis We do it through the senior manage
ment level
It has rationalized NOAA's research We can tell you what we
are doing and where we are going and where we want to head.
Mr STUDDS Do you know whether other agencies are doing this9
How about EPA~
Mr WALSH We understand that they are It is being used by all
the agencies in this manner, as well by as their budget examiners
The Interior Department has been quite supportive of this, and
their programs are a very large part of it We understand that it
has been very useful
PAGENO="0092"
86
Mr. STUDDS. I am encouraged. My interest in this question was
spurred by hearings in Hyannis when we actually had Federal
agencies arguing on the witness stand as to who was responsible
for what under the law.
There was disagreement between NOAA and EPA and Interior
about who was responsible for assessing damages after a major
spill. There seemed to be general agreement that the Coast Guard
was responsible for cleaning it up, but beyond that there was
disagreement. I guess that is as good an example as any.
Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir. Since that time, what we have done in the
Federal Government is recognized that that was a completely valid
criticism. First we needed to decide who was going to be the chief
and who would be the Indians, and then decide what all our tribes
were doing, and how to do it without stepping on each other's toes.
It is not an easy task in the large, cumbersome bureaucracy that
we have.
Mr. STUDDS. I think the next level, for example, using the inci-
dent of a major oil spill such as that, as the result of this program,
we now know who was responsible, even though there is some
overlapping. Or is there some clarification?
Mr. WALSH. There has been clarification.
Mr. STUDDS. Someone is now responsible other than just knowing
who is responsible?
Mr. WALSH. Yes. We will make that even more clear as we move
down the line to the agency prospectuses. We will be able to tell
you the lead agency for drilling muds will be the Department of
the Interior. That will be their job.
Mr. STUDDS. For research?
Mr. WALSH. For research. If, however, that agency feels they do
not have the expertise and might like to turn to some other
agency, we will be able to do that.
Mr. STUDDS. For example, if there is a major oil spill, is it clear,
or do you know whether or not it is clear, which agency has the
responsibility for long-term damage assessment?
Mr. WALSH. Well, at the present time, based on decisions that
have already been made, NOAA is in charge of damage assess-
ment.
Mr. STUDDS. For monitoring over time?
Mr. WALSH. Yes; and I believe the national response team is
considering right now and recommendations have been made, that
NOAA be officially designated the lead agency.
Mr. STUDDS. I notice that you have in your ranking of priorities,
or in the plan's ranking of priorities, you sort of have three levels,
high, medium and low, and you do not attempt to rank within
those broad categories.
Mr. WALSH. No, we did not. But if you will notice, we went
beyond just the initial priorities. We made some detailed recom-
mendations in the back of the document which break it down by
type of activities, by regional bases, and by pollutant.
Mr. STUDDS. And you do rank in your subheadings underneath
your broad categories.
Mr. WALSH. Yes, in the back we put whether it is high or
medium or low.
PAGENO="0093"
87
Mr. STUDDS. My first reaction is that you avoided some critical
areas in terms of national needs. But that is probably, at least in
part, a part of the difficulty you have as an interagency committee,
each of whose members must be watching their own area and not
wanting to be outranked by someone else.
Mr. WALSH. Even this ranking was extremely contentious and
there are some people who would like to throttle me at the present
time.
Mr. STUDDS. I can imagine.
But I wonder, if we did not have that difficulty do you think a
purpose would be served by a greater specificity of ranking within
the broad categories?
Mr. WALSH. The way the Federal Government does that kind of
thing is to set these broad spectrums, and then each year go with a
ZBB ranking. But it is very rare that you get a ZBB ranking across
the board.
Mr. STUDDS. What kind of ranking?
Mr. WALSH. Zero-based budgeting; I am sorry.
Mr. STUDDS. I am not sure that would be desirable. You would
kick up a horrible fuss among people who feel they deserve to be
higher or lower.
Of course, I have my own particular parochial questions of you.
In your high category you have oil and gas, and in your subhead-
ings, ranked within that category, you have A, B, and C priorities.
In your lower priorities are discharges from drilling. That is a B,
and the effects of spilled oil is a C. How does one determine those
are B and C, as opposed to A?
Those are on page 136 of the plan.
Mr. WALSH. I think those rankings were judged on what we are
presently doing, how much money we are putting into it now, the
need to focus more in this area than in that area, and how much
capability there is in the research community. The interagency
team that went over this spent a good deal of time on it.
I would guess that many of these things are changing. That is
why we would like to revise the plan over time. We are trying to
perceive what the national needs are as they evolve. Of course, the
national needs seen by this Congress today are a lot different than
what they saw 2 years ago.
Mr. STUDDS. To say nothing of what they will be next year.
Mr. WALSH. So we feel that we do take a snapshot and make
judgments at a certain period of time, and therefore, we would like
every 2 years to improve them.
Mr. STUDDS. Do you, if pressed personally or officially, have any
substantive changes to recommend in the statute other than those
relatively minor ones?
Mr. WALSH. The title.
Mr. STUDDS. I was saving that for the end.
Mr. WALSH. I think that presently the legislation is fully accept-
able to us, except for the change to the April 30 date.
Mr. STUDOS. Does the administration have an official position as
to what the title ought to be?
Mr. WALSH. No.
Mr. STUDDS. Do you have one personally?
PAGENO="0094"
88
Mr. WALSH. We were talking about this today, and we were
thinking about conducting a lottery of some sort.
Mr. STUDDS. That is dangerous.
Mr. WALSH. We could ZBB the names. The National Ocean Pollu-
tion Planning Act would be just as acceptable.
Mr. STUDDS. I think some consideration should be given to the
resulting acronym. Was it you or the Department of State who
came up with the suggestion for Fishery Conservation and Manage-
ment Act of Basic Understanding Governing Offshore Fisheries?
Was that the State Department?
Mr. WALSH. Ours was Governing International Fisheries Trea-
ties.
Mr STUDDS Do you have anything better to suggest than that? I
understand we may have difficulty with the Science Committee,
who shares jurisdiction over this.
Mr. WALSH. I think the Senate would say it is the House lan-
guage that came out.
Mr. STUDDS. Is this something you bear responsibility for in your
earlier incarnation?
Mr. WALSH. Yes, I drafted that.
Mr STUDDS And you have had to live with that?
Mr WALSH Every now and then you have to see if what you
suggested makes sense, and try to carry it out
Mr. STUDDS. It is a humbling task, but we will attempt to do
better. We will have informal consultations with the administra-
tion, and we will not ask most of the affected 11 agencies. We will
do our very best to come up with one.
I want to thank you. I must say, when I first encountered the
statute with any degree of closeness, I was extremely skeptical that
we had done anything more than mandate a little more reporting
on your part to us.
But you sound genuinely convinced that we have stimulated
something worthwhile.
Mr WALSH I think it is working, Mr Chairman I think this
kind of exercise is extremely useful for one simple reason, and that
is that the decisions about funding tend to be made on an isolated
basis. It is only rarely that the Office of Management and Budget
will make a crosscut-that is, they will take a look at what like
programs are going on.
Most budget examiners do not like crosscuts Crosscuts are diffi
cult and complex This provides a very useful technique and proc
ess for us to do a relatively good crosscut and comparison At least
we know what everyone else is doing, and we will not step on their
toes
Mr STUDDS That is very encouraging
Mr Pritchard has asked permission to submit questions in writ
ing His job will be to keep away those from his side that will be
trying to look for ways to save a little bit of money as we try to get
this bill on the floor.
Thank you very much. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[The following was received for the record:]
PAGENO="0095"
89
QUESTIONS FROM MR MURPHY AND ANSWERS
Questlon 1 In establishing priorities how were the trade offs made between cost
to gather the information vs the value of the resulting data (Sec 4(b)(1)(B))?
Answer In developing the procedures for setting initial priorities for the First
Plan it proved impossible with the time and resources available to quantitatively
estimate either the cost of projected research development and monitoring needs or
the value of information to be obtained with any degree of reliability Rather a set
of criteria were applied in a qualitative way to set both the priorities for specific
need statements and overall categories. These criteria are:
Immediacy of the pollution threat.
Value and importance of the polluting activity to society and the economy
Distribution of the polluting activity whether local regional or global
Value of the resources at risk
Likelihood of solving the problem in the near term the availability of scientific
expertise and cost effectiveness
Question 2 In determining national priorities what criteria were used to evaluate
the adequacy of the level of effort (i e when is the research base adequate)?
Answer Priorities were established using the criteria presented in the answer to
question No. 1 without any consideration of the adequacy of existing scientific and
technical knowledge of the problem area Only after priorities were established was
the adequacy of the information base and the current program level considered to
determine unmet high priority needs The current state-of knowledge was evaluated
by the interagency task force with reference to numerous recent reports on different
pollution areas such as the Estes Park report Proceedings of a Workshop on
Scientific Problems Relating to Ocean Pollution
Question ~ Could specific examples be given as to how other agencies have used
this Plan? How has this Plan made a difference in the process by which research
priorities are determined and the content of agency research programs?
Answer NOAA and EPA are examples of two agencies that are using the Plan to
develop their current programs for fiscal year 1982 Because the Plan brought
together for the first time program information on all agencies, a major benefit has
been the awareness of the magnitude and emphasis of the ongoing Federal effort. A
major accomplishment in the process by which research programs are developed is
implementation of Task 23-the preparation of a 5-year prospectus by each agency.
For the first time, many agencies are developing research strategies that look out 2-
3 years beyond the most current budget year. The Plan was published in the fall in
1979 and it is much too early to determine what impact it has had on the content of
agency programs
Question 4 Can specific examples be given of the clarification of agency roles that
have resulted from the development of this Plan (as mentioned before the Subcom
mittee)?
Answer As noted in the answer to Question No 3 a major accomplishment of the
first Plan was the review, for the first time, of all agency missions, mandates, and
research activities. This has resulted in clarification of agency responsibilities for all
facets of pollution research, development and monitoring. As the second Plan is
prepared, it is hoped that agencies will take on "lead agency" roles for pollution
problem areas which are of interest to more than one agency. The National Marine
Pollution Program Office is working with individual agencies to develop those lead
agency roles.
Question 5 What interagency research programs have resulted or are in the
planning stage as a consequence of the development of the Plan? How are resources
to be used more effectively to support management decisions?
Answer Because of the way the budget cycle is structured it is too early to expect
that specific research programs will have been developed in response to the Plan
NOAA through its Section 6 Financial Assistance program is planning to spend
$1.5 million on programs to address the unmet priority problems identified in the
Plan. A specific interagency program on the marine pollution problems related to
coastal land use practices is being jointly sponsored by the National Marine Pollu-
tion Program Office, Office of Coastal Zone Management, and the U.S. Department
of State. An interagency working group is looking at the problems of quality
assurance across all agency programs and their recommendations should lead to
specific programmatic changes.
Question 6. What role does NOAA have in conducting research on the effects of
ocean dumping of dredge spoil and sewage sludge (vs EPA and the Corps of
Engineers)? What research efforts are planned to carry out the research priorities
cited in the Plan for these two problems? How are they to be coordinated with the
appropriate regulatory agency?
PAGENO="0096"
90
Answer. NOAA's role in conducting research on the effects of ocean dumping of
dredge material and sewage sludge is to carry out programs of research on fate and
effects, conduct environmental assessment studies, and develop and implement mon-
itoring strategies. These studies and activities are responsive to the known concerns
and interests of EPA and the Corps. Current needs include alternative disposal
methods for dredged material, such as "capping", and assessing procedural methods,
such as bioassays. Recently, a special EPA/Corps/NOAA task force was established
to consider the current controversy affecting dredging in New York Harbor. The
task force is determining criteria for selection of test organisms, sediments to be
tested, pollutants to be screened (in addition to PCBs) and bioassay procedures, in
the New York Bight.
Research planned in connection with dredged material and sewage sludge disposal
in fiscal years 1980 and 1981 addresses the priorities set forth in the Federal Plan.
These studies will include experimental dumps in the dredge site in the New York
Bight in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers and studies in dredged spoil
disposal sites in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay. Operational monitoring of
the sewage sludge site in New York Harbor will be initiated this spring and will
continue for a period of years. In addition, monitoring of the sewage sludge dump-
site by the City of Philadelphia is planned to ascertain residual effects and recovery
factors.
Examples include joint definition of problems, development of strategy, joint
experimental work and initiation of studies in direct response to other agencies'
requests. Coordination also occurs through periodic meetings or through symposia,
both national and international. Finally, coordination on overall priorities and
strategies within the framework of the Federal Plan will be handled through
regional workshops on marine pollution assessment and monitoring.
Question 7. What effort is NOAA making to develop better testing and monitoring
procedures and strategies (as mentioned in the Plan) that can be used for determin-
ing potential environmental degradation (e.g., from dredge soil and sewage sludge)?
Answer. Improved testing and monitoring procedures and strategies evolve both
from findings resulting from programs of research at specific sites and through
investigations designed to yield results that can be applied to more than one site.
For example, in the New York Bight, data on dissolved oxygen concentrations and
contaminant concentrations in sediments and selected organisms, have been incor-
porated into a comprehensive monitoring plan addressing the problems peculiar to
that situation. Other work includes transfer of contaminants from sediments and
the water column to organisms (Texas A&M) and studies on changes in species
composition of planktonic communities (University of Maine, University of Mary-
land).
Question 8. How does this Plan differ from other reports from scientific workshops
on marine pollution research needs?
Answer. Section 4 is very specific as to the content of the Federal Plan: a
statement of national needs and problems; an ordering of those needs and problems
a description of the current Federal Program; an evaluation of how well the current
Federal program meets priority needs and problems; and recommendations to im-
prove the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal effort. The focus of the Federal
Plan is to improve the responsiveness of Federal activities in research, development,
and monitoring to the needs of decisionmakers at both the Federal and non-Federal
levels. The Plan differs from scientific workshop reports by setting priorities among
the research needs and by relating those needs to agency missions and mandates.
Question 9. It was stated that the recommendations should be accomplished
primarily within existing resource levels. How was it determined that this is feasi-
ble?
Answer. Immediate actions to fill gaps in the Federal program are expected to be
taken by application of the Section 6 Financial Assistance funds. $1.5M is available
in fiscal year 1980. In reviewing the overall level of funding and projected increase,
the interagency committee members agreed that resource levels were probably
adequate to meet unmet, high priority needs. A number of areas were identified on
page 10 of the plan where considerable effort is now underway but it is unclear that
these efforts are well-coordinated. Improved efficiencies in these areas could free up
funds to address gap areas.
Question 10. What national needs and problems related to social, economic, and
environmental values of ocean and coastal resources were identified? What plans
are being made and by which agency to address these needs? When these values are
identified and evaluated, how are they to be incorporated into the implementation
of the Plan's research program.
Answer. Several hundred individual statements of ocean pollution research, devel-
opment, and monitoring needs and problems related to social, economic, and envi-
PAGENO="0097"
91
ronmental values are set out in Chapter III of the Federal Plan. Because of the
complexity of the overall ocean pollution problem, these needs and problems discus-
sions are presented from several perspectives:
Effects of ocean pollution on human health, living resources, recreation and
aesthetics, including statements of regional needs and problems.
Activities that cause marine pollution.
Tools for evaluating ocean pollution, including research, monitoring, technology
development, measurement technology, quality assurance, and date and information
management.
Tools for controlling and minimizing ocean pollution.
The unmet, high priority needs are identified on pages 7-9 of the Federal Plan.
Agencies are asked to respond to those unmet needs as agency program plans are
formulated particularly for fiscal year 1982 but no specific assignments are made.
The National Marine Pollution Program Office is working with individual agencies
to identify specific program steps that will be responsibe to the unmet, high priority
needs.
Question 11. What criteria does NOAA use to determine which high priority
research topics to emphasize, what degree of effort should be directed toward each,
and what the timing of the research products should be?
Answer. NOAA uses several approaches towards determining research priorities,
level of effort, and timing of research products. The Federal Plan now serves as a
guide for the development of research needs and priorities. In addition to this
guidance, NOAA seeks the advice of academic institutions and regulatory agencies
such as the Corps of Engineers and EPA. Workshops have been held to solicit this
information. Examples are: the Estes Park Workshop on Scientific Problems Relat-
ing to Ocean Pollution, the Crystal Mountain Workshop on Assimilative Capacity,
and the Regional Workshops on the Long-Range Effects Program. Some projects
have advisory committees consisting of panels addressing user needs (products and
timing), science and technology (technical design), and citizens and industry (public
awareness and problems).
The advice gained from these workshops and groups are then considered in the
context of NOAA goals, objectives and resources for making decisions and program
content.
Question 12. When identifying research needs and agency responsibilities, what
role did NOAA define for herself in supporting other agencies' regulatory needs
(e.g., EPA, Corps of Engineers)? How does NOAA ensure that research programs
and results will be appropriate and timely for management decisions? Please in-
clude specific examples.
Answer. There are numerous ways which NOAA can and has supported other
agencies' regulatory needs. These include providing at-sea research capabilities,
scientific assessments of particular sites or problems, and research relating to
pollution problems and ecosystem functions. NOAA is an active participant in the
national marine pollution program, and is aware of most of the time frames for
management decisions surrounding basic issues. Consequently, we are in a position
to anticipate the need for information at specific times. In addition, we seek guid-
ance from the regulatory agencies in order to assure that we will be responsive. The
workshops and advisory committees mentioned in Question 11 are examples of some
of our interactions in this regard. We also established formal arrangements with
EPA and the Corps of Engineers for the purposes of improving NOAA's responsive-
ness to their needs. The following list provides examples of NOAA's responsiveness
to important management decisions:
1. NOAA temporarily redirected the activities of the MESA New York Bight
Project to assist in the selection of the alternative sewage sludge dumpsite, at the
request of EPA.
2. NOAA, partially at the request of EPA, conducted research into the causes of
the Long Island beach pollution incident and the 1976 oxygen depletion episode off
the coast of New Jersey.
3. NOAA, at the request of EPA, developed routine water quality monitoring
cruises in the Bight during the summer months.
4. NOAA provided ship support in 1974 to the initial testing of the concept of
high-temperature incineration of organochlorides (Gulf of Mexico).
5. NOAA participates on task teams established to investigate area problems, e.g.,
in the case of PCB testing of dredge spoil in the New York Bight.
QUESTION FROM MR. HUGHES AND ANSWER
Question 1. The Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development, and
Monitoring, fiscal year 1979-83 relegates sewage sludge dumping to a low priority
69-8'18 0 - 81. - 7
PAGENO="0098"
92
(p. 5). In view of the severe adverse environmental impact that the ocean dumping
of municipal sewage sludge has caused in the ocean waters of the New York Bight
this low priority is both suprising and disturbing I would like to know the reason
for assigning sewage sludge dumping to a low priority in the Federal Plan
Answer The national policy for the ocean dumping of sewage sludge is that it will
cease in 1981 Given the extensive research that has occurred over the last decade
the local nature of the problem and the current legislated policy the interagenc
committee members agreed that a low priority should be placed on the researc
needs in this area
QUESTIONS FROM MR. PRITCHARD AND ANSWERS
Question 1. What work has been done on the criteria for the selection of sites for
sub-seabed nuclear waste disposal?
Answer. Several years of DOE-sponsored work have been devoted to establishing
criteria for the selection of sites for sub seabed nuclear disposal The major criteria
are that the sea floor chosen be of long term stability it be covered with a thick
layer of sediment and it be at any abyssal depth The best sites therefore would be
in abyssal hill regions at the center of tectonic plates with a 5 to 100 meter
thickness of red clay sediment
Question 2 Is any work being done to map proposed sites? What type of mapping
and profiling will be done?
Answer Some work has been conducted using conventional echo sounders for
defining the surficial shape of the seafloor and high energy sonic profilers for
subsurface structure Finer scale mapping will have to be obtained over the sites
when selected
Question 3. Based on the work up to this date on seabed disposal of radioactive
waste are there any studies which conclude that seabed is not viable and we should
not conduct further studies?
Answer. To our knowledge, five years of research have yielded no technical
reasons why seabed disposal should not be studied further, and considered as a
viable disposal option
Question 4. Has any work been conducted on the method of waste implementation
in the deep seabed in geologically inactive sites?
Answer Yes The method currently being discussed is to use elongate conisters
that would penetrate the sea floor and bury themselves in the sediment
Other alternative strategies are being considered including free fall penetration
jet assist, and drilling.
Question. 5. Would we have to develop new technology for the transportation and
disposal of radioactive wastes?
Answer. New technology for the transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes
will in all probability need to be developed This is of particular importance for the
deployment of the canisters so that penetration in the sediments can be achieved
safely and effectively.
Question 6. Are there any methods of retrieving implanted waste canisters from
beneath the seabed if the need arises?
Answer To our knowledge there are no proven methods of retrieving implanted
waste canisters from beneath the seabed if the need arises Such methods will need
to be devised if retrieval in the future is a consideration.
Question 7. Does NOAA have the capability to monitor the entire disposal process
should sub-seabed disposal become a viable option?
Answer. Yes, provided Class I ships can be dedicated when such disposal oper-
ations are taking place. Ships of that size are needed to tow devices that can
monitor the abyssal depths remotely. In situ sensors, which can be retrieved by
surface vessels, will also need to be used.
Question 8. Do submersibles exist that can travel to the depths where disposal
might take place?
Answer. The U.S. Navy's TRIESTE II is a manned-submersible that can work at
depths up to 6,00m.
Question ~9. Can the sediment withstand the high heat that nuclear waste gener-
ates?
Answer One of the key unknowns is the behavior of the sediments The heat
emanating from a canister during its initial 500 years may cause part of the
sediments to rise and parts may harden into a brick-like substance. Experiments are
planned to test the response of clay sediments to implanted heat sources.
Question 10. What do we know about the dose rate to deep sea organisms?
Answer. We do not know very much about this problem. This is being addressed
in a number of ways, including studies in areas where low-level radioactive waste
have been deposited.
PAGENO="0099"
93
Question 11. How long can we reasonably expect the sediment to contain radionu-
chdes9
Answer This depends on whether or not sediments remain stable as discussed in
response to question 9 and on the tendency for nuclides to be adsorbed onto
sediment surfaces Work is proceeding to determine how adsorption is affected by
heat and pressure and by the chemical form of the nuclide. If the overlying clay
sediment remains stable, nuclides must diffuse through interstitial water while
maintaining adsorption equilibrium with the sediment. It has been estimated that
nuclides that leak from a canister at depths more than 30m into sediment may not
reach the sea floor for more than one million years.
Question 12. What happens when radionuclides leak from the sediments?
Answer. They are subject to adsorption onto sediment, diffusion through intersti-
tial water possibly biological uptake if near enough to the surface and once into
the water column, to oceanic diffusion and advection.
Question 13 Does NOAA plan to involve the public in their analysis program9
Answer Should it be determined that NOAA is to play a more active role in this
analysis full public participation at significant stages would be planned It is noted
that public participation has been provided for a draft EIS by DOE that includes
discussion of the seabed option.
Question 14. What research needs to be completed? What is the time frame for
research programs?
Answer. What is required is greater technical development of canister implanta-
tion and retrieval techniques, knowledge on the effect of heat on sediment stability,
knowledge on biological paths for nuclide migration, and some more data on nuclide
adsorption. It is estimated by DOE that a demonstration project of seabed disposal
could be inaugurated in ten years.
Question 15. Under P.L. 95-273, does NOAA need additional funding in order to
improve its coordination of the Federal research effort regarding the sub seabed
emplacement option
Answer There is no need for additional funding under P L 95-273 to coordinate
the Federal research effort. Funding is needed, to accelerate the research efforts
required.
Question 16. What should be NOAA's role in seabed disposal of radioactive waste?
Answer The NOAA Science and Services Policy Group is considering the appro
priate role for NOAA In the investigation of ocean disposal of radioactive waste.
NOAA could play a supportive role to the technology planned for this disposal
method. NOAA has the expertise to investigate the physics and chemistry of nuclide
migration in sediments and in the ocean; the biological uptake and migration of
nuclides; and disposal site surveying, selection and monitoring.
Question 17. Are other nations doing research on the sub-seabed emplacement
option?
Answer European nations are concerned with possible ocean disposal of high
level radioactive waste but their commitment to study of the sub seabed option is
not as strong as that of the U S
[Whereupon, at 1047 a m, the subcommittee adjourned, subject
to the call of the Chair.]
PAGENO="0100"
PAGENO="0101"
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DRILLING
ACTIVITIES OVERSIGHT
TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1980
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gerry Studds presid-
ing.
Present: Representatives Studds, Hughes, Breaux, Wyatt,
Pritchard, and Carney.
Also Present: Richard Norling, Don Lippincott and Diane Hull,
Subcommittee on Oceanography majority staff Curt Marshall, Sub-
committ~e on Oceanography minority staff; Wayne Smith, Subcom-
mittee on Fisheries and Wildlife majority staff; and Dan Panshin,
Subcommittee on Maritime Education.
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcom-
mittee meets today to receive testimony from two Government
agencies concerning environmental problems associated with oil
and gas drilling activities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Specifically, we have asked the Coast Guard to provide testimony
concerning the present availability and capability of oil spill con-
tainment and cleanup equipment and technological improvements
which might be expected in this equipment in the foreseeable
future.
In part II of this hearing, we will receive testimony from the
Environmental Protection Agency concerning its policy in granting
discharge permits for materials used in, or incidental to, offshore
drilling.
Both agencies bear particularly heavy responsibilities as frontier
areas in the North Atlantic and along the Alaskan coast are
opened to oil and gas development. Both areas contain some of the
most productive fishing grounds in the world which not only make
a significant contribution to our economy and the world protein
supply, but having been harvested continually by generations of
American fishermen, now form an important part of our national
heritage.
Whether or not that heritage continues beyond this generation
will, in no small part, be determined by how well these two agen-
cies carry out their environmental mandates.
Insofar as the Congress has provided those mandates through
various pieces of legislation, it is the responsibility of the Congress
to see that its wishes are heeded and that the resources provided
are adequate to the task.
(95)
PAGENO="0102"
96
I feel that today's hearing is a proper response to fulfill the
subcommittee's responsibilities for environmental and technologi
cal matters concerning the oceans.
Mr Pritchard, do you have a statement9
Mr PRITCHARD Yes, Mr Chairman, I do
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOEL PRITCHARD, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON STATE
Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman, the most recent studies of our
Nation's future consumption and production of energy have had
some promising signs. They indicate that domestic consumption of
oil will most likely decrease by about 8 percent in 1990 over what
it was in 1979. Unfortunately, domestic production of oil is expect-
ed to drop by even higher rates during this period, requiring the
importation of about 60 percent of our oil needs in the year 1990,
as compared to roughly 45 percent today.
These recent studies really do not tell us anything we have not
known from other studies, however, they graphically demonstrate
the need to accelerate the exploration for and development of our
enormous domestic oil and gas resources.
According to the Department of the Interior, the Federal Govern-
ment owns 85 percent of our remaining oil, and 40 percent of our
remaining natural gas with about 60 percent of our oil being
located on the Outer Continental Shelf.
We must take steps now to accelerate production of these re-
sources, but we should not do so to the detriment of other consider
ations. By acting now, we have enough time to give proper consid-
eration to all aspects of marine development. If we delay the pro-
duction of oil and gas, and a crisis develops, history tells us that
many safety and environmental protection programs may be sub-
ject to a considerable backlash. For the American public and for
the members of the committee who have worked long and hard for
the safety and environmental programs that were too long ignored,
this would indeed be a catastrophe.
The safety and environmental record of the U.S. offshore oil and
gas activities has been quite good However, some questions remain
to be answered. The 88-year history, as well as many studies,
indicate that oil and gas operations have not detrimentally impact-
ed commercial fisheries or other marine activities. What some of
these studies have indicated, however, is that there are some ques-
tions concerning long-term impacts of drilling mud sediments,
under particular conditions and at certain concentrations.
We must take every step possible within reason to assure that
there is not economic displacement or irreversible harm from
Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities that would eliminate
other uses of our oceans and coastal areas
Public Law 95-372, the 1978 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Amendments, provides for these considerations which is evidenced
by the fact that out of six court challenges to Outer Continental
Shelf lease sales in 1979, none have been successful.
There are 10 Federal departments and agencies involved in
Outer Continental Shelf leasings, two of which are testifying before
us today.
PAGENO="0103"
97
There is no evidence that the current Outer Continental Shelf
leasing program has not and is not operating safely, but again
some questions have been raised
In looking for answers to these questions, we must remember
that no responsible scientist or researcher can or will claim they
can prove anything conclusively, and a negative cannot be proven
at all We must always be willing to accept some level of risk as we
explore and develop resources offshore.
In light of this, and of our concern for the wise use of our coastal
and ocean resources, I look forward to today's witnesses Thank
you
Mr STUDDS Our first witness, on behalf of the Coast Guard, is
Capt Charles Corbett, Chief of Marine Environmental Response
Division, U S Coast Guard Captain Corbett, welcome I believe we
last met in Corpus Christi.
STATEMENT OF CAPT CHARLES CORBETT, CHIEF, MARINE EN
VIRONMENTAL DIVISION, U.S. COAST GUARD, ACCOMPANIED
BY MIKE CHRISTENSEN
Captain CORBETT Yes, sir
Mr STUDDS At an earlier round of the ongoing saga of the Coast
Guard oilspill cleanup capability
Captain CORBETT Yes, sir Mr Chairman and Members of the
committee, realizing the large amount of our time this morning
might be spent on questions, I have cut my testimony down to a
bare minimum. Since it is only four pages I plan to read the entire
statement.
Mr. STUDDS. Go right ahead.
Captain CORBETT I am Capt Charles Corbett, Chief, Environ
mental Response Division of the Coast Guard's Office of Marine
Environment and Systems I am accompanied today by Mike Chris
tensen of my staff Thank you for this opportunity to present the
Coast Guard's views concerning the state of technological develop
ment and availability of containment and cleanup equipment for
drilling activities on the Outer Continental Shelf
Technological development of containment and recovery equip
ment has proceeded to the point where it is realistic to expect
successful operation of open ocean recovery equipment in 8 to 10
foot seas and in winds of at least 20 knots This is considered the
current "state of the art" and is based on observations made of the
Coast Guard's open water oil containment and recovery system
used on the IXTOC I oil spill at the Bay of Campeche well site We
do not expect sigrnficant technological advances in this area since
our experience indicates that this may be the outer limit at which
mechanical recovery of oil is possible This rationale is based on
the premise that break up of oil and dispersion takes place in
about an 8 to 10 foot sea We have an R & D effort underway to
develop a computer model that will predict the breakup and disper
sion of floating oil slicks in rough seas.
As a result of the Presidential Initiatives of 1977, the Secretary
of Transportation has approved for planning purposes a 3-year
project to locate open water containment and recovery systems at
11 high risk areas around the country Equipment would be stock
piled and maintained at facilities with the objective of attaining a
PAGENO="0104"
98
nationwide, aggregate recovery capacity of 200 tons of oil per hour,
that is, approximately 1,400 barrels per hour, conditions permit-
ting. We now have some of the equipment at each of our strike
teams locations which, as you know, are located at Elizabeth City,
N.C., Hamilton AFB, Calif., and Bay St. Louis, Miss.
As you are aware, it is the spiller's responsibility to control,
clean up, and mitigate damages if a spill should occur. A Memoran-
dum of Understanding between the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S.
Geological Survey presently under development will task the Coast
Guard with review of those portions of exploration or development
and production plans which address the adequacy of the required
oilspill contingency plan, including the adequacy of response,
cleanup equipment and procedures. It should be noted that pending
finalization of the memorandum of understanding the Coast Guard
and U.S. Geological Survey have an informal agreement imple-
menting this mechanism for lease sale 42 on George's Bank. The
Coast Guard review will occur prior to approval for actual drilling.
The guidelines under which we intend to conduct the review will
call for oil containment and recovery equipment to be "state of the
art" that is, capable of effective operation in 8- to 10-foot seas and
in winds of at least 20 knots.
Since the quantity of equipment that we would require of the
OCS lease operators should be related to the spill threat, a recov-
ery capacity of at least 1,000 barrels per day should be the mini-
mum recovery rate acceptable.
A time of 6 hours for initiating recovery operations with pre-
stationed equipment is the target we have set. That is, whatever
amounts of equipment that we require OCS lease operators have
available for responding to spills should be fully deployed and in
operation within 6 hours from the time the spill occurs, weather
permitting. Where equipment is to be staged will be left to the
operator, but he must demonstrate that the response target criteria
can be met under all conditions under which the equipment is
expected to be effectively operated. Within 48 hours after a spill,
an operator would be expected to have any additional equipment
on scene and in position to address a spill of extraordinary dimen-
sions.
We also believe that response exercises must take place at least
semiannually. At least one of these semiannual exercises must be
structured to test the response mechanism under the most demand-
ing environmental conditions in which it is expected to be effective,
again 8 to 10 foot seas.
Vessels capable of deploying and operating the "state of the art"
response equipment, in its maximum effective state, must also be
available within the same response time parameters as used for
response equipment. The crews of all candidate support vessels
must be familiar with equipment deployment and operating tech-
niques, or a system developed for supplying trained crews/supervi-
sors to the involved vessels within the response time. In addition to
oil recovery equipment, offshore operators will be required to main-
tain equipment for applying dispersants and adequate stockpiles of
dispersants, if these are not readily available from vendors. This
requirement should not be interpreted as a preference on the part
of Government for the use of dispersants. Instead, it recognizes
PAGENO="0105"
99
that spills may well occur in which the mechanical removal of oil
is not possible due to environmental conditions or weather condi-
tions. Under circumstances such as these, it is desirable that all
options be available. The decisions to use dispersants would of
course be made using the criteria and procedures set forth in
annex X of the National Contingency Plan.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I must say quite candidly that I do not
believe there now exists an in-place capability to respond to a
major oil spill in the Outer Continental Shelf. However, the Coast
Guard will continue to work closely with other Federal and State
agencies as well as industry of course, to pursue development of
adequate contingency planning for the OCS, with the reliability
and the level of performance which we think desirable. I thank you
and the committee members for inviting the Coast Guard to par-
ticipate in these proceedings. I will be happy to address any ques-
tions you, or the other members may have. Thank you.
Mr. STUDOS. One thing we have learned is that we should never
have anyone above the rank of captain testify on the part of the
Coast Guard, if we want to get at some of the facts in the matter. I
remember your diplomatic-how do I phrase this-your efforts at
the hearing in Corpus Christi to set the record as straight as you
possibly could, given the claims of some people of higher rank in
the Coast Guard about the capability of the equipment.
Let me just say that I appreciate your testimony very much. I
find this one of the more shocking pieces of testimony from the
Coast Guard in recent years only because in my judgment it repre-
sents a complete reversal in tone, and to a large degree in sub-
stance, of what the Coast Guard is saying with respect to its
capability to deal with an oil spill in the high seas on the Outer
Continental Shelf. Members of this committee will recall that over
the years whenever I or other members of the subcommittee have
sort of pressed the Commandant, whoever he might be at the time,
of the Coast Guard with respect to that capability, we have gotten,
in response, a very definitive tone, with the Commandant suggest-
ing over the years, again whichever Commandant it may have been
at any given time, the Coast Guard was indeed far better prepared.
The state of the art was indeed far better than the deprecatory
tone of my question may have suggested. And whenever any of us
here suggested that perhaps we were not equipped to deal with a
major spill under routine, never mind adverse conditions in the
Outer Continental Shelf. The implication was that over the years
on this committee we were somehow being alarmist raising doubts.
Now I think you have unequivocably, explicitly stated what it is
that we feared. As you well know, your testimony tracts a letter by
the Commandant of the Coast Guard to the acting chairman of this
committtee dated July 16 of this year. Let me read you a couple of
things and I now all I can do is ask for your opinion but I want the
record to reflect very clearly what is happening here. The Presi-
dent sent a message to the Congress immediately after the Argo
Merchant disaster. The Argo Merchant precipitated, if nothing else,
a great many speeches by people in high office in the land. The
President sent a message on oil pollution dated March 17, 1977.
The Argo Merchant sinking was a December 1976 disaster as I
recall. In it the President said the following:
PAGENO="0106"
100
Improvement of Federal ability to respond to oil pollution emergencies I have
directed the appropriate Federal agency particularly the Coast Guard the Environ
mental Protection Agency in cooperation with state and local governments to
improve our ability to contain and minimize the damaging effects of oil spills The
goal is an ability to respond within 6 hours to a spill of 100 000 tons
Now let me read to you for the purposes of the record, I know
you are familiar with it, from the letter Admiral Hayes sent on
July 16 to Mr Ashley, acting chairman of the committee I quote,
"The national response goals established by the President March
17, 1977, oil pollution message are not being implemented by the
Coast Guard, nor are we in the process of deploying high seas
containment and cleanup equipment at 11 strategic sites around
the United States to respond to an oil spill of 100,000 tons within 6
hours" At the very least that is refreshingly clear language that
we are not complying with the directive of the President Why not?
Captain CORBETT Mr Chairman, I think first of all the key
phrase in the language that you read which the Commandant
wrote is relating to the 6 hour element We are, in fact-we will be
locating our equipment at the sites which we have said that we
would Let me just insert into the record a short statement that I
have on this, if you please Initial emphasis on implementing the
Presidential initiatives has been improving response equipment
and improving operations procedures At the time of the Presi
dent's message of March 17, 1977, on rising pollution of the ocean
we had no equipment which would permit the recovery of oil in
seas greater than 5 feet Since that time we have modified 13
devices for oil containment at sea and developed techniques that
would permit us to deploy these devices in up to approximately 10
foot seas. There are four complete systems including pumping in
our inventory. We have presently a contract for more of these
devices and expect to have 26 complete systems built by the fall of
1981
Mr STUDDS The fall of 1981?
Captain CORBETT Yes, sir These are fully budgeted and we
expect to have them.
Mr STUDDS That is 4i/2 years after the President's message?
Captain CORBETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. At the end of Admiral Hayes' letter of last month
which you tracked in your testimony almost verbatim, he states to
Congressman Ashley, "Quite candidly I must say I do not believe
there now exists an in-place capability to effectively respond to a
major oil or hazardous substance spill on the OCS or fisheries
conservation zone. It will take some time before the situation im-
proves." That is the end of the letter.
Captain CORBETT Yes
Mr STUDDS You have a similar statement in your own testimo
ny
Captain CORBETT. I will just remark extemporaneously on that. I
think by the time we will get our 26 skimming barriers located
around the country that the Coast Guard will be in a relatively
good position to attend to or address an open water spill. However,
the main thrust of our activities on the Outer Continental Shelf is
not to provide Coast Guard equipment but to insist-and I really
mean this quite seriously-to insist that the operators have the
PAGENO="0107"
101
contingency plans, the operating procedures, the equipment to fully
respond within 6 hours to an oil spill on the OCS.
Mr STUDDS Let me ask one other thing here and then I want to
go on to other members You and other members for the Coast
Guard spokesman and I have gone round and round again as to
what is the state of the art at the moment in any given year. As I
understand the first page of your testimony, you think we have
reached what may be the ultimate state of the art and that is the
capacity to recover spilled oil in 8 to 10 foot seas in winds of at
least 20 knots You say we do not expect significant technological
advances in this area since our experience indicates this may be
the outer limit at which mechanical recovery of oil is possible
Well if that is true, No 1, that is certainly the first time to my
recollection this committee has been told that that is as far as we
are ever going to be able to go You may or may not know I was in
Massachusetts this last week, in the middle of the summer, in
August, wind was out of the northeast on Georges Bank, for the
better part of a week, the seas were running at 16 feet and the
winds were steady 25 to 35 knots in the middle of the summer, a
not too unusual situation God knows what the situation will be in
January, February, March That is August If I understand your
testimony correctly you are telling us there is simply no way that
we can or very possibly ever will be able to deal with a major oil
spill out there under most conditions and most months of the year,
is that correct?
Captain CORBETT. Everything except your last phrase, Mr. Chair-
man. I think the environmental impact statement indicates to us
at least that we will be able to recover the oil with our equipment
operating in 8 to 10 foot seas approximatley 90 percent of the time
on Georges Bank But you are quite right in the seas of 16 feet,
winds 40 knots or above, there will be no oil spill recovery oper
ations out there Not only would the equipment not be able to
operate out there, it will most likely break, the people will break
We will have people breaking arms, falling over the side, so forth
So it is a people problem as well as a mechanical problem. Plus the
oil will disperse not only across but through the water column and
even if you could mount a recovery operation it would be grossly
inefficient because the oil would be spread in so many different
directions that you could not address it You need a lot of fine
equipment, you need a lot of oil to make it operate really well You
need to become engaged with oil If it disperses across the water or
into the water column then your equipment really is not useful
Mr STUDDS Your people breaking problem occurs, I assume, on
whatever vessel it is that carries your cleanup equipment, not the
Coast Guard cutter
Captain CORBETT Right
Mr STUDDS In other words if they are out there under fairly
calm conditions and a storm suddenly comes up they are in trou-
ble?
Captain CORBETT I do not think they are in trouble as far as
risking their lives, because we could get the vessels in They would
not remain out there The vessels which are used for these kinds of
operations are relatively small People get seasick in that kind of
PAGENO="0108"
102
weather. The fumes-I know Mr. Wyatt will remember when we
flew over the IXTOC spill.
Mr. STUDDS. He did not really get seasick.
Mr. WYATT. I was in an airplane.
Captain CORBETT. He will recall the fumes which we experienced
at 500 feet were very noxious. This kind of thing is a people
problem. This is another reason why we are talking about 8- to 10-
foot seas. I really believe we can operate in that range. I also
believe it will be a long time, if ever, as you suggest, that we will
be able to operate in anything, say above 12-foot seas.
Mr. STUDDS. Right, and what you are saying to me is that during
substantial segments of the year, and in fact during intervals even
in summer under normal conditions we would not be able to deal
with the spill on the Georges Bank or Gulf of Alaska or presum-
ably other areas.
Captain CORBETT. I did not say that. I said on the Georges Bank
the environmental impact statement indicates we can operate
about 10 percent of the time.
Mr. STUDDS. I think you meant--
Captain CORBETT. Ninety percent of the time. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Whoever wrote the environmental impact statement
concluded only 10 percent of the time do the waves go over 10 feet
on Georges Bank, is that right?
Captain CORBETT. That is right.
Mr. STUDDS. The person probably could not find it on the map. I
suggest if they can stand repetitive things and they work in Wash-
ington which they probably do or they would not have written a
statement like that, if they would turn on NOAA's weather condi-
tions radio reports and leave it on for a few days any given month
in Georges Bank, they might revise their environmental impact
statement.
Mr. Pritchard.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Tell me how much have we learned in the last
couple of years from more recent oil spills since we had our prob-
lem up in the Georges Bank area?
Captain CORBETT. We learned a great deal at the IXTOC 1 oil site
in this matter of open water recovery. In fact we had scheduled an
exercise, I think it was just a few months ahead of the time when
the IXTOC 1 occurred, which was canceled because of IXTOC. We
were eventually invited down to that site by Mexico to recover oil.
We were quite delighted with the recovery efforts. We had some
setbacks as well. I would like to read you some extracts, Mr.
Pritchard, of some of the operational messages which were received
from our man on the scene, Lt. Corn. Jim O'Brian. Before I do that
I would like to tell you a little bit about Jim. He is a Texas boy
who grew up in Texas, he really has no ax to grind with anybody,
he just reports the facts as they are. He is not in the business of
selling equipment or anything of the sort. But he is very reliable at
reporting facts as they are and really knows his business. On the
10th of August he reports:
Failure of mooring points on initial pump sled during heavy seas prevented the
establishment of the recovery system. Launched second sled and will utilize an
improvised mooring design. Expect recovery/pumping ops to commence P.M. 10
August.
PAGENO="0109"
103
Containment barrier is working well. Operating in eight foot seas, 35 KT winds.
Little entrainment and splash observed.
14 August 1979: Recovery rate, 265-300 GPM. Good slick inside barrier-4in.-4.5 in.
deep.
In other words the barrier is containing oil.
Barrier continues outstanding performance containing oil in up to 12 foot seas.
Oil has Specific Gravity of 0.92. This tends to slow down skimming rate in late
afternoon. On scene WX generally constant, wind F/2OKIS, seas E/3-12 ft. with
subsiding of winds and seas during each 24 hour period for approx. 6 hours.
17 August 1979: Small storm center went through area two nights ago with 4OKT
winds. Five ton moorings were insufficient to hold system. Suction hoses torn loose
from barrier, experience minor problems with other couplings. All damages re-
paired, system on line yesterday utilizing twelve ton moorings.
Estimate max 4,000 brls daily recovery on good day. Exercising pumping rate slow
due to six hundred foot run from pumps to discharge point. Otherwise system
working well.
That is poorly phrased. What it means is that they had a signifi-
cant head. The surfaces for example inside the hydraulic hoses
were slowing them down.
Barrier presently containing ten inches of product buildup with no entrainment
or splash.
This was quite significant for us, we were delighted.
20 August 1979: 19 August 79 estimate skimming barrier pumped 6,600 barrels.
Storm center crossed area late 19 early 20 Aug. 40-50 KT winds, 12 ft. seas.
Recovery barge taking on water, in danger of sinking. All efforts directed at saving
barge.
A barge provided by Mexico, by the way.
21 August 1979: Holding barge stabilized and pumping operations resumed at 1500
local 20 Aug 79.
One prime mover remains mop due to salt water ingestion. Flushed with diesel
and oil. Other prime mover manifold welded by support vessel and now operating
normally.
Pumping rate estimated at 5000 bbls average/day, with maximum of 400 to 450
GPM and minimum 250 to 300 GPM. Differences occur primarily in afternoon when
prevailing wind shifts and product level decreases at barrier.
27 August 1979: One barrier parted during tropical disturbance. Appears vessel
ran over it. OIC states repairs being made and anticipated no problem being on line
when Pemex gives go ahead to commence pumping.
31 August 1979: NR two skimming barrier casrep due to collision with vessel.
Presently in three sections. Skimming struts torn up, main tension line parted and
suffered extensive fraying. Some flotation bags ripped or pulled off. Two outboard
sections attached to NR one barrier as deflection barrier. Permanent repairs must
await return conus.
That is about it. This kind of testimony I am inserting is to
demonstrate a couple of things. No. 1, our barrier works well but it
requires innovation. It requires kind of stout-hearted guys to be
down there and stick with the job. But we think that we are
improving it all the time, learning more about it all the time and
we really think it will work in 8- to 10-foot seas. There are times,
such as the Burma Agate incident off Texas, when it did not work
well at all. We were not able to moor the system as we were at
Campeche. It was necessary to use vessels to move it around. We
had winds that were contrary to the current. We had not nearly so
much oil as we had at Campeche. We had a hell of a big fire on our
hands. So we did not find it worked so well at that particular time.
We are continuing exercises on a regular basis to improve our
methods of deploying this boom. So I think your question was what
PAGENO="0110"
104
is the most significant thing we have learned. I think it was down
there at the Bay of Campeche
Mr. PRITCHARD. Let me ask one other thing here. What kind of a
response can you make today in the case of an oil spill in the Puget
Sound area? Do you have this equipment-do you have just one
skimmer or do you have a series of these things? How quickly can
they be brought to the scene and what kind of skilled operators
and ability do you have, say, in an area like the Straits of Juan de
Fuca or Puget Sound?
Captain CORBETT The equipment for a spill in that area would
come from our Pacific strike team at Hamilton Air Force Base,
Calif It is ready to go if it is not being used some place else It is
air transportable by C-130 aircraft. I do not know the airport at
which it would arrive. That element of the response time, and the
people to accompany it, would be very quick and very effective,
then the problem is getting it to the actual site of the spill And
also the weather.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I understand the weather, I just wonder what
your capacity as far as-what is your strike team; does it involve 6
or 25 people?
Captain CORBETT. Strike teams average about 25 people. I really
could almost assure you that they-again weather affects airplanes
being able to take off-but 4 or 5 hours up to your area, getting
into the Seattle area, then ready to press on by truck or water-
borne vehicle if the weather is OK to do so.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Breaux.
Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Captain. I
would also like to commend you publicly for the work that the
Coast Guard did with the chemical spill that occurred in the Mis-
sissippi River. Your obligation I guess has the supervisory jurisdic-
tion over chemical spills in the navigable waters. Let me discuss
maybe a slightly different question first. Your moneys for cleanup
operations come out of what fund?
Captain CORBETT. 311K fund, established by the Clean Water
Act That is, providing it is necessary We naturally hope that the
discharger will pick up the bills But if he does not we will certain
ly use the 311K fund.
Mr. BREAUX. Section 311 of the Clean Water Act provided the
funds we used to clean up the IXTOC oil spill.
Captain CORBETT. That portion of the spill that reached the
Texas coast, yes, sir.
Mr. BREAUX. How much of the moneys do you have left in the
fund at this point approximately?
Captian CORBETT. Right now there is about $18 million in the
fund.
Mr. BREAUX. $18 million. The authorization and appropriation
levels are what?
Captain CORBETT. $35 million.
Mr. BREAUX. And the appropriations were what, $35 million?
Captain CORBETT. We were never appropriated $35 million. It
started out at $20 million and it is a revolving fund. So we have
received moneys back from dischargers, moneys back from penal-
ties and a number of supplemental appropriations. I did not come
PAGENO="0111"
105
prepared to detail those but it has been a continuing battle, it has
reached very low levels at times.
Mr. BREAUX. In general the Coast Guard will use those funds to
clean up an oil or chemical spill. Then would the Government have
an obligation to proceed against the person who actually caused
the spill, to recover those funds?
Captain CORBETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. BREAUX. And our Government does do that?
Captain CORBETT. Yes.
Mr. BREAUX. I am interested--
Captain CORBETT. You are speaking about domestic oilspills.
Mr. BREAUX. Sure. You cannot use those funds to go clean up
spills outside our territorial waters.
Captain CORBETT. Yes, we can if it is a threat.
Mr. BREAUX. It has to be a threat. Say it is somewhere off the
North Atlantic moving to some other country's shoreline you would
not be able to use it for that purpose?
Captain CORBETT. If in the opinion of the predesignated on-scene
coordinator it poses a threat to our shoreline or waters then he
could access the funds. We would not-we would let him make that
judgment. But if it is headed some place else, I think the answer
would be no.
Mr. BREAUX. OK. On page 1 you said that given the technological
development of the recovery and containment equipment it is real-
istic to expect they will be successful in seas up to 8 or 10 feet and
winds of 20 knots. Then you continue to say the rationale is based
on the premise that the breakup and dispersion of oil takes place
in about 8 to 10 feet seas. Is dispersion of and breakup of oil good
or bad?
Captain CORBETT. It depends. Dispersion down through the water
column can be quite harmful to aquatic life. Though I am not a
biologist. But if the oil is say, take the Argo Merchant where the oil
was being spread out and forced to seaward, then I expect that the
average layman on the coast of Massachusetts would say that was
good, rather than having it coming into the Massachusetts shore-
line in bulk. Sometimes when we disperse oil we do it intentional-
ly. That is not necessarily good. It might save an amenity beach
but it might kill a fish or two, so there are decisions which have to
be made by our on-scene coordinator as guided by the EPA and the
State.
Mr. BREAUX. Do you know if the reports are finalized on the
effect of the IXTOC spill as far as the biology?
Captain CORBETT. No. That is a NOAA responsibility. As you
know they met some problem with funding. But I do not know the
progress that they have made.
Mr. BREAUX. What about the obligation of an operator as far as a
cleanup of a spill or containment of a spill, is it not their first
obligation to proceed with cleanup and containment exercises?
Captain CORBETT. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. BREAUX. And what role does the Coast Guard play? Is it a
supervisory role to insure that they in fact have equipment and
manpower to carry out the operation?
Captain CORBETT. Yes. The first role is exactly what you say, to
be sure that they have the necessary equipment to remove the oil,
PAGENO="0112"
106
the personnel are well trained, they are exercised and in general
they have a contingency plan and the wherewithal to address an
oilspill on the OCS. Now although the law says that the discharger
will address that spill, if he cannot do so or will not do so or is not
doing it the way we think he should then we will declare a Federal
response utilizing the 311 fund, commercial cleanup contractors in
addition to our own equipment to address the spill.
Mr. BREAUX. What can you tell the committee about the efforts
by operators, by industry, I guess, with regard to having equipment
and the plan in place to address a potential spill?
Captain CORBETT. I can address that question for the Georges
Bank because that has been getting most of my attention recently
as far as that is concerned.
The operators have placed on retainer, as we understand, it a
group which is to develop their contingency plan and to develop
the wherewithal, identify the equipment, Mr. Chairman, to respond
to an oilspill on the Georges Bank utilizing the criteria which we
have established and which I described in my testimony. As of
yesterday, we have not received such a contingency plan. It is my
personal view that it is within the wherewithal of that organiza-
tion to develop it yet we still have not received it. I do not know
why. If there are any doubts in anyone's mind that we intend to
give it a very close look just because we receive it late-if it is
delivered late we are not going to rush through it for that reason,
we are going to give it our most deliberate attention.
Mr. BREAUX. What about in areas other than Georges Bank,
where we have had leasing for years? What about the most recent
period of time, does industry have contingency plans in place, with
equipment and manpower?
Captain CORBETT. The OCS orders themselves require the contin-
gency plan, the equipment, personnel, training, that sort of thing.
Quite frankly in other areas the Coast Guard and Department of
the Interior have not gotten as close together as we have on the
Georges Bank situation. However, we do have regional response
teams; the Coast Guard chairs those teams in the coastal regions
and Interior is a member of those teams. But we have not had
agreement with Interior where we would very specifically review
those contingency plans although they are required, and I am sure
Interior has reviewed them.
Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Carney.
Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just concerned
about the utilization of dispersants. I know that is probably not
your responsibility to make that determination, but I was wonder-
ing do you have available studies on the use of it as opposed to
containing the spills?
Captain CORBETT. We do have quite a large responsibility as far
as the necessary studies the Environmental Protection Agency has
the responsibility for studying the dispersant issue and has done so
for a number of years. It has approved a number of dispersants.
May I explain Annex 10 briefly of the National Contingency Plan.
The predesignated on-scene coordinator has the authorization to
use dispersants if he feels that there is a significant threat to life
or property of say a gasoline spill, a light oil spill. He has the
PAGENO="0113"
107
authority to go ahead and move in on that right away. Outside of
that the authorization is required of the regional response team
member from the Environmental Protection Agency after he has
consulted with the appropriate State. Then only if an. important
species is endangered or if the overall impact of the spill will be
reduced by the use of dispersants. I might say historically in this
country the use of dispersants has been quite conservative. I think
that has been good. I think that as dispersants are becoming less
toxic, and they are, our attitude toward them is changing some-
what. I think this is a good change. I do not think it is going to
change quickly however. But we are looking at things such as the
pre-identification of certain areas in certain times of the years at
certain temperatures where an on-scene coordinator might use dis-
persants without referral to the RRT. One of the most important
things about them is they must be used quickly, while the oil is
fresh, before it emulsifies. So these decisions have to be made
quickly because if you do not make them quicky you are out there
applying dispersants not very effectively. So we are looking at ways
we can make these decisions more quickly and effectively.
Mr. CARNEY. I have to admire you Captain, you answered about
four of the questions I was going to ask in that one answer. One
thing, would I be correct in summarizing what you have said by
saying that the Coast Guard is continually making new SOP's as to
the use of dispersants as more information is available to them and
as the art and scientific reports as to their adverse effects are
available to you?
Captain CORBETT. That is generally right, except it would be
more accurate to say the regional response team, and the Coast
Guard and EPA are on those teams, cochair those teams, are
making those efforts, rather than the Coast Guard. EPA really has
the overall responsibility for the policy on the issue of dispersants.
Mr. CARNEY. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Hughes.
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Captain, for
your testimony. I am a little concerned over your statement in
response to earlier questions that you have not been as close, the
Coast Guard has not been as close in following contingency plans
in other areas of the OCS other than Georges Bank. What is the
state of the siting or prepositioning of equipment and of contingen-
cy plans generally in the Baltimore Canyon area?
Captain CORBETT. I do not know. I would be glad to respond to
that for the record if you like. It is no doubt in the contingency
plan which the industry has submitted to Interior. We can obtain it
from Interior and provide it to you.
Mr. HUGHES. I would appreciate your furnishing it. It gives me
great concern. Here we are, we have sunk about, I guess, between
13 and 15 test wells in the Baltimore Canyon. Exxon just recently
announced they are going to sink another delimiting well in the
Baltimore Canyon. It would appear from your testimony that we
have not paid too much attention to contingency plans in that
area. That gives me great concern in view of the fact it would
appear likely that we are going to find commercially extractable
quantities of at least natural gas in that region of the OCS.
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
108
Captain CORBETT. Let me just say that we intend to extend this
memorandum of understanding with Interior to other areas of the
OCS, including the Baltimore Canyon That is no excuse for not
having done it in the first place, I do not mean to imply it is There
are a number of cleanup activities around the Philadelphia area.
They are quite capable in that vicinity, I know that But where
they are located I really could not tell you.
Mr. HUGHES. Why would the Coast Guard be focusing attention
on Georges Bank where OCS exploration is just underway and not
be focusing attention on those areas that have seen quite a bit of
OCS activity?
Captain CORBETT. I will be very direct, Mr. Hughes, the squeak-
ing wheel syndrome really applies here They are getting the oil
right now and they have the Georges Bank which is a vast fishing
ground.
Mr. HUGHES. I recognize the chairman of this committee is from
the Georges Bank area and I am sure he has not been doing any
squeaking. Let me just move on to something else. If you will
respond to my concern in writing I would appreciate it.
You indicate in your testimony that by the fall of 1981, 26
systems, I assume you are talking about pumping and other sys-
tems, will be prepositioned around the country, that is, will be in
place. How many systems exist presently.
Captain CORBETT. We have 13 of the skimmers, but we only have
4 of those fully equipped with the pumping arrays. It does not
mean they cannot be used in concert with some of the other
equipment, both we and industry have the wherewithal to remove
the oil once it is collected. But these pumping arrays were adjusted
as far as their physical makeup because of some of the things we
learned at the IXTOC spill. We are moving right along on getting
that equipment. Not only will it be available by the fall of 1981,
they are going to be coming in in bits and pieces. So our capability
will start to improve soon.
Mr. HUGHES. So you have four complete systems, is that what
you are saying?
Captain CORBETT. Right.
Mr. HUGHES. How rapidly are we bringing on line new systems?
Captain CORBETT. The barriers are coming along at the rate of
about one every 2 weeks right now. The pumping arrays are going
to be a little bit slower because of some of these adjustments we
found necessary to make resulting from our experience at
Campeche.
Mr. HUGHES. Are these systems owned by the Coast Guard?
Captain CORBETT. Yes; they are.
Mr. HUGHES. You indicate there are ultimately to be 11 sites that
will have equipment prepositioned. How many sites presently have
any prepositioned equipment?
Captain CORBETT. Three, at our strike teams in Hamilton Air
Force Base and Bay St. Louis, Miss. and Elizabeth City N.C.
Mr. HUGHES. What if anything is located at the prospective
Philadelphia site or is that just a site in name at the present time?
Captain CORBETT. Well, it is a site in name only except that
Philadelphia, you know, has historically had a lot of pollution-
PAGENO="0115"
109
related incidents Industry is quite active there I cannot be
specific
Mr HUGHES Much of that is not related to spills
Captain CORBETT The Member Information Network The indus
try is quite active there. We really have felt like the cleanup
industry in Philadelphia has been adequate to the cleanup of spills
in that area. But that is not to say that they are adequate to the
OCS.
Mr HUGHES You indicate and the President has indicated by
Executive order that he wants a 6-hour response time to a 100,000-
ton spill What is our present capability? If we had a spill in the
Baltimore Canyon, how long would it take the Coast Guard to
respond?
Captain CORBETT How long would it take to deliver this kind of
equipment we are talking about?
Mr. HUGHES. From wherever you have to bring the equipment
from, like Elizabeth City.
Captain CORBETT. The same answer I gave to Mr. Pritchard
earlier. To get it to the Philadelphia, or the nearest airport, Cape
May, whatever, providing our airplanes can fly in the kind of
weather which is occurring, very quickly, 4 to 6 hours I do not see
any problem there at all The equipment is on pallets on trailers,
put it in an airplane and off it goes But it is when they reach that
site, there is the problem There is the problem of weather I think
in the Baltimore Canyon, if the weather was good, because the
drilling activity is occurring and there are support vessels of the
drilling industry's types in the vicinity, getting it out probably
would not be a serious problem. But if the weather is above 10, 12
feet it is not going to get out there, that is all there is to it. But to
get it to the general area, we can move very quickly. I am quite
confident of that.
Mr. HUGHES. Is there any OCS activity at all in the immediate
vicinity of Elizabeth, N.C.?
Captain CORBETT. I do not believe so, but I would defer to Interi-
or on that I am not aware of any
Mr HUGHES Why is the equipment prepositioned at Elizabeth
City when most of the OCS activity is taking place north of that
area?
Captain CORBETT. When the Coast Guard--
Mr. HUGHES. In Baltimore Canyon.
Captain CORBETT. When the Coast Guard first became involved
with oil spill response, our philosophy was and I think it was
correct at that time-we did not have a lot of equipment, people all
over the country, at least who could respond to big oil spills. So the
philosophy was to locate the equipment and the people at locations
around the country and respond by aircraft. Since that time our
philosophy has changed somewhat. OCS drilling activity is occur-
ring. Transportation corridors have perhaps changed. We now feel
like it is a more sensible idea to stage the equipment around the
country than to place them at the three locations we now have.
Mr. HUGHES. Have you looked at possibly relocating some of that
equipment that you have now to places where they have activity?
Captain CORBETT No, the 26 barriers and complete systems about
which I am talking-I say with some confidence we have it about
PAGENO="0116"
110
in our hands, it is fully budgeted and we expect to get it. That
equipment will go to these places.
Mr. HUGHES. I would hope equipment is located in those areas
that are experiencing accelerated activity.
Captain CORBETT. This is why these 11 sites have been identified,
because of the activities which they are experiencing, not necessar-
ily, however, OCS activity, because again we intend to insure at
least starting with the George's Bank, following on with the Balti-
more Canyon and others, that the industry has the equipment
themselves to clean up their oil spill.
Mr. HUGHES. You have it just reversed, the Baltimore Canyon is
well under way, we have been exploring in the Baltimore Canyon
for the better part of 3 years. We are now sinking delimiting wells.
We should not wait until we begin producing before we develop the
capability of responding as quickly as possible to a spill. As I
understand it, the spills occur usually do not occur during the
exploration process but during production and other processes. Ex-
ploration as I understand it is a relatively safe, low risk, operation
generally.
Captain CORBETT. I fully understand your point, Mr. Hughes. I
suspect that the Department of Interior has been quite thorough in
review of the plans submitted to it by the drilling operators in the
Baltimore Canyon. But we, the Coast Guard, have not yet become
involved in the review of those plans. That is a fact.
Mr. HUGHES. I am also concerned about your testimony that we
seem to be at the outer limits, which is entirely conceivable, in
that our present capability or, state of th~e art is 8- to 10-foot seas
and 20-knot winds. Each year for the la~t several years this com-
mittee has increased the authorization ~for research and develop-
ment by about $25 million. The same thing RAS occured for fiscal
year 1981. Do you know offhand how much of the researqh and
development money in the fiscal year 1980 budget has beer~ spent
by the Coast Guard?
Captain CORBETT. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. HUGHES. Would you get that information for me?
Captain CORBETT. Yes; I can.
Mr. HUGHES. Would you also provide for the committee the type
of projects that are underway in R. & D. Projects that you think
will be funded for fiscal year 1981, so we know how much really is
being spent on R. & D. and on what.
Captain CORBETT. Are you talking about pollution response now?
Mr. HUGHES. Yes.
Captain CORBETT. Yes, sir, I would.
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. In spite of my questions I
think the Coast Guard does an absolutely great job, not just in this
area of responsibility, but also with other functions such as air and
sea rescue, aids to navigation, tanker safety, and in so many other
areas that affect us along the coast. Thank you very much.
Mr. STUDDS. They do a particularly good job in responding to
your questions. Did it occur to anyone that exploratory drilling is
so safe because 9 out of 10 of those holes are dry. Mr. Wyatt.
Mr. WYATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Captain Corbett, how
many oilspills have there been in the last year?
Captain CORBETT. Talking about spills of the--
PAGENO="0117"
111
Mr. WYATT. On the OCS.
Captain CORBETT. On the OCS. Well as far as OCS activities, I do
not recall any that are of a serious magnitude. We have had some
shipping accidents. The Mexican blowout which I assume you are
excluding.
Mr. WYATT. Let us start with Campeche, after that how many
times has the Coast Guard responded to a spill on the OCS, due to
drilling wells completed or blowing out?
Captain CORBETT. I do not recall any at all except just a few days
ago, Texaco-North Dakota did hit an inactive rig in the gulf but did
not result in a spill of any magnitude. So to the best of my
knowledge it is none.
Mr. WYATT. You have not been called upon in the last year since
Campeche to respond to a spill?
Captain CORBETT. Not resulting from OCS activites, right.
Mr. WYATT. Before that, would you tell me how many times you
have been called upon to respond to a spill before Campeche?
Captain CORBETT. Well, I, myself, none. There have been some. I
would be glad to give you a list of those say over the last 3 or 4
years if you like. There have been some. There have been some rigs
which were damaged either through blowouts or whatever. Most of
the activity took place as a result of the people problem, rescuing
the people. I do know of one spill several years ago, quite a large
magnitude, but I was not personally involved and do not even
recall the name of it.
Mr. WYATT. Where was that?
Captain CORBETT. That was in the gulf.
Mr. WYATT. How many years ago?
Captain CORBETT. Well, I do not know, but I remember some of
the incidents or some of the words revolving around the reports
but I cannot be specific at all. Then there was Santa Barbara on
the west coast, way back in 1969.
Mr. WYATT. In your memory there have been two?
Captain CORBETT. That is right, two major ones. I am sure that
there are a number of small spills that occur from daily operating
procedures at the activities. I would not want to be held down to
two. Let me put it this way if you want to try to get it in perspec-
tive. When you compare it with shipping accidents, when I think of
an oilspill I think of ships or large dischargers from large facilities
ashore. Generally speaking, I think that the oil industry has done a
very good job of protecting us from damage to the environment
from. oilspills.
Mr. WYATT. The Coast Guard does not do-you do not do a study
of the damage done, that is not your responsibility, is that correct?
Captain CORBETT. That is correct, yes.
Mr. WYATT. Whose responsibility is that?
Captain CORBETT. In the OCS or in the coastal areas of the
country, NOAA has that responsibility; EPA in the inland regions.
Mr. WYATT. NOAA has responsibilities in the Outer Continental
Shelf, bays and estuaries?
Captain CORBETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. WYATT. EPA has it in the inland areas?
Captain CORBETT. Yes.
PAGENO="0118"
112
Mr. WYATT. You said earlier and I did not quite understand that
you were having some difficulty in working with Interior, maybe
difficulty would not be the correct word.
Captain CORBETT. That is not correct. Maybe you would rephrase
it I did not say that at all I said that in the earlier OCS activity
the Coast Guard did not become involved in review of the contin
gency plans. Whose fault that is might be in part the Coast Guard's
fault for all I know. But as we started to see the activity on
Georges Bank and the intense environmental concern, then we did
become more involved with Interior and are assisting them in their
review of the contingency plans. That will be extended to other
areas as well.
Mr. WYATT. Is there some geological structure of Georges Bank
that is different~ from that in the Gulf of Mexico or Baltimore
Canyon that creates the environmental concern there? Is there a
higher susceptability to blowout, is there as I said a unique geologi
cal structure in the Georges Bank? You know, we in Texas often
times-I think, fish very near to oil wells. If we can find a well, we
go there and fish So does everyone else I think the same thing is
true in Louisiana. Is there a big difference between up there and in
the gulf?
Captain CORBETT I have not the slightest idea Mr Wyatt But
there is a difference in the attitude I think of the people around
Texas and Louisiana. Oil has been king for a long time as you well
know. Coming from Oklahoma, I came from that part of the coun-
try myself But it is not so up around the Northeastern part of the
country, perhaps.
Mr. WYATT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. I am going to answer your question myself. Mr.
Hughes pointed out that traditional treatment for squeaky wheels,
lubrication with oil. With regard to the dramatic revision down-
ward of the goal in terms of cleanup capability--
Captain CORBETT. Would you repeat that.
Mr. STUDDS. With regard to the dramatic downward revison of
the Nation's goal in terms of cleanup capability, in the March 1977
letter the President stated the "goal is an ability to respond within
6 hours to a spill of 100,000 tons;" 3 years later the Commandant of
the Coast Guard says that our objective is a nationwide aggregate
oil recovery capacity of 200 tons of oil per hour, conditions permit-
ting. I cannot even calculate what percentage that is, but it is not
much, compared to what the President said 3 years ago. Instead of
100,000 tons within 6 hours it is now an aggregate nationwide
capacity of 200 tons per hour, conditions permitting. What hap-
pened?
Captain CORBETT. What happened is that we are having to com-
pete with resources of the government, and we looked at it very
carefully. We determined that we could respond with nearly the
same capability by reducing the numbers of locations by only a few
and reducing the number of men from nearly 330-some to 20-some,
and provide only slightly less, what in our view is only slightly less
response capability. If you like, I would respond to that question
more fully in writing.
Mr. STUDDS. I would. Because I do not think the reduction from
100,000 to 200 is slight. Do you?
PAGENO="0119"
113
Captain CORBETT We are not sure that one is not a rate and one
is a total spill size
Mr. STUDDS. I see. OK. Let us get that because on the face of it, it
appears to be dramatic
Captain CORBETT I would like to respond to it in writing
Mr. STUDDS. OK. I think the record in general will be held open
for questions. You have talked in response to questions of other
members about the mandate for the prepositioning of cleanup
equipment in regions of OCS activity around the country That is
equipment which the Coast Guard will require to be prepositioned,
is that correct?
Captain CORBETT That is correct, purchased and owned by the
operators or their agents
Mr STUDDS Now is that a prior condition or one of many prior
conditions, for example, for a final permit for exploratory drilling?
Captain CORBETT That is the intent Interior grants the final
permit, not the Coast Guard. But the intent is exactly that, that
before the permit is granted, the equipment will be in place, the
contingency plans approved, as approved by the Coast Guard, or I
should say as recommended to Interior by the Coast Guard. So
Interior has the final authority to grant the permit But we are
hoping and feel that Interior will rely heavily on the Coast Guard's
expertise in this field
Mr STUDDS But Interior under the law has the authority to go
ahead with or without the approval of the Coast Guard; is that
correct?
Captain CORBETT Under the law, yes, sir
Mr. STUDDS. Has that ever happened, have your recommenda-
tions been ignored by Interior yet?
Captain CORBETT. No, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. You have no reason to think they would be, I
assume?
Captain CORBETT. No, sir.
Mr STUDDS With respect to the prepositioning requirements,
they would be in any OCS region, generally defined the mid Atlan
tic, Georges Bank, Gulf of Alaska, rather than for any particular
company's lease?
Captain CORBETT. Probably. It depends on the situation. For in-
stance, on lease sale 42 it is by lease. As long as the 6-hour
response capability is met, then it does not matter to us where they
are sited The equipment could be sited on the rigs themselves or
on some of the vessels which support the rigs nearby ashore, or
perhaps on some of the even fairly distant, I would not say remote,
as long as they can demonstrate to our review process they can be
there within 6 hours, then that is considered adequate
Mr STUDDS Have you had such plans submitted with respect to
lease sale 42?
Captain CORBETT. No, sir, but we are hoping it will be fairly soon.
We are watching that very closely as a matter of fact. But the plan
itself has not yet been submitted to us.
Mr. STUDDS. Now the 11 sites of which only three are equipped at
the moment around the country, these are Coast Guard sites as
opposed to industry sites?
Captain CORBETT That is right
PAGENO="0120"
114
Mr. STUDDS. What is the timetable at the moment for the deploy-
ment of the remaining eight sites?
Captain CORBETT. Over a 3-year period, 1984 is the last year in
which the sites will be fully operational. We will have some equip-
ment at each one of the sites as time goes by, but it will take about
3 years to get the thing fully in place.
Mr. STUDDS. No wonder Presidents are frustrated. Even if this
President-without comment-were to be reelected, a directive
which he issued in the first year of his first term will not be
completely fulfilled in the year in which he leaves office at the end
of his second term, that is incredible. Maybe you are not prepared
to answer this, but has the Congress been stingy, or 0MB, or what
happened? When a President gives a directive-announces with
great fanfare to the Nation that we are going to have eight sites,
how come we now say that maybe 7 or 8 years after that directive
we can get to the eight sites. It is not a very big item in terms of
overall dollars.
Captain CORBETT. You are right, I would not be prepared to
respond to that.
Mr. STUDDS. Yes. That is an awkward fall for all of us, is it not?
Am I correct in my understanding that Clean Atlantic Asso-
ciates, which is an industry group, has already positioned cleanup
equipment in Davisville, R.I.?
Captain CORBETT. I understand that, but I do not have that on
good authority.
Mr. STUDDS. That has not been reported to you yet?
Captain CORBETT. Frankly it would not be reported to me, it
would be reported to our predesignated on-scene coordinator in
Boston. He will make these decisions.
Mr. STUDDS. Admiral Hayes in testimony earlier this year before
the Coast Guard Subcommittee of this committee, Chairman Biaggi
pointed out:
The most significant reduction in any particular category of the Coast Guard's
fiscal 1981 budget request was made at the OST level. In the operating expense
category of maritime environmental protection in the amount of $23 million. What
does this significant budget reduction represent? Will it hamper the Coast Guard's
ability to adequately respond to spills of oil or hazardous substances?
Admiral Hayes' answer was-
It will not permit us significantly to improve our ability to respond to oil spills. It
will also require that we redirect our efforts away from other areas of marine
environmental protection when necessary to cope with the increasing demand cre-
ated by hazardous chemical emergencies, particularly abandoned hazardous waste
sites.
Has it indeed been necessary to redirect efforts and resources
away from the areas we have been talking about?
Captain CORBETT. I think in the area of hazardous wastes and
chemicals as Admiral Hayes pointed out we would like to be able
to train ourselves better to more adequately respond to those inci-
dents I would agree.
Mr. STUDDS. But my question was, In order to do that, have we
had to redirect efforts and resources away from the kinds of prob-
lems we have been talking about this morning?
Captain CORBETT. Not significantly, but to some level, yes.
Mr. STUDDS. How significantly?
PAGENO="0121"
115
Captain CORBETT. There I would ask to respond in writing. We
are talking about dollars and cents now.
Mr. STUDDS. All right. Mr. Pritchard.
Mr. PRITCHARD. No more questions.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you Captain. I do not know whether you
want to add generalization in response to my opening generaliza-
tion. I have to commend you for being as straight forward and
explicit and frank in its caviats about the modesty of our capabili-
ty. I think that is to the good. We need to know. No problem is
going to be solved by pretending it does not exist or less severe
than in fact it is. Mr. Wyatt is gone, but it is obvious what he was
trying to get you to say. Even if you are from Oklahoma, I appreci-
ate the calmness of your response. He did not ask you prior to the
incident in Chicago when the last DC-1O crash was. These are the
kinds of things that mandate prudent people to proceed with ex-
treme caution sometimes, given the magnitude of the resources at
risk. Is there anything else you would like to add? I appreciate
your own patience, and testimony in putting up with all the mem-
bers of this committee including me.
Captain CORBETT. No, sir. Only I have known Mr. Wyatt for
sometime and I am sorry I had to disappoint him.
Mr. STUDDS. You were at that hearing in Corpus Christi where
his own fishermen were saying the most unkind things about the
oil industry.
Captain CORBETT. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I
have enjoyed it. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you. Now we have the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. R. Sarah Compton, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency.
STATEMENT OF R. SARAH COMPTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT AD-
MINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT, ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. COMPTON. Good morning.
Mr. STUDDS. Good morning.
Ms. COMPTON. Did you want to make another statement before I
begin?
Mr. STUDDS. I will do my best to refrain from making any state-
ments until you have completed your testimony. I notice you have
about 11 pages, feel free if you wish to summarize it, however you
want to proceed. In any event it will appear in its entirety in the
record.
Ms. COMPTON. Thank you. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the authorities and responsibilities of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate effluent discharges associated
with offshore oil and gas exploration and production on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). Dr. Suzanne Bolton, a marine biologist in
our Ocean Programs Office is here with me today. As I will discuss
in more detail later, EPA regulates these pollutants from OCS
facilities pursuant to the Clean Water Act's national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit program. This
NPDES permit program is an important mechanism for insuring
that the effluents associated with offshore oil and gas operations
are discharged in an environmentally sound manner. However, just
PAGENO="0122"
116
as it is EPA's responsibility to independently determine appropri-
ate environmental limitations, it is also EPA's responsibility to
insure that NPDES permits for offshore oil and gas facilities are
issued without unnecessary delays and in coordination with other
Federal agencies having responsibilities on the OCS.
Thus, EPA is committed to an OCS permitting policy and process
which: (1) insures that NPDES permit limitations are established
which will provide adequate protection of the marine environment,
(2) Develops necessary permit limitation at the earliest possible
stage in the OCS lease sale process. I will describe that a little bit
later. To the extent possible, we are moving to achieve this by
gathering and evaluting our information in cooperation with other
Federal agencies as part of the development of environmental
impact statements prepared prior to the OCS lease sales; (3) Estab-
lishes in the rulemaking process appropriate permit limitations,
such as new source performance standards and ocean discharge
guidelines, and (4) Promotes the issuance of the less resource
intensive NPDES general permits and I will describe the general
permit process later.
EPA's statutory authority to regulate discharges into marine
waters from offshore oil and gas exploration and production oper-
ations is derived from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and
its 1978 amendments, which you are familiar with, and from the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, now known as the Clean
Water Act.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established the NPDES
permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point
sources into waters of the United States including the territorial
seas, continguous zone, and the oceans. Section 301 of the Clean
Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant without an
NPDES permit or in violation of the terms and conditions of an
NPDES permit.
The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA or, if a State NPDES
permit program has been approved, an approved State to issue
NPDES permits. However, EPA issues permits to all point sources,
such as mobile drilling rigs and production platforms, discharging
into the ocean waters beyond the 3 mile territorial limit, regardless
of whether the adjoining coastal State has an approved NPDES
permit program.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95-372, ex-
tends Federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, to the seabed,
subsoil, and fixed structures, such as artificial island drilling rigs,
located on the Outer Continental Shelf. Thus, NPDES permits are
required for all discharge from offshore oil and gas facilities in
OCS lease sale areas.
I would like to describe now our NPDES permit process. The
NPDES permit process begins when the owner or operator of a
pollution source files a standard application form for an NPDES
permit. If sufficient information is not available to develop a draft
permit, the State or EPA may request the applicant to submit
additional information such as bioassay and bioaccumulation test
data. Upon receipt of adequate information and after assessment of
the guidelines applicability to this source and other matters, a
draft permit is prepared and a public notice of the draft permit,
PAGENO="0123"
117
representing the intention to issue a permit, is published. Since the
Clean Water Act (the act) requires EPA to provide for public par
ticipation in the permit process, the draft permit is made available
for comment, the public comment period is specified in the public
notice, and must be at least 30 days If the permit is being issued
by EPA, a State certification is requested to determine if the
permit limitations are sufficent to meet State water quality stand-
ards for the receiving water that is involved. Also if there is
sufficient public interest, a public hearing will be held on the draft
permit.
After review of comments received on the draft permit, the per
mitting authority may issue or deny a final permit If the terms of
the final permit are significantly different than those originally
proposed, then the final permit may be reproposed for public com-
ment After the final permit is issued, any interested party may
contest its issuance or its terms within 30 days. As you know some
of the flower garden permits which were just issued are being
contested. If EPA issues the final permit the challenge is in the
form of a request for an administrative evidentiary hearing.
The permit process is governed by our consolidated permit regu-
lations (an effort to streamline all of EPA's permitting efforts
which we hope works), and when EPA has approved a State
NPDES program, is additionally governed by a memorandum of
agreement with the State EPA may object to the issuance of a
permit by a State, if the permit does not reflect the guidelines and
other requirements of the act. If the State fails to take timely
remedial action, EPA may issue a permit of its own, though this
has rarely occurred.
An important new aspect of EPA's regulatory reform effort is the
provision which allows EPA or approved NPDES States to issue
general permits to control the discharge of pollutants from numer-
ous point sources located in the same geographic area if their
discharges warrant similar pollution control measures. As I will
discuss later, EPA issued 10 days ago its first three draft general
permits covering over 2,000 offshore oil and gas facilities operating
in the Gulf of Mexico General permits can be issued without any
application required from individual owners or operators After
deciding the geographic area to be covered by the general permit,
the permitting authority develops a draft general permit which is
subject to public notice, comment, and public hearing just as an
individual permit.
All NPDES permits, both individual and general, contain interim
and final effluent limitations, schedules of compliance to achieve
final effluent limitations, self-monitoring and reporting require-
ments, and standard "boilerplate" language.
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA has established effluent limita
tions guidelines for a number of industrial categories One such
category is the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction
point source category. The offshore subcategory includes facilities
engaged in the production, field exploration, drilling, well produc-
tion, and well treatment within the oil and gas extraction industry
which are located seaward of the inner boundary of the territorial
seas. The guidelines for the offshores subcategory are technology-
based and form the basis for effluent limitations contained in
PAGENO="0124"
118
NPDES permits, such as the daily maximum limitation of 72 mg/i
of oil and grease in discharges of produced water established by the
effluent guidelines for the offshore subcategory.
Both exploration and production operations of the oil and gas
extraction industry generate discharges subject to NPDES permit
limitations. As you are familiar, these operations discharge drilling
fluids, drill cuttings, produced waters, deck drainage, and sanitary
and domestic wastes which are limited in part by the technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines. As you may know, our prima-
ry concern on the OCS has been with drilling fluids (or muds) and
drill cuttings which, depending upon the nature of the receiving
waters, have been regulated differently through NPDES permits.
For the discharges I have just described, NPDES permits issued
after July 1, 1977, contain interim effluent limitations based on the
more stringent of effluent guidelines, representing best practicable
control technology (BPT), or limitations necessary to meet the
water quality standards of the receiving waters.
When finally promulgated for new sources, final effluent limita-
tions will be based on new source performance standards. Until
new source performance standards are promulgated in about 18
months, discharges of conventional pollutants, such as oil and
grease, will be governed by best conventional pollutant control
technology or BCT.
Most important for this hearing today, in addition to the technol-
ogy based limitation I have just described, section 403 of the act
may require more stringent permit limitations for discharges into
the oceans. Congress paid special attention to discharges into the
oceans and charged permit writers to make such complex determi-
nations as the effects of pollutants on marine organisms, including
ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and esthetic, recre-
ation, and economic values, as well as human health. Furthermore,
these determinations are to be made prior to issuing an NPDES
permit. Based on these determinations, limitations necessary to
minimize or prevent significant degradation, that is language from
the act, may be imposed in the NPDES permit issued to a marine
discharger.
EPA will promulgate in the near future ocean discharge guide-
lines to aid permit writers in making these determinations. Until
that time, section 403(a) provides that a permit may be issued for a
marine discharge if it is in the public interest to do so.
Our interim policy for implementing section 403(c) provides that
the criteria set forth in that section which I alluded to above are to
be considered and applied in the issuance, reissuance or review of
all NPDES permits for ocean dischargers. In addition, the ocean
dumping criteria are to be applied to the fullest extent possible
where appropriate.
As you may be familiar, the primary aspect of the ocean dump-
ing criteria that concerns us for the ocean discharge area is compli-
ance with the "Limiting Permissible Concentration" (LPC). The
LPC means discharge of that concentration of a pollutant which
will not cause unreasonable acute or chronic toxicity or cause
sublethal adverse effects on marine organisms. The scientific tests
to determine an LPC for specific pollutants are laboratory tests
conducted with appropriate sensitive marine organisms.
PAGENO="0125"
119
Now that you have an idea of our NPDES permitting process, I
would like to describe briefly our OCS permitting policy. Because of
the complexities involved in assessing the potential for significant
harm of the marine environment, EPA has a number of actions
underway to insure that effluent discharges associated with the
development of offshore oil and gas resources are managed in an
environmentally sound manner. At the same time, these actions
are intended to expedite the issuance of NPDES permits to offshore
oil and gas facilities and to avoid costly startup delays for facilities
which would cause no adverse environmental impact.
I know you heard a great deal about Government committees
and may be skeptical about the virtue of yet another one, but the
agency has created a much needed Outer Continental Shelf Coordi-
nation Committee to coordinate agency efforts in this area. It is not
mentioned in the written text but as you may know there are
about five or six offices within EPA who have some role in deciding
what our policy should be with regard to OCS. We have decided to
combine those offices in part into a committee, which I chair, to
have one unified policy from the agency. Two important functions
of the committee are the development of a memorandum of under-
standing to coordinate our research activities with the Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Coast
Guard, and the coordination of research activities by a drilling
muds and formation waters task force. That task force is solely
within EPA.
The focus of the memorandum of understanding is to increase
EPA's participation in the OCS lease sale process during the devel-
opment of environmental impact statements (EIS) in order to
assess the vulnerability of specific lease areas to the discharges
associated with offshore oil and gas operations. If we can assess
vulnerability at this early stage, we can determine appropriate
NPDES permit conditions and avoid delays in issuing NPDES per-
mits. Inspection and compliance sampling requirements of each
Federal agency will also be coordinated in the memorandum of
understanding.
The efforts of the Drilling Muds and Formation Waters Task
Force will include the identification of gaps in current knowledge
and research concerning the environmental fates and effects of
drilling muds and formation waters.
To further coordinate EPA's activities on the OCS with other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, EPA is also partici-
pating in the Biological Task Forces for the Flower Gardens,
Georges Bank, and Beaufort Sea. Both the Flower Gardens and
Georges Bank Task Forces have now completed draft research and
monitoring plans.
Finally, I would like to acquaint you with the Agency's most
recent efforts to issue NPDES permits for offshore oil and gas
facilities. For the record, I have submitted a chart which summa-
rizes the status of NPDES permits issued for offshore oil and gas
facilities. The largest number of offshore oil and gas dischargers is
located in the Gulf of Mexico. There are approximately 2,000 facili-
ties in the offshore subcategory currently operating in the Gulf.
EPA's Region VI office in Dallas recently published a public notice
of three draft general NPDES permits which when finally issued
PAGENO="0126"
120
will regulate discharges from the majority of these facilities. Pro-
ductive or unique biological areas, not covered by these general
permits, will receive further evaluation, and may be the subject of
future general permits. Different areas of the OCS may require
different permitting strategies and different permit conditions
You may be familiar with the Flower Gardens in the Gulf of
Mexico. To date, three final NPDES permits have been issued and
nine additional draft NPDES permits have been proposed. The
permits establish no discharge zones for both drilling fluids and
cuttings to protect this sensitive marine ecosystem. I want to com-
ment that the no discharge zones for the drilling fluids is greater
than the area for the cuttings EPA's most recent NPDES permit
ting action concerns the Georges Bank. Our region I office in
Boston is currently reviewing NPDES permit applications submit
ted by four companies for exploratory drilling in Georges Bank. As
part of the application requirements, EPA required the applicants
to submit bioassay and bioaccumulation test data for the drilling
muds that they expect to use in this area. Appropriate NPDES
permit limitations and monitoring requirements will be developed
once these data are received and evaluated, along with the recom-
mendations of the Georges Bank Biological Task Force. We have
been working with the companies, other Federal agencies, and
environmental groups and expect to publish the notice of draft
NPDES permits for Georges Bank by December.
In the next few years, EPA expects to continue efforts to issue
NPDES permits in a timely manner through increased participa-
tion in the OCS lease sale process, through efforts to increase the
collection of scientific data on the fate and effects of the discharges
from oil and gas facilities, and through coordination of NPDES
permitting with the OCS lease sale process.
Thank you for this opportunity to highlight our OCS permitting
activities. I will be happy to answer questions concerning these
activities.
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much, Ms Compton I have a
number of questions but I think they all boil down to one in terms
of importance I am going to ask you the big one first, what I think
is the most important one And that gets at, I will get more specific
in a moment, how your agency, given the way the law under which
you operate reads, could be granting any permits or could have to
this date granted any permits, for the discharge of drill muds into
the ocean. Let me begin by quoting as you I am sure know by heart
and I think you cited in your testimony, from section 403 which
sets the criteria for ocean discharge permits. The last sentence of
which, section 2, says: "In any event where insufficient information
exists on any proposed discharge to make a reasonable judgment
on any of the guidelines established pursuant to this subsection no
permit shall be issued under section 402 of this Act" I read that as
an absolute outright prohibition on the issuance of a permit in the
absence of sufficient information to assess the criteria which you
are directed to assess and to follow in that section. EPA provided
testimony before this committee earlier this year on this very
subject when as you know we had scientists representing Interior,
Commerce and EPA, one of whom was Dr. Bolton sitting at your
right. Almost without exception they told us we do not know all
PAGENO="0127"
121
the components in drill muds, we are not aware of all of their
chemical composition because to a certain extent that is proprie
tory data held in confidence by the industry Inasmuch as we have
studies done they do not answer questions on either short or long
range effects with regard to the possible toxicity of the content of
these materials. Let me quote for you; In those hearings I asked
this question of the scientists I said
In summary, if each of you were asked the general question, given the state of our
knowledge at this time as you understand it of the effects both short term and long
term on the marine environment of drill fluids can you as scientists tell me the
effects are such to cause serious concern-or do our studies indicate that while
there may be some effects they are not of sufficient magnitude to give us pause as
we proceed?
Mr HIGHT At this time we do not have the information that shows really that
they are that harmful
Mr STUDD5 We do not have the information that they are harmful?
Mr HIGHT Yes
Mr. STUDDS. Do we have the information that shows that they are not harmful?
Mr. HIGHT. We do, I think.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Burke?
Mr BURKE From what we know now just right now there are effects of dis
charge of drilling fluids They are short term They are localized I do not know
whether it is a cause for concern I do not know whether the long term implications
of these materials being introduced into the environment are a matter for concern
Mr STUDDS That was the Bureau of Land Management Dr
Richards from the EPA said in response to that question, "We have
inadequate information for making a hazard assessment The mad
equacy lies in the lack of understanding of the exposure of animals,
particularly in these specific niches that I mentioned like the
benthic communities."
Dr. Bolton said, "I would be very hesitant with the current state
of knowledge to make any endorsement of general discharge of
drilling muds, particularly in sensitive areas of the Outer Conti
nental Shelf."
Three of its scientists, three different agencies, saying we simply
do not know Let me quote to you from Research Highlights, 1979
from your own agency study done last year by the EPA on this
very subject in the Gulf of Mexico I am reading from your own
publication which I gather is a summary of the research of the
agency last year. It says:
The research findings in this project and from the various scientific literature
show that drilling fluid is ten times more toxic than industrial effluents such as
untreated wastes from oil refineries or pulp mills Carcinogens are discharged
during drilling operations. Drilling compounds thought to be insoluable and there-
fore biologically unavailable are instead activitely taken up by marine organisms
Chemicals normally discharged are capable of accumulating in marine organisms
Chemicals discharged persist for years in sea bottom sediments A wide variety of
organisms that normally live on the sea floor cannot grow on sediments contaminat
ed by drilling fluids Effects of chemicals on coral may be delayed for a year before
they can be observed
I still quote from EPA's own publication:
These findings do not answer all the environmental questions about the effects of
oil and gas drilling The effects of different chemical mixtures on different marine
species still need to be determined to fulfill the data needs of future discharge
permits.
That is from the Environmental Protection Agency. Once again
let me read you the law "In any event where insufficient informa
tion exists on any proposed discharge to make a reasonable judg
PAGENO="0128"
122
ment on any of the guidelines established pursuant to this subsec-
tion, no permit should be issued under section 402 of this act."
Under those circumstances, never mind the future, how could EPA
have issued permits in the past?
Ms. COMPTON. Well, I think that is a very good question. And at
times a very difficult question to respond to. As I mention in my
testimony with regard to the Flower Gardens that while we found
the area to be of unique and sensitive biological concern, we made
the reasonable judgment that the permit should issue in the public
interest but that there would be no discharge of cuttings and
drilling muds within a certain area of the Flower Gardens, in order
to protect that area until we could undertake more research.
With regard to the three general permits that we just proposed
in the Gulf of Mexico, covering approximately 2,000 rigs, we con-
cluded and made a reasonable judgment that because these areas
covered by this general permit do not cover any live bottom areas
or any hard bank areas or any other areas that we consider of
biological concern or significant biological concern, that there
would be no adverse impact based on the criteria listed in 403, in
that area. We intend to make a similar assessment with regard to
Georges Bank. We have asked that the applicant submit to us
bioassay, bioaccumulation data on the 8 to 10 classes of muds that
they intend to use in the Georges Bank and we will take a look at
that information and see what the impacts would be on the
Georges Bank organisms and together with other data that we
have, decide whether we should require either the barging of the
drilling muds or cuttings or meeting a limiting permissible concen-
tration, in other words, a slow discharge of it, or normal discharge
of the muds and cuttings.
Mr. STUDDS. My question to you really is how can anyone in that
agency make such a determination and state that it is reasonable
when your own scientists tell you that you do not know what you
are talking about?
Ms. COMPTON. Well, our own scientists have advised us that we
need to know a great deal more about drilling muds and cuttings.
Mr. STUDDS. Right. The law says when you do not know, you do
not permit. It does not say anything about reasonable or unreason-
able. It says when the knowledge is insufficient you do not permit.
Ms. COMPTON. It says-excuse me. It says if there is insufficient
information to make a reasonable judgment.
Mr. STUDDS. Right.
Ms. COMPTON. With regard to the general permits in the Gulf of
Mexico which we just issued, we believe that because no areas of
biological concern were involved in those areas that we could make
a reasonable judgment that there would be no adverse impact on
the environment or no significant impact.
Mr. STUDDS. I am sure Mr. Breaux will leap to the defense of the
environment of the Gulf of Mexico and its fishing industry. My
knowledge of the gulfs particular regions is not great enough to
question you closely as to whether or not there are significant
commercial fishery resources in that area. You are about to be
asked to make a judgment. You have application permits pending
in Georges Bank?
Ms. COMPTON. That is right.
PAGENO="0129"
123
Mr. STUDDS. As I understand it from not only your own scientists
but those of other agencies, there is no way in this world that we
have existing studies adequate to make a reasonable judgment of
these questions in an area of the extraordinary biological delicacy
of the bank. Under those circumstances how could you even consid-
er such permit applications?
Ms. COMPTON. As I mentioned earlier we are waiting for the data
that is to be supplied to us by the applicants with regard to the
classes of fluids that they intend to use in the Georges Bank area
and when we receive that data we are hopeful that we will be able
to make a reasonable judgment as to whether those muds can be
discharged.
Mr. STUDDS. How can you make a reasonable judgment when
your scientists have testified that no studies have been done upon
which such a judgment could be based? We do not have the infor-
mation. We have no idea what the long-term effects are, and very
little idea, testimony indicates, what the short-term effects are.
Ms. COMPTON. Our conclusion-I do not know what the bioassay
and bioaccumulation data will tell us. The data may indicate that
we should not allow any discharge of those muds and cuttings. The
data from--
Mr. STUDDS. The data from the oil industry?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes. It may indicate that there are chronic and
toxic effects and therefore there should be--
Mr. STUDDS. You do not believe any more than I do, do you, that
the oil industry is going to come in and tell you there are toxic
effects from what they propose to discharge? You are going to rely
on whether they tell you that or not.
Ms. COMPTON. That is not the sole information on which we will
rely in issuing these permits.
Dr. BOLTON. We also have a research program ongoing in the
New England area.
Mr. STUDDS. I just read from your agency's own publication on
the subject which raises more questions. It does not make one feel
better about the situation.
Ms. BOLTON. That is true, but I believe there has been a signifi-
cant amount of information gathered in recent months that at
least gives us a little bit more to go on. A draft study from the New
England Aquarium gives us more information about toxicities. In
fact one of the least toxic of the muds used in these studies was one
from the Baltimore Canyon, about which I believe Mr. Hughes was
asking.
Mr. STUDDS. This speaks to the question of short-term toxicity
but presumably does not speak to the question of long-range toxic-
ity or long-range sublethal effects in behavioral changes.
Dr. BOLTON. It is purely a prerequisite test in a spectrum of
toxicity testing.
Mr. STUDDS. Purely the request. Toxicities.
Dr. BOLTON. In a particular location.
Mr. STUDDS. The kinds of concerns of effect over time of the
environment, one of which was raised by your own study.
Dr. BOLTON. This is something we are still trying to address.
Mr. STUDDS. And presumably will not have addressed within the
next few months when decisions will have to be made?
69~8L~8 0 - 81 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
124
Dr. BOLTON. We will have some of that. information then, yes, on
the scallops and also some of the flounder of Georges Bank.
Mr. STUDDS. Over what period of time?
Dr. BOLTON. I believe they have completed a 2-month study.
Mr. STUDDS. That is not long term.
Dr. BOLTON. You extrapolate from those results, yes. To run
longer term studies is often economically unfeasible, with the fund-
ing we have for research.
Mr. STUDDS. I did not ask you that. Let me just say, you state we
have to extrapolate on the basis of 3 months data. The EPA study
with respect to coral says you may not be able to see effects for a
year. So if you extrapolate on the basis of 3 months that would not
be very productive.
Dr. BOLTON. Fortunately, hard coral is not one of the problems
with which we are dealing in Georges Bank.
Mr. STUDDS. We hope.
Dr. BOLTON. We hope.
Mr. STUDDS. Unless we find something a year later we did not
see, right?
Dr. BOLTON. I think we know that there are not hard corals.
Mr. STUDDS. We know they are not corals, we think we know
that.
Dr. BOLTON. To extrapolate from the discussion of hard corals to
Georges Bank benthos would be stretching it.
Mr. STUDDS. We may be overextrapolating.
Dr. BOLTON. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. My concern I think is obvious. I think the law is
unusually clear. That prohibition is not obfuscated or couched with
too many conditions. It appears to me to be pretty much of an
outright prohibition in the case of insufficient knowledge. If our
scientific testimony has anything in common, even from agencies
which tend to be more innately benign with respect to the indus-
try, it is that we do not know effects, we simply do not know. We
do not even know in some cases, as I understand it, what it is that
we are permitting the discharge of, never mind what its effects
might be. I really do believe, and I realize this is a question that it
is not fair to pose solely to you, that someone, somewhere in that
agency is making essentially a political decision, whether or not to
permit a discharge, of what ought to be a scientific decision. The
scientific evidence, inasmuch as this layman can understand what
we have been presented with, is insufficient to answer those ques-
tions. When the law says that in that case one shall not grant
permits, somewhere a decision that is other than scientific is being
made to proceed in the absense of clear scientific data which would
allow us with confidence to answer those questions. Do you take
issue with that observation?
Ms. COMPTON. No, I do not take issue with that. I think the
agency shares your concern for areas of unique and biological
sensitivity. However, I feel that in areas that do not rise to that
level, we are able to make a reasonable judgment such as we did in
the general permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. STUDDS. Right. But you also grant in the case of the re-
sources on Georges Bank it does rise to that level?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes, I think that is the general consensus.
PAGENO="0131"
125
Mr STUDDS Thank you Mr Pritchard
Mr PRITCHARD Thank you, Mr Chairman I guess what we are
really talking about is risk First of all, you probably have been out
on these rigs since you deal with it? You have not been on the rig?
Ms. COMPTON. No, I have not. I have only been here about 3
months. I hope to get out.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Breaux will take you fishing any time.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I said oil rig, not fishing.
This drilling mud-how much in quantity is produced each day
in an average drilling operation?
Dr BOLTON They probably discharge between 100 and 200 bar
rels of mud a day
Mr PRITCHARD Two hundred barrels of mud a day in the aver
age drilling platform?
Dr. BOLTON. Exploratory.
Mr. PRITCHARD. That is a little counter to what I have been told
but--
Dr. BOLTON. The discharges are probably going to be larger on
Georges Bank than perhaps you would see in the Gulf of Mexico
because it is considerably different mud type that will be used. It is
a lighter weight mud.
Mr PRITCHARD If we followed the chairman's approach here we
really would not allow any drilling offshore until we have deter-
mined conclusively that these muds are not harmful or alterna-
tives are available. What can you do with the discharge besides
dumping it in the water.
Ms. COMPTON. Well, you can barge the mud to either land dispos-
al site or to an ocean dumping site and that is what the operators
of some of the rigs are doing in Santa Barbara right now and will
have to do.
Mr. PRITCHARD. You mean they haul it out to a safer place in the
water, less dangerous?
Ms COMPTON That is correct
Mr. PRITCHARD. It would be silly to take it to shore?
Ms. COMPTON. Not necessarily. There may be safe places on land
to dispose of the muds, whereas they would have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, the marine environment such
as the Flower Gardens.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I see. When do you think you would have the
answers to the chairman's questions?
Ms. COMPTON. With regard to whether we have sufficient data to
issue permits in the Georges Bank7 Well, we are reviewing those
applications right now and we are awaiting the data from industry
on the muds that they intend to use We expect to propose the
draft permits in December, so we should have the data by late
November or early December.
Mr. PRITCHARD. But as I understand his statement, some of these
things cannot be decided for a long time.
Ms. COMPTON. One approach to the chronic problem is to issue
short-term permits. We are contemplating issuing only 1-year per-
mits in the Georges Bank. That is one option, that is--
Mr. PRITCHARD. You mean a 1-year permit for a person to estab-
lish a drilling rig?
Ms COMPTON Well, that is all the company has asked for
PAGENO="0132"
126
Mr. PRITCHARD. I see.
Ms. COMPTON. One option is to allow them to discharge during
that 1 year and for us to monitor the amounts, the discharge, the
concentrations and also to monitor the data and effects, in other
words, the dispersion, where the muds go, what effects they have
during that year and follow up with a subsequent year of monitor-
ing to determine the long-term effects. That is one option we may
choose. Or we may choose to, as I said before, not permit any
discharge.
Mr. PRITCHARD. All right. I have no further questions, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Breaux.
Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ms. Compton
for your testimony. It is unfortunate that having been here only 3
months I guess you are involved in such detailed questioning about
the in's and outs of some very technical subjects.
Just out of curiosity, what were you doing before you became
involved in this mess?
Ms. COMPTON. I was the Enforcement Director in EPA's Philadel-
phia office.
Mr. BREAUX. I sometimes get the impression that this whole area
of offshore drilling is such a novel type of program that we do not
know anything about it, we have never studied it, we do not know
the effects of it. When in truth and in fact that is really not
correct. There are numerous studies, are there not, that really go
into very scientific consideration of the effects of the offshore oil
and gas industry. Is that correct? We cannot say that we have been
having it for 30 years and we really do not have any studies
associated with the potential adverse effects of offshore drilling,
can we?
Ms. COMPTON. I would like Dr. Bolton to address that in more
detail. I know my impression in making some decisions on these
permits has been that the results of the studies, although they are
numerous, are conflicting. That is one reason why we feel we need
more data, is because the results of the various studies are not
conclusive. Although I agree with you they are extensive on some
subjects such as coral reefs, particularly the impact of pollution on
coral reefs.
Mr. BREAUX. I am pleased we are giving a great deal of attention
to the Georges Banks area, as chairman of the Fisheries Subcom-
mittee it is in fact one of the most valuable fisheries in the world.
But the district I represent has been having offshore drilling for 25,
30 years. No one at any level, has ever said, hey it is really a
problem. Has not EPA been looking at what has been happening in
the gulf for 25 years?
Ms. COMPTON. Again Dr. Bolton may be able to give you more
detail. But we do not have baseline studies of what the gulf looked
like before the drilling began. So it is difficult to assess the impact
of the drilling. Another thing I have been advised in spite of
increased technology with respect to fishing we have not increased
our catches in the Gulf of Mexico. I do not know whether that is
significant.
Mr. BREAUX. Run that by me again.
Ms. COMPTON. I have been advised that--
PAGENO="0133"
127
Mr. BREAUX. By whom?
Ms. COMPTON. By staff.
Mr. BREAUX. Is that National Marine Fisheries staff or EPA
staff?
Ms. COMPTON. EPA.
Mr. BREAUX. With their expertise in fisheries.
Ms. COMPTON. No--
Dr. BOLTON. I believe it is the NAS report which makes that
statement, National Academy of Sciences.
Mr. BREAUX. National Science Foundation, what does the state-
ment, I would like to make it part of the record.
Dr. BOLTON. The statement was also quoted in the earlier hear-
ing but it was to the effect that while you have approximately the
same catch that you had 10 years ago it is taking ten times the
effort. So the catch of fish has not decreased, however it is taking
more effort to achieve that same catch.
Mr. BREAUX. I would like you to supply that, since you refer to it.
Dr. BOLTON. Certainly.
Mr. BREAUX. Would you address what she was talking about on
the studies there.
Dr. BOLTON. Pardon?
Mr. BREAUX. She asked you to respond to the number of studies
that I said must be in existence somewhere.
Dr. BOLTON. Yes, there are a number of studies. I think one of
the greatest advantages of those studies is that they provided study
assessments which allow for the design of more effective and infor-
mative studies. The biggest problem is that an industry has been
trying to assess its effect upon the environment in what is essen-
tially a new area-well, at that time a new area of ecological
investigation. We have found a lot of pitfalls in these studies as
they are assessed. The point is because you have studies does not
necessarily mean the studies are the end-all and be-all of the
scientific expertise. They have a lot of room for improvements.
That is part of the reason why we analyze the results of these rig-
monitoring studies is to improve their design so we can get more
explicit answers on impact and environmental change.
Mr. BREAUX. I am all for studying. We can study the studies and
study those studies; do reports on the studies of the studies. At
some point we are going to have to make a decison whether to go
or not go. I do not think study ever indicates in actual truth and
veracity whether something is safe or harmful. Are you all familiar
with the Rice University studies entitled "Offshore Ecology Investi-
gation"?
Dr. BOLTON. Very familiar.
Mr. BREAUX. What is your thought about that?
Dr. BOLTON. I feel there are a lot of flaws in many of those
studies. The volume recently released has corrected many of the
flaws in the original final draft papers. However, the main problem
with that study, as I think you will note in the critique section of
that volume, is the study design. The critique may be about the
third or fourth chapter. The authors point out that there are no
sufficient control sites for those studies. It is very difficult to run a
scientific experiment without proper controls.
PAGENO="0134"
128
Mr. BREAUX. Can you say if a Member of Congress wanted to get
brought up to date on the effects they should not read it?
Dr. BOLTON. No; I would certainly read it. But I am not sure you
can take everything in there at face value. You have to use a
discretionary mind.
Mr. BREAUX. You should have another study to see if this study
is accurate?
Dr. BOLTON. There already has been one. There has been a
rather good critique made by one of the Woods Hole scientists.
Mr. BREAUX. What does he say?
Dr. BOLTON. He points out a number of flaws----
Mr. BREAUX. Has someone studied his study yet?
Dr. BOLTON. I really do not know. Probably the oil company has
studied Dr. Sanders' study, I imagine.
Mr. BREAUX. I would like to incorporate this as part of the
record, Mr. Chairman, not to have it printed or anything but just
incorporated by reference, since it is such a large volume. It is
entitled "Rice University Studies Offshore Ecological Investiga-
tion," put together by a research consortium of a number of univer-
sities, it was edited by a number of pretty distinguished editors
who did not take part in the study, just as a matter of reference to
our study.
Mr. STUDDS. Who funded it?
Mr. BREAUX. By the universities and I would imagine also by the
industry
Dr. BOLTON. The Offshore Operators Committee and several mud
companies funded it.
Mr. BREAUX. I would hope so. It is dealing with their business. It
is a study by the universities and I am sure the nasty old oil
companies probably had something to do with helping to fund it. I
want to make that very clear right now. OK. Are you familiar with
what California has done with regard to the question of barging or
discharging drilling muds?
Ms. COMPTON. Are you saying the oil rigs in California?
Mr BREAUX The State of California used to require that drilling
muds be barged on shore and disposed of on shore. The California
legislature by unanimous vote of both the House and the Senate
out there decided that disposing of drilling fluids, muds at sea was
a safe method of doing it. But prior to that a California Lands
Commission study went into great detail on whether they should or
should not make that recommendation. The study indicated that it
was better to dispose of it at sea and made some conclusions which
would indicate that they could in fact do it without any significant
deleterious effects on the environment Is EPA familiar with what
the California Land Commission study said?
Dr. BOLTON. I am somewhat familiar with it. I believe most of
their determination was based on something pretty much of a
qualitative assessment rather than a stringent quantitative assess-
ment.
Mr. BREAUX. Most everything is, is it not?
Dr. B0LT0N. No, sir.
Mr. BREAUX. Pardon me?
Dr. BOLTON. It is not.
Mr. BREAUX. It is not?
PAGENO="0135"
129
Dr I30LT0N No, it is possible to do a technically sound quantita
tive assessment, but not if the bulk of your studies are based on
submersibles or less rigorous analytical tools without doing benthic
sampling and analysis.
Mr. BREAUX. I take it you do not agree with the California Lands
Commission study?
Dr. BOLTON. I do not think I have all the information upon which
to base the decision.
Mr. BREAUX. You sound like you do not like it.
Dr BOLTON That is possible, personally I may not like it
Mr. BREAUX. Oh, boy.
Secretary Andrews-I would like to make this part of the
record-in response to hearings held in the other body with regard
to the disposal of drilling muds in particular, referred to studies
and about the number of studies that we had and the number of
monitoring programs that we already have. And they say that a
task force was convened, a biological task force was established in
October of last year and it has been meeting regularly and that
that task force has developed a program of monitoring and re-
search which directly tracks the provision of the legislation they
were considering in the other body And he states further, "Neither
EPA nor Interior is allowing any activity on the OCS which pre
sents foreseeable significant adverse impacts to fisheries or any
other resources."
Ms. COMPTON. I am sorry, I was somewhat confused. On what do
you want our opinion?
Mr. BREAUX. Well, the Secretary in a letter to members of the
committee in the other body who were considering legislation to
change the procedure in which drilling fluids are held, particularly
at the Georges Bank area, the Secretary said in a written letter to
the Senate he felt the bill that they were considering adds nothing
to the authorities which are already in place. He says a biological
task force identical to the one that the bill called for was estab
lished in October of last year and has been meeting regularly. The
task force has developed a program of monitoring and research
which directly tracks the provisions of the legislation and he says
decisions on permanent conditions for the control or discharge of
drill fluids and cuttings under the Clean Water Act are being made
regularly in frontier areas by EPA. "Neither EPA nor Interior is
allowing any activity on the OCS which presents foreseeable sig-
nificant adverse impacts to fisheries or any other resources."
Ms. COMPTON. Yes; I am sorry, I understand your question now.
The agency does agree with the Secretary's letter and feels that
there is adequate legislation and authority available to us to regu-
late water quality with regard to oil drilling rigs and that with the
activities and assessments that we are making, we have enough
authority right now to protect those areas.
Mr. BREAUX. What would EPA's position be, as to whether EPA
or industry or someone has to prove that the drilling muds that are
used in drilling operations would in no way be harmful before
Government regulates that activity? What I am trying to find out
is what is EPA's feeling on where the burden should lie before
regulations are established?
PAGENO="0136"
130
Ms. COMPTON. Well, under section 403 of the Clean Water Act,
EPA or the State in some cases, the permitting authority has to
make an assessment of what adverse impacts would result from the
discharge of pollutants. In order to make that assessment we ask
the applicant for a permit, to supply us with data that will enable
us to make that assessment. So the burden really lies with industry
to give us enough data to show we should issue that company a
permit to allow them to discharge those pollutants.
Mr. BREAUX. You could only deny a permit if it is shown that
whatever is attempted to be permitted would, in fact, cause some
harm or potential harm to the environment?
Ms. COMPTON. Well, there are several criteria under section 403
of the act which we have to use in assessing whether there would
be harm or degradation of the waters as a result of the discharge.
Mr. BREAUX. There is no legislative problem in EPA obtaining
the information necessary to find out what chemicals or potential
toxics if any, would be contained in drilling fluids, is there?
Ms. COMPTON. No, there is not. There have been some comments
made with regard to the confidentiality of the contents of drilling
muds. However, we can obtain from industry the toxics that are in
the drilling muds and their concentrations. That which is propri-
etary is the percentage of elements that are in these particular
muds and there is no need for us to have that information. We do
have such authority under section 308 of the Clean Water Act to
obtain the data on drilling muds that we need to make a decision.
Mr. BREAUX. Do your biologists tell you that the percentages of
the various chemicals are necessary in order to make a determina-
tion whether it could be potentially harmful or not?
Ms. COMPTON. What is important is the concentration of the
toxics; for example, whether they are 10 milligrams per liter, of
whatever is discharged.
Mr. BREAUX. I see. So if you have the concentrations your scien-
tists tell you that is sufficient to make a projected decison on the
potential harm?
Ms. COMPTON. That is what I have been advised.
Mr. BREAUX. So it is clear from EPA's perspective that one of the
conditions prior to granting a permit for the discharge of anything
at an offshore drill site, that EPA has sufficient authority to re-
quire of the applicant to disclose to EPA the type of chemicals that
the permit would cover as well as the concentration of those chemi-
cals?
Ms. COMPTON. That is correct.
Mr. BREAUX. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I would like
if we could include for the record, it is just a page and a half letter
I referred to from Secretary Andrews with regard to the subjects
that I referred to.
Mr. STUDDS. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., August 19, 1980.
Hon. J. BENNErF JOHNSTON,
US. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I have reviewed the new amendment to 5. 2119 regard-
ing the protection of fisheries on the Georges Bank which is now before the Senate
PAGENO="0137"
131
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A number of modifications have been
made in the proposed substitute which are responsive to the concerns I expressed in
my previous letters to Senator Jackson regarding two earlier versions of the bill. I
appreciate the movement away from provisions which would greatly obstruct or
prevent oil and gas exploration on the North Atlantic Continental Shelf.
The bill as now written, however, adds nothing to authorities which are already
in place or activities that are already underway. A Biological Task Force identical
to the one in the bill was established in October of last year and has been meeting
regularly. The Task Force has developed a program of monitoring and research
which directly tracks the provisions of the bill, and has formally recommended it to
this Department where it is under expedited review for funding. Decisions on
permit conditions for the controlled discharge of drill muds and cuttings under the
Clean Water Act are being made regularly in frontier areas by EPA. Neither EPA
nor Interior is allowing any activity on the OCS which presents foreseeable signifi-
cant adverse impacts to fisheries or any other resources.
To be frank, I can see no purpose served by passage of this legislation. But I can
see considerable risk if it is reported by the Energy Committee.
First, it greatly enhances the prospects for floor action on the Commerce Commit-
tee bill, with its rigid zero-discharge requirement, which the Administration and I
strongly oppose as tantamount to an exclusion of oil and gas exploration on Georges
Bank.
Second, any new legislative guidance at this point will greatly upset the painstak-
ing progress we have made toward a reconciliation of interests in the North Atlan-
tic, a process which has involved intense interagency and Federal-State negotiations
and a long-running lawsuit which was initiated in January 1978 and is just now
approaching a new round of trial activity this fall.
Third, it will set a precedent for special regionally-based legislation which will
seriously threaten the reliability and even-handedness of the national program
established by Congress under the OCS Lands Act, as amended.
I ask that you allow the progress we are making in the North Atlantic to proceed
without the uncertainty, dislocation, and renewed contention that would accompany
passage of this legislation. I also ask that you allow us to continue implementation
of the OCS Lands Act as the operative statute crafted by your committee to assure
environmentally sound operations everywhere on the OCS.
Sincerely,
CECIL D. ANDRUS,
Secretary.
Mr. STUDDS. Let me also for the record read in an exchange from
the earlier hearing this year of this subcommittee on precisely this
subject. The question of whether or not important information is
proprietary and withheld. I quote my question to EPA's own scien-
tist Dr. Richards:
What do we know about the composition of these animals (drilling muds)?
Dr. RICHARDS. The problem is not so much what we know, but what we do not
know. Drilling fluid is a complex mixture of mixtures. The ingredients include a
wide variety of chemicals. The problem is some of them appear to be proprietary.
The American Petroleum Institute's component listing states that fact. Another
problem is that these mixtures appear to undergo transformations downhole. We
know some of the things that go into the drilling fluids, but we do not know them
all. Drilling fluid components contain contaminants-they are not pure chemicals-
they are complex mixtures of industrial grade chemicals. Only the trade names of
most chemicals are known. The problem is: in order to do predictive toxicology and
predict what effect, these things would have on organisms, we really need more
information on the chemical analysis.
Dr. PARSONS (NOAA). I agree with Dr. Richards' statement also. In my review of
permit applications, there is often mention of additives used in the drilling mud, but
usually very little indication of what they are or what their concentration may be. I
have before me a list of 15 categories of drilling fluid additives commonly used:
lubricants, flocculants, bactericides, et cetera. I have no idea of what chemicals are
found in these additives nor what their toxicities are. This information is not
provided in drilling permits.
So the scientists do not seem to agree with your characterization.
Ms. COMPTON. Well, since April we have begun taking a new look
at the way we are approaching permitting these facilities and one
PAGENO="0138"
132
point is that, as I mentioned to you, we are asking for bioassay and
bioaccumulation data on the 8 to 10 classes of muds which industry
says they will use in the Georges Bank After reviewing that data
we will probably conclude that if we are to allow the discharge of
muds and cuttings in Georges Bank that they will be limited to
those muds and cuttings that they have tested and submitted the
data to us, that we do not-although what was stated earlier to the
subcommittee is true and I am not changing that testimony in any
way, I am saying that we do not necessarily need to know the
entire universe of the muds before we decide what to do with
particular drilling rigs if they are limited to the use of certain
muds
Mr STUDDS I will let the record reflect what the testimony of
the scientists were. I am not sure it is consistent. I apologize Mr.
Wyatt, it is your time
Mr. WYATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said that the Rice
study was reviewed and studied by a scientist from Woods Hole, is
that right?
Dr. BOLTON. The what study?
Mr. WYATT. The Rice University study.
Dr. BOLTON. I am sorry. Yes; Howard Sanders has done a review
of it. It is not in publication yet. Since he has no funding I do not
know when it will go into production.
Mr. WYATT. So only one person studied it?
Dr BOLTON He is a rather well respected marine benthic biolo
gist
Mr. WYATT. Twenty-three universities were involved~ with the
Rice University study.
Dr. B0LT0N. That is right.
Mr. WYATT. We are talking one study of that and raising ques-
tions, that is what you are saying?
Dr. BOLTON. Yes. It is not the only basis for my comment. I have
also read most of the original papers involved in that study and I
have a consultant who is looking at the new addition of the studies
now. There is a reasonable question as to its adequacy. I think
industry in many ways also questions some of those studies.
Mr. WYATT. Industry questions the studies?
Dr. BOLTON. Yes, for the very same reason. It is a scientific study
done basically without control sites, based on inadequate design.
Mr. WYATT. And that is the primary objection?
Dr. BOLTON. That is one of the primary objections, yes.
Mr. WYATT. Someone made a comment a moment ago that in the
Gulf of Mexico you are getting the same catch with ten times the
effort, is that correct?
Dr. BOLTON. Yes.
Mr. WYATT. That is not true of the Georges Bank area for in-
stance?
Dr. BOLTON. I am not familiar with any similar statistics on
Georges Bank.
Mr. WYATT. Any other fish areas in the country that we know of
that do not have the same catch with more effort, or are you just
familiar with the Gulf of Mexico?
Dr. BOLTON. I am familiar with that particular study and cita-
tion.
PAGENO="0139"
133
Mr WYATT Have any other studies been made?
Dr. BOLTON. I do not know if NAS funded other studies in other
fisheries areas They specifically brought out the gulf situation
Mr. STUDDS. The National Marine Fisheries Service has regular
annual figures on fisheries production throughout the country.
Mr. WYATT. National Marine Fisheries.
Ms. COMPTON. National Marine and Fisheries Service.
Mr. WYATT. Have they indicated that that is the case?
Dr. BOLTON. Dean Parsons who was at the hearing referenced by:
Mr. Stills is a representative of that organization and I do not
remember him making any addition to that statement
Ms COMPTON We would be happy to collect that
Mr. WYATT. I think that would be interesting to know. If we are
going to throw out something that may raise a question, I think we
ought to compare it with the other fishing areas of the country to
make a determination if there is any significance in that fact.
There may be absolutely no significance or correlation with tre-
mendous amount of drilling taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.
Every other fishing area in the country might also have the same
catch.
Ms. COMPTON. As I commented to Mr. Breaux, I did not indicate
whether we knew there was any significance to that data or not I
simply commented in response to the fact that he said there had
been no problems in the Gulf of Mexico. It is our unçlerstanding
that we are not sure whether there have been any pr~oblems as a
result of the drilling, because there are no baselineAtudies indicat-
ing what the gulf was like prior to drilling anç~/the catch in the
Gulf of Mexico has not increased in spite p1 increased use of
equipment and personnel. We would be hap~~5y to supplement the
record with information on other fishing areas.
Mr WYATT Do you know if you are doing any of those kind of
studies?
Ms COMPTON NOAA is, I am sure
Ms. COMPTON. EPA is not involved in that type of study.
Mr. WYATT. You say on page four of your testimony:
After review of comments received on the draft permit the permitting authority
may issue or deny a final permit. After the final permit is issued, any interested
party may contest its issuance or its terms within 30 days.
Who would any interested party be?
Ms COMPTON In the Flower Gardens area, the Natural Re
sources Defense Council, as you know.
Mr WYATT That is an environmental group?
Ms COMPTON Yes, it is a national environmental group
Mr WYATT How are they funded?
Ms COMPTON They are funded by over 100 foundations, to my
knowledge.
Mr. WYATT. Is it a nonprofit corporation?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes, it is.
Mr. WYATT. OK. They could object and have objected?
Ms COMPTON Yes They requested that an evidentiary hearing
be held on the terms of the permit. They questioned its terms in
the Flower Gardens.
Mr WYATT This was after you issued the permit?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes.
PAGENO="0140"
134
Mr. WYATT. Your scientists had determined that it could be
issued?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes. EPA issued the permit on that basis.
Mr. WYATT. Has anyone else objected to it?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes, the National Wildlife Federation requested
an evidentiary hearing. That is also a national environmental
group.
Mr. WYATT. Do you know if there is any connection between
those two groups?
Ms. COMPTON. None, other than that the personnel know each
other.
Mr. WYATT. What about the funding, do you think that might be
the same?
Ms. COMPTON. The National Wildlife Federation to my knowledge
is funded by its members. The Natural Resources Defense Council
seem to rely on foundation funding as well as members for funds.
Also the industries who receive those three permits requested an
evidentiary hearing also because they did not agree with the terms
of the permit.
Mr. WYATT. Can you tell me if the law that requires the permit
gives any interested party the right to request an evidentiary
hearing?
Ms. COMPTON. Our EPA regulations permit any interested party
to request--
Mr. WYATT. Your regulations. Does the law require that?
Ms. COMPTON. That any interested party? I would imagine that
the Administrative Procedures Act permits any interested person
to challenge a Federal agency action, final Federal agency action.
And I am not familiar with the Clean Water Act's provisions.
Mr. WYATT. Could you tell me how you become an interested
party?
Ms. COMPTON. Pardon?
Mr. WYATT. Could you tell me how you become an interested
party?
Ms. COMPTON. In other words how an interested party--
Mr. WYATT. Yes. Am I an interested party or Dr. Oppenheimer
for instance in Texas an interested party? How do you become an
interested party?
Ms. COMPTON. I believe our consolidated permit regulations
define interested party. I am not familiar with that definition. I
assume it is someone who may be affected by the agency and the
environmental groups would be affected because their charter is to
protect the environment and they have an interest, and their mem-
bers live in the area where the environment may be adversely
affected.
Mr. WYATT. Can you tell me what studies you are currently
doing in the Gulf of Mexico?
Dr. BOLTON. Mainly working with larval recruitment and settling
studies, a number of coral studies both in chronic and acute effects
of drilling fluids on the corals. They are working with a number of
studies of heavy metal bioaccumulation, particularly in shrimp. I
believe that there are also studies ongoing on fish development and
behavior.
PAGENO="0141"
135
Mr. WYATT. Have you found if there is any major damage, or any
damage, in the studies you have conducted thus far in the gulf?
Dr. BOLTON. The indication that we have from our field scientists
is that there is cause for concern.
Mr. WYATT. That is not my question. Have you determined that
there is damage being done, not cause for concern but is there
damage being done?
Dr. BOLTON. I think that you can say that even in the BLM rig
studies that have been done, there is damage being done as a result
of drilling operations in the immediate vicinity of the rig, yes, sir.
Mr. WYATT. And that damage is considered to be significant?
Dr. BOLTON. It is certainly significant within the limitations of
the rig radius, yes.
Ms. COMPTON. Depending-I think the agency's position depends
on the area affected by the rig. In other words, there are many
areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are not of significant biological
concern where we would consider the damage not to be significant.
However, in the Flower Gardens we decided that the damage may
be significant, given its unique characteristics.
Mr. WYATT. Unique characteristics?
Dr. BOLTON. The northernmost hard coral bank.
Mr. WYATT. What damage is being done there?
Dr. BOLTON. To date?
Mr. WYATT. Yes.
Ms. COMPTON. There is no drilling there now.
Dr. BOLTON. No, there has been drilling there.
Any damage that may have been done has not been directly tied
with drilling effects, simply because the scientific community has
not known about the Flower Gardens for that long. Fishermen did.
Texas A. & M. I believe was credited with actually discovering the
unique nature of the Flower Garden Banks. I am not sure of the
date.
Mr. WYATT. And you have been looking at this, you have been
looking at Flower Gardens, and you have found no significant
damage, is that correct?
Dr. BOLTON. The Bureau of Land Management says there has
been no significant damage.
Mr. WYATT. What about EPA?
Dr. BOLTON. I do not know that EPA has the field studies that to
substantiate that cause and effect EPA has not been doing field
studies directly at the Flower Gardens.
Mr. WYATT. Are you familiar with any study that shows that
there is significant damage done by oil drilling?
Dr. BOLTON. There is a USGS coral coring study that indicates
that there has been a decrease in the growth of corals beginning
about 1957. But there is no way to really attribute that decrease
directly to drilling activities. There are certainly many other fac-
tors that could influence coral growth rate.
Mr. WYATT. Do you have any studies that show that you will
ultimately come to a conclusion of any kind?
Dr. BOLTON. There are completed EPA studies which indicate a
change in recruitment and larval settling as a result of fine layers
of drilling fluid on the substrat, so, yes--
Mr. WYATT. On?
PAGENO="0142"
136
Dr. BOLTON. Trays containing different concentrations of drilling
fluid are placed on the ocean bottom. A fine layer, I think about 2
millimeters, on that mud tray will change the structure of the
community that settles there. So the change in community struc-
ture is an impact. Fish often feed on these benthic organisms.
Mr. WYATT. In and around the area?
Dr. BOLTON. These were done off of Pensacola, I believe, on
EPA's Stage I. So it is a field study but it was not done at the
Flower Gardens. It was simply done with drilling muds that are
used in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. WYATT. That would be during the time of drilling?
Dr. BOLTON. These were muds taken off of drilling rigs during
operations and then layered or mixed with azenic muds on trays
which were set out along with control trays and larval organisms
were allowed to settle on those trays. The control trays were com-
pared with the experimental trays. The results indicated that, yes,
the benthic community was affected.
Mr. WYATT. For what length of time?
Dr. BOLTON. It was the length of the larval settling. I am not
sure what the period of time used was. It was long enough to get a
crop of larval organisms.
Mr. WYATT. Which would lead us to believe that there is a
reduction--
Dr BOLTON That there is some change, certainly, in the Benthic
community as a result of the presence of drilling fluids.
Mr. WYATT. Can you project from that kind of a study what the
ultimate damage would be to the entire Gulf of Mexico or to a
certain portion of the Gulf of Mexico?
Dr. BOLTON. That is one of a complex of studies which will be
used to make that type of assessment. But all of the studies are not
completed.
Mr. WYATT. How long will it be before the studies are completed?
Dr. BOLTON. I believe our field scientists are planning to com-
plete the effects studies by 1982
Mr. WYATT. This is being done off the coast of Florida?
Dr. BOLTON. These studies are part of a comprehensive program.
Part of it is being done off Florida and in the gulf area, but part of
it also is being done in New England in a number of marine labs
A lot of the work is being done by marine researchers as contrac-
tors for EPA, paid for by EPA.
Mr. WYATT. In collecting samples do you find a greater, higher
residue of toxicity in the Gulf of Mexico that could be attributed to
drilling muds than you do in other areas?
Dr. BOLTON. You certainly find higher concentrations of some of
the heavy metals than you would find in many other areas. That is
what makes much of the field studies very difficult to interpret,
because the baseline of heavy metal contamination is so high.
Initial experimental sampling that might be considered a signifi-
cant increase in heavy metals concentration with a low baseline
would be statistically nonsignificant given the high baseline. So it
makes it difficult to make those interpretations in the Gulf of
Mexico and certainly to extrapolate to other areas.
Mr. WYATT. Because you start with a higher baseline of heavy
metals.
PAGENO="0143"
137
Dr. BOLTON. For instance, if you were to have a baseline of heavy
metal concentration of 50 to 100 parts per million (ppm), perhaps
in Baltimore Canyon or Georges Bank, you might typically find a
baseline of 300 or 400 ppm in some parts of the Gulf of Mexico.
These are purely hypothetical wilues. An increase of 5 to 10 ppm
would be significant in the first instance, and not significant in the
latter. The starting level of the contamination of the muds is much
higher. Whether all of the contamination in the gulf is from drill-
ing effluents is questionable; I certainly would not want to be held
to it. There is an awful lot of contamination in the Gulf of Mexico
coming from the Mississippi River which spreads across a good bit
of the northeastern gulf shelf.
Mr. WYATT. Have we shown damage from heavy metals, the
difference in the 3 to 400 parts per million?
Dr. BOLTON. There are a number of studies which could indicate
that the level of chromium and other heavy metals found certainly
could be a cause of concern. Chromium is one of the higher con-
stituent metals of drilling fluids. Cadmium is also found in higher
concentrations in the area, and that is a very toxic metal.
Mr. WYATT. That has shown up in shrimp, fish?
Dr. BOLTON. These references are from sediment studies.
Mr. WYATT. Well, what is the problem with those high concentra-
tions, I guess is what I am asking.
Dr. BOLTON. All right. Many fish and other organisms feed on
and in the benthos, in the muddy substrate. And if organisms are
living in that material and are benthic feeders, they may concen-
trate or at least accumulate a certain amount of heavy metals from
that sediment. Those organisms in turn can be eaten by other
organisms. So it is very possible to pass concentrations of heavy
metals through the food chain. The example used before of Mina-
mato Bay in Japan, with mercury contamination, is a good demon-
stration of this effect.
Mr. WYATT. You then from these basic studies of sediment have
detected a higher concentration of either cadmium or chromium in
shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico?
Dr. BOLTON. In the sediment. I am basing most of what I am
saying on sediment data. BLM's EIS on one of the gulf areas
specifically makes reference to the higher concentrations of heavy
metals 2 years after the location of the drilling rig.
Mr. WYATT. Of the what?
Dr. BOLTON. Of a rig in a sediment area. So I am really basing
my comments on the sediment concentrations. I am not that famil-
iar with the concentrations of the heavy metals in the organisms,
not so much because some of those measurements have not been
made, but in many cases because the measurements were made of
whole animals rather than of organs where metals might be con-
centrated. This approach results in an immediate dilution of the
concentrations of heavy metals.
Mr. STUDDS. We will go around again if the gentleman has more
questions. I want to slip in, if I may, some questions that remain
here.
Will the EPA discharge permits be submitted to the States for
consistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management
Act?
PAGENO="0144"
138
Ms. COMPTON. I believe they have to be.
Mr. STUDDS. They will?
Ms. COMPTON. I believe so.
Mr. STUDDS. OK.
Ms. COMPTON. We have already been meeting with some of the
States with regard to coastal zone management compliance.
Mr. STUDDS. Your proposed rule for ocean discharge criteria re-
quires that an NPDES permit applicant must analyze all alterna-
tive methods of reducing or eliminating pollutants.
I assume that in the case of drill muds, barging offsite is one
such possible alternative?
Ms. COMPTON. Certainly.
Mr. STUDDS. If you reach the determination that you could not
justify granting a permit for dumping into the water of these
materials, is your statutory responsibility such that all you could
do would be to simply deny that permit or could you also require or
recommend alternative methods of disposition?
Ms. COMPTON. Well, it seems to me that we could put in the
permit a limitation that would not allow the discharge of the
drilling muds and cuttings and that it would be up to the appli-
cant, the discharger, to find a place to take his drilling muds and
cuttings.
Mr. STUDDS. Now if you, in an OCS area, were to deny permis-
sion to discharge the drill muds, does the Department of the Interi-
or, to your knowledge, have the statutory authority by virtue of
some other statute to ignore your recommendation and somehow
proceed in the granting under their permitting process of authority
to dump the discharge?
Ms. COMPTON. I believe that we have exclusive authority under
the Clean Water Act to determine what discharges go into the
ocean.
Mr. STUDDS. So whether or not Interior agreed with your find-
ings, they would be final under the law with respect to these
requests?
Ms. COMPTON. That is right.
Mr. STUDDS. You made reference, heaven help us all, to a new
task force for drilling muds and formation waters. Does it actually
do research? What is it, who is on it, when was it established, and
what is its relation to the famous biological task force on Georges
Bank?
Dr. BOLTON. It is chaired by a representative from the Office of
Research and Development.
Mr. STUDDS. Is that an EPA task force?
Ms. COMPTON. It is an internal task force to coordinate the Ocean
Programs and Research and Development Offices and other techni-
cal offices to make sure we all know what we are doing.
Mr. STUDDS. I see. You don't have a task force for intertask force
relationships, do you?
Ms. COMPTON. I am sure we do.
Mr. STUDDS. I am sure you do. I am sure someone thinks they are
interfacing. When do you think your regulations on ocean dis-
charge will be final?
Ms. COMPTON. We are under court order to promulgate those
regulations by September 30, 1980.
PAGENO="0145"
139
Mr. STUDDS. 1980?
Ms. COMPTON. Right.
Mr. STUDDS. You did make reference at one point in your testi-
mony to some regulations being ready in approximately 18 months.
What were they?
Ms. COMPTON. Those are new source performance standards for
the offshore oil and gas subcategory of oil and gas production or oil
and gas facilities.
Mr. STUDDS. When do you expect to issue draft permits for
Georges Bank?
Ms. COMPTON. By December of this year. That is the schedule
that we have right now. We expect that the bioassay and bioaccu-
mulation data to be into the region 1 office in Boston by the middle
of September. We have some of it now.
Mr. STUDDS. So extrapolation can get under way in earnest by
the end of September?
Ms. COMPTON. We will be reviewing the data on an ongoing
process.
Mr. STUDDS. Dr. Bolton, you look like you were about to say
something.
Dr. BOLTON. No, I am just cold.
Mr. STUDDS. It is very cold.
Dr. BOLTON. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Breaux?
Mr. BREAUX. What I am trying to get set in my mind is that a
* permittee who applies for a permit from EPA gives you the concen-
trations of all of the chemicals that make up drilling fluids-is that
correct?
Ms. COMPTON. And then what?
Mr. BREAUX. Is that correct, so far, a permittee who applies for a
discharge permit to discharge drilling mud, you ask them to pro-
vide you with information and I take it from your testimony what
you ask them to provide you is the makeup of the drilling muds
and the concentrations of various chemicals that make up drilling
mud?
Ms. COMPTON. We ask them for the chemical elements in the
drilling muds and for the concentrations. I would steer away from
the word makeup.
Mr. BREAUX. You don't get the percentages but you get the
concentrations of the chemicals that comprise the drilling fluids?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes.
Mr. BREAUX. What do you do with it then?
Ms. COMPTON. The information?
Mr. BREAUX. Yes.
Ms. COMPTON. Well, we are also waiting for more information, as
I indicated earlier, from the applicants to determine whether those
chemicals and those particular muds will cause acute or chronic
toxic effect on the marine organisms that may be--
Mr. BREAUX. Is there a Federal statute somewhere that says that
the applicant has to bear that burden or is that a regulatory
decision on the part of EPA?
Ms. COMPTON. I believe section 308 of the Clean Water Act gives
us the authority to request from any applicant or any discharger
69_8L~8 0 - 81 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
140
information that would enable us to make a decision on the impact
of their activities on the receiving---
Mr. BREAUX. Suppose an applicant says, "Look, there are 18,000
studies on this, I don't know which one to believe. People are
studying the studies. But here is the concentration, I want a
permit."
Can you deny the permit without showing that it is harmful?
Ms. COMPTON. We can ask him for the bioassay and bioaccumula-
tion data. If he doesn't submit that data, I believe we have the
authority to deny the permit.
Mr. BREAUX. That is kind of big-you believe. Are you in charge
of granting the permits for EPA?
Ms. COMPTON. Yes, I am.
Mr. BREAUX. You are not sure whether the burden is on the
applicant or is on the EPA to say this is not healthy? That is the
critical point, whose burden it is?
Ms. COMPTON. I agree. And it is my understanding if they do not
submit the data that we think is necessary to make a decision on
whether they can discharge a particular pollutant, we can deny
them a permit to discharge the pollutant.
But I would feel more comfortable in supplementing the record.
Mr. BREAUX. I would like to see it, not only for the record, I
would like you to submit to me and also to the committee an
answer to exactly what I asked, whose burden it is? I get somewhat
disturbed by our Government that can say unless you can prove it
is not harmful, we are going to say you can't do it. It seems to me
it is incumbent on the part of the Government and regulation
saying in our opinion you have given us this information and our
studies indicate that it is not something we can accept.
But the information I have here this morning is we have a lot of
studies and everybody is studying the studies but none of them are
definitive and final. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to make
a case that they would in no way create potential harm; that is, a
permit would never be granted under that scenario?
Ms. COMPTON. Congress, in section 403 of the Clean Water Act, I
emphasize, gave the EPA the responsibility to determine with
regard to ocean dischargers whether there would be degradation of
those waters; in order to make that determination we need the
information called for in the act.
Mr. BREAUX. They give you information on what they are dump-
ing in the water, there is no question about that, is there?
Ms. COMPTON. No.
Mr. BREAUX. Then it is incumbent upon EPA to make the deci-
sion whether it is harmful or not; it is not the burden of the
applicant.
Ms. COMPTON. OK, I misunderstood your earlier question. We can
ask them for information to determine its toxicity but not necessar-
ily what actual degradation that will occur.
Mr. BREAUX. That is EPA's burden. Is that EPA's burden?
Ms. COMPTON. I would feel more comfortable if I provided this in
a supplemental statement.
Mr. BREAUX. I know you have been only 3 months and I don't
know what Congress is about after 8 years. I can't expect you to
know all the answers in 3 months, obviously. But that is one of the
PAGENO="0147"
141
crucial questions, whether it is your agency's responsibility to
make a determination when they submit these ingredients whether
or not it could be harmful. That is the basis of whether or not a
permit is granted. If it is not harmful, a permit will be issued.
My question is: Who makes the question on the potential harm,
EPA or the applicant for the permit? There seems to be some
question about that. So if you could, I would like a response in
writing to the committee and also to me which would spell out how
that is being handled within EPA's shop.
Ms. COMPTON. I will be happy to provide that.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Wyatt, did you ask for time?
Mr. WYATT. Yes.
Can you tell me if you have any evidence that shows that the
shellfish, for instance, coming from the Gulf of Mexico are harmful
to people who eat it at all, after 30, 40 years of drilling in the gulf,
as well as a result of effluents coming into the gulf from various
rivers, et cetera?
Dr. B0LT0N. I am not that familiar with the public health aspect
with the banning of shellfish in the gulf.
Mr. WYATT. You mean of all the studies that have been made. I
don't know how many have been made
Dr BOLTON I know shellfish were banned in the New England
area after one of the oil spills Human health was the rationale for
the ban.
Mr. WYATT. For how long?
Dr. BOLTON. I am not sure of the length of time.
Mr. STUDDS. We have had shellfish beds closed on many occa-
sions, some of them for years at a time, because of oil spills, 10
years in one instance.
Mr. WYATT. However, in terms of the Gulf of Mexico, you are
unaware that seafood taken from the gulf, seafood, any kind, have
ever been banned in this country because of toxic levels in that
seafood?
Dr BOLTON I am not familiar with the banning of seafood from
the gulf for that reason
Mr. WYATT. Do you know how close we have come to that? Do
you have any idea9
Dr. BOLTON. I wouldn't have any idea. I am sure there have been
shellfish areas in the gulf, though, that have been closed off for one
reason or another. It may be human waste pollution rather than
oil and gas. But I would be very surprised if there had not been
shellfish areas that had been closed.
Mr WYATT There ought to be some end result we are looking for
here, not just, you know, making studies and running tests
Dr BOLTON In Mobile Bay, I know that no discharge is allowed
because it is a shellfish bed. So they do not allow any discharge in
that area. There must be some rationale for that State having that
ban. It would suggest that there was some reason for them not
allowing the discharges on the shellfish.
Mr. WYATT. But you are unaware of why that was done? Did the
State of Alabama make that determination?
Dr. BOLTON. I am sure the State must have been concerned about
the effects of the discharges on the shellfish, however, the industry
was not allowed to discharge because of the shellfishery.
PAGENO="0148"
142
Mr. WYATT. I think that is fine, but it would appear further in
your work at some point in time we would look to the final result,
to me, which would be the logical conclusion and that is the
damage being done, the high levels of toxic material that would be
found in shellfish or seafood taken from the Gulf of Mexico because
I would think that is what you--
Dr. BOLTON. I know there is research being done at the New
England Aquarium laboratory for EPA on shellfish from New Eng-
land, looking at the bioaccumulation of heavy metals from animals
exposed to drilling discharges.
Mr. WYATT. If possible, Mr. Chairman, I would like for EPA to
furnish this committee with the instances where we have stopped
selling, or removing, seafood or shellfish, et cetera, from the Gulf of
Mexico.
Mr. STUDDS. I would like to say to the gentleman, I don't think
that is within the jurisdiction of EPA. Those kinds of determina-
tions are probably FDA determinations and that would go to the
agency responsible for that question. They are not making any
such claim. The gentleman is not challenging that oil is bad for
fish?
Mr. WYATT. Of course not. I want to know how bad it is for fish.
Mr. STUDDS. Very bad.
Mr. WYATT. We don't know apparently.
Mr. STUDDS. I am going to ask the gentleman's permission to
interrupt. Mr. Pritchard wanted to know the time frame for the
Beaufort Sea draft permits?
Ms. COMPTON. We have just received four applications there and
are processing them; we are waiting for some more data. It may be
as long as a year.
Mr. STUDDS. Well into the Reagan administration. Tell Mr. Prit-
chard that.
Let me say, I appreciate your patience. You have borne up well. I
have not enforced the 5-minute rule to put it mildly on myself or
other members of the subcommittee, and under the circumstances
you have acquitted yourself very well indeed.
Mr. Breaux left again, but I was pressing as to whose responsibil-
ity it is to determine whether or not a discharge would be harmful.
I think the statute which has been cited so much today, section 403
of the Clean Water Act, makes that explicit and clear beyond any
question, it is EPA's responsibility because Congress decided in
that public law some 8 years ago that it would be. The administra-
tive agency is charged with the promulgation of guidelines for
determining degradation of the waters. You are also charged, I
cannot resist reminding you one more time, in the event of insuffi-
cient information to make that determination, not to permit any
such discharge in question.
Ms. COMPTON. My question with regard to that and my inability
to answer with certain determination is because section 308 of the
act allows us to collect whatever data we need to make a decision
with regard to discharges into the water. And that may shift the
burden back to industry who wants the discharge with regard to
supplying that information.
Mr. STUDDS. If they want it, they have to come to you and they
have to present persuasive information.
PAGENO="0149"
143
Ms. COMPTON. That is one of the interpretations of reading the
two sections together.
Mr. STUDDS. But the final evaluation of that data is yours, not
theirs.
Ms. COMPTON. Absolutely.
Mr. STUDDS. That is very clear. The record as I say will remain
open. Members may wish to submit questions in writing to both
agencies.
Also in the record will appear the letter which I referred to from
the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Acting Chairman Ashley of
this committee.
Thank you again for your patience and your attendance.
You have one more thing you wish to say?
Ms. COMPTON. I do. I hope the committee will understand the
position which the agency is in given the line of questioning from
the two different positions that we heard today, and the difficulty
with which we face very complex questions.
Mr. STUDDS. The difficulty of the agency's position is abundantly
and increasingly clear. I think the reference you make as you sit
here being battered both from the gulf coast and from New Eng-
land points up what I meant when I said what ought to be a
scientific problem I think has become, to an extent which I deplore,
a political rather than a scientific question. Your agency ought, in
my opinion, to be making scientific judgments in accordance with
the mandates of the statute.
I realize-in addition, you live in the same world of political
reality that we all do. As you point out, today's hearing demon-
strates clearly some of the conflicting pressures to which the Ad-
ministrator is subjected. That presumably is why he is so highly
paid.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
U.S. COAST GUARD,
Washington, D.C., July 16, 1980.
Hon. THOMAS L. ASHLEY,
Acting Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am concerned that information concerning the Coast
Guard's open water pollution response plans and objectives, which appears on pages
12 and 32 of House Report No. 96-909 (accompanying H.R. 6672), may be mislead.
ing.
The national response goals established by the President's March 17, 1977 Oil
Pollution message are not being implemented by the Coast Guard, nor are we in the
process of deploying high seas containment and cleanup equipment at eleven strate-
gic sites around the U.S. to respond to an oil spill of 100,000 tons within 6 hours.
The strategy recommended in the Transportation System Center Study of 1977
has been modified in the light of later experience. Specifically the Secretary of
Transportation has approved for planning purposes a three year projects to improve
spill response at 11 high risk areas around the country. Equipment would be
stockpiled and maintained at facilities with the objective of attaining a nationwide,
aggregate oil recovery capacity of 200 tons of oil per hour, conditions permitting.
Implementation of this plan depends on the normal budget process, to begin in
fiscal year 1982. A small amount of the equipment ultimately needed to meet this
objective is now in place at three Coast Guard Strike Team locations, but as noted
in the Report on H.R. 6672, more equipment and storage facilities will be needed. If
the need for a further federal effort is demonstrated, the Coast Guard has suggested
a ten year program expansion to a 3,300-10,000 ton/day regional goal. At this time,
though, it is difficult to forecast that far into the future.
Although a prototype Zero Relative Velocity skimmer has been developed through
Coast Guard R&D, a final decision to go forward with a production model has not
PAGENO="0150"
144
been made as yet, and, in any event, this small vessel is not designed for open water
recovery operations. It does appear to be a significant advance in state of the art
machinery capable of working in high currents encountered in relatively protected
waters.
Quite candidly, I must say that I don not believe there now exists an in place
capability to effectively respond to a majOr oil or hazardous substance spill on the
OCS or Fisheries conservation zone. It will take some time before this situation
improves.
Sincerely,
J. B. HAYES,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,
Commandant.
QUESTIONS OF MR. STUDDS AND ANSWERS
Question 1. In the past, the Coast Guard has suffered from a lack of barging
capability to carry spilled oil to disposal sites Has this deficiency been corrected?
Answer We have found that ocean service barges and suitable support vessels
exist in too few numbers in most areas to permit the establishment of local standby
contracts. Also operators are reluctant to interrupt existing contracts with regular
employers to provide vessels on short notice. To help fill the gap when a barge is
not immediately available to carry spilled oil to disposal sites we have procured 11
portable rubber bladders ranging in size from 10,000 to 240,000 gallons. In addition,
offshore drilling operators are being required to address the need for tank vessels or
portable storage containers for the recovered oil/water mixture in their contingency
planning.
Question 2. Could you provide a full inventory of containment and clean up
equipment and its location which is currently available for use by the Coast Guard?
Answer. The Coast Guard utilizes all available resources, including those from
commercial contractors when possible, for cleaning up pollution incidents. We
assume however, that your question refers to the quantity of Coast Guard equip-
ment available for open water use when the required resource is not available in
the commercial sector.
In the area of offshore open water recovery and containment the Coast Guard
presently has 19 skimming barriers (612-ft. each) of the type we used at the Cam-
peche Well site and 4 skimming barrier pumping systems. The inventory includes
16 Adapts which are high capacity pumping units used to offload bulk liquid cargo
from a stricken vessel, 2 viscous oil pumping systems and 11 portable storage
bladders, ranging in size from 10,000 to 240,000 gallon capacity. We also own 2 large
rotating disk skimmers though they are not designed for truly open water use.
This equipment is located at our strike team locations on the Atlantic, Gulf, and
Pacific coasts with the mix varying according to National and International needs
and maintenance requirements. We are presently budgeted to increase our inven-
tory skimming of barriers to 26 by 1982. These we plan to store at suitable high risk
areas.
Question 3. Given the Coast Guard's inability to fulfill all of its inspection require-
ments under the OCSLAA due to a shortage of personnel, what sort of inspection
program for offshore drilling rigs is planned for Georges Bank?
Answer. Because of resource limitations the Coast Guard is emphasizing inspec-
tions of mobile offshore drilling units and manned platforms, and omitting required
inspections of unmanned units. The units that will engage in exploratory drilling on
Georges Bank will be mobile offshore drilling units and will all be inspected.
Inspections are generally conducted prior to the start of drilling operations and as
necessary thereafter. The Coast Guard has established a Marine Safety Detachment
at Hyannis, Massachusetts staffed with four personnel to perform this function.
This detachment is colocated with the U.S. Geological Survey Office in Hyannis.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
U.S. COAST GUARD,
Washington, D.C., October 15, 1980.
Hon. EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, and Hon. JOEL PRITCHARD,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. FORSYTHE and MR. PRITCHARD: Thank you for your letter of September
15, 1980, forwarding additional questions for the record on the testimony of Captain
Charles Corbett, Chief, Marine Environmental Response Division, who appeared
PAGENO="0151"
145
before the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee on August 26 1980 Our responses are an enclosure to this letter
We appreciate your continued interest in this topic area
Sincerely
J B HAYES
Admiral US Coast Guard
Commandant.
Enclosures.
QUESTIONS OF MR. FORSYTHE AND MR. PRITCHARD WITH ANSWERS
Question 1. What is your definition of a major oil spill of the size referred to in
your statement? What is the flow rate of the blowout, the duration of the blowout,
as well as the total level of spill in relationship to time?
Answer Within the context of OCS activities we consider a major oil spill to be
one which is discharging (or expected to discharge) at the flow rate of 1000 barrels
during a 24 hour period Since any blowout would include the threat of such a
flowrate it would be considered a major incident There may be other occasions
when a spill of lower actual discharge would be considered major; for example if an
especially sensitive environmental condition existed at the time of the spi]l
Question 2. What do you mean by your statement that you could not respond to a
major oil spill? Does that mean you could not attempt to contain or disperse the
spill, or does it mean you could not completely recover the oil? Please be specific On
all accounts.
Answer. Indeed, weather conditions permitting, we would attempt to contain,
recover or disperse the spill (providing the discharger was not taking adequate
action). It would be a rare occasion when, even with good weather, we could recover
all of the oil. We do not believe that there exists an inplace capability to be fully
responsive to a major oil spill on the OCS.
Question 3. Have you ever claimed you could completely retain and recover the oil
from a major oil spill?
Answer. We have no recollection of consciously claiming that we could completely
retain and recover the oil from an offshore discharge. On the other hand, we have
often said recently, that oil spills are difficult to deal with, often hampered by
weather, and that there is no one universal mechanism with which to address all
discharges.
Question 4. In cleanup operations and potential harm, is there a difference be-
tween a tanker spill of refined products and crude oil?
Answer. Refined products transported by tanker range from very light gasolines
to heavy bunker oil, all of which are derived from crude oil. Generally, the lighter
refined products are more toxic than the heavy refined products and crude oils. The
type of cleanup operation and the potential harm from any of these oils including
crude is largely dependent on the quantity spilled the location time of year
weather current and wave action and other factors The light refined products are
more harmful because they mix more easily and impact a wide range of aquatic life.
The heavy refined products and crude oils make a more visible mess but are
relatively less toxic and easier to recover.
Question 5. As you know, today's state of the art in oil and gas operations far
surpasses that which existed just eight or ten years ago. With this in mind, and to
put things in proper perspective, how many major oil spills that have been caused
by blowouts have occurred on the OCS in the past ten years, and how many have
created significant recreational or biological harm?
Answer. Our records indicate that since 1973, there have been 23 oil/gas blowouts
from offshore production facilities. The record of oil spill quantity from blowouts is
not accurately attainable. The Coast Guard would consider any blowout as a major
incident or a potential major spill.
In our view the two most significant discharges from offshore operations were the
Santa Barbara Spill and the Chevron Platform spill. Both created recreational
disruption. We have reports that the Santa Barbara spill resulted in biological
harm The degree of biological harm resulting from oil spills is highly controversial
even within the scientific community.
Question 6. What entity actually has the responsibility to retain and clean-up
crude oil spills as a result of OCS oil and gas activities? What procedures are
involved, what stand-by safety measures are in effect, and what (subjective or
objective) is your opinion of the record that has been established over the past seven
to ten years?
Answer. The lease operator has the responsibility to retain and clean-up crude oil
spills as a result of OCS oil and gas activities. The Coast Guard provides technical
PAGENO="0152"
146
review of the lease operator's oil spill contingency plan and advises the USGS on
the adequacy of spill response, cleanup equipment and procedures. An MOU be-
tween USGS and the Coast Guard that will formalize this arrangement is under
development. Of course, if the discharger fails to take adequate action the Coast
Guard would declare a Federal action and initiate a response. It is our opinion that
the industry has had a good record over the past seven to ten years.
Question 7. What role does the Coast Guard play in blowout clean-ups, what is the
procedure, and how many times has the Coast Guard been involved in clean-up
activity relating to U.S. OCS oil and gas activity over the past year? Please be
specific.
Answer. In accordance with National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, the Coast Guard provides the On Scene Coordination (OSC), and
would chair the Regional and National Response Teams. The OCS would engage
those commercial and federal capabilities he judges necessary to address the dis-
charge. This would occur only if the Coast Guard determined that the response
action by the discharger was inadequate.
In 1978, the Coast Guard was involved in 52 oil discharges from OCS offshore
production facilities and no oil discharges from offshore pipelines. These amounted
to 0.4 percent of the total number of oil spills in the U.S. that year.
In 1979, the statistics are 21 oil discharges, and one oil discharge from the same
respective categories, amounting to 0.2 percent of the total number of oil spills in
the U.S.
None of these spills required significant Coast Guard response activity.
Question 8. In your judgment, should there be or is there anything startling about
your statement concerning your inability to perform clean-up operations in greater
than ten foot waves or 20-knot winds?
Answer. In our judgment, there is nothing startling about the inability to perform
clean-up operations in greater than ten foot seas and 20 foot winds. As stated in the
testimony, significant natural dispersion of oil takes place in 8-10 foot seas and in
such conditions surface recovery operations may not be feasible, one reason being
that people cannot fully or safely perform under such circumstances.
Question 9. Does industry have any advantage over the Coast Guard in their
ability to respond to, handle, or to control oil spills resulting from blowouts?
Answer. Industry contingency planning is developed to respond to a known threat
and of a narrow range of products at a specific location. The equipment can be
maintained near the threatened area and logistics can be well planned ahead of
time. The Coast Guard, on the other hand, is required to respond to spills over a
wide area with uncertain volumes of a large range of products. In consequence,
Coast Guard equipment is generally more portable, being transported in lightweight
modules, covers a larger spectrum on oil and hazardous substances and is usable in
a wider range of sea or environmental conditions. Transport delays can be expected
and there may be times when, due to the multi purpose nature of the equipment,
site specific hardware would be more effective.
Question 10. How many clean-up operations have actually been conducted by the
Coast Guard since 1970 resulting from blowouts by U.S. OCS operators?
Question 11. How many clean-up operations of oil spills resulting from U.S. OCS
blowouts has the Coast Guard been involved with in any capacity, and what was
that capacity?
Answer. Our records indicate that there have been 23 offshore blowouts reported
to the Coast Guard since 1973. The role of the Coast Guard has been to monitor the
cleanup and mitigation activities performed by the parties responsible for the dis-
charge.
Question 12. How many clean-up operations resulting from tanker spills has the
Coast Guard been involved with since 1970? Please be specific and include products
involved.
Answer. Coast Guard tanker spill data for 1973-1979 is provided in Enclosure (2).
Question 13. During clean-up operations, isn't it a fact that high winds and rough
seas are a benefit in cleaning up a spill (such as occurred during the Bay of
Campeche cleanup operations)? Isn't it also a fact that crude oil that mixes with the
water column is actually broken down because of the natural events that occur
when crude oil mixes with sea water?
Answer. High winds and rough seas will always hamper an operation at sea. A
storm will decrease the efficiency of the operation and increase the risk to person-
nel. On the other hand such weather can, if carrying the oil away from an environ-
mentally or economically sensitive area, improve the overall situation by reducing
or eliminating the impact and subsequent stress of spilled oil on those areas.
Oil when released to the environment begins a biodegradation process. Some oil
mixes with the water right away, but most remains as a part of the slick. It is true
PAGENO="0153"
147
that breaking waves, or whitecaps, mix the oil into the water column faster. This
does not necessarily speed up the biodegradation process. In fact, when the storm
subsides, much of the oil that was mixed may return to the surface. It may take
years for the natural process to entirely cope with an oil spill. Even with our best
efforts, impacted areas often take a long time to recover.
Question 14. How does our current ability to deal with an oil spill resulting from a
U.S. OCS blowout relate to the U.S. record of blowouts over the past ten years?
Answer. Our current offshore response capability was discussed at length during
Captain Corbett's testimony. Our projected offshore capability includes the acquisi-
tion of 26 mechanical recovery systems by the fall of 1981. Based on industry's
capabilities in addition to ours, we feel the response posture for spills resulting from
OCS blowouts will be rather good in 1981. We must keep in mind, however, that
Coast Guard resources are used for vessel, pipeline, and other source mishaps as
well as for OCS activities. Our emphasis for OCS activities is to see that the
industry itself develops the capability to respond.
Question 15. On March 17, 1977, the President sent a message to Congress request-
ing that legislation be passed in order that we will be able to contain an oil spill by
achieving a response time of six hours, and to handle a spill of 100,000 tons. This
request was in response to the Argo Merchant breakup-a tanker containing refined
products. How does this request relate to OCS blowouts, as compared to the more
frequent and dangerous tanker spills?
Answer. The goal which the President set for the Coast Guard in his message of
17 March 1977 has been used as a planning factor in the development of Coast
Guard open water response. Proposed industry response requirements for spills
related to OCS activity were considered in an effort to be consistent with the
response goal mentioned in the President's message.
At the time of the President's message on reducing pollution of the ocean we had
no equipment which would permit the recovery of oil in seas greater than 5 feet
regardless of the source. Since that time, we have modified devices for oil recovery
at sea and developed techniques that would permit us to deploy these devices in up
to approximately 10-foot seas. Regardless of whether the source of a discharge on
open water is a tanker or an OCS blowout, the response effort would most likely
involve the same equipment and techniques.
Question 16. During questioning, Captain Corbett stated that, "the main thrust of
our activities on the OCS is not to provide Coast Guard equipment, but to insist.
to insist that operators have the contingency plans, operating procedures, the equip-
ment to fully respond within six hours to an oil spill on the OCS".
When was this policy instituted, and what has industry's response to that policy
been?
Answer. The USGS requires planning for pollution prevention and control in
their OCS Orders Governing Oil and Gas Lease Operations. These Orders were
extensively revised in 1979. The recent revisions reflect the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act Amendments of 1978 and contain requirements for the development of
Oil Spill Contingency Plans. More specific equipment and operational guidelines
were developed and transmitted by the Coast Guard for the consideration of the
USGS Area Oil and Gas Supervisor, Region I, in March, 1980. These guidelines will
be used in the review of oil spill Contingency Plans for Georges Bank.
Question 17. Could you please give an update on the state-of-the-art in oil spill
skimmer technology? Is the Coast Guard's skimming barrier considered to be "state-
of-the-art" and would it be required in an industry contingency plan?
Answer. As stated in Captain Corbett's opening remarks, the state-of-the-art for
mechanical oil recovery seems to be operations in 8 to 10 foot seas and 20 knot
winds. The skimming barrier in the Coast Guard's inventory has operated in these
conditions. This specific device is not required in an OCS operator's equipment
inventory. A device with comparable performance characteristics would be required.
Question 18. If a large-scale oil spill occurred near Port Angeles, Washington,
what would be the probable Coast Guard response in terms of time, equipment and
other Coast Guard resources?
Answer. A large-scale oil spill occurring near Port Angeles would probably re-
quire response by the Pacific Strike Team located at Hamilton AFB near San
Francisco, California. We estimate it would take 4-5 hours after a request is made
to have an aircraft fully loaded enroute to the nearest Port Angeles airport with a
three hour flight time. This response would depend upon the availability of aircraft
and weather conditions permitting flying. Containment and recovery operations
would commence as soon as suitable vehicles and support vessels capable of trans-
porting, deploying and operating the response equipment are made available and
the transport executed.
PAGENO="0154"
148
Question 19. Captain Corbett testified that operating capability of open Ocean oil
recovery equipment will likely not exceed current state-of-the-art of eight to ten foot
seas and 20 knot winds, and that in addition to hazard to personnel and equipment
in more severe sea states an oil spill will not remain on the ocean's surface in
sufficient quantity to make mechanical clean-up feasible. Given these facts, why has
the Coast Guard not advocated the use of low toxicity dispersants in such conditions
such as are commonly used throughout the remainder of the world? Would not the
use of dispersants as an acceptable tool increase the U.S. response capability to a
satisfactory level?
Captain Corbett when discussing use of dispersants commented, "Sometimes when
we disperse, we do it intentionally. That is not necessarily good. It might save
Amenity Beach but it might kill a fish or two. . . "Please comment on the known
effects of low toxicity dispersants on fish populations.
Answer. Until recently, there were very few low toxicity dispersants. Even now
there is disagreement in the scientific community on the effects of dispersants. Our
policy recognizes the fact that the situation is being clarified and that dispersants
are a useful option. Of course, any dispersant use would be under the provisions of
Annex X of the National Contingency Plan, a copy of which is enclosed. Also
enclosed is a portion of a U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report on
research into the toxicity and control criteria of oil dispersants which we obtained
from the USEPA. We suggest any further inquiries be directed to that agency which
is the lead agency and has overall responsibility for the government policy on the
use of dispersants.
Question 20. Captain Corbett stated, in effect, that oil spill clean-up equipment in
the Philadelphia area is inadequate for the OCS. Was this equipment designed for
OCS operations and does its presence, in fact, have any relationship to OCS oper-
ations? Is the Coast Guard aware of industry clean-up equipment dedicated to mid-
Atlantic OCS operations? Is such equipment designed to operate in the OCS?
On what basis have the 11 sites for stockpiling Coast Guard clean-up equipment
been chosen?
Answer. While a large number of commercial contractors and cleanup coopera-
tives exist in the Philadelphia area, most specialize in shore cleanup and have
equipment that functions in protected waters and near shore locations. Our experi-
ences have indicated that there is insufficient call for offshore equipment to make
the large capital investment needed to maintain this capability attractive to the
commercial sector unless stimulated by requirements such as those that are cur-
rently intended for activities on the Georges Bank.
We have requested from the USGS a specimen of mid-Atlantic contingency plans
and will forward a copy when received.
In answer to your second question, the eleven sites were chosen on the basis of a
spill risk analysis based on historical spill data. The study identified locations of
expected spills and was the key to site area selection.
Question 21. Does the Naval Weather Service Detachment have cumulative prob-
ability distribution data on wind speeds and wave height for the Georges Bank area
to support that published in the EIS for Sale 42? Is or is not the wave height less
than 10 to 12 feet greater than 90 percent of the time?
Answer. The Coast Guard has no independent data to support or challenge the
findings of the studies cited in the ElS concerning the sea conditions on Georges
Bank. We understand that NOAA, under the supervision of the office of Environ-
mental Data and Information Service is undertaking a "Climatological Oil Spill
Planning Guide for Coastal Federal Region I" which should shed much light on this
subject.
Question 22. What type of capability does the Coast Guard envision for responding
to spills in the Gulf of Alaska resulting from OCS activities?
Answer. The Coast Guard plans to treat the Gulf of Alaska as other OCS Areas.
The USGS has published OCS orders governing oil and gas operations which require
the lessee to provide an oil spill contingency plan including an equipment inventory.
This will greatly increase industry's capability. The Coast Guard plans to maintain
pollution response equipment at our Pacific Strike Team location, presently Hamil-
ton AFB, near San Francisco; at or near Seattle, WA and Kodiak, AK. Equipment
and people from the locations would be the first to respond from Coast Guard owned
resources. The Coast Guard is also coordinating our Research and Development and
response efforts with those of Canadian officials.
Question 23. Could you explain precisely from your perspective the role of the
Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, and the industry in the development,
evaluation, and approval of an oil spill contingency plan?
Answer. The USGS requires, through their OCS orders governing oil and gas
lease operations, that an Oil Spill Contingency Plan be submitted by the lessee for
PAGENO="0155"
149
approval By informal agreement the Coast Guard reviews the plans and makes
comments and recommendations to USGS. This procedure is being formalized in a
memorandum of understanding between the two agencies
Coast Guard tanker spill data for 1973-1979 is provided in the following table.
TANKERS SPILLS WITH COAST GUARD RESPONSE
Material 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Light crude:
Number of spills 113 141 115
Total gallons 560,264 1,479,199 2,769,983
Sum recovered 664,344 312,897 98,329
Heavy crude:
Number of spills 66 114 117
Total gallons 1,536,107 341,385 306,197
Sum recovered 826,569 314,227 4,664
Natural gasoline:
Number of spills 1 3 1
Total gallons 10 65 10 168 4,309
Sum recovered 60
Gasoline:
Number of spills 24 44 31 39
Total gallons 55,708 137,373 855,429 19,090
Sum recovered 3,862 3,250 832,878 6,449
Jet fuel:
Number of spills 12 9 10
Total gallons 2,163 567 1,138
Sum recovered 863 262 413
Kerosene:
Number of spills 7 4 5
Total gallons 527 77,901 480 10
Sum recovered 429 3,646 155 8
Distillate:
Number of spills 10 19 15 13 11
Total gallons 1,878 4,693 36,908 1,042 1,003
Sum recovered 295 2,947 31,368 759 908
Naphtha:
Number of spills 6 3
Total gallons 335 109
Sum recovered
Mireral spirits:
Number of spills
Total gallons
Sum recovered
Solvent:
Number of spills 1 1
Total gallons 15 100
Sum recovered 14
Light diesel:
Number of spills 76 89 67 114 98
Total gallons 378,459 42,378 125,503 24,141 270,856
Sum recovered 64,430 13,452 4,410 16,656 106,331
Heavy diesel:
Number of spills 21 24 27 15 34
Total gallons 11,200 3,386 3,684 1,183 65,987
Sum recovered 7,634 1,828 2,565 942 2,185
Number 4 fuel oil:
Number of spills 27 37 23 18 20
Total gallons 2,604 44,836 131,804 1,419 22,279
Sum recovered 1,504 44,234 59,624 815 2,883
Number 5 fuel oil:
Number of spills 6 5 9 10 8
Total gallons 5,075 742 74,470 85,003 1,000
Sum recovered 5,015 681 74,454 24,142 940
Number 6 fuel oil:
Number of spills 225 233 181 186 216
Total gallons 117,440 1,058,722 631,665 9,322,897 941,346
111 120
497,553 9,674,885
66,095 27,413
97 101
358,127 84,642
76,912 38,894
159 138
33,024 910,206
12,882
94 64
36,045 88,171
15,287 75,325
5 3
55
21
44 48 37
80,811 271,773 400,983
78,617 86,829 28,759
5 2 14 12
395,848 6 669,102 4,633
2 148 4,249
6 5 3
17,507 2,152 54
8,802 1,860 8
9 12
124,835 2,165
583 32
2 4 1 5
25 495 3 137
3 132 5
6 25
3 2
1,060 11
550
78
82
105
207,831
18,870
30
9,883
858
123
293,213
11,236
21
56,899
7,650
13 10
2,874 122,060
304 210
12
10,765
8,073
255
481,074
926
165
229
450,993
PAGENO="0156"
150
TANKERS SPILLS WITH COAST GUARD RESPONSE-Continued
Material 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Sum recovered 74,385 553,914 107,763 1,277,390 204,632 56,119 69,044
Asphalt:
Number of spills 22 16 12 15 21 21 21
Total gallons 10,163 19,593 1,894 3,159 58,769 3,733 3,070
Sum recovered 8,533 6,169 1,503 3,621 56,002 1,944 1,204
Coal tar:
Number of spills 2 2 4 4 3 5 3
Total gallons 25 140 890 1,125 25 83 71,425
Sum recovered 20 140 35 831 5 132 178
Waste oil:
Number of spills 41 55 34 46 34 31 35
Total gallons 7,244 11,822 43,175 9,270 10,121 3,205 3,123
Sum recovered 5,832 4,085 23,278 6,930 4,074 1,567 1,627
Lube oil:
Number of spills 2 24 26 30 28
Total gallons 10 1,033 1,015 1,929 1,446
Sum recovered 5 529 129 390 389
LPG:
Number of spills 1 1
Total gallons . . . . 126 1,000
Sum recovered. 141 1,000
Hydraulic fluid:
Number of spills 4 3 5 6 4 8 6
Total gallons 33 122 64 83 24 291 26
Sum recovered 22 28 13 12 21 263 8
Laquer paint:
Number of spills . 3 2 5 2 1 4
Total gallons 3 11 1,310 2 2 44
Sum recovered 2 1 1,204 1 39
Paraffin:
Number of spills . .. 1 4 1 1
Total gallons . 42 4,129 50
Sum recovered 4,000 25
Grease:
Number of spills 1 2 .
Total gallons 2
Sum recovered 1 .
Mixed petroleum:
Number of spills 11 14 15 8 17 23 23
Total gallons 1,436 4,300 1,204 643 9,364 41,699 892
Sum recovered 1,823 3,252 1,652 501 848 192 500
Oil based pesticides:
Number of spills 1 1 1
Total gallons 6 84 210
Sum recovered 6
Unidentified light oil:
Number of spills 12 11 8 7 12 9 18
Total gallons 820 1,691 490 5,155 1,001 1,132 132
Sum recovered 194 1,656 223 5,122 126 411 20
Unidentified heavy oil:
Number of spills 16 11 11 11 9 11 1
Total gallons 5,401 2,044 31,289 968 341 1,491 1,823
Sum recovered 2,244 1,149 31,091 480 223 244 1,500
Other oil:
Number of spills 52 55 31 26 30 31 35
Total gallons 4,482 5,140 3,825 1,892 4,051 1,225 843,130
Sum recovered 2,525 1,866 1,091 1,981 4,953 513 1,589
PAGENO="0157"
151
Wednesday
March 19, 1980
=
Part III
Council on
Environmental
.
QUality
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan; Final
Revision
£I~L1$IE~
PAGENO="0158"
152
i'71ta2 Federal Register / VoL 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
40 CFR Part 1510
Natlonsl Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; Final Revision
aGesicv Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the
Preoideot.
ACTION: Final Revision of Natiooal
Contingency Plan.
5IJMMARVI These final revisions to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan update the
Plan to conform to the Clean Water Act
amendments of 1977 and restructure the
Plan to eliminate duplication and
simplify reading. Substantive changes
include: (1) Increasing State
participation in the Plan. (21 provision
for the preparation of local contingency
plans. (31 incorporation of the Natiooal
Pollution Equipment Inventory System.
(4) provIsion for Scientific Support
CoordInators. (5) provision for periodic
field testing. and (8) clarification of the
application of the Endangered Species
Act These changes are designed to
Improve the efficiency, coordination and
effectiveness with which Federal
agencies respond to discharges or
substdntial threats of discharges of oil
and hazardous substances.
EFFSCTIV5 DATL March19, 1980.
FOR FIJRTHER INFORMATION CONTACt
Foster Knight Counsel, Council on
Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson
Place, NW., Washington. D.C 20006.
(202) 395-5750, or Richard Hess, EPA*
Coast Guard Liaison. Headquarters. U.S.
Coast Guard, G-WEP/73, Washington,
D.C 20590(202) 42&-987t
5UF#LEMCNTARY INFORMATION:
A. Purpose
We are publishing final revisions ts
the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan,
40 CFR 1510 (as amended March zs,
1978), The Plan is the basis for Federal
action to minimize pollution damage
from discharges of oil or hazardous
substances. The purpose of these
revisions is to update the Ptan and
improve the efficiency, coordination,
and effectiveness with which Federal
agencies respond to a discharge or
substantial threat of discharge of oil or a
hazardous substance. We expect the
revised regulations to improve pisnning
by and c5urdjnanQpAwPpLNswixantp
Federel egefcset (UWøe'b4cstae4t
of environm'onteUiMdWiWP"4
and to fasilitateevaluation of response community during.opiils. Such a
effectiveness, mechanism is necessary in order to
B. Sssnmary of Changes Made by the provide the OSC with sound scientific
Final Revisions, advice in an orderly way, oo that the
OSC does not have to devote scarce
1. Changes fo make the Plan track time to a number of different scientiotu
with the Cleon Waterrtct amendments who are concerned about providing
of 1977.-See particularly 91 1510.3. cleanup advice and conducting
isbn. Following the Clean Waler Act experiments during spill cleanup
amendments of 1977, the regulations operations.
modify the scope of the Plan (1 1510.31
to include the expanded economiczone Section 1510.84(c) establishes a
of the Fishery Conservation and scientific support organization headed
Management Act of 1978. The revisions by Scientific Support Coordinators
apply the Plato potential es weil ~ (SSCu) who are designated by EPA for
actual discharges (9 1510.21(b)). tnlsnd spills and by NOAA for coastal
2. Increasing the role of state area spills.
participation in the Plots-la) Stains are 8' Annual Field Exercises-The
invited to perticipale as full memhere of revised Plan makes provision for
Regional Response Teams (RRT5). Full periodic field testing by the RRTs of
psrticipatiun of high level state their spill response equipment and
representation is desired. See people.
1 1510.23(a) and 1510.34 (a) and (f) Section 1510.34(h) requIres each
(b) Section 1510.23(b). EPA end the~ - coestal RRT to conduct annual training
U.S. Coest Guard should explore the exercises in which equipment is actually
possibility of entering into agreements deployed.
with states which will delegate to the Section 1510.34(1) strongly encourages
stats spill cleanup respsnssbilities. each inland RRT to conduct annual
(c) Section 1510.34 (m), (n) and (~)~ training exercises.
Provisions for RRT membere (including
state members) to appeal decisions of ~ ChongesRefiecting Requirements
the RRTto the National Response Teens of the Endangered Species Act-The
(NRT) and to request further review w revised Plan specifically discusses the
CEQ relationship between spill response and
3. Local Contingency Plans-The cleanup actions and the requirements of
revised Plan makes provision for local legislation protecting endangered or
contingency plans for dealing with sgiuis threatened species.
In ports or local ereas. Section 1510.3e(a)(3) provides that
Sectiocs isiO.3e(d) and 1510.42' advice to the OSC provided by DOl
provide that the On-Scene Coordinator through the FIsh and Wildiife Service or
(OSC) Is responsible for developing and by Commerce-through the National
maintaining alocal contingency plan for Marine Fisheries Service on the cleanup
the OSC's ares of responsibility. Local of spills that affect endangered species,
plans must Meetify (1) Environmentally shall be binding on the OSC (with
sensitive areas. (2) most probable specified exceptions).
locations for pollution incidents, (3) the & Public Information-The previous
kinds of resources that would be needed Plan provided for dissemination of
to respond to spill Incidents, (4) where . public information in Annex VI.
such resources can be obtained, (5) The revised Plan moves the provisions
plans of action for protecting vulnerable of Annex Vito new § 1510.37. In
resources, (8) sites for disposing addition, changes are made to make the
recovered oil and hazardous substances, Plan conform to the existing public
and (7) a local organlzstional ~ information network.
for spill response.
To aid the development of local 9. Restrsicturmns' Plan for Easier
contingency plans, 1 1510.34(d) provides Reading-The prevsons Plan contained
that RRTs must designate members to considerable useful information buried
assist the OSC in local contingency In tis Annexes.
planning. The revised Plan shifts this more
4. Notionol Pollution Equipment Important material into the body of the
Inventory System-The revised Plan in Plan. The revisions also add'new Annex
9 1510.43 incorporates a national matensi (new Annexei II, VI and VIII).
inventory of equipment and resources See attached comparison of Previous
available for oil and hazardous Plan and Revised Plan.
substance spill response. In addition, the revisions eliminate
5. Scientific Support Coordinators.- duplicative material and rewrite some
The revised Plan provides a mechanism provisions to achieve clarity and to
for coordination between the On-Scene make minor corrections of outdatedPlan
Coordinator (OSC) and the scientiSt information.
PAGENO="0159"
P~te,aP1s,, R.uts,d plea
153
Federal Register I Vol 45, No 55 / Wednesday March 19 1980 I Rules and Regulations 17333
zSo,too gallons earlier in the year Plan on May 14, 1979 (44 FR 28155) with
reaulted in massive shoreline damage on to days for public reviewand comment.
the Chesapeake Bay as 27 miles of Ths comment period was extended
MacA ast ~C ue~ ~ coaailine were contaminated by the oil. upon request until September 1, 1979,
41510.32.' (Anne, A- On June 3, 1979 the worst oil apill in The Council received comments from
~`~Zt~ history began with the blow-out of the oil Industry, independent waterways
a NeelaS easeene seclualales ste a' lX'I'OC No. 1, a well being drilled in the operators, state, regional and local
tallSllatesOlul). ~ (A~~t..' Bay of Campeche by PEMEX. Mexico's governments and miscellaneous
theeea'efAqetaet) national oil company. Estimates of the interested parties, totalling 29 written
Mast* 10(011,5 1.aesse,sal Oe,sleaaea,,ae, ~"e~ oil apilled ranged from 10000 to 30 000 comments In addition the regional
Pete Auawes&t ~ barrels per day. Efforts to plsg the well offices of the principal federal agencies
ease Icateeseesseess eaeeasasu, e.nois.se.' were unsuccessful and drilling of two provided a number of technical
leases ~-0aa,,, ~,5e5a' relief wells began. By late July 1979 comments
Mesa ot pate ltseitseae4. pate aoeenseae a, cleanup efforts were only partially The Councils staff read and analyzed
a (M,se Vt" succ saful at beet deap Ce the efforts of each of the comm nta rec ed and
~eseeu.nslees Mexican authorities, the U.S Coast developed recommendations were then
uoosce.t Guard's Open Water Containment presented to the National Reaponae
Masa vi (LeusiAatheeeaal ~ Recovery System and dean p firms T am for further evalu I on and
.e,sv.t from around the world. Towards the end recommendations. Finally comments
Aeaea~5(Oee,nwtssos Oaaeeseatee~adcae of the summer of 1979 huge oil slicks raising significant issues together with
`°!`~"~` ~i~a...osLaa,oe moved north and threatened the Texas staff andNational Response Team
Isaeies latest. . coast The U.S. Coaat Guard and Texas recommendatione for appropriate
Mesa (PuethsJ._....... ~trat15:'*5t authorities prepared to try to protect the changes were presented to the Council
Mesex(setsaieaa esesaseasaes highly productive estuaries behind the for resolution.
string of-barriertalands on the south When, alter dlscuaaions and review
Haaedsas5eslaessst, Texas coast and to mitigate damage to the Council determined that the
seatS e1 s,tuM PteaPedaS eeetearsM beaches and the tourist induatry. Oil comments raised valid concerns, the
AZtSV tl 10.23. . from tha spill ultimately reached the Planregulations were modified to reflect
MacSi is.'*t- south Texas coastline affecting a large those concerns When the Council
reeaes,s ~ geographical area and a multitude of determined that reasons oupporting the
s,oOaftlas~5Tasiesat vie oaseiaee.aareaesos local and regional interests. Response Plan provisions were stronger than
learnt' Iseeaeleseec Vet efforts however were moderately those for changing them, the Plan
successful in mitigating damage. provisions were left unchanged. Part D
esn As a reeu1~,pLsuch incidents and of the Preamble deacnbes the more
C. Background continumg United States dependency on significant comments recetved and h w
The Plan w a first bliahed a an oil imported by tanker attention from the Council responded to them.
various levels of government has been
mteragency agreement en.1988.It continually focused on the response D. Comments end tha Council's
became part cf the Code of Federal capabilities of theiederal government Response
the Water QuaIl provementAciof ~ Con?o!e,nfson,Secdon 1510.5-
1970. Section 311(c)(2) of the Clean specific incidents and the general fins ores
Water Act gives the President the federal echeme for coordinated action. One comment objected to the
responsibility for issuing the Plan. B~' In response to-these events and ~ definition of "oil" in g 1510.5, to the
Executive Order 11735 (August, 1~), of-its responsibilIty to recommend extent It Includes oil In combination
this responsibility was delegated to the changes, proposed revisions have been with other subatancee, as being too
Council on Environmental Quality oubmitted to CEQ by the oatlenat vague and tmpreeiae. The Council
(CEQJ. In 1973 the Plan was published lot Response Team, the national group of however determined not to change the
its currept format The version that Is federal agencies responsible for definition as It repeats verbatim the
being revised by these final regulations planning and coordtnationunder this definition of "oil" in § 311(a)(1) of the
was publish in W75 with some minor plan, . Clean Water Act
changes mcorporated in 1978 Some problems were also addressed Several comments were critical of
A number of events over the past two In the Clean Water Act amendments of I 1510.5(r)(1)'s definition of a minor
years have identified opportunities for 1977 (Pub 0. No 95-217 amending ~ discharge of a hazardous substance as
Improving the Plan. In late December U.S.C. 1251 ef seq.) which changed the "a quantity less than that defined as
1978, the Argo Merriiont ran aground on jurisdiction of the Plan. The revision of reportable by regulation (40 CFR Part
Nantucket Shoals, 27 milee from the Plan reflecis these statutory 1174." The comments expressed concern
Nantucket Ialand,Maasachusetis. The changes. that this definition was inconsistent
resulting spill of 7,5 million gallons of oil The revised Plan also addresses other with EPA'a hazardous spills regulations
led to a massive spill response action problems noted in the course of where the enumerated substances are
under the National Contingency Plan. response actions. In October 1977, CEQ considered hazardous if a quantity equal
Although the weather conditions . requested information from the States to or greater than tha"reportable
exceeded technological capabilities for on problems they had encountered to quantity" Is spilled. The purpose of the
recovery of the oil, those same activities under the Plan. Twenty.seven Plan Is to provide for removal of oil and
conditions meant that no oil reached the states responded. generally expressing hazardous substances even in cases
Massachusetts shoreline. In April 1978, satisfaction with the Plan but offering where no liability attaches to the
Massachusetts submitted a Petition for suggestions for improvements. dtecharger.There are many instsnces
Rulemaking to revise the Plan, asking for The Council publiabed proposed where the quantity of hazardous
specific changes. In addition, a spill of revisions to the National Contingency substances spilled cannot be accurately
PAGENO="0160"
154
17834 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 55 / Wednesday. March 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
determined. A definition of minor The National Response Team which Council determined to leave this part of
discharge which excludes less than has overall operational and 1510.36(a)(3) unchanged. Annex X is
reportable quantities will discourage implementing responsibility for the modified to include a cross.reference to
efforts to remove such spills. For these National Contingency Plan l 1510.36(a)(3). These changes do not
reasons, the Council determined not to recommended that I 1510.36(b) not be affect the OSC's authority to use
change the definition of minor discharge changed because in certain inland chemical dispersants such as to
of hazardous substances. waterway regions EPA pmvides the substantially reduce explosion or fire
The comments also recommended most effective On-Scene Coordinator, hazards to property where there is no
establishing a practical lower limit in while in others (where the Coast Guard * threat to endangered species.
the definition of a minor oil spill such ~ is the moat effective). EPA normally With respect to the use of chemical
California's 10 gallon limit. The Council predesignates the Coast Guard to serve dispersants covered by Annex X.
determined however that the existing as the inland waterway OCS. `I'bs several commenters recommended that
definition in 9 1510.5(r)(1), `less than National Response Team therefore ~ ~ Coordinator be provided
1000 gallons", is working well and recommended that the existing with authority to allow the spiller or his
should not be changed. flexibility In allowing both the EPA and
the Coast Guard to be On-Scene agents to use registered chemical
Comments on Section 1510,21-Federal Coordinators for inland waterways dispersants in offshore areas for
Responsibility (depending on the circumstances) Is ` protection of sensitive environmental or
Some comments pointed out that the preferable to a fixed rule assigning only commercial ftsheryv areas without the
proposed language for 9 1510.21(a) did the Coast Guard to that function. Based concurrence of the EPA representative
not adequately reflect S 311(c)(1) of the on the National Response Team's ~ the Regional Response Team. The
Clean Water Act by omitting the experience and recommendations, the National Response Team carefully
modifier "substantial" before "threat." Council therefore determined to leave considered this request but concluded
Section 311(c)(1) specifies Federal 9 1510.36(b) unchanged. that the continuing involvement of EPA
response actions where there are Some coinmenters expressed concern representatives before use of chemical
discharges or a "substantial threat" of that the proposed revisions to the Plan dlspersants outweighs any benefits to be
such discharge. The Council agrees with (particularly § 1510.36(a)(3) with respect derived by allowing the spiller louse
these comments. Since this problem was to compliance with the Endangered dlspersants in such areas without
presented in other parts of the proposed Species Act and with respect to the use advance EPA concurrence. The Council
revisions, the Council is correcting it by of chemical dispersants governed by adopted the National Response Team's
changing the definition of "potential Annex X) diminished the On.Scene recommendation with respect to this
discharge," In * 1.510.5(n), to mean "any Coordinator's authority and issue. However, it is the Intent of the
accident or other circumstance which effectiveness to respond quickly to a Plan that the EPA Regional Response
constitutes a substantial threat of a spill.. These commenters requested that Team member continue to work closely
discharge of oil or hazardous 9 1510.38(a)(3) and Annex X be changed with the Coast Guard On-Scene
substance." Thus, subject to § 311(c)(1), to eliminate restrictions on the OSC's Coordinators to provide greater
Federal responsibility exists for authority. - guidance-in advance of spills-on the
discharges and potential discharges. Section 151028(a)(3) provides that circumstances that justify use of
These changes address these same advice to the On-Scene Coordinator chemical dispersanis.
comments with respect to *9 1510,21(b), provided by the Flab and Wildlife Several commenters felt that the
1510,53(a), and 1510,83(b). ServIce (Department of the Interior) or priorities of the Plan were insufficiently
Comments on Section 1510.36(b)-On' by the National Maxine Fisheries spelled not and recommended that the
Scene Coordinator Service (Department of Commerce) on primary goals of a spill response be (1)
cleanup actions that may affect to protect human life and limb and (21 to
A number of companies and endangered species shall be considered minimize ecological impacts of spills.
organizations involved in the carriage of at all times and be binding on the On. The National Response Team believes
bulk petroleum and chemicals in inland Scene Coordinator unless in the OSC's that these priorities are inherent in the
waters requested that 9 1510,36(b) be judgment contrary actions must be taken Plan and are already covered In
changed to provide that the U.S. Coast to protect human life. The Council does * 1510.36(a)(3) and Annex X, The
Guard (rather than the Environmental not regard this provision as anew
Protection Agency) furnish or provide limitation on the OSC's authority to act Council agrees with the NET and that
the On-Scene Coordinator for all but rather as an incorporation of the On-Scene Coordinators have adequate
navigable waters of the United States requirements of the Endangered Species explicit guidance on these priorities.
which are used by waterborne Act which, since 1973, has applied to ~ Onecomment recommended that
commerce. The principal reasons given activities of federal agencies and § 1510,38(a)(1) be clarified to provide
in support of this change are: (1) that thg responsible federal officials. In essence, that the first official from an agency
Coast Guard is already required to be this provision is designed to assist the with responsibility under the Plan to
involved in inland waterway discharges USC to comply with the Endangered arrive at the scene of a discharge is to
In order to evaluate compliance with Species Act, through the expertise of the function as acting USC (if other than the
pollution prevention regulations and to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the predesignaled USC) until the OSC
evaluate penalty assessments. and (2) National Maxine Fisheries Service arrives. The NET determined that
that it would be an unnecessary (NMFS), In circumstances where § 1510.36(a)(1) already is sufficiently
duplication of federal agency resources cleanup actions may affect endangered clear on this point by providing that the
to have the EPA act as On-Scene species. Whenever the USC determines first official to arrive on scene "shall
Coordinator for inland waterway spills that certain actions must be taken to coordinate activities under the plan until
Furthermore EPA's cepability to act protect human life, the USC's judgment the USC arrives." "Shall coordinate
quickly as the On-Scene Coordinator will prevail over FWS or NMFS advice activities" Includes authority to act as
was questioned by some commenters. to thecontrary. For these reasons the USC.
PAGENO="0161"
155
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 I Rules and Regulations 17835
Comments on Section 1510.37-Public Comments on Section 1510.83-Generai
information Network Pattern of Response Actions
Several comments expressed concern One comment objected to the
that proposed § 1510.37(b) establishes a sentence in I 1510.63(a)(3)(i) which
regional news office aa the "aingle prmndes "The discharger's removal
source of official information on the efforts are `improper' to theextent that
incident', to the detriment of the public Federal efforts are necessary to prevent
interest in obtaining information from further damage." The coniment
public agencies and private interests. expressed concern that this language
Section 1510.37 has been substantially prevents or discourages a discharger
rewritten, and eliminates the regional from seeking Federal removal assistance
news office as the single source of where Federal assistance would speed
official federal information. As rewritten the discharger's otherwise "proper"
removal actions. The comment
§ 1510.37 provides for coordination of misconstrues ~ 1510.e3(a)(3)(i). That
news releases through the OSC. through section doss not mean that otherwise
an on~scene news office or a national "proper" removal actions by the
news office. Participating federal disch~ed are rendered improper
agencies are given a larger role in the simply because the discharger seeks
public information network. At the same Fedemi assistance.
time, Information from private interests
ona pollution Incident remains Comments on Section 1510.64.-Special
unaffected by § 1510.37 or any other Forces
provision in.ths Plan, because the Plan Several comments were received
cannot regulate the manner or contecit of concerning this section. The State of
Information on a pollution incident Washington felt that this section
provided byprivate interests. To duplicated and conflicted with its own
provide for greater coordination with oil and hazardous spills contingency
local government anew sentence is plan provisions governing marine
added to I 151tL37(a)(1): [When a major resources damage assessment Section
pollution incident occurs) "Those 1510.64 has been substantially revised
immediately capable, especially local. . based on NRTrecommendations and the
fire, police and government officials, comments received. Withrespectto the
will be contacted first so that they may State of Washington's comment
use all available resources to notify the * 1510.84(c)(2)(l)(aa) makes it clearthat
public of a potential threat." well developed stats scientific support
organizations like Washington's should
Comments on Section 1511142-Local be employed to support the OSC.
Contingency Plans Section 1510.64 is not to be construed as
One comment recommended tI~t requiring the development of duplicatory
local contingency plans also include federal scientific support äoordlnators
development of methods for protecting where an effectivestate scientific
environmentally sensitive areas, This is support organization can be utilized to
addressed in 1 1510.42(a) (~ls.~5 of support the OSC. as coordinated by the
actionfor protecting vulnerable state representative on the Regional
resources). Response Team.
One commenter recommended
Comments on Section 1510.42-NatIonal changing the title of Scientific Support
InventorySysteni Coordinator to Scientific Support
Advisor. However the NRT believes that
One comment suggested that standard Scientific Support Coordinatormore
Indemnification agreements be entered accurately reflects the role of the
Into between the Federal government scientific support organization which
and private parties whose cleanup involves advice to the OSC and RRT but
equipment is listed in the inventory suCh Is primarily a coordination role. For this
that owners will be indemnified for any reason the title was not changed.
damage that may occur when the Another comment recommended that
equipment is used at the direction of the the discharger be advised of the scope
On.Scene Coordinator.The NRT of studies to be undertaken by the
recommended that indemnification for scientific support organization and be
damaged private equipment need not be offered an opportunity to comment on
addressed in the Plan because private Its potential liability. The Plan
equipment used by the OSC is obtained recognizes, as the comment points out
through rental or other contractual that the line between damage
agreements which contain adequate assessment studies (where there may be
indemnification provisions. The Council liability) and pure research (where there
therefore deferred to the expertise of the Is no liability) Is difficult to draw.
NRT on this Issue. However this problem is addressed In
revised 15 1510.65 (b) and (c) which
make it clear that the OSC is In exerciae
sufficient control over removal
operations (including damage
assessment) to be able to certify that
reimbursement is appropriate.
Concern has also expressed that
proposed 5 1510.54(c)(1) "would
seemingly exclude contractual
agreements with commercial
environmental firma" to provide
scientific assistance and damage
assessment for the OSC. This was not
the intent, and I 1510.64(c)(2)(i)(aa), as
rewritten, expressly includes industry.
Comments on Section 1510.65-Funding
Several comments were received
critical of the proposed language in
§ 1510.65(c). The concern expressed by
these comments was that the proposed
language implied that the OSC would
not be requesting oervices and resources
where essential to an effective Federal
response. The Council agrees that the
indicated language in proposed
§ 1510.65(c) was inappropriate.
Therefore the last three sentences in.
proposed.5 1510.65(c) were removed and
conforming changes were made to the
last sentences in 5 1510.65(b) and
1510.65(c).
Other Comments
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
urged that the Plan provide for the
financial capability otthe participating
agencies in carrying out the Plan,
through an annual assessment of funds
available to each agency. The Plan is
not authorized to require annual
assessments. In response to this
comment, however, * 1510.85 relating to
funding has been changed to clarify
eacloagency's funding authority and
responsibility. Massachusetts also
Indicated that proposed 1 1510.64(c)
providing for scientific support
coordinators from both EPA and NOAA
was a costly redundancy. Section
1510.64(c) has been modified but still
preserves the SSC role for EPA in inland
waters and for NOAA in coastal waters
because the NRT determined this
allocation of agency expertise would be
the most effective.
The New England Congressional
Caucus recommended proviaion in the
Plan for requiring spill cleanup
equipment to be stationed near areas of
probable spills. The NRT recommended
that rather than stationing equipment
the moat efficient approach is to
maintain an up.to.date national
inventory and to provide in local
contingency plans for the identification
of types and locations of clean.up
equipment and resources. The Council
adopted the NRT recommendation. The
69-848 0 - 81 - 11
PAGENO="0162"
156
17836 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 I Rules end Regulatione
Ca cuo also recommended that the applicable regional and local substantially revised both In re ponse to
Atlantic Strike Team be redeployed to contingency plane. public comments and to incorporate
an area to the nortbeaat of its preaeot (41 How are relations with the oewe experience gained by the NRT during
location. Deployment decisions are media and public bandied? Section 1979 concerning the Campecbe Bay and
within the loriadiction of the U.S. Coaat 1)10.37 provides for relations with the . other oil spills affecting U.S. watere in
Guard. The Council baa therefore news media and for public informatioo the Golf of Mexico.
referred this recommendation to the U.S. where there is a Fe4eral response to a Section iaio.84 relating to Special
Coast Goard. spill ander the Plan. The Plan, of course, Forces has been revised in response to
The International Association of FIre cannot govern the manner or content of public cnmmentsand NRT
Chiefa expreased concern that the Plan Information provided by the discharger. recommendations, particularly with
unduly and excessively interfered with Where the discharger retains c ntrol of respect to clarifying there ponsib I ties
local agency authority to control and the deanop and removal actions, the of NOAA. EPA and the Department of
ouoerviae api)) response efforts, public Information and news media the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
pa~ticularly with reapect to responses by provisions In §lalO.37 will not applyi in providing scientific support
local fire and civil defense officials. A they only apply where a Federal
number of changes were made in response Is initiated ander thia Plan. ~ ory yeas
reapnnae in thia cntinam in order In For the reasons given above and Because the Plan governs the Federal
high) gbt the tmportance of coordination becanse the NRT does not believe any governments response to oil and
with total officials and to emphasize sigiaiflcant problems exist In the hazardous substances pollution and
that the Plan covers only theFederal relationship between the discharger and does not regulate private activities, and
reapnnse. See fll)10.23(a) lalo.34(fl, thaFederal government that are not since the revisions to the Plan are
ItlO 38(d) iaio 37(a)(1) and 1510 42(a) already addressed in the Plan, the NRT primarily of a simplifying and updating
Concern was also expressed that recommended that no additional nature, the Council, supported by a
11510.57(a) authorizes the OSC In keep provisions be added to the Plan recommendation from the Nfl,
the fire chief and civil defense officials concerning these points. The Council determined that a regulatory analysis
out of the affected area. That section is deferred to the NRT's recommendations. ander E.O. 12044 was not required in
not intended to give the OSC each Severe) comments from theoil conjunction with the publication of the
authority. Local contingency plans, Industry recommended that the Plan Final revisions. The final revisions to
particularly with the cooperation of require the RRT to eend copies of their the National Contingency Plan
local fire and civil defense officlala are activity reports (under §lalO.34(g)(9)) to implement the policy and other
to be developed Ins manner consistent the oil indnstry. These reports arc re4ulrements of Executive Order 12044
with local fire and disaster plane and available to the public the American (Improving Government Regulations) to
requirements. See llalo.42(a). Petroleum Institute representative the fallest extent possible. The revised
One comment recommended attending NRT meetings as an observer Plan has been simplified and
expansion andclariflcetion of the Plan will be able to obtain copies of such substantially rewritten In plain
concerning the reletiooahip between a reports and provide for appropriate language. In reviewing the proposed
responsible discharger (a daachsrger distribution to the oil tedustrsr revialons the Council gave careful
who is taking proper action to dean up fth e1comm~nt rec;r~?n e ele~ attention to minimleing any burden on
the spill) and the Federal government ~ ~ rm 0 & ~ th!,publlc.
The comment recommended coverage of as e maccure e. inc determinations required by
at least four points which are listed recommendation was adopted. SectIon 2(d) of the Order have been
below with responses: `S. Additions) Changes Based oa teas made by the Council and are availab)e
(1) What Is the continuing role of the lntersgency Comments sad ~ onrequest.
OSC if the discharger Is in charge of tha Recnmmendeilons G. Conclusion
Following publication of the proposed We could not, of course, adopt every
revisions to the National Contingency suggestion that was made on revisions
c w pro es a e Plan federal agency review resulted ins lathe National Contingency Plan We
con respansa t)~ tO number of additional changes of have tried to respond to the major
momlor dean up actions being takenby essentially a clarifying nsture. These en concerns that were expressed. We are
erger an to provi a a vice, summarized below. confident that en Issues which arise in
(2) Does the OSC continue as the The distinction between Federal
govarnment spokesman for all levels of primary and advisory agencies under ~ tM
government? This Is addressed in the the Plan baa been eliminated since over and local go ernmJts Jdthe a a e
affirmative by §giSi0.S(k) (definition of a period of time It has become ertici cliii a codes to the Re o al
OSC). 1510,21(a) and Section 1510)2(c). meaningless. All Federal agencies under L5 or~se Taa~.s and the Nation~~.l
(3) Howls government support and the Plan are now referred toes Response Team. The National Response
assistance obtained by the discharger participating agencies. See ft1SlO.5, Team will continue to supervise
(e.g. scientific support)? This Is 1510.22, 1)10.32. 1 n tin f th P1 d w
addressed by §51510.52(c), 1SIO.83(a)(3), Provisions governing referrals and ap~rópriate make recomm:dationsto
1510.e3(b)(3)(tl) and 1510.84. The OSC'e appeals of decisions byths Regional th C dl f dditi alrevi I
monitoring and surveillance 4uties Response Teams have been clarified. tt:pprectate the :ffaris of the man
includes providing advice and See 551510.2(10). 1510.32(m) and (n).. en 1 ho artici ated in de 1 in 1'
assistance to dischargere concerning Descriptions of Federal agency . ~nd~re0i ¶he re~lslons to thP?an?
proper cleanup and removal actions, expertise and roles under theplan have ~ a
Diochargere are encouraged to seek been further updated. See 551S10;4,
scientific support advice through the* 1510.22(b). 1510.84(c), and Annex III. °~`~°°`
OSC on mattere not alresdy covered by Section 1510.37 concerning the public Part 1510 Is revised to read as set
this Plan and annexes, and the Information network has been forth below:
PAGENO="0163"
157
Federal Register / Vol 45 No 55 / Wednesday March 19 1980 / Rules and RegulatIons 17837
PART 1510-NATIONAL OIL AND~
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POU.U'flON CONTINGENCY PLAN
SubpartA-lnwoductlos,
*
1510.2 Purpose and objectives.
15102 Authority,
1510,3 Scope.
1510.4 AbbrevIations.
1510.5 DefinItions,
~ ~ .~ R
1510.21 Federelresponaibility.
1510.23 Duties of Federal agencies,
1510.23 Non.Federel perticlpati a.
Subpart C-OrganizatIon
151021 Emergency respense activitlesand
coordination.
1510.32 National Response Teem.
1510.33 N lionel Response Cent,
1110.34 Regional Raspeoee Teem.
1510.35 Reglonalfieeponse Centen.
111050 On ce coordinator
1510.37 Public iafomrationnstwork.
`
SubPart ~
151041 RegIonal coatlusgencypls.na.
111042 Local contingency pierre.
1510.43 NatIonal Inventory systeeg.
SubpsrtE-Oporatlonal.Rsponss Phases
151011 Pbasel-Dlsco ery andn tlficatlon..
1510.52 Phase II~-Eveluatloa sndlnltlstlea
Subpart A-.4ntroductton 11510.3 SCope.
(a) The Plan applies to all Federal
11510.1 oSSSfldobjeCthrs, agencies aud is In effect for the
This National Oil anti Hazardous navigable waters of the UnltedStates
Substances Polution Contingency Plan and adjoining shorelines, for the
provides for coordinated Federal action contiguous zone, and the high seas
to try to prevent discharges of oilend beyond the contiguous zonein
hazardous substances, and to protect . connection with actlvitiee under the
the environment from damage when Outer Continental Shelf LandsAct or
discharges occur. The Plan also the Deep Water Port Act of 1974, or
promotes Federal State coordination which may effect natural resources
and encourages local governments and belonging to appertaining to or under
private firma to build capabllltlesfor . the exclusive management authority of
cleanlngupdlscharges. the United States (including resources
under the FleheryConservatlon and
I 1510.3 Asthorfty Management Act of 1978) (See Sections
This Plan was developed In 312(b)(1) and 502(7) of the Clean Water
compliance with Sectlon3ll(c)(2) of the Act).
Clean WaterAct. as amended (33 U.S.C. (b) Inrpleinentation of this Plan is
1321(c)(2)). lnExecutive Order 11735, the* complementary to the Joint U.S./
President delegated to the Council on Canadian Contingency Plan (Including
Environmental Quality authority and the annexes pertaining to the Great
responsibility to prepare, publish, revise, Lakes, and the Eastern and Western
and amend aNallonal Contingency Plan coastal areas) the Joint US /Mexican
for the removal ofollandhazardous Contingency Plan (when adopted by
substances, . both parties); end International
(b)ThePlan andits Annexes, ~ assistance plans end agreements
regionalend local plans,provids f~ security regulations,snd responsibilities
(1) Ass ent of Ibilities based upon Federal etatutes and
~n~o~gFedend agencies, In coordination ExeCUtive Orders. This Plan shall be
with State and local agencrer utilized to coordinate u a Involvement
(2) IdentIfication, procurement. In joiluti s in ide Is occurring In
maintenance, and storageof equipment ~ the `
*
1110.83 Phone W-Contarnment end
coenterm esure
1510.54 Phase N-Cleanup, mitigation end
(3) Establishment or designation of §1510.4 AbbrevIations.
(I) Astzike force to carry out the Plan (a) Department ozrdAgencytitle
end abbreviationer
1510.55 Phase V-Documentatlonsnd ~
~
1510.50 Pollution ~
1110.57 Special conolderatlene.
.
Subpsrt F-Coordinating Instnictlons
1510.61 DelegatIon ofauthorlty.
1510.63 MultI-regional actions..
1510.83 Ceesral pattern ofrooponaeactleaa.
1110:64 SpecIal forces available to the OSC.
1510.85 Pu0di~5
UstotAnnusse
.
(li)Tralned and adequately equipped CEQ-Councll on Environmental
emergency task Lorcesatmajor ports; Quality,
(4) A system of surveillance and Corps.-"U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers.
reporting to glveresponsible Fedenil DHEW-Department of Health,
and State agencies the earliest possible Education, and Welfare,
notice of discharges of oil ~ DOC-.Department of Commerce.
hazardoussubatenceeor imminent DOD..Depathnentof Defense.
threats of such discharges. DOEDepertinent of Energy.
(5) EstablIshment of a national center DOI-Depertnient of the Interior.
to provide forcoordination and DOJ-Department of Justice.
direction of operations incarrying out DO1.-Department of Labor.
the Plaso epartment o State
. . . DOT-.DepartmentofTrensportation.
, a or en . `e. , EPA-Environmental Protection Agency
containing, dispersing, and removing oil FEtaIA-Federal Emergency
. end hazardous substances; . Management Agency.
(7) A schedule, prepared In FWS-.US Fish and Wildlife Service
cooperation with the states, IdentifyIng . MarAd-Maritime Administration,
~ N?~F1~..National Marine Fisheries
(8) A system for reimbursing stateafor NOAA-National Oceanlcand
reasonable coats Incurred in removing Atmospheric AdmInIstratIon.
dischargesr . USCG-.U.& Coast Guard.
(9) A procedure for coordinating USDA-Department of Agriculture,'
scientific support of cleanup operations, USGS...U.S. Geological Survey.
assessment of damage after a spill, and USN-US. Navy.
research efforts; end (b) Operational title obbreviatlonar
(10) A system for referral and appeal ERT-'-Envlronmental ResponseTeam,
of decisions of the Regional Response NRC-National Response Center.
Teems and On Scene Coordinators NRT-.National Response Team,
.
.*
Mess
~
1100 ~
1200 rinse ci ea~en~ ano'tsee conensune,
~ O~ ~ ~
1400 LaotIMreenoas. IV
005 Coers~e~,a SOcicun AoaiaSt.5 000051
too sainec,aa~tsrpncaon.,,,,., or
~ ~
~
,
Authoeltyr Sec. 311(c)(2l, Pub. z. sz-soa as
amended 50Stat. 55533 U.S.C. 1321(clfZ);
ExscutlveOrderlll3s, 35 FR 21243 (August
ie~
PAGENO="0164"
158
17838 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
OSC-On~Scene Coordinator.
PIAT-Public Information Assistance
Team.
SSC-Scientiflc Support Coordinator.
RRC-Regionsl Response Center.
RRT-Reglonal Response Team.
§1510.5 DefInitIons.
(a) Act-means the Clean WaterAct.
as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1251, ci seq.
(b) Activation-means notification by.
telephone or other expeditious means to
the appropriate state and local officials,
to the regional or districtoffice of
participating agencies. or, when
required. the assembly of some or all
members of the RRT or the NRT.
(c) Coastal waters-generally means
U.S. waters which are navigable by
deep draft vessels, including the
contiguous zone and parts of the high
seas to which this Plan Is applicable and
other waters subject to tidal Influence.
(d) Contiguous Zone-means the zone
of the high seas, established by the
United States underArticle 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone, which Is
contiguous to the territorial sea and
which extends 12 miles seaward from
the same baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured. -
(a) Discharge-includes, but Is not
limited to, any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or
dumping of oil or hazardous substances.
Discharges permitted under Section 301.
302, 306. 318, 402 or 404 of theActor
Section 102 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(Pub. L. No. 92-532) are not Included.
(f) Hazardous substance-means any
substance designated as hazardous
under subsection (b)(2) of sectIon 311 of
the Act(ses 40 CFR Part 116).
(g) Inland waters-generally means
US. waters upstream from coastal
waters.
(h) Major disaster-means any
hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high
water, wind-driven water, tidal wave,
tsunami, earthquake, drought fire or
other catastrophe in the United States
which the President determines lobe
damaging enough to warrant major
disaster assistance under the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-288).
(I) Presidential Emergency
Determination-a formal Presidential
decision made at the request of a Stats
Governor determining that a situation
constitutes an emergency' in
accordance with the provisions of the
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Pub. L 93-.
288).
U) 011-means oil of any kind or in
any form, including. but not limited to,
petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and
oil mixed with wastes other than
dredged spoil.
(k) O,~.Scene Coordinator(OSCJ-
means the Federal official predesignated
by the EPA or the USCG to coordinate
and direct the Federal response to spills,
and discharge removal efforts at the
scene of a discharge;
(1) Phases-response actions fall Into
five classes or phases. Phase us
Discovery and Notification; Phase 11.
Evaluation and Initiation of Aclion
Phase SI, Containment and
Countermeasures; Phase 1V, Removal,
Mitigatlonand Disposal; and Phase V.
Documentation and Cost Recovery.
Elements of any phase may coincide
with other phases. For a full description
of the phases, see SubpartS, 1510.51-
55,
(m) Plan-means the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Pls~
(n) Potential discharge-means any
accident orother circumstance which
constitutes a substantial threat of a.
discharge of oil or hazardous substance.
Severity of potential discharges shailbe
classified according to theguidelines in
subparagraph (r}below.
(o) Participating agencies-means all
departments and agencies on the NRT
that have responsibility and provide
resources for the effective operation of
this Plan.
(p) Public health orwelfsre-lncludes
all factors affecting human health and
welfare, including, but not limited to.
human health, the natural environment
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and
private property, shorelines and
beaches.
(q) Remove or removal-means the
removal of oil or hazardous substances
from the water and shorelines or taking
necessary actions to minimize or
mitigate damage to the public health or
welfare. Under this Plan, removal refers
to PhasellI and IV response operations.
(r) Size classes of discharges-The
following classifications are provided as
guidance for the 080 and serve as the
criteria for the actions delineated In
Section 1510.63. They are not meant to
imply associated degrees of hazard to
the public health or welfare, nor are
they a measure of environmental
damage. Any discharge that poses a
substantial threat to the public health or
welfare, or results In critical public
concern shall be classed as major
discharge regardless of the following
quantitative measures. -
(1) MInor discharge-means a
discharge to the Inland waters of less
than 1000 gallons of oil; or a discharge to
the coastal waters of less than 10,000
gallons of oil; or a discharge of a
hazardous substance in a quantity less
than that defined as reportable by
regulation (40 CFR Part 117).
(2) Medium discharge-means a
discharge of 1.000 to 10,000 gallons of oil
to the inland waters; or a discharge of
10.000 gallons to 100,000 gallons of oil to
the coastal watecc or a diacharge of a
hazardous substance equal to or greater
than a reportable quantity as defined by
regulatIons (40 CFR Part 117).
(3) Major discharge-means a
discharge of more than 10,000 gallons of
oil to the Inland waters; or more than
100,000 gallons of oil to the coastal
waters; or a discharge of a hazardous
substance thatposes a substantial
threat to the public health or welfare, or
results In critical public concern.
(a) United States-means the States,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto RIco, the
Canal Zone, Guam. American Samoa,
the Virgin Islands. end the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Subpart 8-ResponsIbIlIty
§ 1510.21 Federal responsibIlIty.
(a) This Plan seeks to Insure a
coordinated Federal response at the
scene of a discharge, os's potential
discharge of oil or hazardous substance
that poses a threat to the public health
or welfare. In the event of a discharge,
the Federal 080 shall first promptly
determine (under section 311(c)(1).of the
Act)whether the person responsible for
the discharge is taking proper action to
remove the discharge or threat of
discharge. If practicable, the 080 shall
make the person responsible aware of
his financial responsibility. If the OSC
determines that the person responsible
Is taking proper action, the 080 shall
monitorprogress and provide advice. If
the person responsible does not act
promptly or falls to take proper removal
actions, or If the person responsible Is
unlmown, or ifs potential discharge Is
considered to exist, further Federal
response actions shall be undertaken
promptly In accordance with this Plan.
(b) Removal actions taken under
section 311(c)(1) of the Act are limited to
the areas described In § 1510.3(5) (Scope
of Plan). When a discharge or potential
discharge that poses a threat to U.S.
waters, occurs outside the Plan's
jurisdiction, tile procedures of this Plan
and those of regional and local plans
apply to the extent practicable; removal
will take place under other legal
authorities.
(c) In accordance with section 311(d)
of the Act whenever a marine disaster
In or upon the navigable waters of the -
United States has created a substantial
threat of a pollution hazard to the public
health or welfare, because of a
PAGENO="0165"
159
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 1~839
discharge or an imminent discharge of Continental Shelf Lands Actoperations for coastal and territorial waters and the
large quantities of oil or a hazardous shall be in accordance with the August Great Lakes; and assist EPA in damage
substance from a vessei,,ihe United 1971 Memorandum of Understanding assessment in coastal areas and on the
States may
between 001 and DOT concerning high seas. When requested by NRT.
(1) Coordinate and direct all public respective responsibilities under this DOC through MarAd will provide advice
and private efforts for the removal or Plan. on the design, construction and
elimination of the threat and (h) Discharges of radioactive operation of merchant ships.
(2) Summarily remove and. if materials shall be handled pursuant to (4) The Department of Defense,
necessary, destroy the vessel by the Interagency Radiological Assistance consistent with its operational
whatever means are available without Plan which is administered by the requirements, may provide assistance in
regard to any provisions of law Department of Energy. maintaining navigation chsnnels. in the
governing the employment of personnel removal of navigation obstructions, and
or the expenditure of appropriated * 1510.22 ~0t ~ in salvage. Upon request of the OSC,
funds. The authority for these actions (s) Each of the participating Federal NRT, or USCG, the services and special
has been delegated under Executive agencies has duties established by equipment of the Supervisor of Sslvage.
Order 11735 to the Administrator of EPA statute, Executive Order, or Presidential USN will be provided as available for
and the Secretary of the Department in directive which may be relevant to the the cleanup and control of oil spills.
which the Coast Guard is operating, Federal response toe pollution Upon request from the OSC, locally
respectively, for the waters for which discharge. See Annex IV for a deployed Navy equipment may be
each designates the OSC under this description of applicable legal provided.
Plan. authorities. Regional contingency plans (5) The Department of Energy
(d) When the Administrator of EPA or shall call upon agencies to discharge atimimsters, implements, and
the Secfetary of the Department in these duties ins coordinated manner. coordinates the Interagency
which the Coast Guard is operating They shall provide fon Radiological Assistance Plan (IRAP),
determines there is an imminent and (1) Identification of the statutory DOE will advise the NRT when
substantial threat to the public health responsibilities of all agencies involved; assistance is required In identifying the
and welfare because of an actual or (2).Prompt notification of agency source and extent of radioactive
threatened discharge of oil or hazardous representatives in the event of a contamination, sndin the removal and
substanceinto orupon the waters of the threatened or actual oil orhazardous disposal of radioactive discharges.
United States from any onshore or substances spilh (6) The Department of Health,
offshore facility. he may require, through (3) Designation of agency Education, and Welfare is responsible
the Attorney General, that the U.S. representatives to assist OSCa In for providing expert advice and
Attorney of the district in which the developing local contingency plans; and assistance on discharges or potential
threat occurs secure the relief necessary (4) Coordination of agency discharges that pose a threat to public
to abate the threat. The NRT may representatives with the OSC during a health and safety.
request EPAor the USCG to exercise pollution incident (see 1510.36(a)(3)~. (7) Federal Emergency Management
this authority. The action described here (b) The following Federal agencies Agency participates in the development
isin addition to any other actions taken have specific duties and responsibilities and evaluation of national, regional, and
by a state or local government forthe which are relevant to a response to local oil and hazardous substance
same purpose. discharges of oil or hazardous pollution contingency plans in
(e) Federal agencies with facilities or substances: accordance with Executive Order 12148,
other resources which maybe useful in (1) The Council onEnvironmental Section 2-1: monitotu responses related
a Pederalresponse situation will make Quality is respons)ble forpreparing., to such plans in accordance with
those facilities or resources available for publishing, revising end amending the Executive Order 12148, Section 2-2; and
use In accordance with this Plan and the National Contingency Plan. The NRT evaluates State Governors' requests for
regional and local plans. Federal Will advise CEQ on necessary changes Presidential declarations of major
resources shall be made available to the to the Plan and CEQ shalilnsure that disasters or determinations of
extentpossibie, csrssiatent with any disagreements among participating emergency under Pub. L 93-288(42
agencies' operational requirements, agencies are expeditiously settled. U.S.C. 4401, at seq.), the Disaster Relief
within the limits of existing statutory (2) The Department of Agriculture Act of 1974.
authority, and within the spirit of the provides expertise In managIng (8) The Department of Interior,
President's and the Congress intent to agricultural, forest, and wilderness through the USGS, can provide expertise
minimize discharges end their effects, areas and in selecting landfllldloposal in the fields of oil drilling, producing,
(f)Environmental pollution control sites. The Soil Conservation Service can handling, and transportation by pipeline.
techniques shall be employed in provide to the OSC predictions of the The USGS supervises continuously
accordance with applicable regulations effects of pollutants on soil and their manned facilities which can be used for
and guidelines, and regional and local movements over and through soil. command, control and surveillance of
contingency plans. In any circumstances (3) The Department of Commerce, discharges occurring from operations
not covered by regulations, the use of through NOAA, shall provideicientific conducted under the Outer Continental
chemicals shall bets accordance with expertise on living marine resources for Shelf Lands Act. The Bureau of Mines
Annex X and must have the concurrence which It is responsible, Including may provide analytical facilities which
of the EPA representative or alternate endangered species and marine ` in an emergency could be of aid in
representative on the RRT. In the mammals (see 1510.36(s)(3)); identifying inorganic hazardous
absence of the EPA representative or coordinate scientific support, provide substances, Thi~ough its pollution
alternate, the concurrence of the current and predicted meteorologic,, response coordinators, the Fish and
appropriate EPA regional administrator hydrologic. ice and oceanographic Wildlife Service of 001 will provide
must be obtained, conditions for the high seas, coastal, and technical expertise to the OSC and RRT
(g) Response actions to remove Inland waters; provide charts and maps, on fish and wildlife and their habitats,
discharges originstingftom Outer including tide and current information, including migratory birds, marine
PAGENO="0166"
160
17840 Federal Register / Vol 45 No 55 / Wednesday March 19 1980 1 Rules and Regulations
mammals and endangered and responsibleformintmlzlng the are contained In § 1510.85 and 33 CFR
threatened plante and animals (See posaibllity of discharges; fordeveloptng fart 153.
8 1510.38(5)13)). 001 is responsible for the cspabilttyto respond promptly to (cl It Is particularly important to
implementing this plan inAmerican dtacbarges from facilities they operate coordinate the technical information
Samoa and the Truss Territory of the or supervise; andformsking resources generated by. scientists from the Federal
Pacific Islands when required. available for Federal pollution response and State governments, from industry,
(a) The Departmentof loetice can operations. universities. and elsewhere to asetat the
provide expert advice on complicated (d) Inadditlon to theirgeneral 050 indeveloping cleanup strategies in
legal questions arising from discharges responsibilities underparagraph (c) of environmentally sensitive areas; to
and Federal agency responaes. Ibis section. participatingagencles are sastat In the performance of post spill
(10) The Department of Lahor. through responsible for damage assessments; and to assure that
the Occupational Safety and Health (1) Leading all Federal agencisa in pertlnentresearcb will beundertaken to
Administration, will provide the 050 programs to minimize environmental meet nettonal needs The scientific
with advice, guidance. and assistance damage associated with diecharges from support aspect of thiaPlanis described
regarding hazards to personsmvolved In facilities they operateorsupervise; in § 1510.84.
removal or control of oil or chemical (2) ProvIding representation as (ci) Federal local contingency plans
spills. andsn the precautions necassary necessery to the NRTeOdRRT5, and should establish procedures to allow for
to prevent hazards to thelrheelth and giving assistance to the RRTa end OSCs well.organlzed and worthwhile
safety. to formulatingreglonal and local employment of volunteers. Local plans
(11) The Department of contingency piarm should provide for the direction of
Transportation provides expertise on all (3).Developlng the operating volunteers by the 050, or by other
modes of transporting oil and hazsrdous capsbthty in thelrpsrtlculer areas of Federal, local orstate officials
substances. Throagh the USCO. DOT expertise fore rapid response to any knowledgeable in cootl en
offers expertise in the domestic/ pollution discharge in coordination with eratl d hi f dm
Intemationsi fields of porteafety and other Federal egeocleer leadership. Local plans shLld e1so~
security, marine law enforcement, ship f4)Melcingnecessew information Identify speciflo areas in which
navigation anctconstnuction. and the available to theNRT, RRT, or OSO; arid volunteers can best be usedsuch ae'
manningi operation, and safety of (5) InformIng the NRT andRRTs beech surveillance In sticsl en
vesselsandmerlne facilities The USCfP (donslatent with oetioael security bird andwtidltfe treatment and11t'
also maintains cootinuouslymaoned considerations) of changesin the scientific investi atone, Normall
facilltieswhlch csnbe used for availability of resources thai would voi is hbul~ lb d f
* com iand.pontroLe d surveillance of affect the operation of thiaPlem physlcslrernoval of pollutants. If the
oil discharges occurringon the waters of § i5tO.fl Hen-Pedant parlielpeolen. substance discharged Is toxic to
those areas where It proviLtheOSC~ (a) Every SteteCoveraorlaesked to h~nans or If In the J~d~nent,~the 050
nis, enctrevisea the ~~pjy~o~ ,i'ciunitshall not be penrnltted at on
regsonaland local contingency plans as ~~thtta ~%rttdt
(12) The Department of Stetawill lead designate theelement of the State. routine education and training of
in developingjointlnternetional. govemmeot that will direct state volunteers so that training during an
contingencyplans. Itlvtli elsn help to supervised dtscharge removal actuel incident wlllnnt be necessary.
coordinate an international response operations.Particfpatioo of officials ` Information on discharge andremoval
whenpollution discharge crosses frnmmunlclpetities wtthmajor ports efforts should be provided to volunteers
intemationel boundaries orinvotves - and waterways Is also Invited In the frequentty during the course of planning
foreIgn fiegveseels~Additinnelly. this RET. (See 1510.34(f).) to insurecoordlnsted effort and
Depsrtmentwill coordinate requests for State and local govemment agencies * meaningful participation.
*assistance from foreign governments are encouraged to include contingency Subpart C~Organlzetlon
and U.S,propodels forconducting planning fordiachergeremovel in sit
research at incidents that occur in emergency and dtsesterplannlng. 8510.3 Emergency responaeacolvltlae
waters of nthercnuntrles. Federal local contingency planarequlred ~ e~o n On.
(13) The Environmental Protection by this Plan shall becoordinated with (a) Ins pollution emergency. the 050
Agencyprovides expertise on plane developedby slate and local, is responsible for Federal on scene
environmental effects of pollution governments This is especially coordination. The OSC provides reports
discharges and environmental pollution important for traffloonotroL land to and receives advice from the PitT
control techniques. EPA will also advise access. end dispnsatof pollutants ~ charged with rggional coordination. The
the RRT and 050 on what degree of removal operations. * PitT Is composed of representatives
hazard a discharge poses to the publtti Ib) States, industry groups, academic from the regional anddlatrlci offices of
health and safety. and will coordinate organizatcltis. and tithers are the participating agencies. States, and
scientific supporo.lnctuding assessment encouraged to cnmmitresources for local goversments.
of damages, in the inland regions. For removal operations. Speciflu (b) National coordination is
those aresawhere it provides the OSCI commitments shall be listed in Federal accomplished through the NRT which
EPA chairs the PitT which develops, regional and local cbntingency plans receives reports from and provides
Implements. and revises regional end EPA and the.USCG should explore the guidance and advice to the RRTs.
local contingency ptans as necessary. possibility of cnncludlngmemorande Activites are coordinated through the
EPA will coordinate with USCG in the delegating responsibility to cnncemed* facilities of the national and reginnel
preparation of regional and local States fnrcleanup of certain spills. response centers.
contingency plans for pollution ctintrol Details on reimbursement to states for (c) The organization of this PlanS
and protection of the environment removal actions takenunder to this Plan shown in Figure 1.
(c) All Federal agencies are eweo coae iiii'ol-M
PAGENO="0167"
17841
_____ ____ ____ LD?T
I LE~A~1. L D~c1 LUS~A j
* I PARTICIPATING
L oos~j DOJ ~ LDH~W I
j Lo~i ~] L DOE 1* LFE~AJ
AGENCIES
1
1510.34[Rv] I -. 1
1510.35 L~RRc~1~
(~osc ~ 1510.36
151~4 (toN SCENE
161
Federal Register / Vol 45 No 55 I Wednesday March 19 1980 / Rules and Regulations
National Contingency Plan Concepts
1510.32 IIINRT -1 LD?PII] LDOII
1510.33 [L.NRcJJI _________ I
OTHER
RESOURCES
1510.23
BILUNG C0g5 3125.01-c
FEDERAL
* AGENCY
RESOURCES
1510.22
STATE
RESOURCES - - -
1510.23
Rgure 1
PAGENO="0168"
162
17842 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1610.32 NatIonal Respone. Team.
(a) The NRTconsists of
representativeafrom the participating
agencies. It is the national body for
planning and preparedness before a
pollution discharge and for coordination
and advice during a discharge. Each
participating agency ahall designate a
member to the team and sufficient
alternates to insure representation.
(b) Exceptfor periods of activation
because of a pollution incident, the
representative of EPA shall be the
chairman and the representative of DOT
shall be vice.chairmsn of the NRT. The
vice.chalrman ahalimaintain records of
NRT activities along with national.'
regional and local plans for pollution
response. When the NRT is activated for
a pollution incident, the chairman shall
be the representative of EPA or DOT~
depending upon the area In which the
response is taking place.
(c) NET meetings see open to the
public Upon invitation of the chairman
and with the consent.of members, non..
governmantobsarvers ntay.partlcipate
wIthotatvote In any meeting of the NRT
on matters of their direct concern. They
shall be provldedwlthreporta issued by-
the NRT. Invitations toparticipate shall
be given to a non.Government
organization 18
(1) The organization canreasonably
be expected to-make a significant
contribution to the work of the Teens
(2) The organization's work, past and
present, has a direct relationship tothe
work of the Tesno and
(3) The organization Is not
represented at the NET through another
organization.
(d) Normally, when the NRT Is not
activated for a pollution incident, It shall
serve as a standing committee to
evaluate the preparedness of the
agencies and effectiveness of plans for
responding to pollution discharges, to
recommend needed policy changes In
the response organization, and to
recommend revisions to this Planes
needed.
(e) The NET shall consider and make
recommendations to appropriate
agencies on the training and equipping
of response teams; necessary research,
development, demonstration. and
evaluation to Improve response
capabilities; and equipment, material
stockpiling, and other operational
matters as the need arises. CEQ shall be
advised of any agency's failure to
respond adequately to these -
recommendations.
(f) The NET shsilvecommend
revisions of thiaPlan to CEQ for
approval and publication.
(g) Scientific advisors shall be
designated. from EPA. DOC-NOAA, and
DO1-PWS, to advise the NET on
scientific matters related to pollution
response, and to coordinate and oversee
the regional scientific support
mechsniam (see § 1510.84). They shall
also evaluate and advise the NRT ott the
desirability of carrying outcesearch
affecting waters and resourcesnot
under thi jurisdiction of the United
States.
(lt'jTha NET shall eetablishand
maintain a Research and Development
Committee to:
(1) Provide the latest Information on
FederaLagencies' research..
development, and demonstration
activities for spill response and cleanup;
(2) Respond to NET requests for
scientific and technical Information;
(3) IdentIfy appropriate research and
-development initiatives;
(4) ProvIde forinformatlon exchange
between agencies onresponseresearch,
development, anddemonstratton
projects. The committee shall report to
the NRTatthe June andflecember
meetings and at othertisnesupon
request
(l)Ad hoc committees may alsobe
established from time to time.
Reprpsentatlves from the participating
ageucleewittidlrect involvement In such
commltteee' charters shall serve op
these committees,
(j) Planning and preparedness
responsibilities of the NET are to: -
.(1)-Màka a continuing review of
regional responses topollutlon
lncldents.wlth an evaluation of
equlpmentreadlness sndcoordinatlon
among responsible public agencies and
private organizations. - -
(2) ConsIder necessarychanges In
policy on the basis of the continuing
review of regional responses to pollution
incidents -
(3) Develop procedures to ensure the
coordination of Federal, state, local
government, and private responses to
pollution Incidents:
(4) Review regionalptans andreports
of activities from RRTs, and make sure
that RRTs are functioning satisfactorily.
(5) Inform the Research and
DevelopmentCommittee onrssearch
requirements Identified during
* discharges of unusual materials or under
unique circumstances; --
(8) Review continuously sod act upon
reports by the Research and
Development Committee:
(7) Maintain readiness to respond to a
nationally slgnlflcantdlacharge of oil or
hazardous aubatancear
(8) Monltorlncoming reports from all
RRTs and activate the NET for a -
pollution Incident when appropriate;
and
* (9) Meet monthly or more frequently
to review pollution emergency response
actions of the precedlng'period. receive
reports from the R&D Committee and ad
hoccommittees. Information on the time
and place of meetings maybe obtained
from the National Response Center (see
11510.33).
(k) The NRT ahailbe activated as an
emergency response team when
requested by any team representatIve or
when a dlschargsn
`(1) Exceeds the response capability of
theregiooinwhichitoccurar -
(2) Transects regional boundaries; or
(3) Involves significant population
hazards or nationalpolicy issues,
substantial amountS of property. or
substantial threats to natural resources.
When acting as an emergency
response team, the NET shall consist of
representatives from the participating
agencies. Each representative or an
appropriate alternate shall be notified
Immediately by telephone of the
emergency activation of the NET.
(I) When activated for a pollution
Incident the NET shall meet at the call
of the chairman and shall:
(1) Monitor and evaluate reports from
the OSC. The NET may recommend to
the OSC, through the RET, actions to
combat the discharge;
(2) Request cther'Federal, state, and
local governments, or private agencies
to consider providing resources under
their existing authorities to combat a
discharge of monitor responee -
operations;
(3) CoordInate the supply of
equipment personnel. ortechnical
advice to the affected region from other
regions or dls$cts and
(4) Prepare publiclnformatlon
releases and transfer Information
between the OSC and tbeWashlngton,
D.C., headquarters of the agencies
concerned. Public information is
.dlscuseedin g15rn37.
(m) The NET shall consider any -
matter referred to It for settiement by an
RET or OSC when the matter cannot be
resolved at regional level on an
Interagency basis. Unless circumstances
dictate otherwise, further actions will
not be taken on matters thus referred to
NET until the NET position has been
transmitted to the RET and CISC. Any
member of an RET may petition the
NET for a review of matters considered
* by theRRT. Petitioning RET members
-may appear before the NET to present
theirarguments but shall not have the
right to vote In NET deliberations on the
disputed matter. While the NET desires
to achieve a consensus on all matters
broughtbefors It. certain matters may
prove unresolvable through normal
debate or discussion. In such cases.
PAGENO="0169"
163
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday. March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 17843
each cabinet department or independent developments occur and not later than activated for a pollution emergency.
agency serving as a participating agency 1600 local time on each day of a affected States are invited to participate
on the NET shall be accorded one vote pollution response operation. Pollution in all PItT deliberations. Any State or
in NRTproceedings. Reports shall be disseminated by the local government representative who
NRC to NRTmembers as requested by participates in the RRT has the same
§1510.33 NatIonal Response ~`* those members. status asany Federal member of the
(a) The NRC is the national PItT.
communications center for activities I 1510.34 RegIonal R.sPonaeTeam. (g) When not activated for a pollution
related to pollution incidents. It is (a) The RRT serves as the regional incident the RRT serves as a standing
located at the Washington. D.C., ` body for planningand preparedness committee to recommend needed policy
Headquarters of the USCG. Notice of actions before a pollution discharge and changes in the regional response
discharges should be made through a for coordination and advice during a organization. to revise the regional plan
toll free number, a special local number. pollution discharge. The RRT consists of as needed, and to evaluate the
or through telephone and teletype . regional representatives of the preparedness of the agencies and the
circuits. (Details appear below and in participating agencies, state, and local effectiveness of local plans for the
Annex V.) The NRC relays notices of government representatives as Federal response to pollution incidents.
discharge to the appropriate OSC. It appropriate. Thefull participation of The RRT shalb
disseminates OSC and RET reports to high level representation from States (1) Make a continuingreview of
the NRT when appropriate. It provides and local governments with major ports regional and local responses to pollution
facilities for the NET to use in and waterways is desired. (See Incidents, considering equipment
coordinating a national pollution §11510.23(5) and 1510.34(f).) readiness and coordination among
emergency response when required. (b) Except when the RRT is ac)ivated responsible public agencies and private
(b) The Commandant. U.S. Coast for a pollution incident, the organizations;
Guard, shall provide the necessary representatives of EPA and DOT shall (2) Recommend revisions to this
communications, plotting facilities, and act as co-chairmen. When the RET is National Contingency Plan to the NRT.
equipment. These will include; activated fora pollution incident. the on the basis of observations of response
(1) A continuously manned chairman shall be the representative of operations;
communication center for receiving EPA or DOT, depending upon the area (3) Consider and recommend
reports of discharges; ` of the spill and the response. necessary changes In policy on the basis
(2) Telephone branch Unesi (c) Each participating agency shall of the continuing review of regional
(3) Teletypewriter circuits; designate one member and atleast 0118 responses to pollution incidents;
(4) The latest updated charts of the alternate member to the RR'i'. (4) Develop procedures to insure the
Departments of Commerce, Interior and Participating States and local coordination of Federal, State, local
Defense for the U.S. waters, the governments should also designate one government, and private responses to
Continental Shelf and the ocean areas member and atleast one altemate pollution incidents;
ad)acent to the U.S. Territorial waters; member to the'feam. Agencies may also (5) Review the functioning of OSCs to
(5) Technical library on oil and provide additional representatives as insure that local contingency piano are
hazardous substances pollution observers4o meetings of the RET. developed satisfactorily;
(described in Annex VU): and Persons representing Federal and State (6) Be prepared to respond to a major
(6) Plotting and display facilities to agencies shall be specified in each discharge of oll or hazardous substances
depict the geographic position, regional contingency plan. outside its region;
movement, and extent of the discharge. (d) RET members shall designate (7) Monitor incoming reports from all
(c) The USCG shall furnish technical representatives from their agencies to OSCs and activate the RRT when
manuals and materials, and necessary work with OSCs in developinglocal appropriate; and
administrative support to operate the contingency plans, providing for the use (8) Meet quarterly to review response
NRC effectively and efficiently. of agency resources, and in responding actions carried out during the preceding
(d) Participating agencies may use to pollution incidents. period, and consider changes in both
normal communication circuits to fulfill (e) The chairman of RET shall ensure regional and local contingency plans. In
their responsibilities under the Plan. that the regional and local contingency those regions having both coastal and
Telephone numbers for the primary plans adequately provide the OSC with inland RRTs. RET meetings held in
notification offices of interested aseistance from the Federal agencies alternating quarters (inland In March,
agencies will be maintained in NRC and commensurate with agencies' resources, coastal in June, etc.) would meet this
in RRCs. capabilities and responsibilities within requirement.
(e) First notice of a pollutiondischarge the region. During a pollution (9) RRTs shall provide letter reports
shall be made immediately (In emergency, the members of the RET on their activities Is the NET twice a
accordance with 33 CFR 153.203) either shall insure that the resources of their year, no later than 31 January and 31
to the NRC Duty Officer, HQ USCG, agencies are made available to the OSC July. The reports will help to identify
Washington, D.C., toll free telephone as specified In the regional and local techniques and procedures that have
(500) 424-8802 (or 426-2875 in the contingency plans. worked well and subjects requiring
Washington, D.C., local calling ares), or (f) Affected states are encouraged to improvement and should be circulated
to the predesignated OSC (see Annex participate actively In all RET activities to other RETs. At a minimum, reports
Ill). All notices of discharges received at (see I 1515.23(5)), to designate will contain paragraphs coverrnF
the NRC shall be relayed immediately representatives ts work with the RET (I) Summary of Activities, containing
by telephone to the OSC. The NRC shall and OSC's in developing regional and highlights of routine meetings and
evaluate incoming information and local plans. plan for and make available activations during the reporting period:
immediately advise FE?vtA of potential State resources, and serve as the contact (ii) Oiyanizational Matters, Outlining
major disaster situations, point for coordination with local improvements made since the last
(I) Pollution Reports (POLREPS) shall government agencies In responding to report. Organizational matters requiring
be submitted by the RET to the NRC as pollution incidents. When the RET is NET action should be Included. RETs
PAGENO="0170"
164
17844 Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 55 I Wednesday. March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
are encouraged to add detailed accounts discharge or monitor response 5 1510.35 ReSiongi ResPonse Center.
of euccessful procedures: operations; The RRC is the regional center for
(ill) Operations. including (3) Help the OSC prepare information pollution response activities. Each
recommendations, comments or releases to the public and for regional plan shall specify quarters for
observations on response methods. cocununicatlon with the NRT. Public the RRC. The RRC provides facilities
equipment, training or other operational information Is discussed In 5 1510.37; and personnel for conununications.
matters which have not been addressed 4 Advise the r `anal head of the information storage, and other
in the review of OSC reports. osc if th requirements for coordinating the
(h) Each coastal RET Is required to ~ or prgress of a pollution response.to pollution incidents.
conduct an annual training exercise in discharge indicate that a different OSC 5 1510.38 On-Scene Coordinator.
deployed. Th::e exerci:es sh:uld use ~ should bedeaignated and (a) The OSC shall direct Federal,
exis I ca abilities in the local ~ (5) Submit Pollution Reports pollution control efforts and coordinate
area Any funding required to ~ (POLREPS) to the NRC as developments all other Federal efforts at the scene of a
the exercise should be requested occur and not later than 1800 local tune discharge or potential discharge. The
through the normal agency budget of each day of the operation. OSC ahailbe predesignated. as part of
p ocesa The RET shall cooper Ce to the (m) Whenever Insufficient national the planning and preparation for
fullest extent possible in fleldexercises- policy guidance exists on a matter response to pollution incidents, by the
of member agencies. ` before the RET, or there isa question regional or district head of the agency
(I) RRTs for Inland regions ~ concerning the interpretation of national responsible for providing the OSC.
strongly encouraged to conduct an guidance, the matter shall be referred to (1) The first official from an agency
annual training exercise in which the NET fur resolution. Time permitting, wi responsi lyon er a p anto
response equipment is actually further actions will not be taken on such arrive at the site of a discharge shall
deployed. RETs for inland regions shall issues until the NET has transmitted a ~or~l~~ctIvlties under the Plan until
cooperate to the fullest extent possible position to the OSC an4 RET. Should the 72) The OSC :hell collect pertinent
in field exercises of member agencies. matter directly affect a State or local facts about discharge such as potential
(j) The RET shall be activated as an government, the RRT representatives of Impacts on human health and welfare;
emergency response team when a the affected governments-may express the nature, amount, and location of
discharge: , - their position to the NET. discharged materials; the probable
(1) Exceeds the response capability (n) If any member of the RET-dissents direction and time of travel of
available to the OSC in the place*where from a decision of the RET one discharged materials, the natural
II occurs: discretionary action pursuant to the resources, including fish and wildlife
(2) Transects regional boundaries: or Plan, or an interpretation of the plan. and their habitat, and property which
(3) Poses a substantial threat to the that member may appeal the decision to may be affected and the priorities for
public health and welfare or to the NRT in accordance with protecting them.
regionally significant amounts of i 1510.32(m). The dissenting member (3}The OSC shall direct Phase II.
property. Regional contingency plans shall notify the chair of the NRT of its Phase Ill and Phase IV operations: that
shall specify detailed criterlafor appeal. During a major pollution Is. Evaluation and Initiation of Action,
activation of RRTs. , discharge, a memberwho has pursued Containment and Countermeasures; and
(k) The RET shall be activated an appeal to the NRT may request Removal, Mitigation and Disposal (see
aotomatically in the event of a major or ~ther review by ~Q, Subpart E. 551510.51-55 for descriptive
potential major discharge. The RET may An ~ ci ai ~ t details). Advice provided by the EPA on
be activated during any other pollution ~ ~` ~ e 0 0c~t) ~ th the use of chemicals in Phase III and
emergency by an oral request from any presen a e op mpa es ci 5 s Phase IV operations shall be binding on
RET representative to the chairman of as a same sta as any e er the OSC. exceptos provided in Annex X
the Team. Requests for Team activation mei3be~)f~he RE~ç,Alth~h it Is of this Plan. Advice provided by the Fish
shall later be confirmed in wiiting~ Each ~Zath:re may beciccaefonswhena' and Wildlife Service (DCI) or by the *
r~presentative. or an appropriate National Oceanic and Atmospheric
alternate, shall be notified immediately vo e necessar~s. ose occagions, Administration (DCC) on cleanup
by telephone when the RET Is activated.' ea 5 ca inst eve or actions that may affect endangered and
POL.R,Ei°Sto the NRC from RETs shall in epen ent agency. a c y threatened species or their habitats shall
include the ilme of Team activation, ecte State, an 5 c y acts be considered at all times and shall be
method of activation (e.g.. telephone) oc governments 5 accor C 005 binding on the OSC unless in his
and place of assembly (if appropriate), vote a y. judgment actions contrary to this advice
(1) When activated for a pollution (p) The RET shall be deactivated by must be taken to protect human life.
incident. agency representatives ahall agreement-between the EPA and USCC (4) The OSC shall provide necessary
meet at the call of the chairman and team members. The time of deactivation support and documentation for Phase V
shall: shall be included in POLREPS. - activities (Documentation and Cost
(1) Monitor and evalute reports from (q) Boundaries for regional Recovery).
the OSC. The RET shall advise the QSC contingency plans shall follow those of (5) The OSC will consult regularly
on the duration andextent of Federal the Standard Regions for Federal with the RET in carrying out this Plan
response and may recommend to the Administration as shown in Annex III. and will keep the RET fully informed of
OSC specific actions to combat the Boundaries forlocal contingency plans all activities under the Plan.
discharge; shall coincide with those agreed upon (b) EPA and the USCG shall designate
(2) Request other Federal, state or betweenEPA and the USCG to - OSCs for all areas in each region. The
local government, or private agencies to determine OSC areas of responsibility EPA shall furnish or provide OSCg for
consider providIng resources under their and shall be clearly indicated in the Inland waters The USCG shall furnish
existing authorities to combat a regional contingency plan. or provide OSCa for the coastal waters,
PAGENO="0171"
165
Federal Register I VoL 45, No. 55 1 Wednesday, March 19, 1980 1 Rules and Regulations t7&4~
and for Great Lakes waters, porta and the OSC Requests by the director of the determine location of the on-scene news
harbors. national news office for an appropriate office but every effort should be made to
(c) All Federal agencies are required number of professional and clerical locate it near the scene of the pollution
by Executive Order to develop assistants will be met by one or more of incident.
-emergency place and procedures for the participating agencies. (1) The director of the on-scene news
dealing with oil and hazardous (1) The director of the national news office shall-coordinate all public
substances spills caused by facilities or office will be responsible for overall information activities for the OSC. The
vessels under their jurisdiction. All supervision of public information directors functions include
Federal agencies therefore are activities of the NRT The closest (i) Arranging news conferences for the
responsible for designating the offices possible coordination will be OSC and other officials to make
that will coordinate response actions for maintained between the national news progress reports andrespond to
spills caused by facilities or vessels office In Washlngtonand the on-scene questions;
under their jurisdiction and for news office (Ii) Keeping local and regional
providing means to remo e or mitigate (2) Promptly after his designation. the government officials informed of the
such spills in accordance with this Plan director of the national news office Will pollution situation through contacts with
and applicable Federal regulations and contact the White House Press Office their press offices or other
guidelines. If the responsthle Federal and the OffIce of Governmental axiel representatives;
agency does not act promptly or take Public Affairs-to arrange whatever (lii) Keeping news media informed
appropriate action, to respond to a spill information assistance maybe required about the response effort and giving
caused by a facility or vessels under its by these offices. - them as much cooperation as possible,
jurisdiction. the EPA or USCG (3) All national news office news for example, by arranging transportation
(depending on the area where the releases will be cleared by the chairman to the scene of a pollution incident when
discharge occurs) shall assume the OSC of the NRT. or in his absence the vice- possible;
functions. chainisan. (lvi Isa and distributin dalI
(d) The 050 is responsible for (4) The Director of the national news ne s releases so Ion ah t'lic interest
developing and maintaining a local office will have free access to meetings srrants- -
cnntlngency plan (Federal localplan) for of the NRT and will be consulted on the v GI Itizens ho make in ulries
the Federal response in the area of the possible public reaction tothe courses to-dat inf rmation from the la?est - -
OSCs responsibility. Designated of action under consideration by the - liP' rel a
Federal. State, and local representatives NRT. press a 55,
to the RRT shall assist in these efforts. (5) At appropriate intervals, the (vi) Observing public reaction to the -
(See 1510.42.) - director of the national news office may pollution incident and advising the OSC
- arrange news conferencesat which the - of any actions tharnught better serve
§ 1510.37 PubliC Inlorinstlon network. NRT will respond to questions from the public Information Interests;
(a)(1) When a maj r pollution incident media representatives. (vii) Handling queriesfrom public and
occurs, it is imperative to give the public (6) The director of the national news commercial interests properly and
prompt. accurate information on the office will keep appropriate nationally- p~ti~
nature of the discharge and actions based press offices poste4 on (viii) Referring salesmen to techpucal
underway to mitigate the damage. Those developments. These Include the press personnel assigned to evaluate their
immediately capable, especially local officesof the secretaries or directors of wares; -
fire, police and governmental officials, the participating agencies; Senators and (ix) Upon request. offering special
will be contacted first so they may use Representatives whose States or - public information services for official
all available resources to notify the districts are affected by the incident. visitors, including notifying the news
public of a potential threat. Prompt (7) The national news office will be media of the time, place and purpose of
disclosure of the facts helps to provided with adequate space, official visits: making press conference
encourage cooperation by interested telephones typewriters arrangements and arranging for
parties and to check the spread of communications equipment and other inteMews
misinformation, National administration supplies by the U.S. Coast Guard at U.S. (xl Informing the public on the proper
policy and the Freedom of Information Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, way to deal-with individual problems
Act both call for maximum disclosure of D.C. The director of the national news and damages from the pollution
information. - office will determine what equipment incident. and
(2) If a partic pating agency believes and-s pplses are need d to insure an (xl) If necessary drafting a mod I
public interest warrants the issuance of orderly flow of Information and to letter for participating agencies to use in
statements or releases and the on-acene accommodate visiting members of the answering mail inquiries, after the crisis
or national sews offices have not been news media. has subsided. The model letter must be
activated, the affected agency should (c) An on-ecene news office will be approved by the Chairman of the NRT.
recommend activation. In the interim, all established upon the request of any - (2) It is important for the on-scene
news releases or statements issued by agency participating on the RRT or the news office to describe accurately in
participating agencies concerning the - OSC to coordinate-media relations and news releases each agency's
incidents will be cleared through the issue official Federal Information on a contribution to the response effort, and
- OSC. pollution incident.The office will be to make sure that the various agencies
(b) When the NRT is activated, the staffed according to regional plane and assisting the OSC are represented at
Team chairman will contact the moat - applicable agency directives. Whenever press conferences.
appropriate agency and ask it to detail a possible, the on-scene news office will (3) Each OSC and supporting district
professional information officer to- be headed by a representative of the or regional office musi establish
establish and direct a ational news agency p oviding the OSC. Any contacts and a working relationship
office. Whenever possible, the director participating agency may, by request to with the regional news media as part of
of the national news office shall be the RRT place a epresentative on the prepa hon and plansung before a
provided by the same agency providing staff of the news office. The OSC shall pollution incident occurs.
PAGENO="0172"
166
17846 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
(d)(1) A Public Information Assistance local and state plans developed under to the NRC or the nearest USCG or EPA
Teens (PIAT) shall be available to help the Resource Conservation and office. (See § 1510.33(e) and Annex III).
OSCs and agenles regional offices meet Recovery Act (42 u.s.C. esoi, etseq.), Regional and local plane shall provide
the demands for public tnformation and a local structure for responding to for all reports to be channeled to the
during a major pollution incident qr pollution incidents. The Federal local NRC, RRC, and appropriate State
threatened incident. Team members will plan shall be developed in concert with agency (as agreed upon with each State)
be trained in journalism, public and shall be consistent with fire as promptly as possible. Reports of
relations, and photography, and will emergency and disasterplans prepared major andmedium discharges received
have a knowledge of pollution response by State and local agencies. To the byeither EPA or USCG shall be
techniques, equipment, and the laws and greatest extent possible. Federal local expeditiously relayed by telephone to
regulations relating to pollution plans will follow the sample format in appropriate members of the RRT as
incidents. PIAT will be based at U.S. Annex IL specified by the regional contingency
Coast Guard Headquarters and can be (b) While the OSCls responsible for plan. Reports of minor discharges shall
requested through the NRC any time. developing Federal local plane, a be exchanged between EPA and USCG
(2) If the NRT has-not been activated, successful planning effort depends upon as agreed to by the two agencies.
the PEAT can serve as a center for the full cooperation of all agency (c) The agency furnishing the OSC for
answering inquiries inWashington, representatives, and includes the a particular area is responsible for
D.C.. upon request of the parent agency development of local capabilities to implementingPhase I activities In that
of the OSC. respond to pollution incidents. Particular area.
attention must be given, during the
Subpart D.".Plsns .. planning process, to developing a *1510.52 Ptsass lI-.Evaluatton and
* 1510.41 Regional ~ ~ multiagency local response team for Mon of action.
coordinating on.scene efforts. The RRT (a) The-OSC shall ensure that a report
(a) The RRTa shall develop regional must ensure proper liaison between the of a discharge or potential discharge is
contingency plans for each standard OSC and local representatives of RRT immediately investigated. On the basis
Federal region. The purpose of these members. of all available information, the OSC
plans is coordination of a timely, A National inventory of pollution shall: (1) Evaluate the magnitude and
effective response to pollution incidents response and support equipment (5KM) severity of thedlscharge or threat; (2)
by various Federal agencies and other has been developed to help OSCs and determine the feasibility of removal; and
organizations. Regional contingency RRTs gain rapid access to resources (3) assess the effectiveness of removal
plans must have a broad scope. They
must include information on all useful during emergencies. This inventory is actions.
accessible through the NRC, remote data (b) When appropriate and as soon as
facilities and resources in the region, terminals at Coast Guard Districts and possibleafterreceipt of a report, the
from government, commercial, academic Marine Safety Offices, and Captain of OSC shall advise the RRC of the need to
and other sources. To the greatest extent the Port Offices. The inventory shall initiate further Federal response actions.
possible, regional plans will follow the include privately or commercially The actions maybe no more than
format of the National plan. An example owned equipment as well as government activation of the RRT, or a request,for
of the desired format is in AnnexiL resources. Regional and local planner. additional resources for further
(b) Each region includes many shall ensure that data in the system ~ surveillance, or they may extend to
scientists who can make significant current and accuate, so that os~ c~n Phase III orPhase IV containment or
contributions to the response activities makefull use of it during emergencies. removal operations.
of the OSC and RRT. Regional Scientific with minimal delays in obtaining needed (c) The OSC shall ensure adequate
Support Coordinators (SSCs) shall resources. The Coast Guard i~ surveillance over whatever actions are
organize and coordinate these scientists responsible for keeping the national initiated. If effective actions are not
and their contributions to the greateat inventory up to date with information being taken to eliminate the threat, or if
extent poseible. SSCS with advice from from the regional offices of Federal removal is not being properly done.
RRT members, shall also develop the agencies. advise the responsible party. If the
parts of the regional plan that felate to responsible party does not then take
scientific support. * Subpart E-Op.rattonal.Response proper actions, or if the discharger ts
phases: unknown or is otherwise unavailable.
81510.42 LOC5ICOUflQSIICf pl~ the OSC shall, pursuant to § 311(c)(1) of
(a) Each OSC if responsible for S 151O.5t Phase 1-Otscovsey and the Act, take whatever actions are
developing a local contingency plan for- notification, necessary to eliminate the threat or
the Federal response in his ares of (a) A discharge orpotential discharge remove the pollutant.
responsibility (Federal local plans). The may be discovered through: (1) A report
plan should provide for a well. submitted by a discharger in accordance § 1810.53 Phase Ill-Containment snd
coordinated response that allows with statutory requirements; (2) count Isewes.
integration of or compatibility with deliberate search by vessel patrols and Defensive actions should begin as
pollution response plans of local. State aircraft; and (3) random or incidental soon as possible after-a discharge or
and non.Federsl entities. The plan shall observation by Government agencies or potential discharge is discovered. This
identify environmentally sensitive areas, the public. phase may include actions to protect the
the probable locations for pollution (b) A discharge orpotential discharge public health and welfare such as;
incidents, the kinds of resources discovered through deliberate search analyzing water samples to determine
required to respond to pollution should be reported directly to the NRC. the source and spread of the pollutants;
incidents, where such resources can be Reports of random discovery may be procedures to control the source of
obtained. plans of action for protecting provided by fishing or pleasure boats, discharge; measures to keep waterfowl
vulnerable resources, methods and sites fire and police departments, telephone and other wildlife away from the
for disposal of recovered oil and operators, port authorities, news media, polluted area; damage control or salvage
hazardous pollutants consistent with or others. Such reportsshould be made operations; placement of physical
PAGENO="0173"
167
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 55 / Wednesday. March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 17847
barriers to deter the spread of a safeguarding of information, samples, (3) Problems Encountered-This part
pollutanti use of booms or barriers to -- and reports. should list any problems encountered
protect specific installations or areas; (c) The Information and reports and describe how they affected the
control of the water discharged from obtained by the OSC shall be response. Particular attention should be
upstream impoundments; and the use of transmitted to the RRC. Copies will then given to any problems of
chemicals and other materials, In be forewardedto the NRC, thembers of intergovernmental coordination that
accordance with Annex X, to restrain the RRT, and others as appropriate, may haveoccusred.
the spread of the pollutant and mitigate
its effects. §1510.55 Pollution reports. (4) Recommendations-ThIs section
should Include all recommendations of
(a) Within 60 days after the the OSC. An endorsement from the RRT
§ 1510,54 Phase IV.-Cleanup, mitigation conclusion of a major pollution shall be included. At a minimum the
and disposal. diacherge and when requested by the following areas should be covered;
(a) Actions should be taken to recover RRT, the OSC shall submit to the RRTs
the pollutant from the water and complete report on the response (I) Means to prevent a recurrence of
affected shorelines. These actions operation and the actions taken. The the incldentt
include: the use of sorbents, skinuners OSC shall at the same time sends copy (Ii) Improvement of response actions.
and other collection devices for floating of the report to the NRT. The RRT shall Any recommended changes In the
pollutants; the use of vacuum dredges or rsview the OSCs report and eubmit the regional or National contingency plans
other devices for sunken pollutants; the report and an endorsement to the NRT should also be included.
use of reseratlon or other methods to for review. This shall be accomplished § 1510.57 SpecIal considerations.
mitigate damage from dissolved, wIthin 30 days after the report has been
suspended. or emulsified pollutants; and received. (a) Safety of personnel-Actual or
special treatment techniques to protect (b) The ÔSC'e report shall accurately potential polluting discharges
public water supplies or fish and record the situation as It developed. the threatening damage to air and water can
wildlife resources from continuing actions taken,the resources committed also threaten human health and oafet3r.
damage. and the problems encountered. The The OSC should be aware of the
(b) Pollutants and contaminated OSC's recommendations, based on these hazards, should exercise great caution
materials recovered in cleanup . - experiences. are a source for new in allowing civilian or government
operations shall be disposed of in procedures and policy. personnel into the affected area until the
accordance with regional and local (c) The format for 05Cc reports will nature of the substance discharged Is
contingency plans (see 1510.42(a)). bess follows: known, and due caution should be
(1) Summasyof Events-This psrtiss exercised thereafter. Local contingency
§ 1510.55 Phase V-.Oocumentatlonsnd chronologtcalnsrrative of all events. plans shall identify sources of
Cost recovery. includlngr information on anticipated hazards,
(a) Documentation and cost recovery (I) The cause of.the incidenti precautions, and requirements to protect
may involves variety of actions, (li) The initial situatiosu personnel during response operations.
depending on the discharge. Recovery of (lii)The organizationof the response; Names and phone numbers of people
Federal removal costs and recovery for and with relevant information shall be
damage done to Federal. State, or local (iv) The resources committed. included.
government property Is included. These sections maybe presented (b) Waterfowl conservation-Oil
Damages to private citizens (including separately or Included in the narrative, discharges, particularly in eatuarine and
loss of earnings) are not addressed by If applicable, the following information near shore areas, often cause severe
this Plan. OSCa shall furnish will also be included. stress to resident and migratory bird
documentation required by the revolving (v) The location (waterbody, State, species. The DOl representativeand the
fund administrator to support Federal. city, latitude andlongitude) of the spllb state lialaon to the ERT shall arrange for
efforts to recover costs from responsible whether the discharge was in and coordinate actions of professional
parties. Procedures to be followed to connection with activities regulated andvolunteer groups wishing to
fulfill documentation requirements ~ underthe OCSLA orDeepwater Port participate in waterfowl dispersal,
specified in the Coast Guard directives Acti or whetheilt might have or actually collection, cleaning, rehabilitation, and
In the 16450.1 series. did affect natural resources under the recovery activities, Regional and local
(b) Information and eamplea needed exclusive management authority of the contingency plans shall, to the extent
for legal and scientific purposes shall be United States; practicable. Identify organizations or
collected during this phase. Information (vi) Details of Federal or State efforts institutions that are willing to
and samples are necessary for later to replace or restore damaged natural participate in ouch activities and
resources; and operate such facilities. Waterfowl
identification of financially responsible (vii) Details of any threat abatement conservation activities will normally be
parties, for scientific understanding of actions taken under sections 311(c) or included in Phase ifi and Phase IV
the environment, and for research and
development. The samples and (d) of the Act. response actions (II 1510.53 and 1510,54
(2) Effectiveness of Response and of this subpart).
information must be gathered at the Removal Actions.-This part should
proper time during the removal candidly and thoroughly analyze the Subpart F-Coordinating Instructions
operations. because otherwlse.wind and effectiveness of the response and
current may disperse the evidence, removal actions taken b~. - § 1510.60 DelegatIon of authority.
(1) All agencies shall follow uniform (I) The dlschsrgen As provided by Annex X of this Plan,
procedures, described in Annex VI, for (Ii) State and local forces; EPA delegation of authority or
collection of samples and information. . (lii) Federal agencies and special concurrence in theuse of chemical
(2) The OSC shall take necessary forces; and pollution control activities initially may
actions during response phases to (iv) (If applicable) contractors, private be oral; however, written confirmation
ensure necessary collectionand groups and volunteers, by the EPA representative ottthe RRT
PAGENO="0174"
168
17848 Federal Register I Vol 45 No 55 I Wednesday March 19 1980 I Rules and Regulations
should be completed es soon as (5) Deteroslnawhether state action to 51510.84 SpecIal fortes svs5sble to the
possible. effect removal Is necessary wtthln the 0$~~
meaning of section 311(c)(2fl1t) of the (a) The National Strike Force consists
51510.82 sftkeglonal 54151051* Act (See § 1510.65(b)). of the Strike Teams established by
(a) h1a dsscharge or a potential (b)The preliminary Inquiry will USCG on the Essi Weal end Gulf
discharge moves from the ~rea conrad probably showthat the situation falls Coasts and includes the emergency teak
by one Federal local or regional into one of five classes These classes furcea to provide assistance to the OSC
contingency plan into another eras, the and the a ro"t in ose to each during Phase LW, and V operations as
euthority for pollution control actions are outlined balow the circumstances of the situation
shall likewise shift Ifs polluting . dictate,Wheo ossibl the Strike
discharge or potential discharge affects ~fl ons~y~thst the Teems will provide training to the
areas covered by two ormore regional m hide or a of ~ ~51wh ~ emergency task forces and participate
plans, the response mechanism of both and no environmental ""lion or with the RRT in regional and local
plans shell be activated. In this casa otential ollutlon lslnvotvecl the nsa contingency plan devalopment.
pollution controlactions of allregsons ~h5ll be c~nsichred a feint alarm and (1) The Strike Teems can provide
concerned shall be fully coordinated as h ald be di communications support, advice, and
detailed in the reglonet plans, s c use assistance for oil and hazardous
(b)There shell be only one OSC at (2) If the Investigation shows a minor substances remnvatThese teems also
any time during the course of a responee dischsrge with thedlscherger taking have knowledge of ship salvage, damage
operation, Should a discharge effect two appropriate removal action, contact control diving and removal techniques.
or more areas, the EPA and USCG will should be eetehllshedwlth the Additionally they are equipped with
designate the OSC, giving prime discharger. The ~emuval action should specialized cuntslnment and removal
consideration to the errs vulnerable to be monitored to msure continued proper equipment, andhave rapid
the greatest damage. The RET shell action by the diseherger. transportation available.
designate the OSC if EPA and USCG (3) If the Investigation shows a mInor (2) Emergency task forces, established
membere are unable to agree on: discharge with'impruperremovet action by the USCG at major ports pursuant to
designation. The NRT shall designate, being taken, the following measures section 311(c)(2)(C) of theAci, consist of
the OSC If members of one RET or of shell be tskenr trained personnel with supplies of oil
two sd(acent RRTs are usable to agree (I) An Immediate effort shouldbe and hszsrduus substances pollution
on the designation. made to preventfssrther discharges from control equipment and materials, and
isso,s3 Oeneralpausamsnponee the source. . , detailed discharge removal plane for
seslons (li)The discharger shall be advised of their areas of reepnnsibllity~
(a) When due 050 receives a report of the proper action lobe taken. (I) The Strike Teams will respond to
a discharge orpntantialdischsrge, be (Ill) lithe discharger dues cot follow requests for assistance from the OSC.
should normslly take action In the. ` this advice, wsrnlngofthedischirger'e Requesisfur a team may be made
following sequences . liability furthe cost of removal, `directly to the Commanding Officer of
(1) Investigate the report to determine pursusnt to § 311(f) of the Act, shell be the appropnete teem, the Coast Guard
pertinent information suckse the threat given, member of the MT. thaapproprlete
posed to public beellhotwelfsre, the (lv) The OSC shell nulify appropriate , f55 ~
type and quantity of material state and local officials, He shall kee 0 . u
discharged, and the source of the thaMC advised and Initiate Phase Ill Emergency task forces work directly for
discharge, ` and W o erations as conditions e an are sccessu e u
(2) NotIfy MT members and the ` arrant, those offices.
Scientific Support Coordinator, in (~)(1) The Environmental Response
accordance with the applicable regional pcss~lble recovery ofremoval cusis when accord~2withltsdisesth/and
p (3) DetermIne in accordance ~th removal is effected In accordance with emergency respons bushes, The MT
section 311(c)(1) of the Act, whether the § 1510.55. . . Includes expertise in biology, chemistry
discharger (that lathe owner or (4) When a report of investigation and engineering. It can provide access to
operator of the vessel, onshore facility indicates theta medium dlscherge has special decnntsmlnetson equipment fur
or uffshorefscility frum which the . occurred, or the puten(lal furs medium chemical spills end advice to the OSC
discharge occurs) is properly carrying discharge exists, the OScshall follow on:
cut removal actions. Removal is being the same ganeral procedures as furs (i) Cleanup techniques and priorities:
dune properly whew ` minor discharge. Additionally, the OSC `` (li) Water supply contamination and
(I) The discharger's cleanup is fully shell make a recommendation . prolectiuw
sufficiant to minimize or mitigste concerning teem activation to the (Ill) Application of disperssnts:
damage to the public welfare. The chairman of the RET. . (iv) Habitat resturatiusz and
discharger's removal efforts era (5) When a report Indicates thaI a (v) Disposal of contaminated materiaL
"Improper" to the extent that Federal malur discharge has occurred, a The MT will be especlelly useful to
effurts are necessary to prevent further potential major pullutionemergency the OSC in hazardous substances spill
demsge: and exists, or that a discharge or potentiel response andin damage ssseusment fur
(li) The discharger's removal efforts discharge which could arouse wide all spills.
are In accordance with applicable public concern has occurred, the OSC (~) The OSC urMT requests fur MT
regulations and guidelines, including shall follow the same procedsree as fur support should be made to the EPA
thia Plsn, eepecislly Annex X. minor end medium discharges, The MC representative on the RET, the EPA
(4) OfficIally classify the severity of and NRC shalL huwever, be notified .Headquarters emergency coordinator or
the discharge and determine the course immediately uf the situation even If the the appropriate EPA regional emergency
of action to be followed. Initial report hss nut been confirmed. coordinator,
PAGENO="0175"
~1;TL eaS) ODUJO ~NJ° uopoaajp iapun sauqjpuadxs qons ioj ejqeninooas UOWWO3 pa~wj~ jo jauuosaad a~~wajas
papjaoad 83UU~S!S$B 103 sepuaSa jvzepa~j pjaq ~T ;`m £oua$e øtj~ ~ s;saa Aq nfl uo DSO em esp~pe pue `suoju;do
02 suawasznqwtai ur~;ia~ azuotpn sputt Sujpuedxejo sseua; pdoiddv ogjwaps 8uuejj~p Snowy zo;rnpaw
~ A~w ~opana eu.j £oua2y eq; o; se uojspep e;ewpjn eq~ ;uappuj u Se ;Oe `39~~ ~m o; UORBULIOJU!JO
;uewa8vue~ £OIIa2IeUZ3 jnape~ uopnjjod e o~ esuodsei £ia~~~n B 1OJ MOU ojq8~ew~ pize £papao us apj*oad
`JO;DazjQ eqi Sq pe8euvw pimj;a~a~j ejqejjeae eq jp&t eaamosea ICICPCA eqi ci iap~o tq aso em Aq pezquue;ap
ze;essJQ ~N rnozj epuuj 05530555 Len ;~m ensue o; Lseeeeaeu 004M peu8~e eq ~eqe spots jeuopeiedo eqs
;uep~Sai~j eqs e~epce LaueSletue,, us eq Lets e;uewee~8e ;uewesnqw;ea us suerne~qo*tq ~9g ;o ean~eu pus ;uesxe
seqs uogeu~tuaesep são ,ie;eee~p zo[ern,, Loue$eaesu oypedg `esuernee2e C~,5, `360 eqs pus Lssunwwoo o~psuesoe
e jo uogete~sep e Supjew sq `euojsaurq Suppuee'seon q8noaqs `peajnbeajs pus eqs uee~seq uoe;ej5 eqs cc euopsutsj
;e55ea ieseeejp cc sueweeioqw~ez ees~isese ojeeq ,eepue8e 5555M eouepioaae 399 eqs `Lqosdeo ssqs us `ye;e 5,390
Jo; Lqenb Len uejd e~s iepuu ee55j~ssoe uj eq 555M censuses puedxe 05 Lssidqsn~ eqs 0 ieqwetu see uo5soutq ns~° ass
esuoduai Loue8iezue usessea (8) Lq.soqsne Sujsepce aseqs zepun esuepptq eqs `3S0eqs Lq pescenbea ueqM Sn)
`suopsiedo e8e*jee - uopeqod us esuodeei uj esedpjssed ~uerneeeeee e8ewep sioddise
saopuoa us e;oeq ejqeentqsusei e us `zo `cpus; puedxe `e5qspese eeoaooeei o; Lssjjqedeo 8uy~ejxe eqs esosduq pus
ejqejse~e cpus; eeq LaN `5(5 eqj (ss) ejew-j~p~t eepue8e ~aepej seqs ejpdu ;o epe~e eqs Supe8ssjus u~ ~
jeieue~ `eausuesujeyq epuestq sej5j e5qj, `e~qeqssasid cc ae;oeu; eqs s.ioddoe us peisobes (`ose `8u~eeeouid
pus euoqezedØ euoqeudoaddy eeppoqsos pus euzeiSoad Suqepce 8u~zeqse8 ssep peqdde Jo ojueq)
euopouua 554553 q8noaqs eieeuj8u~ aepuosoo pejiaso eq jjsqe uossojjod qoaseees `Lsjuowuzoo ugpueps e,uu8ei
Jo ed.io~ eqs us e~qe~te*s sos uojse8~seu Os esuodees sq sepueSe Suissdpswed eqs qss~ uossezedooo sq Ljysuep~ (oo)
;o uossoo.qsqo aejssuse ao jeeeea uwjuoe eqs Lq uesjswepuo euopo~ (q) cease pezs~eoo~us ejpds
eje jsaornes so; pezyobez spool (5) wv eqs jo Wnc uo~oee qssa jo eaoeye Sujeseses sq eopspe egjsue~oe
(`euopjpuoe ogpede eousp~~ootus jsaonei jssepeg;6 $5503- ep~soad uso oqm sseisuesoe 30360
aepuo ejqej~e~s epew eq 5qSsuz qosq~ eqs ao; ejqsq es `uetuu~p `S pep qose esseps qsqe ~% eqj~ `ssuepsous
eeoiousei Lsessjssuiep;euoo sou 530(5 eqj, i°v eqs ;o (s)(o)nc uojsoes aepuo uossolsod;o suerneseese e8rnuep tuioped
e~qj,) `eeous;ewooz5o e~spdosdde aepuo ujSeq Lets euopos jseoweJ eSseqoesp 55055 ssqs sepueSs jo eepqsqseuodeei
suepjous uojsojjod sos ejqsoqdds eq ~s.sepe,q `uetornçuo s; eSieqosip eip eqs pus aso eqs o; sioddos o~jpueps
Len qojq~ cpus; ;o census oqpeds 04555 au; ejqseuodee.i uoaied eqs~ ao `suopos ~isset ~eep seqs eusjd LoueSupuoo
seq esue;ea;o sueu'sisdea eqj~ (c) - jseowei aedôsd eS(uj ao `Ljsdrnoid 5oe ~eoo~pus (suosSez;o suopiod esoqs
`suejd jeuosSea ;ou seop eSasqoe~p;o ssezqs so etzeqos~p JO suesudoieaep eqs ezpseSJO (qq)
ejqeo~dde pue ses~soez~p LoueSs qssM eqs io; e~qjsuodsei uoeied eqs~ (s) - tso eqs saoddoe 05 peLojouze
eouepioooe us peso ate epuoj eeeqj, eq pjooqe Leqs `euojsezsusSio opjsuepe
,`sesuedxe Sussesedo,, zepuo peputq en / p'~~a so oist pedujeeep jjeM eesq eesess esoq~
6510fl~ 5015003 uojso~od 036(5 eq,~, (Z) - `suepsouj - suojlea eeuqs us `aso eqs 30 poddos
`vase uoseps~~ (04uo3 eressesew uu~oqod e 05 eejss(es ,p~ io ~ eqs us Lsseseoeu eq Len ssqs suewesesse
jepedg pus so eqs Lq ejseq aseo-Lq us eouqsejess aueopspi Sujp~ausd 0j ~ eSesusp scooped os LsqsqsdsoSujssjxe
eceo e uo peu~susesep eq jjeqe seee~oq towt §01 peuqsoo eejsjpqssuudsei 500 eqs eupuiesep us sseqso pus Lsseopus
suojsoe M pus jj~ eeeq~Su5ou5suuo Suptuco sq sepueSe j,~j~j Lus;o suossos Ls;siespo `jeooj esess Suspojous
;o Suputq sejsptjsoe Al pus m eeeq~ esuodsea eqs epeduo so eosjdes 00 `uo~Sea eqs uyqss~ Lsyuowwoo o~jpueps
esepsus o~ peso eq Lets cpus; weaSoad jjpa seals; jspede Lus Jo sueuieasoaus eqs qsja soesuoo qenqsssg (us)
Susssiedo `eoodrnd 55555 Jo; pezjzoqsoe - pus uopsapoe eq~ `sueppus uosso~od cess Sujuuejd
epus; easq ;ou seop va esoeoe~ s Suju,seouob ,j~ eqs ;o Loue2s saquzew uj ~5g eqs ;u,sepqsqyeuodsea ogped~
`ea~;esuesesdei ~ ue ci aso eqs ueqa - Lus;o uogsa5sos pus uosseojpsou `eousse~ees ogguepe peqsjeob ~eM
suo~soe jeaowei eSaeqocp Ljewss ujSeq - aojsepjpqssuodsea Lus 30360 ~~~~~ aso eqs epjaosd us eseobeps eq
os cpus; epptocd ueo va eq~ (~) eqs eaejjeslou jjeqc seoso; jeweds Lus pjooqs eaosoosss eta `uo~Seã eqs usqs~~
:cuojsoe u suewee OS JO uo ~ 50 ~ ejosoniso s.soddoo ogpuepc s ujssujeuz
jesowes eSseqosqp u~esseo Jo; ejqejseae `sue d Lo 003 0 ei pus qc~qssse os pus uo~Ses eqs uyqsjat
cpus; eaeq cepueSe SujMoflo; eta (3) us e I ue jeu censuses ejqsseujoa Ljssuep~ Os urn eqs
`LoueSeSujcjaaedoo JO Susseaedo pepopus q jjeqe 310 05 qssuep qsjM 5~OM ~ eqs `Sujuuejd uj (3)
eqs ;u Lsqsq;ouodoei eqs 55 jessea ~ os esene eqs ;o uo~sjaoa uo oneses `suossssedo esuudsea jjsdc Jo(euz
Lsqsoe; peosasedoc so pesesedo CfleJepeJ urn esess Os e eqs Jo usuLsseqo Su'sop pess a9o eqs uo pus Suuuejd
no; eSaeqocjp e Lq pesesscceoeu eqs rnoq Jo 350 eqs 51013 ~usscjooe JO~ us aso pue susr eqs us szocptps se eases
ouogoe jeawei ;o Sujpus; eta (a) s;ceo es us puo OCI nsa 355 eta ~ csoseu~psooo stoddos o~psuep~ (g) /
euotsoe o~soedo esoqs so; Lsqsqsouodsez seuueuz `j,opj eqs os oeassesueeesdes va pus
jeSejqspst LoueSe eqs Lq pepptoad Ljesup uj aso eqs as pesesquowsuos iou `aoa ueeetseq sueuceesSs Lq uoSei
eq ~eqe suaweoss;ue etej Jo suojsoe en Rssuounuoo o~queros eqs rnqssas eusqspvs pegipow eq Lets Lsqsqjsuodoes
jeaowaa;o sioddos us;ou cuosseSssceaos estate oggueps Suue;pp seqs ensue ;o uoqe uqep srqj, va Lq
osnsuesoo cc qooc `jeaonaa usqs jjeqs 395 eta `aso eqs os L5yuOWwoo pep~aoid eq gist o55~do pusju~ as; esoqs
seqso ouopoe eouodcea;u Suzpuoj (~) ogjsuaps eqs wag eojaps o~psue;os pue ~`vON Lq'pepsaosd eq jjast egids jto
esessdoiddecs pus; eqs Jo; uos~e~ jsdpujsd eqs es easeg (qq) jesceoa Jo; ()gg) aoseujpaoo~ osoddng
55013 suenecsoqwseJ seqs L;ssiao 05 ejqe crude 00 qoocesea Sujwzs;sed ogjsuepg eqs `Ljjeseua~ `Lsptpoe
eq os cuo~sesedo jeauwes aeso joiouo~ sq pessesesos csossuesoc OZO; csceobea ogisuepe eueoouo;o uojseuspsooo pue
sue~oqsne aepsexe ~eqe 35~ eq~, cci poe ceeuodcea eseo~ptooo cuosselsssaaus eSeucep jesuewuozsaue jo suenoueese
sie~j un cc sq petqesuoo etc pus; eqs suewccecce eScucep 30 eoustusoped `seen eap;cueu L~e;uewuus~aue
;o ceo poe uo~seisc~qsuspe eqs Sojusasod so; cepuaSe ussr nor; c;caobea os pue ;o uopeooj `Lqopueqo `LqdeiSouseoo
ouojsejnSa~j soy eqs ;o (rsjnc uo~oeo eousscscce so; ssoeobea 39005 os~suep5 :Su~pojou~ eousso~eee og~sus;oc Sujp~aoad
as ;ueocsod peqe~qesoe ueeq ceq ~ not; esuodser escupsoo3 (cc) Lq aso eqs scoddoe us ioci nag
`suepuesutuo3 eqs Lq peaass5ujnps :~eqc 355 eqs eousse~ooe qsjst `vvow pus va Lq
`pus; Sujajoaas uo~so~od v (o) - `ejessea pus s;eioase so qooc caoi000aJ pezsueSio c; s,soddoe ogisueps (jJ(o)
6V9h1 euonejosSou poe sernu / 0961 `61 tjote~ `Lepseupe~ / 92 °N `9~ 1°A / ae;sj2e~j jesepe~
691
PAGENO="0176"
170
17850 Federal ~egister / Vol. 45. No. 55 / Wednesday. March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
14, CFR Chapter XIII. Part 2101,
Reimbursement of Other Federal
Agencies under Pub. L. 51-808 (For use
under Pub. L 93-258 until revised).) The
Director, FEMA, may also make
financial assistance available to state
governments and, through the states, to
local governments (See Title 24, CFR
Chapter XIII. Part 2205, "Federal
Disaster Assistance").
(h) Pursuant to section 311(c)(2)(H) of
the Act, the State or States affected by a
discharge of oil or hazardous substances
may act where necessary to remove
such discharge and may, pursuant to 33
CFR Part 153, be reimbursed from the
pollution revolving fund for the
reasonable costs incurred in ouch
removal.
(1) Removal by a stats is necessary
within the meaning of section
311(c)(2)(H) of the Act when the 050
determines that the owner or operator of
the vessel. onshorefaclilty, oro.ffshore
facility from which the discharge occurs
cannot effect removal properly and that
(I) State action is required to minimize
or mitigate significant damage to the
public health or welfare whlchPederal
action cannot minimize ormitigale. or
(il) Remove or partialrgpioval can be
done by the State ate cost which is less
than or not significantly greater than the
cost which would be incurred by the
Federal departmentsor agencies.
(2) State removal actions must be In
compliance withAnnex X of thisPlanin
order to qualifyfor reimbursement..
(3) State removal actions are
considered to bePhase III or Phase IV
actions, under the same definitions
applicable to Federal agencies:
(4)Actlons taken by local government
in support of Federal discharge removal
operations are considered to be actions
of the State forpurpoee of this section.
(i)Begionaland local contingency
plans shall show what funds and
resourcea are available from.
participating agencies underverloua
conditions and cost arrangements.
Interagency agreements maybe -
neceseary to specify when
relenbursensentis required.
Asses i-iiee Distributlan -
1101 Plan Distribution'
1181.1 ThiaPlas will be distributed to
designated offtceeof participating Agencies.
state andtsterstate waterpollutlos control
agencies and sschetherFedeeal, state, lecal
and private agencies and ouganlzationswhlch
are cooperatlngwlth andpartlcipatlng In
activities In support of the Plan.
1101.2 Included In this formal distribution
are the following:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health, Educatioa and
Welfare
Department of the Interior
Department of lustice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Environnoental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
All state representatives to regional
response-teams
All state water pollution control agencies
All interslateweterpollution control
agencies
Other Federal. state, local and private
agencies and organizations, as
appropriate
11013 Formal distribution of the Plan and
omentiments will be made by the
Environmental ProtectionAgescy.
1102 Amendment, Disiribotion ond Format
1102.1 Amendments to the Plan and
annexeawill be made by-sequentially
numbered changes. Numberedclssnges will
beeffected byiseanaofa transmIttal sheet
which identifles thePtaa, the chaagenumber.
and dale, the pagensambera atfectedby the
change snalany otherlnatructionsdeessed
necessary forparpoee of clarity or to make
specIal emphasis or explanation at the
chasge,Therewtllbealtachedtotbe
transmittal sheettherevlsed oraddedpagea
with the thangenumberendcsssrent data en
each page at theupperright hand carner.
1181.2 Where a chengecanbe effected
merely by pea andisk, thetranemtttsl sheet
may be sisal toaccompllah thechange
without anbnslsalon of revised pagea.The use
of pen and Ink r,hangeets limited to those
cases where exlatlngmatterls being deleted
aria of minor extent
1102.3 Asterlskewlfl be-used t~ IndIcate
changes. Petltseth.nges, en aaterlakwlflbe
placealbafase and aftereachsentencechesge
Intheleft andrightpagemarglss. For
paregrsphchangea.aneeoerlakwill be placed
before andeftereecbparagraphchanged and
If continued oa thsnextpags. anastariskwlll
be placed sO the lepof the page and the and
of the psragraph.Fors paragraphdaletlon. as
asterlnkwltl beptacedbsthe leftnsargin and
the paragraph numberoeletter-wlllbe
retained Istheoriginal aeqsencefollowedby
thewoed `Rescinded' Inparentheses.
1102.4 11 thePlen laoampletelyrewnltten.
asterisk. willnot benaedauperaeseloowlll
be (ndlcated el thebottsm ofthefirstpage.
Annex 11.-Feemab fsr&eglenalaadLocal
Contingency Plass
Regional ConfingencyPlan
Letter of Premulgatton.
Record of Amendments.
TableofCantente,
List of Effective Pages.
100 Introduction -
101 Authority, -
102 Purpose and Objectives,
103 Scope.
104 Abbrevtetiose.
105 DefinitIons.
200 Policy andResponsiblltty
201 FederalPollcy.
202 Multi.Natlonal Policy.
203 Federal Responsibility.
204 Non-Federal Responsibility,
300 Planning and Response Organization
351 Spill Response Activity and
Coordination-General.
302 Regional Response Team,
303 Regional Response Center,
304 On-Scene Coordination,
305 SpecialFsrces
400 CoordInating Instructions
401 Delegation of Authority.
402 NotIfication.
403 Mulli.regionol Responses.
404 MultI.natlonal Responses.
405 Coordlnstton with Special Forces.
400 Termlnstlnn of Response Activities.
407 Resolution of Disputes.
500 Procedure. for RevIewing and Updating
the Regional andl,ocal Contingency Plans
001 ResponsIbility.
002 Procedure. far Review.
Annex 1-1100 Dtsfribnttoss,
Annex 0-llOORegional ResponseTesin.
Annex 111-1300 Regional Response Center.
AonexiV-l400Geogrephioallloundariea.
Annex V-lIon Notifications,
Communications andReports.
Annex VI-l000Psblio Information.
Annex `/11-1700 LegalAuthorities.
Annex VIIl-lsttq Documentation for
Enforcement and Cost Recovery.
AnnexlX-leooFundlng.
AnnexX-Z000CleanupTechnlques and
Policies.
AnnexXI-ZlOoAseangements for
Participation of Non4°ederal Croupa.
Anr,azXll-2200 Interagency Support
Agreements/Arrangements.
AnnexXlll'-23t0 State Contingency Plans.
AnsexXlV-Q.400 Multi.oationalContlngency
Plans.
Annex XV-ZlooRegtonslData Base,
AnnexXx-300sNatienal Contingency Plan.
Local Contingency Plane
Letterof Promulgation.
Record of Amendments.
Table of Contents.
List of Effect Pages.
100 Introduction -
101 Authority.
102 Pnrpnse and Objective.
1(0 Sceps.
104 Abbreviations.
105 DefInitions.
200 Policy andResposslbility -
201 Federal Policy.
202 Related Stale Policy.
- 203 Multi'sstisnal Policy.
204 OSC Responsibility.
205 Nen'Federal Responsibility.
300 Planning atId Response Cenriderstienn
301 Oil and Hazardous Substance.
Trsnsportotion Pstter~.
302 Transfer Storage and Processing
Facilities.
303 HlstorlcalSplll Considerations.
304 HydrologIcal and Clintatological
Considerations.
305 LocalGeography.
305 HIghly Vulnerable Areas.
307 Local Response Resources.
PAGENO="0177"
! !"
gi~
~Hiiti flu
~o~g?o ~
Pift ni ID
H~ H
P
H
J
0
a
q
it
I
2.
0~
z
0
ft
0.
ft
0
0.
~3
a
0
b-a
PAGENO="0178"
C-
S
is-
S
2.
z
0
ft
0-
S1ANDARD FEDERAL REGIONS
(EPA, HEW AND HUD REGIONS)
C
HI ~ GUAM
IX AMERICAN SAMOA
SILIJNQ coot
*R~çpsS H~dq*s.~.~
~I-R II
PAGENO="0179"
173
Federal Register / Vol 45 No 5~ / Wednesday March 19 1980 / Rules and Regulations 1733
1302 Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard Districts
1st Coast Guard DIstrict. 150 Causeway
Street, Boston, MA 02114 Duty Officer
(617) 223-3645.
2nd Coast Guard DistrIct, 1431) OlIve Street,
St. Louis, MO 63101, Duty Officert (314)
425-4614,
3rd Coast Guard District, Governors Island,
New York, NY 10004, Duly Officer (212)
668-7055
5th Coast Guard District, Federal Building.
431 Crawford Street. Portsmouth, VA 23705
Duty Officer (804) 398-8231.
7th Coast Guard District, Roam 1015, Federal
Building. 51 SW 1st Avenue, Miami, FL
33130, Duty Officer (305)350-6611.
8th Coast Guard District, Hale Bogus Federal
Building, SOOCamp Street. New Orleans,
LA 70130, Duty Officer (504) 589-8225.
9th Coast Guard DIstrict, 1240 East9th Street,
Cleveland, OH 44199, Duty Officer (219)
293-3985,
11th Coast Guard District, Union Bank
BuildIng. 400 Oceangate Boulevard. Long
Beach, CA 90822, Duty Officer (213) 590-
222L
12th Coast Guard DIstrict. 820 Sanuonoe
SIr t. San Frsncl CA94125 D ty
Officer (415) 558-5500.
13th Coaot GuardDlstrlct, 9152nd Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98174, Duty Officer (209)442-
ou~
14th CoastGaard District. Prince
Kulanlanuole Fed. Bldg~ 300 Ala Moans,
Honolulu, HI 96850, Duty Officer (008)548-
7109 (commercIal only), AUTOVON-(315)
430-0111.
17th Coast Guard District, P.O. Box 3-5000,
Juneau, AK 99902, Duty Officer (007)589-
7340 (commercial only], At.TrOVON-(317)
388-7340.
CIWNO 000 312B'Ol'M
PAGENO="0180"
~1
a
z
0
ft
0.
ft
E.
0
0.
0
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. COAST GUARD DISTRICTS
a
StUNG CODE 3225-Il-C
PR
PAGENO="0181"
175
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No.55/ Wednesday. March 19, 1980 I Rules and Regulations 17855
AnnezlV
1400 Legal Authorities.
1400.1 Federal statutes relative to control
of pollution by oil and hazardous substances
are administered by several.departments and
agencies. The following is a tabular summary
of the most important of these authorities:
Statute andAgency(ies)
1411 Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 uSC 1251, 05. seq.), EPA,
USCG, CORPS, Justice
1412 Safe Drinking Water Actunsendment
to the Public Health8ervlce Act (42IJSC
201); EPA
1413 Refuse Act of 1699(33 USC 407; 411);
CORPS. USCG Customs, Justice
1414 ToxIc Substances ControlAct,1976(42
USC 2601); EPA
1415 Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976(42 USCSOOI); EPA
1419 Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act sf1976 (33 USC 1401 et
seq.); EPA. USCG, NOAA, CORPS
1417 Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act sf1974 (49 USC 1801 et. seq.); DOT
1416 Ports and Waterways SafetyAcoaa
amended (33 USC 3221, et seq.); USCG
1410 Federsllnaecllclde, Fungicide and
Rodenticid. Act of 1972(7 USC 121 it.
seq.); EPA
1420 DeepwaterPort Act of 1974 (3311SC
1101 et.aeq.); DOT, DOt
1421 Outer Contiaeystal Shelf Landa Act, as
amended (43 USC 1331); DOLDOT
1422 OilPsllutistaActoflaOl,aa amended
(33 USC 1001-bIDS); USCG. Custama.
CORPS. Slate
1423 Endangered SpecieiActof 1973, as
amended (I6USCIB31); FWS, NOAA
1424 tnterventloeoes tbeHtgh SeasAct(33
USC 1471-1497); USCG
1430 Related Federal statues, not specificto
oil and hazardoua substances pollution
controt. but. nonetheless, applicable to
discharge prevention end cleanup In
certain cases are:
1431 Disaster Relief Act of 197s, FEMA, AU
Federal agencies
1432 U.S. Navy Ship Salvage Aothorfty U.S.
Navy
1433 The Migratory Blrd'Freaty Act(18 USC
701-718); FWS
1440 Important InternationalConventiona
andAgreements relative to oil and
hazardous aubstancea pollution control
and liability are:
1441 International Convention forthe
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil.
1954, and amendments
1442 Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguoua Zone
1443 Convention between the Government
of the United States and the Government
of Japan for the Protection of MIgratory
Birds in Danger ofExtlnction,-andThafr
Environment
1444 Convention on the Preventionof
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter
Ana.x V.-Cammuslcation Servlcea
Available In National Response Center
1501 Telephone (voice) services available
include:
1501.1 CommercIal telephone available24
hours per day, free (800)424-8802 (or 429.
2873 In the Waahington. D.C local calling
1501.2 AUTOVON (Automated Voice
Network)-Ceneral purpose switched voice
network of Defense Communications
Systems, which serves Cootlnenial U.S.,
Alaska, Europe, Pacific. and Panama;
1501.3 Washington Tactical
Switchboard-Pentagon terminal of tha
tactical telephone system. operatedby USAF;
1101.4, Fl'S-GSA operated government
adminiotrative telephone system.' and
1501,5 SARTEL-Search andResctle
Command Coordination telephone network
including leased Hotline telephone net
extending from Halifax to NewOrleans.
1502 Teletypewriterservices available
thclode.'
1502,1 A1.TrODIN.-A worldwide high
speed user data contmunicationssystem
operated for andmanaged by the DCA to
provide both direct user'to'oaerand store
and forward message switching service for
000and othergovernment agencies;
1502.2 SARI.ANT-CoastGuard.leaaed
teletypewrltersystemextendtngfrem
Maasachuaetta to Texas (used to control and
coordinate search and reacuefncidenta and
to handle other operational traffic and
priority administrative communications);
1502.3 SARPAC-~.Same as 2.Zfor the
WeotCoast lAS,; and
1502,4 TELEX-TeletypewrIter exchange
service prnvldediqr Western Union thai
serves Continental U.S., industry end
government offlcas.TELEX slaoperxntta
dlrectconnectlon..
Annex VL-5.mpleCslhc*bas Procedures
1407 Sample collection procethzrez to be
followed by OSC'
1001.1 Severslprecautiona must be
observed whentaldng and handling liquid
samples foranslyaea as the characterof the
sample maybe affected by a number of
common conditions. Theseprecautlons
concern the followlng (a)The composition of
the containen (b) cleanliness of the containert
and, (c) mannerin which the aample is taken.
1601.2 In salting ouch samples. the
followlngprocedurea are to be followed in all
1001,2-1 Gloss or other appropriate
containers of suitable sine shall be used. The
portion of the closure (oaatltog:gaoket or cap
liner) which may come into contactwith the
sample in the container Ia of considerable
Importance. Whenoll or petroleum
hydrocarbons are to be sampled, the closure
shouldbe made of glass, aluminum foil, or
teflon. Pollutants other than oil may requirs
special precautions such as acketingof glass
containers or different doaure material The
analysla laboratory should be consulted
whenever a question arises to the
appropriateness of any packaging material.
1001.2-2 PrevIously unused containers are
preferred. Containers that have beso cleaned
with a strong detergent. thoroughlyrinsed,
and dried may be used.
10133.2-3 Some explanatory notes
governing the above procedures are as
follows; (a) Glass orother appropriate
containers always mast be used because
plastic containers, with the exception of
teflon. have been found in come moos to
absorb organic maleriala from water and, in
other cases. compoanda have been dissolved
from plastic containers; (b( as his desirable
to take a large oatnple of the pollutant, proper
skimming techniques should be used to
obtain a sufficient amount of oil for analysis;
and(cJ because pollution conditions change
rapidly, samples should be taken promptly,
and the time tequences andlocations noted.
1601,2-4 Consult with the analysis
laboratorypersonnel relative to special
samples and unusual problems.
1001.2-5 Samples collected are to be
transmitted for analysio, using special courier
orregistered mail (return receiptrequested).
Appropriate analytical laboratories are
designated in the regional plan. Reports of
(aboratory analysis will be forwarded to the
opprnpriste RRT for tranomittal to counsel
Annex VIL-17e0 T.clsnical Infoematloa
1701 TechnicalLibrtvy
17014 A technical library of pertinent
pollution control documents will be
maintained in the NRC and its each RRC
Such Information should be useful as
reference Information toohe experienced
OSC and Instructional to less experienced
personnel.
1702 Sp~eciflcl8eferesces
1702,1 As a mtnintam. the following
reference documents will be maintained In
theNRC and in each RRC technical library.
1702.1-1 Current Nationst Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Ptan.
1702.1-2 Current Regional andState 011
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan,
1702,1-3 Carrenl Directory of the
American Council of Independent
Laboratories,
1702.1-4 Encyclopedia of Chesnical
Technology, 22 Vol., Klrkothmer. 2nd edition
c1593-b971. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
New York,
17021-5 Chemical Data Guide forflulk
Shipment by Water (U.S. Coast Guard CO..
380)
1702.1-6 U.S. Arrity Corps of Engineers'
Regulations ER 500-b-b and ER 500-1-0
Emergency Employment of Army Resourcea
(Natural Disaster Activities).
17011-7 Federal Disaster Assistance
Progrsm.Handbook for Applicants FDAA
3300.1, July1973.
1702.1-9 FederalDtsaster Assistance
Prngram.Ellgibility Handbook 3300.2, July
1973.
17024-0 Federal DIsaster Assiatance
Program.Handbook fovState and Federal
Officials 3000.4, December 1973.
1702,1-10 Handbook of Toxicology
(National Academy of Sciences/National
Resource Council).
17511-11 46 CFR-148. Transportation or
Storsge of Explosives or Other Dangerous
Articles or Substances, and Combustible
Liqulda on Board Vessels.
1702,1-12 33 CFR, 3.5,121,122,124-6.
Security of Vessels and Waterfront Facilities
(USCG CG 239).
PAGENO="0182"
PAGENO="0183"
PAGENO="0184"
178
17858 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
2003.3-4.14 Ionic Activity-Use that may be reasonably expected to be In the environmental conditions Include air and
Weatherbum Test as described below: sample. Atomic absorption methods should water temperatures. wtnd conditions, wave
Ionic activity tests (Weatherburn Test) be used and the detailed analytical methods and current conditions, presence and relattve
and sample preparation shall be fully density of debris and other floating matter on
Reagents: 1. Dye solutlom 0.03 grains deacribech the water, type and condition of the oil or
methytene blue, 12 grams concentrated Cyanide using standard colorimetric hazardous substance spilled. attecial
aulfuricacid. 50 grams sohydrous sodoom procedures: biological factors such as waterfowl
collate dissolved in water to make a total of lorinatedhytirtacaritans. Gas sanctuaries, wildlife refuges,apawnlng or
one tar solution. * chromatography should be used and the nursery grounds, ehelliiob beds, swamp
2. Aniuntc su..actant so ution.-0.5% detailed analyticalmethods and sample areas. etc., and the availability of removal
Aerouol OT (Sodium dioctyl sullo succinate). preparation shall be fully described, equipment that could be employed to remove
3. C oroform. 2003.3-5 Analytical Laboratory thecollacted material from the water.
Procedure: 1. Into a 25 . test tube, paceS Requirements fsrTecbnicai Product Data: In.formatien oneovironmeotat conditions
* of dye solution and 0 ml. chloroform. Add 2003.3-5.1 The required tests shell be should be evaluated by the 080 from the
onlomc uurfactants solution drop by droP. performed bye qualified laboratory, standpoint that conditions such an strong
vigorous y etweeo drops and wns.~-s.~ The technical product data winds, choppy waters, low temperatures,
allowing phases to separate. Continue adding submission shall include the identity of the debris, and aquatic vegetation can adversely
dropwise until the two layers are equal in laboratory, the qualifications of the affect the performance of coilecttng agents or
to or and intensity vlewedln reflected llgbL laboratory staff including professional complicate further removal operations. The
505 y.lOto 12 drops o anionic solution are biographical Information for Individuals performance ran also vary with types of oils
require . responsible for any tests, and laboratory or hazardous substances. Theagents can be
2. Now a 2 .0 0.1% solution of the expwience with similar teals. Laboratories effective with thin films of light oils but have
own and ohs e vigorously. performing bioassay teals fordlapersant or little value with thick layers of heavy, viscous
Rosa Is. 1. Chloro orm phase I ower) Is surface collecting agent toxicitym550 oils. The agents should not be used unless
deeper us color as aqueous phase is uses ~` demonstrate previous bioassay experience in adequate removal equipment Is available to
co or ass-anionic Is positive, order for their results to be accepted. EPA remove the collected oil.
h Water phase (upper) Is deeperincolor will sot approve the selection of laboratories 2004.2-2 A chemical agent shall hot be
I alas ore ems ne-caiiooic 15 by intended submitters of technical product used ass surface collecting agent unless the
p . data priorts submission of the data. Itin the provisions sf2004.3 am complied with and
a as am more or ass 5 55105 responsibilIty of the submitter to select EPAhas informed the manufacturer's
coos-pro a y a nonlo C. csmpetent analytical laboratories basedon representative thai the product is acceptable
b ~i ~t ~ i" t It ~ the guidelineecsntalnedherein. forsas as a surface collecting agent.
be nonionic. Soars do notreact ~ y 2003.3-5.3 EPAreserves therigbt to refuse 2004.3 Technical Product Data for Surface
d If b in ~ d ~ to accepts submission of technical product Collecting Agents.
It; ii mi t - data because ef lack of qualifications of 2004.3-1 `tecbnicalprodsct data as
~nI * ti analytical laboratory. elgniflcsntvarlance epecifledin 2004.3-4 shall be provided to the
2003 A 15 cibili th o between submitted data and any laboratory 011 and Special Materials Control Division
d scribed wi hi hi ~m ~ ~ f confirmation performed by EPA, or other (WH-548), EPA. Washington. D.C. 20460, at
military specification MIL-C...22230 (ships): circumstances thatwill result in inadequate least OOdays priorto the use of the agent.
0 hart f in di t I mixed orinaccurate environmental Information on The use of existing surface collecting agents
with 100 parts of synthetic sea water. The the dispersing agent. may be authorized by the OSC without
solution is agitated for one hour and any sxti Surface Collecting Agent Program for ~
should bettnoted after ti~os `~~°tion. Spills of Oil and Applicable Hazardous of receipt of the data, EPA will Inform, in
Th t II I b sf ed th writing, the submitter on the adequacy of the
lure oh th zo'C do'C. Th 2004.1 Authorization forUse of Surface data submitted. If additional data am
syn~ietic sea waler shall be formulated an Collecting Agents: Major, Medium and Minor requested orEPA desires to perform
follows: Discharges, additional tests, the surface collecting agent
2006.1-1 The OSC may authorize use of maynot be used until these additional needs
~ ~ surface collecting agents one case-by-case have bees satisfied and the submitter so
* ~ basis when their use wOk * notified.
SodteooenseaaW*sia(gWst - 24.0 2004.1-0.1 Result in the least overall 2004.3-2 Information furnished in
ClsOS.destsrtsnialisaasaal ~ s.O environmental damage or interference with accordance win 2004.3-4 shall be maintained
2003.3-4.16 Dispersing Agent Components designated wateruses, and onifie by the EPA, Oil and Special Materials
Itemize by chemical name and percentage 2004.1-0.2 Provide a key element in the Control Division (WH-548), Washington. D.C.
by weight of each component of the total most effective system for removing silos 20460, to provide technicalguldance to OSCa
formulation. The percentages wilt include hazardous substances discharge from the on the acceptable cIrcumstances of use,
maximum. minimum and average weights in weter environment dosage rates and special problems in the use
order to reflect quality control variation in 2004.1-2 Mechanism for authorizing use. of surface collecting agent Any changes in
manufacture or formulations. At least the The OSC may authorize the use of a surface the composition or formulation of the surface
following major components shall be collecting agent verbally when on scene or by collecting agent that will affect any of the
identified in cimptying with 2003.3-4.20. telephone prior to arriving on cane. In all data requested in 2004.3 shall be immediately
(a) Surface active agents. cases, the OSC is obligated to comply with brought to the attention of EPA and tasting of
)b) Solvents, the previsions of 2004.2 prior to making such the agent will be repeated prior to the use of
)c) Additives, authorization. A review of the capabilities the revised formulation of the surface
If requeoled by the submitter, Information and expertise of the owner or operator or collecting agent
from 2003.3-4.15 will be handled as trsde cleanup contractorprior to the occurence of 2004.3-3 EPA will review technical
secrets under provisions of P.L 90-23, the the spill incident would be most beneficial in product data for surface collecting agents and
Administrative Procedures Act situations where telephone authorlzatlonis will lasso approvals foragents meeting
2003.3-4.17 Heavy Metal and Chlorinated, desired or contemplated. certain crsterto. At present. the only minimum
Hydrocarbons 2004.2 Restrictions on Surface Collecting criterion established is for sotubility which is
Using reliable analytical chemistry Agent Use. deacrtbed in 2004.13. This crtterioo classifies
techniques. state the concentrotions or upper 2004.2-1 The OSC may suthorize the use the substance ass surfaile collecting agent
limits of the following materials: of surface collecting agents only after being butts not an indication of the effectiveness or
Arsenic, cadmium. chromium. copper. lead. informed of the environmental conditions at toxicity of the materist. Other product data
mercury, nickel. zinc, plus any other metals the point of intended use. These such as toxicity, chemical components, and
PAGENO="0185"
179
Federal Register I VoL 45, No. 55 / Wednesday,
March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 17859
physical characteristics will be reviewed and,'
lithe combined effects of these data and
other factors will result in excessive hazard
to the aquatic life, work safety, or other
elements of the environonenlin the judgment
of EPA, the Agency may refuse to approve
the use of the agent
EPA may, from tune to time, establish
minimum criteria for the data betas requested
and may also require addItional data to assist
In arriving at a judgment on the
environmental acceptabilityof collecting
agent usage.
To avoid possible misinterpretation and
misrepresentation of the EPA's role in the
surface collecting agent technical product
data program, the manufacturer's
representatives may use only the EPA letter
advising compliance with 2004.3-4 In any
advertisements or technical literature on the
collecting ogent. The EPA lettermost be used
in its entirety. Failure to comply with these
restrictions orany other Improper reference
toEPA Inattemptlng to demonstrate EPA
approval of the surface collectingagent
beyood that stated In the letterforuse on
spills of oil or hazardous substances shall
constitute grounds forremoving the technical
product data from'EPA fIles whlchwould
preclude use of the surface collecting agent
2004.3-4 RequIred Technical ProductOata
2004.3-4.1 Name, brand, or trademark, If
any, underwhlcb the surface collecting agent
Is sold.
2004.3-4.2 Name, address and telephone
numberof the manufacturer, Importeror.
- 2004.3-4.3 Name, address and telephone
number of primary distributors or sales
outlets.
2004.3-4.4 Special handling and worker
precautions for storage and field application.
Maximum and minimum storage temperature
toinclude optimum ranges as well as
temperatures that~vlll causephase
separation. cbemclal changes, or otherwise
damage effectiveness of the surface collecting
agent
2004.3-4.5 Shelf Life,
2004.3-4.8 Recommended application
procedure(s), concentration(s)and conditions
forus depending upon watereslinity, water
temperature and types andagee of the
pollutants.
2004.3-41 Surface Collecting Agent
Toxicity-Use standard toxicity test methods
described In EPA Report `Standard
Dtspersant Effectiveness end ToxicityTeuf'
(EPA R2-73-201. May 1573) pages 22-34. ThIs
repootmay be obtained from the Oil and
Special Materials Controlfllvislon (WH-54a),
EPA, Washington. D.C 20460.
2004.3-4.8 FlashPoint-Select appropriate
method from tlte followIng~ ASThI-D 56-7R
ASTM-D 92-7R ASTM-D 93-7R ASTM-D
1310-67.
2004.3-4.9 PourPoint-Use ASTMD 97-
66
2004.3-4.10 VIscosity-Use ASThID 445-
72
2004.3-4.11 Specific Gravity-Use ASTM
D 1295-47
2004.3-4.12 pH-Use ASTM D 1293-65
2004.3-4.13 interIm Teat to Distinguish
Between Surface Collecting Agents and Other
Spill Cleanup Chemicals.
In orderto dlstinguluhbetween surface
collecting agents and other chemicul
materials, this interim test procedure was
developed. This test procedure is not an
efficiency test Itis to be seed onlyto
distinguish between surface collecting agents
and disperoants.
Scope
1. Procedure lobe used to determine the
solubilityinwaterunder standard conditions
of oil splllcontrolchesnicals.
Method Summaty
2. FIve(S) millIliters of the chemIcal under
testare Intimatetymixedwith ninety.five (95)
milliliters of distilled water, allowed to stand
undisturbed forone hour, and-then the
volume of theupperphaseto determined to
the nearest 1 milliliter.
~4pporotus
3, (a)Mlodng cylinder, lOOmilliliter
subdivisions-and fitted with glass stoppers.
(b) Plpettes: Volumetric pipette, 5.0
millileler.
(c)Tlmers
~ocedure
4. AddaS millllitersof dlslilled water-
2rC+/-3~C to a icOmillilitermixing
cylinder. To the surface of the waterinthe
mlxlngcylinder, add 5,Omllllllters of the
chemical andertaso. Insertthe stopper and
invert thecylinders times inloseconds.Set
upright forone (1) hour at 22'C+/-3~C and
then measure the chemical layer atthe
surface of the wster.Themajorporolons of
the chemical added (75%) should be *1 the
water surface as aseparate and easily
distinguished layer.
2004.3-4.14 SarfaceCollactingAgent
Components
Itemize by chemlcslname and percentage
byweight each component of the total
formulation. The percentages wilhinclude'
maximum, minimum andaversgewelgbla in
order toreflect qualiiyccntrol variations in
manufacture or formulations. At-least the
following majorcomponents shallb.
Identified.
(a) Surface active agents -
(b)Solventx
(c) Additives
If requested by the submitter, Information
for 2004.3-4.14 wilibe handled-as trade
secrets underprovislons of Pub. L 60-23, the
Administrative Procedures Act.
2004.3-4.15 Heavy Metals and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Using reliable analytical chemistry
techniques, state the concentrations orupper
limits of the followlngmaierlala: -
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, zinc, plus anyothermetala
that may be In the sample. Atomic absorption
methods shouldbeused and the detailed
analytical methods and sample preparation
shall be fully describeth
Cyanide using standard colorimetrmc
procedorog
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, Gas
chromatography should be used and the
detailed analytical methods and sample
preparations shall be fully described.
2004.3-5 AnalytIcal Laboratory
Requirements for TechnicalProduct Dater
Follow stipulations In 2003.3-8
21705 RiologicolAdditive Program for Spill, of
Oil andAppllcobleHoro.rdous Substances
2005.1 Authorization for use of blologlr.al
additIves.
2005.1-1 All discharges, the OSC may
authorize the use of biological additives on
water-or shorelines only after obtaining the
approval of the EPA reprsaentstive to RET.
The manufacturer ursupplierof
microbiological cultures or enzymes must
obtain approval from Slate and local public
health and pollution control officials and -
furnish evidence of such approval to the EPA
RET representative.
2005.2 Special Restrictions on Biological
Additive Use
2005.2-1 MIcrobiological cultures and
enzyme mixtures shall not be considered for
use as biological additiverunlese technical
product data have been provided and
accepted in accordance with 2005.3.
2005.2-2 The OSC must be supplied with
the chemical composition and ratios of
primarynutrients ornutrient additives prior
to seeking approval for their use.
2005.3 TechnIcal Product Data for
Biological Additives
2005.3-1 Tecbnlcal productdata as
outlined in 2005.3-4 on the constituents of~
blologlcal-additlveshall be submlttsd to the
Oil and Special Materials ContrslDtvlelon
(WH-54a), Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C 20460. atleast eodays prior.
to the use of the additive. Within eOdayC of
receipt of the data. EPA will Inform inwrltlng
the eubmitteron theadequacy of the data
provided.
If additional Information Is requested or
EPA desires to perform tests, the biological
additive may not beused until the additional
needs have been satisfied and the submitter
so notified.
2005.3-2 lnfoimationfurnlshsd In
accordance with 2003.3-4 shall be maintained
onfile by EPA to provide technicalguldance
to OSCa on the acceptable clrcumstancse of
use and application rates forbiological
additives. Any changes in the composition of
the biological additive that will affect any of
the data being requested In 2005.3-4 shall be
Immediately brought to the attention of EPA,
and testing of ths additive will be repented
prior to the use of the revised biological
addltiva.
2005.3-3 The acceptance and
maintenance of product data by EPA doss
not constitute approval of the biological
additive nordoes It Imply compliance with
any EPA criteria orminimum standards for
such additives. The OSC will determine
which biological additive maybe used for a
spill event on a case-by-case basis using all
available information in making ouch a
dsclslon. To avoid possible misinterpretation -
and misrepresentation of EPA's role in this
technical product data program, the
manufacturer's representatives may use only
the EPA lettoradvialng compliance with
2005.3-4 in any advertisements or technical
literature on the biological additive. The EPA
letter must be used tails entirety. Failure to
comply with these restrictions or any other
Improper reference to EPA in attemptingto
demonstrate EPA approval of the biological
PAGENO="0186"
180
17860 Federal Register / VoL 45, No. 55 / Wednesday. March 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
additive for use on sptlli of oil or hazardous applicable State andlocal public health
suostances shall constitute grounds for poiluti on control officials.
removing the technical product data from 1006.2 SpecialRestrictlonaon Burning
EPA flies which would preciude use of the Agent tise
biological additive. 2006.Z-i The 050 will evaluate the
2005.3-4 Required Technical Product Data suitability of burningagenta on e.case-by.
2005,3-4.1 Name, brand, or trademark, if case basis. Earning agents should be inert
any, under which the biological additive is materials that will not, in themselves, be a
sold, waterpoilutant. The additisn of oils (such as
2005.3-4.2 Name, address and telephone gasoline or solvents) as an Igniter shall be
number of the manufacturer, importer or avoided unless It is necessary under2006.1-t.
vendor. 2006.2.-S A technical data program for
2005.3-4.3 Name, address and telephone burning agents will not be established at this
number of primary disthbutors or sales time.
2005344 SpecIal handling and worker 21377 SLtz,1cit?~AgenfPzv~TmsforSpilis of Oil
precautions for storage and field application. andApplicobleHozordous Substances
Maximum andminimum storage 2007.1 Authorization for Use of SInkIng
tooiperatures. Agents
2005.3-6.5 Shelf Life. 2007.1-0 All DIscharges
2005.3-4.6 Recommended application Sinldng agents ohailnot be applied to
procedure(s), concentration(s) and conditions discharges of oil orhazardous substances on
for use depending upon water salinity, water the navigable water of the United States or
temperature and types and ages of the the contiguous zone.
2008 MecironicoiMethods and Sorbed.
effectiveness of the additive inclu~ig Progrom for Spoils of Oil andffazardous
degradation rates and the test conditions and
data on effectiveness. 2008.1 Authorization for Use of
2005.3-4.8. For microbiological cultures MechsnicalMethods hod Sor)sents
furtish the following informatiorc 21108.2.4 All Discharge.
Listing of all microorganisms to species.5 3108.3-0.1 Aa stated in 2001.3. itls the
Percentage of each species in the policy of this Schedule to favorthe use of
composition of the additive. mechanical methods and oorbenta for
Optimum pH and temperature rsnge!oruoe removal of oil and haxsrdsua substances
of the additive, spills. The 050 has the authority to use or
Special nutrient requirements. if any, prohibitspeciflc mechanical methods and
Separate listing of the following &nd test sorbents on s case.by'case basis. The 050
methods for suchdeterminatlons: Salmonella, will select methods and materials that, in his
focal coliform. Shigella, Staphylococcus judgment. will be most effective in -
Caagulase positive, and Beta Hemolytic expeditiously removing the spilled material
Streptococci, and mitigatingthe related damages, and will
2005.3-4.8. For enzyme additives furnish minimize secondary pollutionfrom the
the following lsformatissu removal ormitigation operation. Prlorto
Enyzyme name(s), authorizing the use of lorbents, the OSC shall
International Union of Biochemistry (LU.S.) take into consideration hydrographic and
oumber(s), meteorological conditions as weil as the
* Source of the enzyme, characoeriatics of the sorbent and the
Units, availability of adequate containment and
SpeclficActivtty, removal equipment
Optimum pH and temperature range for the 2008.1-1.2 A technical data program for
use of the additive. mechanical methods and sorbents will not be
2005.3-5 Laboratory Requirements for established at this time.
Technical Product DatarFollow stipulstisna FRnos.ss.021aelsds.ts.eaaasaat
in 2003.3-5. saj.tso coca 3szs-si.-a
2006 HurningAgentProgromforSpills of
Oi/ and .4pplicoble Horar'dous Substances
2006.1 Authorlzatton for Joe of Burning
Avents
22061-i AU discharges. The OSC may
authorize the use of burning agents only
when they will:
2006.1-il Prevent or substantially reduce
imminent threats to human life, limb, or
property:
2006.1-1,2 Result in the east.
environmental harm when compared to other
removal or disposal methods.
2006.1-2 Prior to authorizing use under
5006.1-t2. theOSC must obtain approval of
the EPARRTrepresentatlvs and all
lfrsquestedby tin submittoc thssettems will be
handled ss trsde seosta anderthe provisions of the
Administrative Procedures Act(Pub. L 50-53).
PAGENO="0187"
181
IS$N0308-5589
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD
DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES RESEARCH
L:[S~rffiUE~ F~ESEA~CH
~EC[~~C~L REPORT
[\!Q~. ~E
Research into toxicity evaluation and
control criteria of oil dispersants
M.G.NORTONand
FRANCES L FRANKLIN
LOW ESTO FT. 1980 ENCLOSURE(1)
PAGENO="0188"
182
Tab! 1 Sea test results
Mean mortality (51)
Method I Method 2
Type Dispersant (oil & dispersant (dispernant added
prenuxed before to oil faInt before
addition to test tanks) agitation)
Oil alone Oil and Oil alone Oil and
dispersant dispersant
Consentional Agma EP 540 - - 5 0
(l~ drocarbon Ameroid Oil Spill Dsspers~nt/LT 60 65 - -
solvent based Applied 840 - - 80 20
dispersants) Atlantol 321 1 - - 70 90
Atlan tol 3'll/E - - 80 5
BP1IOOX 65 45 10 10
Corexit 8354 60 35 - -
Dasic Slickgone LT2 40 35 10 15
Emkem Spillwash LT 35 30 - -
Eniulsol LV 40 15 - -
Finasol OSR ~ 60 60 - -
Fmasol OSR 3 - - 70 15
Fleetex BD/3 60 25 - -
Garnien OSR LT 126 60 45 - -
KrakenMC 563 65 35 - -
Lnnkromul OSD 65 65 - -
Petrocon Oil Spill Eliminator IV - - 5 15
Rochem Oil Spill Remover (WSA) - - 10 10
SersoCD2000 - - 5 5
Shell Dtspersant LTX 35 35 - -
Tekiene TC48 - - 40 45
Weilaid 311 - - 65 95*
X3125 - - 5 15
Concentrates AgmaEP559 - - 5 15
(tested as a Atlantol AT7 - - 55 80
1051 solution Atlantol AT7 floating - 40 55
mseassater) Compound W1911 - - 10 20
Compound W1986 - - 10 5
Corexit 7664 - - 10 65
Co exit 9527 25 90 30 75
Corexit 9600 40 70 55 70
Dasic Slickgone LTD 85 95 20 40
Finasol OSR 5 35 95 20 70
Finasol OSR 7 - - 70 80
Gamlen Oil Dispersant LT 50 60 55 75
IMX1O3 - - 60 45
LeekA - - 45 80~
LeekB - - 30 65
Nokomis-3 Cone 50 70 20 25
Quell.OilCI 60 75 55 80
Seawash - - 15 15
Shell Diapersant Concentrate 60 90 30 55
Spillaway - * 35 30
Surfiow OWl 50 70 55 95
SynperonicOSD2o 45 55 55 60
Synperonic OSD 41 - - 80 85
Value 100 - - 50 50
Sagiuf antuiere seust ty(St d t tt t P .dispersed oil to All the results presented so
oil
of the valida
gether with the temper ture of the estuary water using fresh Kuwait crude
as part
standard
tests have
when the animals were caught. No clear seasonal or tion programme a number
sea
fresh North Sea crude
temperafl.ee related chance in sensitnit> so apparent also been carned out using
and `weathered'
the increased resistance during the late summer in oils. The results of tests using
alone and with
1976 and 1977 was not observed in 1978 The short Kuwait Ekofisk and Auk oils
term fluctuations which occurred during this period four reference dsspersants are shown in Table
between the oils reflect
may be due to the condition of the ammals the stage Differences in toxicity
of the oil and
of bre ding cycle or the extent and method of handl ed in the relative toxicitses
dispersant
for the test did not
ing before testing As the sensssnity of the teat am mixture Thus the oil
the
mali varies betw een tests and the toxicity of d fferent affect the identity dispersants exhibiting
of the
batches of the standard oil ma> van it is ess ntial to greatest and lowest toxicity comparison
`weathered oil showed that
compare simultaneously the toxicity of a dsspersant/ results for fresh and
the
of the oil
oil mixture with that of the ph> small dispersed oil although `weathering
toxicity
the
el 5 tox
using the same stock of t 5 animals \\ stun each s t and the oil/d sp sant mixI a
r
of repli ate tests the values of the standard error are ties remained the same
low enough to illo v the detection of differences of
the results
Table 5
toxic effect between dispersants. The tests which produced
in
were
of
and she difference
carried out over a period
year
3.2.4 Effect of changes in the degree of agitanon .
in toxicity between the oils could have been affected
The speed of the motors operating the stirrers used in by the various factors listed in previous section
of the relative toxici
the standard test was chosen as 1 ~0 1450 rpm be To enable a direct comparison
carried out
which
use this produced a unaform and reproducible dss ties of the oils a single test was
in
of all three oils both fresh and
pe sson without causmg the seat organisms stress a ph> sical dsspe sion
tested simultaneously
the
(S ctson 2) Table 4 shows that when the motor `weathered were
using
results from this test
speeds e e reds.ced b> half there as a reduction in same batch of shrimps
Table 6
that Auk oil
toxic ty of the physicallv-thsp red oil and a less which are presented in
suggest
three
si nific~.nt decrease in the toxsclt) of the oil and dis is the most toxic
to shrimps
persant `na. are reflectm the lower mixing energy
for
24 h results
in he syste-n The re1ati~e toxicsties of the dssper Exposure of fresh oil to air
only
in
and
s ona obtained using the four di persants remained a sierist scant reduction in its toxicity
ii
small airticht
unchanged at the lo ser speed Because of the ab tsal that standard oils be in
con
after
Thu
sence of mortali y in the control tanks where the oil tuners which are
opening
prac
with Kuwait oil used for
suas poorly dispersed at the lower speeds howe er tsce has been adopted
the
of
of
the toxicity of the chemically dispersed oil became the standard test Moreover
contents
one
chroma
of greater statistical significance Thus where tests these cans has been analysed by gas liquid
month to determine whether
are carried out for licensing purposes which involve a tog aphy every
Table 4 Effect of reducin the degree of agitat on on results of s...a sests using four daspersants
Motor speeds Dispersant Mean mortality (9')
(rpm) Oil Oil and dsspersant
13501450' BPIIOOX 10 10
Synperonic OSD 20 55 60
55
Shell Dispe sanS Conc
75
Corexit 95 7 30
5O0~800 BPIIOOX .0 0
Synperonic OSD 20 0 10
15~
Shell Dispersans Cone. 0
55*
Corexit 9527 0
`Significant inceease in toxicity (Students s.sess;P <0.05).
`As used Sn standard test (Section i.3.i)
PAGENO="0193"
187
simulate field trials the dispersant was applied to the
oil by means of sprayers similar to those used in the
beach test. Because of the difficulty of adjusting the
sprayers to deliver an accurate quantity of diopersant
directly onto the oil in the tanks, the nominal dir.
persant to oil ratios of 1:10 and 1:20 are only
approximate and no statistical analysis can be per-
formed on individual results. However, there is tome
suggestion that the use of neat concentrates may
generate a slightly more toxic dispersion than the
diluted dispersant.
Table 10. Beach tests results
4. Beach lest results
4.1 Tests under standard conditions used for licensing
purposes
The results of beach tests with a number of dispersants
using the standard test conditions as described in Section
2.3 are given in Table 10. In the series of tests reported,
exposure of the limpets to fresh Kuwait crude oil caused
mortalities of between 30% and 95%, and application of
dispersant led to a wider range of mortalities, vasying from
Type
Conventional (hydrocarbon
solvent.based) ditpersants
Concentrates (tested as a
10% solution in sea water)
Dispersant
Agma EP 540
Ameroid Oil Spill Dispersant/LT
Applied 840
Atlan'tol 3211
Atlan'tol 321 l/E
BP I100X
Cbrexit 8354
Dasic Slickgone LT2
Emkem Spillwath LT
Emulsol LW
Finasol OSR.2
Finasol OSR.3
Gamlen OSR LT 126
Kraken MC 563
Lankromul OSD
Petrocon Oil Spill Eliminator IV
Rochem Oil Spill Remover (WSA)
Servo CD 2000
Shell Dispersant LTX
Tekteae TC48
Wellaid 311
X.3 125
Agma EP 559
Atlan'tol AT7
Atlan'tol AT7 Floating
Compound W 1911
Compound W 1986
Corexit 7664
Corexit 9527
Corexit 9600
Dasic Slickgose LTD
Finasol OSR.5
Finasol OSR-7
Gamlen Oil Dispersant LT
1MX.l03
Leek A
Leek B
Nokomis.3 Cone.
Quell Oil Cl
Seawash
Shell Dispernant Concentrate
Spillaway
Surflow OWl
Synperonic OSD 20
Synperonic OSD 41
Value 100
Mean mortality (%)
Oil Dispersant
40 40
65 25
65 70
65 100*
65 l00~
35 15
65 95*
80 35
80 75
80 60
65 85*
65 90*
65 85*
80 50
80 55
40 95*
50 55
45 60
80 70
45 20
35 100~
45 60
4(5 75*
65 95*
35 100*
50 80*
50 100*
50 10
45 70~
95 90
95 45
80 90*
66 22
80 30
55 50
60 30
60 20
80 65
95 55
50 65
50 15
35 100~
80 40
40 50
30 20
65 5
`Mortaliry ssgnilicantty greater than oil costrol (Student's s-test; P <0.05)
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 13
PAGENO="0194"
5% to 100%. About one third of the dispersants tested were
significantly more toxic than oil, with little difference
between conventional dispersants and concentrates,
4.2 Tests under non-standard conditions
As with the sea test, the sensitivity of the test to variations
in test conditions has been investigated and the influence of
several variables is described below (Sections 4.2.1-4.2.4).
4.2.1 Variations in the sensitivity of limpets to oil
Some indication of the variation of sensitivity of
limpets to oil was obtained by examination of the
mean mortality (%) of limpets exposed to oil during
beach tests carried out in 1977 and 1978 (Figure 5).
It is apparent that limpets are slightly less sensitive to
the toxic effects of oil during the summer months
and that the short-term fluctuations in mortality are
low. The standard deviations within each set of
replicate tests are low enough to allow detection of
differences, between the toxic effects of oil and those
of dispersants, with some confidence.
4.2.2 Effect of changes in the source of oil
Approval of a dispersast for licensing purposes is
based on its toxicity relative to that of a standard
oil; thus variations in toxicity between oils could lead
to different resul;s. The sensitivity of limpets to
three oils is shown in Table 11 where the toxicities
of Auk and Ekofisk oils, both fresh and `weathered',
are compared with that of the standard Kuwait oil
using two batches of limpets. There appeared to be
no significant diffv3nce in toxicity between the
different types of oil, or between fresh and
`weathered' oil. These results suggested that a coating
of oil will result in similar mortalities regardless of the
exact concentration or composition of the oil, and
imply that the limpets were killed by being physi.
cally coated with oil, rather than because of chemical
toxicity. The detailed mechanism by which the oils
used in these tests exerted their effects on limpets is
not clear.
188
Table 11 - Relative toxicities of three oils, both fresh and
`weathered' to two populations of limpets in the
beach test
Type of
oil
Mean mortality
(%)
Kuwait
Ekofisk
Auk
Fresh
50
45
50
45
45
35
`Weathered'4
35
40
60
50
55
40
4Fresh sit exposed to air as a 50 mm film for 24
100 1977
60
J `F `M'A'M'J'J `A'S'O'ND
ci
197B
::~f~ `MA' M' ~ `A'S ~
Figure 5. Seasonal variations in the mortality of Patella exposed to fresh Kuwait crude oil under standard beach test
conditions.
Mean % mortality and standard deviation.
PAGENO="0195"
189
4.2.3 Effect of changes in the application rate of mum application rate which results in effective re*
oil and di'spersant moval of the oil.
4.2.4 Effect of applying dispers.ant to oiled ZL'npets
To determine the effect on limpets of changing the Although the standard test is based on a comparison
application rates used in tlse test, each of the of the toxicities of oil and dispersant to lirnpots, in
reference dispersants and the standard oil were tested a clean-up operation already-oiled organisms v-ill be
at tlsree diffe tnt application rates using the name sprayed with dispe sant The add tional effect of dis
batch of limpets. The results, presented in Table 12, persants on oiled hinpett evas thus determined using
show that a 7~' reduction of the application rate of the four reference diiperaants (Table 13) In each
oil caused no stenidlcant reduction in tlse mortality of case the mortality of oiled limpets spra> ed by dispers
lanpets in the test consistent ith the suggestion ant was ii nificartaly higher than that of ltrnpets cx
earlier that limpet mortality from oil is primarily due posed to oil or dispersant alone; this suggests that
to ph3 tical rather than chemical processes Dispersant under most circumstances the toxic effects of oil
toxicity does however, decrease as the application and diapersant are additive. A comparison of the
rate is towered; thus the number of dispersants pass. effect of dispersant on oiled limpets with the effect
jag the test (Section 1.4) was dependent on the of oil alone could thus not be readily used for
application rate used in the test. In the standard regulatory purposes. Nevertheless, of the reference
tests this ens set at the average rate used in practice dispersants, those with a lower toxicity to unoiled
(0.41 rn2) (Section 1.3.2). These test results, how- lirnpets also cause the smallest increase in mortality
sI o that the daneer of damage to intertidal when sprayed on oiled ltinpets Thus the effect of
orpanisms can be reduced if dispersants are uaed at restricting licences to products having a low toxi-
tow rates of application. To avofd increasing the city under the standard beach test conditions also
damage already being caused by the oil spilt on the minimises the adverse effects of oil-dispersass mix-
shores, dispersant should always be used at the mini tures on organisms.
Table 12. Effect of different application rates on results of beach tests using four dispersants
Application rate of Dispersant Mean mortality (%)
oil and dispersant
Oil Dispersant
(1 m )
0.4~ BPIIOOX 35 15
Synperonic OSD 20 40 50
Shell Dispersant Cone. 50 15
Corexit 9527 45 70*
Mean 40 40
0.2 BP1IOOX 40 15
Synperonic OSD 20 40 30
Shell Diapersant Cone. 25 15
Corexit 9527 50 45
Mean 40 25
0.1 BP1IOOX 40 5
Synperonic OSD 20 25 15
Shell Dispersant Cone. 25 5
Corexit 9527 40 40
Mean 35 15
51 t I g 1 an t th oil t I (St d I I I P <005)
R t sadie t d di t(S 1 132)
PAGENO="0196"
190
Table 15 Concentrations of oil in the water column resulting from natural and chemical dispersion at sea
Details of spill Type of oil Maximum oil Source
(and dispersant) concentration
Natural disp ersion
ARROW, Chedabucto Bay, USA Bunker C fuel oil 0.06 US Ministry of
April 1970 Transport, 1970
AMOCO CADIZ, Brittany Light Iranian and 0.2 (offahort) Law, 1978b
March 1978 Arabian crudes
DRUPA, Norway Iranian crude 02-0.3 Grahl-Nielsen
February 1976 etal.,1978
Ekofisk Bravo blowout, North Sea crude 0.3 Grahl-Nielsen,
North Sea, April 1977 1978
Experimental 14 t slick - Heavy gas oil 1.5 Cormack and
Nichols, 1977b
Experimental 71 enclosed North Sea crude 0.15 Ward and Davies,
slick 1978
Experir.tental /a t slick North Sea crude 2.5 Cot-mack and
Nichols, 1977b
ELENI V, North Sea Heavy fuel oil 3.4 (inshore) Law and Hall,
May 1978 0.04 (offshore) 1978
Picnic Bay, Hong Kong Heavy marine diesel 0.06 Spooner, 1977
November 1973
Chemical dispersion
ELENI V, North Sea Heavy fuel oil + 0.2 Law and Hall,
May 1978 (near wreck) Dasic Slickgone LTD 1978
DRUPA, Norway Iranian crude + I Grahl-Nielstn
Finasol OSR 2 etaL,l978
Experimental 230 1 slick Fresh Kuwait crude + 48 Cot-mack and
BP 1002 Nichols, 1977b
Experimenlal 7 1 enclosed North Sea crude 78 Ward and Davies,
slick +BPI100X 1978
to the concentrations which have been shown to be en- 48 ~l r' after 2 mm to below 2 ~a1 r' after 100 mm.
countered initially following dispersion of a slick. Where Therefore dilution during the first 100 mm is likely to
the less toxic dispersants are used, the 100 mm LC5O reduce the dispersed oil concentration to between 0.01
value is substantially higher than concentrations actually and 0.001 of the 100 mm LC5O value where the less toxic
measured under a chemically-dispersed slick. products are used. Weathering of fresh oil which is likely to
occur before spraying with dispersant will also tend to re-
Observations at sea have demonstrated that subsequent duce the toxicity of the dmsperaed oil. Thus, provided
dilution is rapid; in Cormack's (1977) studies, the maxi- marine ceganisrns are not exposed repeatedly to concensra-
mum concentration of chemically-dispersed oil fei5l from tiona of dispersed oil and provided there in adequate water
PAGENO="0197"
191
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT,
Washington, D.C., September 26, 1980.
Hon. GERRY E. STUDDS,
Chairman, Oceanography Subcommittee, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisher-
ies, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In my recent testimony before the Oceanography Subcom-
mittee, Congressman Breaux asked a number of questions concerning the burden of
proof under section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act (the Act). Specifically, does EPA
or the applicant for an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit determine the degradation to the marine environment as a result of the
proposed discharge?
Section 403(c)(1) of the Act directs the Administrator of EPA to promulgate ocean
discharge guidelines to be used in determining the degradation of marine waters
when issuing an NPDES permit. Section 403(c)(2) prohibits the issuance of an
NPDES permit for an ocean discharge in cases in which there is insufficient infor-
mation on the proposed discharge to make a reasonable judgment on the guidelines.
The permitting authority must make the determinations called for by section 403(c).
The real question, however, is where the law places the burden of presenting
sufficient information to that authority to allow the "reasonable judgment" required
by the Act.
EPA's Consolidated Permit Regulations, 45 FR 33290 (May 19, 1980), based on the
Administrative Procedure Act, place the ultimate burden of persuading the Agency
that an NPDES permit should be issued upon the permit applicant. The permit
applicant bears this burden not only in its application for a permit but also in any
subsequent envidentiary hearing on the permit. This means that the permit appli-
cant should be prepared to submit sufficient information to support a determination
to issue the permit.
Once a permit is issued, that permit, or any of the conditions contained in that
permit may be challenged in an evidentiary hearing. When a permit condition is
challenged in an evidentiary hearing, EPA bears the burden of going forward to
present an affirmative case in support of the challenged permit condition. The
permit applicant, or any other hearing party, who contends that the issuance or
denial of a permit is improper or invalid, or who challenges the inclusion or deletion
of specific permit conditions, has the burden of going forward to present an affirma-
tive case at the conclusion of the Agency's presentation.
The ultimate burden of persuading the Agency to issue an NPDES permit, howev-
er, remains at all times on the permit applicant. This is particularly true in the
case of an application for an NPDES permit for an ocean discharge because of the
requirement in section 403(c)(2) that no permit be issued for such a discharge
without sufficient information on which to make a reasonable judgment concerning
the effects of the proposed discharge.
I hope this satisfactorily answers Congressman Breaux' question. A similar letter
has been sent to Congressman Breaux. Please let me know if I may provide the
Subcommittee additional information.
Sincerely yours,
R. SARAH COMPTON,
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcement.
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will be adjourned.
[The following was received for the record:]
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., September 4, 1980.
Ms. R. SARAH COMPTON,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water Enforcement, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MS. COMPTON: As a result of your testimony and response to questions at
hearings held by the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee, I would appreciate your responding to the additional
questions listed below.
(1) Would you please supply this Committee with the raw data only from the EPA
study on the effects of drill muds in the Gulf of Mexico, at your earliest conven-
ience?
PAGENO="0198"
192
(2) During your appearance you stated that the study of the studies by Rice
University. was flawed because, I believe you stated, there was no baseline informa-
tion available on the Gulf of Mexico. My questions are:
(a) Would you say those studies are irrelevant as to the impacts of drilling muds and
other commercial activities on the OCS? If so, why, and if not, why?
(b) If the Rice and other studies are flawed because of the lack of baseline informa-
tion, what impact does this have upon EPA's studies referred to in testimony before
this Committee?
(3) Are you prepared to state that any scientific study conducted under anything
other than actual operating conditions could prove conclusively that there is or is
not sigrnficant harm to marine biology from any OCS commercial activity?
(4) Do you feel that applying these standards (i.e., conclusively proving no signifi-
cant harm) to all uses of the oceans would be proper?
(5) Can you supply this Committee with empirical evidence or research findings of
the negative impacts of commercial activities (other than oil and gas) in the marine
environment?
(6) Would you mind telling this Committee if there is any research conducted
under actual operating conditions on the OCS that you feel is relevant and that
proves conclusively that there is or is not any significant negative impact to fisher-
ies from commercial usage of the oceans?
(7) Can you prove conclusively through research (without actually allowing events
to continue until there is a significant negative impact) that oil and gas activities,
commercial fishing, the dumping of dredge spoil or other commercial uses of the
oceans will not have any significant negative impact on the marine biology?
(8) In your statement, and in your response to questions, you expressed deep
concern over providing adequate protection for the marine environment against
harm from oil and gas operations as is the case with all commercial activities I am
sure by using the regulatory authority you have by law There is no reason this
should be doubted, nor disagreed with.
In response to a question by Mr. Breaux, you also stated, and agreed with the
Secretary of the Interior Andrus, that there was adequate authority in law to
provide for the safety necessary for the resources in the Georges Bank and as a
matter of fact, you agreed that neither EPA nor Interior were permitting any
activity that posed a foreseeable significant adverse impact to fisheries or any other
resources on the OCS. In light of this, do you feel that there is more that should or
could be done that is allowed or is not allowed by law to protect the marine biota?
(9) Is there any level of commercial uses of the oceans at which you could say
conclusively there will not be any foreseeable significant harm to the marine
biology? If so, what is that level, and how could it be accomplished?
(10) What is the scientific difference and relationship between "proving conclu-
sively there will be harm" and "proving conclusively there will not be harm"? How
does this difference relate to the modeling, conclusion, and usage of research as well
as to its relevance?
(11) What is the relationship and significant difference between scientifically
proving there "will be no foreseeable harm," and "there will be foreseeable harm"?
What is the relevance of each?
(12) What do you feel would be the impact of additional legislation, such as is
being considered, to provide another layer of legal requirements to protect commer-
cial fishing in the Georges Bank area from oil and gas operations, in light of the fact
that EPA and DOl say that they have the legal authority to protect against
foreseeable harm to fisheries and other marine resources?
(13) Is the phrase "harm to the marine biology" necessarily significant as pertains
to a negative impact on the marine environment?
(14) Is the phrase "harm to the marine biology" necessarily a relative or signifi-
cant finding as pertains to significant negative impact on commercial fishing?
(15) In EPA's experience, have long-term biological effects of suspected toxic
substances been substantiated when short-term effects were not detected?
(16) Upon what evidence does EPA base the conclusion that the Georges Bank is
more ecologically sensitive than the Gulf of Mexico?
(17) What areas onshore or offshore are now approved for disposal of drilling
muds? What is the procedure for obtaining approval of such dump sites and what
period of time is required to obtain approval? If needed, can EPA assure, without
question, that such approved sites will be established?
(18) Did the EPA participate in developing the protocol for conducting bioassays
on drilling muds? Has an acceptable protocol been established which can be general-
ly used by all laboratories?
PAGENO="0199"
193
We would appreciate your responses to these questions at your earliest conven
ience.
Sincerely,
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE.
[Responses to the foregoing questions had not been received at
time of publication.]
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned.]
PAGENO="0200"
PAGENO="0201"
OCEAN ENERGY OVERSIGHT: WAVE, CURRENT,
AND TIDAL POWER
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1980
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gerry E. Studds
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Studds.
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing is our fourth oversight hearing on renewable
sources of energy from the ocean. In our first three hearings, which
were held last year, we dealt with ocean thermal energy conserva-
tion (OTEC)-which uses temperature differences in ocean water to
produce electricity-and ocean biomass conversion, which uses the
ocean as a place to grow plants for conversion to methane gas.
Today we will focus on methods which would convert the energy in
the ocean's waves, currents, and tides into electricity.
We understand that the Department of Energy has decided to
focus the bulk of its efforts and funding for ocean energy systems
on OTEC because its potential is far greater than any other ocean
energy system.
Although the United States is the world leader in many areas of
scientific and technical endeavor, much of the work on the technol-
ogies we are considering today has been done in other countries.
Most of the early work on wave energy conversion was done in
Great Britain.
The only existing tidal power project of any size is at Rance on
the Brittany coast of France. The Soviet Union has a small pilot
tidal powerplant approximately 40 miles north of Murmansk.
Given our dwindling energy supplies and our dependence upon
foreign sources of fuel, we as a nation cannot afford to investigate
alternative energy sources in as plodding and methodical a fashion
as we could 10 or 20 years ago. The major purpose of our hearings
today and those we have already held on ocean energy is not only
to investigate the feasibility and potential of these emerging tech-
nologies, but also to encourage DOE to hasten the development of
those which appear the most promising.
Because this is the last ocean energy oversight hearing which we
will be able to hold during this Congress, we have grouped together
wave, current, and tidal power in a single hearing.
We understand that our choice of technologies for this hearing
differs from the way DOE organizes its own activities. Many things
(195)
PAGENO="0202"
196
are different from the way DOE organizes its own activities, and
while our primary witness from DOE will discuss tidal power in his
statement, he is not the official responsible for supervising DOE's
activities in this area. He will be accompanied by a representative
of DOE's Office of Resource Applications which does have that
responsibility.
Let me just say that to the utter astonishment of many people,
the earlier hearings last year on OTEC, which we began with, led
in an uncharacteristically prompt manner to the drafting, enact-
ment, and signing into law of legislation in spite, may I say, of
some of the testimony from the Department of Energy on that
subject.
While we do not anticipate as prompt a call for legislation in the
other ocean fields which we are looking at now, it is very much our
hope that we can find areas, if there be such, in which prodding,
legislative or otherwise, would be helpful.
Our first witness is Dr. Maurice J. Katz, Director of the Office of
Solar Power Applications in the Department of Energy.
Dr. Katz, as I understand it, you are accompanied by the two
gentlemen I have listed here.
STATEMENT OF DR. MAURICE J. KATZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SOLAR POWER APPLICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM E. RICHARDS, ACTING DIREC-
TOR, OCEAN ENERGY SYSTEMS DIVISION, AND RALPH E.
BURR, DIVISION OF HYDROELECTRIC RESOURCE DEVELOP-
MENT, OFFICE OF RESOURCE APPLICATIONS
Dr. KATZ. Yes, by Mr. William Richards, Acting Director of the
Ocean Energy Systems Division, and by Mr. Ralph Burr from the
Division of Hydroelectric ResOurce Development from the Assistant
Secretary for Resource Application.
Mr. STUDDS. So we can all understand a little better the bureauc-
racies of the Department of Energy, you and Mr. Richards, who
works with you-is that correct?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. Are responsible for ocean energy systems, which
includes waves, currents, salinity gradients and OTEC; is that
right?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. However, in the Department of Energy, tidal power
is not an ocean system?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. It is hydroelectric.
Dr. KATZ. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. Therefore, that comes under another part of the
department?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. OK.
Now we have straightened that out, go right ahead with your
statement.
Dr. KATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to testify
before you today on the Department of Energy's (DOE) alternate
ocean energy systems program.
PAGENO="0203"
197
I have with me, as we noted, Mr. Richards and Mr. Burr. What
we are going to do today is tell you a little bit about tidal power
and the alternate ocean energy systems program
It is the goal of DOE to assess and, if appropriate, develop
options which can be used to extract and distribute significant
amounts of energy from the oceans in a reliable, environmentally
acceptable and cost effective manner The program strategy to
achieve that goal is to identify the energy resources that are avail-
able, to identify the energy extraction and conversion techniques
that can make them practical, and then to determine whether they
are technically and economically feasible.
Once this is done, we would then proceed to the development and
demonstration of these technologies, which would induce industry
to participate in the commercialization of ocean energy extractioti
devices
The primary emphasis as you know from your own interest and
participation in the ocean energy program, is in Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion (OTEC) which, studies show, is expected to be
economically acceptable in island markets during the mid to late
1980's Dr Bennett Miller the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Solar Energy, testified before your subcommittee on the OTEC
program in January 1980 Today I would like to describe the status
and progress in the alternate ocean energy systems program which
includes projects in wave energy, ocean currents and salinity gradi
ents
Starting with wave energy we all know that over the years there
have been perhaps hundreds of concepts proposed to convert the
surging motion of the waves into useful energy The Department of
Energy program is directed toward determining whether such con
cepts offer the promise of providing economic sources of electric
power, and if they do, to develop the most efficient concepts for
extracting that energy.
The next slide gives us some information on the wave energy
resources along the shoreline of the United States The important
thing to note is that it varies considerably from location to loca
tion It also varies considerably by season By far the greatest
average potential for wave energy exists along the Oregon Wash
ington coastline where the waves contain on the average over the
year 30 megawatts per linear mile of wave crest The California
coastline has about half that potential per unit length and other
parts of the U S coastline have still lower wave potential
The numbers you see here are given for coastal waters about 2
miles offshore. There is higher wave energy farther out in deeper
waters, about 5 to 10 miles offshore, but, unfortunately, if we go
out that far, we will be increasing the costs for transmission cables
and the like and so the entire system cost may go up
The figure also shows the yearly incidental power averages that
are available in those regions That is shown in the second column
However, to estimate the electric power available we must factor
in both the efficiencies of extraction and conversion as well as the
spacing of the devices that we would use to extract the power along
the coastline
PAGENO="0204"
198
When you apply these factors, the wave energy could potentially
supply about 1,300 megawatts in the Washington-Oregon area. This
is between 5 and 10 percent of the power generated in that region.
Mr. STUDDS. Let me interrupt you one second, Dr. Katz.
If there are members of the audience-I know there are many in
the audience who have seen these slides, but if there are people in
the audience who have not seen the slide presentation being made
and wish to do so, feel free to sit around the lower rung of chairs
here, if you think your reputations can stand being confused with
Members of Congress. You would be perfectly welcome to do so.
Go ahead.
Dr. KATZ. Before I discuss the Department of Energy's program
in wave energy, it is important to note that there is a significant
international effort in the development of wave energy. It is an
important element of our program to maintain an effective liaison
with the international community, both to minimize duplication of
effort, and also to get the maximum technical return on the invest-
ment of the U.S. research and development dollar.
Because the British have one of the best wave energy resources,
the United Kingdom pursues a broad spectrum of wave energy
development. They have expended in 1979, as well as in 1980,
approximately $8 million a year in R. & D. funds for wave energy
development. Most of their early research has been in the develop-
ment of devices that are generally deployed parallel to the wave
front. These are called beam sea devices, and two of them are
shown in the chart.
The British have determined that the delivered electric power
costs of their initial designs were exceptionally high. In fact, they
were about 1000 mills per kilowatt hour. These costs were primar-
ily due to the high structural costs and high mooring costs that are
needed for such beam-sea devices.
Redesign of the British devices is now reported to bring the
electric power cost estimates at the Scottish coastline down to
about 100 to 300 mills per kilowatt hour. While these costs are still
generally uneconomic, they may be reasonable for small, isolated
applications where the resources are exceptionally good.
The Norwegians also have a very interesting program in the
development of wave energy. They are emphasizing two systems
which enhance power production by concentrating wave energy
through focusing. I will be saying a little bit more about focusing
when I talk about our program.
One of the systems seen here uses a set of submerged pilings that
bend the wave front and focus it to one point. As seen in the
diagram it is somewhat analogous to the way an optical lens focus-
es light rays to one point.
Another technique they use is a resonant heaving buoy which is
designed to maximize the amplitude of its vertical motion, and
thereby capture as much energy as it can from the wave.
To date the Norwegians have conducted both analytical studies
and also model tests of these devices.
The Japanese, on the other hand, are emphasizing systems in
which air is driven through turbines by wave action, as shown in
that chart. They have been testing navigation buoys utilizing this
concept since the 1960's, and this approach is also under investiga-
PAGENO="0205"
199
tion by the U.S. Coast Guard and by the British who are using it in
isolated applications.
The Japanese also have tested full scale turbines aboard their
vessel platform called the Kaimei which you see in that chart.
They have succeeded in transmitting for some period of time an
average net power of 25 kilowatts undersea for about 2 miles from
this platform into the Japanese grid.
The United States, Britain, Canada, and Ireland recently all
participated with the Japanese in an international experiment on
that platform that was carried out through the auspices of the
International Energy Agency. The results of those experiments,
while not yet completely analyzed, unfortunately showed signifi-
cantly lower performance than was originally projected for the
devices used.
We suspect that the lower performance was due to suboptimal
ship and cavity design on the Kaimei.
Mr. STUDDS. Do you have numbers in terms of relative costs?
Dr. KATZ. All of these were one-of-a-kind items, so it is hard to
guess at what their production costs would be in a commercial
setting.
The U.S. program is managed by the Solar Energy Research
Institute which has been assigned responsibility for the alternate
ocean energy systems program.
We are basing our program on what is being carried out in the
international community as well as entering new areas of wave
energy R. & D. The U.S. wave program's primary initiative is in
the investigation of devices oriented into the incoming wave rather
than parallel to it, as done by the English. These devices, called
head sea devices, offer the advantage of lower costs and higher
survivability because their orientation allows them to have lower
mooring forces and to suffer lower structural loads.
Theoretical studies carried out at MIT have shown that these
types of devices, if headed into the incoming wave, such as a ship
cutting across a wave front, will produce about 20-percent less
energy than the same device deployed parallel to the incoming
wave.
However, the lower costs give this design a more economic out-
look than the more energy efficient beam sea devices. The MIT
work, therefore, offers a sound analytical basis on which to contin-
ue these types of investigations.
The United States is emphasizing air or pneumatic turbine head
sea devices since their conversion equipment is above the water
and has the potential for reduced maintenance and increased reli-
ability. As you can see in this chart, the sea water is well below the
operating conversion equipment and this should lead to a longer
lifetime for that equipment.
This low pressure air turbine of innovative design is now under
construction. While it is not practical to make an exact cost projec-
tion at this time, it does appear to offer potential for improved
performance and cost over the Japanese and British devices. Con-
struction and offshore testing of this device is expected to be com-
pleted during fiscal year 1981.
A subscale wave tank experimental program is also planned to
confirm the theoretical models for head sea devices which have
PAGENO="0206"
200
been developed and to provide an analytical capability for inter-
preting the results of the Kaimei, the Japanese test platform.
Continuation of this program would emphasize studies that
broaden the responsible range of such systems to different sea
conditions and thereby provide a basis for improving the total
power output.
A second thrust of the U.S. program in wave energy is to assess
the potential of wave focusing to reduce the costs associated with
extraction and conversion equipment. The size of a device needed
to extract energy directly from an incoming wave front, plus the
need for the device to survive storm conditions, make such hard-
ware massive and therefore costly.
An alternate approach to wave energy extraction is to concen-
trate the wave energy before it is converted into mechanical or
electrical power. If the wave energy is concentrated, then the con-
version hardware can be made much more compact and thus can
be made more inexpensively. If the concentrating structure can be
made relatively simple, the system should be significantly less
expensive than an equivalent size system without wave focusing.
A very interesting focusing technique that is under development
now is the DAM-ATOLL concept. As we see in the South Pacific,
waves bending around small volcanic lands appear to leave the
island with no lee side; that is, the waves appear to come at the
island from all directions. This is the concept being applied in the
DAM-ATOLL process.
In this case we would make relatively small dome-shaped, man-
made islands as you see in the chart They would be submerged to
refract incoming wave fronts so that the waves are then caused to
approach the center of the atoll radially and appear as a concen-
trated energy source at the inlet guide vanes which then feed to
the turbine to produce electricity. This concept is being developed
by the Lockheed Corp. Their representative will speak to you later
this morning about it.
In support of the two major thrusts discussed above, the U.S.
wave program is evaluating the cost effectiveness of the total
power delivery systems. This analysis will assess the cost of various
generic components as they affect total power generation costs.
A fourth element of the program is to solicit and assist in devel-
oping additional wave concepts, to search out the new ideas that
we are sure will be forthcoming. Such a solicitation is scheduled to
be released by the Solar Energy Research Institute later this calen-
dar year.
Several unique environmental concerns are also associated with
wave power and they are listed here. These concerns will be ad-
dressed first in a generic environmental assessment, and subse-
quently they will be evaluated for specific designs under develop-
ment before any final design or construction is approved. By the
end of fiscal year 1981 we anticipate achieving the following mile-
stones:
First, we will complete the analysis and evaluation of the results
of the Japanese Kaimei test platform and determine the desirabil-
ity of any future international program effort.
Second, we will experimentally evaluate the innovative air tur-
bine device over a range of sea conditions.
PAGENO="0207"
201
Third, we will complete the design and initiate the construction
of a subscale model of the DAM ATOLL device, for tests in a wave
tank
Fourth, depending on the repsonses to the wave energy solicita
tion I just mentioned, we hope to begin the evaluation of one or
more new wave power concepts
Lastly, we will complete the systems analysis for generic ma
chines to allow for detailed comparisons between technologies
The budget for the wave energy program in fiscal year 1979 was
$581,000; in 1980, $935,000; and we estimate $1,190,000 for fiscal
year 1981.
Turning to ocean current energy research, there are several
areas in the world where large, sustained ocean currents exist It is
the intent of our program to assess and, where appropriate, demon
strate devices which can extract energy from the velocity of ocean
currents
The largest ocean current within the U S jurisdiction is the Gulf
Stream as it flows through the Florida Straits. The maximum total
power of this resource is estimated to be about 10,000 megawatts
However, potential adverse climatic impacts could limit the actual
power which could be extracted in an environmentally benign
manner to about 1,000 megawatts.
Currently, the department is analyzing and testing two selected
ocean current devices which have been proposed The first shown
here is a large ocean turbine Its original design being analyzed
was for an 80 megawatt device Its dimensions were some 360 feet
long and 560 feet in diameter A large number of such devices
would have to be deployed to realize the full potential of the
resource in the Florida Straits
There are technical questions on the amount of power that can
be achieved by optimum hydrodynamic design, low cost structural
designs, and maximum current and storm survivability. Mooring
and electric cable transmission are also questions that must be
addressed with this technology, and will be in the coming fiscal
year
Another approach that we are looking at is the multiple drogue
chute concept in which the current is used to drag, if you like, a
series of parachute like devices that turn a continuous conveyor
belt We have no detailed economic evaluation on this concept, and
we are awaiting a final report to assist in determining the role it
will have in the future of the DOE ocean energy program.
There are environmental concerns in ocean current energy as
well, and some of them that we are reviewing are listed here. The
concerns that are associated with global scale climate and Gulf
Stream currents are difficult to determine accurately. There are
many diverse oceanographic theories on the fate of the Gulf
Stream in the North Atlantic, and an informal exchange with
oceanographers, both at Scripps and Woods Hole, indicates that
there is a very low probability of significant impact on ocean
circulation and on weather if the power extracted from the Florida
Straits is less than 1,000 megawatts.
However, a definitive answer to this question requires an exten-
sive analytical program supported by ocean data
PAGENO="0208"
202
The budget in the ocean current program in fiscal year 1979 is
$160,000, in fiscal year 1980, $175,000, growing to an estimated
$480,000 in fiscal year 1981 This growth from 1980 to 1981 reflects
the initiation of a model test program to supplement the ongoing
analytical studies and the feasibhty of large ocean turbines
The third element of the alternate ocean energy program is
salinity gradients One of the more intriguing potential methods
for extracting energy from the ocean depends on the salt dissolved
in it. Two salinity gradient methods have been identified to gener-
ate energy from solutions of different salt concentrations that are
separated by special membranes The methods are called reverse
osmosis and dialyctic batteries and are based on methods currently
used in water desalinization processes
In those cases, electricity is used to change salt concentration In
our case we are using salt concentrations to produce electricity in
the reverse manner
Salinity gradient energy conversion using seawater and river or
groundwater as the two saline solutions has been investigated by
the DOE We are finding that due to very high cost and large
membrane requirements, this type of energy conversion does not
appear to be economically feasible
Because of these results, and because of the need for significant
improvement in membrane life and performance to make even an
expensive system work, technology development will be discontin
ued by the Office of Solar Power Applications until additional
research indicates improved feasibility
Turning now to the Department's activities in tidal power, the
wave and current research and development that I described to you
is being conducted, in the Office of Conservation and Solar Energy,
and the tidal power work in the Office of Resource Applications
As you know, energy may be extracted from the tides by means
of dams placed across the sea inlets During periods of high tide,
seawater is allowed to flow into the inlet where it is retained for
release through electric generating turbines
France is currently operating such a system to supply electricity
to their grid In an effort to determine the potential of tidal power
as an energy source for the United States, the Stone and Webster
Engineering Corp of Boston was commissioned to review its feasi
bility Their two volume report resulting from this study was pub
lished in March of 1977 They found that costs far outweighed any
benefits to be accrued through the lifetime of such tidal power
projects
The study has been criticized because they considered only large
scale sites and no small scale sites, and so subsequently the Depart
ment of Energy funded a feasibility study to be conducted at Half
Moon Cove in Passamaquoddy Bay, Maine This is underway and
the data is being compiled The results should be available in
December 1980
In both cases, large and small tidal power projects, the costs of
the civil works play a pivotal role. The Department has reviewed a
number of proposals on tidal power development None have shown
any significant economic advances in this area over present tech
nology Therefore, there is no additional support being requested in
PAGENO="0209"
203
the fiscal year 1981 budget. This may be reconsidered when the
results from the small site study are completed.
In summary, the alternate ocean energy program is in an explor-
atory stage. Our thrust is to focus on those innovative and promis-
ing concepts and systems concepts which are not presently being
adequately pursued elsewhere. We will maintain our close associ-
ation with ongoing programs in other countries and structure our
program to complement the work being done elsewhere.
Finally, we will continue to solicit and encourage new and inno-
vative ideas which may not be identified within the structure
framework of the program.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared testimony. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The charts that accompanied the prepared statement follow:]
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 1L~
PAGENO="0210"
VSE CORPORATION 2550 HUNTINGTON AVENUE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22303 PHONE (703) 9604600
I SYSTEMS
LARÔE RESOURCE
(TENSOF OUADS/'r
r~ CURRtN
* a
(TENTIS~ A AD/YEAI)
* NEEDS SYSTEM DEAN~ON
IT
I
C
a
WAVESt
* UMIRUSOURCEAt1EaU.t~
* alaLE TECHNOLOGY
kt~'~t~'~: ,.
it
.1
FIGURE 1
PAGENO="0211"
205
U S COASTLINE WAVE POWER POTENTIAL
Avg Power Per Incident Power Likely Extractable
Crest Length (MW) (2 Miles Power * (MW)
REGION (Mw/mi) From Shore)
OREGON/WASHINGTON 30 13 100 1 300
CALIFORNIA 15 10 000 1 000
NORTH ATLANTIC 5 3 400 340
SOUTH ATLANTIC 3 3 000 300
GULF OF MEXICO 1 2 700 270
*A55UMES 20% SPACING FOR DEVICES AND A 50% EXTRACTION AND CONVERSION
EFFICIENCY 2 MILES OFFSHORE.
FIGURE 2
PAGENO="0212"
`UK PROGRAM
CONCEPTS
Salter's Cam Cockerell Raft
FIGURE 3
PAGENO="0213"
NOR WEG IAN
PROGRAM
CONCEPT
Wave Focusing
FIGURF 4
C
PAGENO="0214"
208
CIRCULAR CYLINDRICAL SPARS
HEAVING BODIES
FIGURE 5
PAGENO="0215"
209
GENERATOR
\ I TURBINE
AIR CHAMBER CENTER-PIPE
~
~_ WATER COLUMN
J!\~
CAVITY RESONATOR (PNEUMATiC TYPE)
FIGURE 6
PAGENO="0216"
I
210
PAGENO="0217"
HEAD. SEA
DEVICE
T(lID~ 0
PAGENO="0218"
Prototype Wave Energy Converter
~.
FIGURE 9
`-a
Gearbox
Electric
Power
Out
Valves
PAGENO="0219"
PRINCIPLE OF
LOCKHEED DAM-ATOLL CONCEPT
:4
60 FT~~**. .. I
L.-'TURBINE
...
.-` I :
-~-~ ~_~_~_I_ -_____
~ls 250FT
IN LET GUIDE
VAN ES
- (/GENERATOR
I-
1
FIGURE 10
PAGENO="0220"
OCEAN WAVES ENERGY CONVERSION
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
* ALTERATION OF SEDIMENT DEPOSITION/
EROSION PATTERNS
* HABITAT ALTERATION
* FOULING CONTROL TOXICITY
* COASTAL ZONE COMPETITIVE USES
FIGURE 11
PAGENO="0221"
215
FY 1981 GOALS FOR WAVE ENERGY
O COMPLETE K~4IMEI TEST AND EVALUATION
O PERFORM AIR TURBINE EXPERIMENTS
O DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT DAM-ATOLL FOR TANK TEST
O SOLICIT AND EVALUATE NEW WAVE POWER CONCEPTS
O COMPLETE SYSTEM STUDY/COST PROJECTIONS
FT(IIPF 12
PAGENO="0222"
~ --~ ~
- -
/ -
CORIOLIS OCEAN TURBINE UNIT
FIGURE 13
216
GENERATORS
- 360FT
(HOrn)
ELECTRICAL
POWER TO SHORE
PAGENO="0223"
SINGLE POINT
\~NG
DRIVE WHEEL
LINEAR TYPE CURRENT DEVICE
CURRENT FLOW
FIGURE 14
PAGENO="0224"
OCEAN CURRENT ENERGY CONVERSION
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
* IMPACTS ON LOCAL CURRENTS
* IMPACTS ON GLOBAL SCALE CLIMATE
* IMPACTS ON MARINE BIOTA
* NAVIGATION, LEGAL, and INSTITUTiONAL
IMPACTS
/
/
FIGURE 15
PAGENO="0225"
219
69_8L18 0 - 81 - 15
PAGENO="0226"
VSE CORPORATION 2550 HUNTINGTON AVENUE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22303 PHONE (703) 9eb.4600
LOW~O~~ThTRATION /HICH CONCENTRATION (STRATIFIED POND)
FRESH/BRINE SYSTEM (SALT RECOVERY EVAPORATOR)
FIGURE 17
1
PAGENO="0227"
221
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Katz.
Let me start out with the most explicit questions, just to get
some sense of relative importance associated at least by DOE with
these various potential sources of energy.
Your figures for the fiscal 1981 budget request show $1.19 million
for waves, $0.48 million for currents, and none whatsoever for
salinity gradient and none whatsoever for tidal; is that right?
Dr. KATZ. Your figures are correct.
Mr. STUDDS. This is extraordinarily modest. Let's put those in
some perspective.
You head what?
Dr. KATZ. The Office of Solar Power Applications.
Mr. STUDDS. The Office of Solar Power Applications, and under
you is the Division of Ocean Energy and--
Dr. KATZ. Wind Energy Systems.
Mr. STUDDS. What is the total budget of the Office of Solar
Applications?
Dr. KATZ. Our total figure in the President's budget for fiscal
1981 is $126 million.
Mr. STUDDS. $126 million?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct.
Mr. STUDDS. And of that, how much goes to the Division of Ocean
Energy?
Dr. KATZ. $39 million.
Mr. STUDDS. Thirty-nine. The balance goes to wind?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct, $87 million.
Mr. STUDDS. $87 million to wind. It seems to me not very many
years ago in my first term I had a discussion with the Federal wind
program. It was one man.
Dr. KATZ. Many years ago it was one man.
Mr. STUDDS. I said not many years ago. That is a dramatic
change. So you have $39 million in total in ocean energy, the bulk
of which, I assume, is in OTEC?
Dr. KATZ. That is correct, by far.
Mr. STUDDS. Of the sources we are discussing today you have a
total of a little over $1.5 million. What is the total budget of the
Department of Energy?
Dr. KATZ. I believe that the fiscal year 1981 budget request for
the entire Department, including military applications, is about
$12.6 billion.
Mr. STUDDS. $12.6 billion. Those figures speak very clearly for
themselves.
In your current research on waves and currents, are you looking
primarily or exclusively on engineering and resource assessment
questions, or are you also actively analyzing the kinds of environ-
mental and institutional questions that may ensue?
Dr. KATZ. I would have to say that we are primarily looking at
the engineering and resources systems questions but not exclusive-
ly looking at them. There is some work going on in the environ-
mental and institutional areas, and perhaps Mr. Richards can give
us some comments on that area.
Mr. RICHARDS. Most work in the environmental area has been
superficial on waves and currents other than looking at the impact
on local climatology. We have looked at some of the specific issues
PAGENO="0228"
222
in waves and currents, for example, the impact of wave machines
deployed in stopping erosion of beaches, the concerns about inter-
fering with shipping, the effects of cabling, how are the surfers
going to react to it.
It is really going to be a large environmental question. The first
thing we had to do before we started pursuing that--
Mr. STUDDS. Did you say how the surfers are going to react to it?
Mr. RICHARDS. You start deploying long lines of wave machines
up and down California, you are going to get an awful lot of people
angry, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. I don't wish to speculate on California politics. I am
awfully glad you are thinking about the surfers. What else?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe Dr. Katz showed a slide.
Mr. STUDDS. Right.
Mr. RICHARDS. We have started a program looking at the biota
and the influence on the biota from the materials that come off the
wave machines and the cabling.
The principal problem right now is to try to get a device in a
wave machine that is projected to be life cycle cost effective for
delivering power.
We will do the environmental work after we complete our stud-
ies in fiscal year 1981.
Mr. STUDDS. There clearly are questions raised. One's initial
reaction to these proposals is just unbounded enthusiasm until you
come back to Earth and look at some of the potentially competi-
tive, I would think, uses in the coastal zone and immediate offshore
waters and I hope you are beginning to look at that.
I am a little disturbed about your fairly short shrift given to
salinity gradients, not that I could possibly discuss with you the
chemistry involved, but you indicated system studies for the solar
pond salinity gradient concept have found the cost to be excessive
and therefore you have discontinued or will discontinue your tech-
nology development.
Is it not the case that Israel concluded late last year that solar
salt ponds were feasible and that they are developing a 25-
megawatt power station to be operational by the end of next year?
Dr. KATZ. Yes, sir, your comments are correct, and the problem
perhaps is with the technical community that likes to call two
different things by the same name.
Solar pond developing in Israel is based on thermal gradients.
The salinity gradients I am referring to is a somewhat different
physical process. Let me try very shortly to give you the difference.
They are talking about absorbing rays from the Sun in a pond
and using the heat collected to subsequently produce electricity.
We are talking about using the different concentrations of salt
through a process called reverse osmosis, and another process
based on dialytic batteries to produce electricity.
The latter two I mentioned, the ones we are looking at, do not
appear to be economically feasible. The solar pond thermal gradi-
ent process being reviewed by the Israelis does appear to be eco-
nomically feasible and in fact the Department of Energy has been
looking at the possibility of a cooperative program with the Israelis
on this subject.
PAGENO="0229"
223
In addition to that, the Department is funding thermal gradient
development as part of the solar thermal energy program.
Mr. STUDDS. Maybe I have the same misunderstanding here. You
fund a portion of a study being conducted by Southern California
Edison, do you not?
Dr. KATZ. That is solar thermal.
Mr. STUDDS. It is also solar thermal?
Dr. KATZ. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. I think you made reference to this a moment ago. It
has been suggested that because wave energy devices remove part
of the energy obviously from waves approaching the coast, that a
string of them might in some cases serve the same coastal protec-
tion purposes as a breakwater or some other form of solid construc-
tion in the ocean.
Is this a potential benefit worth pursuing, and have you looked
at that at all?
Dr. KATZ. We believe there is a potential benefit to the deploy-
ment of wave energy conversion devices to increase the stability of
beaches. We have reviewed it to see what effect it would have on
beaches, and apparently, analytically it could have a stabilizing
effect.
It is possible that a wave device could be even more effective
than a breakwater system in this regard.
Mr. STUDDS. I must say now that I have asked the question I
tremble a little bit at the thought of trying to actually implement
such a thing, playing around with Mother Nature with that degree
of arrogance and to that extent of ignorance. You really wonder
what it is you are doing.
Dr. KATZ. I agree with you in this case, and I think Mr.
Richards'surfers would also be disturbed.
Mr. STUDDS. I wasn't so much thinking of the surfers.
Are you from California, Mr. Richards?
Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir, I was born and raised in Washington, D.C.
I just spent 10 years in California.
Mr. STUDDS. I really wasn't thinking of the surfers. I was think-
ing of the grander elements of nature, and the fact that we have
found, as I understand it, that every time we have built a break-
water or a jetty or any kind of riprap, that while we may have
accomplished at least for the moment our purpose in that particu-
lar place, we have brought upon ourselves subsequent and conse-
quent results elsewhere along the coastline that had not been
anticipated, planned or desired.
Dr. KATZ. Those of us who have been down at Nags Head know
that Mother Nature rather does what she wants.
Mr. STUDDS. Yes, not even the Department of Energy sometimes
can stop her.
On page 7, you make reference to environmental concerns in
general. Have you taken a look at whether taking substantial
energy from the Gulf Stream might affect the ocean conditions
which foster the extraordinary productivity of the Georges Bank
fishery off New England?
Dr. KATZ. We do not have any conclusive studies in that area at
this time. We have consulted with oceanographers both at Scripps
and at Woods Hole. They express the opinion that they do not
PAGENO="0230"
224..
envision any significant change This is certainly an issue which
we need to address prior to proceeding with major developmental
work with ocean current systems
We do know that the natural meandering of the Gulf Stream is
on the order of up to 100 miles, that any influence by ocean
current devices is very small compared to Mother Nature's natural
meander
Mr. STUDDS. Don't you dare fool around with anything that feeds
Georges Bank I am having enough trouble protecting Georges
Bank from the various departments and agencies of this Govern-
ment as it is.
Has any thought been given or should any thought be given, to
the possibility of installing small generators in some of the endless
series of breakwaters that have been constructed over the years by
the Army Corps of Engineers?
Dr KATZ I think I will refer that question to Mr Burr
Mr BURR We have not, Mr Chairman, in the resource applica
tions or tidal area, no, sir
Mr STUDDS Passamaquoddy, who is Passamaquoddy here?
Mr BURR I am
Mr. STUDDS. Do you have a rough estimate of the construction
cost per killowatt capacity of the tidal project there or have we
gone that far yet?
Mr. BURR. We have not gone that far yet.
Mr. STUDDS. Was not major research done on this question 30 or
40 years ago?
Mr BURR Oh, my goodness, many times
Mr STUDDS Many times?
Mr. BURR. Many years, yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. What happened to it? Is it absolutely irrelevant at
this point? I have received so many questions in the last 10 years
on that. I can predict with what regularity I will be questioned on
tidal power in the Gulf of Maine. I have people saying, damn it, I
remember when President Roosevelt studied that.
Mr. BURR. That is right.
Mr. STUDDS. I don't ask which President Roosevelt. What hap-
pened to those studies? Are they absolutely useless at this point?
Do we have to start over again every time?
Mr BURR They are not useless I don't think we start over again
every time. We build on that. Essentially what contemporary stud-
ies have tried to do is look at improved technologies and improved
economics and they still come out about where people expect them
to come out, not economical.
Mr. STUDDS. It still does not look like it makes sense.
Mr. BURR. For the foreseeable future it does not. We just don't
know what is going to come from this Passamaquoddy study yet,
though.
Mr. STUDDS. The latest one?
Mr. BURR. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. And obviously you wouldn't want to speculate about
the likelihood of there ever being a large scale tidal power project
in this country at this point?
Mr. BURR. I would never say never, but I certainly couldn't
foresee it.
PAGENO="0231"
225
Mr. STUDDS. Are the conditions in the French case so extraordi-
nary as to make it not something to be comparable elsewhere?
Those are extraordinary tides, are they not?
Mr. BURR. It is a rather unique physical situation there, as I
understand it, and I think I will back off at that. I am really not a
technical expert on that, but it is rather unique and there aren't
too many things you can copy there.
Mr. STUDDS. Is that because of the height of the tides?
Mr. BURR. I really don't know that I can be much more specific
than that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Perhaps you and this committee ought to go look.
Mr. BURR. I would be delighted.
Mr. STUDDS. Isn't that in the Mont-Saint-Michele area?
Mr. BURR. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. I think that requires an investigation.
Are you in touch with the Canadian studies of the potentials of
the Bay of Fundy?
Mr. BURR. Well, we know about them, Mr. Chairman. I can't say
that we are in frequent contact with them. We know that they are
interested and they know where we are looking, but no, we don't
have a great deal of direct contact with them.
Mr. STUDDS. So I do not detect an inordinate amount of enthusi-
asm for tidal power and its potential.
Mr. BURR. Frankly, tidal power has not been given a very high
priority.
Mr. STUDDS. I guess you are not looking at it at all, you have no
budget, right? Let us rephrase that. Not been given a high priority.
Are we looking at it at all?
Mr. BURR. Yes, this Passamaquoddy study is cost shared by our
office and the tribal council, the Passamaquoddy Tribal Council. I
think we are funding about two-thirds and they about one-third.
The total cost is about $141,000 for the feasibility study.
Mr. STUDDS. But that will not be continued next fiscal year? You
said you have no money in the budget.
Mr. BURR. For next fiscal year?
Mr. STUDDS. Yes.
Mr. BURR. That is correct, no money in 1981.
Mr. STUDDS. You would agree that has a fairly low priority?
Mr. BURR. It does, yes.
Mr. STUDDS. I certainly don't purport to have the technical exper-
tise to challenge you to a duel to the death at this moment over
this table over the decision to put zero funding into this potential
source, but we have had ample occasions in the past, as you will
probably recall, where we have found a lack of enthusiasm on the
part of the Department of Energy not to be reflected anywhere else
in the knowledgeable community on the subject.
OTEC springs most recently to mind. So we just want to nudge a
little bit to see if maybe somebody thinks it is interesting.
I will stop asking you tidal questions since you obviously are not
going to pay much attention to that for a while.
I have a couple more, and then we will let you get back.
It has been generally assumed, I think, that wind energy re-
sources are greater over the ocean than they are over the land. On
PAGENO="0232"
226
the other hand, construction of wind generation facilities at sea
would probably be more expensive than land-based facilities.
Has the Department examined that potential trade off to deter-
mine whether or not it makes economic sense to talk about wind
generating farms on the ocean?
Dr. KATZ. The wind program has looked at that, and at least for
now the trade off appears to make a lot more sense to develop and
deploy wind systems on land than it does to build the platforms it
would take to support them at sea.
Mr. STUDDS. Have you consulted the resident enthusiast of the
University of Massachusetts on that?
Dr. KATZ. The resident enthusiast at the University of Massachu-
setts has excellent contact with the Department of Energy's wind
program.
Mr. STUDDS. Good.
Are you responsible for those grants a month or two ago to study
the feasibility of wind power generators on Nantucket and in Pro-
vincetown? You had better say yes because I am going to thank
you.
Dr. KATZ. Undoubtedly.
Mr. STUDDS. Undoubtedly, very good. Continue that fine judg-
ment.
One other thing. The discussion of potential OTEC sites has
focused to date so far as I know primarily on areas of the oceans
where there is a sufficient temperature difference between warm
surface water and cooler deep water.
Would it not also be possible to use the OTEC technology to
generate electricity from the temperature difference between ocean
water and hot water from wells drilled in the Continental Shelf,
and do you have any assessment of the magnitude of hot water
which could be reached by wells drilled in various parts of the
Outer Continental Shelf?
Dr. KATZ. Forgive me if I sound bureaucratic, but I have to start
off that way. The geothermal energy people--
Mr. STUDDS. Oh, good. Is that another energy department?
Dr. KATZ. Sorry about that-work for the Assistant Secretary for
Resource Applications and are responsible for looking at the assess-
ment of geothermal resources. However, we do recognize the possi-
bility that OTEC technology could work between such temperature
differences, and we have been, that is, our ocean people have been
talking to the geothermal people about that and we are working on
a resource assessment of the warm water that would be available
there. Perhaps Mr. Richards can give us some more detail on that.
Mr. STUDDS. What happens when an ocean thermal resource
converges with a geothermal resource? Do we have an interdepart-
mental coordinating committee established?
Dr. KATZ. It is called level mixing I think.
Mr. STUDDS. It is called what?
Dr. KATZ. Mixing, mixing at various levels.
Mr. STUDDS. As long as it is not interfacing, we can put up with
it.
Did you want to add to that?
Mr. RICHARDS. Typically the resource map should be done by the
end of this fiscal year. They will be top level resource maps that
PAGENO="0233"
227
look at both offshore winds, offshore geothermal, waves, currents,
and OTEC, all overlaid on a single map.
It should allow us to decide which resource is most appropriate
and most cost effective for which demand and need in a given
geographic area around the United States. It looks as though the
geothermal source will run all the way from Baja California up to
the State of Washington, north of the State of Washington, and on
the eastern coast all the way from Norfolk, Va., up to Canada as
well as through the gulf. The extent to which the technology will
allow us to tap it I just can't tell you that.
Mr. STUDDS. How far offshore are we talking?
Mr. RICHARDS. It varies, sir. Sometimes it can be as much as 1
mile, 2 miles, 3 miles offshore, sometimes as much as 50 to 100
miles. It varies considerably.
Mr. STUDDS. Is the geothermal assessment component of this
study being done with, among other things, the possibility of using
the OTEC kind of technology to take advantage of that resource?
Mr. RICHARDS. Absolutely, sir. The reason we got into it in the
first place is that we took a look at a decision which said if a
geothermal well, is drilled, and the temperature is below some-
thing like 90° or 100° centigrade, it should be capped 90° or 100°
worth of heat to OTEC technology is like gold because it almost
triples its efficiency.
There is also the opportunity that it could cut down on the
amount of cable runs that we need to deliver the electricity to
land.
Mr. STUDDS. Why would that be?
Mr. RICHARDS. In the Gulf of Mexico it would not be 120 miles
out from land, but only be 5 or 10 miles. In New England there is
no other OTEC operation that I am aware of other than possibly an
inverse OTEC.
Mr. STUDDS. We don't want to be premature, but that has the
potential of expanding the impact of OTEC dramatically beyond
the w~mer areas of the country that we were thinking of solely
before?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. Opening up even New England for the possible
technology?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. OTEC is primarily a way to extract
energy from any low temperature difference. It doesn't matter if it
comes from geothermal, a bottoming cycle or the natural heat of
the ocean.
Mr. STUDDS. That is very exciting. I am glad we ended on that
and not on tidal. That is indeed enormously exciting it seems to me
if indeed you are correct and there seems to be a consensus with
respect to OTEC being the most immediately promising in regard
to the various technologies in the ocean.
Dr. KATZ. The prevailing factors on the geothermal OTEC so-
called will be the amount of the resource and the cost to get at it.
Mr. STUDDS. I take it from what you have said at this point that
in all the variety of areas in which your concern is focused, you do
not at this point see the need for statutory or legislative changes of
any kind or initiatives?
Dr. KATZ. Not at this point.
PAGENO="0234"
228
Mr. STUDDS. Very good.
Thank you very much for your testimony. We look forward to
staying in touch with you.
Dr. KATZ. Thank you.
Mr STUDDS Our next witness, Mr Thomas P Higgins, manager,
Ocean Energy Systems of the Lockheed Corp
Mr Higgins, nice to have you back, sir
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P HIGGINS MANAGER OCEAN
ENERGY SYSTEMS, LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE CO., INC.
Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas P. Higgins and I am man-
ager of Ocean Energy Systems at Lockheed
It is an honor to be invited again by the subcommittee to discuss
and present some of our activities in the ocean energy field Today
I will present a review of our activities to harness the energy in
ocean waves.
The energy in ocean waves is truly awesome, as we have been
discussing here this morning. Significant evidence is provided by
coastal destruction during storms. Even normal seas can exhibit
large energy content by the manner in which the waves break on
the shore and the surf explodes onto the beach. Scientists have
calculated the amount of energy in worldwide ocean waves to be
greater than the world's oil supply.
Now, how do we efficiently obtain this renewable, free energy?
Man has observed the rise and fall of the ocean wave surfaces for
many, many years and recognized that there is a source of energy
to be utilized. While there have been many ingenious attempts to
have various types of mechanisms ride the waves and convert the
motion into usable energy, a cost competitive system has not yet
been developed.
I would like to describe a new concept mentioned by Dr. Katz,
developed by a brilliant Lockheed scientist and recently patented,
which utilizes a new approach to extract ocean wave energy and
has a valid theoretical base.
The inventor named his invention DAM-ATOLL. It can provide a
source of electrical energy as do our large hydroelectric "dams"
and it has a shape somewhat analogous to island "atolls" in the
Pacific Ocean.
DAM-ATOLL does not respond to the up-and-down wave motion,
but utilizes wave refraction theory to alter the wave direction and
thus concentrates the diffuse ocean energy, thereby offering the
potential for a new cost competitive source of energy.
While we have built a model and have verified the concept, I
wish to make it clear that further development work remains to be
done. Nevertheless, the concept is very exciting and intriguing and
fortunately mechanically simple.
The essence of the concept is embodied in these four statements:
First, the DAM-ATOLL shell which is like a very large inverted
bowl, or the roof of one of our modern football stadiums, is special-
ly contoured so that it concentrates the ocean wave in two direc-
tions-in the vertical direction much as the ocean beach concen-
trates the energy, and in the horizontal direction by causing the
wave to refract or bend toward the center of the dome.
PAGENO="0235"
229
Second, the concentrated energy is introduced into a vertical
chamber in a manner to create an enormous fluid flywheel This
fluid flywheel provides a continuous power output from waves that
are spaced apart in time
Third, the system does not impose energy transformations and
hence the inefficiencies of energy transformations are eliminated
Fourth, and last, kinetic energy from the ocean wave is extracted
by a simple turbine which can have a one shaft drive to the load
device such as an electrical generator
Lockheed has built and tested a model to demonstrate proof of
the concept. We regard it as a nominal 1/100 scale model. The test
model was built as a proof of concept demonstration Each compo
nent has not been analytically optimized, but the model demon
strated very encouraging qualitative results
A more complete description is contained in a technical paper
which has been published and I have attached the paper to this
statement for reference purposes
Your committee has devoted much effort to OTEC so I believe it
would be of assistance to you for me to make some comparisons
between OTEC and wave energy.
ENERGY RESOURCE LOCATION
OTEC, tropical latitudes, worldwide
Wave Energy Middle to higher latitudes, primarily west coast of
land masses due to the Earth's rotation
DEVELOPMENT WORK
OTEC, funded Government studies since 1974, technology work
underway; total system demonstration by mini-OTEC last summer;
firm plans for large scale pilot plant.
Wave energy, Lockheed Co. efforts since 1975; Government
funded work began in 1980, (Great Britain has had a large, active
program for several years)
POWER OUTPUT, FULL SCALE SYSTEM
OTEC, 10's and 100's of MW per plant
Wave energy, a few MW at most per plant.
Our discussion of wave energy, and DAM-ATOLL more specifical-
ly, would not be complete without addressing the issues relating to
the commercialization of this technology. To a large extent, suc-
cessful market introduction of new energy technologies requires
close cooperation between the private sector innovator and the
Federal Government
As DAM ATOLL technology progresses from the research and
development stage through demonstration to market introduction,
varying specific needs must be met Fundamental to determina
tions of the appropriate roles for the private sector innovator and
the Federal Government in addressing these needs are two param-
eters:
Potential economic benefits to the public and private sectors; and
Risk inherent in the successful commercialization of the subject
technology.
PAGENO="0236"
230
The degree of Federal and non-Federal government participation
is also dependent on the progress being made in the technology's
evaluation.
As I noted earlier, the simple DAM-ATOLL concept evolved
when Lockheed urged its scientists and engineers in the midseven-
ties to consider ways to adapt their knowledge to solutions to our
domestic energy supply dilemma. The DAM-ATOLL inventor, Mr.
L. S. Wirt, applied knowledge of acoustics to the ocean environ-
ment and devised a new energy system. Since that time, Lockheed
has utilized its discretionary funds to advance the technology
through the proof of concept stage, and we were granted a patent
in May 1979.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Department of Energy has
recently provided funds via the Solar Energy Research Institute for
further developmental work on DAM-ATOLL which will lead to
testing of a 1/50 scale model in 1982.
The work for the Solar Energy Research Institute began this
past July, but we feel that much valuable time was lost in negotiat-
ing an acceptable arrangement with the Government regarding
utilization of our background patent and data, and in obtaining
sufficient rights for future inventions.
We submit that the basic policy approach of the DOE on patents
does not provide proper encouragement to industry to commercial-
ize their inventions and in fact contains disincentives to innovation
and risk-sharing by private industry; that is, the policy of taking
title to inventions that are developed under Government contracts.
We believe that the public would be better served if the develop-
ing contractor were allowed to retain title to inventions while
always reserving for the Government the worldwide, nonexclusive
and royalty-free right to use the invention for any and all govern-
mental purposes.
Completion of the Solar Energy Research Institute contract will
provide the necessary data to assess the appropriateness of a large
scale-demonstration. Assuming sufficient developmental progress
will have been realized to warrant such a large scale demonstra-
tion, the next issue to be addressed is identification of the funding
sources for this initiative. Because of the capital-intensive nature of
the technology, private sector financing may be difficult to obtain.
This expectation is based on two observations:
Reluctance of electrical generation utilities to participate as in-
vestors in such programs; and the cost of venture capital.
To execute a successful program, Federal assistance will be re-
quired. Satisfactory performance of the large-scale demonstration
facility, when coupled with utility acceptance of the technology,
will obviate the need for further Federal participation.
Although we are in the early developmental phases of DAM-
ATOLL, we consider it to be a likely source of renewable alterna-
tive energy in those world areas where there is an adequate wave
energy resource. After successful demonstration, there could be a
large number of units, probably 100's or 1,000's, which would bene-
fit from the economies of a production line.
Our preliminary economic numbers indicate that DAM-ATOLL
can be a competitive source of solar energy in the early nineties.
An independent analysis by the United Kingdom Department of
PAGENO="0237"
231
Energy shows that DAM-ATOLL compares quite favorably with the
various systems they are sponsoring.
The primary emphasis for DAM-ATOLL has been to consider its
use as a source of electrical energy to be tied into existing electri-
cal grids. However, as we were just discussing, we recognize that if
an efficient device can be developed to extract the energy from the
waves, there can be alternate uses for the system such as protec-
tion from coastal erosion and small harbor creation.
Further, the relatively small power output as compared to large
baseload generating plants can be of considerable interest to small
countries or communities which have a large wave energy re-
source.
Mr. Chairman, your committee's interest and past achievements
to promote new ocean energy systems are most appreciated. I
thank you for the opportunity to describe another system which we
believe can assist in reaching solar energy objectives by the year
2000.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
PAGENO="0238"
232
P-resented at 2nd M-i~cvni, Internati,onal Conference on Alternate Energy
10-13 December 1979
DAM ATOLL A SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTING
ENERGY FROM OCEAN WAVES
T. P. HIGGINS and H. C. SCHREIBER
Lockheed Missiles & Space Con~any, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
A DAN-ATOLL is a dome-shaped structure located just below the neutral
level of the sea. The special dome shape acts as a concentrating device to
concentrate the wave energy in both vertical and horizontal directions.
The concentrated wave energy is directed to a central core in a manner
to create a vortex flow. This vortex, or fluid flywheel, acts as an energy
storage device to permit continuous output power from massive pulses of wave
energy input power.
The vortex in the central core serves as a fluid flywheel from which
energy is gradually and continuously withdrawn by a turbine. When the turbine
drives an electrical generator, the nominal output of a 280 ft. diameter
DAN-ATOLL is in the order of 1-2 MW, depending on the input wave energy.
A 1/100 scale model has been constructed and operated as a proof-of-
concept. The inventor received a patent in May 1979.
The energy in ocean waves is truly awesome -- significant evidence is
provided by coastal destruction during storms. Even normal seas can exhibit
large energy content by the manner in which the waves break on the shore and
the surf explodes onto the beach. Scientists have calculated the amount of
energy in ocean waves to be greater than the world's oil supply -- now how do
we efficiently obtain this renewable, free energy?
Man has observed the rise and fall of the ocean wave surfaces for many,
many years and recognized that there is a source of energy to be utilized.
While there have been many ingenious atteapts to have various types of mecha-
nisms ride the waves and convert the motion into usable energy, a cost com-
petitive system has not yet been developed. I would like to, describe a new
concept, developed by a brilliant Lockheed scientist and recently patented,
which utilizes a new approach to extract ocean wave energy, and has a valid
theoretical base.
Footnote: Mr. Leslie S. Wirt and his associate, Mr. D. L. Morrow, have
brilliantly applied their knowledge from one scientific field to develop a new
concept in another scientific arena. A patent for DAM-ATOLL was issued on
8 May 1979.
PAGENO="0239"
Perhaps a sin~le analogy would be helpful Man had seen birds fly and
for years tried to emulate them with various flapping devices like wings but
to no avail. The Wright brothers utilized a fixed wing which caused the air-
f low to be in a manner to create aerodynamic lift and man was able to fly
DAN ATOLL does not respond to the up and down wave motion but utilizes
wave refraction theory to alter the wave direction and thus concentrates the
diffuse ocean energy, thereby offering the potential for a new coat con~etitive
source of energy.
While we have built a model and have verified the concept, I wish to make
it clear that further development work remains to be done. Nevertheless, the
concept is so exciting and intriguing, and so mechanically siaple, we believe
it to be our mutual advantage to present it to you.
The essence of the concept is embodied in these four statements (Fig. 1).:
First the DAM ATOLL shell is specially contoured so that it concentrates
the ocean wave in two directions -- in the vertical direction naich as the ocean
beach concentrates the energy, and in the horizontal direction by causing the
wave to refract toward the center of the dome.
Second, the concentrated energy is introduced into a vertical chamber in
a manner to create an enormous fluid flywheel. This fluid flywheel provides
a continuous power output from waves that are spaced apart in time.
Third, the system does not iepose energy transformations and hence the
inefficiencies of energy transformations are eliminated.
233
Fig. 1 The DAM-Atoll Concept Fig. 2 The DAM-Atoll Core
PAGENO="0240"
234
Fourth, and last, kinetic energy from the ocean wave is extracted by a
simple turbine which can have a one shaft drive to the load device such as an
electrical generator.
Now let me further explain the concept by a series of slides which build
up to the total system starting with the central core.
Consider a large cylinder, open at both ends, with dimensions of 30 feet
diameter and 60 feet tall (Fig. 2). Such a cylinder encloses 1350 tons of sea-
water. By creating a swirling vortex inside the core, one can have a source
of energy (Fig. 3). The vortex action will cause a turbine wheel to rotate.
Each of you have experienced a similar phenomenon by squirting water into
the edge of a bucket of water, or by mechanically stirring a bucket of paint
(Fig. 4).
Now the way to cause nature to generate this fluid flywheel is to place
a large dome over the central core (Fig. 5). For reasons I will explain in a
moment, the dome structure needs to be in the order of 100 meters in diameter --
comparable in size to the roof covering a football field. As the wave travels
over the dome, the velocity of the wave slows as the water depth decreases.
This causes the wave to bend -- or refract -- so that it is focused or spirals
into the center of the dome. Bending or refraction of the waves was known to
the Polynesians who knew that there was no lee side or protected side for a
volcanic atoll -- the ocean wave broke on the shore around all the periphery of
the atoll. Our South Pacific landing forces in WWII had to learn the phenomenon
the hard way.
Fig. 4 The DAM-Atoll
Core Vortex
Fig. 3 The DAM-Atoll
Fluid Flywheel
PAGENO="0241"
235
While the refraction causes the deep wave to focus toward the center,
once the wave breaks due to reduced or shallow depths, refraction principles
no longer apply. It is then necessary to have some structure to guide the
wave energy through the surf zone (Fig. 6). The inner portion of the guide
vanes is contoured so that the energy is introduced tangentially into the core,
and thus the fluid flywheel is created.
A distribution of relative energy content in ocean waves as a function of
the deep water wave length or periodicity of the waves is shown in Figure 7.
While this distribution is not applicable all over the world, there is a pre-
ponderance of wave energy in those waves which have a period or frequency
between 5 and 10 seconds. The 10 second period corresponds to wave lengths of
156 meters, and the peak of this curve at 7 seconds corresponds to a wave
length of 78 meters.
Examining a 10 second wave pattern which has a crest-to-trough height of
two meters, Figure 8, shows an energy content of 4 Mw (or 4000 1(w) of energy
per 100 meters of wave front. Or for each meter of wave front, there is 40 Kw
(or 40,000 watts). The height of the waves, or swells, is important because
the energy content is proportional to the square of the height.
One of the key features of the DAN-ATOLL system is that its performance is
not dependent upon a directional orientation. Regardless of the approaching
wave direction, or for random seas, the wave refraction will occur so that the
energy is directed and concentrated to the central part of the special dome
shape structure.
The dome size which concentrates the wave energy needs to be about the
same diameter as the predominant deep water wave length, hence the earlier
statement that the dome should be in the order of 100 meters in diameter.
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 16
PAGENO="0242"
236
Fig 6 Vortex Generation
I
The shell structure may either be attached to the bottom of the ocean, or
it may be designed to float such that the top of the dome is at the water
surface. Note that there is water underneath the shell.
Fig. 7 Energy Sprectrum
A cross-section of a DAN-ATOLL unit would appear this way (Fig. 9). A
large dome shell is required to cause the wave to refract toward the center.
Concrete is a potential candidate material. Multiple units would utilize a
large amount of concrete as often used in hydroelectric dams. This feature,
plus the similarity to the real world of waves refracting around atolls, led
to the naming of the system as DAN-ATOLL.
PAGENO="0243"
The central core is also continuously filled with water. A turbine wheel
is located at the bottom of the central core, and a diffuser section is designed
to aid the water flow of the relatively small amount of water flowing downward
in the core
The only structures above the surfaces of the water are the guide vanes
and the load device driven by the turbine wheel
I wish to emphasize that the main power source for the turbine wheel is
the rotating vortex within the core, and not a vertical fall or translation of
water as utilized by hydroelectric turbines in large dams.
237
F
Fig. 8 Ocean Wave Energy
p
Fig. 9 Cross Section
PAGENO="0244"
238
Lockheed has built and tested a model to demonstrate proof of the concept.
We regard it as a nominal 1/100 scale model (Fig. 10). You can see the vane
structure at the top which guides the waves into the central core; the central
core and turbine are also visible through the plexiglas shell.
The test model was built as a proof-of-concept demonstration. Each com-
ponent had not been analytically optimized, but the model teats demonstrated
very encouraging qualitative results.
The 1/100 scale model demonstrates the energy concentration by refraction
very vividly. The inlet guide vanes were configured to provide an omnidirec-
tional capability with respect to the relative orientation between the unit
and the approaching wave.
The fluid flywheel, which is to atabilize the impulsive incoming wave
power at the top opening of the flywheel to a quasi-steady rotational motion at
the lower end of the fluid flywheel, was well demonstrated. Though the wave
power at the flywheel inlet was impulsive regardless of regular or irregular
waves, the turbine rotation was fairly uniform.
The power output efficiency of the 1/100 model test was low. Tests were
conducted at the Lockheed Oceanographic Laboratory in a 320 ft. long wave tank.
Wave frequency and amplitude were varied over a wide range. The unit, which
was designed as only a proof-of-concept system, performed for all input waves
but highlighted the need for component and system optimization. Figure 11
shows the variation in efficiency with wave period. The peak efficiency corre-
lates well with the design wave period. It is expected that design refinements
Fig. 10 Scale Model
PAGENO="0245"
239
1.5" NOMINAL WAVE HEIGHT
15 - - 20" NOMINAL WAVE HEIGHT
0
>-
U
Z 10 -
U
DATE: FEBRUARY 1979
5 - TEST FACILITY: LOL
MODE SCALE: 1/100
DRAFT: 0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14
FULL SCALE WAVE PERIOD (S)
Fig. 11 Preliminary Model Test Results
will permit the efficiency to remain relatively flat over an octave variation
in wave period from the design wave period. System efficiencies of 257, to 45'!,
are expected.
Each full scale unit, 80 meters in diameter, is expected to generate one
to two 01w of electricity, depending upon the input wave energy. The system is
omnidirectional and utilizes wave energy regardless of the relative direction
of the approaching wave.
Concrete and steel are two candidate materials for full size units. Cost
of installed units is estimated to be a few million dollars, such that we
believe a coat competitive number of about $3,000 per Kw can be attained in
areas with large wave energy resources, As with any solar energy system, the
initial cost is high compared to a fossil fuel plant, but an overall savings
is realized because of the free solar fuel.
Now that a proof-of-concept model has been built and tested, our program
plan specifies two additional, larger models. A fixed 1/50 scale model with
design refinements we now know can provide good quantitative data. The 1/25
scale model would be floated to obtain open ocean dynamic data. Data from
these 2 models would then be used to desi~,n a unit to be tested in the ocean.
The open ocean demonstrator should be at least 1/10 scale, and it would be
desireable and most interesting if it were as big as 1/2 scale. Assuming
success at each stage in the development program, full size DAM-ATOLLS could be
operational in the `80's.
Subsequent to our press releases made at the time the patent award was
announced in May 1979, we have received numerous expressions of interest in the
DAM-ATOLL potential throughout the world. We are optimistic that DAM-ATOLL
will prove to be cost-competitive and a benefit to mankind. Additional benefits
of coastal protection and harbor formation could benefit less-developed countries
as well as others.
I I - I I I I I
PAGENO="0246"
240
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, sir.
Did you conclude that your scientist who made this invention
was brillant because of the invention or because of his name for it?
That is a marvelous name.
Mr. HIGGINS. The inventor is not only prolific as a scientist but
he comes up with good, catchy names. You can imagine the name
has given us some trouble, but some notoriety also.
Mr. STUDDS. I think it is marvelous. I can see naming a boat that
way immediately.
You are uncharacteristically kind in your references to the De
partment of Energy in this testimony compared to some of Lock
heed's observations in the past, as I recall Do you share DOE's
projections and assessments of the resource potential of wave
energy at this point, or do you find them, as you have suggested in
the past, to be lagging a bit behind the scientific and corporate and
academic community in their enthusiasm and awareness of the
situation?
Mr. HIGGINS. In terms of the wave energy resource that is availa-
ble, I think we share the same information as to the amount of
resource that can be available for wave energy systems.
In terms of the development, we had hoped to initiate contracted
work a year or two ago, but we had numerous discussions relative
to the patent issue before we were able to resolve those issues and
begin the contract that I referred to in the testimony.
Mr. STUDDS. That patent issue seems to me to raise questions
that far transcend this or any particular technology.
Mr. HIGGINS. Correct.
Mr. STUDDS. In terms of good relationships between the Govern-
ment and private enterprise.
Mr HIGGINS Correct
Mr STUDDS I don't want to get into that one here
Setting that one aside for the moment, I take it you do not have
any strong criticism, you don't see the Department dragging its
feet on this technology as you have in the past on others?
Mr. HIGGINS. We feel that we could proceed somewhat faster in
the current program, but subject to the funding available, we are
now planning to do basically a year's worth of analysis. We will
then proceed into the design of a model, the 1/50 scale model
which would be twice the scale we have tested. We hope from that
model to obtain good, quantitative data which will enable us to
assess wave energy far better than we have been able to do in the
past
Mr. STUDDS. Does wave energy appear to you now to be continu-
ous enough to support base load power needs?
Mr HIGGINS In some areas, such as the Pacific Northwest, and
in some areas such as off of Scotland and Ireland, there may be
some capability to support base load. It is not to the same degree of
base load support that OTEC would be.
Mr. STUDDS. And it is generally west coast-oriented because of
the earth's rotation?
Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, sir, the waves tend to be considerably bigger
on the west coasts of land masses; for example, the Pacific North-
west coast and the coasts of Ireland and Scotland.
PAGENO="0247"
241
Mr STUDDS I gather some informational brochures on the DAM
ATOLL indicate that the structures could be used to create artifi
cial deep water ports What does that mean and how would that
work9
Mr. HIGGINS. We have considered in some discussions the capa-
bility that if we could successfully moor some of these large struc
tures in the open ocean, we could create sheltered water which
would be beneficial to loading and unloading tankers or ocean drill
rigs or anything of that nature where we would like to have calmer
water
That problem that remains would be to successfully moor such
large structures
Mr STUDDS Would there be some impacts elsewhere, as there is,
for example, if you build a breakwater, you simply divert current
or anything else, where in this case you wouldn't be diverting it
You would be removing the energy.
Mr. HIGGINS. It would essentially be removing the wave energy
and creating calmer water behind the units.
Mr. STUDDS. Are you looking at all into the possible environmen-
tal consequences, whatever they might be9
Mr HIGGINS To date we have not, no, sir
Mr STUDDS Do you plan to do that7
Mr HIGGINS Yes, we would like to do that
Mr STUDDS Is Lockheed looking at all at any of the other
technologies that we mentioned this morning, current or salinity
gradient7
Mr. HIGGINS. No, sir. We have considered them but we have no
active work on currents or tidal power or others.
Mr. STUDDS. Finally, do you see at this point any need for legisla-
tive or statutory initiatives or changes in this area right now?
Mr. HIGGINS. At the present time, until we have proceeded fur-
ther on the wave energy development work, we do not see the need
for any further legislation.
Mr STUDDS Very good How refreshing
Mr. HIGGINS. Good.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, sir.
Mr HIGGINS Thank you
Mr STUDDS Thank you for the enthusiasm your corporation has
brought.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[The following was received for the record]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD JAY SCHREMP FORMER SENIOR DEFENSE
RESEARCH SCIENTIST
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the present oppro-
tunity to submit to this subcommittee the following comments regarding (i) a recent
five-year engineering study performed by me within the specialized area of ocean
wave energy conversion, and (ii) certain findings, arising out of that study, which
promise to hasten considerably both the development and the industrial application
of ocean wave energy technology, particularly in the United States.
By way of introduction, I would first like to cite a previous statement submitted
by me to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which
appears at pp. 1015-1019 of the published record of that Committee's Hearings on
Energy Financing Legislation, held on July 25, 26, and 27, 1979.
As stated on pp. 1018-1019 thereof, the above mentioned five-year study "has
definitely shown that there exist new avenues of approach offering unprecedented
opportunities for an accelerated development of the technology for large scale indus
PAGENO="0248"
242
trial wave energy conversion at sea, first to electricity and then, in situ, to a variety
of synthetic fuels including hydrogen.
"The development of this technology along these new avenues of approach would
proceed for the most part at sea, on an incremental basis. Without entailing an
excessive initial investment of funds, it would be proved to be both commercializable
and economically competitive at each successive level of wave energy extracting
capacity. At no level within the range between an initial 1 MW or less and an
ultimate 100 MW or more would there be any major technical roadblock, or any
factors (other than possible international jurisdictional ones) that might inhibit
early adoption by private industry.
"Each seagoing ocean wave energy system contemplated here, of whatever wave
energy extracting capacity, would extract almost all subsurface wave energy availa-
ble within a correspondingly predetermined annular region spanned by an array of
submerged wave energy absorbers surrounding and upported by a central platform-
vessel. After suitable conversion, the extracted wave energy would be conveyed
inwardly to the central platform for further conversion and subsequent storage
and/or product processing.
"Every such system would be so designed as to operate safely in practically any
sea state, in such a way as to extract wave energy efficiently in light as well as
heavy seas.
"Implementation of this technology on a large scale could, of course, significantly
influence future trends in a wide variety of related industries. . . ."
A complete description of an illustrative seagoing ocean wave energy conversion
system of this kind was published on June 28, 1979, as an international patent
application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. For the sake of brevity, rather
than reproduce that publication here, I will merely cite it as follows for the interest-
ed reader: its International Publication Number is WO 79/00349; and its title is
"System for Extracting Subsurface Wave Energy." A corresponding United States
patent will issue before the end of this calendar year.
The remainder of my present statement will be concerned with defining more
clearly the general idea-expressed in the passage just quoted above-of implement-
ing on a large commercial scale the foregoing ocean wave energy conversion tech-
nology through its direct application to certain potentially related industries. For
this purpose, I shall confine most of the following discussion to one particular
industry which has, in my opinion, not only an immediate need for, but also by far
the greatest likelihood of benefiting from, the kind of innovative cross-fertilization
of ideas that can come from the direction of ocean wave energy conversion technol-
ogy.
That industry-one that remains yet to be established for the direct liquefaction
of domestic coal-could thereby set the pace for the entire domestic commercial
synthetic fuel industry whose creation "from scratch" is the principal objective of
the recently passed Energy Security Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-294). This act
anticipates that, by the end of a projected four-year "Phase I" of a concerted
government-industry effort to build commercial plants, a comprehensive strategy
can be formulated for meeting the overall synthetic fuel production goals of the
United States. It is furthermore the intent of this act that that strategy shall be
based on experience gained under Phase I; and a crucially important part of such
experience will have to do with environmental effects associated with facilities
already by then in being, and will presumably enable reliable projections to be
made about future environmental effects and future water requirements.
Already, however, in an article 1 entitled "Energy Technologies and Natural Envi-
ronments: The Search for Compatibility," John Harte and Alan Jassby have direct-
ed attention to the National Academy of Science's CONAES study as being "prob-
ably the most ambitious effort to date to assess all energy sources and evaluate and
compare environmental impacts"; and they have made the following very signifi-
cant comment relative thereto: "This study focuses attention on new energy technol-
ogies that could provide substitutes for petroleum and natural gas. It concludes that
the most serious ecological impacts result from the water consumption requirements
of these technologies, and that these water requirements could severely constrain
their rate of development."
More specifically, in another article 2 entitled "Energy and Water," based on the
above mentioned study, John Harte and Mohamed El-Gasseir have shown that "in
the scenarios for intensive coal use, . . . the eastern regions (of the United States)
will become vulnerable to drought"; and they have cautioned that, "before setting
forth on a course of massive development of a coal-conversion industry in the
`Annual Review of Energy, Vol. 3, 1978, pp. 101-146.
`Science, Vol. 199, 10 February 1979, pp. 623-634.
PAGENO="0249"
243
United States, it would be important to explore further the implications of this
finding for freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and for present and future human
activities that depend on reliable freshwater supplies."
These authors have also pointed out that, "in the West, present-day consumption
of water is already a large fraction . . . even of total runoff. Because the West is
already vulnerable to drought, the additional water consumption for scenarios with
intensive coal use would greatly exacerbate the existing problem of competition for
water rather than create, as in the East, new kinds of problems."
It is quite probable, therefore, that the experience to be gained during the above
mentioned projected Phase I might simply confirm-at the cost of many billions of
dollars and at the further cost of at least four years of irrecoverable time-that,
because of water supply constraints in both the eastern and western United States,
a synfuel industry of the magnitude and form generally envisioned at this time will
run a great risk of never becoming a fully developed and commercially viable one.
When viewed in this light, does not the entire future synfuel industry, or at least
do not some of its most important areas (categorized according to resource/technol-
ogy), exhibit a need for, and a likelihood of benefiting from, "the kind of innovative
cross-fertilization of ideas that can come from the direction of ocean wave energy
conversion technology"? The answer, I am convinced, is in the affirmative; and, as
indicated above, that affirmative answer can first be supplied, and can best be
formulated, in terms of a future industry devoted to the direct liquefaction of
domestic coal.
That answer, in short, consists in providing a certain "oceanic approach" to the
problem of satisfying the "supporting resource" requirements of those synthetic fuel
technologies, whatever they might prove to be, which are compatible with such an
approach. As will be seen below, among the various synthetic fuel technologies, that
of direct coal liquefaction is a particular one which has all of the elements needed
for an optimal "match" to that approach.
Among the major direct coal liquefaction projects that are now being prosecuted
in this country, any one of the following three, for example, could be a potential
stepping stone to a series of commercial coal conversion plants whose overall direct
liquefaction processes would incorporate a certain technologically, economically, and
environmentally promising new methodology that proceeds directly from the afore-
mentioned "oceanic approach": namely, (a) the Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) coal
liquefaction project; (b) the Gulf SRC-II alternative fuel oil project; or (c) the H-Coal
project undertaken by Ashland Oil and a consortium of other companies.
Under this new methodology, the only intrinsic changes that would affect the
overall direct liquefaction process presently employed in any one of these three
projects (a), (b), and (c) would involve those subordinate processes whose sole purpose
is to satisfy the "supporting resource" requirements of a commercial coal conversion
plant. All such subordinate processes, moreover, would be equally applicable to any
such overall direct liquefaction process.
One such subordinate process would of course be that by which water is supplied
to a commercial coal conversion plant. Under the aforementioned new methodology,
the source of supply of water would not be continental freshwater runoff, as it has
almost always been hitherto for commercial plants with similar water requirements,
but instead would be seawater obtained directly from the ocean at a suitable
offshore site generally located within the continental limits of the United States.
The water thus supplied would be desalinated only according to need.
A second such subordinate process would be that by which electricity is supplied.
The electricity supply process, under the new methodology, need no longer involve
land-based electric utility plants powered by fossil or nuclear fuels. Instead, the
ultimate source of electric power, in whatever quantities might be desired, would be
ocean wave power extracted and converted at a second, more distant, offshore site.
A third kind of subordinate process would include all hydrogen production proc-
esses required for a commercial direct coal liquefaction plant. The customary hydro-
gen production processes, all of which entail large-scale consumption of fossil fuels
together with large-scale emissions of rejected carbon dioxide, would be replaced,
under the new methodology, by a large-scale unitary water electrolysis process
whose ultimate source of electric power would again be ocean wave power extracted
and converted at the second, more distant, offshore site.
A fourth kind of subordinate process would include all plant fuel combustion
processes. All such processes, which likewise customarily entail large-scale consump-
tion of fossil fuels together with large-scale emissions of rejected carbon dioxide,
would be replaced, under the new methodology, by corresponding hydrogen combus-
tion processes.
It is thus clear that a sustained application of the new methodology described
above would gradually bring about a deliberate concentration of this country's
PAGENO="0250"
244
entire future coal liquefaction industry along the coastal areas of the United States
adjacent to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. In my judg-
ment such a development if extensively but prudently implemented would surely
yield immense environmental economic social and defense related benefits to the
United States.
Again in the interest of brevity I will here touch only briefly on a few of the most
important of these expected benefits. On the whole, the entire future synfuel indus-
try, as it is generally envisioned at this time, presently faces profound uncertainties
affecting a wide variety of technical, cost, timing, and especially environmental and
raw material estimates that relate to the undertaking and the development thereof.
The resulting risks as perceived by many of those in the private sector from whom
major capital investment might be sought are actually much too great for there to
be any confidence on the part of the private sector that that industry will soon if
ever become viable enough commercially to do without permanent Federal subsidi
zation On the other hand as has already been indicated above the crucial differ
ence between that future industry s becoming genuinely viable commerically and its
becoming commercially moribund may very weill lie in whether or not a sustained
application of the aforementioned new methodology and its parent oceanic ap
proach" takes place.
Consider, for example, what benefits would accrue to the entire future coal
liquefaction industry through the selection of a site for a proposed commercial
direct coal liquefaction plant that would be located in conformity with this new
methodology, and more particularly within a few miles of the Atlantic coast. Such a
site might .be located, say, between Norfolk, Virginia, and Elizabeth City, North
Carolina, conveniently close to an established railway connecting those two cities.
Bituminous coal from one or more relatively nearby mines could be economically
and expeditiously moved by high-volume rail transportation all the way through to
the site. While the cost for such transportation could of course be avoided by
reverting to the conventional procedure of locating the site very close to a preselect-
ed coal mine, it will nevertheless be found, from much broader considerations of
commercial viability of the kind pointed out above, that any such additional cost
would be overwhelmingly compensated for by many other benefits that would
accrue to the proposed project and, through it, to the entire future coal liquefaction
industry.
The most evident of these benefits, for a site thus located within a few miles of
the Atlantic coast, would be the immediate availability of any desired quantity of
seawater that could be provided by means of one or more large diameter pipelines
extending seaward, under Currituck Sound and its outlying sand dunes, out into the
open ocean approximately as far as the three mile limit The selected offshore
source or sources of seawater could be conveniently located near the ocean bottom
wherever, by suitable prior assessment, it was determined that neither entrainment
(passage of organisms through the proposed plant) nor impingement (impact by fish
and other nonentrainable organisms against the pipeline intake structures) would
result in significant environmental or economic damage. An important related
environmental benefit would result from the fact that, relative to their populations
at large, far less significant quantities of aquatic biota would be entrained from the
presently contemplated water sources in the open sea than from conventional
estuarine or riverine water sources.
Furthermore, as I have previously indicated, by far the greatest compensating
benefit to result from application of this water supply selection methodology is one
that ultimately has to be evaluated in terms of its contribution towards conserving
the nation's total supply of freshwater. For in this connection the prime importance
of any initial application of the presently suggested site selection methodology-
whether or not it is the one described above-lies in what it promises will happen if
and when it is replicated many times and at many different coastal sites. If, in
addition, an early decision were to be reached and announced by the Federal
government, to the effect that it would foster the widespread but prudent use of the
presently suggested site selection methodology as a guide-line in developing this
country's entire future coal liquefaction industry, that small step alone would go far
towards immediately dispelling the above mentioned perception by the private
sector that the risks involved in capitalizing that industry are prohibitively great.
In terms of energy conservation, however, it is equally important that, for a
coastal site such as the above, the ultimate source of all forms of energy required to
operate the entire direct coal liquefaction process, including the collection of neces-
sary seawater and the production and collection of necessary hydrogen, electric
power, and desalinated seawater, would be ocean wave energy-extracted, convert-
ed, and delivered by means of one or more wave energy converters of the kind
described in the above cited International Publication No. WO 79/00349. Here, for
PAGENO="0251"
245
perhaps the first time, the possibility arises of achieving on a very large commercial
scale an essentially perfect match between a renewable energy source and an
energy end use, almost entirely free from the usual kinds of mismatch between
supply and load that occur, for example, in the transmission and distribution of
electricity (at a cost over twice the cost of generation) to nonindustrial customers of
private utilities in the United States. Here, too, for perhaps the first time, is to be
found a technologically and economically feasible example, on a very large commer-
cial scale, of the complete decentralization-with all of the concomitant gains in
economy that characterize a successful "soft technology"-of what would ordinarily
be regarded as a centralized "hard technology."
The illustrative wave energy converter described in the above cited International
Publication is an embodiment that would be particularly appropriate for service on
the high seas, at locations having appreciably higher than average significant wave
heights; and it would accordingly have a maximum wave power output exceeding 50
MW. On the other hand, for service off the North Carolina coast, as contemplated
here, waveconverters of the same kind could be constructed on a scale perhaps half
as great in terms of linear dimensions. In the latter case, the waveconverters would
draw approximately 50 feet. They would be capable of operating in any one of a
broad range of sea states, and at any depth up to 200 feet or more, adjustable
according to the sea state. They could therefore be safely operated at maximum
wave power output, even in extremely stormy seas, in coastal waters whose depth
was a little as 400 feet. However, in order to maintain a maximum annual rate of
wave power output, it would be desirable to operate the waveconverters at or
slightly beyond the boundary of the continental shelf or, in other words, at distances
from the North Carolina coast in excess of 50 miles, where the water depth would
always exceed 500 feet and the significant wave height would be appreciably greater
than that encountered closer inshore.
Even on this reduced scale, each waveconverter employed would have a maximum
wave power output in excess of 15 MW; and its hull displacement-which would be
sufficient to support a turbine, an electric generator, and complete facilities for
hydrogen production by electrolysis of water-would exceed 15,000 tons. The hydro-
gen thus generated by one or more such waveconverters would be pumped to shore
via a pipeline or pipelines laid on the ocean floor. A variety of alternative methods
would also be available for transmitting any desired portion of the wave-generated
electric power to shore.
Is there something unique about this particular kind of waveconverter, one might
ask at this point, which excludes from consideration, at least for the immediate
purposes of the present commercial application, other kinds of waveconverters as
well as other forms of ocean energy source, such as ocean thermal energy conver-
sion (OTEC), ocean currents, ocean salinity gradients, and even windmills located at
sea? My reply to this question would be that, in order to demonstrate the commer-
cial viability of any ocean energy source in the context of the present commercial
application, two necessary conditions must simultaneously be satisfied. The first is
that the energy source must already have reached a relatively advanced stage of
technical readiness; and the second is that it must independently possess a reliable
means of survival under severe storm conditions, such that operation of the means
of survival will not interfere with the ocean energy extraction process.
For the particular kind of waveconverter that has just been under discussion, the
required means of survival can actually be identified with, and can thereby serve to
enhance, the ocean energy extraction process itself. That this is so has been shown
in the above cited International Publication No. WO 79/00349. Moreover, on refer-
ring to pages 1-11 of that publication, where those particular features are identified
and explained which insure safe and effective waveconverter operation even in
extremely heavy seas, it will be seen that every such safety feature is lacking not
only in all contemplated OTEC installations, but also in all of the most technically
ready waveconverters that have hitherto been proposed by others. In every such
instance, in fact, it is only by adopting the means and methods recommended in the
above cited publication that such safety features could be realized in practice.
With respect to the state of technical readiness of the kind of waveconverter
described in that publication, it has already been pointed out in my statement of
last year to the Senate Banking Committee (see above) that "at no level (of wave
energy extracting capacity) within the range between an initial 1 MW or less and
an ultimate 100 MW or more would there be any major technical roadblock It
should here be stressed, moreover, that the extensive American experience with
OTEC and the equally extensive British experience with the Salter waveconverter
can, in combination and as a kind of by-product, provide the utmost assistance in
bringing closer by a number of years the commercialization of other kinds of ocean
energy source as well, including the particular kind of waveconverter recommended
PAGENO="0252"
246
here. Indeed, such a synergistic effect can result notwithstanding the fact that
certain serious roadblocks still face both the American proponents of OTEC and the
British proponents of waveconverters such as Salter's-roadblocks which, it should
be noted, simply do not arise for waveconverters of the kind recommended here.
As I have already indicated above, both the development and the industrial
application of ocean wave energy technology, if pursued along those avenues of
approach that are recommended here, could receive a tremendous impetus from
taking advantage of a unique opportunity which has arisen at this particular time
and in this particular country: namely, an opportunity to play a crucial role in
promoting the commercial viability of a future United States synthetic fuel indus-
try. However, while I believe that to this end emphasis should be placed, in the near
term, upon assigning that crucial role initially to waveconverters of the kind recom-
mended here, I also believe that, over the long term, equal attention should be given
to the development of other ocean energy sources and of certain novel combinations
thereof-especially including combinations with the presently recommended wave-
converters-for the purpose of ultimately achieving the widest possible application
of this country's vast ocean energy resources to its future synfuel industry.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned.]
PAGENO="0253"
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL OVERSIGHT
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1980
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gerry E. Studds,
chairman, presiding.
Present: Representatives Studds, Anderson, Hughes, Mikulski,
Akaka, Forsythe, Pritchard, and Carney.
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on the environmental implications of
the ocean disposal of radioactive waste. The possibility that high
level wastes will be emplaced in the deep seabed is currently under
study by the Department of Energy. Low level wastes have, in
years past, been routinely discarded in U.S. waters, and are cur-
rently being dumped under regulated conditions by several nations
overseas.
We hope today to discuss the extent to which we understand the
effects of radioactive waste dumping on the marine environment,
and to identify areas in which we do not know enough to make a
reasoned judgment about the wisdom of allowing ocean disposal of
such waste in future years.
We are concerned today with two distinct types of radioactive
wastes-high level-including, for example, the long-lived and ex-
tremely toxic elements found in spent fuel rods from nuclear
powerplants-and low level-less radioactive materials such as con-
taminated hospital and laboratory equipment. The most likely dis-
posal techniques for the two differ greatly, as we shall hear
shortly.
Beginning immediately after World War II until the late sixties,
the United States, as a matter of public policy, routinely permitted
the ocean dumping of low-level wastes. These materials were
placed in 55-gallon steel drums lined with concrete and towed to
vaguely determined sites, from Massachusetts Bay to the Farallon
Islands off San Francisco. Unfortunately, since they were consid-
ered to be useless garbage, their precise location and contents were
not recorded. In recent years, the Environmental Protection
Agency has been able to locate only a minute percentage of these
drums, some of which were damaged and leaking.
We hope today to be able to discuss at length the findings of both
EPA and others to date, the plans for future monitoring of these
sites, and the likelihood of future ocean dumping of low-level
wastes. Several European nations, incidentally, are currently
(247)
PAGENO="0254"
248
dumping low level wastes at one site in the northeast Atlantic, and
the Japanese are planning to establish a site in the Pacific.
What we plan to do with our high-level wastes in the future is an
even more important issue because such materials can cause irre-
versible biological damage and, in some cases, must be isolated for
hundreds of thousands of years The current administration has
funded considerable research into land based mined repositories-
such as salt domes or granite-for high level wastes
However, the Department of Energy is also looking into other
potential disposal mediums-of which subseabed disposal is one
This yet to be developed technology would require the implantation
of high level wastes, probably contained in steel cannisters, in the
clays of remote, stable areas of the deep seabed It is evident that
preventing the migration of radionuclides into the food chain is one
of the keys to toxic waste isolation, and in this case the retentive
nature of the clays would have to act as the primary barrier
Whether deep sea organisms would either affect or be affected by
nuclide migration is an additional area for research
It is important to remember that the marine environment out
side U S waters is also of vital significance The knowledge gained
by our scientists about radioactive waste disposal can be extremely
helpful in our negotiations with those nations which may be more
eager than we to consider large scale ocean disposal operations It
is quite possible, for example, that high level radioactive waste
disposal will be undertaken by the Japanese or by several Europe-
an nations, provided they are successful in interpreting the London
Dumping Convention in a manner which will allow them to do so
Domestically, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972-Ocean Dumping Act-prohibits the disposal in the
oceans of high level wastes Thus, an amendment to this law would
be necessary before any high level waste disposal could occur
Essentially what we are confronted with, once again, as has
frequently been the case and experience of this subcommittee is
that it is an investigation not so much of man's knowledge, but of
man's ignorance. We may be humbled by what we do not know,
and we may have caused damage the magnitude of which we
cannot begin to understand. We want to know what has been done
in the past, we want to know what is being done now, and we want
to know what we know and do not know about what we have done,
and finally, what we ought to do.
Mr Pritchard, do you have an opening statement?
Mr PRITCHARD I would only say that this hearing is aimed at
two quite distinct issues First, we would like to examine some of
the technical and legal issues surrounding the question of the
subseabed emplacement of high-level nuclear waste and, second,
due to the initiative and the introduction of a bill by my colleague
from California, we would like to examine the question of the
monitoring of nuclear waste dumpsites, primarily low level waste
dumpsites off the U.S. coasts.
Since we have not dumped any nuclear waste off our shores since
roughly 1970, and according to DOE, we will not be making a
decision on subseabed emplacement of high nuclear waste, prob
ably until the year 2000, we would like very much to clearly
distinguish between these two different issues in this hearing.
PAGENO="0255"
249
Therefore, we will try to deal primarily with the high level waste
subseabed emplacement issue in the morning, and the low level
waste monitoring issues, to what extent we can, in the afternoon
I think it is an important question, and I think that the more we
get into it, we realize how short we are in actual facts, and how
necessary it is for us to get the proper research going immediately
That is all.
Mr. STUDDS. Any other members have an opening statement? If
not, our first witness is Mr Leslie H Brown, Senior Deputy Assist
ant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs, Department of State
STATEMENT OF LESLIE H BROWN SENIOR DEPUTY ASSIST
ANT SECRETARY BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to thank you
for inviting the Department of State to appear before the subcom
mittee today I welcome the opportunity which the subcommittee
has provided to discuss the issues associated with the disposal of
radioactive waste in the oceans. How we, as a nation, and as a
member of the world community, deal with these issues will have a
significant effect upon our foreign relations as well as upon our
efforts to insure the long-term protection of the marine environ-
ment.
The principal international agreement governing ocean disposal
of a wide variety of substances, including radioactive wastes, is the
1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dump-
ing of Wastes and Other Matter. This is the so-called London
Dumping Convention Under the London Dumping Convention, the
dumping of high level radioactive waste is prohibited Special per
mits are required before other radioactive waste may be dumped.
Forty-seven countries now are parties to the London Dumping
Convention. This includes the United States. Papua-New Guinea,
Surinam, Honduras, and Japan all became parties this year.
There are also a number of regional conventions dealing with
radioactive material which are as strict or stricter than the London
Dumping Convention. For example, the Convention on the Protec-
tion of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, the so
called Helsinki Convention, prohibits all dumping by the parties
except that of dredge spoil, the protocol for the prevention of
pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and
aircraft prohibits essentially all dumping by the parties in the
Mediterranean. The United States is not a party to these regional
dumping agreements.
The London Dumping Convention relies primarily upon the In-
ternational Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA-in carrying out its re-
sponsibilities with respect to the sea disposal of radioactive materi-
als.
The London Dumping Convention designates the IAEA as the
body to define "high level radioactive wastes and other matter"
whose dumping at sea is prohibited The current revised definition
of such materials was adopted by the fourth consultative meeting
of the Convention parties in 1979 It is a definition based upon
PAGENO="0256"
250
radioactivity per unit mass of packaged material. For the dumping
of low-level radioactive wastes that is permitted under the Conven-
tion there is also an established limit on the total mass of radioac-
tive materials which may be dumped annually at a site and recom-
mended total quantities which may be dumped at each site. There
is no limit on the number of sites, although site proliferation has
been discouraged.
The IAEA is also responsible for providing recommendations to
parties on practices for dumping these low-level radioactive wastes.
These include guidelines on environmental evaluation of dumping
applications, dumpsite selection, monitoring, assessment, packaging
of materials, and recordkeeping.
The definition and recommendations are under continuous
review. As part of this effort, several activities are underway,
including:
(a) A review of the oceanographic model used in formulating the
Definition;
(b) A review of de minimis levels, to establish criteria for consid-
ering materials to be nonradioactive for ocean dumping purposes;
(c) The initiation of a coordinated research program on trans-
uranic cycling in the marine environment.
The IAEA is committed to continuing its responsibilities under
the London Dumping Convention and other conventions. The
United States very strongly supports this role.
Another international agreement concerning the regulation of
ocean disposal of radioactive materials is the multilateral consulta-
tion and surveillance mechanism functioning within the Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD).
Established in 1977, this body is charged with setting and review-
ing guidelines, standards, and procedures for the safe disposal of
radioactive material at sea. The NEA guidelines, which are to take
into account the standards of the London Dumping Convention and
the IAEA's definition and recommendations, cover dumpsites and
packaging and operating procedures related to sea disposal. They
also call for assessment and review of environmental, ecological,
and radiological protection studies relating to sea disposal activi-
ties. They require periodic assessments-at no less than 5-year
intervals-of the continued suith~bility of the selected dumpsites.
Participating countries which decide to carry out dumping oper-
ations must notify the NEA 6 months before the scheduled date of
the operation, 12 months if a new site is proposed. They must
include in the notification the composition and characteristics of
the material, the site and reasons for its selection, including an
environmental assessment, and the procedures to be followed.
These latter must be in accord with NEA standards and recom-
mended practices. In addition, the country of origin must name, or
request the appointment of, an escorting officer to insure compli-
ance. The NEA reviews the proposed plans, if necessary seeking
the views of outside specialists, and names an NEA representative
to observe the operation. The NEA maintains records of disposal
operations which, with the approval of the country involved, may
be furnished to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Or-
ganization (IMCO).
PAGENO="0257"
251
Twenty-two countries now participate in this NEA mechanism
and Japan is expected to join soon, now that it has ratified the
London Dumping Convention. The United States, as a member of
the NEA, participates in expert group meetings and, as a member
of the steering committee, reviews all activities relating to the
ocean disposal of radioactive material.
In actual practice, few of the countries that are parties to the
London Dumping Convention or the NEA surveillance mechanism
engage in ocean dumping of radioactive materials. In 1980, only
four countries: the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium,
and Switzerland disposed of low-level radioactive wastes at sea. The
total radioactivity of materials dumped, however, is significant and
it increased this year.
Protection of the entire marine environment requires that efforts
be pursued to improve the effectiveness of the ocean dumping
regime established under the London Dumping Convention. Our
concerns about the Convention's effectiveness center around three
issues:
One, the adequacy of the IAEA definition and recommendations;
Two, the need for more thorough research on the environmental
effects of ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes; and
Three, the need for monitoring and assessment of the dumpsite
which is presently in use in the northeast Atlantic Ocean.
With respect to the IAEA definition, let me expand on this a bit.
In our judgment, the IAEA definition of high-level radioactive
material is incomplete and requires qualitative terms in addition to
the present quantitative limitations. Under the present definition,
no isotopes or particular types of waste are excluded from consider-
ation for at-sea disposal as long as their concentration is sufficient-
ly low. The U.S. position, reflected in the Marine Protection, Re-
search and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, is more specific about what
constitutes high-level waste. The act defines high-level waste as:
The aqueous waste resulting from the operation of the final cycle solvent extrac-
tion system, or equivalent, and the concentrated waste from subsequent extraction
cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels, or irradi-
ated fuel from nuclear power reactors.
The U.S. definition precludes the dumping of certain substances
that are often considered to be among the most dangerous and
toxic. We are also concerned that the IAEA definition was based
upon assumptions that may be shown to be invalid as our knowl-
edge of marine ecology improves.
On the question of the need for research and monitoring, we
have been frustrated in our attempts to better grapple with the
impacts of dumping by the lack of scientific evidence on critical
features of the marine environment and the effects upon it of
radioactive materials. There is an acute need for more information
on basic biological and physical processes.
Moreover, we believe that a more thorough assessment of the
sites used for dumping radioactive materials, including the north-
east dumpsite, in the Atlantic must be undertaken, and a regular
monitoring program begun. In this regard, we are pleased to note
that the NEA has accelerated the development of a monitoring
program which is expected to come before its steering committee
69_8L~8 0 - 81 - 17
PAGENO="0258"
252
for approval in April Needless to say we welcome this develop
ment
Our concerns are part of the record We have raised them repeat
edly in several fora The NEA, the consultative meetings of the
London Dumping Convention; and the IAEA.
The philosophical underpinning for these concerns is the idea
that we should take no irreversible actions which might destroy
resources for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, this summarizes our prepared statement on inter-
national rules applicable to the ocean disposal of radioactive mate
rials But we have been asked to address a specific item about H R
8119, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to undertake a
study to determine the effects of past ocean dumping of radioactive
wastes.
This bill, if broadly interpreted, could be construed to call for a
study of the Northeast Atlantic Dumpsite as well as dumpsites
used previously by the United States Such a study would consti
tute a valuable addition to the overall body of knowledge on ocean
disposal of radioactive materials Therefore we warmly support its
objectives.
As noted, there has been progress recently in efforts to encour-
age a thorough review of the effects of dumping practices at the
Northeast Atlantic site A study such as that called for in H R
8119 would be helpful if it effectively complemented, and was
carried out in cooperation with the NEA program
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my prepared
statement.
[The following was received for the record:]
PREPARED STATEMENT BY LESLIE H. BROWN, SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr Chairman Thank YOU for inviting the Department of State to appear before
the Subcommittee today. I welcome the opportunity which the subcommittee has
provided to discuss the issues associated with the disposal of radioactive waste in
the oceans How we as a nation and as a member of the world community deal
with these issues will have a significant effect upon our foreign relations as well as
upon efforts to ensure the long term protection of the marine environment
The principal international agreement governing ocean disposal of a wide variety
of substances, including radioactive wastes, is the 1972 Convention on the Preven-
tion of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping
Convention). Under the London Dumping Convention, the dumping of high-level
radioactive waste is prohibited. Special permits are required before other radioac-
tive waste may be dumped. Forty-seven countries are parties to the London Dump-
ing Convention, including the United States. Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Hondu-
ras and Japan all became parties this year. There are also a number of regional
conventions dealing with radioactive material which are as strict or stricter than
the London Dumping Convention For example the Convention on the Protection of
the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) prohibits all
dumping except that of dredge spoil the Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of
the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft prohibits essentially
all dumping by the Parties in the Mediterranean. The United States is not party to
any of these regional dumping agreements.
The London Dumping Convention relies primarily upon the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) in carrying out its responsibilities with respect to the sea
disposal of radioactive materials.
THE IAEA
The London Dumping Convention designates the IAEA as the body to define
high level radioactive wastes and other matter whose dumping at sea is prohibit
PAGENO="0259"
253
ed. The current revised definition of such materials was adopted by the Fourth
Consultative Meeting of the Convention Parties in 1979 It is a definition based upon
radioactivity per unit mass of packaged material For the dumping of low level
radioactive wastes that is permitted under the Convention there is also an extab-
lished limit on the total mass of radioactive materials which may be dumped
annually at a site and recommended total quantities which may be dumped at each
site. There is no limit on the number of sites, although site proliferation has been
discouraged.
The IAEA is also responsible for providing recommendations to Parties on prac-
tices for dumping low level radioactive wastes. These include guidelines on environ-
mental evaluation of dumping applications dumpsite selection monitoring assess
ment, packaging of materials, and recordkeeping.
The Definition and Recommendations are under continuous review As part of
this effort several activities are underway including
(a) a review of the oceanographic model used in formulating the Definition
(b) a review of de minimis levels to establish criteria for considering materials to
be non radioactive for ocean dumping purposes
(c) initiation of a coordinated research program on transuranic cycling in the
marine environment.
The IAEA is committed to continuing its responsibilities under the the London
Dumping Convention and other conventions. The U.S. strongly supports this role.
THE NEA
Another international agreement concerning the regulation of ocean disposal of
radioactive materials is the Multilateral Consultation and Surveillance Mechanism
functioning within the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Eco
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Established in 1977 this mechanism is charged with setting and reviewing guide
lines standards and procedures for the safe disposal of radioactive material at sea
NEA guidelines which are to take into account the standards of the London
Dumping Convention and the IAEAs Definition and Recommendations cover dump
sites and packaging and operating procedures relating to sea disposal. They also call
for assessment and review of environmental, ecological and radiological protection
studies relating to sea disposal activities, and require periodic assessments-at no
less than 5 year intervals-of the continued suitability of the selected dump sites.
Participating countries that decide to carry out dumping operations must notify the
NEA six months before the scheduled date of the operation (twelve months if a new
site is proposed) They must include in the notification the composition and charac
teristics of the material, the site and reasons for its selection (including an environ-
mental assessment) and the procedures to be followed. These latter must be in
accord with NEA standards and recommended practices In addition the country of
origin must name or request the appointment of an Escorting Officer to ensure
compliance. The NEA reviews the proposed plans, if necessary seeking the views of
outside specialists, and names an NEA representative to observe the operation. The
NEA maintains records of disposal operations which, with the approval of the
country involved, may be furnished to the Inter-governmental Maritime Consulta-
tive organization (IMCO).
Twenty-two countries now participate in this NEA Mechanism, and Japan is
expected to join soon, now that it has ratified the London Dumping Convention. The
U.S., as a member of the NEA, participates in expert group meetings and, as a
member of the Steering Committee, reviews all activities relating to the ocean
disposal of radioactive material
In actual practice few of the countries that are parties to the London Dumping
Convention or the NEA Mechanism engage in ocean dumping of radioactive materi
als In 1980 only the Netherlands the United Kingdom Belgium and Switzerland
disposed of low level radioactive wastes at sea The total radioactivity of materials
dumped however is significant and it increased this year
Adequate protection of the entire marine environment requires that efforts be
pursued to increase the effectiveness of the ocean dumping regime established
under the London Dumping Convention. Our concerns about the Convention's effec-
tiveness center around several issues:
(1) the adequacy of the IAEA Definition and Recommendations;
(2) the need for more thorough research on the environmental effects of ocean
disposal of low-level radioactive waste; and
(3) the urgent need, in our view, for monitoring and assessment of the dump site
which is presently in use in the northeast Atlantic Ocean.
PAGENO="0260"
254
THE IAEA DEFINITION
In our judgment, the IAEA Definition of high-level radioactive material is incom-
plete and requires qualitative terms in addition to the present quantitative limita-
tions. Under the present Definition, no isotopes or particular types of waste are
excluded from consideration for at-sea disposal as long as their concentration is
sufficiently low. The U.S. position, reflected in the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, is more specific about what constitutes high-
level wastes. The Act defines high level waste as "the aqueous waste resulting from
the operation of the final cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the
concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for
reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels, or irradiated fuel from nuclear power reac-
tors." The U.S. definition precludes the dumping of certain substances that might be
permitted under the Convention, substances that are often considered to be among
the most dangerous and toxic. We also are concerned that the IAEA Definition was
based upon assumptions that may be shown to be invalid as our knowledge of
marine ecology improves.
NEED FOR RESEARCH AND MONITORING
We have been frustrated in our attempts to better grapple with the impacts of
dumping by the lack of scientific evidence on critical features of the marine envi-
ronment and the effects upon it of radioactive materials. There is an acute need for
more information on basic biological and physical processes.
Moreover, we believe that a more thorough assessment of the sites used for
dumping radioactive materials, including the northeast Atlantic site, must be un-
dertaken, and a regular monitoring program begun. In this regard, we are pleased
to note that the NEA has accelerated the development of a monitoring program
which is expected to come before its Steering Committee for approval in April. We
welcome this development.
Our concerns are part of the record. We have raised them repeatedly in several
fora: the NEA; the Consultative Meetings of the London Dumping Convention and
the IAEA.
The philosophical underpinning for these concerns is the idea that we should take
no irreversible actions which might destroy resources for future generations.
Mr. Chairman: That summarizes the international rules applicable to the ocean
disposal of radioactive materials, as well as our concerns regarding their effective-
ness. Now I'd like to address a specific item about which you have asked-H.R.
8119, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to undertake a study to determine
the effects of past ocean dumping of radioactive wastes.
This bill, if broadly interpreted, could be construed to call for a study of the
Northeast Atlantic site as well as dump sites used previously by the U.S. Such a
study would constitute a valuable addition to the overall body of knowledge on
ocean disposal of radioactive materials. Therefore we warmly support its objectives.
As noted, there has been progress recently in efforts to encourage a thorough
review of the effects of dumping practices at the Northeast Atlantic site. A study
such as that called for in H.R. 8119 would be helpful if it effectively complemented,
and was carried out in cooperation with, the NEA program.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
That is not very encouraging testimony, in many respects. You
do not have to persuade this particular subcommittee of what you
call your philosophical underpinning, namely, "that we should take
no irreversible actions which might destroy resources for future
generations."
That is precisely our concern. As you know, there are some
mistakes in dealing with the oceans, that you simply cannot make
twice, and that is what we are most concerned about here.
Regarding your own concerns about the inadequacy of interna-
tional existing arrangements and ways in which they are less
satisfactory than our own domestic legislation with respect to
ocean dumping, you say at the bottom of page 4 that, "the total
radioactivity of materials dumped, however, is significant"-speak-
ing of the Northeast Atlantic at this point-"and it increased this
year."
PAGENO="0261"
255
What volume has been dumped in that site, and how does it
compare with what we know, for example, has been dumped off our
own shores?
Mr. BROWN. Well, I do not know what in fact has been dumped
off our own shores, but with respect to--
Mr. STUDDS. Neither do we, incidentally.
Mr. BROWN. So I gather. For example, I have some figures from
IMCO that cover 1978, and the totals run upwards of 8,000 metric
tons by the four countries named. With a radioactivity level of, I
guess it is 43,000 curies, that is beta gamma, you have an alpha
count of 1,000 plus, and tritium of 36,000 curies. We could get you a
complete-probably a more èomplete list. It will take some time,
because IMCO is the body that keeps the records on this.
Mr. STUDDS. I am sorry to hear this. I would appreciate that very
much, if we could do that for the record.
Mr. BROWN. I will see what we can get.
[The following was received for the record:]
TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS DUMPED AT THE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC SITE FOR
THE LAST 3 YEARS
1978 1979'
1980
Total weight (metric tons)
Radioactivity (cones):
Beta/gamma excluding tritium
Tritium
8,046
8,396
43,015
36,613
1,101
126,279
104,369
1,868
Alpha
Total
80,729
240,912
`Data not yet available.
Source: IMCO.
TABLE 2-1978. ORIGIN OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS DUMPED AT THE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC SITE
Country
weight-
metric tons
Radioactivity of wastes-curies
Beta/Gamma
(excluding Tnitium Alpha
tritium)
1. Joint operation:
Belgium
Netherlands
1,083
1,562
733
2,588
2,080
611
1,065 472 5
4,072 390 27
660 3,051 255
36,607 32,700 814
Switzerland
2. Belgium
3. United Kingdom
Total
8,046
43015 36,613 1,101
Source: IMCO.
TABLE 3-1979. ORIGIN OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS DUMPED AT THE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC SITE
Country
Weight-
me nc ons
Radioacti
vity of wastes-curies
Beta/Gamma
(excluding
tritium)
Tritium
Alpha
1. United Kingdom
2,014
40,091
40,991
1,381
Note-data for other countries not yet available.
Source: IMCO.
PAGENO="0262"
256
TABLE 4-1980. ORIGIN OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS D
UMPED AT
HE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC SITE
Country
.
W?i9htt_
me xc OOS
Radioactivity of wastes-cones
Beta/gamma
(excluding Tritium Alpha
tritium)
1. Joint operation:
Belgium
Netherlands
3,520
1,880
300
18,000 9,000 72
1,200 200 2
1,000 55,000 3
Switzerland
2. United Kingdom
2,696
106,079 40,169 1,791
Total
8,396
126,279 104,369 1,868
Source: IMCO.
Mr. STUDDS. When you enumerate your principal concerns on
page 5, and there are three of them, with respect to the adequacy
of the Convention, you begin with your concern regarding the
adequacy of the IAEA's definition of low level waste, and you say
that, "the U.S. definition precludes the dumping of certain sub-
stances that might be permitted under the Convention, substances
that are often considered to be among the most dangerous and
toxic."
What do you have in mind there?
Mr. BROWN. Plutonium, various actinides. Plutonium is very long
lived, very toxic. These substances are all the products of reprocess-
ing of spent reactor fuel.
Mr. STUDDS. Those are defined by the Convention as low level?
Mr. BROWN. In terms of the Convention, you could dump them, if
the concentrations were sufficiently low. That is our concern.
Mr. STUDDS. Does the United States consider them to be high-
level wastes, and therefore prohibited?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, indeed.
Mr. STUDDS. And not discussable in terms of dumping?
Mr. BROWN. That is right.
Mr. STUDDS. Perhaps this is not a fair question to ask of you, but
what would be the powerplants of a decommissioned nuclear sub-
marine, low level or high level waste?
Mr. BROWN. I think I would defer to the DOE for that one.
Mr. STUDDS. I am sure they will defer to somebody else. But we
will ask them that.
You refer to the need for more thorough research on the environ-
mental effects of the ocean disposal of those wastes, and obviously
those are concerns that we would address to scientists, who will
testify later, and you talk about the monitoring of the dumpsite.
At least that implies that there is some, which is more than we
could say with respect to the dumpsites off our own shores.
Let me ask you, does the London Convention apply to public
vessels, vessels owned by the subscribing States?
Mr. BROWN. Do you mean using those--
Mr. STUDDS. Military vessels,for example.
Mr. BROWN. So far as I know, the London Dumping Convention
covers all vessels under the registry of the parties, but let me turn
to my lawyer.
[Short pause.]
PAGENO="0263"
257
Mr BROWN No, I stand corrected It does not cover military
vessels
Mr STUDDS It does not?
Mr BROWN It does not
Mr STUDDS Again, you are probably not the one to ask, but that
leads me to wonder whether our own Ocean Dumping Act applies
to our own public vessels.
Mr BROWN Let me again turn to--
Mr. STUDDS. That is probably a question, in fairness, to ask EPA.
Mr. BROWN. We will have to check the records for that.
Mr. STUDDS. Do not worry about that. That one is not urgent.
But if your answer is that the London Convention does not apply
to the public vessels of the nation states adhering to the Conven
tion, then is there any legal prohibition on the dumping of radioac
tive wastes by national military forces?
Mr BROWN That, too, I guess we would have to go back to the
lawyers on that one The question has never been posed to us It is
not something that has yet come up I certainly think--
Mr. STUDDS. The military forces are increasingly in possession of
these materials, as you understand.
Mr BROWN Our best guess on that one is more than a guess,
that if radioactive wastes were dumped from a military vessel, it
would not be covered by the London Dumping Convention. That is
a possible loophole
Mr FORSYTHE If the gentleman will yield
The point really is not whether it is the vessel It is military
waste dumping on a public vessel, or whatever. So as far as you
know, there is no connection between military waste and the Con-
vention, I gather.
Mr. BROWN. I do not-I have read the Convention, and I do not
remember that it made a distinction in terms of the source of the
wastes. What it does is it simply defines the dilution, if you will, or
the radiation of the mass
Mr FORSYTHE Because here, our waste problem is about 90
percent military, and if that kind of ratio is worldwide, and it is
not covered, we have a real problem
Mr STUDDS Yes, I do not want to--
Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, could I read you the article that
covers this, from the Convention? Article VII, paragraph 4 states:
This Convention shall not apply to those vessels and aircraft entitled to sovereign
immunity under international law. However each Party shall ensure by the adop-
tion of appropriate measures that such vessels and aircraft owned or operated by it
act in a manner consistent with the object and purpose of this Convention and shall
inform the Organization accordingly
Mr STUDDS I doubt that there is a lawyer around who could not
weasel out of that last proviso.
Mr. BROWN. I will defer to the lawyers.
Mr. STUDDS. For example, the U.S. Navy has sunk at least one
decommissioned submarine reactor in the ocean, and there is the
question of what to do with nuclear powered vessels, in general.
Let me allow other members to go on. I am going to have to
enforce this strictly, the 5-minute rule, because we have a long day.
Mr. Pritchard?
PAGENO="0264"
258
Mr. PRITCHARD. Even if the United States does not' utilize a
seabed to dispose of radioactive waste, other countries may not
have a politically acceptable land-based option. Are any countries
studying the seabed option? What kinds of coordination are we
having, and what kinds of information are we getting from them, if
they are studying the option? Can you respond to that?
Mr. BROWN. There is some international cooperation on sub-
seabed disposal that has been organized under the Nuclear Energy
Agency, and its Radioactive Waste Management Committee. The
United States, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom participate in the seabed working group, which
provides a forum for assessment of progress, coordination of cooper-
ative cruises and experiments, information exchange, and discus-
sion of legal and policy issues.
Now, through the seabed working group, the United States and
Japan are jointly studying the North Pacific for subseabed disposal.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Do you feel that you are getting the information
from these countries?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, we do, sir.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I have another question.
Are there any plans by the U.S. Government to develop nuclear
waste storage facilities in any of the Pacific islands of the trust
territories at this time?
Mr. BROWN. Well, as you are probably aware, sir, we have a joint
arrangement with the Japanese to study the feasibility of using a
Pacific island as a possible site for the interim storage of spent
nuclear fuel. There was an agreement for such a joint study signed
in Tokyo last July, July 18. There was a recent meeting, just last
week, in fact, of the steering committee, which is made up of my
boss, Ambassador Pickering, and counterparts on the Japanese
side, together with several other technical people, and a work plan
was agreed to.
The work will begin on the first of January. It is a 2-year
feasibility study. There are no plans at the moment to build such a
facility in the Pacific. But the United States and the Japanese are
looking at the feasibility of such a storage site.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Would you have to come back to Congress to get
authorization to go ahead with the building?
Mr. BROWN. Absolutely.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I think Mr. Akaka will probably be interested in
this.
All right. Thank you. I know we have a lot of members here who
also have questions.
Mr. STUDDS. Ms. Mikulski?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I just have a few questions, Mr. Brown, and I
would like to compliment you on the philosophical underpinning
which you so clearly stated on page 6.
My question, one on page 2, you related that we are not involved
in these regional conventions in the Mediterranean and so on.
Could you tell me, briefly, why is it that we want to leave
ourselves with more flexibility and certain loopholes because the
London Convention is broader?
Mr. BROWN. Such regional conventions reflect common geograph-
ic concerns. Membership is generally limited to countries in the
PAGENO="0265"
259
area. Therefore, the United States is not eligible to join many such
groupings. The Baltic Sea is a long way from the United States, as
indeed is the Mediterranean.
Ms. MIKuLsKI. Can you tell me, in your work in the State De-
partment, is there any level of sentiment, or the level of sentiment
for banning ocean dumping totally, regardless of level?
Mr. BROWN. Well, I guess the short answer is that the sentiment
is expressed by the fact that we do not any longer do ocean dump-
ing. I make a distinction here between ocean dumping and the
examination of subseabed disposal, which may or may not be ocean
dumping, depending on how you define it, but the short answer is
that some such sentiment exists.
Ms. MIKuLSKI. Around the world?
Mr. BROWN. Well, only 4 countries of the 47 who are members of
the London Dumping Convention are dumping, and you can imag-
ine why: Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom. They are all small countries, they are all countries with
nuclear power programs, fairly active nuclear medical programs
and the like, and land-based dump sites are very hard to find in
those heavily populated countries.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Is there any evidence that there is illegal dump-
ing going on, for example, here in the United States, in terms of
land-based disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes, as I am sure you
are aware of from newspaper accounts, and others, that there is
illegal dumping that goes on. Some guy thinks he is dumping
molasses some place, and it is PCB.
I wonder, as our country monitors, and looks at these things, is
there any evidence of illegal dumping?
Mr. BROWN. None that has come to my attention, and one reason
why I think it would be perhaps a little more difficult is the very
danger of the substances themselves. They are radioactive, which
means that they must be specially packaged, or the guys who dump
them are going to suffer. It is not a question of just dumping the
stuff in a drum, and rolling it off the pier. But we do not have-at
least I have not seen-any evidence of illegal dumping.
Ms. MIKuL5KI. The third question, and then my final one, be-
cause I know we have to move on.
The way this is dumped in place, of course, it must be shipped. I
will be asking EPA about the nature of the containers.
But do we have very strict provisions on the safety of the vessels
carrying these materials around the world, so that you say, al-
though this is a safe spot, it has to travel through a whole lot of
ocean to get to the alleged safe spot. Do we have very strict
provisions on containers, on the types of vessels shipping them, et
cetera?
Mr. BROWN. Well, the Nuclear Energy Agency at OECD is re-
sponsible for setting up the procedures in accordance with IAEA
recommendations. I am not personally familiar with those, but it
may be that one of your other witnesses, either in EPA, or NOAA,
would have better knowledge of the technical characteristics of
what is required of the ships than I would.
Ms. MIKuL5KI. Thank you.
As a daughter of Madam Curie, who wonders what she did to
Mother Earth, when they invented this stuff to start the whole
PAGENO="0266"
260
thing off, I appreciate your concerns about the oceans. Because if
Mother Earth were here she would have a lot tougher questions to
ask, and I think that is what we have to think about.
What have we done for our mother?
Mr. STUDDS. Do you want to follow that, Mr. Forsythe?
Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, in regards to the London Convention, and the IAEA,
you said that 47 nations are signatories to the London Convention.
How about other nuclear nations, other than the Western nations,
U.S.S.R., China, India?
Mr. BROWN. Well, I will submit for the record, with the Chair-
man's permission, the parties as of November 1980, but let me just
say that most of the major nuclear nations are members of the
Dumping Convention, but there are a few key holdouts. Korea is
one. Iraq and Iran are not parties. India and Pakistan are not
parties. Brazil is not a party, nor is Taiwan.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you.
I think it would be good to have that in the record. I appreciate
it.
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
[The following was received for the record:]
LIST OF PARTIES TO THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION AS OF NOVEMBER 1980
Date of entry into force 1
Afghanistan Aug. 30, 1975.
Argentina Oct. 12, 1979.
Byelorussian SSR Feb. 28, 1976.
Canada Dec. 14, 1975.
Cape Verde June 25, 1977.
Chile Sept. 3, 1977.
Cuba Jan. 1, 1976.
Denmark Aug. 30, 1975.
Dominican Republic Aug. 30, 1975.
Finland June 2, 1979.
France Mar. 16, 1977.
German Democratic Republic Sept. 19, 1976.
Germany, Federal Republic of Dec. 8, 1977.
Guatemala Aug. 30, 1975.
Haiti Sept. 27, 1975.
Honduras June 1, 1980.
Hungary Mar. 6, 1976.
Iceland Aug. 30, 1975.
Japan Nov. 14, 1980.
Jordan Aug. 30, 1975.
Kenya Jan. 16, 1976.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Dec. 22, 1976.
Mexico Aug. 30, 1975.
Monaco June 15, 1977.
Morocco Mar. 20, 1977.
Netherlands Jan. 2, 1978.
New Zealand Aug. 30, 1975.
Nigeria Apr. 18, 1976.
Norway Aug. 30, 1975.
Panama Aug. 30, 1975.
Papua New Guinea Apr. 9, 1980.
Philippines Aug. 30, 1975.
Poland Feb. 22, 1979.
Portugal May 14, 1979.
South Africa Sept. 6, 1978.
Spain Aug. 30, 1975.
Suriname Dec. 1980 2
Sweden Aug. 30, 1975.
PAGENO="0267"
261
Switzerland . Aug. 30, 1979.
Tunisia May 13, 1976.
Ukrainian SSR Mar. 6, 1976.
United Arab Emirates Aug. 30, 1975.
U.S.S.R Jan. 14, 1976.
United Kingdom Dec. 17, 1975.
United States Aug. 30, 1975.
Yugoslavia July 25, 1976.
Zaire Oct. 16, 1975.
1 Under Article XIX the Convention enters into force on the 30th day following the date of
deposit of a Party's instrument of ratification or accession.
2 The precise date will depend upon the date of the earliest deposit of Suriname's instrument
of ratification with one of the four depositories (Mexico, U.S.S.R., U.K., and U.S.).
Mr. FORSYTHE. Going on to an item that you have already al-
luded to in your testimony, this question of definition, and you
mentioned that you differentiated between waste, the disposal and
subseabed emplacement.
Do you really have much knowledge of where that is heading, as
to whether you believe that a subseabed emplacement should come
under the convention, and should be regulated the same as a
disposal?
Mr. BROWN. I was not making a judgment as to whether it
should or should not be.
The fact is that subseabed emplacement wasn't really considered
when the convention was negotiated. I do not think people
thought--
Mr. FORSYTHE. I recognize that, and I am not challenging as to
whether or not you are making a judgment.
It seems to me that at this point in time it is being discussed,
and therefore should-I would believe, clearly come under the
same international convention.
Mr. BROWN. There is certainly a good case to be made for it.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Is the United States pursuing that line of the--
Mr. BROWN. Not at the moment, because we really do not even
know whether it is technically feasible to do, and an awful lot of
research is going to have to be done, and it is research that is not
terribly easy to do.
We are dealing with deep waters, and deep sediments, and the
like, but it is--
Mr. FORSYTHE. Do you not think we should get it under, even
though we do not know how we are going to regulate it, before we
suddenly find, somebody has got a bright idea, and away we go?
Mr. BROWN. Well, I think the point is well taken. I think per-
haps what we need to do is to-is to raise this, both within the
Government, that is our own Government, certainly with the scien-
tific community, and the parties to the convention; see what-how
other people think about it, what the sentiment is, is there suffi-
cient reason to think that--
Mr. FORSYTHE. If it is going to happen, regardless, if there is that
potential, it seems to me that the International Regulatory Agency
ought to be right up front.
Mr. BROWN. If you are certain that you know what you are
regulating. I think that is probably the basic problem.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. I am not sure we even know.
Mr. FORSYTHE. If not, see that that whole area is forcefully put
forward, because that, of course, is a trap that Ms. Mikulski was
PAGENO="0268"
262
referring to. We did not know what we were doing, and now, 50
years later, we found that we have messes that are terribly unfor-
tunate.
It is hopeful, that as far as radioactive material is concerned, we
were aware from the beginning that there was a major problem.
This is no time to back off, because we are desperately searching
for newer and better and safe disposal methods.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Anderson?
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, I
want to thank you for your endorsement of my bill, H.R. 8119.
When the State Department warmly supports one of my bills, it
is kind of a surprise, and I want to thank you for it.
You did put a condition, you said, to the bill, if broadly interpret-
ed could be construed to call for a study of the Northeast Atlantic
site, and that part I would like to clarify a little bit.
The bill actually says, for the purposes of carrying out the study
required under paragraph 1, the Secretary of, that is Commerce,
shall locate and survey those sites within ocean waters at which
radioactive wastes were destroyed during the period concerned, and
that where less than 6,000 feet in depth, or used for the disposal of
high-level radioactive waste, regardless of depth.
I do not see how you could say that it does not directly have a
study of that, and if there is any question in that, I would like to
have some help from your Department in tightening it up, because
the purpose of the bill is to get at the site, such as the Northeast
Atlantic site, and everything else.
Mr. BROWN. Well, Congressman, I suspect this is lawyerly lan-
guage inserted by the drafters of my statement.
We certainly will look at it. If there is a problem, I am sure that
it is just the wording of a phrase, or something, so that we want to
be sure that the Northeast Atlantic dumpsite is included, that is
the one that concerns us all, and not just the ones within our
territorial waters, or within 200 miles of the U.S. coast.
Mr. ANDERSON. I understand I will be on testifying in a few
minutes, and my testimony, for the most part, comes from the
Pacific Ocean, from the dumpsite that is, I think 40 miles, AEC
dumpsite 40 miles off of San Francisco, and we have reports of
dumping maybe 15 or 20 miles, so we are concerned with both
oceans, but my bill definitely was not intended to cover the North-
east Atlantic site.
Mr. BROWN. If our lawyers have any problems with the specific
wording of the bill, we will get back to you.
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. It does not me~n New England. It means England.
We are the Northwest Atlantic. How far off the coast of which
European country is the European site?
Mr. BROWN. It is about 700 kilometers off of England.
Mr. ANDERSON. We are talking about a safe site off England, 700
kilometers.
Mr. STUDDS. Right.
Mr. Carney?
Mr. CARNEY. I would like to ask a question of the Chairman.
PAGENO="0269"
263
Was that disposal of the nuclear submarine accidental, or done
purposely?
Mr. STUDDS. No, it was a matter of policy.
Mr. CARNEY. I see. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. The reactor was successfully sunk.
Mr. CARNEY. We successfully sunk one of our own.
Mr. STUDDS. And they have attempted, subsequently, to find it,
and they cannot.
Mr. CARNEY. How many dumpsites do we have within our terri-
torial waters?
Mr. STUDDS. Are you asking me?
Mr. CARNEY. No, I looked your way. I was kind of smiling at you,
the way you answered the first question, but I was addressing the
witness, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. At the moment, we have no dumpsites within our
waters, except the ones that seem to be-that Congressman Ander-
son referred to. There may be some that are within 12 miles, but
most of them are 40, 50, 60 miles offshore, and most of them we
seem to have lost track of.
If you go back to the fifties and sixties, when we were doing some
dumping, the records are adequate, you can answer your ques-
tion--
Mr. STUDDS. Let me encourage you not to ask the Department of
State what occurs within our territorial waters.
Mr. CARNEY. All I am trying to do is get a handle on the total
amount of radioactive material that has been dumped in the
oceans to this date. I do not know if Mr. Brown is the witness to
ask that question of.
I perhaps should have saved that for our next panel of witnesses.
Mr. BROWN. I think I might defer to them.
Mr. CARNEY. You had mentioned various dumpsites, and I was
wondering offhand if you had known that. I think my line of
questioning would be best to ask of the next panel, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Akaka?
Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, we have been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to
hear what this Nation is doing to research the disposal of nuclear
waste in the ocean, and as a representative of Hawaii, I am deeply
disturbed by the possible effects of radioactive waste in the oceans.
I also speak for the people of the Pacific, as we all know, the
effects of nuclear energy is not new to the islands of the Pacific.
We have received reports, from time to time, that some are taking
place, with low-level material around the Pacific area, areas can be
named, but it is disturbing to the communities of the Pacific,
because many of the people there depend on the ocean for their
livelihood, for their food, and we are very concerned that this
might be affecting the lives of the people in the Pacific, and there-
fore we look at our Nation, and wonder, in case of Japan's recent
announcement to drop 10,000 barrels of low-level waste in an area
about 600 miles north of Guam, and my question to you is, what
has been the response of the the United States to these plans that
Japan has?
PAGENO="0270"
264
Mr. BROWN. Well, let me answer first by saying that we do not
encourage anybody to dump low-level waste in the Pacific, the
Atlantic, or any other ocean.
On the other hand, Japan, as a member of the London Dumping
Convention, has made very clear that it will abide by all of the
procedures and recommendations, the guidelines of the London
Dumping Convention, and of the [IAEA.]
There is, therefore, no international law we can cite to prevent
Japan from carrying out this dumping under the convention, which
permits it.
Mr. AKAKA. Has the United States been in contact with Pacific
Island Nations regarding nuclear waste disposal?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, indeed, we have.
I might add, the Japanese have, as well. Our consultations with
the various Pacific nations have been primarily on this other activ-
ity that I mentioned earlier, that is the Pacific Basin joint spent
fuel feasibility study for land-based, that is surface, disposal, inter-
im storage of spent reactor fuel. That would not be underwater.
That would be on an island, if it turns out to be feasible.
We have discussed that 2-year study with, virtually all of the
Pacific Basin countries, including with the Government of Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Besides Japan, are there other countries in the
Pacific Basin, bordering the Pacific Ocean, that are studying, or
contemplating ocean disposal of radioactive waste?
Mr. BROWN. Not that we are aware of. But I do note that neither
Korea, nor the government on Taiwan, are parties to the conven-
tion, and yet they are both quite active in the nuclear field; they
both have active nuclear power programs. So they must at least
have considered it, although, to our knowledge, none has occurred
except for one case. The Koreans did admit to dumping a few
barrels off the Korean coast on a trial basis sometime ago, of low-
level wastes, but we have no evidence of organized dumping efforts.
Mr. AKAKA. What about the Philippines?
Mr. BROWN. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. AKAKA. You said earlier that plutonium is within the defini-
tion of low-level waste convention. Will plutonium be dumped by
the Japanese within the next year?
Mr. BROWN. I do not know that we know what the composition of
the Japanese material will be, although we could probably ask
them.
Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you.
Let me ask you two quick questions for the record, if I may.
With regard to the situation in the Northeast Atlantic dumping
site, can you assure us, one way or the other, as to the European
reaction to U.S. studies and monitoring of that dumping. Would
that be looked upon favorably by the European parties to that
action?
Mr. BROWN. If we just did it unilaterally?
Mr. STUDDS. Or would we be able to secure their cooperation? Is
it something that they would look upon favorably?
Mr. BROWN. We would hope to do it in collaboration with the
Nuclear Energy Agency. They have said they will undertake this
monitoring effort and, in April, we would hope to put it together.
PAGENO="0271"
265
Mr. STUDDS. Most of the questions to you have concerned, in one
way or another, the question of low level waste.
With respect to the possible future subseabed emplacement of
high-level waste, does the United States believe that that is prohib-
ited by the London Dumping Convention?
Mr. BROWN. The Legal Adviser's Office has advised us that high
level radioactive waste could not, under the present circumstances
as we understand them, be emplaced in the seabed consistent with
our obligations under the London Dumping Convention.
The legal question of the scope of the convention has not been
fully resolved in reaching this conclusion. Until seabed emplace-
ment is studied further, we must assume that it cannot be under-
taken without significant risk to the marine environment.
Therefore, under any reasonable interpretation of the conven-
tion, this activity would now fall within the scope of the conven-
tion.
Mr. STUDDS. But that is the U.S. position. Have other nations
signatory to the convention stated their views on that question?
Mr. BROWN. We are not aware of any.
Mr. STUDDS. So it may well be an open question in the minds of
other countries?
Mr. BROWN. It may well be.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much.
Did you wish to add to that?
Mr. BROWN. No.
Mr. STUDDS. All right, thank you.
I must inform the next witness that he is not who he thinks he
is. Prior to our going to the Department of Energy, we have a
request from a member of this committee to present some testimo-
ny, and the Chair will call on Congressman Anderson of California.
STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be assisted in
my presentation by John Cullather of the committee staff.
I would like to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Perhaps we better wait until--
Mr. STUDDS. It is a vote, but we can proceed for 5 minutes, if you
like.
Mr. ANDERSON. It will take a little over that but I will go ahead
and go as far as I can.
I would like to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman
for the opportunity to testify on the present problems that have
resulted from ocean disposal of radioactive nuclear materials. As
most of us in this room today are aware of the present crisis at the
Love Canal chemical disposal site and the many others across this
country, we too should be made aware of the dangers of the hap-
hazard practices of disposing of nuclear wastes in our ocean envi-
ronment.
It is for this purpose that I introduced H.R. 8119 to provide for a
through study to determine the effects of certain past ocean dump-
ing of radioactive wastes in our marine environment. When Dr.
William Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Pro-
grams in EPA, testified before this subcommittee in 1978, he stated
PAGENO="0272"
266
their research has tried to determine the fate of the radioactive
waste packages dumped by the United States under the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) licensing authority between 1946 and
1970.
EPA has never adequately answered this question.
First, let us destroy the myth that the only materials the United
States dumped in the ocean were low-level radioactive wastes. EPA
uses the Ocean Dumping Act definition of high-level radioactive
waste to refute any assertions that high-level materials were
dumped in the ocean.
This is not a quantitative definition. According to EPA officials
you could have a gallon of waste from a nuclear reprocessing
facility and a gallon of waste from Berkeley Laboratory, they could
be identical in content and radiation emissions, equally deadly, but
because the first came from a reprocessing facility it would be
defined as high level and because the second gallon came from a
laboratory it would be low level.
Therefore, to get a more representative view of the danger these
materials may present, let us use an Atomic Energy Commission
definition from their 1955 declassified report on Radioactive Waste
Disposal Practices in the Atomic Energy Industry. This report de-
fines 50 millirems or less per hour as low level, and 2 rems or more
per hour as high level.
The licenses issued to the disposal companies stated that: The
radiation level at any accessible surface of the container shall not
exceed 200 millirems per hour. So immediately we find that at the
exterior surface of the drum a person or marine life form may be
exposed to intermediate radiation.
Next we must examine the types of packaging used to keep the
exterior radiation exposures below this 200 millirem requirement.
An even more detailed example was given in the declassified
1955 AEC report which described the procedures used by the Wes-
tinghouse Atomic Power Division-Bettis Field facility in Pitts-
burgh, Pa., to dispose of their wastes, and it stated:
High level solid wastes are accumulated in specially prepared 55 gallon drums.
Sheet metal cylinders four inches in diameter having peripheral lead shields of
varying thicknesses (1 inch to 4 inches) are set in 55 gallon drums. Concrete is
poured around the shielded cylinder up to its top which is about 12 inches below the
top of the drum * * *~ Operating personnel insert high level wastes as they are
created * * * After each drum receives its charge of high level waste, a lead plug is
inserted into the four inch cylinder prior to removal from the working areas. These
drums are then moved to the processing area where they are filled to the top of the
drum with concrete. Drums containing high level wastes make up the largest
proportion of waste packages shipped from Bettis * * ~ Wastes are shipped via a
commercial trucking company to the Navy dock at Earle, New Jersey.
This was the Navy's embarcation location for radioactive materi-
als to be dumped at sea. In 1955 alone, Bettis Field packaged 740
high- level drums for ocean disposal. Similar procedures were fol-
lowed by the Brookhaven National Laboratory for the disposal of
their high-level nuclear waste material.
What we must look at here is not the external radiation levels-
but the internal radiation levels-which will threaten the marine
environment when the containers are crushed and EPA studies
have found 25 percent of the containers have been visibly crushed.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 6 to 8 inches of
concrete can decrease the radiation emissions by a factor of 10, and
PAGENO="0273"
267
the lead insulation may also reduce the internal radiation emis-
sions by a factor of 10. So the internal radiation levels may be
much higher than the 200 millirem external radiation. Possibly
between 2 and 20 rems per hour. As a comparison, the NRC only
allows workers in an atomic energy plant to be exposed to 5 rems
per year. I mentioned before 2 to 20 rems per hour. We are talking
about the NRC of 5 rems per year. One can only speculate about
the danger posed by the drums which an AEC inspector found on a
ship which measured over 1,500 millirems on the outside of the
drum. These high-level drums originated at Livermore Laborato-
ries.
This brings us to the mysterious concrete forms which were used
to dispose of large radioactive materials.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Anderson, if you will suspend now, we have the
second bells for a vote, and the subcommittee will stand adjourned
for 10 minutes. We will be right back.
[Short recess.]
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. ANDERSON. In my remarks I made the comment that we
must not look at the external but the internal radiations, and we
will. I pointed out that 25 percent of the containers had been,
according to EPA studies, had been visibly crushed, and I compared
then the internal radiation level may be much higher than the 200
millirem, probably between 2 and 20 rems per hour, as compared
to the NRC which allows workers in an atomic energy plant to be
exposed to 5 rems per year. One could only speculate to the danger
posed by the drums which an AEC inspector found on a ship which
measured over 1,500 millirems on the outside of the drum.
These high-level drums originated at Livermore Laboratories.
This brings us to the mysterious concrete forms which were used
to dispose of large radioactive materials.
I have here diagram D-0048 illustrates one such concrete struc-
ture. Inside lies a beryllium nuclear warhead, for which the dispos-
al company said "Considerable risk would be involved in cutting
the cone to fit regular barrels."
Drawing D-0045 shows us the "High Level Configuration of a
Solidified Liquid Drum Block." As you can see from this illustra-
tion, the high-level drum is located closer to the center of the block
to provide additional concrete insulation. Again concrete insulation
can decrease the radiation emissions from over 2 rems internally,
to under 200 millirems externally. And, finally, in drawings D-0049
and D-0042, can you show both at the same time? We will
take D-0049 first and then D-0042. You can hold them both up
there.
We have two more specially designed "high level" waste contain-
ers, with between 10 and 8 inches of steel and concrete insulation
to reduce the high internal radiation levels. To my knowledge, the
EPA has never seen, let alone examined, one of these structures
which weigh at least 10 tons each.
EPA may say if high-level drums were present it would have
been noticed in their samples. Which leads us to the crux of the
whole issue-just how representative of all the wastes dropped
were the few drums which EPA examined. There were over 48,000
radioactive waste containers dumped in the Pacific Ocean, EPA
69-8'48 0 - 81 - 18
PAGENO="0274"
268
saw approximately 200, and examined the sediment around even
fewer. There is no way you can tell from the outside of a 55-gallon
drum its internal configuration and whether it has a lead shielded
canister of high level waste on the outside And, as I said before,
EPA has not looked at the concrete forms, some of which had
recorded external emissions of 1,000 millirems per hour or con
tamed i,ooo curies of radioactive material, or the high level waste
containers.
One reason their samples may not be representative is the EPA
expeditions never look in the right place. `Chart 18645 is an oceano-
graphic map of the Farallon Island region. And point C is the
location where EPA has done their research for the 6,000 foot
dumpsite, and where they maintain that over 44,000 containers
were disposed
Then we must look at the areas where the three AEC licensees
were allowed to dump their nuclear waste material The square
area illustrated by dashes is the dumpsite in which the Nuclear
Engineering Co was allowed to dispose of their waste under their
license issued October 22, 1958 Note that the EPA site is not
located inside this licensed area, and 5½ miles from the center of
the dumpsite, point D is the disposal site in which the U.S. Naval
Radiological Defense Laboratory, the Ocean Transport Co., and
later the Nuclear Engineering Co. used as center for their dumping
operations in 1950 and 1960 They were required to unload the
nuclear waste material within 5 miles of this point, which is the 78
square mile circle drawn on the map As you can see, the area
which EPA examined is not in the dump zone, and is 7 miles from
the central dump coordinate
The Nuclear Engineering Co `s license was later amended to
require them to dump in the trapezoidal area marked on the map
as a "Chemical Munitions Dumping Area" On April 8, 1962, at the
request of the State of California, the AEC changed the Naval
Radiological Defense Laboratory dumpsite to this same trapezoidal
area. Again, we can see that the area in which EPA explored is not
in the dumpsite, and is over 6 miles from the center of the dump-
site So the question remains, do the few drums EPA examined
truly represent all the drums since their tests were conducted
outside these licensed dumpsites, and failed to include the high
level waste concrete blocks and drums
Which brings us to the military, probably the single largest
nuclear waste dumper in the country.
Only a portion of the military's disposal operations even came
under the purview of the AEC. Any wastes generated from oper-
ations which are exempt from the Commission's regulatory author-
ity under section 91(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, are also exempt
from the Commission's safeguards provided that the waste remains
in the possession of the military until the ultimate disposal
The Army shipped all of its waste material originating west of
the Mississippi River to the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah
According to their standard operating procedures manual, the ma
terial was then shipped to the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory, in San Francisco, which performs their ultimate dis-
posal. The wastes were much more hazardous than we ~have been
PAGENO="0275"
269
led to believe, and possibly more hazardous since they were not
solely from the Navy's laboratory experiments.
But I am not sure anyone really knows what types of deadly
radioactive materials were disposed of in this manner
How much waste was disposed of in the Pacific? I am not sure
anyone knows The Air Force did not know their quantities, a 1957
Atomic Energy Commission report-WASH-734--states that "the
estimated curie content could be off as much as a factor of 10"
And under the curie content column of some of the company
terminal manifests we have reviewed, are nothing but question
marks.
There are many unknowns. This is why I introduced H.R. 8119.
We need a comprehensive fish monitoring program to insure that
these deadly wastes do not make their way back to the human food
chain through the fish But, in order to fully protect those of us
who like to eat fish, it is necessary to determine where exactly the
wastes are located, their concentration, and if the area being moni
tored adequately represents all the waste dumpsites.
If we were to implement such a monitoring program based upon
the research EPA has conducted to date, we would have no assur-
ances that in 20 years a disposal site, would not be causing cancer
among those individuals who eat fish caught in this region. We
could have a marine "Love Canal."
In my view, we must insure for future generations that the
practices of handling these volatile materials does not adversely
affect the health and welfare of this and future generations Ladies
and gentlemen, I submit the other alternative is much too high a
price for the human race to afford.
To dispel any further notions that these drums were disposed of
in the safest possible manner, I would like to read a section from
the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory's application for renew-
al of their nuclear waste disposal license. It summarizes the kind of
care given to these drums. "After each dump, a thorough inspec-
tion is made of the dump area to ascertain that all containers have
sunk. In the rare event of a floating radioactive waste container, it
is sunk by gunfire" So much for care in handling and making sure
these wastes did not float ashore.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and, of course,
we have the things to back up the statements that I have made
here today, quoted out of various official documents.
[The following was received for the record:]
TESTIMONY BY CONGRESSMAN GLENN M. ANDERSON
I would like to thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman for the opportu.
nity to testify on the present problems that have resulted from ocean disposal of
radioactive nuclear waste. As most of us in this room today are aware of the present
crisis at the Love Canal chemical waste disposal site and the many others across
this country, we too should be made aware of the dangers of the haphazard prac-
tices of disposing of nuclear wastes in our ocean environment.
It is for this purpose that I introduced H R 8119 to provide for a thorough study
to determine the effects of certain past ocean dumping of radioactive wastes in our
ocean environment. As a Member of the full Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com-
mittee, and former member of this subcommittee, I feel the time is now to deter-
mine the extent to which this practice took place, and the adverse impact it may
have on the marine and human environment.
PAGENO="0276"
270
When Dr. William Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs
in EPA, testified before this Subcommittee in 1978, he stated their research has
tried to answer two basic questions:
One: Does the technology exist to precisely survey or monitor a deep ocean site to
detect possible releases and movement of radioactive materials? and;
Two: What was the fate of the radioactive waste packages dumped by the United
States under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) licensing authority between
1946 and 1970? EPA has never adequately answered this question.
First, let's destroy the myth that the only materials the U.S. dumped in the ocean
were "low level" radioactive wastes. EPA uses the Ocean Dumping Act definition of
"high level radioactive waste" to refute any assertions that high level materials
were dumped in the ocean.
This definition states: "High-level radioactive waste" means the aqueous waste
resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equiva-
lent and the concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in
a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels, or irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors.
This is not a quantitative definition. According to EPA officials you could have a
gallon of waste from a nuclear reprocessing facility and a gallon of waste from
Berkeley Laboratory, they could be identical in content and radiation emissions,
equally deadly, but because the first came from a reprocessing facility it would be
defined as "high level" and because the second gallon came from a laboratory it
would be "low level".
Therefore, to get a more representative view of the danger these materials may
present, let's use an Atomic Energy Commission definition from their 1955 declassi-
fied report on "Radioactive Waste Disposal Practices in the Atomic Energy Indus-
try." This report defines 50 millirems or less per hour as "low level," and two rems
or more per hour as "high level." By inference, this leaves the spread between 50
millirems and 1999 millirems as "intermediate."
The licenses issued to the disposal companies stated that:
"The radiation level at any accessible surface of the container shall not exceed
200 millirems per hour." So immediately we find that at the exterior surface of the
drum a person or marine life form may be exposed to intermediate radiation.
Next we must examine the types of packaging used to keep the exterior radiation
exposures below this 200 millirem requirement. Testimony by John A. Kaufman, a
Professor at the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley, before
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in 1958, described the methods they used to
dispose of all their nuclear wastes-both high and low. He states:
"All nongaseous waste is packaged in concrete. . . The concrete packages are
made so they can be stored safely for an indefinite period and eventually be safely
transported by truck to a barge for disposal at sea at a depth of 1000 fathoms (6000
feet) . . . The solid wastes from high-level operations are discharged into shielded
waste containers." At the waste processing area the waste container is placed "into
a specially designed concrete block for sea disposal." The report goes on to say that
"High level large-volume aqueous wastes produced during high-level chemistry
work . . . are discharged into specially designed and shielded waste
containers . . . The wastes are then solidified either in the waste container or in a
specially-constructed concrete block."
An even more detailed example was given in the declassified 1955 AEC report
which described the procedures used by the Westinghouse Atomic Power Division-
Bettis Field facility in Pittsburgh, Pa., to dispose of their wastes.
"High level solid wastes are accumulated in specially prepared 55 gallon drums.
Sheet metal cylinders four inches in diameter having peripheral lead shields of
varying thicknesses (1 inch to 4 inches) are set in 55 gallon drums. Concrete is
poured around the shielded cylinder up to its top which is about 12 inches below the
top of the drum . . . Operating personnel insert high level wastes as they are
created. . . . After each drum receives its' charge of high level waste, a lead plug is
inserted into the four inch cylinder prior to removal from the working areas. These
drums are then moved to the processing area where they are filled to the top of the
drum with concrete. Drums containing high level wastes make up the largest
proportion of waste packages shipped from Bettis. . . . Wastes are shipped via a
commercial trucking company to the Navy dock at Earle, New Jersey."
This was the Navy's embarcation location for radioactive materials to be dumped
at sea. In 1955 alone Bettis Field packaged 740 high level drums for ocean disposal.
Similar procedures were followed by the Brookhaven National Laboratory for the
disposal of their "high level" nuclear waste material.
What we must look at here is not the external radiation levels-but the internal
radiation levels-which will threaten the marine environment when the containers
PAGENO="0277"
271
are crushed-and photographs taken by EPA show a significant number have been,,
presumably due to defective packaging-by the over 3,000 pounds per square inch of
water pressure at the disposal site, or the deterioration resulting from a combina-
tion of sea water, pressure, and the passage of years. According to the Congressional
Research Service 6 to 8 inches of concrete can decrease the radiation emissions by a
factor of ten, and the lead insulation may also reduce the internal radiation emis-
sions by a factor of ten. So the internal radiation levels may be much higher than
the 200 millirem external radiation. Possibly between 2 and 20 rems per hour. As a
comparison the NRC only allows workers in an Atomic Energy Plant to be exposed
to 5 rems per year. This is material which meets the AEC definition of "high level"
materials. One can only speculate about the danger posed by the drums which an
AEC inspector found on a ship which measured over 1500 millirems on the outside
of the drum. These high level drums originated at Livermore Laboratories.
This brings us to the mysterious concrete forms which were used to dispose of
large radioactive materials. Other than referring to "experimental matrices" in
their report to this Subcommittee in 1978, EPA has never given us any information
about their content or potential danger to the marine environment. I have here
drawings which I understand were made by Livermore Laboratories for the compa-
nies who disposed of their waste material. Diagram D-0048 illustrates one such
concrete structure. Inside lies a beryllium nuclear warhead, for which the disposal
company said "Considerable risk would be involved in cutting the cone to fit regular
barrels."
Drawing D-0045 shows us the "High Level Configuration of a Solidified Liquid
Drum Block." As you can see from this illustration the "High Level" drum is
located closer to the center of the block to provide additional concrete insulation.
Again, concrete insulation can decrease the radiation emissions over from over two
rems internally, to under 200 millirems externally. And finally in Drawings D-0049
and D-0042 we have two more specially designed "High Level" waste containers,
with between 10 and 8 inches of steel and concrete insulation to reduce the high
internal radiation levels. To my knowledge the EPA has never seen, let alone
examined one of these structures which weigh at least 10 tons each.
EPA may say if "high level" drums were present it would have been noticed in
their samples. Which leads us to the crux of the whole issue-just how representa-
tive of all the wastes dropped were the few drums which EPA examined. There
were over 48,000 radioactive waste containers dumped in the Pacific Ocean, EPA
saw approximately 200, and examined the sediment around even fewer. There is no
way you can tell from the outside of a 55 gallon drum its' internal configuration and
whether it has a lead shielded canister of high level waste on the outside. And as I
said before, EPA has not looked at the concrete forms, some of which had recorded
external emissions of 1500 millirems per hour or contained 1,000 curies of radioac-
tive material, or the "High Level" waste containers.
One reason their samples may not be representative is the EPA expeditions never
look in the right place. Chart 18645 is an Oceanographic map of the Farallon Island
region. Location A on the map is the approximate location of the 150 drums of
radioactive material which were dumped in three barge trips. Location B is the
3,000 foot dumpsite where EPA has done exploratory work. According to EPA there
are 3600 drums at this site. And point C is the location where EPA has done their
research for the 6,000 foot dumpsite, and where they maintain that over 44,000
containers were disposed.
Then we must look at the areas which the AEC licensees were allowed to dump
their nuclear waste material. The square area illustrated by dashes is the dumpsite
in which the Nuclear Engineering Company was allowed to dispose of their waste
under their license issued October 22, 1958. Note that the EPA site is not located
inside this licensed area, and 5½ miles from the center of the dumpsite. Point D is
the disposal site in which the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, the
Ocean Transport Company, and later the Nuclear Engineering Company used as
center for their dumping operations in 1959 and 1960. They were required to unload
the nuclear waste material within five miles of this point, which is the 78 square
mile circle drawn on the map. As you can see the area which EPA examined is not
in the dump zone, and is seven miles from the central dump coordinate.
The Nuclear Engineering Company's license was later amended to require them
to dump in the trapezoidal area marked on the map as a "Chemical Munitions
Dumping Area." On April 9, 1962, at the request of the State of California, the AEC
changed the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory dumpsite to this same trapezoi-
dal area. Again, we can see that the area in which EPA explored is not in the
dumpsite, and is over 6 miles from the center of the dumpsite. So the question
remains, do the few drums EPA examined truly represent all the drums since their
PAGENO="0278"
272
tests were conducted outside these licensed dumpsites, and failed to include the
"High level" waste concrete blocks and drums.
While we were discussing locating the actual dumpsites, I should mention, that
EPA has been trying to determine the actual disposal locations. Yet after six years
research, they have failed to list at least two sites I know of, one off the New Jersey
Coast at 41' 33' N latitude by 65' 30' W longitude, and a site off the California coast
at 37' 40' N latitude and 124' 50' W longitude licensed to the Military Sea Transpor-
tation Service in 1959.
Which brings us to the military, probably the single largest nuclear waste dumper
in the country.
Only a portion of the military s disposal operations even came under the purview
of the AEC. Any wastes generated from operations which are exempt from the
Commission's regulatory authority under Section 91(b) of the Atomic Energy Act,
are also exempt from the Commission's safeguards provided that the waste remains
in the possession of the military until the ultimate disposal.
The Army shipped all of its waste material originating west of the Mississippi
River to the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. According to their Standard Operat-
ing Procedures Manual, the material was then shipped to the U.S. Naval Radiologi-
cal Defense Laboratory, in San Francisco, which performs their ultimate disposal.
The wastes were much larger than we have been lead to believe and possibly more
hazardous since they were not solely from the Navy's Laboratory experiments.
But I am not sure anyone really knows what types of deadly readioactive materi
als were disposed of in this manner. For example, the Nuclear Engineering Compa-
ny wanted to dispose of materials for the Air Force In an April 1959 letter to the
AEC they stated In many cases the equipment being disposed of is obsolete has
been at the originating site for years, and there are no longer any records available
indicating the type and quantity of isotope involved."
How much waste was disposed of in the Pacific? I am not sure anyone knows. The
Air Force did not know their quantities, a 1957 Atomic Energy Commission report
(WASH-734) states that "the estimated curie content could be off as much as a
factor of 10." And under the curie content column of some of the company terminal
manifests we have reviewed are nothing but question marks.
There are many unknowns. This is why I introduced H.R. 8119. We need a
comprehensive fish monitoring program to insure that these deadly wastes do not
make their way back to the human food chain through the fish. But in order to
fully protect those of us who like to eat fish it is necessary to determine where
exactly the wastes are located their concentration and if the area being monitored
adequately represents all the waste dumpsites.
If we were to implement such a monitoring program based upon the research
EPA has conducted to date, we would have no assurances that in 20 years a disposal
site which we were not monitoring would not be causing cancer among those
individuals who eat fish caught in this region. We could have a marine "Love
Canal."
Thirty-five years ago man began the nuclear age with exploding the first atomic
bomb. Most of the material used in that first bomb will remain with us for the next
20,000 years. In my view, we must insure for future generations that the practices of
handling these volatile materials does not adversely affect the health and welfare of
this and future generations. Ladies and gentlemen, I submit the other alternative is
much too high a price for the human race to afford
To dispell any further notions that these drums were disposed of in the safest
possible manner I would like to read a section from the Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory s application for renewal of their nuclear waste disposal license It
summarizes the kind of care given to these drums After each dump a thorough
inspection is made of the dump area to ascertain that all containers have sunk. In
the rare event of a floating radioactive waste container, it is sunk by gunfire." So
much for care in handling and making sure these wastes didn't float ashore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Congressman.
What is the date of the last quotation?
Mr. ANDERSON. From the radioactive disposal procedures, March
21, 1961, and it is quoted right here, in here, the area of dumping
approximately 55 miles northwest of San Francisco's Golden Gate
Bridge, "After each dump, a thorough inspection is made of the
dump area to ascertain that all containers have sunk. In the rare
event of a floating radioactive waste container, it is sunk by gun-
fire."
PAGENO="0279"
273
Mr. STUDDS. 1961?
Mr. ANDERSON. 1961.
Mr. STUDDS. Any questions?
Ms MIKur~sKI The location of the dumpsite, Mr Anderson, is
this in the earthquake prone zone, do you know9
Mr ANDERSON You mean the Farallons, this site?
Ms MIKULSKI Yes
Mr ANDERSON It is about 60 miles-about 40 miles west of San
Francisco The actual dumpsite is near the Farallon Islands which
are a famous group of islands off the San Francisco coast. I would
not think it would be in the earthquake zone, but probably 30 or 40
miles west of it.
Ms. MIKuisKI. A shock would be felt? In other words, all the
earthquake alerts that we know in the San Francisco area, the
Earth would crack?
Mr ANDERSON You could feel it all the way to Los Angeles, the
shock would carry, yes.
Ms MIKuL5KI So there could also, by placing it near San Fran
cisco, I mean apart from the terrible part of placing it near San
Francisco, it is doubly dangerous because it is in an earthquake
zone, is that right?
Mr. ANDERSON. Close to an earthquake zone, yes, and it would be
felt by a shock.
Ms. MIKuLSKI. Well, Mr. Anderson, I would like to thank you for
bringing this to the committee's and the country's attention. I
think this is really a blockbuster.
Mr STUDDS Thank you very much, Congressman
Our next witness is from the Department of Energy Mr Sheldon
Meyers, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Waste Manage
ment, Department of Energy.
STATEMENT OF SHELDON MEYERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC-
RETARY FOR NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPART-
MENT OF ENERGY
Mr. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
pleased to appear before you today to take part in the discussions
on the possibility of disposal of radioactive wastes beneath the
ocean floor. I will describe how this concept fits within the Presi-
dent's national waste management program, and outline in some
detail the objectives, status, and plans for assessing the technical
and environmental feasibility of the subseabed disposal concept.
The Department's nuclear waste management program, includ-
ing the examination of subseabed disposal, is based on the Presi-
dent's message to the Congress on Radioactive Waste Management
which he issued in February of this year. In that message, sub-
seabed disposal is viewed as an alternative option for isolating
radioactive waste Mined geologic repositories are the focal point of
the comprehensive national radioactive waste management pro-
gram, but the Department will continue to support a limited pro-
gram to evaluate other disposal alternatives as longer range op
tions Options currently under assessment include disposal of high
level wastes in very deep boreholes, disposal in space, and emplace-
ment in ocean sediments in regions where the ocean floor is known
to be geologically stable. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
PAGENO="0280"
274
would like to submit a copy of the President's cited message for the
record.
Mr. STUDDS. It will appear in the record.
[The following was received for the record:]
PAGENO="0281"
275
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
ON THE NATIONAL WASTE-MANAGEMENT PROGRAN
FEBRUARY 12, 1980
Today I am establishing this Nation's first comprehensive radio-
active waste management program. My paramount objective in managing
nuclear wastes is to protect the health and safety of all Americans,
both now and in the future. I share this responsibility with elected
officials at all levels of our government. Our citizens have a deep
concern that the beneficial uses of nuclear technology, including the
generation of electricity, not be allowed to imperil public health or
safety now or in the future.
For more than 30 years, radioactive wastes have been generated
by programs for national defense, by the commercial nuclear power
program, and by a variety of medical, industrial and research activi-
ties. Yet past governmental efforts to manage radioactive wastes
have not been technically adequate. Moreover, they have failed to
involve successfully the States, local governments, and the public
in policy or program decisions. My actions today lay the foundation
for both a technically superior program and a full cooperative Federal-
State partnership to ensure public confidence in a waste mangement
program.
My program is consistent with the broad consensus that has evolved
from the efforts of the Interagency Review Group on Radioactive Waste
Management (IRG) which I established. The IRG findings and analysis
were comprehensive, thorough and widely reviewed by public, industry
and citizen groups, State and local governments, and members of the
Congress. Evaluations of the scientific and technical analyses were
obtained through a broad and rigorous peer review by the scientific
community. The final recommendations benefited from and reflect this
input.
My objective is to establish a comprehensive program for the
management of all types of radioactive wastes. My policies and pro-
grams establish mechanisms to ensure that elected officials and the
public fully participate in waste decisions, and direct Federal
departments and agencies to implement a waste management strategy
which is safe, technically sound, conservative, and open to continu-
ous public review. This approach will help ensure that we will reach
our objective - the safe storage of all forms of nuclear waste.
Our primary objective is to isolate existing and future radio-
active waste from military and civilian activities from the biosphere
and pose no significant threat to public health and safety. The
responsibility for resolving military and civilian waste management
problems shall not be deferred to future generations. The technical
PAGENO="0282"
program must meet all relevant radiological protection criteria as
well as all other applicable regulatory requirements. This effort
must proceed regardless of future developments within the nuclear
industry -- its future size, and resolution of specific fuel cycle
and reactor design issues. The specific steps outlined below are
each aimed at accomplishing this overall obj ective.
First, my Administration is committed to providing an effective
role for State and local governments in the development and imple-
mentation of our nuclear waste management program. I am therefore
taking the following actions:
* By Executive Order I am establishing a State Planning Council
which will strengthen our intergovernmental relationships and
help fulfill our joint responsibility to protect public health
and safety in radioactive waste matters. I have asked Governor
Riley of South Carolina to serve as Chairman of the Council
The Council will have a total of 19 members 15 who are Gover-
nors or other elected officials, and 4 from the Executive
departments and agencies. It will advise the Executive
Branch and work with the Congress to address radioactive
waste management issues, such as planning and siting, con-
struction, and operation of facilities. I will submit legis-
lation during this session to make the Council permanent.
* In the past, States have not played an adequate part in the
waste management planning process -- for example, in the
evaluation and location of potential waste disposal sites.
The States need better access to information and expanded
opportunity to guide waste management planning. Our relation-
ship with the States will be based on the principle of con-
sultation and concurrence in the siting of high level waste
repositories. Under the framework of consultation and con-
currence, a host State will have a continuing role in Federal
decisionmaking on the siting, design and construction of a
high level waste repository. State consultation and con-
currence, however, will lead to an acceptable solution to
our waste disposal problem only if all the States participate
as partners in the program I am putting frth. The safe
disposal of radioactive waste, defense and commercial, is a
national, not just a Federal, responsibility.
* 1 am directing the Secretary of Energy to provide financial
and technical assistance to States and other jurisdictions
to facilitate the full participation of State and local govern-
ment in review and licensing proceedings.
276
PAGENO="0283"
277
Second, for disposal of high level radioactive waste, I am
adopting an interim planning strategy focused on the use of mined
geologic repositories capable of accepting both waste from repro-
cessing and unreprocessed commercial spent fuel. An interim strat-
egy is needed since final decisions on many steps which need to be
taken should be preceded by a full environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act. In its search for suitable sites
for high level waste repositories, the Department of Energy has
mounted an expanded and diversified program of geologic investiga-
tions that recognizes the importance of the interaction among
geologic setting, repository host rock, waste form and other engi-
neered barriers on a site-specific basis Immediate attention will
focus on research and development, and on locating and characteriz-
ing a number of potential repository sites in a variety of different
geologic environments with diverse rock types. When four to five
sites have been evaluated and found potentially suitable, one or
more will be selected for further development as a licensed full-
scale repository.
It is important to stress the following two points: First,
because the suitability of a geologic disposal site can be verified
only through detailed and time-consuming site specific evaluations,
actual sites and their geologic environments must be carefully
examined. Second, the development of a repository will proceed in
a careful step-by-step manner. Experience and information gained
at each phase will be reviewed and evaluated to determine if there
is sufficient knowledge to proceed with the next stage of development.
We should be ready to select the site for the first full-scale reposi-
tory by about 1985 and have it operational by the nid-l990's. For
reasons of economy, the first and subsequent repositories should
accept both defense and commercial wastes.
Consistent with my decision to expand and diversify the Depart-
ment of Energy's program of geologic investigation before selecting
a specific site for repository development, I have decided that the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant project should be cancelled. This pro-
ject is currently authorized for the unlicensed disposal of transuranic
waste from our National defense program, and for research and develop-
ment using high level defense waste. This project is inconsistent
with my policy that all repositories for highly radioactive waste be
licensed and that they accept both defense and commercial wastes
The site near Carlsbad New Mexico which was being considered
for this project, will continue to be evaluated along with other sites
in other parts of the country. If qualified, it will be reserved as
one of several candidate sites for possible use as a licensed reposi-
tory for defense and commercial high level wastes. My fiscal year
1981 I~udget contains funds in the commercial nuclear waste program
PAGENO="0284"
278
for protection and continued investigation of the Carlsbad site.
Finally, it is important that we take the time to compare the New
Mexico site with other sites now under evaluation for the first
waste repository.
Over the next five years, the Department of Energy will carry
out an aggressive program of scientific and technical investigations
to support waste solidification, packaging and repository design and
construction including several experimental, retrievable emplacements
in test facilities. This supporting research and development program
will call upon the knowledge and experience of the Nation's very best
people in science, engineering and other fields of learning and will
include participation of universities, industry, and the government
departments, agencies, and national laboratories.
Third, during the interim period before a disposal facility is
available, waste must and will continue to be cared for safely.
Management of defense waste is a Federal responsibility; the Depart-
ment of Energy will ensure close and meticulous control over defense
waste facilities which are vital to our national security. I am
committed to maintaining safe interim storage of these wastes as
long as necessary and to making adequate funding available for that
purpose. We will also proceed with research and development at the
various defense sites that will lead to the processing, packaging,
and ultimate transfer to a permanent repository of the high level
and transuranic wastes from defense programs.
In contrast, storage of commercial spent fuel is primarily a
responsibility of the utilities. I want to stress that interim spent
fuel storage capacity is not an alternative to permanent disposal.
However, adequate storage is necessary until repositories are avail-
able. I urge the utility industry to continue to take all actions
necessary to store spent fuel in a manner that will protect the
public and ensure efficient and safe operation of power reactors.
However, a limited amount of government storage capacity would pro-
vide flexibility to our national waste disposal program and an
alternative for those utilities which are unable to expand their
stoTage capabilities.
I reiterate the need for early enactment of my proposed spent
nuclear fuel legislation. This proposal would authorize the Depart-
ment of Energy to: (1) design, acquire or construct, and operate one
or more away-from-reactor storage facilities, and (2) accept for
storage, until permanent disposal facilities are available, domestic
spent fuel, and a limited amount of foreign spent fuel in cases when
such action would further our non-proliferation policy objectives.
All costs of storage, including the cost of locating, constructing
and operating permanent geologic repositories, will be recovered
PAGENO="0285"
279
through fees paid by utilities and other users of the services and
will ultimately be borne by those who benefit from the activities
generating the wastes.
Fourth, I have directed the Department of Energy to work jointly
with states, other government agencies, industry and other organi-
zations, and the public, in developing national plans to establish
regional disposal sites for commercial low level waste. We must
work together to resolve the serious near-term problem of low level
waste disposal. While this task is not inherently difficult from
the standpoint of safety, it requires better planning and coordination.
I endorse the actions being taken by the Nation's governors to tackle
this problem and direct the Secretary of Energy to work with them in
support of their effort.
Fifth, the Federal programs for regulating radioactive waste
storage, transportation and disposal are a crucial component of our
efforts to ensure the health and safety of Americans. Although the
existing authorities and structures are basically sound, improvements
must Be made in several areas. The current authority of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to license the disposal of high level waste and
low level waste in commercial facilities should be extended to include
spent fuel storage, and disposal of transuranic waste and non-defense
low level waste in any new government facilities. I am directing the
Environmental Protection Agency to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to resolve issues of overlapping jurisdiction and phasing
of regulatory actions. They should also seek ways to speed up the
promulgation of their safety regulations. I am also directing the
Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency
to improve both the efficiency of their regulatory activities and
their relationships with other Federal agencies 4nd state and local
governments.
Sixth, it is essential that all aspects of the waste management
program be conducted with the fullest possible disclosure to and
participation by the public and the technical community. I am
directing the departments and agencies to develop and improve mech-
anisms to ensure such participation and public involvement consistent
with the need to protect national security information. The waste
management program will be carried out in full compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Seventh, because nuclear waste management is a problem shared
by many other countries and decisions on waste management alternatives
have nuclear proliferation implications, I will continue to encourage
and support bilateral and multilateral efforts which advance both our
technical capabilities and our understanding of spent fuel and waste
management options, which are consistent with our non-proliferation
policy.
PAGENO="0286"
* 280
In its role as lead agency for the management and disposal of
radioactive wastes and with cooperation of the other relevant
Federal agencies, the Department of Energy is preparing a detailed
National Plan for Nuclear Waste Management to implement these
policy guidelines and the other recommendations of the IRG. This
Plan will provide a clear road map for all parties and will give
the public an opportunity to review the entirety of our program.
It will include specific program goals and milestones for all
aspects of nuclear waste management. A draft of the comprehensive
National Plan will be distributed by the Secretary of Energy later
this year for public and Congressional review. The State Planning
Council will be directly involved in the developmant of ~is plan.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has underway an important
proceeding to provide the Nation with its judgment on whether or not
it has confidence that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power
reactors cam and will be disposed of safely. I urge that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission do so in a thorough and timely manner and that
it provide a full opportunity for public, technical and government
agency participation
Over the past two years as I have reviewed various aspects of
the radioactive waste problem the complexities and difficulties of
the issues have become evident -- both from a technical and, more
importantly from an institutional and political perspective How-
ever based on the technical conclusions reached by the IRG I an
persuaded that the capability now exists to characterize and evaluate
a number of geologic environments for use as repositories built with
conventional mining technology. We have already made substantial
progress and changes in our programs. With this comprehensive policy
and its implementation through the FY 1981 budget and other actions,
we will complete the task of reorienting our efforts in the right
direction. Many citizens know and all must understand that this
problem will be with us for many years We must proceed steadily
and with determination to resolve the remaining technical issues
while ensuring full public participation and maintaining the full
cooperation of all levels of government We will act surely and
without delay but we will not compromise our technical or scien-
tific standards out of haste I look forward to working with the
Congress and the states to implement this policy and build public
confidence in the ability of the government to do what is required
in this area to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
.JINMY CARTER
THE WRITE HOUSE
PAGENO="0287"
281
February 12, 1980
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
THF PRFSIDENT S PROGRAM ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
HIGHLIGHTS
In a Message sent to Congress today, the President outlined a
comprehensive national radioactive waste management program.
This program is based on the report of the Interagency Review
Group on Nuclear Waste Management published in March, 1979.
The paramount objective in managing nuclear wastes is to protect
the health and safety of all Americans, both now and in the
future. The disposal of nuclear waste should not and will not be
deferred to future generations
The key elements of the President's progratn are
* All levels of government share the responsibility for
safe management and disposal of nuclear wastes.
- In order to provide a more effective role for State
and local governments the President has created a
State Planning Council of elected State, local, and
tribal officials and heads of cabinet departments
and other federal agencies. Governor Richard Riley
of South Carolina will serve as Chairman. State
Representative~ Paul Hess of Kansas will serve as
Vice Chairman. The Council will advise the
Executive Branch and will work with Congress on key
radioactive waste management and disposal issues,
especially related institutional decisions.
- The basis of the relationship between States and the
Federal government in the siting of high level waste
repositories will be the principle of consultation
and concurrence.
* Pending reviews required by the national Environmental
Policy Act, an interim planning strategy for disposal
of high level *and transuranic waste has been adopted
that relies on mined geologtc repositories
- The program directed toward siting and opening
repositories will be technically conservative
include expanded and technically diversified
research and development and site investigations,
and move carefully, in a step by step manner, toward
site selection and operation of the first high level
waste repository.
PAGENO="0288"
282
- Immediate attention will focus on locating and
characterizing a number of potential repository
sites in a variety of different geologic environ-
ments with diverse rock types. This effort will be
supported by a comprehensive research and develop-
ment program. When four to five sites have been
evaluated and found potentially suitable for a
repository, one or more will be selected for further
development as a licensed, full-scale repository.
The site for the first full-scale repository should
be selected by about 1985 and it should be
operational by the mid-l990's.
- The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIP~) project will
be cancelled since it is unlicensed and cannot
accept commercial wastes. The site of the proposed
project at Carlsbad, New Mexico, will be investi-
gated further and if found qualified will be
reserved for consideration along with other
candidate sites in different geologic environments
as a licensed repository for high level wastes.
* The safe interim storage of commercial spent fuel from
nuclear power reactors will continue to be the respon-
sibility of the utilities operating these plants until
a permanent geologic repository capability exists.
However, the Administration will continue to press for
legislation to build or acquire limited spent fuel
storage capacity at one or more away-from-reactor (AFR)
facilities for those utilities unable to expand their
storage capabilities and for limited amounts of foreign
spent fuel when the objectives of the U.S. nonprolifer-
ation policy would be furthered.
* The Department of Energy will work with the States in
their efforts to establish a reliable commercial low
level radioactive waste disposal system.
* The Administration will submit legislation to extend
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing authority to
cover all DOE facilities for transuranic waste disposal
and any new DOE sftes Cor disposal of commercial low
level waste. Under existing law, NRC has licensing
authority over DOE facilities for disposal of high
level radioactive wastes.
* Specific actions will be taken to improve and expedite
regulatory actions by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is determing whether
or not it has confidence that radioactive wastes can be
disposed of safely. The President is urging the NRC to
conduct its proceeding in a timely manner and to
PAGENO="0289"
283
provide full opportunity for public, technical and
government agenc.y participation.
S The President's Fiscal Year 1981 budget for the
Department of Energy requests $670 million in budget
authority for nuclear waste programs. Other Department
and agency requests total $49 million.
A brief description of the various types of nuclear waste and the
quantities buried, stored, and now being produced will be found
in the background section of this Fact Sheet.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective for waste management plannning and
implementation will be that existing and future radioactive waste
from military and civilian activities (including commercial spent
fuel if and when it is to be discarded) should be isolated from
the biosphere and pose no significant threat to public health and
safety.
The following principles will guide our program:
* The technical program must meet all of the relevant
radiological protection criteria, as well as any other
applicable regulatory requirements. Although zero
release of radionuclides or zero risk from any such
release cannot be assured, such risks should fall
within pre-establlished standards and, beyond that, be
reduced to the lowest level practicable.
* The responsibility for establishing a nuclear waste
management program will not be deferred to future
generations.
* The nuclear waste management program should explicitly
include consideration of all aspects of the waste
management system including safety, environmental,
organizational, and institutional factors.
* The basic elements of the program should be independent
of the size of the `~uelear industry and of the reso-
lution of specific fuel-cycle or reactor-design issues
of the nuclear power industry.
ELEMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM
1. Relations with State and Local Governments
* the President has created, by Executive Order, a State
Planning Council to advise the Executive Branch and
work with the Congress in making and implementing
decisions on waste management and disposal.
69_8L~8 0 - 81 - 19
PAGENO="0290"
284
The council will be chaired by Governor Richard Riley
There will be 14 members who are designated by the
~President as follows: eight governors; five state and
local government officials other than governors; and, a
tribal government representative. The Secretaries of
Energy, Interior, and Transportation and the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency are also
members.
The Council will provide advice and recommendations to
the President and the Secretary of Energy on nuclear
waste management including interim storage of spent
fuel In particular the Council will
(a) Recommend procedural mechanisms for reviewing
specific nuclear waste management plans and pro-
grams, including the consultation and concurrence
process designed to achieve Federal, State, and
local agreement which accommodates the interests
of all the parties.
(b) Work on development of detailed nuclear waste
management plans and provide recommendations to
ensure that they adequately address the needs of
affected States and local areas.
(c) Advise on all aspects of siting and licensing of
facilities for storage and disposal of nuclear
wastes.
(d) Advise on proposed Federal regulations, standards,
and criteria related to nuclear waste management
programs.
(e) Identify and make recommendations on other matters
related to the transportation, storage, and dis-
posal of nuclear wastes that the Council believes
are important
* The principle of consultation and concurrence will
apply in the siting of high level waste repositories
Under the framework of consultation and concurrence a
host State will have a continuing role with regard to
the Federal government's actions on the siting, design,
and construction of a high level waste repository.
2. Interim Planning Strategy for High Level and Transuranic
Waste Disposal
Pending reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act
and in order to provide interim guidance to the radioactive waste
management prograi~i for its near-term actions and following the
consideration of alternative technical approaches the President
PAGENO="0291"
285
has adopted a comprehensive interim planning strategy The main
components of the strategy are
* Mined geologic repositories will be the primary focus
of work for safe disposal of high level radioactive
waste, including unreprocessed commercial spent fuel
* The repository program will proceed in a technically
conservative step-by-step manner, from the needed
technical evaluations, through site selection, inde-
pendent licensing review and ultimately to opening and
operating a repository
* Immediate attention will focus on (1) research and
development both in lanoratories and at sites where
underground workings can be used to study rock and
waste form properties and LLL~cactions and (2) loca-
ting and characterizing potential repository sites in
different geologic environments and relying on diverse
rock types
* Once four or five sites in a variety of geologic envi-
roninents nave o~n evali(ated and found potentially
suitable for a repository, one or more will be selected
for further intensive study or characterization and
development as a licensed repository
* Ultimately, several high level waste repositories will
be opened sited regionally insofar as technical con-
siderations related to public health and safety permit.
Prior to proceeding with the first full-scale repository, an
intermediate step might be taken by disposal of a relatively
small quantity of high level waste in a licensed geologic test
facility in order to gain experience applicable to subsequent
actions with respect to full-scale repositories. Such a facility
is not an essential component of a program leading to a full-
scale high level waste repository It would provide an option,
however, to test technical readiness and to exercise elements of
tcie licensing process after an adequate site characterization
program has been completed
Following completion of environmental reviews required by the
National Environmental Policy Act the Presid nt will reexamine
this interim strategy and decide whether any changes need to be
made.
Following this strategy, the choice of site for the first full-
scale repository should be made about 1985 and operations should
begin by the mid-1990 s These dates reflect current estimates
of the minimum time required to do the work necessary, including
time for licensing and to permit full State and local government
and public paritcipation in decisionmaking
PAGENO="0292"
286
The President's interim waste disposal strategy offers three
important advantages:
(1) it provides maximum redundancy and conservatism so
that no single or small number of setbacks would
undermine the entire program, or even cause great
delay;
(2) sites can be selected by comparing several loca-
tions among themselves thus providing greater
confidence that the wastes will be disposed of
safely;
(3) time will be available to put ip place a good
scientific program, to build procedures for
licensing, public review and interaction, and to
establish decisionmaking processes with State and
local governments.
The Department of Energy is taking the following actions to
implement this strategy:
* Regional, area and site investigations are being
planned on a national basis to identify suitable high
level waste repository sites.' A variety of geologic
environments and potential host rock types are being
examined and this program will be expanded to ensure
that the necessary sites will be available from which
to select the first repository site.
`* Research and development in laboratories and at test
sites has been increased. Greater attention is now
being given to a variety of possible waste forms,
including spent fuel, to waste packaging and to waste-
rock interactions under repository conditions.
* Three test facilities are planned: a granite facility
in Nevada, a basalt facility in Washington State, and a
salt facility at a site yet to be chosen.
The President has decided that the Waste Isolation pilot Plant
(WIPP) project as currently authorized will be cancelled. This
project, for which construction has not yet commenced, is cur-
rently authorized for the unlicensed disposal of transuranic
waste from our National defense program and for R&D using high
level waste. Reasons for the cancellation are:
* Proceeding now on the basis of a single site is
inconsistent with the strategy to compare sites with
differing geologic characteristics prior to selection.
* An unlicensed facility is contrary to the President's
policy.
PAGENO="0293"
287
* A facility for tranasuranic waste alone would provide
no useful experience relevant either to licensing or to
disposal of high level waste.
* It would also be an inefficient use of funds.
The site near Carlsbad, New Mexico which was being considered for
this project will continue to be evaluated and, if qualified,
will be reserved, along with other sites, for possible future use
as a licensed repository for high level wastes. The DOE's FYl98l
budget contains funds in the commercial nuclear waste program for
protection of the Carlsbad site and continued characterization
activities to determine suitability as a high level waste
repository.
Although mined geologic repositories will be the focal point of
the comprehensive national radioactive waste management program
the DOE will continue to support a limited program directed
toward other disposal alternatives. These include disposition of
high level wastes in very deep boreholes and emplacement in ocean
sediments in regions where the ocean floor is known to be geo-
logically stable. These alternatives are considered to be longer
range options to the mined geologic repository strategy.
3. Interim Storage of Defense and Commercial High Level Wastes.
The following actions are being taken to ensure safe and adequate
care of defense and commercial nuclear waste in the interim
period before a disposal facility is available:
* Adequate technical and financial resources will be made
available to maintain defense wastes safely.
* Research and development at various defense facilities
will proceed leading to plans for processing, pack-
aging, and ultimate transfer to permanent repositories
of transuranic and high level wastes from defense
programs.
* Although spent fuel storage capacity is not an alter-
native to a permanent disposal capability, adequate
stor~ge must be provided until repositories are avail-
able. Primary responsibility for safe storage of
commercial spent fuel lies with the utility indi~stry.
However, a limited amount of government storage capac-
ity for commercial spent fuel would be desirable to
provide flexibility to the national waste disposal
program and an alternative for those utilities unable
to expand their storage capabilities. The President
continues to seek early enactment of legislation that
would authorize the Department of Energy to: (1)
design, acquire or construct, and operate one or more
away-from-reactor storage facilities, and (2) accept
for storage, until permanent disposal facilities are
PAGENO="0294"
288
available domestic spent fuel and a limited amount of
foreign spent fuel in cases when such action would
further the objectives of our nonproliferation policy.
Cost of constructing and operating away-from-reactor
storage facilities will be borne by the users.
The Administration will continue to pursue both international and
regional cooperative efforts to study nuclear fuel management
options consistent with our nuclear nonproliferation policy.
4 Low Level Waste
Three commercial burial grounds -- South Carolina Washington
State and Nevada -- are currently available to reqeive low level
wastes originating in non-governmental industrial medical and
commercial activities These have been operating intermittently
because of inadequacies in waste packaging and shipment Pres-
sures have been mounting to find additional disposal sites to
provide needed capacity for an ever-increasing inventory of
commercial low level wastes.
The Department of Energy will work with the States to assist in
their activities to establish regional disposal sites for low
level wastes from the Nation s hospitals research institutions,
industry, and utilities. Until such time as additional disposal
facilities can be sited and licensed DOE and NRC will assist
States in setting up interim storage facilities within the
States The State Planning Council will give low level waste
management early, priority attention.
Other actions being taken in the area of low level waste include:
* DOE will review by 1981 alternative low level waste
disposal techniques and determine whether any changes
should be adopted in the future.
* DOE will accelerate R&D on improved methods of dis-
posing of low level wastes.
* DOE will continue the existing land burial technology
proqram presently designed to upgrade all DOE low level
waste disposal operations by 1988.
* DOE will take action to ensure that adequate attention
is given to the hydrologic characteristics of proposed
locations for the future siting of low level waste
disposal facilities.
5. Uranium Mill Tailings.
Past control of mill sites has been poor, with little or no
attention to the problem of proper disposal of tailings upon
completion of milling operations. The Uranium Mill Tailings
PAGENO="0295"
289
Radiation Control Act of 1978 was passed to changed this situ-
ation EPA is directed to issue standards and criteria for
disposal of mill tailings. NRC has licensing authority over
active sites, and DOE is authorized to take remedial action at
inactive sites
The NRC and EPA are now developing standards criteria and
regulations defining acceptable levels of radon emissions,
siting, impacts on groundwater The final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, (NUREG 0511, Draft issued 4/79) on uranium
milling by NRC is nearing completion
DOE, in cooperation with State governments is now taking
remedial action on abandoned tailings piles DOE will continue
to develop improved means of disposing of or stabilizing mill
tailings over the long term.
6 Decontamination and Decommissioning
As a general rule, unrestricted use of land will be the ultimate
objective of D&D and institutional controls should not be relied
upon after some period of time to provide long-term protection of
people and the environment However because certain existing
sites and/or facilities cannot be decontaminated at a reasonable
cost or perhaps at any cost long-term institutional control may
be required in these exceptional cases These will require
development of site-specific programs by NRC and DOE
The following actions will be taken
* DOE will prepare a nationwide plan for the decontami-
nation and decommissioning of surplus facilities owned
by DOE and other government agencies.
* DOE will work on designs for the construction of new
facilities which will facilitate their eventual
decommissioning
* For new Federal facilities decontamination and
decommissioning specifications will be included in the
initial design and institutional arrangements will be
made to ensure sufficient funding The funding for D&D
of government-owned facilities and sites will be
through Federal appropriations Responsibility and
methods for financing D&D of licensed facilities will
be determined by the regulatory process.
7 Transportation
Safe and reliable transportation of nuclear wastes is an essen-
tial component of the total waste management system. While
complete assurance that release of radioactive material will not
occur during normal operation or in serious accidents is impos-
sible it has been demonstrated that it is unlikely that a
PAGENO="0296"
290
significant release can occur under most credible accident
environments.
To improve the existing transportation system and enhance public
confidence in it, the following actions are being taken:
* DOE is pursuing a program for testing and evaluating
the performance of current and future generation waste
packaging systems.
* The Department of Transportation is being directed to
increase its management attention to nuclear waste
matters and is completing its rulemaking on the role of
Federal and local government bodies in routing of
nuclear waste transportation along highways.
* DOT and NRC are working closely with the States to
strengthen the nation's overall capability to respond
to any transportation emergencies involving shipment of
radioactive wastes.
* DOT will develop a data bank on shipment statistics and
accident experience to be operational by 1982.
8. Financing.
The principle that will be applied to financing the cost of
nuclear waste management and disposal is that the cost should be
payed by the generator of the waste and borne by the beneficiary
of the activity generating the waste. Utilities will pay the
cost of storage and disposal of waste from power plant operations
and pass these costs on to their customers. The government will
pay the cost of storage and disposal of wastes from defense and
government R&D activities and finance it from tax revenues.
9. Regulatory Actions.
The Federal programs for regulating radioactive waste storage,
transportation, and disposal are a crucial component of our
efforts to ensure health and safety. The following improvements
are needed in the regulation of radioactive waste disposal:
* The current authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission to license the disposal of high level waste and
low level waste in commercial facilities should be
extended to also include the storage of spent fuel, as
well as disposal of transuranic waste and non-defense
low level waste in any new government facilities that
might be built.
* The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for
creating general criteria and numerical standards
applicable to nuclear waste management activities. The
President has directed EPA to accelerate its schedule
PAGENO="0297"
291
for the preparation of these criteria and standards and
to prepare a position paper that will indicate EPA's
approach to setting standards and address the relation-
ship between EPA's standards and actions taken by NRC
and DOE.
* EPA and NRC will complete a Memorandum of Understanding
dealing with coordinating methodologies and procedures.
* The Department of Transportation is responsible for
regulating the transport of radioactive wastes, in part
sharing that responsibility with NRC. The coordination
between the two agencies is provided by an existing
Memorandum of Understanding between them. DOT is
completing its rulemaking on the role of Federal and
local government bodies in the routing of nuclear waste
transportation along highways.
* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now commencing a
formal proceeding to determine whether or not it has
confidence that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear
power reactors can and will be disposed of safely. The
President has urged the NRC to conduct this proceeding
in a timely and thorough manner and to provide full
opportunity for public, technical and government agency
participation.
10. Legislation.
Legislation addressing the following areas will be submitted to
Congress to implement the President's program.
* State Planning Council. To provide a permanent basis
for the State Planning Council, which has been created
by Executive Order.
* Licensing Extension. To implement the extension of NRC
licensing authority to all new transuranic and new
non-defense low level waste disposal facilities and any
other facilities decided upon following the review of
NRC's licensing study (NUREG 0527, September 1979).
* Low Level Waste. To assist the States in managing
commercial low-level waste. The legislation will
include authority for the States to enter into regional
organizations or compacts for operation of the sites.
* Decommissioned Facilities Surveillance. To establish
institutional responsibilities for long-term surveil-
lance of formerly utilized Federal facilities which
have been decommissioned and sold or otherwise released
to unrestricted use.
PAGENO="0298"
292
The President will continue to press for authoritY to construct
one or more away_from-reactor interim storage facilities for
commercial spent fuel This bill is already under consideration
by the Congress. This legislation, or additional legislation,
will implement the principle that costs of nuclear wastes dis-
posal will be paid by the generator and borne by the beneficiary
of the activity generating the waste.
11. Implementation and Management Structure.
Many Federal departments and agencies are necessarily involved in
one or more aspects of nuclear waste management. In addition,
the president's policy calls for full involvement of State,
regional and local qovernments and organizations ~n program plan-
ning and execution The president has designated the Secretary
of Energy to be responsible for overall program integration and
to establish necessary coordination mechanisms The Secretary of
Energy will assume the lead role for: (1) coordinating all
Federal nonregulatory aspects of radioactive waste management;
(2) working out effective relationships with regulatory bodies
such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; and (3) developing strong and effective
ties between the Federal Government and the States on all aspects
of radioactive waste storage and disposal.
Within the Department of Energy, day-to-day activities are under
the direction of an Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy (ASNE)
who reports to the Under Secretary and the Secretary. Under the
ASNE the Office of Nuclear Waste Management (ONWM) is responsible
for executing policy and managing all aspects of the nuclear
waste management program.
Regulatory responsibilities are by law assigned to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
the Department of Transportation. The Department of Interior has
authority over Federal lands that might be used for waste storage
or disposal and has extensive geoscience expertise in the U S
Geological Survey. An Interagency Working Committee has been
established by the Department of Energy to coordinate and inte-
grate associated activities of DOE, DOl, EPA, NRC, DOT, and
State The president has also instructed DOE and DOI to prepare
a Memorandum of Understanding between them delineating areas of
cooperation and mutual responsibility and creating procedures to
ensure they work jointly and reinforce each other s activities
The primary planning mechanism will be a comprehensive National
Plan for Nuclear Waste Management. The President has directed
that this be produced by 1981 and be updated biennially there-
after. It is to be submitted for public review in draft and in
revised form to the public and the Congress. The plan will
include:
PAGENO="0299"
293
* summaries of the status of knowledge relevant to dis-
posal of high level, transuranic, and low level radio-
active wastes and uranium mill tailings
* multi-year program plans for (1) interim management of
high level radioactivewaste and spent fuel; (2) site
qualification for geologic repositories, and (3) R&D in
the earth sciences and waste form and containers for
high level and transuranic waste disposal;
* plans for low level wastes
* a plan for decontamination and decommissioning of
surplus government facilities
* a plan for remedial action at inactive mill tailings
sites;
* an integrated NEPA plan, covering the NEPA activities
of all relevant agencies;
* updated cost estimates for all proposed activities;
* proposals to improve intergovernmental decisionmaking
and resolution of environmental, economic and social
issues associated with radioactive waste storage
transportation, and disposal
* specific program goals and milestones for developing
necessary regulations.
The President has issued detailed instructions to all Federal
agencies to ensure that his program will be implemented.
12. Public Participation.
It is essential that all aspects of the waste management program
be conducted with the full disclosure to and participation by the
public and the technical community The President has directed
the departments and agencies to develop and improve mechanisms to
ensure such participation and public involvement consistent with
any need to protect national security information and to comply
fully with the National Environmental Policy Act This includes
providing technical and financial assistance to permit informed
public input to programs and decisions and to support nongovern-
inent efforts to increase social and technical understanding and
agreement on nuclear waste issues. Formal mechanisms for receiv-
ing the best scientific and technical advice available and regu-
lar input from the interested public will also be strengthened.
PAGENO="0300"
294
13. International Cooperation.
Because nuclear waste management is a problem shared by many
other countries and because selection of wsate management alter-
natives has nuclear proliferation implications, the President
will continue to encourage and support cooperative bilateral and
multilateral efforts which advance both our technical capabili-
ties and our understanding of spent fuel and waste management and
which are consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy.
14. Funding.
(Funding is addressed in detail in Chapters 2 & 3 of the basic
document.)
PAGENO="0301"
295
EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHING
THE STATE PLANNING COUNCIL
ON RADIOAVTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
1-103. The President shall designate a Chairman from among the
members of the Council.
1-2. Functions.
1-201. The Council shall provide advice and recommendations to the
President and the Secretary of Energy on nuclear waste management
(including interim management of spent fuel). In particular, the
Council shall:
(a) Recommend procedural mechanisms for reviewing nuclear waste
management plans and programs in such a way to ensure timely and
effective State and local involvement. Such mechanisms should include
a consultation and concurrence process designed to achieve Federal,
State, and local agreement which accommodates the interests of all
the parties.
(b) Review the development of comprehensive nuclear waste management
plans including planning activities for transportation, storage, and
disposal of all categories of nuclear waste. Provide recommendations
to ensure that these plans adequately address the needs of the State
and local areas affected.
(c) Advise on all aspects of siting facilities for storage and dis-
posal of nuclear wastes, including the review of recommended criteria
for site selection and site suitability, guidelines for regional
siting, and procedures for site characterization and selection.
(d) Advise on an appropriate role for State and local governments in
the licensing process for nuclear waste repositories.
PAGENO="0302"
296
1-4. General Provisions.
1-401 Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Executive order
the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, as amended (5 U.s.c. App. I), except that of reporting annually
to the Congress, that are applicable to the Council, shall be performed
by the Secretary of Energy in accordance with guideline~ and procedures
established by the Administrator of General Services.
1-402. The Council shall terminate thirty days after it transmits its
final report to the President, but in no event shall it terminate later
than eighteen months after the effective date of this Order.
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 12,. 1980
Mr MEYERS The DOE's disposal activities are also consistent
with the programs described in hearings before congressional au-
thorization and appropriation committees and contained in the
fiscal year 1981 Appropriations Act, Public Law 96-367.
Because of current congressional interest in other previous ocean
disposal practices, it might be helpful to review those earlier prac-
tices as a preface to considering the unrelated subseabed disposal
concept. The disposal of high level radioactive waste into the ocean
has never been practiced by the U S Government and is now
prohibited by U.S. domestic legislation-the Marine Protection, Re-
search and Sanctuaries Act of 1972-and also by the 1972 London
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Waste and Other Matter, which the United States has ratified. The,
United States has, however, previously disposed of low level radio-
active waste in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. No new
licenses for ocean disposal of low level waste have been issued since
about 1960. Furthermore, the practice of ocean disposal was discon-
tinued by 1970 mainly because of the opening of less costly low
level radioactive waste land burial sites. The safety of this previous
practice was predicated on the assumption that, even if the waste
were released at the time it reached the ocean floor, natural dilu
tion and dispersal would result in environmental safe levels of
radioactivity.
Ocean disposal was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion's (AEC) Office of Regulation until 1972 when the Marine Pro-
PAGENO="0303"
297
tection, Research and Sanctuaries Act centered regulatory respon
sibility in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) At that
time, the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admm
istration (NOAA) were directed to initiate a comprehensive and
continuing program of monitoring and research regarding the envi
ronmental effects of the past practices As a result, the EPA has
conducted specific studies of the impact of dumping at the major
sites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans The Department of Energy
and its predecessor agencies have cooperated fully with the EPA in
these studies which have concluded that there is no evidence of
harm to either man or the environment as a result of this past
disposal practice.
The Department is continuing to cooperate with the EPA in
assembling a comprehensive data file on all past U S ocean dispos
a! activities Specifically, the Department is requesting its field
organizations to accumulate basic data on all ocean disposal activi
ties carried out by the AEC or its contractors which were not
under the auspices of an AEC license We understand that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will provide the EPA with similar
information for all previously licensed disposal activities The EPA
is also looking into ocean disposal carried out by other Government
agencies The Department of Energy will continue to cooperate
closely with the EPA as it carries out its responsibilities regarding
ocean disposal.
I would like now to describe our current subseabed disposal
program which should not be confused with the ocean disposal
practices just described The existence of deep sea technology, such
as deep seabed drilling, drill hole reentry, and deep sea emplace
ment and recovery of large equipment, makes it reasonable to
include deep ocean sediments as a candidate medium for the dis
posal and isolation of radioactive waste. These sediments are thick,
uniform, and stable deposits which have accumulated over millions
of years and are in the process of becoming sedimentary rock
Disposal in such sediments could provide effective isolation of ra
dioactive waste from the biosphere
The primary objective of the subseabed disposal program is to
assess the feasibility of the technical, environmental, engineering
and institutional approaches for disposing of solidified and pack
aged high level nuclear waste and/or packaged spent reactor fuel
in geologic formations under the world's oceans A secondary objec
tive is to assess the seabed disposal options of other nations and
cooperate with them when appropriate Sandia National Laborato
ries has the prime responsibility for coordinating and managing
this program for the Department
The subseabed disposal program has adopted a reference system
for study purposes even though that system may have to be altered
as additional information is acquired The reference subseabed dis
posal system assumes that solidified high level wastes or spent
reactor fuel in high integrity, long lasting containers would be
buried in highly stable clay sediments These sediments would be
First, away from the edges of oceanic tectonic plates-to avoid
volcanic and seismic activity, second, away from the edges of major
circular surface currents-to avoid subsurface agitation and fishing
associated with these currents, and third, in areas of low biological
PAGENO="0304"
298
activity. Several methods appear feasible for emplacing wastes at
depths of about 10 to 30 meters beneath the sediment surface.
Though none of the methods has been developed in detail, at this
time, we are considering free-fall penetrators, power injection, and
trenching or drilling.
It is clear that much additional research and development is
needed before the feasibility of the concept will be demonstrated.
Two key questions must be answered in order to demonstrate tech-
nical feasibility and environmental acceptability of subseabed dis-
posal. First, is there a barrier or set of barriers, natural or man-
made, that will offer satisfactory containment of radionuclides?
Second, will these barriers remain adequate after introduction of
waste containers? The natural barriers under consideration include
the canister, the waste form, and the use of layers such as over-
packs. Although no definite conclusions have been reached, at pres-
ent subseabed disposal appears to be a viable disposal option. Ac-
cordingly, the subseabed disposal program is a multidisciplinary
effort to identify technical, institutional, legal and regulatory
issues which must be addressed and resolved on a national and
international basis. A multiyear subseabed program plan, issued in
January 1980, outlines in some detail the current and planned
activities.
The United States leads the world in ocean drilling for research
purposes. The International Phase of the Ocean Drilling under the
management of the National Science Foundation with support
from the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom,
France, Japan, and the Soviet Union, has resulted in a greatly
increased knowledge of the ocean floors.
A final environmental impact statement on the management of
commercially generated radioactive waste has recently been made
available to Congress and the public. This statement will serve as
the environmental basis for a formal decision on whether to adopt
our proposed high level commercial waste strategy, which is based
on the disposal of radioactive waste in mined geologic repositor-
ies-with the alternative subseabed disposal concept also assessed
as a future alternative.
The DOE subseabed disposal program budget for fiscal year 1981
is $6.9 million. Our principal near-term milestones are: First, in
1981, we plan to select three regional areas in the North Atlantic
and North Pacific and, within those areas, select one or more
smaller areas in each ocean for more detailed study; and second,
complete fabrication and design verification testing of an in situ
heat transfer experiment for field testing by late 1983. The explora-
tory studies and subprogram testing that we will be conducting
under the subseabed disposal program subject the public to no risk
at all. No radioactive waste will be emplaced at this stage.
In the international activity, an integral part of the subseabed
disposal program is the international cooperative research and de-
velopment which is coordinated through the Seabed Working
Group of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development. That working group current-
ly consists of six nations-Canada, France, Japan, Netherlands,
United States, with West Germany and Switzerland participating
as observers. The objectives of the working group are to provide a
PAGENO="0305"
299
forum for discussion, assessing progress, and planning future ef-
forts, coordinate research vessel cruises, share facilities, exchange
information, discuss international policy issues, and identify inter-
national issues requiring resolution.
The subseabed disposal program plan includes long-term plan-
ning for public participation and compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. Efforts are being made to identify
public concerns at an early date in order to factor them into the
planning process for further scientific, technical and environmen-
tal investigation.
Should the subseabed disposal concept prove environmentally
and technically feasible, the Department recognizes that institu-
tional and public acceptance of the overall concept will need to be
gained as well.
Now, with regard to legal considerations, which were brought up
earlier, the U.S. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 prohibits ocean disposal of high level wastes and provides
for EPA licensing of all low level radioactive waste disposal into
the oceans. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the implemen-
tation of subseabed disposal of spent nuclear fuel would be in
violation of the cited act and would, therefore, require specific U.S.
congressional action before adoption. But further technical and
environmental information must be developed before we come to
final judgments concerning whether the existing legal framework
needs to be modified. Similarly, we have not made a final judgment
as to whether our existing international treaty obligations need to
be restructured.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased
to answer any questions the committee may have, and I can in-
clude my printed statement for the record, if you wish.
[The following was received for the record:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHELDON MEYERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you
today to take part in the discussions on the possibility of disposal of radioactive
wastes beneath the ocean floor. I will describe how this concept fits within the
President's National Waste Management Program, and outline in some detail the
objectives, status, and plans for assessing the technical and environmental feasibil-
ity of the subseabed disposal concept. In the course of my discussion, I will also
address the related points raised in Chairman Studds' October 30, 1980, letter to
Secretary Duncan.
INTRODUCTION
The Department's nuclear waste management program, including the examina-
tion of subseabed disposal, is based on the President's Message to the Congress on
Radioactive Waste Management which he issued in February of this year. In that
message, subseabed disposal is viewed as an alternative option for isolating radioac-
tive waste. Mined geologic repositories are the focal point of the comprehensive
National radioactive waste management program, but the Department will continue
to support a limited program to evaluate other disposal alternatives as longer range
options. Options currently under assessment include disposal of high-level wastes in
very deep boreholes, disposal in space, and emplacement in ocean sediments in
regions where the ocean floor is known to be geologically stable. With your permis-
sion Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the President's cited message
for the record.
The DOE's subseabed disposal activities are also consistent with the programs
described in hearings before Congressional authorization and appropriation commit-
tees and contained in the fiscal year 1981 Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 96-
69-848 0 - 81 - 20
PAGENO="0306"
300
367) A table describing the historical funding levels for the Subseabed Disposal
Program is attached to my prepared statement
PAST OCEAN DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Because of current Congressional interest in other previous ocean disposal prac-
tices, it might be helpful to review those earlier practices as a preface to considering
the unrelated subseabed disposal concept The disposal of high level radioactive
waste into the ocean has never been practiced by the United States Government
and is now prohibited by United States domestic legislation (the Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972) and also by the 1972 London Convention on
the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter which
the United States has ratified The United States has however previously disposed
of low level radioactive waste in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans No new
licenses for ocean disposal of low-level waste have been issued since about 1960.
Furthermore, the practice of ocean disposal was discontinued by 1970 mainly be-
cause of the opening of less costly low level radioactive waste land burial sites The
safety of this previous practice was predicated on the assumption that, even if the
waste were released at the time it reached the ocean floor, natural dilution and
dispersal would result in environmentally safe levels of radioactivit~T.
Ocean disposal was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission s (AEC) Office of
Regulation until 1972 when the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act
centered regulatory responsibility in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
At that time the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) were directed to initiate a comprehensive and continuing program of moni
toring and research regarding the environmental effects of the past practices As a
result the EPA has conducted specific studies of the impact of dumping at the major
sites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans The Department of Energy and its prede
cessor agencies have cooperated fully with the EPA in these studies which have
ôoncluded that there is no evidence of harm to either man or the environment as a
result of this past disposal practice.
The Department is continuing to cooperate with the EPA in assembling a compre
hensive data file on all past U.S. ocean disposal activities. Specifically, the Depart-
ment is requesting its field organizations to accumulate basic data on all ocean
disposal activities carried out by the AEC or its contractors which were not under
the auspices of an AEC license We understand that the Nuclear Regulatory Corn
mission will provide the EPA with similar information for all previously licensed
disposal activities The EPA is also looking into ocean disposal carried out by other
Government agencies The Department of Energy will continue to cooperate closely
with the EPA as it carries out its responsibilities regarding ocean disposal
THE SUBSEABED DISPOSAL PROGRAM
I would now like to describe our current subseabed disposal program which should
not be confused with the ocean disposal practices just described The existence of
deep sea technology such as deep seabed drilling drill hole reentry and deep sea
emplacement and recovery of large equipment, makes it reasonable to include deep
ocean sediments as a candidate medium for the disposl and isolation of radioactive
waste These sediments are thick uniform and stable deposits which have accumu
lated over millions of years and are in the process of becoming sedimentary rock
Disposal in such sediments could provide effective isolation of radioactive waste
from the biosphere
The primary objective of the subseabed disposal program is to assess the feasibil
ity of the technical environmental engineering and institutional approaches for
disposing of solidified and packaged high level nuclear waste and/or packaged spent
reactor fuel in geologic formations under the world s oceans A secondary objective
is to assess the seabed disposal options of other nations and cooperate with them
when appropriate. Sandia National Laboratories has the prime responsibility for
coordinating and managing this program for the Department.
The Subseabed Disposal Program has adopted a reference system for study pur-
poses even though that system may have to be altered as additional information is
acquired. The reference subseabed disposal system assumes that solidified high-level
wastes or spent reactor fuel in high integrity long lasting containers would be
buried in highly stable clay sediments These sediments would be (1) away from the
edges of oceanic tectonic plates (to avoid volcanic and seismic activity); (2) away
from the edges of major circular surface currents (to avoid subsurface agitation and
fishing associated with these currents) and (3) in areas of low biological activity
Several methods appear feasible for emplacing wastes at depths of about ten to
thirty meters beneath the sediment surface Though none of the methods has been
PAGENO="0307"
301
developed in detail at this time we are considering free fall penetrators power
injection, and trenching or drilling.
It is clear that much additional research and development is needed before the
feasibility of the concept will be demonstrated. Two key questions must be answered
in order to demonstrate technical feasibility and environmental acceptability of
subseabed disposal. First, is there a barrier or set of barriers, natural or man-made,
that will offer satisfactory containment of radionuclides? Secondly, will these bar-
riers remain adequate after introduction of waste containers? The natural barriers
under consideration include the sediments, the basement rock, and the ocean. The
man made barriers being assessed include the canister the waste form and the use
of layers such as overpacks Although no definite conclusions have been reached at
present subseabed disposal appears to be a viable disposal option. Accordingly, the
Subseabed Disposal Program is a multi disciplinary effort to identify technical
institutional legal and regulatory issues which must be addressed and resolved on
a National and international basis. A multi-year Subseabed Program Plan, issued in
January 1980 outlines in some detail the current and planned activities
The U.S. leads the world in ocean drilling for research purposes. The Internation-
al Phase of the Ocean Drilling under the management of the National Science
Foundation with support from the Federal Republic of Germany, the United King-
dom, France, Japan, and the Soviet Union has resulted in a greatly increased
knowledge of the ocean floors.
A final Environmental Impact Statement on the management of commercially
generated radioactive waste has recently been made available to Congress and the
public. This statement will serve as the environmental input for a formal decision
on whether to adopt our proposed high level commercial waste strategy which is
based on the disposal of radioactive waste in mined geologic repositories-with the
alternative subseabed disposal concept also assessed as a future alternative
The DOE Subseabed Disposal Program budget for fiscal year 1981 is $6.9 million.
A table of historical funding levels is attached to this statement. Our principle near-
term milestones are: (1) in 1981, we plan to select three regional areas in the North
Atlantic and North Pacific and, within those areas, select one or more smaller areas
in each ocean for more detailed study; and (2) complete fabrication and design
verification testing of an in-situ heat transfer experiment for field testing by late
1983. The exploratory studies and subprogram testing that we will be conducting
under the Subseabed Disposal Program subject the public to no risk at all. No
radioactive waste will be emplaced at this state.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY
An integral part of the Subseabed Disposal Program is the international coopera
tive research and development which is coordinated through the Seabed Working
Group of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Orgainzation for Economic Cooperation
and Development. That Working Group currently consists of six nations-Canada,
France, Japan, Netherlands, U.K. and U.S., with West Germany and Switzerland
participating as obervers. The objectives of the Working Group are to: provide a
forum for discussion, assessing progress, and planning future efforts; coordinate
research vessel cruises; share facilities; exchange information; discuss international
policy issues; and identify international issues requiring resolution.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Subseabed Disposal Program Plan includes long-term planning for public
participation are response requirements under the National Environmental Policy
Act. Efforts are being made to identify public concerns at an early date in order to
factor them into the planning process for further scientific, technical, and environ-
mental investigation.
Should the subseabed disposal concept prove environmental and technically feasi-
ble, the Department recognizes that institutional and public acceptance of the
overall concept will have to be gained.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
The U.S. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 prohibits ocean
disposal of high-level wastes and provides for EPA licensing of all low-level radioac-
tive waste disposal into the oceans. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the
implementation of subseabed disposal of spent nuclear fuel would be in violation of
the cited Act and would therefore require specific U S Congressional action before
adoption But further technical and environmental information should be developed
before we come to final judgments concerning whether the existing legal framework
PAGENO="0308"
302
needs to be modified. Similarly, we have not made a final judgment as to whether
our existing international treaty obligations need to be restructured.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
Historical funding levels for assessment of subseabed disposal
Fiscal year: Thousand,
1974 1$1,500
1975 260
1976 900
1977 1,300
1978 3,050
1979 3,600
1980 27,73Q
1981 (planned) 6,900
1Funds provided by Office of Military Application and Office of Naval Research.
` in fiscal year 1980, funded by DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy;
between fiscal year 1975 and fiscal year 1979 funded by the Environmental Program.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers.
On page 3 Of your testimony, you refer to the studies which EPA
has conducted and in which the Department of Energy has cooper-
ated, of the previous low level dumping, and you say "These studies
have concluded that there is no evidence of harm to either man or
the environment as a result of this past disposal practice."
Do you mean to imply that the studies, in fact, are final conclu-
sions and no final study is required?
Mr. MEYERS. As far as I know, the studies are ongoing but
evidence to date indicates that there has been no harm to man and
the environment.
Mr. STUDDS. To date. OK. Lower down on that page, you say that
"The EPA is also looking into ocean disposal carried out by other
Government agencies."
What other Government agencies?
Mr. MEYERS. The Department of Defense, and perhaps some of
the other research organizations. I am not familiar with all of
them.
Mr. STUDDS. The Department of Defense is most likely one of
them?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. Has your agency been involved in the search for the
nuclear reactor from the Seawoif, which was scuttled 21 years ago?
Mr. MEYERS. The search for it? As far as I know, we know the
area where it was disposed of.
Mr. STUDDS. You know where?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. I have an article in front of me from the September
1980 Science Magazine in which it says, with reference to the
Seawoif--
Mr. MEYERS. May I change that?
Mr. STUDDS [continuing]. Efforts to find the Seawoif have failed.
The Navy did find debris from the Scorpion after it was lost. It goes
on.
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, I stand corrected. That is true.
Mr. STUDDS. We cannot find it?
Mr. MEYERS. Right. I believe the Navy has attempted to locate
the Seawoif reactor vessel, but has not found it.
PAGENO="0309"
303
Mr. STUDDS. In what way has the Department of Energy been
involved in the search for it, and what damage might have ensued
from it?
Mr. MEYERS. As best I understand it, the environmental effects of
disposal of that particular irradiated pressure vessel are practically
nil. The prime source of radioactivity is cobalt 60 which is an
integral part of the metal and has a half-life of some 5 years. This
means that in 10 half-life periods the radioactivity will be reduced
to innocuous levels. In the last 20 years, the significant radioactiv-
ity has decayed away.
Mr. STUDDS. Has the Department of Energy been involved in the
search for, or a study of that vessel?
Mr. MEYERS. I believe the Department, through our naval reactor
program, has given technical support. I will provide, now, addition-
al Seawoif disposal information.
[The following was received for the record:]
THE DISPOSAL OF THE USS SEAWOLF REACTOR
The first reactor in the USS SEAWOLF was a liquid metal intermediate range
power reactor and was not a breeder reactor. Although the original reactor plant
operated satisfactorily for approximately two years, it was replaced with a pressur-
ized water reactor because the liquid metal type of reactor plant was determined to
be unsuited for continued submarine application. The weight savings that had been
sought in using the more compact liquid metal design was lost due to the need for
additional shielding. With a water-cooled reactor the reactor compartment can be
entered to make repairs after the reactor is shut down. With a liquid metal plant
there is a considerable delay time which was considered undesirable for a warship
which might suffer battle damage requiring immediate repair. There was also a fire
hazard with liquid sodium which can react with water creating an additional hazard
in a submarine application.
The reactor was designed by the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. General Elec-
tric was the primary manufacturer.
The USS SEAWOLF reactor plant was disposed of at sea. On April 18, 1959 the
radioactive reactor vessel and reactor plant components from the sodium-cooled
nuclear reactor plant in the submarine SEAWOLF were escorted by the U.S. Coast
Guard to a disposal site in the Atlantic Ocean 120 miles off the East Coast of the
U.S. and sank in 9,000 feet of water at latitude 38'30'N and longitude 72~O6'W. The
expended nuclear fuel was not disposed of at sea but was shipped to special Govern-
ment facilities for processing in the same manner as for other expended nuclear
fuel. The disposal was conducted at a site approved for sea disposal of radioactive
waste by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. This disposal site was used by other
organizations for a number of years for radioactive waste as noted in a report issued
by the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (Ocean Dumping, A National Policy,
October 1970).
The radioactivity was sealed within the heavy steel reactor vessel for disposal.
The radioactivity was restricted from release not only because it was located inside
the reactor vessel but because it was further contained as an integral part of the
corrosion resistant stainless steel internal reactor vessel structure. A release into
the surrounding area would be expected to occur only due to corrosion of both the
reactor vessel followed by slower corrosion of the stainless steel. Furthermore, the
products of corrosion of the steel are primarily solid rust-like materials which are
extremely insoluble in sea water and therefore tend to remain attached to the metal
surfaces or remain locally on the bottom sediments.
The total amount of radioactivity was approximately 33,000 curies and was pre-
dominantly cobalt 60, which has a 5 year half-life. In the twenty-one years since
disposal the radioactivity has decayed to less than one-tenth its original value.
In summary, the radioactivity should remain within the SEAWOLF reactor vessel
while it decays away and no significant effect on the marine environment is expect-
ed.
Source: Provided by Chief of Naval Information, U.S. Navy.
PAGENO="0310"
304
Mr. STUDDS. I am not a scientist, but the technology involved in
the particular reactor fueling that submarine is different from the
current generation of submarines, is that correct?
Mr MEYERS That is right, that was a sodium cooled reactor As
far as I know, we did not build more of those. That was one of a
kind.
Mr STUDDS The question of the future disposal of the fuel, of the
powerplant of the current generation of nuclear submarines is an
altogether different question
Mr MEYERS Let us make one thing clear We are only talking
about the reactor pressure vessel No fuel was disposed of, just an
empty shell With regard to the reactor fuel, it is taken out for
processing purposes and goes to our plant in Idaho It is processed
there to extract the remaining uranium which is again made into
fuel.
Mr STUDDS I gather that we do have a question This article
considers scuttling old Navy subs.
Mr MEYERS There is a question of what we are going to do in
the future with respect to some of these things The plans for
disposal of Navy reactors will be going through a complete review
There will be no precipitous actions taken It is not going to be a
case of it just happening
Mr STUDDS That was not my question
Am I correct that the question of the disposal of the reactors on
these submarines as they become decommissioned is an open ques
tion of which one of the alternatives being considered is burial at
sea?
Mr MEYERS Yes, sir
Mr STUDDS That is correct?
Mr. MEYERS. That is correct.
Mr STUDDS Now, do these reactors constitute low level or high
level waste?
Mr MEYERS Well, we are talking only about irradiated pressure
vessels in any case, but whether these constitute high level or low
level waste depends upon definitions
Mr STUDOS I know That is why I asked
Mr. MEYERS. And the definitions of low level waste and high
level waste are imprecise at this time
The only definitions for high level radioactive waste that exist in
the Code of Federal Regulations appears in 10 CFR, part 50, appen
dix F, and 40 CFR 227 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 10
CFR part 50, appendix F, defines high level waste as the effluents
from a reprocessing plant. The Environmental Protection Agency
in 40 CFR, part 227, defines high level radioactive waste-for pur-
poses of EPA responsibilities under the Marine Protection and
Sanctuaries Act-as irradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors
and effluents from a reprocessing plant.
Mr STUDDS So under the existing regulations promulgated pur
suant to the Act, those would be considered low level?
Mr MEYERS Again, they certainly are not the effluents of a
reprocessing plant
One of the things that NRC is doing right now is trying to come
to gnps with defining more precisely the various categories of
PAGENO="0311"
305
waste, but under the existing definition, you know, it is something
less than high level waste.
Mr STUDDS I think we may, in future hearings, ask the Depart
ment of Defense to appear.
On page 6 of your statement you say, "A final environmental
impact statement on the management of commercially generated
radioactive waste has recently been made available to Congress
and the public"
The principal option is the landbased disposal one2
Mr. MEYERS. That was its conclusion. It concluded that deep
geologic disposal on land was the way to go
Mr STUDDS How detailed was the seabed operation7
Mr MEYERS The assessment of subseabed disposal used all the
available information we have now, and remember, we are in a
very early phase of an extended research program, so it analyzed
the available data
Mr STUDDS We are, as you say, in a very early phase of this
research What are we doing with a final environmental impact
statement7
Mr. MEYERS. The final environmental impact statement is to
decide which disposal option-or options-should be emphasized in
DOE's R. & D. program. The approach proposed in the environmen-
tal impact statement is to develop mined repositories for land
disposal in geologic formations
Mr. STUDDS. Not final in the sense of resolving the question once
and for all?
Mr MEYERS We obviously are looking at alternatives to land
based geological disposal, and should something appear much more
attractive before we build a land repository, we would have to
reopen the issue
Mr STUDDS You mean more attractive, or less unattractive7
Mr. MEYERS. Probably the latter.
Mr STUDDS Let me ask you one final thing
On the last page, page 7, you say, "It has been suggested that the
implementation of subseabed disposal of spent nuclear fuel would
be in violation of the Ocean Dumping Act."
By whom has it been suggested, and what is the opinion of the
Department of Energy9
Mr MEYERS The Environmental Protection Agency suggested it
I think it is related to the explicit exclusion of high level waste and
spent fuel from ocean disposal Spent fuel does contain high level
waste, but there are some utilities that carry spent fuel on its
books as an asset, so one cannot say now it is a waste. If spent fuel
is reprocessed, the residual waste products are high level waste. I
know some attorneys at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cur-
rently consider spent fuel as high level waste, but at the same time
they said we ought to get congressional affirmation on that
Mr STUDDS It is a currently arguable point
Mr MEYERS There is no doubt that spent fuel contains high
level waste, but spent fuel of itself has residual value and has not
been declared to be high level waste
Mr STUDDS Your agency has not concluded as of this point that
the subseabed disposal would be prohibited under the current stat
ute?
PAGENO="0312"
306
Mr. MEYERS. I cannot answer that. I do not recall.
Mr. STUDDS. Could you get us the answer from the Department of
Energy on that?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes.
[The following was received for the record:]
POSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ON SUBSEABED DISPOSAL
As I indicated in my testimony, the EPA has, on several occasions, advised
Congress of its position that the sub-seabed emplacement of radioactive waste falls
within the purview of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
42 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. Under EPA's interpretation and absent an amendment to the
Act, sub-seabed disposal by the United States of high level radioactive waste could
not take place since the Act precludes permits for ocean disposal of high level
wastes. After an independent review of the Act, we are of the view that EPA has
correctly interpreted the Act and that ocean dumping includes deep seabed emplace-
ment for purposes of disposal. In this respect we note that the Act includes within
the definition of "dumping" the "intentional placement of any device in ocean
waters or submerged land beneath such water (emphasis added) 42 U.S.C.
1402(c)(O. It could be contended that careful emplacement of waste into sub-seabed
geologic formations is not "dumping" within the Act's intended courage. However,
as a practical matter, we would seek to amend the Act in the event that sub-seabed
emplacement emerges as the preferred disposal option.
Mr. STUDDS. The question is, quite simply, Has the Department
reached a conclusion with respect to the question of whether or not
the subseabed emplacement of these wastes would be in violation of
the ocean dumping statute.
Mr. MEYERS. There are some letters from various people at EPA
who indicate that the act does cover subseabed disposal.
Mr. STUDDS. I would not be surprised if EPA came to a different
conclusion.
Mr. MEYERS. I do not know what their conclusion is, but I will
find out and include it in the material I just promised to get for
you.
Mr. STUDDS. OK. If you can get that, I would appreciate it.
Finally, you say, with respect to the same question, "We have
not made a final judgment as to whether our existing international
treaty obligations need to be restructured," for example, whether
the London Convention would similarly prohibit subseabed em-
placement.
I take it that there is no manipulation among your own lawyers?
Mr. MEYERS. I believe the Department of State said the same
thing.
Mr. STUDDS. The Department of State said it was?
Mr. MEYERS. Well, we get conflicting signals. Some people there
think it does; others do not.
Mr. STUDDS. That is what I am trying to get at. What do you
think?
Mr. MEYERS. I honestly do not know.
Mr. STUDDS. I do not mean you personally. I mean the Depart-
ment of Energy.
Mr. MEYERS. I will be glad to get that.
Mr. STUDDS. Would you get that for the record also?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes.
[The following was received for the record:]
PAGENO="0313"
307
POSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ON THE LONDON CONVENTION
The Committee requested DOE's position as to whether the London Ocean Dump-
ing Convention (Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter) prohibits the deep seabed emplacement of high level
radioactive wastes. The Convention does not deal expressly with sub-seabed disposal.
Moreover, the ambiguity of key provisions allows arguments supporting or rejecting
inclusion of sub-seabed disposal within the Convention's scope. Article IV, Section
(1)(a), as supplemented by Annex I of the Convention, prohibits the "dumping" of
high level radioactive waste, which is "defined on public health, biological, or other
grounds, by the competent international body in this field at present, the Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, as unsuitable for dumping at sea." Current standards
are contained in IAEA Document INFCIRC 205-addendum 1/Rev. 1. As defined in
the Convention, "dumping" includes disposal "at sea." The "at sea" phrase may be
interpreted to refer to the locus of the dumping operation or the final position of the
materials disposed of. In our view, the better reading of the Convention is that it
does not prohibit sub-seabed disposal which is carried out in a technically satisfac-
tory manner calculated to isolate the waste from the marine environment. The
State Department maintains that the strict legal scope of the Convention in this
respect cannot be determined until the technical options are clarified. In this
respect, we note that EPA, in a recent memorandum by its General Counsel, took
the view that the Convention's ambiguity should be resolved in favor of prohibiting
sub-seabed disposal of high level radioactive material.
We have been unable to discover any evidence that the drafters of the Conven-
tion, which was a U.S. initiative, gave any consideration to sub-seabed disposal. As a
practical matter, the parties of the Convention would probably disagree as to the
Convention's coverage of sub-seabed disposal.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you.
Mr. Pritchard?
Mr. PRITCHARD. Do you have a memorandum of understanding
with NOAA and EPA for research in this whole area?
Mr. MEYERS. We are working with them very closely, but we do
not have in existence a memorandum of understanding. We are
working toward one.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Do you think you will have one?
Mr. MEYERS. I would expect so.
Mr. PRITCHARD. It would be helpful, would it not?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, it generally is helpful to outline areas of re-
sponsibilities, and who does what.
Mr. PRITCHARD. It seems to me that it would be a helpful thing,
and I am sorry you do not have one already, but I know these
things do not come easily.
That is all I have.
Mr. STUDDS. Ms. Mikuiski?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Meyers, you talked about these geologic for-
mulations in which there is potential for placing nuclear waste.
Why do you think the Earth-or what is the scientific explana-
tion for why the Earth is currently formulating these rock depos-
its?
I will tell you why I am asking. I find when the Earth forms
something, it is usually the way to her own protection, the genera-
tion of new life.
Therefore, my second question will be if we start putting this
nuclear gunk in these rocks, if it could not further upset some
balance in the Earth--
Mr. MEYERS. That is the essence of the research and development
program underway now. We know that those areas have been
geologically stable for millions of years, and in several more mil-
lions of years they will form into sedimentary rock.
PAGENO="0314"
308
The program is trying to find out whether or not by emplacing
the solidified waste down there, whether there will be any effect
whatsoever.
Ms. MIKuL5KI. What purpose does the rock form now, or do you
not know?
Mr MEYERS When you say what purpose does it serve, I do not
know
Ms MIKuL5KI On page 7-see, I think you do not know a lot
That is why what we are embarking on here is so dangerous, that I
think it is-see, I think it is-it is my own personal opinion that
the Earth, that the ocean is really the womb of the Earth, and by
putting this stuff in we totally generate the basis of life on Earth,
and we, and people know by philosophical indications.
On page 7, you talk about identifying the public concerns on
these issues of how is that going to happen, that other people are
concerned about, how can they participate in these processes?
Mr. MEYERS. As our program expands and proceeds, we have a
rather-the subseabed disposal program is part of a larger waste
management program. We will be, among other things, putting out
a national waste management plan that encompasses all portions
of the program That plan will be discussed with various groups,
the public in general, and other interest groups, for an extended
period of time
Additionally, when any major action with significant environ
mental impact is proposed to be taken under the waste manage-
ment program, a specific environmental impact statement will be
prepared. It is the Department's policy to hold public hearings
when it issues such statements. But we are going to make every
effort to see that there is meaningful public input to the subseabed
disposal program We are at a very early stage in the program that
seems to have merit, and, as far as I know, we would not proceed if
anything untoward came up So we share your concern
We are not out to spoil the environment
Ms MIKuLSKI What has been the role of the United Nations as
it relates to the analysis?
Mr. MEYERS. I believe the United Nations sponsored the London
Convention, as part of this activity
Ms. MIKuJ~KI. What about this work group that is so--
Mr MEYERS That is the Nuclear Energy Agency, which is part
of the Organization for Economic Development There are other
countries which, for one reason or another, are interested in seabed
disposal, and we enumerated them earlier We have worked out a
cooperative program so that we can exchange information in the
most efficient manner possible
Ms. MIKuI~sKI. But the United Nations is not the central coordi-
nating body in this.
Mr. MEYERS. No, not for this subseabed program. It is the Nucle-
ar Energy Agency.
Ms. MIKuLSKI. My final question, Mr. Meyers, is from a charge-
since you are in charge of the nuclear waste management, DOE,
what type of containers have they used, or in consideration, were
being used, for this type of shipping, or are those issues also under
consideration'?
Mr MEYERS Do you mean for the subseabed program?
PAGENO="0315"
309
Ms MIKULSKI Yes
Mr MEYERS We are looking at a number of container materials
One of them that is the most attractive is a titanium alloy. Wheth-
er or not we will need special ships, I just do not know at this time.
We have not reached that stage of engineering systems analysis.
We are still at the early stages of examining scientific feasibility,
but I would not expect that the engineering of a particular contain-
er, or ship to carry the waste would be a very difficult engineering
problem
Ms. MIKuLSKI. What is the half-life of, say the kind of nuclear
waste that we are considering?
Mr. MEYERS. Well, it goes to thousands of years.
Ms. MIKULSKI. How long?
Mr. MEYERS. Thousands of years.
Ms. MIKULSKI. How many, 5, 10, 100,000?
Mr. MEYERS, Well, it depends upon the efficiency of the recy-
cling, or the reprocessing process, for one thing, whether or not you
get all the plutonium out
In the case of spent fuel, where you do not get the plutonium
out, then it remains in the spent fuel, and I guess the plutonium
half life is something on the order of 24,000 years
Ms MIKULSKI 16,000 years, so we are trying to think of some
type of container that is going to last 16,000 years, sitting in a rock
at the bottom of the ocean?
Mr. MEYERS. No, not necessarily. The container may not have to
last that long a period of time.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Maybe only 14,000?
Mr. MEYERS. The emplacement in the sediment is such that we
would expect that even if the container just dissolved completely
the day it was put down, the migration of those nuclides would be
no more than 3 or 4 feet from where they were placed
Ms. MIKULSKI. Unless they are in an earthquake zone.
Mr. MEYERS. Again, we are trying to locate stable sedimentary
areas of the ocean floor, and there seem to be many that have been
literally stable for millions of years.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank you. I just find it so astounding. I buy
cans of string beans, to tell me that they have to be taken off the
shelf in 3 or 4 years, and then we think in terms of storing nuclear
waste, with the half-life just 16,000 years, and in a container, and
putting it in a place that we are not sure it is going to be stable, is
just--
Mr. MEYERS. Well, that is, again, remember, what the program is
about. We are not convinced that it can be done.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I know what the program is about. I am just
telling you that I really do know what the program is about and I
do not like it. That is it.
You have to know a Polish woman to know something about the
curie contact factor. It drives you up the wall.
Mr. PRITCHARD. Would the gentlelady yield?
You do not object to the research in trying to find out the facts?
Ms MIKULSKI I do not object to the research but I think it is an
absolute waste of time I am someone who thinks that we should
ban nuclear to the point of production It is my belief that if it is
something that is not naturally biodegradable, it should not be
PAGENO="0316"
310
manufactured at all. I would feel much more secure if the research
that we were putting in in dealing with this kind of stuff is going
in to find alternative resources that were available to nature and
would naturally be decomposed. That is why I think the research
ought to go, that is where I think our commitment ought to go, I
think the Earth and its people would be happier if that happened.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I guess the only other thing is if you have
foreign countries that have very little control over, and they are
going to be producing and possibly using the ocean, we also have to
go ahead with the research, do we not?
Ms. MIKuL5KI. I think the fact is, again, the moral leadership of
the United States ought to formulate a policy to discourage that
and encourage the scientists of the world to pursue the objectives
that I just outlined.
As long as we are fighting in a rear guard action, there will
never be. We cannot get rid of it, whether it is PCB's or nuclear or
whatever, and eventually we are going to, under the guise of
saving ourselves, kill ourselves.
Mr. STUDDS. That is a biblical citation that you better not re-
spond to.
Mr. PRITCHARD. I will not.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Carney.
Mr. CARNEY. I appreciate what my colleague from Maryland
says. However being one who has been the benefactor of nuclear
medicine having gone through some very chancy invasive proce-
dures diagnostic procedures relating to my heart, now it can be
done with far less risk utilizing nuclear medicine. I appreciate the
other side of the coin, as well. But we do have to be very careful.
The Department, you say in your statement on page 3, is con-
tinuing to cooperate with the EPA in assembling comprehensive
data on ocean dumping activities in the past.
Do you think you have the ability to assemble the data necessary
to have a grasp on how much is indeed in the ocean now from our
past practices?
Mr. MEYERS. Well, the best we could do is go through the records
that we do have and provide them to the EPA.
Mr. CARNEY. Do you have any idea how much might have been
dumped that is not a matter of record?
Mr. MEYERS. I do not know. The nuclear licensing program rec-
ords where those things were quantified are easier to get than to
search through the Department of Energy's or predecessor agency's
own laboratory records which were not licensed but we are trying
to do the best we can in assessing what was done several years ago.
Mr. CARNEY. How much of this waste would you say offhand
would be related to the practice of nuclear medicine?
Mr. MEYERS. Well, I cannot give you figures from the past, but
the current generation rate of so-called low-level waste, which in-
cludes the residue of medical nuclear medicine is on the order of 25
percent of the total, and the total quantity of low-level wastes is
perhaps 3 million cubic feet per year. So, 25 percent of that would
be related to the nuclear medicine.
Mr. CARNEY. You made a statement, and I believe I think we
heard contradictory statements, where you said even if the waste
were released, referring to the waste that we put into the ocean
PAGENO="0317"
311
prior to this, by the time it would reach the ocean floor, natural
dilution and disbursal would result in an environmentally safe
level of radioactivity.
Does that statement apply to all the waste that is in the ocean in
your belief?
Mr. MEYERS. I would guess, based on what has gone into the
oceans to date, the natural dilution; and dispersion within the
ocean would be rather innocuous, and within acceptable standards.
Mr. CARNEY. The ocean itself has a vast amount of radioactivity?
Mr. MEYERS. That is right.
Mr. CARNEY. How much, in relation to that natural amount,
have we added over and above?
Mr. MEYERS. You probably could not even measure it. One of the
reasons that I made the statement that I did is that in comparison
with the natural radioactivity of the water, the material that we
put in would be much below that.
Mr. CARNEY. What do you mean by much? Five times? Three
times?
Mr. MEYERS. I do not have the figures with me but I can get
them for you.
Mr. CARNEY. Could you estimate that amount?
Mr. MEYERS. Something like a few percent of the total.
Mr. CARNEY. A few percent less or what we put in?
Mr. MEYERS. A few percent of the naturally occurring radioactiv-
ity.
Mr. CARNEY. Of what we put in there now?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes.
Mr. CARNEY. Going back to that submarine, which intrigues me
somewhat.
You said that the waste in that submarine is relatively little.
What exactly did they do? Did they take out the fuels?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, the fuel was taken out and only the steel
reactor pressure vessel was disposed of. The radioactivity is in-
duced radioactivity and it is essentially cobalt-GO with a half-life of
about 5 years.
Within 50 years the level of radioactivity will be greatly reduced
and you will be bearly able to measure that. One of the anomalies
in the nuclear business is that we have very sophisticated instru-
ments and we could measure levels of radioactivity that would be
impossible, say, in the toxic chemical arena. The levels that would
be in the water associated with the pressure vessel-that is, assum-
ing that it dissolves, and we know that it does not-would be
relatively innocuous.
Mr. CARNEY. Would it be fair to assume based on what you said
that the level of radioactivity that would come from that vessel
would be less than what would come from someone walking around
with a pacemaker on them?
Mr. MEYERS. Than what?
Mr. CARNEY. Less than the radioactivity of a person walking
around with a pacemaker on.
Mr. MEYERS. Probably. I do not know the numbers but I would
guess yes.
Mr. CARNEY. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Anderson?
PAGENO="0318"
312
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I share some of Barbara Mikulski's skepticism
If we cannot even document what went on in the past, how
sound are our studies of these future prospects?
But, anyway, Mr. Meyers, you state that no new licenses for
ocean disposal, low level waste, have been issued since about 1960 I
would like to clarify that point
Although no licenses were issued to new companies, licenses
have been issued since 1960 to companies already disposing of
nuclear waste And I may add that without the benefit of public
hearings, is that not true?
Mr MEYERS I am not certain about the public hearings but I do
know that the companies that were disposing of waste in 1960
continued to do so up until 1970 when it was stopped
Mr. ANDERSON. So there were licenses granted to the old compa-
nies up until 1970?
Mr MEYERS I am not certain of that Under their existing li
cense, they were able to continue dumping Whether the licenses
were modified I do not know, but again no new licenses were
issued There was continuing dumping up until 1970 when it did
stop
Mr ANDERSON Ar1i I to understand that that was without the
benefit of public hearings? You stated that you were assembling
comprehensive data files on all ocean dumping
When will this be complete?
Mr. MEYERS. I am not certain. But it is our intention to make our
related files available to EPA.
Mr ANDERSON I would hope you would make this information
available to this committee.
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, sir.
[The information which is very voluminous is being kept in the
subcommittee files]
Mr ANDERSON When you state that the disposal of high level
radioactive waste into the ocean has never been practiced by the
United States, are you using the nonquantitative definition used in
the Ocean Dumping Act?
Mr. MEYERS. The only precise definitions of high level waste are
the ones that I mentioned earlier, that is 10 CFR, part 50, appendix
F, and the 40 CFR, part 227 definitions.
Mr ANDERSON How do you define high level?
Mr MEYERS I believe-I do not recall the exact language, but it
has to do with the first cycle solvent extraction from a nuclear fuel
reprocessing plant It is spelled out in that particular context
Mr ANDERSON May I read that, so that you will understand
what I was pointing out earlier? I mentioned the AEC, they defined
low level as 50 millirems, or less per hour, and high level would be
2 rems, or more per hour, an intermediate would be those in
between.
Now, that, you can measure that. When you talked about the
highly sensitive equipment that you had to measure these things,
you could measure that, but when you try to do it with a definition
that I think you are working from, a definition states, "high level
radioactive waste means the aqueous waste resulting from the
operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent,
PAGENO="0319"
313
and the concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or
equivalents in a facility for reprocessing a radiated reactor fuel, or
radiated fuel from nuclear power reactors"
That is the definition that you are using.
Mr MEYERS That is-that is the applied definition
Mr ANDERSON And, which to me, does not-you are not really
doing anything major then
Mr MEYERS Let us go back to your discussion of the milhrems,
as a measure of dose rate One could conceivably have something
that emitted radiation in excess of-what was the number that you
had for high level?
Mr ANDERSON Two rems, or more per hour
Mr. MEYERS. One could have material that emitted 2 rems per
hour that remains radioactive perhaps for only 5 years, and after 5
years its radition level is insignificant. It may start at a high level
of radioactivity, but may yet deteriorate in a very short period of
time In that case you would not consider it to have a lasting
environmental impact
Mr ANDERSON What would be the impact on the person, or the
fish, whatever, that would be in contact during those first 5 years?
Mr MEYERS It would depend on what you did with it If that
particular material were contained, it would have very little effect.
Mr. ANDERSON. Supposing you ate it?
Mr. MEYERS. Well, I would not want to eat it. If it were that high
in radioactivity, one could store it for a period of time, wherein the
level of radioactivity would decrease substantially, so that you
could process it, package it, and contain the radioactive material.
Mr ANDERSON Then it would not be 2 rems Then it would fall
into other categories
Mr MEYERS That is one of the problems that we have in trying
to define radiation levels by dose rates rather than using specific
isotopic levels If you use a definition like curies or dose rates, you
could define something as high level radioactive waste, which
would require substantial processing, packaging, not only substan
tial, but expensive, and by the time you are ready to dispose of it,
it is innocuous, and you have essentially spent a lot of money that
you did not need to spend.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to have to go
into the definition a little bit later, too
Have you examined, Mr Meyers, the data and site justification
upon which the EPA states that there is no known environmental
harm?
Mr MEYERS I have not myself read that
Mr ANDERSON Has the Department?
Mr MEYERS The Department staff has, yes
Mr ANDERSON Just because there is no known harm, does not
rule out the possibility that there may be in fact harm to the
environment, is that not true?
Mr MEYERS Well, I suppose you could take that approach
Mr ANDERSON That is the purpose of our study in our bill
Thank you, Mr Chairman
Mr STUDDS Mr Akaka?
Mr AKAKA Thank you very much, Mr Chairman
PAGENO="0320"
314
Mr. Meyers, representing a State in the Pacific concerned about
the nation's of the Pacific, I want to ask some questions about the
Pacific area, and on page 1, you mentioned the term "geologically
stable," that are being conducted, are to determine such areas.
Can you tell me what geologically stable-have there been earth-
quakes?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, geologic stability means that there has been no
seismic activity, no volcanic activity, no disruptive events over long
periods of time.
Mr. AKAKA. Can you tell me whether these tests have been
conducted in the Pacific?
Mr. MEYERS. Where?
Mr. AKAKA. In areas. No, have these tests been conducted in the
Pacific areas?
Dr. MEYERS. Yes, surveys have been made in the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans.
Mr. AKAKA. Can you identify the sites?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, I can certainly give you an accurate descrip-
tion of where they are. I do not have it with me now. The next
witness, Dr. Anderson of Sandia Laboratory, will talk about those
sites.
Mr. AKAKA. On page 4 you talk about sediment that could pro-
vide the effective isolation of radioactive waste.
Again, the question I ask is what do you mean by effective
isolation?
Mr. MEYERS. Effective barriers means that it will retain the
radioactive material so as not to adversely affect the biosphere. In
other words, when it is put into the sediments, it will essentially
stay there.
Mr. AKAKA. And this-I heard you say earlier that that would be
forever.
Mr. MEYERS. Essentially.
Mr. AKAKA. I guess the next witness will provide the answers to
where the other sediments are found in the Pacific area. We know
that all of the discussion and experiments, also research is going
on, because there is a buildup of high level waste around the world.
What is happening to all of this waste at this time?
Mr. MEYERS. It is being stored.
Mr. AKAKA. Is it being stored in areas in our country, is it being
stored on land or--
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, there are two kinds of high level wastes. One is
the spent fuel elements that are essentially being stored at the
reactor sites. These are being stored in spent fuel storage basins.
The other category is waste which evolves from weapons produc-
tion. It is stored in tanks at our Savannah River plant, and in
South Carolina, and in our plant in the State of Washington. We
also have calcined material stored in Idaho, where we process the
reactor fuel elements from the naval reactor program. These are
the DOE high level waste storage areas.
Mr. AKAKA. Is there a time frame, as to whether we will have to
begin storing it in depositories, such as salt seabeds?
Mr. MEYERS. Yes, we have a time frame laid out in the program
plan, when the geological repository will need to be available.
PAGENO="0321"
315
There is no safety reason why one could not store the waste in
those tanks for extended periods of time.
Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers. I appreciate it.
Mr. STUDDS. Our next witnesses are Dr. D. R. Anderson, director,
seabed disposal program, Sandia Laboratory, Albuquerque, N.
Mex., and Dr. Charles D. Hollister, senior scientist and dean of
graduate studies, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. An-
derson and Dr. Hollister, I understand you have a joint paper,
which testimony will be presented by Dr. Anderson. Let me an-
nounce at this time that after the testimony of Dr. Anderson and
Dr. Hollister, the subcommittee will break for lunch and we will
resume with our final witnesses at 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Dr. bLUSTER. Dr. Anderson will be describing the seabed dispos-
al program. I think from the oceanographic community's point of
view our first reaction is also similar to those of this committee's:
"Why our oceans? And certainly not in my ocean." So, we have
had a lot of research and a lot of deep thinking that has continued.
And what Dr. Anderson and I will try to do is to tell you what we
know and what we don't know. We don't know a whole lot, but we
also do know a lot. I would like to share that with you.
Mr. STUDDS. How long is your slide presentation going to be?
Dr. ANDERSON. It will be probably 15 minutes.
Mr. STUDDS. I was going to say if there are some people who
would like to sit around this inner circle, in spite of the risk to
their reputation of being considered as Members of Congress, you
are pleased to do that.
Dr. HOLLISTER. Particularly for the slides, I think it is really
important to see them in order to understand what the oceans are
all about.
STATEMENT OF DR. D. RICHARD ANDERSON, PROGRAM MAN-
AGER, SEABED PROGRAMS DIVISION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORY, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.; AND DR. CHARLES D.
HOLLISTER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, DEAN OF GRADUATE STUD-
IES, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, WOODS
HOLE, MASS.
Dr. HOLLISTER. Why don't you get started?
Dr. ANDERSON. OK, I will.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are pleased to
be here today to address the subject of disposal of nuclear wastes
by burial in the sea floor.
I would like to summarize our testimony briefly here, which
addresses the seabed disposal option for high-level waste or spent
fuel, and give additional information of general interest.
I would like to begin the summary by addressing the question of
why the oceans were ever considered for disposal of high-level
radioactive waste.
Back in 1974 the Atomic Energy Commission was faced with the
problem of disposal of high-level wastes or spent fuel. They chose to
look at the entire globe for possible repositories. If they did not
assess that portion of the globe covered by water as shown in the
first slide, we would not, we, meaning mankind, would not have
made a complete assessment. The 70 percent of the globe covered
69-8~f8 0 - 81 - 21
PAGENO="0322"
316
by water, is the area we are now considering. The subseabed dis-
posal program addresses two major questions The first question for
the program is Is the subseabed disposal of high level wastes or
spent fuel feasible? This is a feasibility study rather than a study
which takes an advocacy position The second question is Are the
ocean disposal programs of other nations acceptable? We figure
that we must assess the other nations' programs as well as ours to
know whether the research that they are doing is adequate
The concept for the subseabed disposal in cross section is repre
sented in the next slide (Figure 2 from written testimony) These
topics, or areas of research, will be addressed later, so I would like
to identify them here The canister, the heated sediments, and
waste form is in what we call the near field heated zone The area
outside of the heated zone is called the far field zone The depth of
burial is likely to be somewhere between 30 and 100 meters from
the surface of the sediment and will be determined by ion trans-
port studies to be discussed later Next comes the physical and
biological oceanographic programs followed by an emplacement
program, a human uptake program, and a sea transport program
Next slide. (Figure 7.)
The research approach within the program starts with making
postulations of kinds of response developing mathematical models
to predict what would happen, acquiring properties from the labo
ratory and from the field, making predictions of response and
finally checking the predictions against field verification test. If
one finds that that section of the model is predicting correctly then
it is coupled with others and to make a total systems model to give
predictions of the response of the geologic formation. If the model
is found to be incorrect, then it is necessary to improve the proper-
ties and the postulations-physics, chemistry, et cetera
The main sections of the systems model are the thermal input,
the waste form, and canister in the near field, the far field ion
transport, the benthic boundary layer, the biology and physical
oceanographic studies, the dose effects to the biota, and finally dose
effects to man, this is the procedure for assessing the technical and
environmental feasibility.
Next slide. (Figure 6.)
I would like to point out that we have developed go and no-go
gates within the program where we stop and assess the program
using both scientists from within the program and external to it to
see if the concept is still feasible If feasibility is shown then the
program proceeds to the next gate
We have gone through gate No 1 We are in the process of
addressing those functions in gate No 2, which will allow an
assessment of the technical and environmental feasibility
For the next moment I would like to concentrate on what is
required to pass this gate All of the units of the system's model, as
I discussed earlier, must be operational The properties that are
needed to feed those models are bracketed, but not necessarily
validified Verification tests of as many of the systems sections as
possible are completed, and at least one site in each of the north
em oceans-Atlantic and Pacific-identified
PAGENO="0323"
317
Finally, a document prepared for review which identifies wheth
er the program at this point is technically and environmentally
feasible If it is not found feasible the program is stopped
The timeframe for this gate is 1986-87, funds permitting.
On the next figure you can see the subsections of the program.
They are: Site selection, environmental studies, multiple barrier
quantification, waste emplacement, transportation, risk/safety
analyses, and social scientific. Each of the sections is defined in
detail in the program plan
I would now like to address some of the research done to date
One of the most important problems for the disposal of high level
wastes is the effects of heat Figure 9 shows the temperature pro
file of an emplaced canister-50m depth-as a function of time At
the canister's surface the temperature is very high for this calcula-
tion, 2500 C, but it decays very, very rapidly. In less than 10 years
it has passed through the peak temperature and starting to de-
crease. This means that we can test in real time for a lot of the
thermal responses of the geologic formations that are critical to the
program.
Our in situ heat transfer experiment (ISHTE), which is the
equivalent of an underwater Moon lander, is being developed to
verify the thermal predictions and models that we now making.
The ISHTE experiment will be on the floor of the ocean for
approximately 1 year and will measure temperatures at the canis-
ter interface and at locations radially out from the canister, the
can sediment interface is expected to reach approximately 300° C.
To develop the best canisters we have thus far measured corro-
sion rates of typical materials in the marine environment. The best
material found is ticode-12, a titanium, copper, nickel alloy (figure
11).
Figure 12 shows that, for example, if you want a canister that
lasts 1 year, ticode is not the choice, from a cost standpoint How
ever, if you want a canister that lasts 300 years of longer ticode 12
is a very, very acceptable material as far as cost is concerned
Figure 8 shows two views of the results of the calculations that
have been made for radionuclide migration. On the left half of the
figure the little black spot is the canister. These calculations as-
sumed that the plutonium was released instantaneously after the
canister was put into the sediments and the hole was acceptedly
plugged with sediment The figure there represents a snapshot of
the radionuclide concentration around the can, 100,000 years into
the future. The plutonium has moved approximately four canister
lengths during the period of time and has decayed to essentially
background There is one problem, however to date we have only
developed an understanding of the response of positively charged
radionuclides We have yet to assess the problems dealing with the
negatively charge radionuclides. Positive ions, it seems, stick very
well to the sediments. Negative ions may not stick at all.
Future nuclide transport research will address the movement of
the negative charged nuclides through the red clay sediments
Another area that we have not yet addressed and remains un
known concerns the plastic properties of the sediment Since the
sediments are plastic they are relatively immune to mechanical
things like earthquakes, impacts and earth fracture-there is no
PAGENO="0324"
318
capability of long~.term cracks developing. That is the positive
aspect. The negative part is that under low loads the sediments
and the cansiter may move.
Figure 10 is a picture of the results of first calculations that we
have made using a new predictive mechanical mode. The canister
is placed 30 meters into the plastic sediments. Estimated material
property laws and properties were used. The displacement of the
canister has been calculated as a function of different viscosity
laws. In no case, however, does the can breach the sediment bar-
rier.
The research that will be done in the next 3 years will be to
show whether these estimates were correct.
In the biology and physical oceanographic sections the subsec-
tions of the model that are being developed are the ones that
address the dose to man and the dose effect to the fauna. Our
approach to the effects on the fauna is to try and find species that
are from shallow water, that are analogs of the deep water ones
and test them as to their radiation sensitivity. If we find that there
are none, then we will use the data already available for the
shallow water analogs. These studies will take several years.
The areas of the ocean that we are looking at are shown in
figure 15. We have focused down from the large oceanic basins to
these using criteria developed by the program. Due to economics
we have not looked at the southern hemisphere.
In the figure the Hawaiian Islands are at the bottom left hand
below the center square in the Pacific. The three areas in the
Atlantic span the mid-Atlantic ridge. During the next 6 years, the
regions will be decreased to approximately 1- by 1-degree squares of
approximately 60 nautical miles on a side the size of the area we
think is adequate.
Finally, the international program-the Seabed Working
Group-which has been mentioned earlier today is a restricted
subcommittee under the Nuclear Energy Agency's Radioactive
Waste Management Committee.
Mr. Glen Boyer of the United States is the chairman of that
group. Six nations are members. Two more have indicated that
they plan to join next year. There are seven task groups-see
figure 14-the left-hand side, which address the many phases of the
seabed research program, are the nations and below their task
group representatives. There are two reasons why some of those
nations do not have individuals in every group: One is that the
countries have just recently joined and their programs have not yet
developed. The other is that in some instances, their primary inter-
ests are in other areas such as low-level waste disposal. Participa-
tion is then only in areas where high-level waste studies are com-
plementary to low-level studies.
I would like to terminate my testimony at this point. Dr. Hollis-
ter and I will try to answer any questions.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you gentlemen, very much.
We will keep you folks in place.
We will be going for a few moments and then break.
You are trying to do research on phenomenon which could occur
tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years from now; can
we do such research?
PAGENO="0325"
319
Mr. ANDERSON. Charley, would you like to handle that one?
Dr. HOLLISTER. No; I am an oceanographer. In my 15 years or so
in the business, I look at sediments in the seafloor and the rocks as
a predictive scientist.
What we are trying to do is to learn about the history of the
oceans, back in time, so that we can do some credible predictions in
order to answer the types of questions you just put forward.
And the way to do this is simply take a core sample of the
bottom of the ocean. We did this about halfway between Hawaii
and the Aleutians. And we learned a lot. For example, we learned
that this part of the North Pacific has been stable for at least 65
million years. During this time, the dinosaurs died out, the Alps
were formed, the Himalayas formed, the Hanford Basalts were
extruded, the Isthmus of Panama closed, the ice ages came and
went, and of course Mount St. Helens was the most recent example
of geologic unpredictability of the continents.
The point is, there are some areas on the ocean that are very,
very active: Earthquakes, lots of them, faults, et cetera. But based
on volumns data, not the least of which are the results of the deep
sea drilling project, we have been able to make a geologic map of
the other 70 percent of the globe.
So, by way of answering your question, there are very predict-
able areas in the sea floor that we have been able to identify. And,
certainly, vast areas of the north central Pacific have simply been
moving northwestward for nearly 200 million years at a rate of
about 6 feet in 60 years, which is, say, a man's height in his
lifetime; the whole plate is moving slowly westward.
There are large areas in other oceans that are also away from
spreading centers, away from volcanos, and also are beneath areas
of extremely low biological productivity.
If one considers this stability and the account of history one then
has some credibility in saying that next 10,000 or 100,000 years
may be equally boring in that this piece of real estate chuggs its
way westward at about 3 or 4 inches a year.
Dr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the record that has been devel-
oped on that 24-meter core we think is a continuous record from
the day we took it back approximately 70 million years into the
past. Nothing has been found that shows that the area has experi-
enced anything that would make it unacceptable. Information like
that gives us a very strong basis for predictive response of global
processes over up to 1 million years.
Mr. STUDDS. I, of course, would not be inclined to challenge
anything said by a doctor coming from Woods Hole, anyway. I
appreciate that. That was an answer comprehensible to a layman. I
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Carney?
Mr. CARNEY. No questions.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Akaka.
Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much.
Mr. STUDDS. I am sure you took note of that map.
Mr. AKAKA. Yes.
I notice that the discussion has been all about the Pacific. And
you commented that the area north of Hawaii, between Hawaii
and the Aleutians, I think you said that is about the most stable
PAGENO="0326"
320
area you have found thus far, which means, then, that this area
will probably be considered for subseabed deposits
Is that true?
Dr HOLLISTER Yes
What we are looking for is midplate, and by that I mean in the
middle of a lithospheric plate It is not along the old Hawaiian
Emperor Seamounts chain, and it is not along the trenches, where
there is a lot of volcanic activity and it is not along the spreading
centers where the crust is breaking open.
We are looking for geologic predictability in the centers of the
big gyrs. We have about a half-dozen countries, and at least that
many ships right now taking samples and looking in certain Atlan
tic areas that may satisfy our site-selection criteria.
Our criteria are, quite simply, the demonstration beyond a doubt
that the areas are geologically stable and have been so for very
long periods
So, as this plate moves westward a hot spot continues to form the
islands of Hawaii. And so it would be absolutely ridiculous to
assume that someone would put waste "upstream" of where the
Hawaiian Islands are forming now.
Mr. AKAKA. You talk about this being predictive. I read that it is
predicted that Diamond Head might erupt
So it is true that Hawaii is still alive volcanically
Dr. HOLLISTER. Absolutely.
This is something we all know; there is not a single student of
marine geology who would argue with that.
Mr. AKAKA. I also learned that you have been doing studies
north of Guam.
Is this the same area you are talking about?
Dr. HOLLISTER. Depending on how you mean, "real close," then
1,000 kilometers is close. It is up in a large area of the northwest-
ern Pacific that we are studying The sediments are much thicker
there than they are 1,000 kilometers north of Hawaii.
My feeling is that the siting effort identifing really large-mu
lion square kilometer regions-where we can take a few samples to
see if our predictions, or our hypotheses are correct, that is, that
nothing has happened there for tens of millions of years.
We are a very long way from choosing a site.
Mr. AKAKA. Right now, this area you are talking about as being
a very stable area between Hawaii and the Aleutians; can you give
me a longitude and latitude reading on that area?
Dr. HOLLISTER. It is about 30 degrees north and 158 degrees west.
It is 5,000 meters deep The water is about 2 C It is pitch black It
has 500 atmosphers pressure, say, 20,000 PSI The mud is about 200
or 300 feet thick It is very flat The mud itself is rusty colored clay
with a consistency of Crest toothpaste on the surface.
Basically, it is one of the most boring pieces of marine geological
real estate there is.
Mr. STUDDS. He wants to know which congressional district.
Mr. AKAKA. I am sure that it is mine.
* Dr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a point missed
that I really wanted to dwell upon very strongly.
That point is that the program is, in effect, looking for reasons
why this option is infeasible rather than feasible. Ocean scientists,
PAGENO="0327"
321
of which 16 universities are represented and use approxinately 70
percent of the total funds of the program per year, all have that
attitude We fund them at less than 30 percent of their total yearly
support, so that they will not be controlled by the program Hope
fully, when and if they find something that makes it infeasible,
they will stand up without damaging their careers-loss of finan
cial support-and say it is infeasible and here are the reasons why
Mr. AKAKA. To summarize, would I be correct in saying that you
have found an area, that you have given me the longitude and
latitude of an area in the Pacific, north of Hawaii, south of the
Aleutians, that you are considering to be very feasible at this time
as a place for storage in the subseabed9
Dr ANDERSON At the very most preliminary work, yes
The term we use is "regions" There are four Of those four, the
ranking that we have given them now is that the more westerly
ones are the more interesting to us because the sediment thickness
is greater. The farther you move to the east across the Pacific, the
thinner the sediments become, the sea floors are younger, and the
less interesting they become. We have not identified the exact
depth that we might want to put a canister of waste into the
sediments. If that number becomes 50 meters, for example, then
obviously we will have to find an area in excess of 50 meters of
sediments for it to be useful If you go north of Hawaii, there are
some areas in the eastern part of that central block that are less
than 50 meters thick
So, therefore, they would not be adequate
Mr AKAKA Can you identify the most western area that is
feasible now in the Pacific?
Dr. ANDERSON. With the very first screening; yes. The more
westerly we look, the more optimal.
Dr. HOLLISTER. You know why that is?
Because the farther west you go, the older the crust, and the
thicker the sediment cover This is a very simple and straightfor
ward concept as you might know
But I think there is another point.
Could I interrupt? I am going to, anyway
I think the idea should be stated this way I'm a research scien
tist and I think to defend something that hasn't been shown to be
feasible is a little premature.
Do you know what I mean?
I am trying to say we don't know if this concept is useful. So I
think this is more of an information exchange rather than a de-
fense. I don't feel at all comfortable in standing up in front of you
defending it as though I was an advocate I was simply asked a
long time ago to look at the other two thirds of the planet's geolo
gy.
And you do that by just taking the simplest places first and
looking at those And we are really in the middle of the feasibility
phase of this program
We have so much more to learn. But on the other hand, we
already know a lot about the geology of the submarine world
because it is, in some cases, so boring. If I never see another red
clay core again, I will be very happy It is a boring and tedious
piece of geology
PAGENO="0328"
322
And, therefore, most of us get our reputations by studying the
spreading centers where the very hot vents are; the National Geo-
graphic covered our work there and everybody is very excited. That
sort of action turns you on. But to look at 1 million square kilome-
ters, where you take a core here and you go 500 miles and take
another core and you lay them side by side and they are exactly
the same, well, you really don't get too excited about that sort of
thing.
I think the oceanographic community, which has been briefed all
along about this concept is aware of the subseabed program.
We have no secrets. We have gone to the International Council
of Scientific Unions (Paris) and said, "What is wrong with the
concept?"
And from a geological point of view we are cautiously optimistic.
But until we know whether these sediments will "burp," because it
may become buoyant after emplacing a hot "core," we have a
problem.
And if so, we will just shut the program down.
Mr. AKAKA. Let me ask this:
Would you say, then, that the most feasible region extends north
of Guam, and west?
Dr. HOLLISTER. Yes.
Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Doctor.
This was absolutely fascinating.
The defense of the infeasible may be uncommon where you work
but it is common practice around here.
Dr. HOLLISTER. I am beginning to learn the process.
Mr. STUDDS. I understand that minority counsel has one ques-
tion.
Mr. MARSHALL. Just one quick question to Mr. Anderson.
The whole subseabed program appears to rely very heavily on
mathematical modeling. Could you tell us how you plan on verify-
ing some of these models that you will be constructing?
Dr. ANDERSON. It is a very good question.
I will try.
Because we are talking of long periods of time, very much longer
than we will be able to continue an experiment, we have taken the
approach that we must use mathematical models which have the
best physics, chemistry, biology in them, and then verify those
through similar but accelerated tests.
The in-situ heat transfer experiment is the first of our verifica-
tion field programs. We plan to put a thermal source into the
bottom and then watch the development of the time temperature
profiles. These will be matched against the predictions. A similar
type of experiment can be carried out for each subsection of the
program. For example, the ion transport verification is also rela-
tively easy and quick because you can use ions that do not stick as
tightly as plutonium does. Remember it only moves four canister
lengths in 100,000 years. If you use something like chlorine, it will
move much more rapidly. So over a few years you can observe the
distance that it has moved. Understanding that you have the phys-
ics right, it then becomes a matter of putting in the appropriate
and correct parameters, and making the predictions.
PAGENO="0329"
323
We can check the physics, the permeability and such by using
the faster moving ions. We then have to make one assumption that
the absorption coefficient-the sticking coefficients-that we have
measured for something like plutonium are indeed correct. In 10
years, of course, the plutonium, if our calculations are correct, will
not have moved far enough for us to be able to see it.
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. I wish we could spend all afternoon.
This is fascinating. We are not used to witnesses who actually
know something. We are usually hearing from government agen-
cies, as you know.
So it has been most enlightening. I deeply appreciate it.
I particularly would like to spend the rest of the day on that
burp that you mentioned. I imagine that is a multimillenial burp?
Dr. HOLLISTER. Yes. That is a real problem: How does the sedi-
ment behave when it is heated up?
We don't know the answer to that.
But I am not afraid of not knowing that answer now. I am really
only afraid we won't have the time before the advocates move in or
the others move in and either close it off or open it up.
I think the option ought to at least survive through the feasibil-
ity before we close it down.
The nuclear waste is here now, even if we turned everything off.
That is what I am told. So, as a scientist I am trying to figure out
what to do with it in the most geologically sensible way I can.
Mr. STUDDS. It is pretty sobering to think that some of us may
have to make essentially political decisions on the basis of a pretty
awesome lack of knowledge.
our statement, of course, will be placed in the record in full.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson and Dr. Hollister fol-
lows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT BY D. RICHARD ANDERSON, PROGRAM MANAGER, SUBSEABED
DISPOSAL PROGRAM, SEABED PROGRAMS DIVISION 4536, SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATO-
RIES, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX., AND C. D. HOLLISTER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, DEAN OF
GRADUATE STUDIES, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, WOODS HOLE, MASS.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are pleased to be here today to
address the subject of the disposal of nuclear wastes by burial in the sea floor. We
will describe the activities of the Subseabed Disposal Program and some of the
salient points of the subseabed disposal option.
STRUCTURE
The Subseabed Disposal Program, or SDP, is charged with two major tasks (Fig.
1). The first is to assess the feasibility of using the deep sea sediments as a
repository for high level nuclear wastes or Spent fuel. The second is to develop the
ability to evaluate ocean disposal options considered or proposed by other nations.
The SDP does not consider dilution in ocean waters or dumping of canisters of
waste on the ocean floor as a viable disposal option for high level wastes. Rather, we
are investigating the feasibility of burying canisters of high level waste, or HLW, in
certain types of deep-sea sediments many tens of meters below the sediment surface
(Fig. 2).
Assuming that subeasbed disposal is found to be feasible, it still would be neces-
sary to demonstrate, before any disposal operation could begin, that the disposal
option can meet performance criteria established by the EPA to ensure the safety of
man. The major research efforts of the SDP at this time are to describe and
quantify the response of the canisters, the waste form, and the sediments to the
radiation and heat from high level waste or spent fuel. This research is divided into
a number of areas. (Fig. 3). specifically:
PAGENO="0330"
24
Site studies to investigate areas of the oceans which may have a predictable
geologic future and to determine the properties of the sediments in these areas This
is being done in cooperation with a number of nations.
Environmental studies to investigate the transport mechanisms, both physical
and biological by which nuclides could be transported back to man This research
includes studies of mixing rates in the ocean and an assessment of life in the deep
sea.
Multibarrier identification and quantification to investigate the natural and man
made barriers that could be interposed between buried wastes and mankind. This
includes material corrosion studies migration of nuchdes through sediments and
the physics and chemistry of a heat source in the sediments
Safety analyses to use all available information to predict the safety parameters
and the amount of environmental impact expected from all phases of the subseabed
program.
Emplacement of wastes in sediments transportation and social scientific issues
are all areas which will receive more attention in the future.
Much of the research in these areas done for the SDP is conducted by researchers
at major oceanographic institutions and universities in the United States. Selection
of researchers with established interest and expertise in areas important to the SDP
has permitted an efficient use of effort and funds. Other research is carried out at
various private and government-supported laboratories (Fig. 4).
The SDP work schedule is divided into four phases (Figs 5 and 6) Phase 1
completed in 1976, was the estimation of technical and environmental feasibility on
the basis of historical data Phase 2 to be completed about 1987 is the determina
tion of technical and environmental feasibility from newly acquired oceanographic
and effects data Phase 3 to be completed about 1995 is the determination of
engineering feasibility and legal and institutional acceptability Phase 4 to be
completed about 2010 is the demonstration of disposal facilities
At the end of each phase of the program, concept feasibility is assessed. This
assessment requires both internal and external review. At each of these reviews, a
comprehensive report will be prepared summarizing the results of that phase. If
results indicate that the subseabed disposal concept is unacceptable, the program
will be terminated and emphasis thereafter will be placed on demonstrating this
unacceptability to other nations which are considering using the seabed for HLW or
spent fuel disposal.
SOME PRELIMINARY RESULTS
High-level waste must be isolated from the biosphere for tens of. thousands of
years Since it is impossible to conduct experiments on this time scale it is neces
sary to construct models to predict the behavior of canisters and radioisotopes in the
sediments The models are developed by using a reiterative plan (Fig 7) that
requires them to pass a field verification test before they can be accepted
Research to date indicates that the highly absorptive nature of oceanic clays
provides an effective barrier to radioactive cations The results of predictions from a
model developed in the program indicate that plutonium would have migrated only
a few meters 100,000 years after emplacement (Fig. 8).
The models to predict nuclide migration must take into account the heat produced
by the waste. The heat production of the waste is the major complicating factor in
subseabed disposal. For a specific waste package, the temperature of the sediment
reaches a maximum shortly after emplacement, then begins to decrease (Fig. 9).
This heat curve points out that it is possible to do experiments, perhaps of 15 years'
duration during the worst case-highest temperature-time after emplacement A
related area of research concerns the resistance of sediment to movement induced
by the heat (Fig 10)
Corrosion experiments indicate that it will be possible to build containers that
will last longer than the thermal period of the waste (Fig 11) and that these
containers will not be excessively costly (Fig. 12). For the last ten years, oceanogra-
phers have had the technology to routinely drill in deep sea depths and the ability
to re-enter such holes. With this technology, we assume that canisters could be
retrieved if it were desirable.
These selected examples have yet to be verified in the field. Some technical
questions, such as canister retrievability, will have to await further engineering
studies for definitive answers. The research to date, however, seems to be promising.
WHY CONSIDER 5UB5EABED DISPOSAL
Areas of the ocean floor have a number of features that make them quite
attractive for technical reasons The seafloor and its covering of sediment is a very
simple geological environment. It is geologically young and has not undergone the
PAGENO="0331"
325
complex history of the continents We can observe the processes by which the sea
floor is being made, transported, and subducted in various areas; this allows us to
make sound predictions about the future of sites in the oceans.
The plastic sediments of the ocean floor are also without faults or fissures, and
can easily be studied with acoustic techniques. In the areas under consideration,
these sediments are uniform over wide areas. This simplicity greatly increases our
ability to make accurate models.
The ocean itself presents an unsurpassed barrier to human intrusion, whether
deliberate or accidental to the repository The areas of the sea floor under consider
ation are perhaps the least valuable property on the earth There is little reason for
anyone to visit the area.
The canisters could be placed individually or in stacks a few canisters high A
single disturbance, from whatever cause, should affect only one or a few canisters.
The remainder of the repository would not be jeopardized
The populations in the area floor under consideration are very sparse (Fig. 18).
The emplacement of canisters would temporarily disturb about 0.01 percent of the
disposal area.
For these reasons among others, the seabed is being considered for the disposal of
HLW by a number of nations which may lack suitable land-based areas available
for safe disposal of nuclear wastes. The SDP cooperates with these nations in an
international working group (Fig. 14) to share information and avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort.
SITE STUDIES
The ocean is clearly too immense for detailed study over large areas It is possible
to use existing data and exclusion criteria however to narrow down the oceans to
areas for detailed study. This process has led to the selection of midplate, mid-gyre
regions as the most promising for our studies.
The areas under consideration are away from plate boundaries where seismic
activity is concentrated (Fig. 15). They are away from the coastal regions, which
have productive waters where fishing activity is concentrated (Fig. 16) and which
may also have valuable hydrocarbon deposits or manganese nodule deposits having
high copper content (Fig. 17).
The low primary production in mid-gyre regions allows the deposition of sediment
types that provide the best barrier to nuclide migration. The sediments at locations
within these areas are uniform over a wide lateral extent. Cores from different
locations may have the same features even though their deposition rate may differ
(Fig 18) The mid gyre regions also provide areas of very stable environment which
are insensitive to global climatic changes (Fig 19) Locations have been found where
deposition has been continuous for many millions of years (Fig 20) and is most
unlikely to stop in the next million years Thus these areas of the ocean appear to
offer a predictable simple environment that is remote from man s activities
In summary we are cautiously optimistic about the possibilities for subseabed
disposal of high level wastes and spent fuel, in that to date we have not identified
anything which makes the concept infeasible.
PAGENO="0332"
326
Figure 1. Central Issues of the Subseabed Progran
Is Subseabed Disposal Of High Level Waste Or Spent Fuel
Feasible?
Are The Oceanic Disposal Programs Of Other Nations Acceptable?
KEY QUESTIONS
Is There A Set Of Natural And Man ~Made Barriers Which In
The Undisturbed State Satisfactorily Contain The Radionuclides?
C~n The Suitably Packaged Waste Be Safely Placed In A
Sedimentary Geologic Formation?
Are The Barriers Still Adequate After Intrusion?
HUMAN
UPTAKE
SEA
TRANSPORTATION
Ii ~_~__, ~
DOCK
I-
z
~7~TAND MASS
~ PHYSICAL &
OCEAN LU BIOLOGICAL
OCEAN-
a. OGRAPHY
`U
SEDIMENT FAR FIELD (30 - 100 m)
(Geok~gic
Confinement s NEAR FIELD (Heated Zone)
Medium) ~D ~~~`WASTE FORM & CANISTER
-
BASEMENT ROCK (Not to Scale)
Figure 2. Subseabed Disposal Concept
PAGENO="0333"
Figure 3. Subseabed Disposal Program Management Representative
Diagram
THEADQUARTERS -
DIVISION OF
WASTE ISOLATION
SANDIA LABORATOI~ES
_ _ _ I
SANDIA LABORATORIES SANDIA LABORATORIES ... FOR
TECHNICAL PROGRAM TECHNICAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
COORDINATOR FOR COORDINATOR FOR C, D, E, F, G
ACTIVITY A ACTIVITY B
PRINCIPAL 1 PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL
INVESTiGATORS INVESTIGATORS INVESTIGATORS
PAGENO="0334"
328
Figure 4. Program Participants
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
P. Dawson - MechanIcs
FlORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
G. Weatherly- Physical Ocaan~raphy
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
~* ~jpp Economics
A. Robinson - Physical Oceanography
LAMONT - DOHERTY GEO~OC I C kL OBSERVATORY
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
D. Hayes - Geophysics
R. Anderson- Geophysics
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECi~NOLOGY
J. Fdrrond - Ocean & Sediment Chemistry
J. Kil~ow . Legal/Political Aspects
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
C. R. Heath - Geochemistry
W. Pearcy - Biology
H. Herrrnann - Legal (Political Aspects
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
K. Bryan - Physical Oceanography
SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCE~NOCRAPHY
A. Yayanos - Biology
R. Hess/er - Biology
K. Smith - Bioiogy
P. Doyle - Core Dating
M. Mid/ins - Biology
F. Spiess - Engineering
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - BERKELEY
W. Houston - Geotechnical Properties
i. Mitchell - Geotechnical Properlies
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
W. Seylried - Geochemistry
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
i. Kelly - Legal IPolitical Aspects
UNIVERSITY. OF NEW MEXICO
F. Nuttall - Chemistry
UN1VERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
A. Driscoll - Ocean Engineering
F. La/ne - Geology
A. Silva - Geolechnical Properties
J. Knauss - Legal/Political Aspects
UNIVERSITY OF WASWINGTON
I. Taft - Physical Oceanography
P. Jumar - Bic!ogy
1. Ewart - Ocean Instrumentation
I.. Olson - Ocean Instrumentation
A B~o~eII - Physical Ocmanoeraohv
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
V. Schultz - Biology
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION
V. Bowen - Radiation Chemistry
C. lIollister - Physical Oceanography
B. Tucholke -
L. Armi - Physical Oceanography
P. Rhines - Physical Oceanography
F. Sayles - Geochemistry
ARGONNE NATIOi~L LABORATORIES
S. Fried - Chemistry
A. Friedman - Chemistry
BATTELLE NORTH~VEST LABORATORIES
E. Foster Mechanical Engineering
W. Templeton - Radiation Biology
CIVIL SYSTEMS, INC.
P. Dzwilewski - Geotcchnical Modeling
R. McCurly - Geotechnical Modeling
CONCEPTS DEVELOPME,J!.~
0. jackson - Biology
TH~ ANAL~Tlc lENC~ CORPOR~T~9~
C. Koplik - Risk Anaysis
URBAN SYST~MS RrSEARCH AND ENCINETRING
-.._r *~______~__ .~
El. Deese - Legal I Po~itica! Aspects
WATERWAYS r%PEPIMENT STATION
B. Rohani - Geotechnical Properties
DOE IECT
El. C. Boyer
OTHER
E. W. Johnson IMRCI
D. S. Smith (EPA)
A. Malahoff iNOAAI
R. Bennett INOAAI
SANDIA LABO°ATORIES
D. R. Anderson - Program Manapement
L. Brush - Hydrothermal Geochemistry
L S. Gomez - Radiation Biology
R. D. Klett - Systems Engineering
J. Lipkin - Material Properties
C. M. Percival . Mechanical Engineering
D. M. Taibert Emplacement Stud~es
D. G. McVey . Heat Transfer
M. G. Marietta . Applied Mode/ing
J. 1. Krumhansl H~drcthermal Geochemistry
K. 1. Erickson - Chemistry
1. Abrego - Metallurgy
N. J. Magran - Meta~/urgy
C. H. Karnes - Mecha~ico
M. Neusom - Emplacement Studies
..M.5SctiieSS Emoiac,rnent Sludies
PAGENO="0335"
All Units Of System Model Made Operational
All Properties Bracketed But Not Verified
Verification Tests Completed On Certain Property And Model
Units
At Least One Site I n Each Of The Northern Atlantic And
Pacific Oceans Identified And Initially Characterized
Technical And Environmental Feasibility Document Prepared
ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY
All Units Of The System Model Developed And Verified
All Properties Verified
Several Sites In The Atlantic And Pacific Oceans Identified
And Characterized
Engineering Feasibility Document Completed And Reviewed
Long -Term In - Situ Experiments I nitiated
Conceptual Design Completed
National And International Legal And Political Positions
Established
Draft Environmental I mpact Statement Written And Reviewed,
And License Application Submitted
Gate 4: DEMONSTRATION OF DISPOSAL CAPABILITY
Title I And Title II Designs Completed
License Or Permit Received
Dock And Ship Built And Tested
Land Transportation Network Made Operational
Monitoring Network Developed
329
Figure 5. Tasks Required to Pass Go/No Go Gates for Each Phase
Gate 1 IBILITY ASSESSMENT FROM H~J~RICAL DATA (Completed)
Gate 2: TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY
Gate 3:
PAGENO="0336"
Figure 6. ProgrammatiC ~ctivity Chart
ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPH
TRANSPORTATION
LAND
SEA
PORT FACILITIES
STORAGE
SITE STUDIES
NORTHERN OCEANS
SOUTHERN OCEANS
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
1' J ONESITE
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
1994 1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 ~00
CHARACTERIZATIONJ,
MODEL DEVELOPMENT PREDICTION FIELDIESTS
INITIAL PROPERTY BRACKETING 4' DETU~ILEDPROPERTY ACQUISITION
SEVERALSITES
PREDICTIONS
I A
SITE MONITORING
)
-~-.~-
MODEL DEVELOPMENT PREDICTION
J I
MULTIBARRIER
QUANTIFICATION
CANISTER
WASTE FORM
SEDIMENT NEAR FIELD
SEDIMENT FAR-FIELD
SOCIAL/SCIENTIFIC
EMPLACEMENT
RISE ASSESSMENT
PREDICTIONS
PROPERTY DEVUISIYIUTI ~___~j
MODEL DEVELOPMENT PREDICTION PREDICTIONS
INITIAL PROPERTY BRACKETING 4- DETAILED PROPERTY ACQUISITION J ~ -
MODEL DEVELOPMENT PREDICTION FIELDTESTS CONTINUE
`I' DETAILED PROPERTY ACQUISITION
CONTINUE
CONTiNUE
CONTINUE
ESTABLISH NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL POSITION
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
TITLE I(S)
1' DET)
LED PROPERTY ACQUISITION
CA~
0
CONSTRUCTION
PAGENO="0337"
331
Figure 7. Peuearch Approach
Figure 8 Plutonium Concentration in the Sediment at 100,000
69-8'o8 0 - 81 - 22
PAGENO="0338"
TIME (Years)
200
Surface R0.15m
332
0
0
LU
I-
LU
a.
LU
I-
0 10
40
Figure 9. Temperature at Seven Locations Radially Outward from
Center of Canister as a Function of Time
PAGENO="0339"
333
NOTE:
1 KW OF 10 YEAR COOLED UO2 (21 KW/M3) HAS D = 17.8"
1 KW OF 10 YEAR COOLED U02/PU (49 KW/M3) HAS D = 13.2"
`~35O CM
o
z
W
w
0
~32CM
C/)
1~~~ -I
DECAYING SOURCE INITIALLY AT 1 KW]
><
~10-
I I
1 10 100 1000
TIME, YEARS
Figure 10. Maximum Vertical Displacement of a Water Molecule
with Initial Position Directly Above the Cask
PAGENO="0340"
334
Deoxygenated ~ Oxygenated ~
1018 Stee' ~ -~
Corten-A ________________________________
Copper
Lead
Ebrite 26-1 ~ I
MoneI400 ~ I
Haste'~oy C-276 ~
Ticodel2
.0001 .001 .01 .1 1 I'O
Figure 11. Corrosion Bates (mm/yr) in 25O~ Brine
Figure 12. Relative Overpack Costs
lyr 2syrs 300 yrs
A36 Steel 0.3 7 83
Lead 0.3* 5 64
90-10 CuNi 0.7* 4 52
Ebrite 26-1 0.6* 3 28
Ticode 12 1~ 1* 1*
* minimum 1.6 mm wall assumed
- inundated, oxidizing, 250°C brine corrosion data used
PAGENO="0341"
* °` ~ ~
~
-,%-~*,Thtn
m ~
C) I>
~ ~1c ~ iz
~ ~C)
0
D C) ~ 1'I~
~ ~ C)t~
0
~ I!
~ C) > ~
Dc
~> !~
I-~
m 0
z
Ii
~
I I
>
-
C) > ~rn
.v~
~
m>> ~>.,,
Fo zm
c
~ m
-4 -<
-4 I -n
C)
-4 - in
C)
C)
in
-4
C) Z
C) ~
C)>
-~ C)
-4
C)
z
0
>
C
C)
(D
cc z *e'~
tiI~ m
c~P'
C,
I
CA~
C.)'
>Om>~~ 0
rr->.250mg C/m2/doy
336
900 1200 thOm
PAGENO="0343"
FERROMANGANESE DEPOSITS
PACIFIC OCEAN
~cK~cONT/
337
52
. .. H
NORTH
AMERICA
* *** ;~
*.I. L * ? .RS *.*~
..~ ~?.` . ~ . S..
.... .. *
tI~,
. :~ *
** .
*** *.*
a
Figure 17. Nickel Content of
Pacific Ocean
Ferromanganese Deposits of the
PAGENO="0344"
Figure 18. Uniformity Between Cores from Different Locations
10
COREl /CORE 2~l.4
~ BUFF/ BROWN COLOR CHANGE
*NRM MAXIMUM
A ASH BED
w
cc
0
0
LL3
0
I-
Q.1
w
8
6
5
4
C
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DEPTH OF CORE 2
COREl
CORE 2
PAGENO="0345"
120 50
180
0*
60
30
60
Fianre 19. Climatically Stable Environments
PAGENO="0346"
* AGE (MILLION YEARS~ *.
Co
C
PAGENO="0347"
341
Mr STUDDS The subcommittee will resume at 2 o'clock
[Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed for lunch at 1 05 p m, to
reconvene at 2 p ml
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee will resume.
Our first witnesses are from the Environmental Protection
Agency-Dr Roger J Mattson, Director of Surveillance and Emer
gency Preparedness Division, Office of Radiation Programs, Envi
ronmental Protection Agency, and Mr Robert S Dyer, Senior Staff
Oceanographer, from the same office
As I understand it, Dr Mattson, you have a presentation to
make, and then Mr Dyer has a slide presentation?
Dr MATTSON We both have prepared testimony
Mr Dyer's presentation involves a slide presentation
He will summarize his testimony as he shows the slides
Mr STUDDS Yes
If you could summarize it, we would appreciate it
The full text will appear, of course, in the record
STATEMENT OF DR ROGER J MATTSON, DIRECTOR, SURVEIL
LANCE AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION OFFICE
OF RADIATION PROGRAMS U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
TION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT S DYER, SENIOR
STAFF OCEANOGRAPHER OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS,
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. MATTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe what we know
about the past ocean disposal of radioactive materials, to comment
on some international aspects of this waste management practice,
to consider the question of disposing of high level radioactive
wastes in the ocean, and to describe actions now underway with
respect to monitoring low level radioactive waste dumpsites
With me today is Mr Robert Dyer, the senior oceanographer on
my staff He will follow my testimony and summarize the dumpsite
survey activities
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The problem of what to do with radioactive waste came with the
advent of nuclear research and weapons technology in the 1940's
There were several kinds of waste generated in these activities Sea
disposal was used for the more dilute concentrations of these
wastes, that is the so called low level radioactive wastes Sea dispos
al began in 1946 under the licensing and contracting authority of
the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
In 1960 the AEC stopped issuing new licenses for sea disposal of
low-level wastes and made land burial facilities available at Oak
Ridge, Tenn., and Idaho Falls, Idaho, for its contractors and licens-
ees. In 1962, AEC licensed the first commercial land burial facility
in Beatty, Nev. After 1962 most low-level radioactive wastes were
disposed of at land burial sites, primarily because of the lower
costs. Between 1962 and 1970 sea disposal of nuclear waste was
little used, and in 1970 it was stopped completely
PAGENO="0348"
342
Although the materials dumped in the ocean were considered to
be low-level waste, they were not harmless and were given special
attention in their handling and transport. However, since these
materials were of little or no value, good records of their quantities
and isotopic composition were not maintained. Additionally, there
is some uncertainty about the location of some dumpsites because
of navigation inaccuracies.
Between 1946 and 1970 the United States dumped approximately
89,500 containers with an estimated radioactivity content of 94,600
curies. Our review of available documents indicates that four
dumpsites, out of a total of more than 37 reported dumpsite areas,
received between 95 and 98 percent of all the radioactivity dumped.
Three of these sites are in the Atlantic: One is in Massachusetts
Bay, another one is about 120 miles off the Maryland-Delaware
coast, and another site is about 200 miles off the Maryland-Dela-
ware coast. The fourth dumpsite area that received large quantities
of radioactivity is near the Farallon Islands at a distance of more
than 40 miles offshore from San Francisco, Calif. It now appears
that this large Pacific dumpsite is an area in excess of 500 square
miles and it contains several reported radioactive waste disposal
locations. Further details concerning the dumpsites and other in-
formation on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive wastes are
provided in the factsheet I have appended to this testimony. It is
an updated version of a factsheet we previously have made availa-
ble.
UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS
I would like to talk a little about the controls or laws that govern
ocean disposal.
Prior to 1970, the ocean disposal of radioactive material was
under the control of the AEC. In 1970, the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality (CEQ) issued a report to the President calling for a
national policy on ocean dumping. It recommended a continuing
prohibition on the dumping of high-level radioactive waste in the
ocean. It further stated that "dumping other radioactive materials
in the ocean would be prohibited except in a very few cases for
which no practical alternative offers less risk to man and his
environment." This concept has governed the U.S. policy on this
matter for the last decade.
In December 1971 the AEC amended its regulations (10 CFR,
part 20.302) to reflect the CEQ proposals regarding sea disposal,
and they still read as follows:
The Commission will not approve any application for a license for disposal of
licensed material at sea unless the applicant shows that sea disposal offers less
harm to man or the environment than other practical alternative methods of
disposal.
In 1972 Congress passed Public Law 92-532, the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, commonly called the Ocean
Dumping Act. It prohibited the dumping of high-level radioactive
waste and radiological warfare agents. The act is administered by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all materials not
specifically prohibited from ocean disposal are subject to our
permit review authority. Low-level radioactive wastes are one ex-
ample of such materials.
PAGENO="0349"
343
In 1973, pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act, EPA issued broad
policy guidance in the form of regulations (40 CFR, chapter I,
subchapter H, part 227) regarding sea disposal of low level radioac-
tive waste. The basic requirements in those regulations were isola-
tion and containment of the radioactive isotopes to prevent their
direct dispersion and dilution in ocean waters. The regulations also
required that the containment system function until the radio-
decay of the waste to innocuous levels. These same requirements
were contained in EPA's revised regulations in 1977. These require-
ments are intended to reduce the risk to man and the marine
environment from any future ocean disposal practice. Although
special containers, such as steel drums with concrete caps, were
used in the earlier U.S. sea disposal operations, there was neither a
requirement nor an expectation that the material would remain in
the drums. The material was expected to be released eventually as
the drums and the concrete within them deteriorated.
In 1972 the international convention on the prevention of marine
pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter was developed.
This is the so-called London Dumping Convention. It was ratified
by the United States in 1974, and it came into force in 1975. It now
has been ratified by 32 nations with accessions by another 14
nations. This convention provided for the first international control
over sea disposal of radioactive waste. In the convention the Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency is designated as the responsible
body for developing the specific technical requirements and defini-
tions. Within the text of this convention there is a specific prohibi-
tion on the sea disposal of high-level radioactive waste or other
high-level radioactive matter, as these terms are defined by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE OCEANS
You have asked us to consider the question of disposing of high-
level radioactive waste in the ocean-be it on or in the sea floor. It
is EPA's opinion that use of the ocean for the disposal of high-level
radioactive waste is currently prohibited, both under the proscribed
activities of the Ocean Dumping Act-Public Law 92-532-and the
dictates of the London Dumping Convention. With your permission,
I would like to submit for the record copies of internal EPA docu-
ments describing the basis for our opinions on sea disposal of high-
level waste.
Mr. STUDDS. Fine.
They will be placed in the record.
[The documents referred to follow:]
PAGENO="0350"
FROM : James A. Rogers
Assistant General Counsel
Water Quality Division (A-l3l)
SUBJECT: Application of the Ocean Dumping.Act to
Seabed Emplacement of Radioactive Wastes
~ou have asked me whether the terminal storage of
radioactive wastes by deep sea bed emplacements would
be covered by the Marine Protection Research and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
The placement in the ocean floor of devices containing
such w~istes clearly falls within the purview of this Act.
Assuming that the radioactive wastes are not "high
level' (for which no dumping is allowed*) they explicitly
fall within the definition of material~ for which an
ocean dumping permit is required See sec 3(c) 33
U S C 1402~(c) Ardonly when devices containing wmtes
are placed on or in submerged lands for a purpose other
than disposal and the placement is otherwise regulated
by Federal or State law or is conducted pursuant to an
authorized Federal or State program may the activity
be exempted from coverage of the Act Sec 3(f) 33 U S C
1402(f) Even were the deep sea bed emplacement to be
conducted puisuant to a State or Federal program it is
unlikely this activity could be considered as other than
a disposal operation.
Of cçurse, that this activity falls within the cov-
erage of this Act does not mean it cannot take place it
means only that the procedures and safeguards implicit in
the Act must be followed and that an FPA permit must be
obtained before such emplacement can begin
344
~ UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENtAL PROTECTION AGENCY
e1 / . WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
~t
May 10, 1976
OFF ICF..OF
GENERAL COUN~CL
MEMORANDUM
TO Dr William D Rowe
Deputy. Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
James A. Rogers
~Sec. 102 (~5T~TiLS . C. 1412(a).
PAGENO="0351"
345
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 2~ ISBJ
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Deep Seabed Emplacement of Bigh Level
Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean Dumping
Convention--Your Request for Opinion
FROM: Michele Beigel Corash
General Counsel (A-13O) VV)(,.,,,,
TO: Dr. Donald Oakley
Acting Director
Office of International Activities (A-106)
~ckardt C. Beck
Assistant Administrator for Water
and Waste Management (WH-.556)
This responds to your request for a legal opinion as to
whether the London Ocean Dumping Convention (Convention on
the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter) prohibits the deep seabed emplacement of high
level radioactive wastes The import of the question is
that emplacement of containerized high level radioactive
wastes in stable seabed sediments is emerging as.a possible
technological option for disposal of such wastes.
Conclusion
While the language of the convention is ambiguous, the
better view would seem to be that the convention prohibits
the deep seabed emplacenent of high level radioactive wastes
Discussion
Under the London Ocean Dumping ConVention, the contracting
parties undertake to prevent marine pollution caused by dumping
Art. II. To that end, they agree to prohibit the dumping of
any wastes or other matter listed in Annex I and to regulate
with permits all other dumping. Art. IV. Annex I lists mat-
erials as to which dumping is prohibited (except when present
only as trace contaminants). The list. includes:
_o ~
High-level radio-active wastes or other high-
level radio-active matter defined on public health
PAGENO="0352"
346
biological or other grounds, by the competent inter-
national body in this field, at present the Inter~
national Atomic Energy Agency, as unsuitable for
dumping at sea.
The Convention's definitions are contained in Article III.
The term "dumping" is defined, in relevant part, as follows:
1. (a) "Dumping" means:
(i) any deliberate disposal at sea of wastøs
or other matter from vesièls, aircraft, platforms
or other man-made structures at sea:
(b) "Dumping" does not include:
(ii) placement of matter for a purpose other
than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such
placement is not contrary to the aims of this
Conveiitiom. (Emphasis added.)
It is apparent that the Convention regulates deep seabed
emplacement of radioactive wastes if the wastes are defined
as "high-level" by the appropriate international body and if
emplacement constitutes "disposal at sea." This discussion
will assume that the wastes in question are "high-level."
On the second question, you have properly observed that the
phrase "at sea" could refer either to the location of the
disposing party, and thereby include disposal from a vessel
"at sea' by emplacememt.,of.WaStes beneath the ocean floor,
or to the actual disposal into ocean waters, which would
include disposal down to~to but not below the seabed. The
language of the Convention does not resolve this ambiguity;
hence, it is not clear from the actual terms of th~~QflE~L
tion
the parties' agreement.. . . .
I have been advised that the issue has not been formally
discussed at meetings pursuant to the Convention and that
informal discussions suggest that the parties probably would
not agree on the interpretation of "at sea" in this context.
Several parties reportedly have stated that they would regard
deep seabed emplacement as a violation of the Convention, but
PAGENO="0353"
347
these may be parties having no need of a radioactive waste
disposal alternative. Other parties, faced with the problem,
may interpret the Convention more permissively.
In 1976, the House Subcomxnitttee on. Energy and the
Environment, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,,held
oversight hearings on Radiological Contamination of the Oceans.
Serial No. 94-69 (1977). Subcommittee Chairman Morris K. Udall
requested various agencies to state their views of the legal
status of disposing of high level radioactive wastes upon~
or under the ocean bottom. The responding agencies were èf
various views.
The Department of State concluded that disposal upon the
ocean bottom falls within the Conventions prohibition, and
disposal under the ocean bottom would be prohibited if it
poses a threat of pollution to the marine environment. 1/
The Energy Research and Development Administration determined
that "dumping" under the Convention can be interpreted as
including deep seabed emplacement. 2/ EPA's response was
limited to legality under domestic Taw, concluding that
emplacement is barred by the Ocean Dumping Act. 3/
Finally, David A. Deese, associated with the Woods Hole
oceanographic Institution, wrote that in his opinion customary
international law clearly prohibits any form of high-level
radioactive waste disposal upon the sea bottom by all countries,
but the legality of disposal under the ocean bottom requires
additional investigation. 4/ Mr. Deese noted the ambiguity
of the Convention's Nat sea" phrase in the definition of
"dumping." He tentatively suggested that the parties contem-
plated only that "at sea" referred to dumping where early
1/ Letter from Kempton B..~ Jenkins, Acting Assistant
Secretary `of Congressional Relations, Department of State,
Nov. 16, 1976, Serial No. 94-69 at 798-799.
2/ Letter from Stephen H. Greenleigh, Assistant General . *.~*`
~ounse]. for. Pr.ogran Deve1opment,~ ERflk,. Aug. 4, L976 ~. Serial.
No. 94-69 at 816-817.
3/ Letter from Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air
~nd Waste Management, Sept. 10, 1976,' Serial No. 94-69 at
800.
4/ Letter from. Da.vid A. Deese, Marine Policy and Ocean
Management, Sept. 30, ~l976, Serial No. 94-69 at 820-823.
69~8i~8 0 - 81 - 23
PAGENO="0354"
348
interaction of wastes with the water column might be expected. 5/
However, he acknowledged that additional study of that con-
clusion was appropriate.
While the Convention does not expressly encompass *
pollution below the seabed, the Convention~s introductory
statement of reasons for the parties' agreement recites that
the parties were:
Recalling Resolution 2749 (XXV) of the General
Assembly of the United Nations on the principles
governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor and the
subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national.
jurisdiction.
The UN resolution, "Declaration of Principles Governing the
Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil Thereof, beyond
the Limits of National Jurisdiction," states:
11. With respect to activities in the area [the
sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof,
beyond the limits of national )urisdlction] and
acting in conformity with the international regime
to be established, States shall take appropriate
measures for and shall co-operate in the adoption
and implementation of international rules standards
and procedures for inter ~
(a) The prevention of pollution and contamina-
tion, and other hazards to the marine environment,
including the coastline, and of interference with the
ecological balance of the marine environment;
(b) The protection and conservation of the
natural resources of the area and the prevention of
damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environ-
ment.
These provisions contain no explicit limitations on parties'
conduct with respect to the subsoil, but the Convention refer-
ence to the U~r resolution does indicate that the Convention
parties felt some concern with possible pollution of the
subsoil, at least as that pollution could impact the marine
environment. ~. . . ,..
5/ See Deese, "Law of the Sea and High Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal: A Potential Geologic Optiom under the
Deep Seabed?" at 40, Serial 94-69, 823 at 868.
PAGENO="0355"
349
The Convention's definition of dumping excludes the
placement of matter for a purpose other than disposal,
unless the placement is "contrary to the aims of this Con-
vention." A "placement" is therefore "dumping" whether or
not its purpose is disposal, when it is "contrary to the
aims" of the Convention. Thus, seabed emplacement of radio-
active materials, even if undertaken for' storage rather"
than disposal, is prohibited if the emplacememt could lead
to contamination of the ocean.
To determine whether the parties intended to bar su1~soil
emplacement, either directly or in order to protect .the marine
environment, it would be appropriate to consider the extent
to which subsoil emplacement poses a hazard to the environment
upwards of the ocean floor which the parties may have seen fit
to regulate. However, that hazard cannot be confidently
assessed. Proponents of the disposal would argue that the
high-level radioactive wastes can be safely isolated in con-
tainers placed in geologically stable formations below the
ocean floor. Opponents would counter that the radioactivity
hazard will last roughly a million years and that it is. impos-
sible to assure the safety of these irretrievable containers
over that period of time.
In light of the Convention s ambiguity and the poten-
tial importance of the issue it seems likely that a final
decision on the question will be determined politically
Nevertheless, the better view is that the Convention does
cover the activity. The implicit purpose or "aim" of the
London Ocean Dumping' Convention is to control all sources
of pollution of the marine environment. See Art. I. The
Convention can best implement that aim if the phrase "at sea"
in the definition of dumping is interpreted as covering any
disposalinto or below the ocean waters from a source located
at sea. That interpretation is consistent with the UN re-
solution on the seabed and subsoil and with the definition
of dumping which includes any deliberate placement contrary
to the aims of the Convention If the parties decide in the
future to reverse this interpretation as the technological
considerations become clearer they may of course do so by
explicit agreement In the interim maximum protection of
the marine environment from this uncertain hazard is
assured
PAGENO="0356"
350
Dr. MATTSON. Today we have no program underway for high-
level radioactive waste disposal in the ocean. We are aware that
the Department of Energy (DOE) over the past few years has
developed a program to evaluate the technical and scientific feasi-~
bility of the seabed emplacement of high-level radioactive waste.
We receive published information from the DOE program and par-
ticipate in informal information exchanges from time to time. The
scientific research performed under the DOE program is of high
caliber and provides some useful information for our own studies,
and our cognizance of the program helps to avoid duplication of
efforts.
SURVEYS OF OLD U.S. DUMPSITES
Turning now to our surveys of the old U.S. dumpsites, with the
passage of the Ocean Dumping Act, the EPA launched a technical
program to understand the effects of past radioactive waste dump-
ing practices. The program was designed to reflect what we see as
both active and passive roles for EPA under the act. That is, we
must develop the regulatory framework for evaluating permits for
ocean disposal of radioactive waste, we must evaluate ocean dispos-
al relative to other methods of disposal such as shallow land burial,
and we must impartially evaluate individual permit requests based
on the best available scientific information. With all of these roles
in mind we began a series of dumpsite survey operations in 1974.
The results of our site-specific dumpsite survey program have
been described in other congressional bearings, including one held
by this subcommittee in May 1978. At that time we provided de-
tails of our surveys through 1977. And Mr. Dyer will provide you
with technical details of our most recent survey in July of 1978
which was conducted shortly after your previous hearing on nucle-
ar waste disposal.
These surveys and the contractor and agency reports which re-
sulted from them are the beginnings of the technical data base for
our development of a regulatory program for any future dumping
of low-level wastes. This information will, in part, provide the basis
for improving the criteria used to pick dumpsites, the criteria for
packaging systems for isolation of the radioactive materials, and
the criteria for dumpsite monitoring.
MONITORING OF U.S. DUMPSITES
As you are aware, there has been recent controversy about the
need for additional monitoring to assure public safety from expo-
sure to radiation from the abandoned waste dumpsites.
Last month, October 1980, we had the opportunity to appear
before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Oper-
ations to talk specifically about the Farallon Islands and public
health. Three issues arose in those hearings, as follows:
One, the problem of obtaining and assessing the records of past
disposal operations;
Two, the public health impact, if any, indicated by EPA surveys;
and
Three, the need for future monitoring of existing dumpsites.
PAGENO="0357"
351
On the public health question, our position has been clear for
some time. That is, although EPA does not recommend the past
dumping practices and would not permit those activities to be done
the same way today, our preliminary evaluation of their environ-
mental consequences indicates no harm to man or the marine
environment. It should be clearly recognized, however, that the
information we have collected is not encyclopedic. It does represent
a pioneering first step in developing general monitoring programs
for both abandoned and active dumpsites, but more information is
desirable from a scientific and a public health point of view.
In the view of your subcommittee's previous interest in the moni-
toring of low-level radioactive waste dumpsites, I would like to
provide you with some ideas that have evolved since the hearings
in California.
A first point on which we are making progress is understanding
the various kinds of monitoring that may need to be performed. We
see three, and eventually four, basic kinds of monitoring that need
to be considered. The first I shall call marketplace monitoring. It is
designed to address the public concern about the possibility of
elevated radiation in food. It consists of periodic radioactivity meas-
urements of fish and other seafood bought and eaten by the gener-
al public in areas near manmade sources of radiation. This assures
that there are no significant quantities of radioactivity reaching
man.
The second type of monitoring I will call dumpsite monitoring. In
this type of monitoring, samples of water, bottom sediment, edible
marine organisms, and other biological species are collected to
examine the distribution of radioactivity in marine species in and
near a dumpsite. Such monitoring indicates how the waste materi-
al might be transported physically and biologically from the site
and potentially to man. A third type of monitoring deals with the
general distribution of radioactivity in the oceans; that is, radioac-
tivity from natural sources, fallout from nuclear weapons testing,
and radioactivity from other activities of man. This monitoring we
could call general marine environmental assessment monitoring, or
simply baseline monitoring. Baseline monitoring is particularly im-
portant to provide information about the normal or ambient con-
centrations of marine radioactivity against which to measure the
impact of any future radioactive waste dumping. It is also impor-
tant because it provides fundamental data about the marine food
chain. A fourth type of monitoring is compliance monitoring. This
is primarily a regulatory activity performed after dumping has
occurred to verify that regulatory requirements have been met.
It is my view that marketplace, dumpsite, and baseline monitor-
ing should all be done. I am not optimistic that we at EPA can
undertake monitoring to assure public safety while still maintain-
ing progress on the development of regulations to control any
future disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
The latter area, of course, being the concentration of our activi-
ties in the past.
If progress is to be made on both of these fronts, it probably will
require a strong cooperative interagency program that pools the
capabilities and expertise of the cognizant Federal agencies.
PAGENO="0358"
352
During the past month, discussions about future monitoring and
monitoring strategies have intensified. Both NOAA and EPA are
committed to developing a monitoring strategy, and high priority is
being given to the development of a concise, mutually agreeable,
statement of purposes and costs for the ocean monitoring of radio-
active materials. The legislative basis for these efforts is the Ocean
Dumping Act where the responsibilities of EPA and NOAA are
described in title I and title II, respectively In areas where we
don't have resources, we will seek more through our normal budge
tary process.
An effort of this magnitude will require the assistance of other
agencies as well. Federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug
Administration, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), and States, such as California and
perhaps Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware, would likely
have an interest. At this time, the NRC and DOE are providing us
with their records on past dumping operations and locations to
assess whether other sites, in addition to the sites we have already
surveyed, may have substantial quantities of radioactive waste. We
have also asked the Department of Defense to determine whether
it has additional information.
INTERNATIONAL MONITORING
In addition to our work on U.S. dumpsite monitoring, we have
for some years encouraged and are participating in the develop-
ment of an international ocean dumpsite monitoring plan.
You have heard it described earlier today.
An effort to develop a plan was initiated by the International
Atomic Energy Agency in 1978 pursuant to its responsibilities
under the London Dumping Convention In addition, the Interna
tional Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) established an international consultation and surveillance
mechanism for sea dumping of radioactive waste to provide guid
ance to its member countries. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
of the OECD administers this consultation and surveillance mecha-
nism for the dumping by some European nations of low-level
nuclear waste into a site in the Northeast Atlantic.
In addition to participating in the development of the interna-
tional monitoring plan for the Northeast Atlantic dumpsite, we
have agreed to contribute to its implementation At present, we are
waiting to see what gaps in technical expertise may be identified so
that we might recommend U S participants or EPA technical as
sistance where most needed Participation in this monitoring activ
ity will assist us by supplying valuable information about an ac-
tively used site, at minimum cost, to expand our data base for
evaluating this sea disposal option for the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
EPA has a program for achieving several objectives by 1985.
They are as follows:
One, evaluation of ocean dumping as an option for disposal of
low-level radioactive waste.
PAGENO="0359"
353
Two, development of regulations to control any future dumping
of radioactive wastes.
Three, development of criteria for (a) selection of ocean dump-
sites, (b) packaging of radioactive wastes, and (c) compliance moni-
toring.
Four, development of a program for evaluating requests to EPA
for permits to conduct ocean dumping of low level radioactive
waste
To meet these objectives, EPA plans to conduct research and
monitoring similar to previous EPA dumpsite surveys Additional
monitoring to further evaluate the safety of past ocean dumping
and to establish certain useful baseline data also seems desirable,
although such monitoring is presently beyond the scope of EPA's
resources. We are developing plans with NOAA for cooperative
research and monitoring to meet our regulatory purposes and these
other purposes. As a part of this effort we are studying options for
pooling of existing resources and determining what additional re-
sources need to be requested.
With that brief summary of our program, I will turn to Mr
Robert Dyer, who will provide the details of the most recent dump
site survey conducted in 1978
He will also synthesize some of the findings and implications
from our surveys of 1974 through 1978.
[The prepared statement of Roger J. Mattson, in full, follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER J. MATTSON, DIRECTOR, SURVEILLANCE AND EMER-
GENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION, OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS, U.S. ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee; I am Roger Mattson, Director
of the Surveillance and Emergency Preparedness Division of EPA's Office of Radi-
ation Programs I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe what we know
about the past ocean disposal of radioactive materials to comment on some interna
tional aspects of this waste management practice to consider the question of dispos
ing of high level radioactive wastes in the ocean and to describe actions now
underway with respect to monitoring low-level radioactive waste dumpsites. With
me today is Robert S. Dyer, the senior oceanographer on my staff. Following my
testimony he will summarize our dumpsite survey activities.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The problem of what to do with radioactive waste came with the advent of
nuclear research and weapons technology in the 1940's. There were several kinds of
waste generated in these activities Sea disposal was used for the more dilute
concentrations of these wastes that is the so called low level radioactive wastes
Sea disposal began in 1946 under the licensing and contracting authority of the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
In 1960 the AEC stopped issuing new licenses for sea disposal of low level wastes
and made land burial facilities available at Oak Ridge Tennessee and Idaho Falls
Idaho for its contractors and licensees In 1962 AEC licensed the first commerical
land burial facility in Beatty, Nevada. After 1962 most low-level radioactive wastes
were disposed of at land burial sites, primarily because of the lower costs. Between
1962 and 1970 sea disposal of nuclear waste was little used, and in 1970 it was
stopped completely.
Although the materials dumped in the ocean were considered to be low-level
waste, they were not harmless and were given special attention in their handling
and transport. However, since these materials were of little or no value, good
records of their quantities and isotopic composition were not maintained. Addition-
ally there is some uncertainty about the location of some dumpsites because of
navigation inaccurancies
Between 1946 and 1970 the U S dumped approximately 89 500 containers with an
estimated radioactivity of 94 600 Curies Our review of available documents mdi
cates that four dumpsites out of a total of more than thirty seven reported dump
PAGENO="0360"
354
site areas, received between 95 and 98 percent of all the radioactivity dumped.
Three of these sites are in the Atlantic: one is in Massachusetts Bay, another one is
about 120 miles off the Maryland-Delaware Coast, and another site is about 200
miles off the Maryland-Delaware Coast. The fourth dumpsite area that received
large quantities of radioactivity is near the Farallon Islands at a distane of more
than forty miles offshore from San Francisco, California. It now appears that this
large Pacific dumpsite is an area in excess of 500 square miles and that it contains
several reported radioactive waste disposal locations. Further details concerning the
dumpsites and other information on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive wastes
are provided in the Fact Sheet I have appended to this testimony. It is an updated
version of a Fact Sheet we previously have made available.
UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS
Prior to 1970, the ocean disposal of radioactive material was under the control of
the AEC. In 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a report to
the President calling for a national policy on ocean dumping. It recommended a
continuing prohibition on the dumping of high-level radioactive waste in the ocean.
It further stated that "Dumping other radioactive materials in the ocean would be
prohibited except in a very few cases for which no practical alternative offers less
risk to man and his environment." This concept has governed the U.S. policy on this
matter for the last decade.
In December 1971 the AEC amended its regulations (10 CFR Part 20.302) to
reflect the CEQ proposals regarding sea disposal, as follows: "The Commission will
not approve any application for a license for disposal of licensed material at sea
unless the applicant shows that sea disposal offers less harm to man or the environ-
ment than other practical alternative methods of disposal."
In 1972 Congress passed Public Law 92-532, the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sauctuaries Act, commonly called the "Ocean Dumping Act." It prohibited the
dumping of high-level radioactive waste and radiological warfare agents. The Act is
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all materials not
specifically prohibited from ocean disposal are subject to its permit review authori-
ty. Low-level radioactive wastes are one example of such materials.
In 1973, pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act, EPA issued broad policy guidance
in the form of regulations (40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H, Part 227) regarding sea
disposal of low level radioactive waste. The basic requirements in those regulations
were isolation and containment of the radioactive isotopes to prevent their direct
dispersion and dilution in ocean waters. The regulations also required that the
containment system function until the radiodecay of the waste to innocuous levels.
These same requirements were contained in EPA's revised regulations in 1977.
These requirements are intended to reduce the risk to man and the marine environ-
ment from any future ocean disposal practice. Although special containers, such as
steel drums with concrete caps, were used in the earlier U.S. sea disposal oper-
ations, there was neither a requirement nor an expectation that the material would
remain in the drums. The material was expected to be released eventually as the
drums and the concrete deteriorated.
In 1972 the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and other Matter was developed. This is the so called London
Dumping Convention. It was ratified by the United States in 1974, and it came into
force in 1975. It now has been ratified by 32 nations with accessions by another 14
nations. This Convention provided for the first international control over sea dispos-
al of radioactive waste. In the Convention the International Atomic Energy Agency
is designated as the responsible body for developing the specific technical require-
ments and definitions. Within the text of this Convention there is a specific prohibi-
tion on the sea disposal of high-level radioactive waste or other high-level radioac-
tive matter, as these terms are defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE OCEANS
You have asked us to consider the question of disposing of high-level radioactive
waste in the ocean-be it on or in the sea floor. It is EPA's opinion that use of the
ocean for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste is currently prohibited, both
under the proscribed activities of the Ocean Dumping Act (PL 92-532) and the
dictates of the London Dumping Convention. With your permission, I would like to
submit for the record copies of internal EPA documents describing the basis for our
opinions on sea disposal of high-level waste. The high-level waste material prohibit-
ed from disposal is defined in the Ocean Dumping Act as "The aqueous waste
resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system or equiva-
lent, and the concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent,
PAGENO="0361"
355
in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels, or irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors."
We have no program underway for high level radioactive waste disposal in the
ocean. We are aware that the Department of Energy (DOE) over the past few years
has developed a program to evaluate the technical and scientific feasibility of the
seabed emplacement of high-level radioactive waste. We receive published informa-
tion from the DOE program and participate in informal information exchanges from
time to time. The scientific research performed under the DOE program is of high
caliber and provides some useful information for our own studies, and our cogni-
zance of the program helps to to avoid duplication of efforts.
SURVEYS OF OLD U.S. DUMPSITES
With the passage of the Ocean Dumping Act, the EPA launched a technical
program to understand the effects of past dumping practices. The program was
designed to reflect what we see as both active and passive roles for EPA under the
Act. That is, we must develop the regulatory framework for evaluating permits for
ocean disposal of radioactive waste, we must evaluate ocean disposal relative to
other methods of disposal such as shallow land burial, and we must impartially
evaluate individual permit requests based on the best available scientific informa-
tion. With all of these roles in mind we began a series of dumpsite survey oper-
ations in 1974. Such work also had been recommended by others. In 1974, an
oceanographic assessment of disposal of wastes in the marine environment was
performed for EPA by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences. One of the research recommendations that came from the assessment was
that, "the most valuable criteria for the establishment of future dump sites can be
obtained from monitoring current disposal operations." The Council also recom-
mended that "Abandoned disposal sites should be studied to determine long-term
chemical transformations and transport of waste materials."
The results of our site-specific dumpsite survey program have been described in
other congressional hearings, including one held by this subcommittee in May, 1978.
At that time we provided details of our surveys through 1977, so today I will only
summarize those efforts. Mr. Dyer will provide you with technical details of our
most recent survey in July, 1978, which was conducted shortly after your previous
hearing on nuclear waste disposal.
In August, 1974, we surveyed at the Farallon Islands 900 meter site. We used an
unmanned submersible to locate some of the radioactive waste drums for the first
time. This was followed in 1975 by a similar survey at the Farallon Islands 1,700
meter location. In both surveys radioactive waste drums were found and samples of
sediment and biota were taken. Concentrations of plutonium-238, and plutonium-
239, 240 were detected in the sediments near some drums that were higher than
what normally would be expected from weapons-testing fallout.
In 1975 and 1976 we conducted manned-submersible surveys of the Atlantic 2800
meter (9300 feet) dumpsite off the Maryland-Delaware Coast. In these surveys we
located radioactive waste drums, took carefully positioned sediment core samples,
and performed radioactivity analyses that confirmed the presence of elevated levels
of cesium-137 in sediments immediately adjacent to selected radioactive waste
drums. We also recovered a drum from the site for detailed analysis to assess the
long-term integrity of the standard metal drum and concrete matrix packaging
system.
In 1977, we successfully undertook additional surveys at the Farallon Islands at
depths of 900 meters and 1700 meters. The first survey was designed to provide
estimates of biological activity and diversity and to obtain samples of water and
ocean sediments. The second survey was designed to recover a radioactive waste
drum from the 900 meter location for laboratory analysis. Additional biological and
sediment samples were collected, and current meters were deployed to measure the
speed and direction of the water moving though the dumpsite region.
The last in our series of survey operations was conducted in 1978 at the deepest of
the four major U.S. sea disposal areas, the Atlantic 3,800 meter (13,000 feet) site. A
waste drum was recovered from this site also.
These surveys and the contractor and agency reports which resulted from them
are the beginnings of the technical data base for our development of a regulatory
program for any future dumping of low level wastes. This information will, in part,
provide the basis for improving the criteria used to pick dumpsites, the criteria for
packaging systems for isolation of the radioactive materials, and the criteria for
dumpsite monitoring.
PAGENO="0362"
356
MONITORING OF U.S. DUMPSITES
As you are aware, there has been recent controversy about the need for additional
monitoring to assure public safety from exposure to radiation from the abandoned
waste dumpsites.
Last month (October, 1980) we had the opportunity to appear before a subcommit-
tee of the Committee on Government Operations to talk specifically about the
Farallon Islands and public health. Three issues arose in those hearings, as follows:
(1) The problem of obtaining and assessing the records of past disposal operations;
(2) The public health impact, if any, indicated by EPA surveys; and (3) The need for
future monitoring of existing dumpsites.
On the public health question, our position has been clear for some time. That is,
although EPA does not recommend the past dumping practices and would not
permit those activities to be done the same way today, our preliminary evaluation
of their environmental consequences indicates no harm to man or the marine
environment. It should be clearly recognized, however, that the information we have
collected is not encyclopedic. It does represent a pioneering first step in developing
general monitoring programs for both abandoned and active dumpsites, but more
information is desireable from a scientific and a public health point of view.
In view of your subcommittee's previous interest in the monitoring of low-level
radioactive waste dumpsites, I would like to provide you with some ideas that have
evolved since the hearings in California.
A first point on which we are making progress is understanding the various kinds
of monitoring that may need to be performed. We see three, and eventually four,
basic kinds of monitoring that need to be considered. The first I shall call "market
place monitoring It is designed to address the public concern about the possibility
of elevated radiation in food. It consists of periodic radioactivity measurements of
fish and other sea food bought and eaten by the general public in areas near man-
made sources of radiation. This assures that there are no significant quantities of
radioactivity reaching man.
The second type of monitoring I will call "dumpsite" monitoring. In this type of
monitoring, samples of water, bottom sediment, edible marine organisms, and other
biological species are collected to examine the distribution of radioactivity in marine
species in and near a dumpsite. Such monitoring indicates how the waste material
might be transported physically and biologically from the site and potentially to
man. A third type of monitoring deals with the general distribution of radioactivity
in the oceans; that is, radioactivity from natural sources, fallout from nuclear
weapons testing, and radioactivity from other activities of man. This monitoring we
could call "general marine environmental assessment" monitoring, or simply "base-
line" monitoring. Baseline monitoring is particularly important to provide informa-
tion about the normal or ambient concentrations of marine radioactivity against
which to measure the impact of any future radioactive waste dumping. It is also
important because it provides fundamental data about the marine food chain. A
fourth type of monitoring in "compliance" monitoring. This is primarily a regula-
tory activity performed after dumping has occurred to verify that regulatory re-
quirements have been met.
It is my view that market place, dumpsite, and baseline monitoring should all be
done I am not optimistic that we at EPA can undertake monitoring to assure public
safety while still maintaining progress on the development of regulations to control
any future disposal of low level radioactive waste If progress is to be made on both
of these fronts it probably will require a strong cooperative interagency program
that pools the capabilities and expertise of the cognizant Federal agencies.
During the past month discussions about future monitoring and monitoring strat
egies have intensified. Both NOAA and EPA are committed to developing a moni-
toring strategy, and high priority is being given to the development of a concise,
mutually-agreeable, statement of purposes and costs for the ocean monitoring of
radioactive materials. The legislative basis for these efforts is the Ocean Dumping
Act where the responsibilities of EPA and NOAA are described in Title I and Title
II, respectively. In areas where we don't have resources, we will seek more through
our normal budgetary process.
An effort of this magnitude will require the assistance of other agencies as well.
Federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of
Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and States, such as
California and perhaps Massachusetts, Maryland and Delaware, would likely have
an interest. At this time the NRC and DOE are providing us with their records on
past dumping operations and locations to assess whether other sites, in addition to
the sites we have already surveyed, may have substantial quantities of radioactive
waste. We have also asked the Department of Defense to determine whether it has
additional information.
PAGENO="0363"
357
INTERNATIONAL MONITORING
In addition to our work on U.S. dumpsite monitoring, we have for some years
encouraged and are participating in the development of an international ocean
dumpsite monitoring plan. An effort to develop a plan was initiated by the Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency in 1978 pursuant to its responsibilities under the
London Dumping Convention. In addition, the international Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established an international consulta-
tion and surveillance mechanism for sea dumping of radioactive waste to provide
guidance to its member countries. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD
administers this consultation and surveillance mechanism for the dumping by some
European nations of low level nuclear waste into a site in the northeast Atlantic
In addition to participating in the development of the international monitoring
plan for the northeast Atlantic dumpsite, we have agreed to contribute to its
implementation. At present, we are waiting to see what gaps in technical expertise
may be identified so that we might recommend U.S. participants or EPA technical
assistance where most needed. Participation in this monitoring activity will assist
us by suppling valuable information about an actively-used site, at minimum cost, to
expand our data base for evaluating this sea disposal option for the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
EPA has a program for achieving several objectives by 1985. They are as follows:
1. Evaluation of ocean dumping as an option for disposal of low level radioactive
waste.
2. Development of regulations to control any future dumping of radioactive
wastes.
3. Development of criteria for (a) selection of ocean dumpsites, (b) packaging of
radioactive wastes and (c) compliance monitoring.
4. Development of a program for evaluating requests of EPA for permits to
conduct ocean dumping of low level radioactive waste.
To meet these objectives, EPA plans to conduct research and monitoring similar
to previous EPA dumpsite surveys. Additional monitoring to further evaluate the
safety of past ocean dumping and to establish certain useful baseline data also
seems desirable, although such monitoring is presently beyond the scope of EPA's
resources. We are developing plans with NOAA for cooperative research and moni-
toring to meet our regulatory purposes and these other purposes. As part of this
effort we are studying options for pooling of existing resources and determining
what additional resources need to be requested
At this time Mr. Robert Dyer, Senior Staff Oceanographer and project manager of
our dumpsite surveys, will provide details of our most recent dumpsite survey
conducted in 1978. He will also and synthesize some of the findings and implications
from our surveys of 1974 through 1978 at the major Atlantic and Pacific radioactive
waste dumpsites.
PAGENO="0364"
358
FACT SHEET'ON'OCEAN'DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MATERIALS
I NTRODUCTION
Low-level radioactive wastes are routinely generated by a wide range
of military and non-military operations, including nuclear powerplant
operations, commercial manufacturing processes, and research and medical
institutions. When we say low-level radioactive wastes, we generally
mean all those materials not directly resulting from the processing of
spent reactor fuel. Low-level wastes defined in this way may be
hazardous, depending upon their concentration and their proximity to man
or other organisms. The bulk of these low-level wastes are by-product
materials, especially materials such as equipment, tools, and lab
clothes which have become contaminated by exposure to or contact with
radioactive materials. Some examples of by-products materials are
radioactive cobalt, strontium, americium, and cesium. At times, they
also may include small quantities of source materials', such as uranium
and thorium, or traces of "special nuclear materials" such as plutonium
or enriched uranium.
From 1946 through 1970 the United States disposed of these
radioactive waste materials either by shallow land-burial at
government-owned sites, or by ocean dumping at AEC-approved sites.
Because the materials were potentially hazardous, they were given
special attention in transport and handling. But because they were
regarded primarily as garbage, precise records apparently were not kept
of the disposal operations. Materials for land burial were packaged in
a wide variety of containers, while materials for ocean disposal were
encased primarily in concrete-filled steel drums.
Today, the records of the ocean dumping activities consist primarily
of licenses issued by the Atomic Energy Commission to private
contractors and of logs indicating the approximate locations of disposal
sites. In most of the cases the records do indicate the nature of the
materials, the quantities, the estimated radioactivity, and the
approximate coordinates of the dumping location; unfortunately, they do
not indicate the specific isotopic content, and neither the content of
the containers nor the precise dumping locations can be verified.
Records of military operations and government contractors (such as the
national laboratories) may also still exist, but are not currently
available.
1
PAGENO="0365"
359
The environmental survey work of the ocean nuclear waste dumpsites
by EPA was initiated under the mandate of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532) in order to provide a technical
basis for both the development of regulations and criteria and the
consideration of future disposal alternatives. In l~74 EPA sent an
initial survey team to the Farallon Islands dumpsites to confirm the
feasibility of locating the containerized waste packages, and to
determine if any measurable amounts of radioactivity could been released
into the dumpsites. Using an unmanned submersible vehicle several
cannisters were successfully located, underwater photographs were taken
to assess the condition of the drums, and sediment samples were
collected in proximity to both intact and imploded drums. Low levels of
plutonium 238, 239, and 240 were detected.
In 1977, two additional surveys of the Farallon Island Sites were
undertaken; the first to provide estimates of biologic activity and
diversity, and to take samples of the water column and the ocean bottom,
and the second to measure ocean currents and attempt the recovery of one
of the waste cannisters.
In the Atlantic Ocean a similar series of investigations was
undertaken at the 2800 and 3800 meter sites. A preliminary sampling
team went out to the 2800 meter site in May, 1974: in l~75 three dives
in a submersible vehicle were made at the 2800 meter site to locate and
document the condition of drums and take a variety of sediment, water,
and biological samples. In 1976 similar data and a waste canister were
recovered from the 2800 meter site for detailed laboratory analysis of
canister corrosion and physical integrity, and in 1978, similar samples
were obtained from the 3800 meter site and a waste drum was recovered
for analysis.
This Fact Sheet is a summary of information currently available to
EPA about these waste dumping activities. It includes:
1) A history of dumping operations.
2) A tabular summary identifying all known sites, the types of
materials dumped, the licensed dumping agents, and indicating
whether or not EPA has surveyed the sites;
3) Summaries of the survey work which has been done under contract
to EPA and in conjunction with EPA scientists;
4) A list of the principal statutory authorities relating to the
ocean dumping of low-level radioactive materials;
2
PAGENO="0366"
360
HISTORY OF* DUMPING OPERATIONS
On the basis of the information EPA has gathered to date, the
following are salient points in the history of U.S. ocean dumping of
radioactive materials A tabular summary of the designated dump sites
follows this list
o Between 1946 and 1970 the ocean dumping of radioactive wastes was
conducted under the licensing authority and direction of the Atomic
Energy Commission;
o In 1960, the AEC imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new
dumping licenses, allowing existing licenses to remain in orce and
to be renewed;
o By 1963 most ocean dumping activities had been phased out, and,
in 1970, the U.S. terminated all ocean dumping of radioactive waste
materials;
o In 1973, the `U.S. ratified the 1972 London Dumping Convention,
prohibiting, among other things, the ocean disposal of high level
nuclear wastes and allowing for the future dumping of low-level
radioactive wastes only under controlled conditions stipulated by
the Convention;
o From 1946 thru 1962 (two years after the license moratorium), the
U.S. dumped a total of approximately 89,400 containers with an
estimated inventory of 94,400 curies (Ci) of radioactivity;
o Between 1963 and 1970 (when all dumping was terminated) the U.S.
dumped only about 350 containers with an estimated total activity of
about 230 curies.
o The Farallon Island Sites (collectively) received approximately
99 percent of the radioactivity dumped in the Pacific Ocean;
o The Atlantic 2800 Meter Sites received approximately 96 percen.t
of all radioactivity dumped in the Atlantic.
3
PAGENO="0367"
TABLE OF U S OCEAN DUMPINC
PACIFIC OCEAN SITES
Recorded
Site Depth Central
~esiqnation(s)I' !Y (meters) Coordinates?) Relation to Land~i Material~) Activity~) Containers~f ~9~~JJ
Years
Used
EPA Reports
P1 Farallon Islands 896 - 37 38 N 25-SO miles WSW of B S SNM 14 500 47 500 NEC OTC CR
(A) 1700 123O8W San Francisco USNRDC AEC
~
(1) 9/ 3500 15725'W Honolulu*
1946-1970
1959-1960
YES
NO
i459-i960
~Wi~K~i~T1sland 34'58'N 300 miles N of B 14 7 MSTS
(1) 5490 17452W Midway Islands*
PM AEC
1946-1962
NO
P4 ~ (ruz 1830 - 33 40 N 35 miles SW of ~ S 108 3
(1) 1940 119 ~S W Port Hueneme
1955-1958
PlO 11/
42'17N 230 mIles W of B 0.95 26
(1) 3294 12931W Or/Ca horder*
1960
NO
43'52N 190 miles NW of B 0.08 4 CR
(1) 2928 127 44W Or/Ca border*
1960
NO
P7 - 42O4N 35 miles W of B 0.08 4 CR
(1) 4099 125'OlW Or/Ca border*
1955-1958
NO
l~3F[~ Angeles 3660 - 3043'N 1000 miles WSW of B 0.95 26 CR
(7) 4570 139005 W Los Angeles*
NO
Pg ?847N 800 miles SW of B 1.1 29 CR
(1) 3477 135 DO W San Francisco*
1959 1962
NO
Plo San Diego 2210 - 32 00 N 775 miles SW of B S SNM 34 4 415 £MDC
(1) 3660 121 30 W San Diego
AMI
1960
NO
PiT Cape Mendocino 1830 - 40 07 N 800 miles WNW of B 5 0 7? 29
(1) 1990 135 ?4 W San Francisco
NO
PAGENO="0368"
TABLE OF U.S. OCEAN DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
PACIFIC OCEAN SITES
_______________ Materia1~J Activity~) Containers~J
B,S 96 197
Recorded
Site Depth Central
tesj~~ion(s)Y ~I (meters) CoordinatesV Relation to Land~.'
-
Years
Used
EPA Reports
P12 Cape Scot 1 5O~56'N 350 miles NW of
(1) 3294 136~O3'W Cape Flattery*
AML1O/
1958-1966
NO
3294 14O12W Cape Flattery*
AML1O/
l9624~69
1946-1962
NO
1Ui]~flT1~ 5I3ON
tl) 13631W
NO
North Pacific 52O5'N
~1) 14OOO'W
0.54
41
1946-1q62
NO
North Pacific 4/~OON
(Unk.) 138 54'W
97.4
361
1946-1966
NO
1830
(1)
1.2
37
1946-1962
NO
(I)
96.5
231
1q63-1966
NO
PAGENO="0369"
TABLE OF U.S. OCEAN DUMPiNG OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ATLANTiC OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
EPA Reports
NO
~euvlk-l
~ie Depth Central
ue~i~julIoi(s)I/ ~I(meters) Coorilnates?] Relation to Landl'
Materia1~i
jvi~y~l
Containers~i ~9~~JJ
Years
Used
ol U aDusetla 42'25'N Massachusetts
by 11) 92 70'JbW Bay
B,
5
2,440
4,008
CMOS
1952-1959
A7~1~T~ i8i~J~i6Th~i~ 80 miles ~ of
1967 74~23ll Cape ttenry*
B
87
843
NIH
1949-1161
b.j ~antly look 1 1830 - 36"30N i4iTiTles SE of
UI) 2800 72'ObW Sandy Hook*
B
74,400
14,301
AEC
1951-1956
1959-1962
Ill idly look 2 1830 - 37 bUN 220 miles SE of
(1) 3800 10'35'i4 Sandy Hook*
B
2,100
14,500
AEC
1957-1959
il5Ll1eStOfl9IS-3132N221) miles F of
(Ii) 3660 76~30W Charleston*
B
0.66-
119
~SM0,
ARC
1955-[T
;dde(it~ 18 34 21 1 IDTTë S~f
UI) /e'4Ut4 Morehead City*
B
0.3
unpackaged
FWS
1955-1961
n/ Un Pd I Central 36'?0~
OIUJOLIL 3660 - 43*49N
5289 45~00W
111 pelO Is tanu~ 11
B
480
432
MSTS
1959-1960
FlU
YES
NO
011 coast or 0.005 flqu~a U 1955-1960 NO
Sapelo
Islands
NO
6
PAGENO="0370"
3111 25'40'N
8517W
Years
Containers~! ___________
1958 NO
1955-1957 NO
Recorded
Site Oepth Central
Uei~~~ion(s)l/ §J(meters) Coordinates~.'
CMI 1930 21'14'N
8933'W
tIJLF OF MEXICO DISPOSAL SITES
6112
Relation to iand~! Materia1~J Activity~J
170 miles S of B 10
New Orleans, LA.*
250 miles SE of B
Appalachicola, Fla.*
EPA Reports
1 MP
0.002 78 SMO
7
PAGENO="0371"
365
Notes to Table
1/ In contracting and licensing the ocean dumping of radioactive
wastes, the AEC designated general areas for approved dumping. In
some instances these areas were identified by single coordinates and
the wastes were concentrated in relatively specific areas while in
other instances the AEC designated much broader areas and allowed
those dumping to proceed according to general guidelines Dumping
under these designations resulted in much less concentrated dumping
activities and a multitude of individual "dumpsites". The number of
such individual dumpsites under a particular heading in this column
is indicated in parentheses. The designation Al through A12, GM1
and GM2, and P1 through P13 refer to the NRC site numbering system.
2/ Central coordinates designate dumping areas thought to have received
- concentrations of waste materials. Actual coordinates may have
varied over wider distances.
3/ Approximations for land references an asterisk means that EPA has
- not plotted the coordinates on nautical charts to confirm the stated
dlstance from land; blanks mean we haven't found the information yet.
4/ Three types of materials were dumped under AEC licenses or by AEC
- contractors: by-product materials (B), source materials (S), and
special nuclear materials (SNM). By-product materials refer to a
wide variety of substances which were exposed to incidental
radiation. Source materials include uranium and thorium. Special
nuclear materials include plutonium, uranium-233, enriched
uranium-233 or 235, and any other materials which the AEC may have
determined to be special nuclear materials.
5/ Radioactivity is given in estimated curies at the time of packaging.
6/ Waste materials were generally either packaged in special containers
which were then placed in concrete-filled steel drums, or mixed
directly in concrete which was in turn placed in the steel drums.
8
PAGENO="0372"
366
7/ AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
AML American Mail Lines
ARC Atlantic Refining Company
CMDC Coastwise Marine Disposal Corporation
CR Chevron Research
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ISC Isotope Specialty Company
MP Magnolia Petroleum
MSTS Military Sea Transport Service
NEC Nuclear Engineering Company
NIH U.S. National Institute of Health
NRDL U.S. Naval Radiation Development Laboratory
OTC Ocean Transport Company
PN Pneumodynamics
SMO Socono.-Mobil Oil
UG University of Georgia
UH University of Hawaii
8/ There were some AEC approved ocean dumping sites for which EPA has
no records of dumping activities. They are as follows.
PacificOcean AtlanticOcean
39°30N; 125°40W 41~33'N; 65°30'W
37~4ON; 124~5O'W 41°33'N; 65°33'W
36~OO'N; 124°OO'W 4128-38'N; 65°28-45'W
34~3O'N; 122~5O'W 38~3O'N; 72'OO'W
36~3O'N; 74°13'W
36~15'N; 76°35W
34°15'N; 76°35'W
9/ Based on NRC memorandum of 8/14/80 additional dumpings appear
to have taken place in the 1960's and are being characterized
in ongoing records research.
10/ Under the terms of the AML license, AML was authorized to dump
along the path of its shipping route beyond depths of 1,000
fathoms (1830 meters).
11/ Report published by NOAA in April 1973, "SubmersibleInspection
ofDeepOceanWasteDiSpOSal Sftes Off Southern California"
describes survey of Santa Cruz Basin.
*/ See note number 3/, above.
9
PAGENO="0373"
367
SUMMARY OF EPA SURVEYS OF PAST
DISP~!AL SITES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES
A number of reports have been prepared for the Office of Radiation
Programs (ORP) of the EPA to describe surveys of the old ocean disposal
sites for radioactive materials. These surveys have been generally
described in EPA Annual Reports to Congress, ORP Radiological Ouality of
the Environment Reports, the EPA Journal and elsewhere.
In 1974, an initial survey term was sent to the Farallon Islands
sites. These teams used an unmanned submersible vehicle to locate waste
drums. The Atlantic 2800 meter depth site was similarly investigated in
conjunction with NOAA studies at Deep Water Dumpsite (DWD) 106. This
was followed in 1976 by an EPA survey of the Atlantic site using the
manned submersible ALVIN. In 1977 two additional surveys of the
Farallon Islands were undertaken to provide estimates of the biological
activity and diversity or the area, and to obtain a wide range of
samples~ In 1978, the ALVIN was again employed to investigate
conditions at the 3800 meter depth Atlantic radioactive waste disposal
site.
Geologists, biologists, radiochemists, physical oceanographers and
oceanographic engineers from many universities and oceanographic
institutions participated in shipboard and onshore laboratory tasks in
connection with the EPA surveys. Reports of this work have been
submitted to the Office of Radiation Programs in various stages of
completion and about 30 are currently on file with EPA. All of these
reports have been provided to the House Government Operations Committee
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, and to other
interested government officials.
The reports are summarized below in two sets: those prepared in
conjunction with the Pacific Ocean site investigations, and those
prepared in conjunction with the Atlantic Ocean site investigations.
Five of the Atlantic reports and three of the Pacific (Farallon rslands)
reports are final and have been published; and the remaining reports are
in varying stages of completion by contractors or are undergoing
scientific review within and outside EPA. The reader should be aware
that both data and interpretations presented by the contractor for the
reports still undergoing review may be either incomplete or subject to
misunderstanding, and do not necessarily represent conclusions of EPA at
this time.
10
PAGENO="0374"
368
Atlantic Ocean
The following is a summary of seventeen research reports prepared
for EPA/ORP on the 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1978 surveys of the 2800 meter
and 3800 meter Atlantic dumpsites. In some instances where researchers
were involved in investigations at both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean
sites there may be overlap between information reported in Atlantic and
Pacific Ocean reports.
(1) Dyer, Robert S., "Investigation of Radioactive Waste Disposal
at Deepwater Dumpsite 1O6"~, in May1974Baseline Investigation
of Deepwater Dumpsite 106, NOAAUümpsite Evaluation Report
75-1, December 1975.
This published report describes the purposes of sediment and
biological sample collection at the site and the manner in which
shipboard operations were conducted Recommendations for future work
are also included
(2) EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF)
radioanalytical data found in Dyer Robert S Environmental
Surveys of Two Deepsea Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites Using
Submersibles Management of Radioactive Wastes from the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle, IAEA, Vienna, March 1976.
This published paper describes the early survey work at the 900
meter and 1700 meter sites in the Pacific and the 2800 meter site in the
Atlantic. Radioactive waste containers were located for the first time,
with the use of submersibles. Radioanalytical results by EERF for the
2800 meter site in the Atlantic are presented in Table IV. Cesium-137
contamination was found in three sediment cores taken from near waste
containers It is believed to be the result of leaching from the
concrete matrix of the containers At the Farallon Islands values for
Pu-239, 240 found in sediment samples taken from near some waste
containers exceeded expected values for this latitude and depth as did
the ratio of Pu-238 to Pu-239, 240. The plutonium distribution in the
sediment near some containers indicates that the release from the
containers could have occurred many years ago.
(3) Neiheisel, James, `Sediment Characteristics of the 2800 Meter
Atlantic Nuclear Waste Disposal Site: Radionuclide Retention
Potential EPA Technical Note ORD/TAD_79_10 September 1979
This EPA published report characterizes the sediments from the 1974
2800 meter radioactive waste disposal site survey. The chemical
analyses were performed on sediments which had been in storage.
11
PAGENO="0375"
369
amnC~~m~Ca1 work, particularly the effort on cation exchange
~ wfll cc'r'tr4bute to understanding of the potential for
~f ~-ad~onuclides released into the deep marine environment,
~~e'e -ad~onuciide retention by the sediments is anticipated. The
o' sediments at the site and characteristics of sediment
PnS~tOO are also of interest; the report indicates the source as the
Cflflt `~°`~ ?~ shel and the Hudson Canyon adjacent to the dumpsite
~ Bo~en Vaughan T and Linda Graham 1976 Site-Specific Survey
of the Atlantic 2800 Meter Deepwater Radioactive Waste
Dumpsite: Radiochemistry", May 1979.
This report presents the data on levels of radioactivity found in
sediment cores obtained at the 2800 meter site adjacent to a radioactive
waste container and in various areas of the disposal site. Cesium-137,
plutonium-239,24O, and americium-241 in some sediment cores were found
to be above the expected range for weapons testing fallout in sediment
for this latitude and depth. rn addition, iron-55 and cobalt-60 were
also found in sediment cores and are believed to have originated from
the waste containers
(5) Colombo P R M Nelson Jr and M W Kendig Analysis and
Evaluation of a Radioactive Waste Package Retrieved from the
Atlantic 2800 Meter Disposal Site," September 1978.
This published report presents the results of analyses performed by
Brookhaven National, Laboratory on the first radioactive waste container
recovered from a waste disposal site. It was retrieved by EPA for the
purpose of container corrosion and matrix degradation analysis for the
2800 meter depth Atlantic radioactive waste disposal site.
Analyses in the report indicate that the container had withstood the
rigors of the deep ocean environment. The authors estimate that a
minimum of 100 years in the deep ocean environment would be required
before the concrete waste form would lose its integrity.
(6) Dayal, R., S.A. Oakely, and I.W. Duedall, "Sediment Geochemical
Studies of the 2800 Meter Atlantic Nuclear Waste Disposal
Site", June 30, 1978.
This report analyzes and discusses the physical and chemical
properties of the sediments collected at the 2800 meter site These
parameters influence the amount of binding of radionuclides to the
sediment. Cs-13~ and Cs-134 were found to have been released from a
radioactive waste container but the sediments were determined to be an
effective barrier to migration rt was found in this study that
bioturbation (the reworking of sediments by organisms) can actively
redistribute radionuclides vertically in the sediment column. Pore
water migration, in comparision, was negligible.
12
PAGENO="0376"
370
(7) Dexter, Stephen C., "Cruise Report on R.V. Cape Henlopen 12/76,
1976 Atlantic Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Survey".
Thisreport presents the various scientific operations which were
ongoing during the 1976 radioactive waste disposal site survey, where
the various sampling stations were located, and the manner in which
operations were undertaken.
(8) Dexter, Stephen C., "Materials for Containment of Low-Level
Nuclear Waste in the Deep Ocean", August 1978.
This generic report of deep ocean corrosion processes for steels and
concrete explains in easily understandable terms the mechanisms and
expected rates of corrosion. The report concludes with recommendations
regarding improvement of the reliability of the containers potentially
used for future ocean disposal practices.
(9) Polloni, Pamela T., and Isabelle P. Williams, "Characterization
of the Atlantic 2800 Meter Deepwater Radioactive Waste
Dumpsite-Macro-Infaunal Analysis", August 1977.
This report summarizes the findings of an investigation into
abundance, biomass and species composition of the benthic infaunal
community at the 2800 meter depth site. Age structure was also
investigated. The samples were collected as a part oF the sediment
sampling program with the use of a Soutar box core.
High species diversity was found. Polychaetes, followed by
crustaceans, were the most abundant organisms. No extraordinary
organisms or distribution of organisms were discovered.
(10) Rawson, Martine Dreyfus, and William B.F. Ryan, "Geologic
Observation of Deepwater Radioactive Waste Dumpsite-106",
EPA-52O/9-78-O01, June 1978.
The bottom terrain of the 2800 meter radioactive waste disposal site
was investigated by direct visual observation using the manned
submersible ALVIN. It was found to be characterized by meandering
channels, with some boulders and rock outcroppings. The report attempts
to interpret the geological history of the site, where major natural
disturbances appear to have occurred in the past. The rate of
sedimentation at the site is estimated to be 5 cm per 1000 years.
Sediment deposition in addition to this, with potential to further bury
radioactive waste containers, could occur through future downslope
sediment slumping.
13
PAGENO="0377"
371
(11) Reish, Donald J., Survey of the Benthic Invertebrates
Collected from the United States Radioactive Waste Disposal
Site in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans', June 1977.
Taxonomic identification was made of the benthic infaunal organisms
at both the 1975 Farallon Islands west coast radioactive waste disposal
site and in 1976 at the 2800 meter Atlantic site. This report describes
the infaunal populations collected from both coasts, and provides a
comparative analysis.
The West coast typically constitutes a more productive infaunal
regime. Polychaeates were the most abundant constituent on both coasts,
but the number and size of the east coast populations were much smaller
than the west coast, as expected. The author concludes that a greater
opportunity for biological movement of radionuclides exists at the west
coast site location.
(12) Carney, Robert S., "Report on the Invertebrate Megafauna
Sampled by Trawling in the Atlantic 4000 meter Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site 1978", September 1979.
Examination of the benthic population via ottertrawl showed that the
predominant megafaunal organisms at the 3800-meter radioactive waste
disposal site were brittle stars (ophiuroids) and hermit crabs
(pagurids). This information is in accord with sampling data from other
regions of the N.W. Atlantic from similar depths. It is believed that
the ophiuroids, as well as sea cucumbers (holothuroids) could contribute
to vertical bioturbation. Pagurids and ophiuroids could transport
adsorbed nuclides laterally.
Characterization of bottom fauna will assist in assessing potential
pathways for radionuclide transport from the deep ocean to man.
(13) Dexter, Stephen C., "On Board Corrosion Analysis of a Recovered
Nuclear Waste Container," Technical Note 0RP/TAD_7~-2, August
1979.
This published EPA report discusses a short-term corrosion analysis
of the exterior of the radioactive waste container retrieved from the
Atlantic 3800-meter radioactive waste disposal site. The container
surface is described prior to subsequent detailed laboratory analysis.
Some suggestions for improvement of package design are also incorporated.
Such information will be useful to EPA in determining packaging
criteria for sea disposal of low-level nuclear wastes.
(14) Hanselman, David H., and William B. F. Ryan, "1978 Atantic 3800
Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Survey-Sedimentary,
Micromorphologic and Geophysical Analyses", June 1979.
14
PAGENO="0378"
372
This report describes the geological and topographical regime at the
3800 meter radioactive waste disposal site. The area was observed
directly through use of the manned submersible ALVIN, and was found to
be unstable, due to sediment slumping or avalanche activity. The
containers might be buried by these activities in the future They also
might be moved around and thus be subject to damage mechanisms other
than corrosion.
Such geological information is important in developing future site
selection criteria for the ocean disposal option for low-level
radioactive materials.
(15) Musick, John A., and Kenneth J. Sulak, "Characterization of the
Demersal Fish Community of a Deep-Sea Radioactive Dump Site
(Results of Cruise, EPA-7801, R. V. ADVANCE II, 21-27 June
1978), May 1978.
Bottom fish were collected through deep water trawling Operations.
No differences were found between the fish assemblage at the radioactive
waste disposal site and other regions of similar depth The dominant
fish species was Coryphaenoides armatus, the rattail, a large mobile
species capable of long-distance migrations.
This information on fish population abundance, biomass, diversity
and migratory patterns assists in evaluating potential transport of
nucl ides from the site to man.
(16) Reish, Donald J., "Survey of the Benthic Invertebrates
Collected from the United States Radioactive Waste Disposal
Site-Atlantic Ocean 3800-Meter Location", November 1979.
Infaunal populations were taxonomically identified. As was the case
at the 2800 meter site polychaetes were the most abundant group at the
3800 meter site. Since they actively rework the sediment, the potential
for slow radionuclide movement through the sediment exists. The
organisms collected at this site were also similar in their small size
to those obtained at the 2800 meter site; Atlantic specimens are
typically smaller than Pacific infauna. Some mention is made in this
report of feeding patterns and potential food chain links.
While some new species and genera of polychaetes may have been
collected, no unusual or aberrant forms were noticed.
(17) Schell, W.R., and A. Nevissi, "Radionuclidesat the U.S.
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site in the Hudson Canyon, 350 Km
Off New York City", January 1980.
15
PAGENO="0379"
373
This report in first submission format by the contractor provides
radioanalytical data for the nuclides cesium-137 lead-210,
plutonium-238 plutonium-239 and 240 americium-241 and strontium-90 in
biological and sediment samples taken from the 3800 meter Atlantic
dumpsite in 1978. The sediments tested did not show significant levels
of radioactivity. Americium-241 was recorded in very hiqh levels
(significant concentrations) in the rattail fish, Nezumia bairdi,
although not in other biological samples or in sediments obtained
adjacent to radioactive waste containers. The americium in the fish was
in lower concentrations in the muscle, or edible, fraction of the fish.
The rattail is not a commercially harvested species in the United
States and no commercial fishing occurs in the immediate vicinity of
the dumpsite No other nuclides were found in elevated concentration in
this or other biological samples The author concludes that the
observed americium-241 in the rattail fish came from the radioactive
wastes. In EPA's judgement this is a speculative conclusion, and it
cannot be verified at this time. Other possible explanations are
measurement error or bioconcentration by the rattail fish of fallout
from atmospheric weapons tests. Study of this data is continuing, and
it appears that resolution of the open questions will have to come from
furth~r baseline and dumpsite sampling.
Independently Published Reports by Survey Participant
(1) rto, Akihiko, `Surveys of Deepsea Radioactive Waste Disposal
Sites by USEPA.
This report, in Japanese, describes the participation of this
Japanese scientist in the EPA surveys of the Atlantic Ocean 2800 meter
disposal site.
(2) Schell, William R., "Radionuclides at the Deep Water Disposal
Sites Located Near the Farallon Islands in the Pacific and at
the Mouth of the Hudson Canyon in our Atlantic Presented at
the Second International Ocean Dumping Symposium Woods Hole
Ma., 15-19 April 1980.
In this report Schell summarizes his work for EPA at the Atlantic
and the Pacific dumpsites (number 10 in the Pacific summary and number
17 in the Atlantic summary).
(3) Schell, W.R., and S. Sugai, "Radionuclides at the U.S.
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Near the Farallon Islands",
Health Physics, Vol. 39., No. 3, pp 475-496.
This report is a formal publication of the work conducted for EPA by
these researchers at the Farallon Islands dumpsites (number 10 in the
Pacific summary).
16
PAGENO="0380"
374
Pacific Ocean
The following is a summary of eleven research reports prepared for
EPA/ORP on the 1974, 1975, and 1977 surveys of the Farallon Islands
radioactive waste disposal sites.
(1) Dayal, R., I. W. Duedall, M. Fuhrmann,. and N. G. Heaton,
`Sediment and Water Column Properties of the Farallon Islands
Radioactive Waste Dumpsites," September 1979.
Dayal et al have analyzed the sediments collected at the site for
geochemical properties which might affect the behavior of radionuclides
in the marine environment. Dayal found that the nuclides tend to adsorb
to the sediment rather than remaining suspended in the water column.
This report is important in understanding the role of such
parameters as pore water diffusion and also bioturbation for nuclide
mobilization. The sediments at the site are being characterized in order
to evaluate chemical interactions of radionuclides with the sediments and
to predict potential transport pathways for radioactivity in the oceans.
(2) Interstate Electronics Corporation," Operations Report - A
Summary of the Farallon Islands 500 Fathom Radioactive Waste
Disposal Site," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical
Note ORP-75-1, December 1975.
This previously published report has been circulated extensively; it
summarizes the operational aspects of EPA's early survey work at the
Farallon Islands.
(3) Interstate Electronics Corporation, "Operational Plan, Phase I,
1977 Farallon Island Survey," IEC 446SP 550.
This operational plan describes the logistics involved in the first
phase of our 1977 survey, during which we performed surface ship trawling
and coring operations for geochemical, radiochemical, and biological
analyses. Participants are listed.
(4) Interstate Electronics Corporation, "Operational Plan, Phase
II, 1977 Farallon Island Survey," IEC 446SP 551.
The plan presents the logistical plans for the second phase of the
1977 Earallon Islands survey. EPA used the Canadian manned submersible
PISCES VI to make bottom observations and to obtain sediment cores in
close proximity to radionuclide containers for subsequent radiochemical
and geochemical analyses. Participants are listed.
17
PAGENO="0381"
375
(5) LEE Environmental Analysis Laboratories, "Radiochemical
Analysis of Samples from the 900 Meter Pacific Dumpsite,"
September 1979.
This report presents raw data, without interpretation, of
radioanalysis of sediment and biological samples. It has undergone only
preliminary EPA review at present,
The conclusions which we have drawn from the report are that the
radiation measured in the biota is in the range expected from fallout and
that the concentrations present do not represent a source of harm to
either man or the marine environment. Concentrations of radioactivity in
fish collected in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands are within the
ranges occurring from atmospheric fallout. Human consumption of such
fish would yield an annual estimated dose that is approximately 1,000
times lower than the dose from radioactive materials occurring normally
within the human body.
(6) Reish, Donald J., "Survey of the Benthic Invertebrates
Collected from the United States Radioactive Waste Disposal
Site Off the Farallon Islands,I California," August 1978.
The contractor taxonomically identifies infaunal and benthic
organisms collected at the site. He reports no unusual findings in terms
of biomass or species present. No aberrant forms were found.
EPA is attempting to characterize the biological populations in the
site area. We are interested in studying the role of benthic and
infaunal organisms in terms of the potential for bioturbation (reworking
of sediments which might enhance mobilization of radionuclides), and for
biological uptake for potential transport through marine food chains.
(7) Robison, Bruce H., "Cruise Report: Farallon Islands Disposal
Site Survey; Phase I - 25 August to 2 September 1977.
Dr. Robison's report summarizes the operations of the 1977 site
survey and also provides useful suggestions for future survey work.
(8) Robison, Bruce H., "Midwater Trawling Summary: Farallon
Islands Disposal Site Survey, 1977."
Midwater organisms, many of which may be highly migratory, could
provide a go-between food chain transfer mechanism between deep ocean and
near-surface waters. This report identifies and describes the mid-water
populations found at the Farallons site. As in Reish's report (06),
there were no unusual findings in terms of biomass or species present,
and no aberrant forms. The sample size was insufficient to provide an
understanding of actual food chain pathways between bottom and mid-water
regions.
18
PAGENO="0382"
376
(9) Rego, Jennifer A., "Deep-Sea Echinoids and Asteroids of the
Northeastern Pacific: An Aid in Selecting Candidate Species
for Chromosomal Analysis-And-Observations Concerning Three
Species of Sea Stars Collected by the Velero II," March 1980.
A literature search was performed by Rego to predict which benthic
invertebrates were most likely to be found in the vicinity of the
Farallon Islands and which ones might prove suitable for future
chromosome study. The second section of the report describes deep-sea
starfish collected at the site in 1977. Although a baseline study to
determine capability of visualizing size and number of chromosomes was
not possible from Rego's technique, interesting information concerning
life history was obtained by laboratory examination
Our office has an interest in determining whether a marine
organism's response to radiation can be detected via cytogenetic
laboratory procedures.
(10) Schell, W. R., and S. Sugai, "Radionuclides in Water, Sediment
and Biological Samples Collected in August-October 1977 at the
Radioaqtive Waste Disposal Site Near the Farallon Islands,"
July 1978.
Dr. Schell~ reports on his measurements of very low levels of
radioactivity in sediments obtained at varying distances from radioactive
waste containers and in sediments and biota from the surrounding
vicinity. Although his radiological technique for plutonium is less
sensitive than that of other researchers, his estimation of the upper
limit of plutonium that could be present is apparently consistent with
the conclusion of no radioactivity in excess of background. There was no
detection of plutonuim in the edible portion of any fish. In the case of
cesium, his results were easier to compare with existing literature and
they are comparable to background radiation.
(11) Silver, Gary R., "A Taxonomic Review of the Farallon Island
Sponge Fragments," February 1979.
Dr. Silver, an hexactinellid sponge specialist, analyzed samples of
the large hexactinellid for taxonomic purposes. EPA first observed these
sponges growing on the radioactive waste containers at the site His
report confirms that this sponge, a new species, is indeed a typical
hexactinellid which is growing to a normal hexactinellid sponge size. It
is not an aberrant organism.
EPA's Interest in the sponge stems from curiosity concerning the
sponge's large holdfast and the potential impact it might have on
acceleration or deceleration of container corrosion.
19
PAGENO="0383"
377
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
There are seven principal authorities relevant to the ocean disposal
of radioactive materials, to oceans research, and to monitoring and
surveillance of dumpsites:
o TheAtomicEnergyActofl946
Under this Act the Atomic Energy Commission, (AEC) was given
exclusive authority for all matters pertaining to atomic energy.
Subsequent executive actions and Acts of Congress transferred those
authorities to other Executive Agencies
o EnergyReorganization'Plan No.3 of 1970
Under the Energy Reorganization Plan of 1970 the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was established, and the authority to
"establish generally applicable environmental standards for
protection of the general environment from radioactive materials..."
was transferred from the AEC to EPA.
o The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Thi. Act (PL 92-532) commonly referred to as the Oceans
Dumping Act authorized EPA to regulate ocean dumping Furthermore
the Secretary of Commerce in conjunction with the Administrator of
EPA was directed to initiate a comprehensive and continuing
program of monitoring and research regarding the effects of the
dumping of material into ocean waters..."
o TheEnergyReorganization'Actofl974
Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 the AEC was
abolished and its regulatory authorities were conveyed to the newly
created Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) while its other
responsibilities were transferred to the Department of Energy
20
PAGENO="0384"
378
o EPA Regulations and Criteria for Ocean Dumping
On January 11, 1977, EPA issued regulations and criteria for
ocean. dumping pursuant to PL 92-532 (40 CFR Parts 220 - 229). These
reguiations specify that:
1) radioactive materials must be contained to prevent their
dispersion into ocean waters, and
2) the containment system must be designed to remain intact until
the radioactive materials decay to innocuous levels.
o The'National Ocean `Pollution Research `and `Development'and
~ö'ñfforing `Planning `Act'of' 1978
Under this Act (PL 95-273), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Adminsitration (NOAA) is directed to: 1) establish a
comprehensive 5-year plan for federal ocean pollution research and
development and monitoring programs: 2) carry out a comprehensive
program of ocean pollution monitoring, including radiation; and 3)
provide necessary data to support and provide for the conservation,
utilization, and development of ocean resources.
o The `London' Dumping `Convention
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention) was convened
in 1972 to prevent pollution of the marine environment. The
Convention was signed by the United States in December, 1q72 and
ratified by the U.S. Senate in August, 1973. The Convention became
effective in August, 1975, and has since been ratified by about 40
nations.
Mr. STUDDS. You are going to synthesize and maybe even summa-
rize?
Mr. DYER. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. You are going to do a slide presentation?
Mr. DYER. Yes.
That will require dimming the lights.
Mr. STUDDS. That is a real crusher.
The lights will have to be dimmed, I guess.
Mr. DYER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I
am pleased to be here today.
The primary focus of today's discussion will be on the most
recent surveys we have done in the Atlantic--
Mr. STUDDS. Again, as we did this morning, if people want to
move up here, you may do so.
Mr. DYER. As I was saying, I would like to focus my comments
today primarily on the results of our most recent survey in the
Atlantic, at the 3,800 meter dumpsite, in June 1978, shortly after
your last set of hearings on this subject.
There are two reasons why I am pleased to be here today.
First, we haven't had this opportunity before to discuss this
survey activity. Also, I am glad to be here in light of some recent
developments in the London Dumping Convention which add even
greater import to this 3,800 meter survey-in August 1978 the
IAEA issued its recommendation for sea disposal of low-level nude-
PAGENO="0385"
379
ar waste. Two of the site selection recommendations were that the
minimum acceptable disposal depth should be 4,000 meters or
greater, and the geographic restriction should be between 50° north
latitude and 50° south latitude.
Coincidentally, this U.S. 3,800 meter Atlantic disposal site comes
very close to fulfilling these requirements for the depth and does,
of course, fit into the latitudinal restrictions.
Mr. STUDDS. Are you close to that microphone or as close as you
can properly be?
Mr. DYER. I hope so.
Mr. STUDDS. That seems to be a little better.
Mr. DYER. The IAEA in its recommendations talked about four
major objectives for monitoring. One of them was to make an
estimate of exposure. A second reason was scientific investigations.
A third reason was improved public understanding. A fourth was
conservation of ocean resources.
While we have been concerned with all four of these objectives,
our primary focus has been on dumpsite specific surveys for scien-
tific investigations.
Between 1974 and 1977 the initial activities that this office par-
ticipated in were surveys in the Atlantic and Pacific at depths
ranging between 900 and 2,800 meters. This particular 1978 survey
at 3,800 meters was a real stress on existing technology. It was the
deepest site of the United States' major dumpsites and required
fairly rigorous technological applications.
What I will do now is to run through a series of slides represent-
ing interesting aspects of the 1978 survey.
(Slide No. 1.)
TABLE 1.-PRIMARY U.S. RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPSITES
Estimated
Site
Estimated No. activity in
Coordinates Depth (m) land (krn) dumpsde used dru~dm~d dr~irns~ttJme
Atlantic
38030'N 2800 190 1951-56 14300 a 41,400
72*06W
1959-62 a
Atlantic
Atlantic
Massachusetts Bay
Pacific:
37°50'N 3,800 320 1957-59 14,500 2,100
.....
42*25N 92 1952-59 4,008 2,440
70*35W
Farallon Islands
Farallon Islands
37*38N 900 60 1951-53 3,500 1,100
123*08W
37*37N 1,700 77 1946-50 44,000 13,400
123*17W 1954-65
This dues not include the pressure
vessel of the N/S Seawoif reactor with an estimated induced activity of 33,000 Ci.
The first slide we see here is of a prepared table listing the four
major U.S. dumpsites based on the most recent information we
have obtained. We can see here that three of the sites are in the
Atlantic, and one, with a series of subsites, is in the Pacific.
Focusing on the Atlantic for just a moment, there are two col-
umns: One is the estimated number of 55-gallon drums dumped at
the site, and the other is the estimates of radioactivity, in curies, in
the drums. About 10 percent of all the drums dumped into the
69-8~u8 0 - 81 - 25
PAGENO="0386"
380
three major Atlantic dumpsites went to Massachusetts Bay, and
the rest was evenly divided between the two deep Atlantic sites
Mr. STUDDS. May I ask you one question there?
You said the estimated numbers.
I assume you mean that very literally.
I recall a story in the Boston press with respect to the Massachu-
setts Bay dumping which quotes the person who captained the
barge or did the dumping as saying he made up those figures when
some Government agency insisted on them
He had no idea in the world what he had dumped The figures he
gave were estimates he just made up in response to a demand by
the AEC at that time for some numbers And the rest of his records
were burned in a fire
These are really rough estimates, I guess
Mr. DYER. These are estimated numbers that have been provided
to us from the archival records.
Mr. STUDDS. Whose archival records?
Mr. DYER. Well, recently NRC has been providing information to
us
And, of course, we had to reach back into the old Atomic Energy
Commission records
Mr STUDDS The dumping you are talking about predates the
NRC, does it not?
Mr. DYER. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. And predates EPA?
Mr. DYER. Definitely.
Again, the estimated activity in the drums at the time of packag
ing is just that, namely, estimated activity These were wastes, and
so no rigorous effort to characterize this material was made. We
can see that the majority of this radioactive material went into the
2,800 meter dumpsite located approximately 120 miles off the
Maryland-Delaware border.
The remaining radioactivity inventory was about equally divided
between the deeper of the Atlantic dump sites at 3,800 meters and
the Massachusetts Bay site.
If I could have the next slide, please.
(Slide No. 2.)
PAGENO="0387"
381
Slide No. 2 shows the three major Atlantic dump sites. I thinIi~.
that any future survey activities we would be considering would
include these three sites. The Massachusetts Bay site (Al) is at a
depth of about 300 feet. The site located about 120 miles offshore of
the Maryland-Delaware Coast (A3) is at a depth of about 9,300 feet.
The deepest site (A4) is in about 13,000 feet of water.
May I have the next slide, please?
Mr. STUDDS. How deep is the Massachusetts Bay site?
Mr. DYER. Roughly, 300 feet.
In June of 1978 we initiated the survey at the 3,800 meter
dumpsite.
(Slide No. 3.)
SLIDE No. 2
PAGENO="0388"
382
Slide No. 3 shows the primary research vessel, the R/V advance
II. This ship provided the logistical support for our sampling pro-
gram which consisted of a radioactive waste drum recovery, trawl-
ing operations for biological organisms, and water, sediment, and
biota analysis.
This ship, coupled with the manned submersible vehicle ALVIN
and its support ship, the R/V LULU, provided the primary logisti-
cal support for our survey objectives.
(Slide No. 4.)
SLIDE No. 3
PAGENO="0389"
383
SLIDE No. 4
Slide No. 4 is a shot of the manned submersible ALVIN which
was used by us in both 1975 and 1976 for our early surveys at the
2,800 meter Atlantic dumpsite. It is a fairly unique vessel. It has a
PAGENO="0390"
384
particular advantage in that it now has a depth capability to 4,000
meters and has a manipulating arm which allows very, very pre
cise sampling on the bottom
What we see in this slide are a quiver with a series of core tubes
with T-handles. These T-handles allow for remote-controlled attach-
ment by the ALVIN manipulating arm and sampling in close prox-
imity to whatever we want to look at on the bottom.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 5.)
SLIDE No 5
Slide No 5 is a dramatic shot of the ALVIN as it is about to
submerge I should point out that while these may seem like rou
tine submersible dives in order to go to that 3,800 meter depth we
had to get the whole submersible system recertified by the Navy.
Up until that time it had been certified to a depth of approximate-
ly 12,200 feet. To go to this depth, it had to be recertified for 13,200
feet Right now, that 4,000 meter or 13,200 feet depth of certifica
tion is maximum
As we will see in a few minutes, we found drums at this site at
3,985 meters, only 15 meters short of the maximum depth this
submersible can go
If there are drums further out, there is no readily available
system to go down there to take direct observations.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 6.)
PAGENO="0391"
385
Slide No. 6 shows you what we saw when we first arrived on the
deep-sea floor in the dumpsite area. The site is in the outer reach-
ers of the Hudson Canyon axis. It is strongly swept by bottom
currents.
What we are seeing here is marl or claystone talus blocks. The
area is surrounded by very high cliffs. The topographical relief is
up to 600 feet. It has a very irregular bottom and is difficult to
work in with a submersible. If you look at the irregularity of this
bottom and couple it with the strong currents that are flowing
through it, you can imagine that it was very hard to move through
and do any actual on-the-bottom survey work.
In the center of this picture can be seen one of the two most
ubiquitous organisms in the area, the hermit crab.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 7.)
SLIDE No. 6
PAGENO="0392"
386
This is, again, nearby, but the bottom features are considerably
different. Here we have white cobbles of Eoceanerage chalk. You
can see the direction of transport downslope. Some of the cobble-
sized material is glacial erratics:
Again, the area is relatively steep and irregular. There has been
a strong sweep by bottom currents and translocated material in a
southwesterly direction through this site. And, again, all of this
compounds the difficulty of traversing in a submersible that will
only average about 1 mile per hour through relatively flat terrain.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 8.)
SLIDE No. 7
PAGENO="0393"
387
This slide (No. 8) is an interesting photograph, a Libby's fruit
cocktail can. It has not been there for long since is shows no silt
layer or biological encrustations. We arrived at this site expecting
that nothing had preceded us. And what we found in almost all the
sites we looked at was trash jettisoned from surface ships.
But what is interesting about this area is that it is practically
featureless. There are no biological organisms to speak of, either on
the surface or burrowing in the bottom. And the whole area has
been swept very smooth by relatively strong currents, suggesting
sediment burial and a relatively unstable sediment surface.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 9.)
SLIDE No. 8
PAGENO="0394"
388
SLIDE No. 9
Here we see one of the first drums that we observed from the
submersible It is a standard 55 gallon drum It shows the typical
corrosion along the chimes and weld points, and yet it is in fairly
good condition It has been lying on the ocean bottom in excess of
16 years
Again, you can see the talus slump blocks around the drums and
the drum corrosion products on the sediment surface. We can also
see in this photo indication of the direction of the current It is
moving toward the viewer, in a southerly direction. Corrosion prod-
ucts can be seen in the foraminiferal sands which have been build-
ing up behind the drum, along its long axis.
On the other side of the drum we observed that the sediment had
been scoured out considerably.
In the background the rat-tail fish, C-o-r-y-p-h-a-e-n-o-i-d-e-s a-r-m-
a t u s is visible This is the most ubiquitous fish and we have seen
it in all of the deep sea dump sites It is found at 2,800 meters and
3,800 meters It is probably an important link in any food chain
transfer from deep sea disposal sites since it has been found in
most of the deep-sea regions throughout the world. What is most
interesting about the last few slides is the great variability shown
in the sea bottom features over relatively short distances.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 10.)
PAGENO="0395"
SLIDE No. 10
This drum is the one that we ultimately recovered for analysis.
This drum was only a matter of 100 or 200 yards away from the
drum in the previous photo And yet the other drum was sitting on
the sediment surface in an area where there was a lot of erosion
and scouring The area where this drum came to rest is quite
obviously a strong depositional environment The sediment is
moving quite massively and rapidly downslope.
This drum couldn't have been down here more than 20 years
since the site was reportedly used only between 1957-59. And this
drum is not buried only to its terminal velocity at impact. Most of
the burial is due to sediment sweeping down and covering the
drum. The hypothesis is that with ~nough time some of these
drums would be completely covered, and may, in fact, have already
been covered.
There are certain artifacts in this photo not normally present I
don't know if you can see this, but there is a track at a distance
behind the drum and a pile up of sediment and another track
immediately in front of the drum. Both are artifically induced by
the sled track of the submersible ALVIN.
Another interesting point is that there is very little corrosion
and practically no biofouling of this drum or the drum seen in the
previous photograph.
There is also very little observable biological activity in the area.
The paint surface is relatively intact, which indicates that the
erosional scour we would expect to see in this canyon axis is not
present here This drum was selected for recovery because of its
good condition, and presence of some identification markings
Next slide, please.
(Slide No 11)
389
PAGENO="0396"
390
The drum lift and recovery system was fairly standardized by the
time we undertook this survey, although we had only recovered
twO drums; once in 1976 in the Atlantic, and once in 1977 in the
Pacific. In this 3,800-meter site instead of using a winch on the ship
to recover a drum from the bottom we used a direct lift with the
ALVIN submersible, since this was a 55-gallon drum and consider-
ably lighter than the 80-gallon drum recovered from the Atlantic
2,800-meter site in 1976, a report on which I have enclosed for the
record. The drum was brought up very close to the surface with a
harness underneath the submersible, and then the line was at-
tached to the ship's winch and it was hoisted the last few hundred
feet.
Standard radiation protection procedures were in place. All per-
sonnel handling the drum had to wear special clothing, and they
all had film badges to record any radiation exposure. There was a
rubber sheet over the deck to protect it. As we will see in the next
slide the drum was immediately placed into a jet-engine container.
I should also add that everybody who came anywhere near this
drum had a film badge. There was no exposure reported for any of
the personnel.
[The following was received for the record:]
SLIDE No. 11
PAGENO="0397"
391
TECHNICAL NOTE
ORP/TAD.79 -2
ON BOARD CORROSION ANALYSIS OF A RECOVERED
NUCLEAR WASTE CONTAINER
by
Stephen C. Dexter
Assistant Professor
of Ocean Engineering
and Naterials Science
College of Narine Studies
University of Delaware
August 1979
This report was prepared as an account of
work sponsored by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract No. WA-6-99-2767-J
Project Officer
Robert S. Dyer
Radiation Source Analysis Branch
Technology Assessment Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 201460
PAGENO="0398"
392
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the EPA. Neither the United States nor the EPA makes any warranty,
expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any
information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its
use would not infringe privately owned rights.
PAGENO="0399"
393
EPA TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
Publications of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Radiation Programs (ORP) are available in paper copy, as long as the EPA/ORP
supply is available or from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161.
The following reports are part of the EPA/ORP 1976 Ocean Disposal Report
Series:
ORP/TAD-79-l Materials for Containment of' Low-Level Nuclear Waste in the Deep
Ocean
ORP/TAD-79-2 On Board Corrosion Analysis of a Recovered Drum from the
Atlantic 2800 Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site
ORP/TAD-79-3 Analysis and Evaluation of a Radioactive Waste Package Retrieved
from the Atlantic 2800 Meter Disposal Site
ORP/TAD-79-)4 Reports of Infaunal Analyses Conducted on Biota Collected at the
Atlantic 2800 Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site
ORP/TAD-79-5 Geologic Observations of the Atlantic 2800 Meter Radioactive
Waste Dumpsite
ORP/TAD-79-6 Sediment Geochemistry of the 2800 Meter Atlantic Radioactive
Waste Disposal Site
ORP/TAD-79-7 Ocean Current Measurements at the Atlantic 2800 Meter
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site
ORP/TAD-79-8 Survey Coordination and Operations -Report - EPA Atlantic 2800
Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Survey
ORP/TAD-79-9 1976 Site Specific Survey of the Atlantic 2800 Meter Deepwater
Radioaotive Waste Dumpsite: Radiochemistry
ORP/TAD-79-1O Sediment Characteristics of the 2800 Meter Atlantic Nuclear
Waste Disposal Site
PAGENO="0400"
394
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA), was given a Congressional
mandate to develop criteria, standards, and regulations governing the ocean
disposal of all forms of wastes pursuant to Public Law 92-532, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Within this Congressional
mandate, EPA has initiated a specific program to develop regulations and
criteria to control the ocean disposal of radioactive wastes.
EPA has taken an active role both domestically and within the
international nuclear regulatory arena to develop the effective controls
necessary to protect the health and safety of man and the marine environment.
The EPA Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) initiated feasibility studies to
determine whether current technologies could be applied toward determining the
fate of radioactive wastes dumped in the past. After successfully locating
actual radioactive waste containers in three of the primary radioactive waste
disposal sites used by the United States in the past, ORP developed an
intensive program of dumpaite characterization studies to investigate the
following: (a) the biological, chemical and physical parameters, (b) the
presence and distribution of radionuclides within these sites, and (c) the
performance of past packaging techniques and materials.
These studies have provided needed information and data on the past and
present nuclear waste disposal activities concomitant with the growing
national and international concern for the long-term effects of this low-level
waste disposal option.
ORP has now completed the fifth in a series of Pacific and Atlantic Ocean
dumpsite surveys which began in 19711. This survey of the Atlantic 2800 meter
deep-sea radioactive waste disposal site, which is centered at coordinates
38°30'N, 72°O6'W and located approximately 120 miles east of the
Maryland-Delaware coast, was conducted in June 1976.
A major objective of this 1976 Atlantic survey was the first recovery of
a steel and concrete container from any deep-sea dumpsite. In conjunction
with the survey, EPA/ORP initiated a contract study to evaluate, prior to
extensive laboratory analysis, the chemical, biological and corrosion status
of the exterior of the container immediately upon recovery. The following
report presents this evaluation.
Readers of this report are encouraged to inform the Director, Technology
Assessment Division (ANR-1459), Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 201460, of any errors,
omissions, or other comments.
David S. Smith
Director, Technology Assessment Division
Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-1459)
PAGENO="0401"
395
Abstract
During the 1976 Atlantic 280Dm radioactive waste dumpsite survey, an
80-gallon low-level radioactive waste container was recovered. Within the two
hour interval between the time the container first emerged from the ocean
until it was encapsulated, the exterior condition of the drum, including the
appearance of corrosion product films and attached biological growths, was
extensively documented photographically. In this report, representative
photographs, as well as the results of limited chemical and biological
analyses performed by University of Delaware personnel during the above two
hour interval, are presented. These results are discussed in light of
previously published deep ocean corrosion data, and recommendations on
improving shipboard sampling and analytical procedures are given.
69-8~48 0 - 81 - 26
PAGENO="0402"
396
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On July 31, 1976, an 80-gallon nuclear waste container was recovered by
the Environmental Protection Agency from a depth of 2783 meters in the
Northwestern Atlantic Ocean at a point approximately 120 miles east of the
Delaware-Maryland border. The container was hoisted aboard the research
vessel, j~p~ Henlop~n, where it was photographed, and samples were immediately
taken of corrosion products and attached biological growths. The container
was then encapsulated in a jet engine shipping container which was flushed
thoroughly with argon to minimize any further corrosion. The elapsed time
from when the container first broke the surface of the water to the start of
the argon flushing process was two hours.
The purpose of this report is to describe the photographic, chemical, and
biological analyses performed on board the ship by University of Delaware
personnel during those two hours and to present the results of those analyses.
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Both the surface condition of the container as it came on board the ship,
and the recovery operation itself, were documented photographically.
Thirty-five mm color slides of the container were taken as soon as it broke
the surface in order to record the volume and distribution of corrosion
products before any changes due to decreasing pressure and increasing
temperature took place. After the container was secured to the deck of the
ship, photographs were taken in a systematic way so that they could be related
to the correct position on the exterior of the drum upon subsequent laboratory
examination.
PAGENO="0403"
397
2
Close-up photographs were taken of all interesting features including
biological growths. Close-up photographs were located with respect to the
container-by taking photo pairs. First, an overall picture was taken of the
container with a cut-out cardboard frame held over the feature of interest.
The camera was then repositioned and a close-up photograph was taken of the
area within the frame. The photographs presented in this report were printed
from color plates made from selected original color slides.
The pH of the corrosion products and the mud layer where it was still
clinging to the drum was spot checked at several locations while the drum
surface was still wet Readings were taken with pH indicator papers and
recorded for each location.
Samples of the corrosion product were taken both from the outer layers
(reddish orange) and from the layer immediately adjacent to the bare metal
surface (greenish black) at a location just above the mudline on the
cylindrical surface near the metal end and were examined for bacterial
activity. The examination was done both immediately on board the ship as well
as subsequently ashore in the laboratory. A Unitron BPH phase contrast
microscope was used for all observations. The samples observed on board were
examined directly at 600X by spreading the moist sample on a glass slide.
These observations were very difficult due to ship roll and vibration. The
samples to be observed in the laboratory were diluted with seawater that had
been passed through a 0.22 um membrane filter (Millipore) and encapsulatedin
glass vials to prevent them from drying. In the laboratory, these samples
were spread between a glass slide and coverslip and examined in phase contrast
PAGENO="0404"
398
3
at 1500X using an oil immersion lens. No special measures were taken to avoid
bacterial contamination of the sample nor were aseptic techniques used in
preparing the filtered seawater.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Photographic Analysis
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the container showing the locations
from which each of the photographs in Figures 2 through 9 were taken. Figures
2 through 9 show the general condition of the container immediately upon
recovery. Note that the container as it sat on the deck was upside down
compared to its position on the sea floor.
Figure 2a shows the concrete end of the drum seconds after it first broke
the surface of the water. The identifying markings on the concrete end are
legible in Figure 2b and include such information as the package number (28),
the volume of the waste-matrix mixture (9.0 cubic feet), the weight of the
package (1682 pounds), the most hazardous isotope present in the package
~ ni~ter cre~w~.
(cobalt-60) and the dose rate atAthe surface of the drum at the time of
packaging (3 millirads/hour). Information not clearly visible in Figure 2(b)
indicated that the radioactive waste package was prepared in 1961. Prior to
the start of recovery operations the drum sat partially embedded in the bottom
sediments. The sediment line is clearly visible in Figure 2, the black
portion of the concrete end having been in the mud.
PAGENO="0405"
399
LI
Figures 3a and 3b show the surface condition of the container after
hoisting out of the water but before securing on deck. There was a
10 to 15 minute interlude here while the radioactivity level of the drum was
being measured. As seen in the photographs, the container is in remarkably
good condition after 114_l5 years of immersion. The mud line can again be seen
in Figure 3b between the two arrows. Note that the upper half of the drum,
which was below the mud line, is less corroded than the lower half which was
exposed to the water column. The view in Figure 3a, for instance, shows most
of the area that was in the mud, and there is very little corrosion visible.
Identical areas on the drum surface are labeled "A" and "B" on Figures 3a and
3b. On seventy-five percent of the metallic surface area of the drum (and on
considerably more of the area below the mud line) the original black enamel
finish was still intact.
Several of the more interesting areas of the container surface were
photographed in detail after the container was secured on deck. These are
shown in Figures LI through 9. Figure 4 shows the surface above and below the
mud line on the left portion of the cylindrical surface of the drum as seen in
Figure 3b. The large area of bare metal surface showing there as well as the
bare metal showing on the raised ribs of the drum in Figures 3a and 3b were
probably scraped clean as the drum was dragged along the bottom during the
initial part of the hoist precedure. There is little doubt that this
happened, as the track of the drum where it was dragged along was clearly
visible from the deep submersible, Alvin, upon subsequent inspection of the
site.
PAGENO="0406"
400
5
Figure 5 shows the heavy concentration of corrosion products just to the
lower right of the letter "A" in Figure 3b. By the time this picture was
taken, some of the corrosion product had been scraped off into sample
bottles. Other portions of' it had rubbed off against the nylon webbing,
visible in Figure 5, which had been installed as an additional aid to handling
shortly after the picture in Figure 3b was taken. There was no attempt made
at this time to scrape all the way through the corrosion product layer to
determine the condition of the underlying metal as this was planned for
subsequent laboratory operations.
The outer steel container was in the worst condition around the rim at
the concrete end as shown in Figure 6. There was no marked difference in the
condition of the rim above as opposed to below the mud line. A sample of' the
corroded edge of the metal was clipped off with metal shears for later
examination at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
When the container first arrived at the surface, it was apparent that
there was a perforation in the metal drum as a stream of seawater was observed
coming out as if under pressure. The stream can be seen just below the letter
"B" in both Figures 3a and 3b. The area from which the stream came was below
the mud line and is shown close up in Figure 7. By the time this photograph
was taken, the pressure had nearly equalized and the remaining liquid was
seeping out as shown. Some of this liquid was collected by the EPA Project
Officer for subsequent laboratory analysis. Upon further examination with a
probe, it became apparent that the perforation was not due to corrosion but
was a recent puncture. It is suspected that this occurred as the drum was
being dragged along the bottom as related above.
PAGENO="0407"
401
6
Figures 8a and 8b show the condition of the metallic end of the drum
The mud line runs between the two arrows from upper right to lower left of
Figure 8a, the portion to the upper left having been buried in the bottom
sediments. The corroded area in the center of the metallic end is shown in
Figure 8b. This appearance is typical of a painted steel surface in the early
stages of seawater corrosion. The small white streaks near the lower rim of
the metallic end as seen in Figure 8a were the only macroscopic biological
growths that were found attached to the drum. They were sampled and
identified as polychaete tubes under separate contract by Dr Donald Reish of
California State University.
There was very little corrosion below the mud line. Where corrosion did
take place, it appeared to be highly localized as in Figure 9. Instead of
being spread uniformly over the surface, the corrosion took place in the form
of broad shallow pitting (see arrows) It is estimated that the depth of
attack was 0 2 to 0 5 mm As there were no corrosion products associated with
these pits upon recovery of the drum, one can only assume that the products
were scraped off as the drum dragged along the bottom. This is a reasonable
assumption as this portion of the drum was below the mud line prior to
recovery.
3.2 Chemical Analysis
The pH of the corrosion products was measured with pH indicating paper at
several locations both above and below the mud line. The pH was generally
PAGENO="0408"
402
7
found to be between 6 and 8. There was one notable exception. The pH of the
water bubbling from the puncture described in connection with Figures 3 and 7
was between 13.0 and 13.5.
3.3 Microbiological Analysis
Despite the fact that aseptic techniques were not used in sampling the
corrosion products, no microorganisms could be positively identified
microscopically as being present in the corrosion products. Both the
red-orange outer layer and the greenish-black inner layer adjacent to the bare
metal surface were examined. Since the shipboard observations were very
difficult due to vibration problems, observations were also made in the
laboratory. The same negative result was obtained.
~.0 DISCUSSION
The overall condition of the container that was recovered was much better
than might have been expected given the duration of exposure in the deep ocean
(probably in excess of 114 years). The often localized nature of the corrosion
that did take place was also somewhat surprising as one normally expects steel
structures to be corroded uniformly over the exposed surface. Before drawing
any conclusions about the significance of the good condition of the drum to
future ocean dumping, however, two things must be considered: first, this is
only a single data point; second, this single point is purposely biased. Many
of the containers observed by the submersible, Alvin, were in worse condition
than the one recovered. This particular drum was selected for recovery
because it appeared to be in good enough condition to survive the trip to the
surface and yet provide meaningful information on past packaging performance.
PAGENO="0409"
403
8
The corrosion rate of uncoated plain carbon steel in aerated quiescent
seawater is normally as high as 0.25 to 0.~O mm/year (10 to 16 thousandths of
an inch per year [MPYfl for the first few months of immersion~'2'3.
Gradually, as the fouling and corrosion product layer builds up, the above
rate decreases2 to 0.03 to 0.13 mm/year (1 to 5 MPY). In addition, this
rate depends directly on the concentration of dissolved oxygen present in the
seawater~ and on the pH of the seawater~. Within the range of pH ~t to 10
the corrosion rate of steel is independent of pH and depends only on how
rapidly oxygen can be supplied to the steel surface. As the pH becomes more
basic than 10, however, steel becomes passive in seawater and the corrosion
rate drops rapidly to a negligible value1~.
The well known corrosion behavior of steel in seawater described above
may partially account for the good condition of the recovered nuclear waste
container. Although dissolved oxygen measurements were not made at the drum
recovery site, it is generally found that the dissolved oxygen in the deep
ocean decreases rapidly with depth from 7 ppm at the surface to a minimum of
about 0.5 ppm at 750 meters, then rising again typically to 2 or 3 ppm at
great depth. Occasionally the dissolved oxygen at great depth may rise again
to a value as high as that at the surface or even higher.
Given the good condition of the recovered drum, it can be speculated that
the dissolved oxygen in both the water and the sediments at the drum recovery
site was low (perhaps 1 to 2 ppm). This, coupled with the low temperature to
be expected at great depth, would account for the relatively low corrosion
rates observed. In addition, the concrete inside the drum was saturated with
PAGENO="0410"
404
seawater, and its pH was reported in the results section to be between 13 and
13 5 This is consistent with other measurements reported for the pH of
seawater in concrete5 The corrosion rate of the steel on the inner surface
of the container should, therefore, have been negligible and corrosion should
have proceeded from the outside only. The difference that this can make is
illustrated by the fact that the steel container was in the worst condition
around the rim at the concrete end where the steel extending beyond the
concrete by about two centimeters was exposed to ambient pH seawater on both
sides. The perforated condition of the steel in that area was shown in
Figure 6.
The corrosion rate of steel in seawater is not usually influenced
significantly by the presence (or absence) of microorganisms. The one
noticeable exception to this is in anaerobic bottom sediments where the
corrosion rate of steel normally is negligible. If sulfate reducing bacteria
are present, however, they allow the formation of a loosely adherent FeS scale
on the steel which is cathodic to the bare metal surface1~'6. This produces
a galvanic couple which accelerates the corrosion of the steel and is
accompanied by hydrogen evolution. The excellent condition of the portions of
the recovered drum that were buried in the sediments testifies that sulfate
reducing bacteria were probably not active in sediments in the recovery area.
This view is also supported by the negative result of the microscopic
investigations reported in the results section. If sulfate reducing bacteria
had been active, we should have been able to detect them in the corrosion
products.
PAGENO="0411"
405
10
5 0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
It is not possible based on the one container that was recovered to make
any definitive conclusions about the suitability, from a corrosion viewpoint,
of this method of packaging nuclear wastes for ocean disposal. It is possible
to say that at least one of the many containers dumped 16 to 20 years ago
survived its stay on the bottom with the exterior in reasonably good condition.
It is also po~sible to make recommendations for increasing the value of
future work of this type
1. Determine the dissolved oxygen concentration both in the water column
within about ten meters of the bottom and in the upper one meter of the
sediments at the durnpsite. This should be done both several months before and
again several months after, as well as at the time of the survey (total of
three measurements with at least six months from the first to the last) in
order to detect if there is any variability This type of data which was not
available for the work reported here, would have allowed a more meaningful
corrosion analysis. The expected corrosion rate could have been estimated
more accurately and related directly to other published deep-sea corrosion
data.
2. Retain the services of a qualified marine microbiologist to test the
sediment samples for the presence of microorganisms. The sulfate reducing
bacteria are particularly important for evaluating the corrosion behavior.
Also have this person arrange to test the corrosion products for bacterial
activity by culturing techniques as well as by microscopy.
PAGENO="0412"
406
11
The above recommendations should be extended to include not only research
on the effects of past dumping, but also research on sites that may be under
consideration for future dumping. In this way it will be possible to detect
and eliminate sites whose characteristics might accelerate deterioration of
the container by corrosion.
PAGENO="0413"
407
12
6.0 REFERENTS
1. F.M. Reinhart "Corrosion of Materials in Hydrospace - Part I. Irons,
Steels, Cast Irons and Steel Products," U.S. Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Technical Note N-900, July 1967.
2. F.W. Fink and W.K. Boyd, "The Corrosion of Metals in Marine
Environments," DMIC Report 2~45, May 1970, p. 9-22.
3. Marine Corrosion, F.L. LaQue, Wiley-Interscience, 1975, p.95.
Q. Corrosion and Corrosion Control, H.H. Uhlig, second edition, John Wiley,
1971, p.92.
5. D.R. Lankard, "Cement and Concrete Technology for the Corrosion
Engineer," Materials Performance, 15, August 1976, p.211.
6. Microbial Aspects of Metallurgy, J.D.A. Miller, editor, American
Elsevier, 1970.
PAGENO="0414"
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the recovered container showing the locations of
the photographs in Figures 2 through 9. The container as it sat on the deck,
and as pictured here is upside down compared to its position on the sea floor.
The shaded portion was embedded in the sediments.
STARBOARD ~
9
7
-*----~- PORT
METAL ______
END
8a &
3b~
MUD LINE
CONCRETE
CIVI./
~ZZ2a
5
&2b
PAGENO="0415"
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Nuclear waste container, a) a few seconds after
breaking surface of water, b) identification marks on con-
crete end.
409
PAGENO="0416"
410
(b)
Figure 3. Nuclear waste container showing: a) portion of surface
that bad been buried in the sedirrents, and b) the mud line between
arrows.
(a)
PAGENO="0417"
411
Figure 4. Left end of cylindrical surface of nuclear waste
container as seen in Figure 3(b) after securing on deck.
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 27
PAGENO="0418"
412
Figure 5. Heavily corroded portion of cylindrical surface
of container just to the lower right of letter "A" in
Figure 3(b).
PAGENO="0419"
Figure 6. Corrosion around the rim of the concrete end of the
container.
413
PAGENO="0420"
414
Figure 7 Water oozing out of perforation on cylindrical surface
of container Location of the perforation is just below the letter
B in Figure 3(a) and (b)
PAGENO="0421"
415
(a)
Figure 8. Metallic end of nuclear waste container: a) mud line is
shcMn between arrcMs, b) close up of corroded portion.
PAGENO="0422"
Figure 9 Localized corrosive attack (see arrows) on cylindrical
surface below the sedirri~nt line
416
PAGENO="0423"
Mr. DYER. Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 12.)
417
SLIDE No 12
This is a close up of the drum immediately after recovery We
tried to keep this drum in the atmosphere for as short a time as
possible It was put into a jet engine container and purged in
argon, an inert gas, to prevent further deterioration.
This photo shows quite clearly the drum inventory number,
which is "952". The drums shows very little evidence of biofouling.
There is very minor corrosion along the surface. This drum was on
the ocean bottom for a minimum of 16 years at a pressure of
almost 2,000 pounds per square inch and yet it is in relatively good
condition.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 13.)
PAGENO="0424"
418
This slide shows a close-up of the concrete end of the waste
package. Most of the radioactive wastes were packaged in 55-gallon
drums. The top of the drum was cut off; the waste was put inside;
and concerete was poured around and over the waste to make a
solid matrix.
What we can see here in this slide is that the concrete shows
very little evidence of spallation or cracking. There is some surface
dissolution of the concrete material. The cylindrical hole in the
center of the concrete is where the radioactive waste is located, in
this case a piece of iron pipe embedded or set into the drum with
concrete poured around it. It doesn't show up too clearly in the
slide here, but the drum has been perforated along the chime area
by seawater corrosion.
This corrosion is expected where you have both sides of the
metal exposed to seawater, since seawater is very corrosive.
Where the drum has only been exposed on one surface, there has
been very little corrosion.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 14.)
SLIDE No. 13
PAGENO="0425"
419
SLIDE No. 14
Here, we are looking at the other end of the drum from that seen
in the previous slide. There are a couple of interesting features to
note. First, you can see that there is very little biofouling; and
PAGENO="0426"
420
second, corrosion is mimimal. The upper one-quarter of the drum
in this photo was in contact with the sediment and shows no
evidence of corrosion. One of the things we are very interested in,
especially if we look at sealed emplacement of low level waste in
the future, is whether there are differential corrosion rates be
tween what is actually in contact with or under the sediment
versus that part of the drum directly exposed to seawater.
What we have found in the past is that there is retardation of
corrosion to that part of the drum which has been buried in the
sediment.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 15.)
SLIDE No 15
I should add we were rather fortunate in this survey
If, I could just go back for a moment to the previous slide-
There is one aspect of these surveys that I don't want you to
overlook, and that is the weather and sea state The sea here is
relatively calm These kinds of operations are extremely weather
dependent On both the drum search and recovery the ALVIN
cannot be launched in a sea state greater than about four, which
means that if you have any bad weather, which is very common in
the Atlantic, you can sit on station for the duration of the survey
mission and not get anything done
We were very fortunate Again, you could not recover this drum
unless the seas were relatively calm.
Now, to the next slide.
(Slide No. 15.)
The recovered drum which was stored in a jet-engine overpack
purged with argon was brought back to Port Jefferson, New York.
It was off-loaded and transported to Brookhaven National Labora-
tory (BNL) for analysis. BNL has just completed the analysis on
PAGENO="0427"
421
the drum and we have not yet received the report There is gener
ally a 2 to 3 year lead time between the drum recovery and
completion of the drum analysis since it entails both matrix evalu
ation of the concrete and testing of the metal for corrosion rates,
for both that portion of the waste package buried in the sediment
and that portion of the package exposed to sea water
However, we have completed the analyses of the drum that we
recovered in 1976 from the Atlantic 2,800 meter site, and obtained
some very interesting results
First of all, we knew that the most hazardous radioactive isotope
disposed of in that drum, based on the labeling on the drum, was
cobalt 60 After more than 12 to 14 years of immersion, none of the
cobalt-60 had been released.
However, the cesium-137 had been leached from the concrete and
was found in the sediment in the vicinity of the site.
The other aspect of the analysis concerned the metal container
and concrete matrix Based on the corrosion analysis, the metal
container was estimated to last between 25 to 37 years The con
crete itself was estimated to survive for 104 years in that particu
lar environment
I should also add that the philosophy underlying these early
disposal operations was that the metal drum itself was not intend
ed to provide any significant containment for these wastes. It was
primarily a form for transport and handling.
Although the primary focus of our 1978 Atlantic survey effort
was to investigate the 3,800-meter dumpsite, there was also a sec-
ondary objective. This objective was to assist the U.S. Navy, at
their request, in:
Putting down corrosion test panels at the Atlantic 2800m dump-
site for an estimate of corrosion rates of stainless steel after vary
ing lengths of immersion in a deep-sea site.
And, (2) Looking, very briefly and unsuccessfully, for the
SEAWOLF reactor which reportedly had been dumped at the At-
lantic 2,800-meter site in the late 1950's.
I should add also that our primary role here was logistic support.
The actual program elements and objectives were handled by the
Navy.
(Slide No. 16.)
PAGENO="0428"
422
Slide No. 16, then shows the corrosion test panels (foreground) in
the ALVIN sampling basket, which we deployed for the U.S Navy.
Sediment coring tubes, equipped with T-handles, and water sam-
plers are also visible in the sampling basket.
An interesting historical feature of the Atlantic 2,800-meter site
that was fortunately missing in the 3,800-meter site was the multi-
ple-use aspect. I mean, by that, that the 2,800-meter site received
chemical wastes and munitions, as well as radioactive wastes. The
Massachusetts Bay site also received chemical toxic wastes in addi-
tion to radioactive wastes.
(Slide No. 17.)
SLIDE No. 16
PAGENO="0429"
423
Slide No. 17 shows some sort of a munitions drum, unidentified
World War II military ordnance. We don't have any further infor-
mation on it. Signs of biofouling are quite evident in this slide
(Eunephthya Sp.) The biofouling is limited but still greater than
that observed at the 3,800-meter site.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 18.)
SLIDE No. 17
SLIDE No. 18
PAGENO="0430"
424
We found litter throughout the 2,800-meter site. Here we see a
box of munitions, possibly obsolete ammunition We came across
hundreds of these boxes. I think that the "bottom line" to this is
that in any future monitoring of disused, multiple-use dumpsites
we should be particularly aware of the widespread nature of this
ordnance And that we do nothing about the properties or behavior
of most of it
I don't think we would want to go out and start bumping around
these sonar targets in a submersible, which brings me to another
point, the problem of confusion of targets If you have a dumpsite
with multiple use such a the 2,800 meter Atlantic dumpsite, and
you are out in a submersible at 9,000 feet, you are traveling fairly
blind. You can't run you external lights coontinuously or you will
run down the battery When the lights are on you can only see in a
forward arc about 150° for about 25 to 30 feet. Therefore, your
sonar is the only thing that really tells you what is out there
ahead The targets, these munitions drums and explosives, give you
the same or similar signals as do the radioactive waste drums
Therefore you don't know whether to avoid the target or not until
you are quite close to it This, then, requires caution and a fairly
slow traverse rate.
While the 3,800-meter dumpsite appeared relatively barren of
biological organisms, the 2,800-meter site appeared more biological-
ly active. The following six slides are illustrative of some of the
more common fish and invertebrates present at the 2,800-meter
dumpsite While the fish are of considerable oceanographic inter
est, they also compound the difficulty of describing potential bio
logical transport mechanisms for radioactivity from a dumpsite
Each of the fish shown may represent part of a separate food chain
or components of the same food chain. They may also be present,
but as yet unobserved at the 3,800-meter dumpsite.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 19.)
PAGENO="0431"
SLIDE No. 19
Here we see the rattail fish, Coryphaenoides armatus. This was
found at both the 3,800 meter dumpsite and 2,80U meter dumpsite.
This fish is unbiquitous throughout the area.
The eel like fish is a Synaphobranchus Both of these fish are
bottom feeders, although Synaphobranchus is also a pelagic feeder
(Slide No. 20.)
425
SLIDE No. 20
PAGENO="0432"
426
In slide No. 20 we see another fish photographed at the 2,800-
meter site, Antimora rostrata. This fish is a bottom feeder.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 21.)
SLIDE No. 21
PAGENO="0433"
427
This is another genus of rattail fish, Halosauropsis. This rattail
is found fairly predominantly at the 2,800-meter site and is a
bottom feeder. We did not catch it at the 3,800-meter site and the
maximum depth of habitation for this fish may be somewhere
between the 2,800-meter and 3,800-meter dumpsites.
If you consider that the international dumping recommendations
recommend 4,000 meters as the minimum acceptable disposal
depth for radioactive materials, you are seeing a very good techni-
cal reason for selecting that depth. You have reduced the number
of biological organisms and types of species found that could take
up and/or transport the radioactive material, thus reducing one
risk pathway to man.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 22.)
This is called a tripod fish because it sits up off the bottom on its
elongated pectoral fins while it waits for food to swim by.
Next~slide, please.
(Slide No. 23.)
SLIDE No. 22
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 28
PAGENO="0434"
428
SLIDE No 23
This fish is called a chimaera, and is rarely seen We don't know
anything about how common it is It may be important in potential
food chain transfer of radioactive materials from the deep sea or it
may not be. What is noteworthy is that we didn't catch any of
these fish in our trawl nets. This fish was only observed directly
from the submersible. I think an important consideration in deep-
sea monitoring, both now and in the immediate future, is that just
because you go out and conduct trawls or other sorts of sampling
doesn't mean you are really sampling all the different kinds of
organisms that are in the dumpsite area.
If you do trawl, you probably won't catch the chimaerid fish, For
example. You won't catch the fast-swimming fish. You may only
get a very small cross-section of what is in that dump site.
So, even using existing technology today, you may not be able to
predict all the food-chain transport mechanisms.
Next slide, please.
(Slide No. 24.)
PAGENO="0435"
SLIDE No 24
Whenever we go out and do a deep sea survey, as soon as we
answer one question another question pops up This slide illus
trates that point ThisA~ a starfish called Dytaster sitting on what
appears to be a mound encircled by a fairly concentric ring of
small burrow holes This is only found at the 2,800 meter Atlantic
site We haven't found it at any other site We don't know what
causes it
The deep sea biologists don't know what causes it We have
probed this area and never found a proof positive causal agent for
these circles, commonly called "fairy rings" And yet the most
common feature througho~it the 2,800 meter site has been the pres
ence of these fairy rings.
We still don't know what they are due to, or their significance, if
any.
Before I conclude my statement I would like to introduce for the
record, the Press Release we issued prior to this 1978 3,800 meter
survey, which outlines in much more detail the objectives of that
survey
[Environmental News June 19 1978]
EPA To SURVEY DEEP SEA RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPSITE IN ATLANTIC
The Environmental Protection Agency will conduct a research investigation at
the deepest of the four major oceanic radioactive waste disposal sites used by the
U.S. between 1946-1970.
The site is located at a depth of 13,000 feet, approximately 200 miles off the
Maryland-Delaware coast. An estimated 14,500 fifty-five gallon drums containing a
total of 2,100 curies of radioactivity were deposited at the site approximately 20
years ago.
Using the deep submersible ALVIN, operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution the Office of Radiation Programs plans to conduct a detailed survey of
the condition of the radioactive waste drums dumped at the site and to examine the
sea bottom around the drums to determine if the radioactive contents have been
released
r
429
PAGENO="0436"
430
The research vessel LULU, support ship for the ALVIN submersible, will depart
for the site from Woods Hole, Massachusetts on June 20 and will rendezvous with a
second research vessel, the ADVANCE II departing from Wilmington, North Caroli-
na on June 18. Present plans call for an eight-day survey with the participation of
over thirty researchers from eleven academic institutions, three U.S. Federal agen-
cies, and the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute.
An EPA oceanographer will descend in the ALVIN submersible to the 13,000 foot
depth in order to examine the condition of the drums and to determine the feasibil-
ity of retrieving one of them for later analysis. This will be the twelfth submersible
dive in the last four years and is part of the comprehensive survey program
developed by the Office of Radiation Programs to study the effects of past dumping
of radioactive waste.
Scientists aboard the ADVANCE II will conduct a comprehensive program of
water, sediment, and biota sampling. The collected material will yield information
on the levels and extent of radioactivity in the dumpsite area, the ability of sedi-
ments to absorb and immobilize selected radioactive materials, the presence of
biological food chains which could transmit radioactivity to man, the extent to
which biological organisms could redistribute radioactivity, and the geologic stabil-
ity of the dumpsite area.
The "Ocean Dumping" Act of 1972 requires EPA to set regulations controlling
ocean disposal of all materials including low-level radioactive wastes. The Act
specifically prohibits ocean disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. The United
States has not dumped any radioactive wastes in the ocean since 1970, although
several European nations are actively using this form of disposal. The technical and
operational results of this EPA radioactive waste dumpsite survey program, which
commenced in 1974, will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of developing
more comprehensive ocean disposal regulations and standards.
As stated earlier, we are concerned with monitoring for various
objectives, the foremost of which has been a firsthand scientific
attempt to examine the many biological, chemical, goelogical physi-
cal processes acting on the radioactive waste drums in abandoned
U.S. nuclear waste disposal sites; processes which could transport
or immobilize the radioactive materials. The ability to assess and!
or predict as closely as possible the impact of past and potential
future low-level radioactive waste disposal activities is of consider-
able importance to our agency mandates.
Health impact monitoring of abandoned sites is also perceived as
important. But, both of these goals are predicated on our ability to
understand the ocean processes that can contribute to or impede
that radiological impact.
As a result of our survey at the Atlantic 3800 meter dumpsite,
what have we learned about the ocean conditions at this site? First,
the biological populations living in and on the ocean bottom sedi-
ment are scanty, and are fewer in numbers and species per unit
area than either of the shallower Pacific-Farallon Islands dump-
sites investigated.
Second, the evidence of slump scarps and avalanche deposits,
coupled with a noticeable lack of biological activity, suggests that
the area is geologically unstable.
Third, there is strong visual evidence of a rapid, Southwesterly-
moving undercurrent.
And fourth, there is no convincing evidence of any elevated
concentrations of radioactivity in the biota, sediments, or water
collected from the dumpsite.
The future use of this site would appear undesirable based on its
geologic instability and the difficulty in monitoring the area. How-
ever, lack of extensive biological populations, and the presence of
strong dispersal forces would seem to suggest lower potential for
physical and biological accumulation of any of the radioactive
PAGENO="0437"
431
waste contents, thus perhaps reducing the potential impact of the
dumping operations.
Important questions remain unanswered, however, and further
sampling to obtain the answers is warranted.
This concludes my prepared statement.
We will be happy to answer any questions you may have on all
aspects of our surveys.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dyer follows (the slides referred
to in the statement were included in the preceding text):]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. DYER, SENIOR STAFF OCEANOGRAPHER, OFFICE
OF RADIATION PROGRAMS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to
present to you some of the details of our site-specific survey work at abandoned U.S.
nuclear waste dump sites in the Atlantic Ocean. Since we last appeared before you
in 1978, we have completed a survey at the deepest of four major U.S. nuclear waste
dumpsite areas, a site located approximately two hundred miles east of the Mary-
land-Delaware coast at a depth of 3800m (approximately 13,000 feet).
I would now like to describe to you in more detail the results of this survey effort,
for two reasons: (1) We have not had the occasion until now to present this informa-
tion before Congress, and, (2) This site comes closest to fulfilling the minimum
disposal depth requirement of 4000m and meets the geographic restriction to the
area between 50' south and 50' north latitude as established by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAA) in 1978. These requirements were set pursuant to the
London Dumping Convention for the siting of any nuclear waste dumpsites now, or
in the future. As a signatory to the Convention, the U.S. is bound by these require-
ments. Therefore, any information obtained from this 3800m dumpsite should be
directly applicable to future U.S. deep-sea siting considerations. This 3800m site
raises a basic site selection question, which I shall discuss in more detail later: Once
a radioactive material is released into a deep-sea environment is it better for it to be
rapidly diluted to lower concentrations over a wider area, or localized to keep the
radioactivity at higher concentrations within a narrow region?
Dr. Roger Mattson has briefly discussed the specific objectives of our past survey
activities as well as recent considerations we have given to the question of monitor-
ing. By way of introduction I would like to put this site-specific survey into perspec-
tive with both Dr. Mattson's remarks and the general objectives of environmental
monitoring as presented by the IAEA in their recommendations for controlling sea
disposal of nuclear waste (INFCIRC/205/Add.1/Rev.1, August 1978).
The IAEA has set out four basic objectives for environmental monitoring of deep-
sea disposal sites: (1) Assessment of actual or potential exposure of man and other
sensitive elements of the biosphere, or estimation of upper limits of such exposure;
(2) Scientific investigations; (3) Improved public understanding; and (4) Conservation
of ocean resources
While our past survey activities have been concerned with all four of the IAEA
objectives, our focus has been on dumpsite-specific scientific investigations in accord-
ance with EPA regulatory responsibilities under the Ocean Dumping Act (PL 92-
932). Althrough there are different kinds of monitoring activities with different
specific objectives, they are all related to a better understanding of what happens to
the radioactive material after disposal in an ocean dumpsite. Our overall concern
has been on the general monitorability of a site. Unless the technology exists to
allow direct investigation of a dumpsite to verify scientific assumptions made re-
garding the site suitability, then the site should not be used.
The initial activities engaged in by this office from 1974-1977 demonstrated that
techniques exist for actually performing certain dumpsite-specific monitoring activi-
ties. Using both manned and unmanned submersibles we evaluated the conditions of
radioactive waste drums in situ, recovered such drums for laboratory analysis of the
metal container and concrete matrix, and collected precisely-located sediment sam-
ples to determine if, and to what extent, radioactive materials had been released
from nuclear waste packages at dumpsite depths ranging between 900m to 2800m.
Our 1978 survey at the Atlantic 3800m site, however, represented the strongest
challenge to date for available deep sea monitoring technology. The site contains the
fourth largest inventory of radioactivity, based on the most recent information
reported to us (see Fact Sheet submitted by Roger Mattson). But it is the most
distant from shore (200 miles) and of the greatest depth (3800M, or approximately
13,000 feet).
PAGENO="0438"
432
With the permission of the chairman I would like to present a series of slides
which highlight important features of this Atlantic 3800m dumpsites as well as
important aspects of our 1978 survey activities.
Slide No. 1.-Presents a table listing the four primary U.S. radioactive waste
disposal areas. Three of these areas are located in the Atlantic while the fourth very
large area is near the Farallon Islands, offshore from San Francisco. The three
Atlantic dumpsites listed in this table account for almost 99 percent of the total
radioactivity inventory dumped into the Atlantic betwen 1946 and 1965. It should be
noted that the reactor vessel from the nuclear submarine SEAWOLF was also
disposed of at the Atlantic site 120 miles offshore from the Maryland Delaware
border at a depth of 2800 meters or (9,300 feet). It differs from the other. wastes in
that it is primarily induced activity fixed in the stainless steel reactor vessel
Slide No 2-Is a map showing the locations of the three major U S Atlantic
disposal areas. Any future plans to monitor abandoned U.S. east coast dumpsites
should include these three sites Ships logs of many of the deepsea disposal activities
suggest that the radioactive wastes were placed in a broad area around the desig-
nated dumpsite coordinates. Therefore, it is important to factor this information
into any planned monitoring activities within and around the three sites if mean-
ingful comparisons of site-specific versus baseline or ambient concentrations are to
be made.
Slide No. S-Shows the Research Vessel ADVANCE II out of Wilmington, North
Carolina which provided logistics support for drum recovery, trawling operations for
biological samples large volume sediment sampling and seawater sampling in the
3800 meter dumpsite area This ship along with the manned submersible ALVIN
and its support ship R/V LULU comprised the necessary system to meet our survey
objectives These objectives were detailed in an EPA Press Release of June 19 1978
which I would like to submit for the record. The objectives included: (1) an extensive
program of water, sediment, and biota sampling to measure concentrations of radio-
activity and its distribution within the 3800m dumpsite; (2) identification of any
unexpectedly high concentrations of radioactive isotopes in the 3800m dumpsite
region; (3) identification of commercial species of fish and invertebrates; (4) observa-
tions of the geologic stability of the area; (5) observations on radioactive waste
packaging performance after immersion in the deep-sea for many years; (6) recovery
of a selected radioactive waste package, and; (7) evaluation of the suitability of
existing technology to fulfill deepsea monitoring requirements now and in the
future.
Slide No. 4.-As with our previous 1975 and 1976 Atlantic surveys at the 2800
meter dumpsite, the submersible we used was the DSV ALVIN. It is a three-man
submersible equipped with video and 35mm external cameras and a remotely con-
trolled manipulating arm It was necessary to recertify the ALVIN for diving to
4000m (approximately 13,200 feet) from its previous depth limit of 3660m (approxi-
mately 12,000 feet) in order to meet our survey requirements. This is a permanent
recertification. The deepest point we reached during the three dives at the 3800m
site was 3985m. At present ALVIN is the only manned, untethered submersible
available to civilian agencies, which can operate to this depth. In this slide we see
the ALVIN just before its first dive into the 3800m site. The core tubes, modified
with T-handles for use by the manipulating arm, are seen in the basket attached to
the front of the submersible.
Slide No. 5.-ALVIN starting a descent.
Slide No. 6.-Shows the bottom conditions in this 3800m dumpsite. This site is
near the main channel of the outer reach of the Hudson submarine canyon and has
walls varying from gently sloping to vertical cliffs up to a height of approximately
200m.
Marl or claystone talus blocks appear in the foreground, probably derived by
slumping from steep adjacent walls. A small hermit crab is also visible in the
foreground.
This photo is indicative of the irregular terrain we encountered throughout the
3800m site. The irregular terrain coupled with strong southerly-flowing bottom
currents made bottom traversing quite difficult in the ALVIN submersible.
Slide No. 7.-Is another view of the bottom terrain slightly deeper (3970m) in the
dumpsite area. The white cobbles are Eocene-age chalk, while some of the other
cobble-sized materials are glacial erratics.
Slide No 8-Is reminiscent of those cliched situations where one finds a beer can
at the top of a supposedly unconquered mountain Here is a neatly situated fruit
cocktail can in a most unlikely location. The area is striking in its lack of features.
The area is swept smooth by the currents and there is no evidence of biological
activity.
PAGENO="0439"
433
Slide No. 9.-Shows the first of the few drums found in the site. This is an intact
55-gallon drum showing characteristic blistering corrosion at the chimes and weld
points. The surrounding terrain is irregular with marl talus blocks adjacent to the
drum. Corrosion products can be seen in the foraminiferal sand "downcurrent"
(nearest the viewer) of the drum. The ubiquitous rat-tail fish (Coryphaenoides arma-
tus) is seen swimming near the drum. The drum and surroundings are notable for
their absence of sessile (non-motile) or burrowing biological organisms. The compact-
ed nature of the sediment suggests an erosional surface~ where strong scouring
action has removed the surface sediment layers.
Slide No. 10.-Shows another drum seen in the same general vicinity. It is
numbered 953 in yellow paint on the upper surface The drum is considerably
buried by sediment but the surface paint is in good condition suggesting downslope
deposition with little turbidity scour Again there is a noticeable absence of biologi
cal organisms. The sediment piled up at the near-end of the drum and the straight-
line depressions in the background are caused by the sled track of the submersible
ALVIN. This drum was selected for recovery because of its good condition and
identification makings. Prior to recovery, a series of precisely-positioned cores were
taken at two meter intervals up to twelve meters from the drum. These cores were
analyzed for the man-made radioisotopes plutonium-238, plutonium-239, 240, and
cesium-137, as well as the naturally-occurring radioisotopes such as uranium, thor-
ium, and radium. there was no evidence of elevated plutonium-238, plutonium-239,
240, or cesium-137 in any of the core samples.
Slide No. 11.-The drum recovery was carried out in a manner similar tO the 1976
Atlantic 2800m site recovery operation described in our 1978 testimony The sub
mersible ALVIN attached the lifting harness to the drum without incident but
instead of having the support ship winch the target drum off the bottom, the
ALVIN lifted it directly to the surface where it was then pulled out of the water by
the R/V ADVANCE II Slide No 11 shows the deck preparations for recovery All
personnel wear protective clothing and radiation exposure badges. The deck is
covered with rubber sheeting and the drum is immediately placed into a jet-engine
overpack for storage and transport.
Slide No. 12.-Is a closeup of the long axis of the waste drum shortly after
recovery. The identification number is clearly visible. The drum is in excellent
condition considering its immersion in more than 13,000 feet of water for over
sixteen years. There is no significant biofouling as compared with the drums seen
and recovered in the Atlantic 2800m and Pacific Farallon Islands 900m dumpsites
Slide No. 13.-Is a closeup of the concrete-cap end of the waste package. The
concrete appears to be in good condition with no obvious evidence of spalling and
only minor surface dissolution There is perforation of the metal rim of the drum
from corrosion where both sides of the metal drum were directly exposed to sea
water. The cylindrical hole in the concrete houses a metal pipe, probably çontami-
nated with radioactivity. Subsequently this was found to be the only waste present
in the concrete matrix. The analytical objectives for recovering this drum were: (1)
to determine the metal corrosion rate in that portion of the drum exposed to free-
moving seawater; (2) to determine the corrosion rate in that portion of the metal
drum directly in contact with the sediment; and (3) to estimate the dissolution rate
of the concrete matrix.
Slide No. 14.-Is a view of the metal-capped end of this same drum showing some
minor evidence of corrosion and biofouling The portion of the drum imbedded in
the sediment is seen in the upper left quadrant We were fortunate that the
weather and seas were both calm during this very weather dependent search and
recovery operation Shortly after recovery the drum was sealed in a jet engine
container overpack and purged with argon an inert gas to prevent further deterio
ration
Slide No 15-The drum was off loaded at Port Jefferson New York and taken to
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for analysis. Although the analysis is not
yet complete, we do have the results of a similar set of analyses performed by BNL
on the drum we recovered from the Atlantic 2800m site in 1976. That drum had
been immersed for approximately fourteen years and the analyses indicate that the
metal would last between 25-37 years before it would no longer provide any barrier
to the migration of its radioactive contents. The concrete matrix is estimated to
provide containment for upwards of 104 years. During the approximately fourteen
years of immersion none of the cobalt 60 contaminated waste was detected to have
been released while the cesium 137 had been leached from the concrete matrix into
the sediment immediately surrounding the drum With reference to the estimated
longevity of the metal the metal drum is not considered a primary barrier to the
waste and was used simply as a convenient form of handling and transport of the
waste for disposal
PAGENO="0440"
434
3800M DUMPSITE CHARACTERISTICS
The biological sampling program conducted in the 3800m dumpsite area focussed
on the infauna (living in the sediment), epifauna (primarily megafaunal inverte-
brates living on the sediment), and fish.
The infauna populations are scanty and are dominated by small nematodes,
crustaceans, and polychaete worms. The infaunal populations at both the Atlantic
2800m and 3800m dumpsites are both fewer in numbers and species per unit area
than either of the shallower Pacific-Farallon Islands dumpsites investigated.
The predominant epifauna are brittle starfish (ophiuroids) and hermit crabs (pa-
gurids). Although the number of deepsea samples taken was very limited, the mega-
epifauna composition at the disposal site was comparable to similar depth locations
in the northwestern Atlantic. Coryphaenoides armatus (rat-tail) was the dominant
fish species present. It feeds on pelagic organisms as well as scavenges the bottom,
and probably represents an important link in deep-sea food chains since it has been
reported from abyssal depths around the world. In fact a feeding link was demon-
strated at this 3800m dumpsite between the rat-tail fish and a burrowing holothur-
ian (sea cucumber) Molpadia.
The evidence of slump scarps, avalanche deposits, and lack of biological activity
indicates that this is a geologically unstable area. There is also visual evidence of
strong scouring from the southwesterly moving Western Boundary Undercurrent.
The area shows high topographic relief and is difficult to work in both on the
bottom and by trawling and other ship sampling methods. There is no evidence of
any elevated concentrations of radioactivity in the biota, sediments or the water,
with the possible exception of americium-241 in two specimens of the rat-tail fish
Coryphaenoides armatus. Discussion of the americium-241 is presented in more
detail in the Fact Sheet submitted by Dr. Mattson with his testimony.
The future use of this site would appear undesirable based on its geologic instabil-
ity and the difficulty in monitoring the area. However, lack of extensive biologcial
populations, and the presence of strong dispersal forces would seem to suggest lower
potential for physical and biological accumulation of any of the radioactive waste
contents, thus perhaps reducing the potential impact of the dumping operations.
Important questions remain unanswered regarding this site-questions such as the
velocity and direction of the currents flowing in and around the dumpsite area, and
the seemingly anomalous values of americium found in two fish specimens. Further
sampling to answer these questions is warranted.
2800M DUMPSITE SURVEY ACTIVITIES
The last two ALVIN submersible dives in our 1978 Atlantic survey program were
conducted at the 2800m dumpsite. At the request of, and in cooperation with the
U.S. Navy we provided submersible time during our survey activities to: (1) Conduct
a brief but unsuccessful attempt to locate the SEAWOLF reactor vessel at this site.
(2) Assist in the deployment of corrosion test panels to study the corrosion rates
over time of various alloys at the depth approximating the disposal depth of the
N/S SEAWOLF reactor vessel. This is a long-term study.
Slide No. 16~-Shows the corrosion test panels (foreground) in the ALVIN sam-
pling basket, ready for deployment on the ocean floor.
By way of comparison with the 3800m site I have a few slides showing types of
wastes, in addition to radioactive waste, deposited in the 2800m dumpsite.
Slide No. 17.-Shows WWII military waste of undefined content, but clearly dated
from that time period.
Slide No. 18.-Is typical of the hundreds of boxes of ammunition we observed
while traversing the area in the ALVIN submersible. The presence of other types of
waste in this 2800m dumpsite complicates the identification of radioactive waste
drums by sonar location since ordnance and other packaged waste materials give a
similar sonar return signal. In addition, operating in an explosives or ammunition
dumping area poses a greater risk from accidental contact with the wastes them-
selves while exploring the bottom. Routine trawling for biologicial samples from a
surface ship should be done outside the immediate dumpsite area to avoid acciden-
tal recovery of these wastes.
While the 3800m dumpsite appears relatively barren of biological organisms, the
2800m site appears more biologically active. The following six slides are illustrative
of some of the more common fish and invertebrates present at the 2800m dumpsite.
While the fish are of considerable oceanographic interest, they also compound the
difficulty of describing potential biological transport mechanisms for radioactivity
from a dumpsite. Each of the fish shown may represent part of a separate food-
chain or components of the same food chain.
PAGENO="0441"
435
Slide No. 19.-Shows the ever-present rat-tail fish (Coryphaenoides armatus) on
the right, and the eel-like Synaphobranchus on the left. Both fish feed pelagically;
the rat-tail also roots for food in the sediments.
Slide No. 20.-Shows another common deep-sea fish, Antimora rostrata, common
at the 2800m depth but not caught during our trawls near the 3800m dumpsite.
Slide No. 21.-Is a photograph of another genus of rat-tail fish, Halosauropsis, a
bottom feeder.
Slide No. 22.-Shows the tripod fish, (Bathypterois longipes), found at both the
2800m and 3800m sites.
Slide No. 23.-Shows a chimaera, (Harriotta raleighana), a bottom feeder not
commonly caught. Because many species of fish are rapid swimmers they can avoid
a trawl net or a slow-moving submersible completely; hence what we see here may
be only a small cross-section of a broader range of unobserved organisms present in
the site.
Most of these fish are bottom feeders and could be important in bioturbation (the
stirring of the bottom sediments by marine organisms). Bioturbation can result in
remobilization of the radioactivity released into or on the sediment surface, with
subsequent physical transport or biological uptake and transport.
Slide No. 24.-This last slide illustrates the perennial problem in science-for
every question answered another one pops up. The two prominent features in this
slide are a starfish and a relatively concentric circle of small burrows called a "fairy
ring". Of the four sites surveyed, we have observed these rings only at this 2800m
site. They are, by far, the most common bottom feature in the area, but the source
of these rings in unknown. Sampling within the rings has turned up nothing. The
rings are undoubtedly caused by a common inhabitant of the site-but what one?
SUMMARY
To date we have looked at four U.S. ocean dumpsite locations-two in the Pacific
Farallon Islands area, and two in the Atlantic at depths of 2800m and 3800m.
As stated earlier, we are concerned with monitoring for various objectives, fore-
most of which has been a firsthand-attempt to examine the many biological and
physical processes acting on radioactive waste drums in abandoned U.S. nuclear
waste disposal sites-processes which could transport or immobilize the radioactive
materials. The ability to assess and/or predict, as closely as possible, the impact of
past and potential future low-level waste disposal activities is of considerable impor-
tance to our agency mandates. Health-impact monitoring of abandoned sites is also
perceived as important. But both of these goals are predicated on our ability to
understand the biological, chemical, physical, and geological processes which con-
tribute to or impede that radiological impact.
This concludes my prepared testimony. We will be pleased to respond to any
questions the subcommittee might have regarding our nuclear waste dumpsite
survey program.
[From the EPA Environmental News, Mon., June 19, 1978]
EPA TO SURVEY DEEP-SEA RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPSITE IN THE ATLANTIC
The Environmental Protection Agency will conduct a research investigation at
the deepest of the four major oceanic radioactive waste disposal sites used by the
U.S. between 1946-1970.
The site is located at a depth of 13,000 feet, approximately 200 miles off the
Maryland-Delware coast. An estimated 14,500 fifty-five gallon drums containing a
total of 2,100 curies of radioactivity were deposited at the site approximately 20
years ago.
Using the deep submersible ALVIN, operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, the Office of Radiation Programs plans to conduct a detailed survey of
the condition of the radioactive waste drums dumped at the site and to examine the
sea bottom around the drums to determine if the radioactive contents have been
released.
The research vessel LULU, support ship for the ALVIN submersible, will depart
for the site from Woods Hole, Massachusetts on June 20 and will rendezvous with a
second research vessel, the ADVANCE II departing from Wilmington, North Caroli-
na on June 18. Present plans call for an eight-day survey with the participation of
over thirty researchers from eleven academic institutions, three U.S. Federal agen-
cies, and the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute.
An EPA oceanographer will descend in the ALVIN submersible to the 13,000 foot
depth in order to examine the condition of the drums and to determine the feasibil-
ity of retrieving one of them for later analysis. This will be the twelfth submersible
dive in the last four years and is part of the comprehensive survey program
PAGENO="0442"
436
developed by the Office of Radiation Programs to study the effects of past dumping
of radioactive waste.
Scientists aboard the ADVANCE II will conduct a comprehensive program of
water sediment and biota sampling The collected material will yield information
on the levels and extent of radioactivity in the dumpsite area, the ability of sedi-
ments to adsorb and immobilize selected radioactive materials, the presence of
biological food chains which could transmit radioactivity to man the extent to
which biological organisms could redistribute radioactivity, and the geologic stabil-
ity of the dumpsite area.
The "Ocean Dumping" Act of 1972 requires EPA to set regulations controlling
ocean disposal of all materials including low-level radioactive wastes. The Act
specifically prohibits ocean disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. The United
States has not dumped any radioactive wastes in the ocean since 1970, although
several European nations are actively using this form of disposal. The technical and
operational results of this EPA radioactive waste dumpsite survey program, which
commenced in 1974, will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of developing
more comprehensive ocean disposal regulations and standards.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much for a very interesting presen-
tation
Let me ask some questions and then I will yield
I will try to avoid those questions which I suspect Mr. Anderson
would like to ask.
I will let him handle some of those.
You say on page 11, Dr. Mattson, of your testimony, and I quote:
I am not optimistic that we of EPA can undertake monitoring to insure public
safety while still maintaining progress on the development of regulations to control
any future disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
When was the last dumping of low level waste in this country?
Dr. MATTSON. 1970.
Mr. STUDDS. Then why, at this point, is EPA developing rules
and regulations for the future dumping of low-level radioactive
waste?
Dr. MATTSON. Because the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972 gave that
responsibility to EPA for any future dumping of low-level radioac-
tive waste.
What the act did, in essence, was give EPA the regulatory au-
thority that previously resided in the Atomic Energy Commission.
One of the things required by the act to be considered in setting
criteria for any future radioactive waste dumping was the good-
ness, if you will, of the ocean dumping relative to other options, for
example, shallow land burial
Mr. STUDDS. Does the act explicitly address the question of low-
level dumping?
Dr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. And it vests in the EPA the authority to permit any
future dumping of that kind?
Dr. MATTSON. That is right.
Mr. STUDDS. Does it direct EPA to proceed to promulgate regula-
tions or does it simply vest that authority in you, in the event that
someday somebody will request such a thing?
Dr MATTSON I would say my reading of it puts it more in the
former category than the latter It has been EPA's understanding
since the act was passed in 1972 that it was to develop regulations
for any future dumping
Mr STUDDS Have you been doing that for 8 years?
Dr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. How are you doing?
PAGENO="0443"
437
Dr. MATTSON. Well, we said in our testimony we would probably
not be in a position to issue permits before 1985
Mr STUDDS That was a 13 year development of regulations?
Dr MATTSON Yes, sir
It is a very small program, and I am reminded by a voice behind
me, that we did issue regulations in 1973 and then revised them in
1977, in both cases stating some fundamental principles which
would apply to any future dumping. I covered that in my testimo-
ny.
Mr. STUDDS. Have you had, since 1972, or do you have reason to
anticipate any request for such permits?
Dr. MATTSON. We have no requests. We would anticipate that
there may be some requests
Let me try to be more specific in what they might be
The naval reactors people have under consideration sea disposal
as one alternative for the ultimate disposition of the low level
radioactivity from nuclear submarines
Mr STUDDS Has the Navy communicated that to you?
Dr. MATTSON. Yes.
We are aware that the Navy has that consideration underway.
Mr. STUDDS. Does the Navy need a permit if it conducts disposal
itself?
Does the Ocean Dumping Act apply to public vessels?
Dr MATTSON It is my understanding that the Navy would need
a permit from EPA in order to conduct such dumping, yes
Mr STUDDS Let me repeat and partially rephrase the question
Were you here this morning?
Dr MATTSON Yes
Mr STUDDS You heard that the London Convention does not
apply to public vessels.
Does the Ocean Dumping Act apply to U.S. public vessels, that
is, to vessels of the Federal Government?
Dr. MATTSON. It is our understanding that it does.
Mr. STUDDS. It does?
Dr MATTSON Yes
Mr STUDDS So the Navy could not dispose of the reactor contain
er or any other radioactive waste material without a permit from
EPA under the Ocean Dumping Act?
Dr. MATTSON. That is our understanding.
Mr. STUDDS. Is it also the Navy's understanding?
Dr. MATTSON. I believe it is.
Mr. STUDDS. So, then, is it really fair to say that insofar as you
feel pressure to proceed with the development of these regulations,
it is because of the anticipated request from the Navy?
Dr MATTSON No
I should have finished We become aware from time to time of
renewed interest in low level radioactive waste dumping in the
ocean as support fluctuates for shallow land burial
That is to say, from time to time people lose enthusiasm for
shallow land waste disposal and renew their interest in ocean
disposal.
We believe we have a mandate from the Ocean Dumping Act to
continue the evaluation of the ocean dumping alternative. We feel
we have no choice but to proceed to develop our regulatory pro-
PAGENO="0444"
438
gram which considers ocean disposal of these materials relative to
land disposal.
Mr. STUDDS. You say from time to time you had indication that
people are more interested than they have been in the past.
What kinds of people? Who, to be precise?
Dr. MATTSON. Well, I think it is not in the nature of communica-
tions from people telling us, here is something we would like you to
permit. It is just watching the mood of the Nation and particularly
States who now have shallow land burial facilities within their
boundaries. Shallow land burial is not a popular waste disposal
option in this country today.
Mr. STUDDS. I understand that.
But is the lack of precision in response to my question because
you cannot be more precise or because you do not wish to be?
Dr. MATTSON. There isn't anything more precise to say. There is
nobody specifically saying to us we intend to dump low-level radio-
active waste in the ocean, so please get on with your permitting
program; nobody has said that, other than the Navy, and they have
not said it in those words. They have said that they have the
alternative of ocean dumping under consideration.
Mr. STUDDS. In other words, you would have us believe this is
actually a situation in which a Federal agency is looking toward
the future with a good deal of political sophistication.
I think that is what you are saying. I think that is commendable
if that is the case.
You were saying to us on page 11 of that sentence, which I
quoted to you, that your current resources are inadequate both to
monitor past dumping and to continue the development of the
future regulations, as I understand it.
If that is the case and if your resources remain inadequate to do
both the way you would like to do them, would you think that the
monitoring would be a higher priority, that is, monitoring what
has already been dumped?
Dr. MATTSON. It is my technical judgment, and one widely agreed
upon outside of EPA in the scientific community, that those previ-
ously dumped wastes portend no harm to man or to the marine
environment. So to monitor them for public health reasons is not of
a high priority today nor has it been in the past. The thing that
has pushed us to a position of support for public health monitoring
for the old dump sites is the difficulty people have in accepting the
technical judgment, and the small amount of monitoring we have
already done as proof that there has been no public health impact.
Mr. STUDDS. Do you really believe your retrieval of three drums
out of many thousands constitutes proof of that?
Dr. MATTSON. No, sir, that is not what I said. I said it has been
our technical judgment based on an understanding of what materi-
als were dumped and where they were dumped and how long ago
they were dumped and our interpretation of the less than encyclo-
pedic data that we have already collected, that there has been no
harm from that past radioactive dumping.
Mr. STUDDS. That is not what you just said. As I understand
what you are now saying is that you have yet to detect any harm.
That is not the same thing as saying we have proved that there has
been no harm.
PAGENO="0445"
439
Dr. MATTSON. I am saying two things. I am saying we would
expect not to be able to detect harm; and the few measurements
that we have done do not detect harm.
Mr. STUDDS. Fair enough. You would expect not to be able to
detect it if you were to try to detect it. But that is not very
reassuring and certainly not scientific proof. An expectation of
inability to detect is hardly a proof of the absence of something.
Dr. MATTSON. No. If there had been harm, I am convinced we
could detect it. The radioactivity measurements are very precise
measurements. They are relatively expensive measurements to
take at very low contamination levels. And if there were harm
occurring and if we were to do the measurements, we would be
able to detect it. I am saying something different from that. I am
saying given the relatively small amount of radioactive material
that was dumped, given the wide dispersal of that material from a
number of sites, given the long time since it occurred, given the
fact that anything that leaks becomes diluted in the ocean environ-
ment, considering all of those things, it would be our technical
judgment that the radioactivity could not reach man in harmful
concentrations. That is based on a general understanding of the
pathways, less than complete but a technical understanding none-
theless, and based on experience with how radiation can concen-
trate in foods consumed by people.
Now we have done some measurements in addition to making
those kinds of judgments. The measurements that we have done,
although less than encyclopedic, do confirm that reasoning, that
scientific rationale.
Mr. STUDDS. I am haunted by your euphemism of less than
encyclopedic. I mean there are some alternative ways of stating
that that are somewhat less laudatory.
Dr. MATTSON. Well, the reason I keep bringing that in, sir, is
that it is true that more measurements would support this case
better. We are not trying to make the case that monitoring should
not b~ done. If people want better assurance, that assurance can be
provided through monitoring. There are measurement techniques
that could detect harm if it were occurring.
Mr. STUDDS. If I understand you correctly, it is your judgment-
and I suspect you would have added, had you been less diplomatic
than you were, "political pressures to the contrary and notwith-
standing"-that there is no need for further monitoring of these
former dump sites. Is that a fair summary of your position?
Dr. MATTSON. There is no need for further monitoring to assure
me and the scientists that work for me that there is no harm
occurring to man, that is true. However, in order to better under-
stand the movement of radioactive material in the marine environ-
ment, and because there are larger quantities of radioactivity still
being dumped elsewhere in the world, and because radioactivity
might be dumped again by this country, we would need to do more
scientific measurements in those old dump sites.
Mr. STUDDS. That gets me to my next question, on the Massachu-
setts Bay site, which was both the shallowest and the closest to
land. Is that correct?
Dr. MATTSON. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. Has there been any monitoring at all at that site?
PAGENO="0446"
440
Dr MATTSON No, there has not Recall again that I have just
said that we did not do public health type monitoring We were
doing the dump site monitoring for scientific and model develop-
ment reasons. And recall what Mr. Dyer said about the rather
pioneering efforts that are involved. That submersible is the only
one we knew of that could go to those depths. Nobody had ever
recovered barrels before. What we did with the early surveys is to
begin where we thought we had the highest likelihood of success of
finding barrels. Now some of the more detailed information about
Massachusetts Bay has only come, I think, to our attention in
recent months; for example, the amounts of radioactivity dumped
there and the shallowness of the site. I would say that Massachu-
setts Bay would be high on our list for health effects monitoring,
the market basket kind of monitoring for the future that we have
talked about with staff at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. It has not been a high priority in the past because
we did not feel we had that much to learn from Massachusetts Bay,
nor do we feel we had a high probability of success at Massachu-
setts Bay, nor for that matter did it look like any sites that might
be proposed for the future
Mr STUDDS But now you say, based on information recently
available to you, you have changed that position and you think it
ought to be looked at?
Dr. MATTSON. No. Well, yes and no. I think Massachusetts Bay
ought to be looked at. Let me say that at the outset.
Mr. STUDDS. I thought you just said you were satisfied there was
no need for further looking.
Dr. MATTSON. Well, if we do public health monitoring, and I
believe we should, then we should do Massachusetts Bay. People
should not be kept on edge by these scientific judgments. If a
scientific judgment is not shared by lay people and they want
better proof from the scientists, then it is only a matter of money
to provide the better proof. And science can do it. For those reasons
I would say we should do the public health monitoring. It would be
our technical judgment, knowing the general site characteristics of
Massachusetts Bay, knowing the other things that are in that site,
and knowing the fact that other kinds of monitoring for radioactiv-
ity go on routinely in this country, that there is not a problem and
if there were, we would have seen it before. That is less than a
satisfying answer.
So if we do public health monitoring, Massachusetts Bay would
be high on our list of places to go and do it.
Mr. STUDDS. All right. I think I understand what you are saying
but you are being a little reluctant to put it as clearly as you
might, I suspect, in the hail. Again you are saying your scientific
judgment is not necessary, but you recognize the degree of public
concern would be such that it would be justified in order to put the
public concern at rest and conduct further research?
Dr. MATTSON. Yes, because the other side of the coin is that my
less than positive answer might frighten the people of Boston. And
I do not believe they should be frightened.
Mr STUDDS The less than positive answer based on the less than
encyclopedic judgment.
Dr MATTSON Yes
PAGENO="0447"
441
Mr STUDDS I have many more questions but let me go first to
Mr Anderson
Mr ANDERSON Thank you, Mr Chairman I was looking at your
demonstration a moment ago, the drums that you were seeing, the
barrels. They look like they were in very good condition. Did you
pick out good barrels to show? The reason I ask the question was
because in your testimony in San Francisco I believe it was, you
stated, 25 percent of all the barrels you observed were damaged.
And you provided, and we have pictures I believe, you provided
pictures showing them pushed in, concaved in, one almost busted
in half, and also showing fish life and other forms of life growing
from the same damaged barrels I wondered why the barrels you
show today were in such good condition as compared to those we
found on the west coast
Dr. MATTSON. Well, that ~is a very good point. It occurred to me
as I was watching. We should have put in some other slides when
we were putting this together. I apologize. There are other reasons
though Mr Dyer did purposely pick an undamaged barrel to bring
to the surface because it was quite a distance he had to drag it and
he did not want it to fall apart en route And he did not want
people to be exposed to radiation when they pulled it on board the
ship It is also true that the biological activity in the Atlantic sites
is much less than the biological activity in the Farallon Island site
So the pictures you see in the Farallon Islands with sponges and a
lot of organisms attached to the barrels are different than what
you see in the Atlantic site
Mr. ANDERSON. You answered me. I was told it was probably too
hazardous to pick up the more damaged barrels.
Mr. DYER. Could I respond to that briefly? I think that one of the
things we brought out in our California testimony was the packag
ing differences In the Pacific site most of the packaging was a
sandwich configuration You simply poured a 10 inch cap of con
crete into the bottom of the 55 gallon drum, you put your waste in
the middle, and then you packaged the concrete over it This left
significant air voids And when you subjected these voids to high
pressure, you had implosion And what we noticed, I think in
fairness I should say, is we did not see any imploded radioactive
waste drums in the Atlantic dumpsites. Most of the barrels we
looked at were what we call a monolithic design, that is, homogene-
ous concrete mix. There were only very small air voids present in
those waste packages So we have two different kinds of packaging
systems.
Mr ANDERSON I did not want the committee to get the impres
sion that all the barrels looked that good as the one we saw here
today
Now, you said in your testimony that you had four dump site
locations, two in the Pacific Farallon Islands and two in the Atlan
tic. And following up on my testimony earlier here today and in
the map we put out, which I assume you have copies of, we show
that the sites that you chose to make your survey, site B and site C
on the map I am showing, are both not within the actual dump
sites, the licensed dump site I should say. For example, the first
one here was done by the Nuclear Engineering Co That in the
map was the square, was the rectangle that we have here That
PAGENO="0448"
442
was the Nuclear Engineering Co. And the EPA site you chose on
that was not located in the licensed area and was 5½ miles from
the dump site. And then going on, the next one, the circled site
here, that is the one where the Ocean Transport Co. and the
Nuclear Engineering Co. used that as the center for their dumping
operation.
And again the area which EPA chose is not in the dump site and
is 7 miles from the center of the dump. The fourth one, the trape-
zoid section there, that is by the Nuclear Engineering license and
the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. Again they were over 6
miles from the center of the dump site. So my question is why did
you choose two sites to test the barrels-I should first ask is why
should you have found barrels located that far out of the dump
site? Second, why did you choose those barrels rather than those
that were in the actual dump site itself?
Dr. MATTSON. Let me try a general answer and then Mr. Dyer
can give you the reasons for the specific locations that were chosen.
There are more than the four sites you just listed at the Farallon
Islands area.
Mr. ANDERSON. There are three licensed there, are there not?
Dr. MATTSON. There are eight subsites within the Farallon Is-
lands dump site area.
Mr. ANDERSON. Are they licensed?
Dr. MATTSON. I am sorry but the person who put together the list
is not here and we cannot answer that question. The sources of the
wastes were both licensed and unlicensed activities. That is, some
of the activities were conducted by AEC licensees and the others
conducted by AEC contractors. My guess is that the eight sites
represent some of each. This is the reason that the estimated size
of the Farallon Islands site has grown over the last 2 or 3 months.
We were developing testimony in September for the October hear-
ings. We were using 250 to 300 square miles. Today we are saying
something in excess of 500 square miles. As the records continue to
become available and as we are able to pin down precisely where
the specific locations are-and we are not finding a lot of new
materials that were dumped but we are finding more information
about where-the area tends to expand.
So first of all I do not think there is anything mysterious about
not being in the three sites that you have listed. There are in fact
eight subsites. But let us let Mr. Dyer refresh our memory on this.
Mr. DYER. When we first looked for information in 1973 we went
back to the only published records we could find generally availa-
ble, which was Joseph's paper of 1956. If you will note the slide we
showed in California, there was the large AEC-licensed area, there
was also the NECO and Chevron Research dumping areas, but then
there was a very large polygon closer to shore which was the
original area reported by Joseph as having been used. What we
now know, that is the large square AEC-licensed area, and the
NECO and Chevron Research dumping areas come to light only a
few weeks ago after NRC completed its first review of their licens-
ing records. This information is still not complete. We have not
completed receiving information from DOD or DOE. But the poly-
gon area is the area that contains the so-called three sites: The
very shallow, apparently accidental, site at about 300 feet, and the
PAGENO="0449"
443
3,000-foot and 6,000-foot sites. These, according to Joseph, were
variously used between 1946-62. There are records of the U.S.S.
Cahokia carrying the waste to the sites. And these were records
that will probably turn up independently when DOD, DOE, and
NRC complete their records search.
Mr. ANDERSON. Well, of these three sites that are used, those are
the largest licensed sites. And I wonder why you did not use those
coordinates? For example, the three main AEC-licensed depositors
in the San Francisco area were the U.S. Navy, the Nuclear Engi-
neering Co., and the Ocean Transport Co. Did you not contact these
groups before you made your decision to dive into those areas?
Mr. DYER. Our records were that the largest users or generators
of the waste were the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory and
Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories.
Mr. ANDERSON. These companies I am referring to are the ones
who disposed of their waste that would go into those three licensed
areas.
Mr. DYER. I am not exactly addressing your question. I am trying
to explain where we got our records and why we went to those
areas we selected.
Dr. MATTSON. Congressman, do you understand that the data you
have in front of you today Mr. Dyer did not have when he made
his choices. It was not a clear trade off between your data you are
reading from today and what he was choosing from in 1974, 1975,
and 1977. He may have been able to find it.
Mr. ANDERSON. The license has been available for the last 20 or
30 years.
Dr. MATTSON. That is true.
Mr. ANDERSON. And in our letters to you and to them we gave
the information prior to your hearing.
Dr. MATTSON. These surveys were conducted in 19--
Mr. DYER. 1974 was the first one.
Dr. MATTSON. The decision he made as to where to go was on the
basis of Arnold Joseph's report from the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, a readily available document. The kind of records searching
which has uncovered the sort of document you are referring to had
not occurred at that time. And one can argue it should have, but it
had not. This is the man who made the choice of where to go. And
he told you the basis on which he made that choice.
Mr. DYER. I think I would like to add one thing here. One of our
first objectives of the surveys was to evaluate the existing technol-
ogy. And what we were looking for was whether any submersible
system or remote control system could examine the sites closely.
What we had determined from the earlier surveys that had been
done for the AEC in 1958 and 1960, was that the only systems
available to look at the sites were surface ships that could random-
ly drop down sampling devices and collect samples. But the prob-
lem was they did not know whether they were anywhere near
radioactive waste drums. We wanted to be certain that these sites
actually did contain radioactive waste drums.
So we wanted a system that would be able to go down there and
look. At that time the only system available was the CURV III,
belonging to the U.S. Navy. And that CURV III was really only
operating to about 3,000 feet.
69-8'48 0 - 81 - 29
PAGENO="0450"
444
So when the records of Joseph's indicated that there was a site at
3,000 feet that did allegedly contain radioactive waste, we went
there in 1974 and did demonstrate that we could go down and find
these wastes This was more of a technology demonstration and
evaluation
Mr ANDERSON Again, I suppose my feeling is that with the
damaged containers that you found there, my feeling is that if you
had gone into the actual center of where most of them were
dumped you would even have found more damaged containers than
the ones that you did.
Again, so we kind of understand what we're talking about, on
the dump sites here, I have a little map that was provided for me
that shows we have-on the west coast we have at least 12 dump
sites, including the 3, I guess, off Canada, and 7 or 8 off California,
and then 1 off Hawaii and so on. And we have about 18 on the east
coast and 2 off the gulf
Mr MATTSON Well, sir, I'm not sure what you're referring to
Our factsheet lists 16 dump site areas in the Pacific Ocean, some of
which aren't very close to California, and within some of those
dump site areas there are as many as eight subsites, like the
Farallon Islands, and then Santa Cruz with three subsites, and Los
Angeles with two.
We would need to sit down and, in detail, compare all of these-
we also have a list, I believe, of half a dozen other licensed but
unused sites. Some of these were sites that the State of California
approved and recommended to the Atomic Energy Commission for
future low level waste disposal, of which the AEC only used one So
unless we could compare them point by point, I'm not sure whether
we're talking about the same sites or not
Mr ANDERSON I don't want this to go too long, either I would
like to get something on this definition
The Ocean Dumping Act's definition of high level wastes refers
to equivalent aqueous wastes from operation of the first cycle
extraction of solvent systems and subsequent extraction cycles.
My question to you is, What is equivalent? How do you define an
equivalent of that kind of definition in quantitative terms?
Mr. MATTSON. Well, first as a scientist and then as a representa-
tive of EPA, let me try to give an answer.
As a scientist, I think I would try to approach it through a
specific activity relationship I would say if the radioactivity was in
isotopes of the same kind that came from the extraction process
and in concentrations of a similar sort, then that would be some
test of equivalency
I think what must have been meant by the Congress in using
those words was to give some little bit of flexibility to the use of
the words "high-level waste." I can't say today that there has been
any flexibility taken. The interpretation that you heard throughout
the day by different Federal agency representatives is a common
interpretation It has been the standard usage reflected in AEC
regulations and in EPA regulations to define high level waste in
terms of the origin of those wastes with respect to the fuel reproc
essing operations or to the spent fuel
Now, we have said in our testimony that you really shouldn't be
worried about definitions when you're worried about public health
PAGENO="0451"
445
effects High level, low level, who cares? It's the concentration of
radioactivity and its proximity to man that you're worried about
EPA is going to try to help this problem a little bit in its high-
level waste environmental standard, which is due to be issued for
public comment next year In that standard the traditional defini
tion is used for high level wastes, and then it is supplemented by a
specific activity number I don't remember that number off the top
of my head today
People are aware of the problem To us, it's a bit of a semantics
problem We should be worried about these wastes for what they
were and how close they can get to man, not what they were
called.
Mr. ANDERSON. I suppose I maybe shouldn't be commenting on
this I am more at ease with a definition like the one that AEC
used which defined the low level at 50 milhrems or less per hour
and 2 rems per hour or more as high level I can understand that
better, and I don't quite understand---
Mr MATTSON If I might interrupt you, that was not an AEC
definition. And this is a good opportunity to clear that up.
Mr ANDERSON OK, fine
Mr MATTSON That was the definition that appeared in a report
published by the Argonne National Laboratory I have a copy of
the report cover and also the specific page that I think you're
referring to; it is in my notes here.
It was written by a consultant to Argonne National Laboratory
who spent some time there one summer lecturing on waste man
agement to the scientists at Argonne In that report he said that he
would adopt a definition for the purposes of talking to those people
Later in the report he referred to the materials that had been
disposed of in the ocean as low level waste, that is, he changed his
own mind about the definition
If that's the same definition you're referring to, I think it's
probably a misnomer to call it an AEC definition The correct AEC
definition was in 10 CFR part 50, appendix F, and it's still there
today. Mr. Meyers from the Department of Energy cited it this
morning in his testimony It is consistent with the definition that is
in NRC's new regulation 10 CFR part 60, and it is consistent with
the definition that's in EPA's regulations, put there last spring
Mr ANDERSON The information I have, I'm informed, came from
the AEC report, the Arnold Joseph report of the 1955 AEC Again,
that's for you people to take a look at, because we want you to take
a look at it and help us straighten this whole thing out
Mr MATTSON We would be willing to take a look at that, but I
don't believe Arnold Joseph defines--
Mr. ANDERSON. It's Arnold Joseph, 1954.
Mr MATTSON We would be willing to look at that, and if you
like, to supply an answer for the record that would help straighten
this out
Mr ANDERSON Thank you, Mr Chairman
Mr STUDDS Mr Hughes
Mr HUGHES I understand from previous testimony that there is
really very little information available on the type of canisters and
dumping locations. ~
PAGENO="0452"
446
Have you been able to reconstruct at all from past records the
material that went into some of the dumpsites where there have
not been retrievals?
Mr. MATTSON. There are several kinds of information available.
There were some survey articles written. This report we have been
talking about, written by Arnold Joseph, attempted to say general-
ly what kinds of canisters or other containers had been used. There
were pictures drawn in that book of concrete vaults, of the steel
drums with the concrete poured in it in varying ways. Mr. Dyer
just described a couple of ways that they used the concrete.
That kind of information I think we're fairly comfortable with,
understanding or feeling we know the spectrum of things that were
put out there. But the exact isotopic content, which radionuclides
were put in those barrels, and in what number of curies, that kind
of information is poor. We are, on occasion, able to find in the
records whether the material is source, byproduct, or special nucle-
ar material, names invented under AEC regulations.
In some instances people did make estimations of curie content.
In others, the people responsible for the dumping didn't know how.
I saw somewhere today that someone referred to question marks in
records. I have seen those myself. So the precision of what was in
the barrels is not high.
Mr. HUGHES. So that when you actually are able to retrieve a
barrel from a particular location, that doesn't necessarily represent
the contents of the barrel at that particular site?
Mr. MATTSON. No; when we pick a barrel, and we have picked
three to bring to the surface, we have no way of telling whether
that is representative of all the materials.
If I might digress for just a moment; in looking at the sediments
near the barrels that were broken, where we could see they were
leaking, and trying to understand how the radioactive materials
were transported away from the barrels, the kinds of materials we
find are plutonium, cesium, strontium, in elevated levels relative to
fallout levels.
Our measurements show that those elevated levels trail off
rather rapidly as you move away from the barrels. In the technical
reports which we have made available there are figures which
show this behavior. This is part of our regulatory development
plan, to understand how the materials, once they leave the barrels,
are transported in the marine environment.
So from that kind of work we have a fair picture of the kinds of
materials that were dumped there, and they're what we would
expect. They're the junk from laboratories, from hospital uses,
from production uses, weapons production activities in the early
years of the nuclear program.
Mr. HUGHES. If I could just go to another topic altogether, the
mandate of the EPA under the Ocean Dumping Act is to regulate
low-level radioactive waste disposal. Because we prohibit high-level
wastes, I think it's a fair assumption that EPA was to perhaps
make some findings to determine whether or not it would be in the
public interest to permit the dumping of low-level wastes not pro-
hibited by statute.
What do you envision to be the responsibility of the Administra-
tor in developing a program for low-level waste dumping? What are
PAGENO="0453"
447
the parameters of the program, and what do you look for? Obvious-
ly, the first determination that I would think you would have to
make if the canisters were breached would be whether it would
jeopardize the food chain or violate the statute dealing with unrea-
sonably degrading or endangering public health-you have the
standards set forth in the statute.
Mr. MATTSON. I think that clearly EPA has to compare the ocean
dumping of these materials with their shallow land burial. Shallow
land burial doesn't guarantee isolation of these wastes from the
terrestrial food chain. It doesn't guarantee that the materials will
be there until they have decayed to innocuous levels. The history
in this country is replete with examples of materials that haven't
stayed confined to waste disposal areas, both high level and low
level.
Mr. HUGHES. Where will you find that particular standard in the
statute?
Mr. MATTSON. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. HUGHES. Where do you find that particular standard in the
statute?
Mr. MATTSON. The statute says that before EPA can permit an
activity allowed under the statute-that is, before we could issue a
permit for low-level radioactive wastes-we have to find that it's
the preferable thing to do relative to other alternatives. Mr. Dyer
can dig up the citation and we can give you the number.
Mr. DYER. Yes; I have it. I think what Dr. Mattson cited earlier
was the basic CEQ established premise, that you would have to
consider ocean disposal relative to land-based alternatives.
Mr. HUGHES. I'm trying to find out where you find that.
Mr. DYER. Yes, I shall obtain the precise citation for you.
Mr. MATTSON. I'm reading from section 102 of the Ocean Dump-
ing Act-I'll read a couple of introductory sentences and then jump
down. It says: "The Administrator shall establish and apply crite-
ria for reviewing and evaluating such permit applications and in
establishing or revising such criteria shall consider, but not be
limited in his consideration, to the following:" It goes (a) through
(i).
Paragraph (g) says: "Appropriate locations and methods of dis-
posal or recycling, including land-based alternatives, and the prob-
able impact of requiring use of such alternate locations or methods
on considerations affecting the public interest."
Mr. HUGHES. But the statute itself indicates that in determining
whether a permit program will be utilized, the Administrator will
determine whether such dumping will unreasonably degrade or
endanger the public health and welfare.
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir; that's another finding that must be made.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
Mr. HUGHES. In essence, what I'm trying to find out is what do
you feel are the parameters of your findings in determining wheth-
er or not to permit the dumping of low-level wastes?
Mr. MATTSON. Well, whether sites and canisters can be pre-
scribed that would still make the alternative viable, that would
assure no significant effect on the health of man or the marine
environment. These are the kind of tests we would apply.
PAGENO="0454"
448
Mr HUGHES Now, if we were to work on the assumption that
canisters could not be constructed to contain low level wastes, in
your judgment would that be, per se, a violation of this section of
the statute?
Mr. MATTSON. No; if we were to make that decision today, that it
was impossible to make a canister, independent of cost, to meet
that test, then we could say today what the requirements are for a
permit. There shall not be any permits is what we would say.
Mr. HUGHES. That's what I'm trying to find out.
Mr. MATTSON. That case is an alternative available to EPA. It
could very well be that by the time we get to 1985 and issue our
criteria that they are so prohibitive in terms of cost that ocean
disposal is not practical compared to land based disposal
Mr HUGHES Let me take you through the second stage
Obviously in talking in terms of whether or not canisters can be
constructed to contain low level radioactive waste, you have got to
talk in terms of the timeframe
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUGHES. What, in your judgment, is the timeframe that
would be required to comply with the terms of the statute, because
obviously a canister can be constructed to contain low level
wastes--
Mr MATTSON We can make it independent
Mr HUGHES Ten years? What timeframe are we talking about?
Mr MATTSON We can make it a variable timeframe, because of
the fact that radioactive materials have different half lives, that is,
it takes different species different lengths of time to decay That's
the reason that in the regulations that have been issued so far the
concept of innocuous levels was used. So something with an 8-day
half-life will decay to innocuous levels very rapidly. The canister
that you could put it in and put it in the ocean, for example, might
be much less complex than the canister you would want to put
plutonium in with a 24,000 year half life So it would vary
I think you can understand, at least theoretically, there are some
radionuclides or low level wastes that could be put in the ocean in
canisters that you would reasonably expect to survive through
enough half lifes to reach innocuous levels Now, whether it's eco
nomical to do that and to separate radionuclides that way and still
pursue the option, I don't know. Those details haven't been thought
out, and criteria haven't been developed
Mr. HUGHES. How far along are you on that type of criteria?
Mr MATTSON Well, at this point we have spent--
Mr HUGHES I don't know how anxious the Navy is to dump
Mr MATTSON We have spent on the order of $1 million or so on
this kind of research We have spent, in terms of staff years,
probably a half a dozen with EPA employees We have surveyed
sites and gathered data on the point sources of elevated radioactiv
ity in the marine environment for the first time-no one has ever
done that before. We have proven that there is a technology availa-
ble for learning more We have contractors who are assembling the
kinds of considerations that ought to go into siting criteria, much
like the kind of work that the Atomic Energy Commission would
have done years ago in formulating the considerations for siting
PAGENO="0455"
449
fixed facilities on land, waste disposal or power generating, which-
ever
A fair amount of progress has been made, but again, this is a
relatively small effort in EPA It would have to grow in order to
get into public health assurance monitoring, and if it didn't grow,
and we were to get into that, then the regulatory development
would be slowed.
Mr. HUGHES. It is a very modest effort; $1 million is relatively
modest when you consider the potential risk involved and the
magnitude of the problem But in the short time I've been around
here, I find that agencies have a way of expediting these matters
once it becomes critical, that they find a need to dump
When you suggest to me that the Navy is already concerned that
they have materials to dump, I have a feeling that all of a sudden
we're going to awaken a few years from now and discover there's a
critical need to dump yesterday That's what gives me such great
concern-and I know Massachusetts is concerned I have a few
dumpsites in my region, and my colleague from California has
dumpsties and he's concerned about it. It seems that whenever we
find ourselves in a bind we always take the easy way out and we
dump. That's how we dumped before.
I am uncomfortable with the progress we're making, I'm not so
sure that it makes sense to differentiate really between high level
waste and low level waste, given how much we really know about
the subject I am concerned because it is so difficult to retrieve
from the ocean bottom At least with land disposal methods, it's a
lot easier to retrieve the material than it is from 13,000 feet down
Are you comfortable with the distinction between low level and
high level, and do you feel that makes sense?
Mr. MATTSON. Well, I think there are two broad categories in
waste disposal problems that we need to deal with in this country,
and it is convenient to speak of high level on the one hand and low
level on the other It's when you try to get very precise and use
those definitions, to say this is OK and that one's not, that you get
into difficulty--
Mr HUGHES That's--
Mr. MATTSON. If somebody says low-level waste portends no
health problem to this Nation, either on land or in the ocean, then
he's wrong. There are problems that have to be dealt with.
Mr. HUGHES. That's why I questioned it. But I have some very
basic problems, as to whether it makes sense to differentiate be
tween high level and low level wastes
Mr MATTSON Well, I think it does make sense to differentiate
Mr HUGHES I realize that, but I felt that what we make we
could unmake
Mr MATTSON One point that does come into this conversation is
worth mentioning, and that is we haven't concentrated in our
discussion here about research on the subject of radioactivity in the
marine environment. The NOAA people are next on the agenda,
and there is a continuity in this problem area That is, you make
measurements in a dumpsite, we make measurements in the mar
ketplace, and you ask yourself two kinds of questions Is there
enough radioactivity in the things that are reaching man to hurt
PAGENO="0456"
450
him-that I can answer for you today. That's a fairly straightfor-
ward calculation and the science is well developed.
But another question that you should ask yourself is: How does it
compare to what's normally there, either from low-level manmade
activities such as fallout from weapons, or from nature. In answer-
ing those kinds of questions, the data is very, very limited. We
have done very little basic research about radioactivity in the
marine environment.
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you. My time has expired.
You have been very helpful. I appreciate your testimony. You
have answered a most important question to me. If I understand
your testimony correctly, you indicated that if we conclude you
can't build a canister that would be safe enough to contain this
material, then it would violate the statute? Did I understand your
testimony correctly?
Mr. MATTSON. I'm saying you could not comply with the statute
unless you produce a canister that will contain the materials until
they decay to innocuous levels.
Mr. HUGHES. Yes.
Mr. MATTSON. EPA has said that in its regulations issued in
1973.
Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. Let me ask you a couple of very quick final ques-
tions. I understand Mr. Anderson has a couple of equally quick
ones.
With respect to the Ocean Dumping Act, is it your understand-
ing that it applies to all U.S. citizens, both public and private?
Mr. MATTSON. Yes.
Mr. STUDDS. Does it apply to those citizens in all the waters of
the world, or just in certain waters, within certain kinds of U.S.
jurisdiction?
Mr. MATTSON. All waters of the world.
Mr. STUDDS. All waters of the world.
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. This may be redundant, but I want to make certain
I understand it clearly. It would apply, for example, to the U.S.
Navy anywhere in the oceans of the world?
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. With respect to high-level wastes, the disposal in the
sea of high-level wastes, is illegal both under our domestic law and
under the London Convention; is that correct?
Mr. MATTSON. I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer--
Mr. STUDDS. I think that's why--
Mr. MATTSON. The word "illegal" is not the one I used in my
testimony. I said "prohibited." To the extent they mean the same,
then I would agree with your statement. Prohibited, yes. I'm not
sure what illegal means as an engineer.
Mr. STUDDS. Let's just agree to talk in common English and the
hell with the lawyers for the moment.
Mr. MATTSON. OK. They mean the same to you and they mean
the same to me.
Mr. STUDDS. All right.
PAGENO="0457"
451
Now, do you consider the subseabed emplacement of high-level
wastes to be sea disposal, which is prohibited by the law and by the
convention?
Mr. MATTSON. Well, I don't want to give a simple answer to the
question, because I think you should understand that there is some
spread within Federal agencies to the answer to that question.
Mr. STUDDS. We're getting that impression.
Mr. MATTSON. We have given for the record EPA's General Coun-
sel's opinion on the question of the prohibition of high-level waste
in or under the seabed, deriving both from the London Convention
and from U.S. laws.
Personally, it would be my expectation that if anyone were to
begin to advocate the placement of high-level waste in or under the
ocean, that person would be well advised to bring it back to the
Congress. We would like to see it brought back to the Congress.
Mr. STUDDS. To hire his or her own set of lawyers to enter the
fray?
Mr. MATTSON. Well, I would not like to see this question resolved
by being cute with the existing--
Mr. STUDDS. I understand. In other words, there's sufficient dis-
agreement to obviously make it an arguable proposition which
could stand some clarification by statute?
Mr. MATTSON. Yes.
Well, for one thing, some of these approaches weren't around or
weren't being discussed, at the time the law was developed or at
the time the convention was written.
Mr. STUDDS. I understand.
Very quickly, you say on page 12 that you have also asked the
Department of Defense to determine whether it has additional
information. Has the Defense Department been forthcoming and
cooperative in that regard?
Mr. MATTSON. We have no indication that they won't be. I must
say that we haven't asked them until very recently. It had been my
general impression-and I think it was some other people's general
impression-that if we worked with the old AEC records, either in
the AEC laboratories or in the licensee's records, that we would get
everything we wanted.
In Congressman Moffett's hearings in California there were some
allegations made that we were unable to respond to. We have
written to the Department of Defense at the policy level asking for
what's in their records and an assessment of how good their rec-
ords are. That is, we don't want an answer that says "we don't
have any records."
Mr. STUDDS. May I ask you to share that response with this
committee when you get it?
Mr. MATTSON. Of course.
Mr. STUDDS. I share a little bit of the concern that Mr. Hughes
expressed. Can you tell us to what extent you sense a pressure of a
time nature from the Navy with regard to the likelihood of their
requesting permission to dispose of reactor containers from subma-
rines?
Mr. MATTSON. I sense the opposite. I think that the Navy needn't
be in any hurry to dispose of submarines. They're not going to rot
or fall apart. These are substantial machines and are constructed
PAGENO="0458"
452
substantially Even as they go out of service, I see no compelling
urgency to make these decisions.
Now, they may decide, having heard me say this on the record
today, to apply tomorrow, but I don't expect they will, nor if they
did, do I think there's a compelling case that I'd have to give them
an answer the day after tomorrow.
Mr. STUDDS. Nor could you if they did.
Mr MATTsoN Nor could I
Mr STUDDS Finally, with respect to the responsibility under the
law for monitoring of the kind we have been discussing, is the law
or laws clear as to what extent that is your responsibility and to
what extent it's NOAA's?
Mr. MATTSON. We think it is.
Mr. STUDDS. And so do they.
Mr. MATTSON. In our discussions with NOAA of the past few
weeks, it leads me to believe we can work this out. There has been
some lack of clarity in varying people's minds in the past, and in
ours-I'm not trying to point a finger at NOAA-in ours and
theirs
Mr STUDDS I think they're pointing a finger at us We write
those unclear laws
Mr MATTSON We're working hard to put together jointly a
monitoring plan in response to the other subcommittee's interest,
and we expect to produce that in another few weeks, and then
bring it up to policy officials and Congressmen and say is this the
kind of thing the people had in mind and is this the kind of price
tag that you had in mind?
Mr. STUDDS. So you're working to see that the statutory responsi-
bility is increasingly less ambiguous; is that what you're saying?
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you.
Mr Anderson, do you have a couple of quick questions?
Mr. ANDERSON. I think he'll like this next one.
A 1978 General Accounting Office report states that of all the
EPA programs, radiation protection is the least funded, that the
agency is unable to anticipate future radiation problems adequate-
ly.
Is that still true today?
Mr. MATTSON. I'm sorry, sir. I have been at EPA only 3 months,
and I personally feel a little uncomfortable making that kind of
sweeping judgment for you. It would probably be in error.
There are programs that the EPA could have responsibilities for
that are larger than the programs that are there today A convinc
ing case hasn't been made, and it's incumbent upon the people
there to make that case, me being one of them.
Mr. ANDERSON. I suppose my question should be, Do you feel that
your agency is adequately funded?
Mr. MATTSON. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. ANDERSON. You think it is?
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDERSON. To do the job today, to come up--
Mr MATTSON Yes, sir, my perception of the job may grow--
Mr. ANDERSON. To anticipate dealing with the radiation prob-
lems adequately?
PAGENO="0459"
453
Mr MATTSON I must say that the budget process winds it's way
yearly, and we get an opportunity yearly to give you an answer to
that question.
Mr. ANDERSON. Just 2 years ago the General Accounting Office
said you didn't have enough.
Mr. MATTSON. Yes; in fiscal year 1983, in the next budget round,
I would expect that if we're going to undertake a lot of new
monitoring responsibilities in radioactivity in the marine environ
ment, and NOAA is going to undertake them, you will see growing
budgets in those areas But for what we are charged with accom
plishing today, the budget is adequate
Mr. ANDERSON. Now, one kind of report on what you have been
doing.
This year the Office of Radiation Programs spent $9,950 for post-
operations filming for a documentary production of your Atlantic
and Pacific dumpsite surveys, and $27,000 for the preparation of
this film
My question is, why spend this $37,000 of the taxpayers' moneys
for a documentary film when we should be spending that money to
document what's going on and the dangers that these things may
pose to the marine environment?
Now, maybe you have a use for that documentary film today
that we'd like to hear about. I just wondered why we needed a
movie of it today.
Mr. MATTSON. Well, one thing that happens to people when they
work in radiation is that they get frustrated at the inability to
communicate the dangers of radiation, factually and straightfor-
wardly, to the American people, to Congressmen to the lawyers, to
whoever doesn't have an education in radiation science
I didn't first approve that movie, but I am sympathetic with the
money that is being spent there It is a legitimate attempt--
Mr ANDERSON Are you using it, then, to educate the people?
Mr. MATTSON. We will be when it's finished. It isn't finished yet.
I have seen working drafts of it. There are difficulties in making
movies that communicate factually and still keep people's atten-
tion. You walk a fine line between scaring them to death and not
keeping their attention.
We're going to try it We may fall on our face But this seemed
like a good place to try This is a complicated issue As the Con
gresswoman from Baltimore said this morning, it's like meddling
with mother nature People are concerned about radioactivity in
the ocean We're going to try to communicate to them in a form
somewhat different than we have in the past We're used to techni
cal documents read by engineers and other scientists In my judg
ment, it was worth the expenditure of the $37,000, or whatever it
adds up to.
Mr ANDERSON When will we see the premiere?
Mr. MATTSON. It will be some weeks yet.
Mr. ANDERSON. It's some weeks off?
Mr MATTSON Yes, we're still walking that fine line
Mr ANDERSON Thank you, Mr Chairman
Mr STUDDS Thank you
You say you've only been with EPA for 3 months? Or with the
Government for 3 months?
PAGENO="0460"
454
Mr. MATTSON. With EPA for 3 months.
Mr. STUDDS. So you have been longer with the Government?
Mr. MATTSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. Oh; I was going to suggest that might be why you
had such ease in communicating with us. [Laughter.]
Thank you for a fascinating time. We appreciate it, and we'll
probably be back with more questions.
Mr. MATTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STUDDS. Our next witness-and I don't believe we've ever
had a hearing this long in this subcommittee without having this
witness appear-James P. Walsh, Deputy Administrator of NOAA
You are still Deputy Administrator of NOAA, are you not?
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WALSH, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY NED A.
OSTENSO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RE-
SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, NOAA, AND THOMAS O'CON-
NOR, OFFICE OF MARINE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT, NOAA
Mr. WALSH. I'll answer your last question first, Mr. Chairman. I
am not only today the Deputy Administrator, I am the Acting
Administrator and will continue as the deputy into the near
future. However, I suspect that this will be my last and most
enjoyable appearance before this committee.
Mr. STUDDS. We can't deal with emotion like that, you know
that. [Laughter.]
Copies of your statement and résumé--
Mr. WALSH.Wi11 be burned.
Mr. STUDDS [continuing]. Are on the table, and they will be made
a part of the record.
Mr. WALSH. All right, sir.
[The following was received for the record:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WALSH, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you
today to discuss the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
activities related to ocean disposal of radioactive waste products. The disposal of
high-level radioactive waste products. The disposal of high-level radioactive waste
has been viewed as a relatively minor issue compared to other problems with
nuclear fuel, until recently. Now considerable concern exists about the desirability
of land disposal of high-level nuclear waste. Consequently, alternative methods of
disposal are being examined in depth. NOAA is conducting some research in a
number of areas which will help evaluate the potential environmental effects of
seabed disposal so that the alternatives will be more clearly understood.
This morning I will focus primarily on NOAA's activities concerning ocean dispos-
al of high-level radioactive waste and will comment briefly on the possible environ-
mental effects of low-level radioactive waste disposal in the ocean.
OCEAN DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
1. NOAA `s legislative authorities
In recent years, NOAA has been assigned responsibility for a number of marine
pollution research programs. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (P.L. 92-532) authorizes an ocean dumping research and monitoring pro-
gram. Section 202 of the Act calls for the study by NOAA of the long-term effects of
ocean pollution. In addition, the national Ocean Polution Planning Act of 1978 (P.L.
95-273) requires NOAA to prepare a 5-year federal plan for ocean pollution re-
search, development, and monitoring, and to establish within NOAA a comprehen-
PAGENO="0461"
455
sive program of ocean pollution research. Finally, NOAA has special responsibilities
for protecting living marine resources and their habitat under the Fishery Conser-
vation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, Title II of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. However, other agencies, in particular the
Environmental Protection Agency, are the principal regulatory agencies in this
field. NOAA's role is principally science and service support and advisory, although
we have limited regulatory authority to protect living marine resources.
In the international area, NOAA has, with EPA, been active in supporting the
scientific and diplomatic efforts of the U.S. to the London Dumping Convention,
which came into force in 1975. Much of the work under this Convention is focused
on standards for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in the oceans, the
monitoring of dump sites, and the enforcement of applicable national laws. The
disposal of high-level radioactive waste at sea is prohibited by the Convention and
an amendment might be required before the emplacement of such wastes in the
deep seabed could be carried out.
NOAA's current involvement in research assessing seabed disposal of high-level
radioactive waste is in those areas where NOAA has traditionally had substantial
expertise and responsibilities-areas such as ocean surveying, charting, sediment
engineering, pollution assessment, fisheries, and data management. I will describe
our projects in more detail in a moment. NOAA's overall policy, however, has been
to concentrate research in our established areas of expertise within the limits of
available resources and to coordinate closely with the Department of Energy (DOE)
so that the two agencies' programs complement rather than duplicate each other.
2. NOAA-DOE coordination
Other witnesses have described DOE's lead responsibility for radioactive waste
management under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1978. NOAA has a close
working relationship with DOE and its contractor, Sandia Laboratories. We are
currently discussing with DOE how NOAA can assist in investigating the subseabed
disposal option of radioactive wastes. Six areas have been tentatively identified
where NOAA may be of help. The areas include:
Site studies.-NOAA has recently acquired the capability of mapping in detail
large areas of the seafloor using a SEABEAM swath mapping system. This may be
useful in mapping and geophysical investigations at several potential DOE site
study areas.
Historical data.-NOAA has best quantities of data which, if compiled in appro-
priate format, could be of substantial importance. For example, charts of primary
productivity, fishing density, water temperature and salinity, and currents are
needed for the site selection and risk analysis pertaining to ocean areas under
consideration for disposal sites.
Site data link-At field study sites where long-term observations will be needed,
NOAA could provide the satellite communication link needed to relay field data to
a processing facility in the continental United States.
Deep ocean engineering and technology-As the DOE Program moves into the
engineering feasibility demonstration phase, NOAA could provide data and input on
ocean engineering methods and techniques.
Site monitoring.-NOAA, by virtue of its experience in ocean pollution programs,
could assist DOE in developing strategies and techniques applicable to monitoring
oceanographic parameters at subseabed disposal sites.
Peer review.-NOAA has been requested by DOE to provide peer review of DOE
research programs and field experiments.
We hope to sign an interagency agreement with DOE in the near future which
will outline specific joint activities.
3. NOAA Research Activities
NOAA's current research activities reflect this coordination with DOE. NOAA
research projects underway or well into the planning phase include the following:
MONITORING TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE
WASTES
This project will identify existing technology and engineering capabilities and
requirements for deep-sea radioactive waste disposal site monitoring, and will for-
mulate objectives and technical approaches that can be used for technology develop-
ment and planning purposes. It began in August 1979 through a two-year grant
from NOAA to the Rand Corporation, and the Marine Physical Laboratory of the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography. NOAA has worked with DOE to assure that
the project will not duplicate DOE research.
PAGENO="0462"
456
INTERACTION OF RADIONUCLIDES WITH SEDIMENTS AS A GUIDE TO THE FATE OF
RADIOCHEMICAL WASTES DISPOSED OF IN THE SEA
This study is designed to provide a scientific basis for predicting the fate of
radionuclides in the marine environment whether implanted in the sea floor (high
level wastes) deposited on the seabed (low level wastes) or released accidentally The
project is funded jointly by NOAA s Office of Marine Pollution Assessment and the
Office of Sea Grant. The research will be conducted by Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution.
The project has two objectives: (1) to characterize the physical and chemcial
factors which may affect the interaction of marine sediments with both global
fallout and emplaced radioactive waste constituents; and (2) to delineate the process-
es and sedimentary characteristics which may influence or govern the transport of
these waste constituents within the sediments and between the sediments and the
overlying seawater.
DEEPWATER SEDIMENT PORE PRESSURE PROBE (PIEZOMETER) SYSTEM
The NOAA Marine Geotechnical Program has developed with the DOE sponsored
Sandia Seabed Disposal Program plans for the design and fabrication of a deepwater
piezometer system to measure long-term changes in pore water pressure and sea-
floor stability in sediments at seabed disposal study sites Piezometers are used to
measure the change of pressure of a material subject to water pressure. The system
will be used in Sandia experiments in Fiscal Year 1981.
These cooperative NOAA-DOE programs should do much to further the investiga-
tion of disposal of high-level radioactive wastes within the seabed in a safe, environ-
mentally acceptable manner. At this point we know relatively little about many
aspects of seabed disposal, but these projects and others will begin to provide a basis
for making decisions about ocean disposal of high level waste
OCEAN DISPOSAL OF LOW LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
I would like now to comment briefly on the low level radioactive waste at existing
disposal sites off the U.S. continental shelf. Over the past decade, NOAA pollution
research and monitoring priorites have been directed based on the best available
scientific opinion toward those pollutants entering the marine environment that
posed the most significant threat to human health, living resources, and environ-
mental quality Because the evidence so far indicates that radionuclides pose a
lesser threat than other pollutants, NOAA has not placed a high priority on re-
search concerning low-level nuclear wastes. I would like to summarize for you the
scientific evidence which led to that management decision.
In 1971, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that in terms of
ecological effects the consensus of the scientific literature was that radionuchdes
are not likely to be significantly deleterious in populations of marine organisms at
the dose rates for the most contaminated environments The NAS also concluded
that there was no evidence that past ocean disposal of low level waste has jeopard
ized humans or any marine species
In 1978 a workshop of scientific experts met in Estes Park Colorado at the
request of NOAA to review the status of our scienific knowledge on all ocean
pollution and to recommend areas where further study was necessary These ex
perts concluded that to date no impacts on human health have been documented
from the ocean disposal of radionuclides and no effects harmful to marine organ
isms are known even at the sites of large discharges The workshop did recommend
however, that existing low-level radioactive waste dump sites should be watched for
leakage of radionuclides to test the validity of present data about retention of
disposed materials in sediments and to provide a basis for the selection of future
disposal areas for low-level radioactive wastes.
In 1979 NOAA issued the first five year federal plan for ocean pollution research
development and monitoring under the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of
1978 The plan developed in cooperation with ten agencies evaluated the full range
of ocean pollution problems assigned priorities to research needs and identified
high priority unmet needs The monitoring of existing radioactive waste dump sites
was considered to be a medium to high priority information need A need was
perceived primarily for assessment of residual radionuclide abundance and recovery
rates in order to evaluate future requests for ocean disposal of low-level wastes.
Given this backdrop of scientific opinion on the relative threat posed to human
health and living marine resources and the limited amount of ocean pollution
research funding available, NOASA has not assigned a high priority to monitoring
radionuclides at existing dump sites. Instead, NOAA's pollution research and moni-
toring have focused on those areas where there is a strong scientific consensus as to
PAGENO="0463"
457
the magnitude of the pollution problem, such as the problems associated with toxic
organic materials.
NOAA has sought to work with other agencies which are involved in radionuclide
research whenever possible In particular over the past several months NOAA
researchers have been informally discussing with scientists from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) areas where NOAA may coordinate with EPA on investi-
gations of low level radioactive waste disposal We look forward to reaching agree
ment between the two agencies on a cooperative effort of the kind NOAA and DOE
have established for high-level waste disposal.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions
the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. STUDDS. If you could identify for the record the people by
whom you're accompanied.
Mr. WALSH. Let me first start on my right. I think most of you
know Ned Ostenso, who wears two hats in NOAA He is Director of
our Sea Grant Program, and he is also Deputy Assistant Adminis
trator for Research and Development On my left is Tom O'Connor,
who is with the Office of Marine Pollution Assessment.
I am pleased to be before you again today to discuss NOAA's
activities related to ocean disposal of radioactive waste. The dispos-
al of high-level waste has been viewed as a relatively minor issue
compared to others involving nuclear fuel, until quite recently,
when concern has been growing over disposal. We have begun
looking more seriously at other alternatives for disposal including
ocean disposal.
NOAA is assisting in these efforts primarily by providing science
support.
This morning I will focus on our activities concerning disposal of
high-level radioactive wastes and also comment briefly on low-level
radioactive wastes.
First, with regard to high-level wastes, let me say generally-and
this applies also to low-level wastes-that we have a number of
responsibilities under several statutes to conduct ocean-dumping
research and monitoring. This comes under the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as well as the National Ocean
Pollution Planning Act. We conduct a broad program of marine
pollution research It is by no means complete and comprehensive,
but it attempts to cover all the major problems that are perceived
at a given time.
We also have special responsibilities, as you know, for protecting
living marine resources under the Fishery Conservation and Man-
agement Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and others.
However, in this field other agencies-in particular, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency-are the principal regulatory bodies
NOAA's role is primarly science and service support and advisory,
although we do have some limited regulatory authority to protect
living m~rine resources
In the international area we have, with EPA, been active in
supporting the scientific and diplomatic efforts of the United States
under the London Dumping Convention, the so called Ocean Dump
ing Convention. Most of the work under this convention has been
focused on standards for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste,
the monitoring of dumpsites throughout the world, and the enforce-
ment of applicable national laws.
PAGENO="0464"
458
As you know, the disposal of high-level radioactive waste is, in
the opinion of many, prohibited by the Convention, although the
interpretation is somewhat unclear, An amendment might be re-
quired before such wastes could be emplaced in the deep seabed.
Our current involvement in research assessing seabed disposal of
high-level radioactive waste is in those areas where we have tradi-
tional responsibility or have expertise: Areas such as ocean survey-
ing, charting, sediment engineering, pollution assessment, fisheries,
and data management. I will describe our projects in a little more
detail in a moment. However, our overall policy has been to con-
centrate on research in our established areas of expertise within
the limits of available resources and to coordinate closely with the
Department of Energy so that our two programs do not overlap
but, rather, complements the other's research.
Let me turn to our coordination with the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy has already talked about their radioac-
tive waste management program. We have a close working rela-
tionship, which is getting closer with DOE, and its contractor,
Sandia Laboratories. We are currently discussing with DOE how
we might assist in investigating the question of subseabed disposal
of radioactive wastes. We have yet not signed a formal interagency
agreement, but we have identified six areas in which NOAA might
be of help.
One, we may assist with site studies. We have recently acquired
the capability to map large areas of the seafloor in detail, using
SEABEAM's swath sonar system. This could be quite useful in
looking at potential sites in more depth.
Two, NOAA also has vast quantities of data on the ocean, on
questions such as productivity, fishing density, ecosystems, water
temperature and salinity, and currents which would be needed in
any kind of site selection and risk analysis.
Three, we have the satellite capability to link up field activities
and relay information to processing facilities as a service.
Four, we have some capability in the area of engineering feasibil-
ity in the ocean, and we plan to provide input to DOE on ocean
engineering methods and techniques.
Five, we also could assist DOE in developing strategies and tech-
niques applicable to monitoring oceanographic parameters at var-
ious seabed disposal sites.
Six, finally, we have been requested by DOE to review through
the scientific peer review system their research programs and field
experiments.
We hope to sign an interagency agreement with DOE in the near
future which will outline these specific joint responsibilities.
My written testimony then, Mr. Chairman, highlights in some
detail other further studies. I think I'll skip that for now in the
interest of brevity.
Let me conclude by saying that the research I have described
here I think will help better understand the alternatives for dispos-
al of high-level nuclear wastes in a safe and environmentally ac-
ceptable manner. At this point we must confess we know relatively
little about many aspects of seabed disposal, but we hope these
projects will help remove some of the uncertainty.
PAGENO="0465"
459
Let me now turn to low-level radioactive waste at existing dispos-
al sites. Over the past decade, NOAA's pollution research and
monitoring priorities have been directed, based on what we consid-
er to be the best available scientific opinion, toward those pollut-
ants entering the marine environment that are known to pose, or
are believed to pose, the most significant threat to human health,
living resources, and environmental quality. Because the evidence
so far indicates that radionuclides pose a lesser threat than other
pollutants, NOAA has not placed a high priority on research con-
cerning low-level nuclear wastes. I would like to summarize for you
the scientific evidence and deliberations which led to that manage-
ment decision.
In 1971, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that in
terms of ecological effects, the consensus of the scientific literature
at that time was that radionuclides are not likely to be significant-
ly deleterious in populations of marine organisms at the dose rates
estimated for the most contaminated enviroments. Based on what
we know now, that is the conclusions of scientists, the National
Academy also concluded that no evidence existed showing that past
ocean disposal of low-level waste had jeopardized humans or any
marine species.
In 1978, a workshop of scientific experts met, under NOAA's
auspices, in Estes Park, Cob., to review the status of our scientific
knowledge on all ocean pollution issues and to recommend areas
where further study was necessary. These experts concluded that
to date no impacts on human health have been documented from
the ocean disposal of radionuclides and no effects harmful to
marine organisms are known, even at the sites of large discharges.
The workshop did recommend, however, that existing low-level
radioactive waste dumpsites should be watched for leakage of ra-
dionuclides to test the validity of present data about retention of
disposed materials in sediments, and to provide a basis for the
selection of future disposal areas for radioactive waste, low level, if
that should occur.
In 1979 NOAA issued the first 5-year Federal plan under the
National Ocean Pollution Planning Act. The plan, which was devel-
oped in cooperation with all concerned Federal agencies, evaluated
the full range of known ocean pollution problems and assigned
priorities, and identified high priority, unmet needs. The monitor-
ing of existing radioactive waste dumpsites was considered to be a
medium to high priority information need. A need was perceived
primarily for assessment of residual radionuclide abundance and
recovery rates in order to evaluate future requests for ocean dispos-
al of low-level wastes.
Given this backdrop of scientific opinion on the relative threat
posed to human health and living marine resources, and-let me
underline this, even though it's not underlined in my testimony-
the limited amount of ocean pollution research funding available,
NOAA has not assigned a high priority to monitoring radionuclides
at existing dumpsites. Instead, NOAA's pollution research and
monitoring have focused on those areas where there is a strong
scientific consensus as to the magnitude of the pollution problem,
such as the problems that are associated with toxic organic materi-
als.
69-848 0 - 81 - 30
PAGENO="0466"
460
NOAA has sought to work with other agencies which are in-
volved in radionuclide research whenever possible. In particular,
over the past several months NOAA researchers have been infor-
mally discussing with scientists from EPA areas where NOAA may
coordinate with EPA on investigations of low-level radioactive
waste disposal. We look forward to reaching agreement with EPA,
as we do with DOE, on the studies in this area.
That concludes my prepared statement, Mr Chairman I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you.
I must say, one wonders, if this is the fate of research considered
to be a medium to high priority, what happens to that considered
to be less than medium to high? I assume it's simply--
Mr. WALSH. It's a zero sum game, Mr. Chairman. Every time a
problem comes up, as long as you're dealing with a finite amount
of resources in terms of people, computers, scientists, ships, the
Alvin, or whatever, you've got to make some choices. The way we
look at it, in many cases we're sitting there with one fire engine
and five fires. We can choose only one of the fires. Obviously, four
of the people with fires are going to be very unhappy with us. But
it's just a question of resources and what we know at the time.
Let me emphasize that 100 years ago people still believed that
open sewers were not a health problem. We have learned~ some-
thing since then. We built open sewers back then, but now we
don't; we now understand there are health problems associated
with open sewers. So it all becomes a question of what you know. If
you're not comfortable with what you know, you have to start
doing more research. And that's going to be expensive, particularly
if you deal with the ocean.
Mr STUDDS I knew the answer to that question I simply wanted
it on the record, and I will refer it to the minority members of the
subcommittee so they, in turn, can relay it to the people moving
into town.
Let me backtrack a second. In your section generally on low-level
wastes, it is replete with statements about a lack of evidence indi-
cating environmental damage resulting from low-level waste.
Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. It does not, however, cite any convincing evidence
that environmental damage does not occur as a result of the dump-
ing of that waste.
Have you got it perhaps backward there? Are we assuming too
much?
Mr. WALSH. Well, what happened is that the scientists will sit
down and take a look at all the research that has been done, and
generally what is understood about the processes, and draw a
judgment as to what they know.
The quality of that judgment depends of course, on the quality of
the data base and the quality of the understanding of the environ-
mental factors. As we have said to you time and time again before
this committee, the natural processes in the ocean, how the ecology
works, and the pathways, of pollutants through it, are areas not
fully understood Identifying cause and effect is difficult in the
ocean, whether you are talking about oil spills or the loss of fish'
next year
PAGENO="0467"
461
So based on what is known, given limited information, scientists
have drawn certain conclusions. Concerning certain pollutants, like
heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls or Kepone, scientists have
concluded that those pose very serious problems. They're problems
about which we know something-for example they are toxic to
human health and animals. They also pose problems in areas close
to the human population and to heavy concentrations of living
resources that are used by people Therefore, scientists make their
judgment, and their judgment is limited to what we now know
Mr STUDDS On page 10 you state that research into the effects
of low level waste dumping is needed not because of harm which
may have resulted from past dumping, but rather because we need
to prepare for requests for future dumping permits?
Mr. WALSH. Yes, sir. And this gets to perhaps a difference in
philosophy between EPA and NOAA on the question of monitoring
EPA's responsibility is regulatory. We look upon their monitoring
requirements to be those that are related to questions of regulation
and site specific issues
Our view of monitoring is to go beyond that and to look into the
future as to what questions we haven't answered In other words, if
you take a snapshot now of a nuclear dumpsite, for example, and
you test the sediments and test the animals, you'll draw certain
conclusions
What we're trying to do is push out the frontiers of fundamental
understanding so that the site-specific, regulatory monitoring will
mean something that we understand, so that we will focus on
problems that we haven't seen The problems of PCB's sneaked up
on us, DDT did the same We spend a lot of time looking at oil
pollution, but there are other problems coming down the road,
particularly the synergistic effects of all pollutants in the natural
environment So what we in NOAA are trying to focus on in our
science, is what don't we know
We can look at these sites and draw conclusions, depending on
the exposure levels and the like, but what we're the most afraid of
is whether we're missing something when we're down there. Is
there some flaw in our understanding that leads us to conclude it's
not a problem? We want to do the research to be convinced of that.
Mr STUDDS I understand
So to your knowledge, who is proposing the use of the ocean for
low level waste disposal at the present time9
Mr WALSH To my knowledge, there are countries in the world
that are still using dumpsites under the Ocean Dumping Conven
tion--
Mr STUDDS I mean in our own country
Mr WALSH In our country9 I would have to defer to EPA on
that issue I think the~r mentioned the Navy
Mr STUDDS What I m getting at is we did ask them
Do you think the necessity or the possible necessity to move
beyond land based disposal options is a political one or an environ
mental one, inasmuch as a square foot of land seems to be repre
sented by somebody in this institution as opposed to a square foot
of ocean7
Mr WALSH On that question generally, going beyond just ra
dionuclides, it is pretty clear that since 1970 we have had a philos
PAGENO="0468"
462
ophy in our laws and our policy that the ocean is definitely not the
place to dump, if for no other reason than we don't know what's
going to happen there. It is an environment in which things tend
to move around and combine and react in a way that we truly
don't understand. Therefore, the policies have been aimed at land
disposal as an area that we know something about.
That's a rough estimate of Government policy as contained in
the statutes passed since 1970. My view is that as we learn more
about the dangers of land disposal, and the kinds of things that can
occur with land disposal, whether it's related to ground water
pollution, which is a serious problem that we are slowly awakening
to, then the ocean itself will be looked at, for no other reason than
the uncertainty of what will happen. Let me put it another way:
We may know more about the problems in land disposal than we
know about the problems of ocean disposal and it will come to be
looked upon as a better medium, for no other reason than that.
In other words, uncertainty, and how we resolve questions of
uncertainty, may end up having people focus on the ocean. There
are really two schools of thought in this debate. We have debated
this issue, and we sponsored a conference just this summer. There
will be articles coming out in a journal from Woods Hole which
will set out the two points of view.
One will say that yes, we can dump more in the ocean; the other
will say no, we can't. That debate I believe may very well carry
itself into a national debate involving legislation. I think the in-
creased interest in ocean disposal is simply reflective of the chang-
ing view of where we are going to put all this stuff we don't want
around. I perceive the ocean will be looked upon as a disposal
place.
Mr. STUDDS. I do, too. I think it's clear that is happening.
We had an agency, as you just heard, scurrying about preparing
regulations looking toward the permitting of the future ocean
dumping of low-level wastes. I was just fishing for the sense if that
was entirely for reasons with respect to the environmental conse-
quences of land disposal, or whether there are other related politi-
cal consequences of land disposal.
Mr. WALSH. I think it's a combination, Congressman, of what we
know scientifically, of economic issues, of regulatory issues, of polit-
ical questions. Obviously, Three Mile Island has changed every-
body's attitude toward whether they want any wastes in their back
yard. South Carolina and Washington State are now being very
dubious about something that they didn't seem to be concerned
about previously.
Mr. STUDDS. Although they're clearly perfectly logical places for
such things. [Laughter.]
Mr. WALSH. In any event, our pitch from NOAA-and I personal-
ly believe this very strongly-is that it would be a mistake not to
do the research and try to understand what's going to happen,
because in the face of uncertainty a lot of bad decisions can and
will be made, paralleling the one people made 100 years ago that
open sewers were fine and healthy.
Mr. STUDDS. Please don't keep reminding us of that.
PAGENO="0469"
463
I have one question here from Mr. Pritchard. He wants to know
how much ship time of the NOAA research fleet has been allocated
for the mapping of possible subseabed emplacement sites.
Mr. WALSH. At the present time, none. We were discussing that
with DOE. I want to add my 2 cent's worth, if I could.
In areas in which there is uncertainty about responsibility re-
garding ocean activities, decisions about who should do what tend
to be made by the Office of Management and Budget. They make
those decisions based on who has the function.
Presently we are under some pressure, to cut down in NOAA
interagency support programs as a way of cutting personnel. That
results in agencies like EPA, who would rather come to NOAA and
try to get the expertise aboard ships, being faced with our need to
retrench deeper and deeper into our own responsibilities, and we're
not able to provide those services to EPA.
It's a problem that concerns me very much, because I guarantee
you that if every agency in the Federal Government develops the
capability we have in NOAA, there will be a lot of waste.
Mr. STUDDS. This is your last appearance no doubt before this
and perhaps any other subcommittee in your current disguise. I am
sure you'll be back, in spite of some of the judgments made by the
people from-I assume that's your home State way out there--
Mr. WALSH. No, I was born and raised in Oregon.
Mr. STUDDS. Oh. [Laughter.]
OK. Well, enough of this between the lines. I am sure we'll see
you again, and I certainly appreciate the breadth and diversity of
the testimony we have received from you in the past-how many
years has this administration been in? Four, I guess.
Mr. WALSH. I can't remember. [Laughter.]
Mr. STUDDS. It seems forever.
Thank you very much. The best of luck to you.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you, sir.
Mr. STUDDS. Our next witness is Mr. Clifton Curtis of the Center
for Law and Social Policy.
Mr. Curtis?
Your testimony is fairly lengthy, and I would encourage you, if
you can and if you will, to summarize it. It will appear in its
entirety in the record.
Mr. CURTIS. I will do that, Chairman Studds.
[The following was received for the record:]
PAGENO="0470"
464
November 20, 1980
STATEMENT OF CLIFTON E CURTIS
ON BEHALF OF
CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY,
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION,
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP,
COSTEAU SOCIETY,
CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJECT,
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION FOUNDATION,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CENTER,
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH,
GREENPEACE, U.S.A.,
HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER INC
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE SAFETY,
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,
NUCLEAR INFORMATION RESOURCE SERVICE,
OCEAN EDUCATION PROJECT,
OCEANIC SOCIETY,
SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC.,
SIERRA CLUB,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS,
UNITED METHODIST LAW OF THE SEA PROJECT,
AND
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE OCEANS
I am Clifton E Curtis of the Center for Law and Social Policy
a public interest law firm located in Washington, D.C.*/ I appre-
ciate the Opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of 22
environmental/public interest groups -- the Center for Development
Policy Center for Environmental Education Committee to Bridge the
Cap Costeau Society Critical Mass Energy Project the Environmental
Action Foundation the Environmental Defense Fund the Environmental
Policy Center Friends of the Earth Creenpeace U S A the Hudson
River Sloop Clearwater Inc the National Campaign for Radioactive
*/ Robin Charlow, a law student in the Center's clinical program,
i~elped prepare this testimony.
PAGENO="0471"
465
-2-
Waste Safety the hational Wildlife Federation Natural Resources Defense
Council Nuclear Information 1~esource Service the Ocean Education
Project, Oceanic Society, Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference,
Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United Methodist
Law of the Sea Project and the Wilderness Society*/ (hereafter the
"public interest" organizations) - to discuss their concerns
with respect to the disposal of radiological wastes in the marine
environment These public interest groups have a combined
membership and sponsorship exceeding 5 700 000 persons throughout
the United States and abroad. Many of these groups have had a
long history of active interest in the development of sound ocean
and nuclear waste management policies - both nationally and
internationally - that provide for effective control of all
sources of pollution of the marine environment
The Center for Law and Social Policy has addressed issues
related to the ocean disposal of radioactive waste on numerous
occasions during recent years. Since 1978, I have been a member
of the EPA/Department of State Ocean Dumping Coordinating Committee.
In July 1978, I testified before this Subcommittee concerning
this same topic I served as an Advisor on the U S delegation
to the Third Consultative Meeting of the London Dumping Conven-
tion ( LDC ) and represented Friends of the Earth International
and the Oceanic Society at the LDC's Fourth Consultative Meeting.
In February 1980, the Center and the Oceanic Society co-sponsored
a one-day workship in Washington, D.C., entitled "Nuclear Waste
Management: the Ocean Alternative."
~/ Attached as Appendix A is a brief description of these
organizations
PAGENO="0472"
466
-3-
These hearings represent a useful contribution to the
United State's efforts to formulate sound and rational controls
related to the potential disposal of radiological wastes in the
oceans. They provide a forum for clarifying U.S.
policies and program activities--both domestically and in relation to
the efforts of other nations and international organizations. The
record being developed here enhances the possibilities for effective
coordination of the statutory and regulatory responsibilities lodged
in such agencies as the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Department, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Department of Defense, and the Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
These hearings provide the Congress with an opportunity to assess
the adequacy of existing domestic statutory authority. Additionally,
they should assist our public officials in developing a comprehen-
sive and explicit national policy that is a prerequisite to the
international pursuit of mutually acceptable approaches to pre-
preserving and developing the resources of our oceans.
Finally, the public airing of this country's efforts in
addressing the issues associated with dispoal of radiological
wastes in the marine environment is essential. Given the
national debate which continues over the appropriateness of
nuclear technology in meeting our nation's energy needs, the
PAGENO="0473"
467
-4-
public must be kept fully informed as to matters that affect
the viability of continued reliance on that technology, not
the least of which is the effort to arrive at long-term solu-
tions to the waste disposal problem.
The recent citizen outcry over possible health and
environne~tal hazards resulting from previous U.S. dumping
operations off the California coast also illustrates the need for
informing and involving the public on these issues. Hearings
held last month in San Francisco by the Subcommittee on Environ-
ment, Energy and Natural Resources of the House Government
Operations Committee pointedly demonstrate how the government's
failure to attend to the public had contributed significantly to
the growing sense of alarm. In addition, these hearings proved
that the suggestions and activities of the public were vital in
uncovering the full picture of past dumping and its effects.
GENERIC CONSIDERATIONS
According to EPA e/stimates, from 1946 until 1970 the U.S.
dropped approximately 95,000 curies of low-level radiological
wastes into ocean areas off our Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Several European countries are currently engaged in a systematic
program of dumping low-level radioactive materials into the
Northeast Atlantic. In addition, Japan has announced its
plans to begin placing radioactive wastes in ocean areas near
the Pacific Islands, with 5,000-10,000 barrels of low-level
materials scheduled for dumping in 1981.
According to Department of Energy calculations, the projected
quantities of United States' commercial and military radioactive
PAGENO="0474"
-5-
wastes that will have been produced by the year 2000 will he
approximately 8,000,000 cubic meters of low-level wastes,
835,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes, and 320,000 cubic
meters of defense-related high-level wastes. By adding the projected
89,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel generation that
will have occurred by the year 2000, which will have to be
stored or reprocessed, it is evident even excluding any
worldwide projections - that long term solutions must be
found for managing our nuclear wastes.
The current administration has taken significant steps
in this direction, first, by forming the Interagency Review
Group on Nuclear Waste Management ("IRG") to examine the
problem, and then, by adopting most of the recommendations
contained in its 1979 Report. This report identifies the
primary objective of waste management planning and implementa-
tion - that nuclear waste be isolated from the biosphere and
pose no significant threat to public health and safety. While
the dominant focus of the IRG Report was on land-based geologic
disposal the ocean disposal option and institutional respon-
sibilities relating to it were noted, and discussed. Similarly,
the U.S. Radiation Policy Council, which was created as a result
of the IRG recommendations, includes within its charge the
consideration of alternatives to shallow land burial for low-level
radioactive wastes.
At present there exists a consensus within the United
States that the ocean alternative is not a viable disposal
468
PAGENO="0475"
469
-6-
medium fo~ high-level radioactive wastes. Similarly, ocean
disposal of low-level radioactive wastes is not considered an
environmentally or economically preferable disposal medium.
Moreover, while scientists disagree on the magnitude of harm that
has been or could be caused by ocean disposal of radioactive wastes,
there is agreement that very little is known about the actual
impact of previous low-level radioactive waste dumping on the
marine environment or on the food chain pathways. Absent
highly acceptable land-based repositories, however, the oceans
will receive increasing consideration as a disposal medium -
for both high- and low-level radioactive wastes - if for no
other reason than their "out of sight - out of mind" limited
constituency appeal -
HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
A. Legal Considerations
The legality of dumping and seabed emplacement of high-level
radioactive wastes is governed by two international treaties.
Article 25 of the 1958 High Seas Convention, to which the
U.S. is a party, provides that "Every state shall take
measures to prevent pollution of the seas from the dumping of
radioactive waste. . . ." In addition, the U.S. was one of the
key instigating forces behind adoption of the 1972 International
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste
and other Matter ("London Dumping Convention" or "LDC"), which has
since been ratified or acceded to by the U.S. and 45 other countries.
Article IV and Annex I of the Convention clearly prohibit
dumping of high-level waste in the ocean. While there is
some apparent disagreement within our government as to the
PAGENO="0476"
470
-7-
legality of seabed emplacement of radioactive wastes under
international law, our reading of the LDC leads to the con-
clusion that such treaty law prohibits the emplacement of
high-level radioactive wastes.
Domestically, the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act ("Ocean Dumping Act") governs ocean dumping.
Certain sections of the statute (33 U.S.C. §51402(f) and 1412(a))
prohibit he issuance of permits to dispose of high-level radio-
active wastes in the ocean. With respect to the legality of
seabed emplacement of high-level wastes under U.S. law, the
consensus of the government agencies that participated in this
Subcommittee's 1978 hearings was that such emplacement is
prohibited.
Some very preliminary work directed at assessing international
and domestic legal issues associated with seabed emplacement of
high-level waste is presently being done under the Department of
Energy's Seabed Disposal Program ("SDP"). Under the SDP work
schedule, the Department of Energy might recommend statutory
changes, in the early 1990's, of our domestic and international
law to affirm the legality of seabed emplacement. We agree that
no changes in the controlling domestic and international laws
should be considered for the foreseeable future, since it would
be premature to review such legal principles prior to determining
that emplacement is environmentally and technically sound.
B. Concerns and Recommendations
The U.S. is involved, both nationally and internationally,
in examining the feasibility of emplacing these wastes under
the seabed. DOE's Seabed Disposal Program received funding
PAGENO="0477"
471
-8-
of over $5 million in TY 1980. The program's funding has
increased to $6.9 million for FY 1981 and the projected budget
request for the next several years increases substantially
(FY'82 (.$l3.6 million); FY'83 ($20 million); FY'84 ($22 million);
FY'85 ($32 million); FY'86 ($32 million)). The SDP has been
incorporated into DOE's National Waste Terminal Storage P~Qgram,
treating seabed emplacement as another one of the geologic
disposal options under review.
SDP officials also participate in an international forum,
the Seabed Working Group, sponsored by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's ("OECD") Nuclear Energy Agency ("NEA").
Six member countries of the Seabed Working Group, along with
other observer nations, meet annually to exchange information on
each country's efforts in the sub-seabed emplacement area.
The infusion of significant sums of money into the SDP
raises several concerns about its current structure and
activities. It is questionable whether sufficient cost and
environmental comparisons of land versus ocean options have been
made. Annex VI to the London Dumping Convention requires
contracting parties to consider the "practical availability
of alternative land-based methods of ... disposal" when
establishing criteria governing the issuance of permits for
dumping low-level radioactive wastes. Moreover, NRC regulations
concerning disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (10 C.F.R.
§20.302(c)) state that "[tihe Commission will not approve a
license for disposal of ... material at sea unless the applicant
shows that sea disposal offers less harm to man or the environment
PAGENO="0478"
472
-9-
than other practical alternative methods Denmark and
Sweden have pressed for a similar mandatory comparison of land
and ocean alternatives in regard to incineration of matter at
sea. Some comparisons of the seabed option and land-
based alternatives based on very tentative, general assessments
of economics and environmental effects have been made. It
would appear, however, that more detailed cost estimates and
comparisons of ocean and land-based alternatives are called
for even at this preliminary stage
Additionally it seems quite possible that no
clear stop-program points will emerge as the SDP unfolds
Specific activities to be conducted under the four different
phases of the SDP overlap in time, so that the phases themselves
do not embody definitive program breakpoints. Absence of such
program segregation would hinder accountability and review
prior to commitment of additional money to unwarranted research
and development.
Systematic information exchange within the U S would help to
coordinate the activities of the various agencies involved. Though
DOE is currently formulating a memo of understanding with NOAA
outlining their interrelationship on SDP work, there is no
systematic consultation with or dissemination of information
to other interested or affected agencies and outside groups
such as EPA and NRC who would have regulatory responsibilities
in this regard DOT which has responsibilities concerning the
transportation of wastes over land prior to vessel transport;
DOD, as a major producer of high-level nuclear waste; CEQ, as
a representative of the executive branch; outside scientists;
PAGENO="0479"
473
-10-
and of course the oublic
One example of the lack of coordination involves technology
transfers for packaging EPA and the Navy are apparently looking
into packaging design for low-level waste ocean disposal while
DOE's SDP is examining packaging for high-level waste seabed
emplacement These activities and others of this nature should
at the very least be discussed regularly in a common public
forum to avoid overlap and to identify areas where one party
might assist another
Concerning the matter of interagency coordination we
believe that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
rather than DOE, should be given the lead agency role for
coordinating the various non-regulatory ocean disposal program
activities Pursuant to Public Law 95-273 NOAA has responsibility
for coordinating and monitoring federal agency activity related to
ocean pollution research development a~d monitoring with
particular emphasis on the inputs fates and effects of
pollutants in the marine environment In this context NOAA s
first five-year plan, which in part established priorities for
national needs and problems, ranked the disposal of radioactive
waste as a high priority concern. To date, NOAA's involvement
in seabed emplacement issues has been limited. It should,
however have or be given the staff capabilities and resources
to perform such a lead agency coordination function
The perceived lack of communication and oversight in the
seabed disposal area is particularly troublesome in light of the
participation of SDP researchers and policy level officials
PAGENO="0480"
474
-ii-
in international discussions. Although the Seabed Working
Group ("SWG") is not a policy setting body, members do maintain
cognizance of policies developing within each country. It
would therefore seem appropriate to have some regular inter-agency
consultation on SWG seabed emplacement issues.
The public interest organizations believe that an advisory
committee on seabed emplacement should be established
which would include participation of all these administrative
agencies, executive branch involvement, peer review by
scientists, and outside representation by concerned public
interest advocates and others. The creation of such a committee
is supported by the IRG recommendation that additional, more
effective means of public participation be required. A public
advisory committee would contribute toward assuring built-in
neutrality, alleviating potential redundancy, coordinating
efforts, personnel and facilities, and assessing and formulating
U.S. policy on this isssue.
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
A. Legal Considerations
The London Dumping Convention permits placement of low-level
wastes in the ocean upon issuance of a permit by the individual
country involved (Article IV and Annex II). In issuing a permit
the member nation must consider certain factors enumerated in
Annex III, as well as recommendations of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (`IAEA't) (see Annex II (DLI. The IAEA' S 1ate~t
recommendation were issued in 1978 and approved at the third
consultative meeting of the London Dumping Convention.
PAGENO="0481"
475
-12-
Domestically, the Ocean Dumping Act allows ocean placement
of low-level wastes upon issuance of a permit by the EPA (33
U.S.C. §1412). The EPA must, likewise, establish criteria for
permit review, considering certain statutory factors enumerated
in the Act.
B. Concerns and Recommendations
EPA is currently developing regulations for issuance of
low-level dumping permits and expects that site selection,
packaging criteria and monitoring regulations will be completed
by 1985. EPA is also conducting a scientific investigation of
past U.S. dumping operations and of the effects of such dumping
on the marine environment. As discussed at the House hearings
concerning the effects of past dumping in the Farallon Islands
area, the general scientific assessment, although by no means
unanimous, was that no human health hazard currently exists.
Nonetheless, the entire range of scientific viewpoints represented
at the hearings concurred in the need for continued monitoring.
Internationally, the U.S., under EPA's leadership, has been
an active participant in the consultative and intersessional
meetings of the London Dumping Convention. As the report of
the fifth. consultative meeting, held in September 1980, demon-
strates, the U.S. continues to be the major force addressing
environmental concerns. In~the past, the U.S. has succeeded in
incorporating into the LDC provisos a minimum ocean disposal
depth of 4,000 meters for low-level radioactive waste, a
strenghened IAEA definition of blacklisted high-level wastes,
and requirements that an environmental assessment he made in
connection with proposed dumping operations.
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 31
PAGENO="0482"
476
-13-
The U S also participates in an NEA-sponSored program for
overseeing the dumping of low-level wastes in the Northeast
Atlantic by certain European nations. In this area, the United
States has been pressing for the development of adequate monitoring
and site assessment plans, and has agreed to a one-year extension
of our participation until 1981 conditioned on development of
these criteria and plans Participation in such operations is
important for three primary reasons (1) operations are conducted
in areas of the "global commons," belonging to all nations,
(2) observation of these dump sites will allow the U.S. to observe
what occurs at the time radioactive waste is dumped,and to compare
those findings with knowledge concerning the effects over time
(as was gleaned from EPA's Farallon Islands investigations), and
(3) the results of these operations have implications for
U S dumping standards now beinq developed by the FPA
While these hearings are primarily focused on issue'~
concerning seabed emplacement of high-level wastes, the
public interest groups believe that there are several points
concerning the United States' current national and international
activities involving low-level radioactive waste disposal that
merit attention. Internationally, it is vital that the U.S. con-
tinue to take an active part in meetings and conferences and in
the development of multi-national policies and procedures. The
IAEA's upcoming agenda includes assessment of its outdated
PAGENO="0483"
477
oceanographic model currently applied to predict the dispersion
of pollutants in the ocean issuance of a technical document
in early 1981 to qualify and supplement packaging requirements,
development of a definition of de rninumus radiation, and
publication in early 1981 of Criteria for Selection Manage-
ment and Surveillance of Ocean Dumping Sites to fulfill
Annex III of the London Dumping Convention These items are
important to EPA s regulatory program in particular and
deserve our thorough review. The U.S. will need to urge the
IAEA to assimilate any changes that are necessary, both now and
in the future, just as it is currently pressing for further
revision of IAEA's 1978 Definitions and Recommendations to
accommodate later scientific and policy developments. As in the
past the U S must continue to persuade the contracting parties
to the London Dumping Convention to accept certain safeguards
and ideas which many have been reluctant to embrace
including an international register of all radioactive waste
dumped into the oceans, a global limit on the number of dump
sites, and an unambiguous understanding that environmental
assessments are required in the notification of a country s
intention to dump Finally the United States should
oppose the continued use of the Northeast Atlantic dumpsite
by the NEA if an adequate monitoring system, including mandatory
neutral observers, is not established by the time of the NEA's
April, 1981 Steering Committee meetings.
PAGENO="0484"
478
-15-
Domestically, our policy regarding ocean dumping of
low-level radioactive waste needs further clarification.
In October, 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality issued
a report which concluded that ocean dumping of any radioactive
wastes presented a very serious and growing threat to the narine
environment. Since 1970, the U.S. policy has been to dispose
of low-level radioactive wastes through shallow land burial.
Also, in a recent letter from Douglas Costle, Administrator
of EPA, to Governor Camacho of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Mr. Costle stated that `until we have a better understanding
of the possible impacts of low-level radioactive waste disposal
in the ocean, the United States will not encourage other nations
to ocean dump."
However, EPA's present efforts to develop permit criteria
lead to the impression that U.S. dumping may be resumed. Prior
to EPA's compliance with its proposed permit regulations schedule,
a U.S. policy decision should be made as to whether it is appro-
priate or feasible to give such serious consideration to the
use of the oceans as a low-level disposal medium. At a
minimum, our international obligations regarding radioactive
waste should be reflected in the general dumping regulations
EPA intends to issue in 1981, since we are already committed at
least to those requirements.
Another major domestic concern is the monitoring of past
dumpsites. The Ocean Dumping Act provides the statutory
authority for such monitoring tasks. Pursuant to that authority
we encourage EPA and NOAA to reach adequate understandings
concerning future monitoring activities. The specific
PAGENO="0485"
479
-16-
arrangements could be set forth in a memorandum of understanding
(`MOU"), as was suggested by Congressmen McCloskey and Moffett
at the Farallon Islands hearings. Such an MOU should also
require monitoring of specific sites. Absent an adequate MOtJ,
monitoring should be statutorily required.
Having reviewed the evidence presented at last month's
Farallon Islands hearings, we believe that the most appropriate
course of action would be to undertake an in-depth investigation
of a few selected dumpsites (e.g., the Farallon Islands, Santa
Barbara and Massachusetts Bay areas). Sites should be chosen
which, according to available records, seen to contain the most
substantial and toxic quantities of radioactive material.
Evidence of significant potential for harm to man or the marine
environment at these sites would trigger broader review, that is,
a survey of all additional dumpsites.
As a final recommendation, the public interest organizations
believe that the current Ocean Dumping Coordinating Committee
and the Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee, which address inter~
national and domestic concerns respectively, need to be
strengthened. One point the Farallon Islands hearings made
painfully apparent was the effect that lack of coordination
and reluctance to take on responsibility by and among federal
agencies have had in creating delays and in contributing to
public concerns. As in the case of the proposed advisory
committee on high-level waste disposal, both low-level
advisory committees should include all affected administra-
tive agencies (essentially the sane as for high-level
PAGENO="0486"
480
-17-
wastes) executive branch representatives (CEO) peer group
review by outside scientists (for whom the possibility of
participation would be significantly enhanced if their expenses
were covered) and members of the concerned public Again the
Farallon Islands hearings clearly illustrate the importance of
outside oversight More extensive lists of past dumpsites were
compiled by groups such as Committee to Bridge the Gap with
its limited access and resources than by any of the government
agencies Having scientists - representing the Oceanic Society
(through its Ad Hoc Scientific Advisory Committee, chaired by
Dr. Michael Herz) and the U.S. Mussel Watch Committee - affirm
the no current hazard findings of the EPA,provided an important
non-governmental perspective.
Moreover the systematic exchange of information amongst
government agencies and the public can only benefit the process
For example the need for better cooperation on the part of the
Department of Defense was a major recurring them of the
FarallOn Islands hearings. Such DOD cooperation is even more
essential in light of the Navy's potential plans to scuttle
decommissioned nuclear submarines b~ sinking them to the
ocean floor The memo of understanding between NOAA and EPA
requested at the Farallon Islands hearings though helpful is
simply not enough it does not include all groups who should be
involved and would not provide for the kind of detailed,
continuous review that is called for. As an illustration, the
IRG recommended (at page 79 of its March 1979 I~eport) that by
PAGENO="0487"
481
-18--
1981 DOE and NRC should review existing and alternative low-
level waste disposal techniques and determine whether any should
be adopted in the near future. Given EPA's regulatory responsibility
in this area, it seems obvious that that agency should be one of
the key participants in arriving at such decisions.
CONCLUS ION
The oceans - which cover nearly three-fourths of the
world s surface - occupy a critical role in maintaining a
livable environment. Given the extremely hazardous nature
of radioactive wastes, their disposal into our oceans is
fraught with potentially irreparable consequences. National~
policies that determine the manner in which we seek to preserve,
protect and utilize our vital marine resources must be
rationally advanced subjected to continuing and rigorous
public review and based on definitive environmental and
technical studies that incorporate support activities on land
Until alL these concerns have been met, there should be no serious
thought given to changing our present U.S. policy opposing ocean
disposal or seabed emplacement of amy radioactive wastes. Assuming
these concerns are one day met, all the variables associated with
a comprehensive nuclear waste management policy (e g economic
social environmental and political considerations) must then be
factored into any decision concerning the ocean alternative
PAGENO="0488"
482
APPENDIX A
The Center for Development Policy is a non-membership group
whose offices are located at 401 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The Center for Environmental Education is a Washington-based
group with over 300,000 sponsors and coordinating offices in
London, Tokyo, Vancouver, and Canberra. The Committee to
Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles-based environmental research
group has approximately 1,500 participants. The Costeau Society,
whose principal corporate office is at 777 Third Avenue, New
York, New York, and which has additional offices in Norfolk,
Virginia, Los Angeles, California, Paris, France, and Monaco,
has a membership of approximately 160,000 persons. Critical mass
Energy Project, a non-membership groupwhich has subscribers to
its monthly journal and legislative reports comprising about
10,000 persons, is located at 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.,
Washington, D.C. The Environmental Action Foundation, whose
principal place of business is at 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., has a membership of 22,000 persons. The
Environmental Defense Fund, whose principal place of business
is 475 Park Avenue, New York, New York, has a membership of
approximately 45,000 persons and a 700-member Scientists'
Advisory Committee, including members residing in 18 foreign
countries. The Environmental Policy Center, whose principal
place of business is at 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Washington,
D.C., has no members itself but represents coalitions of citizens
around the country. Friends of the Earth, whose principal
place of business is 124 Spear Street, San Francisco, California,
has a membership of over 25,000 persons and is affiliated with
PAGENO="0489"
483
A-2
"sister organizations" in 12 foreign countries. Greenpeace, U.S.A.,
whose principal office is in Washington, D.C. and whose major
regional office is at Building E, Fort Mason, San Francisco,
California, is a national organization composed of local member-
ship groups with 120,000 sponsors and donors. Hudson River
Sloop Clearwater, Inc. is a non-profit organization with 5,000
members, offices at 112 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, New York,
and local supporting organizations all along the Hudson River.
National Campaign for Radioactive Waste Safety has a west coast
office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, an east coast branch in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey, and somewhere between 6,000-7,000
contributors. The National Wildlife Federation, whose principal
place of business is at 1412 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
is composed of associate members and members of state affiliate
member organizations, comprising over 4.6 million persons.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, whose principal office
is at 122 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, and which has
additional offices in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco,
California, has a membership of approximately 46,000 persons,
including members residing in 21 foreign countries. The Nuclear
Information Resource Service is a non-membership information
clearinghouse organization with offices at 1536 16th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. The Ocean Education Project is a non-
membership group operating at 100 Maryland Avenue, N.E.,
PAGENO="0490"
484
A-3
Wsahington, D C The Oceanic Societj whose principal place of
business is at Magee Avenue, Stanford, Connecticut, and which
has an additional office in San Francisco, California as well
as nine regional chapters, has 60,000 members. Scenic
Shoreline Preservation Conference is a non-membership
organization whose principal office is 4623 More Mesa Drive
Santa Barbara California The Sierra Club whose principal
place of business is at 530 Bush Street San Francisco
California, has a membership of approximately 184,000 persons,
including persons residing in 62 foreign countries. The Union
of Concerned Scientists, with its headquarters and principal
place of business at 1208 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge Massa-
chusetts is supported by 100 000 sponsoring members living
both within the U S and abroad The United Methodist Law of
the Sea Project is a non-membership group with offices at 100
Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. The Wilderness Society's
principal place of business is 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and the group has a membership of approximately
50,000 persons.
STATEMENT OF CLIFTON E CURTIS CENTER FOR LAW AND
SOCIAL POLICY WASHINGTON D C ACCOMPANIED BY MS
ROBIN CHARLOW, LAW STUDENT
Mr CURTIS I am Clifton E Curtis of the Center for Law and
Social Policy, a public interest law firm located in Washington,
D.C. Here at the table with me is Robin Charlow; a law student in
our clinical program at the center who worked with me in prepara-
tion of this testimony.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf
of 22 environmental/public interest groups There is one additional
group that signed on today, Capt Jacques Cousteau's organization,
the Cousteau Society. They asked to be included and have endorsed
the comments that I have put together
As I indicated, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the con
cerns of these 22 organizations, which I won't list as they are
stated in the prepared testimony, their concerns with respect to the
disposal of radiological wastes in the marine environment. Those
groups have a combined membership and sponsorship exceeding 5.5
million persons throughout the United States and abroad. Many of
these groups have had a long history of active interest in the
development of sound ocean and nuclear waste management poli
cies, both nationally and internationally
PAGENO="0491"
485
The Center for Law and Social Policy has addressed issues relat-
ed to the ocean disposal of radioactive waste on numerous occa-
sions during recent years. In my prepared testimony I have set
forth a number of those instances where we have been involved in
both domestic and international activities.
These hearings represent a useful contribution to the United
States' efforts to formulate sound and rational controls related to
the potential disposal of radiological wastes in the oceans. I ap-
plaud your decision in this intersessional period to convene these
hearings and bring before this subcommittee the various agencies
that are involved. I think there is this continuing need to try and
bring out of the nooks and crannies of our different Government
programs articulated public statements as to what is happening in
programs that could have a significant influence on future activi-
ties in this area.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you. "Intersessional" sounds much better
than "lame duck." I like that. [Laughter.]
Mr. CURTIS. I tried to euphemistically deal with your problem.
Finally, I indicated that the public airing of this country's efforts
is essential, given the national debate which is continuing over the
appropriateness of nuclear technology, and that the public must be
kept informed as to matters that affect the viability of continued
reliance on the use of nuclear power. Waste disposal is certainly
one of the critical issues.
The recent citizen outcry over possible health and environmental
hazards resulting from previous U.S. dumping operations off the
California coast also illustrates the need for informing and involv-
ing the public on these issues. Hearings held last month concerning
the Farallon Islands radioactive waste dumping pointedly demon-
strated how the Government's failure to attend to the public had
contributed significantly to the growing sense of alarm.
In my prepared testimony I have set forth several generic consid-
erations about the amount of dumping that has been done in the
past, and projected dumpings according to some Department of
Energy calculations. I will leave that as stated in my prepared
testimony.
I will state, though, orally, after putting into my prepared state-
ment the description of how many cubic meters of low-level/high-
level transuranic wastes and the metric tons of commercial spent
fuel, I decided I would try to relate that to something more under-
standable for me.
So, looking at it in the context of football fields, we found that
the low-level wastes, the 8 million cubic meters, if placed on a
football field, would rise to almost a mile high, 4,375 feet. The
transuranic wastes, if placed on a football field, would be about 457
feet high, this stack of wastes. And for the high-level wastes, a
stack of waste material 175 feet high.
At present there exists a consensus within the United States that
the ocean alternative is not a viable disposal medium for high-level
radioactive wastes. You have heard that in the testmony of others
today.
Similarly, ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes is not
considered an environmentally or economically preferable disposal
medium. However, as Bud Walsh indicated just a few moments
PAGENO="0492"
486
ago, absent highly acceptable land-based repositories, the oceans
will receive increasing considerations as a disposal medium-if for
no other reason than "out of sight, out of mind" limited constituen-
cy appeal.
There has been some discussion of the legality of high-level
seabed emplacement. While there is some apparent disagreement
within our Government as to the legality of seabed emplacement,
my reading and the reading of those groups who signed on to this
testimony, based primarily on my interpretation of the treaty and
language therein, is that under the London Dumping Convention
seabed emplacement is prohibited.
Domestically, under the Ocean Dumping Act, it is the view that
has been expressed here, as well as in the 1978 hearings before this
subcommittee that seabed emplacement is prohibited.
Some very preliminary work directed at assessing international
and domestic legal issues associated with seabed emplacement of
high-level waste is presently being done under DOE's seabed dis-
posal program. Under that SDP work schedule, DOE might recom-
mend statutory changes in the early 1990's of our domestic and
international law to affirm the legality of seabed emplacement.
Contrary to the implication of Congressman Forsythe's question
to DOE witness Sheldon Meyers, we agree with that scheduling.
We believe that no changes in the controlling domestic and inter-
national laws should be considered for the foreseeable future, since
it would be premature to review such legal principles prior to
determining that emplacement is environmentally and technically
sound.
Listed is a few concerns and recommendations in my prepared
testimony. They are set out more fully there and I will briefly
highlight them now.
DOE's seabed disposal program received funding of over $5 mil-
lion in fiscal year 1980. In my prepared testimony I have shown
the projection of funding for the next several fiscal years, which by
1986, if their budget request is granted, would be $32 million.
The infusion of significant sums of money into the SDP raises
several concerns about its current structure and activities. It is
questionable whether sufficient cost and environmental compari-
sons of land versus ocean options have been made. In my prepared
testimony I have cited the London Dumping Convention; I have
cited EPA's domestic regulations, and made reference to another
international set of negotiations involving incineration at sea, that
showed the need to look at land versus ocean and the need to make
the preferential judgment for land, unless you could show that it
was more harmful than turning to the ocean.
I think that type of comparison needs to be made now for seabed
emplacement in more detail than it has.
The second concern, it seems quite possible that no clear "stop-
program" points will emerge as the SDP unfolds. Specific activities
to be conducted under the four different phases of the SDP, as Dr.
Charlie bluster laid out, along with Rip Anderson earlier today,
overlap in time, so that the phases themselves do not embody
definitive program points.
PAGENO="0493"
487
Absence of such program segregation would hinder and could
hinder accountability and review prior to commitment of addition-
al money that might be unwarranted research and development.
Another concern involves the systematic information exchange
within the United States which we believe needs to be strength-
ened in order to help coordinate the activities of the various agen-
cies. Though DOE is currently formulating a memo of understand-
ing with NOAA and with EPA, outlining their interrelationship of
their seabed emplacement work there is no systematic consultation
with or dissemination of information to other interested or affected
agencies and outside groups-outside groups being peer review by
scientists and the public, to the extent we believe it is needed.
One example I have listed on page 10 of my prepared testimony
of this lack of coordination involves technoloqy transfers for pack-
aging.
Another concern involves interagency coordination, We believe
that NOAA rather than DOE should be given the lead agency role
for coordinating various non-regulatory ocean disposal program ac-
tivities. This ties in to Public Law 95-273 which gives NOAA the
lead agency role for monitoring research and development. To date,
NOAA's involvement in seabed emplacement issues has been limit-
ed, as Bud Walsh indicated, and they have a mandate to look into
six different issue areas. We believe it is critical that they be given
the staff capability and resources to perform the kind of lead
agency coordination role that I think properly should be housed
within that agency.
Another concern involves the perceived lack of communication
and oversight in the seabed disposal area in international discus-
sions. We think it would be appropriate to have some more regular
interagency consultation than now exists on the seabed working
group issues that have arisen and will continue to arise as future
meetings are held.
Finally, as to high-level concerns, the public interest organiza-
tions believe that an advisory committee on seabed emplacement
should be established which would include participation of all these
administrative agencies involved, the executive branch involve-
ment, the particular CEQ, peer review by scientists, and outside
representation by concerned public advocates. A public advisory
committee would contribute toward assuring built-in neutrality,
alleviating potential redundancy, coordinating efforts, personnel
and facilities, and assessing and formulating U.S. policy on this
issue.
I think if I had to choose one of these concerns in the high-level
area as being the most important, it would be this one, Chairman
Studds, the need to set up a mechanism like this to have some
outside involvement, with a program that-I don't want to sound
too critical, but I just think it's a program that needs the kind of
accountability that hearings such as this provide and that an advi-
sory committee such as I have recommended could assist in provid-
ing.
Turning to low-level radioactive waste, which I recognize is not
the primary focus of this hearing, but there has been considerable
discussion of, in part because of Congressman Anderson's concern
about monitoring off the California coast, in my prepared testimo-
PAGENO="0494"
488
fly I have set forth the statutory bases that apply to low level
radioactive waste dumping under both the London Dumping Con
vention and the Ocean Dumping Act
I would like to very briefly address a few concerns in this area
EPA is currently developing regulations for issuance of low level
dumping permits and expects that site selection, packaging criteria
and monitoring regulations will be completed by 1985 Bob Dyer
and Roger Mattson of EPA went into this in more detail so I won't
repeat or go into what is contained in my prepared testimony
Internationally, the United States, under EPA's leadership, has
been an active participant in the consultative and intersessional
meetings of the London Dumping Convention, and it continues to
be a major force addressing environmental concerns Through U S
efforts, several provisos in the LDC have been written into law and
agreed to by the contracting parties, provisions that would not
have been there but for the U S efforts
The United States also participates in an NEA sponsored pro
gram for overseeing the dumping of low level wastes in the North
east Atlantic by certain European nations, and I believe was one of
the leaders in suggesting and encouraging that a detailed monitor
ing program be created by the spring of 1981
One concern that the public interest groups have with respect to
low level wastes is in the international area We believe it is vital
that the United States continue to take an active part in meetings
and conferences, and in the development of multinational policies
and procedures There are a variety of areas that we set forth in
the prepared testimony, concerns dealing with the IAEA and with
the NEA, issues that we believe are important and require the
attention of the various U S agencies
One issue that I did not mention in my prepared testimony that I
would like to cite is the possible area for addressing what is an
international concern, in the area of nuclear exports I have repre
sented some environmental groups in the last several months con
cerning the expert of nuclear facilities to the Philippines I think,
in looking at the issue of compliance with a mechanism like the
London Dumping Convention it might be that the United States
could require of potential exporters of nuclear technology that the
recipient nation be a signatory to the London Dumping Convention
in order to be allowed to receive the technology that the United
States has It might be a way of at least raising the standard to a
minimal level as set forth under the London Dumping Convention
Domestically, we believe that the policy regarding ocean dump-
ing needs further clarification. Again in my prepared testimony I
have cited a letter from EPA Administrator Doug Costle that just
went out this past week to the Governor of the Northern Mariana
Islands, in which I think appropriately Doug Costle stated that
Until we have a better understanding of the possible impacts of low level radioac
tive waste disposal in the ocean the United States will not encourage other nations
to ocean dump
However, as some of your questions earlier today, Chairman
Studds, have indicated, EPA's present efforts to develop permit
criteria lead to the impression that the United States may resume
dumping. Prior to EPA's compliance with its proposed permit regu-
lations schedule, a U S policy decision, made not just by EPA but
PAGENO="0495"
489
by all the affected agencies and by the U.S. Congress, should be
made as to whether it is appropriate or feasible to give such serious
consideration to the use of the oceans as a low-level disposal
medium. At a minimum, our international obligations regarding
radioactive waste should be reflected in the general dumping regu-
lations that EPA intends to issue next year, since we have already
committed ourselves to those requirements.
Another area of concern is the monitoring of past dumpsites. We
would encourage EPA and NOAA in the very near future to reach
adequate understandings concerning future monitoring activities.
The specific arrangements could be set forth in a memorandum of
understanding, but that would need to include specific site monitor-
ing. Absent an adequate MOU, prepared, we believe, within the
next several weeks at most, monitoring should be statutorily re-
quired. In that vein, we could well agree with the kind of provi-
sions set forth in Congressman Anderson's bill, or something simi-
lar. I'm not necessarily certain that NOAA is the appropriate place
to house it. It may be more of a mixed relationship between NOAA
and EPA than what is set forth in the bill.
As a final recommendation, the public interest organizations
believe that the current Ocean Dumping Coordinating Committee
and the Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee, which address inter-
national and domestic concerns respectively, need to be strength-
ened.
One point the Farallon Islands hearings made painfully apparent
was the effect that lack of coordination and reluctance to take on
responsibility by and among Federal agencies have had in creating
delays and in contributing to public concerns.
An advisory committee should be created, an advisory committee
that contains the elements I suggested with respect to high-level
should be set up. It should be much stronger than what now exists,
and it should include all affected administrative agencies, peer
review by outside scientists and members of the concerned public.
Moreover, the systematic exchange of information amongst gov-
ernment agencies and the public can only benefit the process that
creates such an entity. The need for better cooperation of the
Department of Defense was a major recurring theme at the Faral-
lon Islands hearings. If you had such an advisory structure that
brought them in as a participant, hopefully you would bring out of
them a little more of the information we somehow have had trou-
ble getting to date involving their activities and their proposed
research.
An article in the Boston Globe earlier this year talked about
several million dollars of research being done by the Navy with
respect to low-level waste research. I think other agencies could
clearly benefit by that information to the extent it's not classified.
In my opinion, most of it should not be treated as classified.
In conclusion, national policies that determine the manner in
which we seek to preserve, protect, and utilize our vital marine
resources must be rationally advanced, subjected to continuing and
rigorous public review, and based on definitive environmental and
technical studies that incorporate support activities on land. Until
all these concerns have been met, there should be no serious
PAGENO="0496"
490
thought given to changing our present U.S. policy opposing ocean
disposal or seabed emplacement of any radioactive wastes.
Assuming these concerns are one day met, all the variables
associated with a comprehensive nuclear waste management policy
such as economic, social, environmental and political consider-
ations, must then be factored into any decision concerning the
ocean alternative.
Thank you, Chairman Studds. I would be glad to answer any
questions you or your staff might have.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. I appreciate both your pa-
tience and the kind of lengthy, detailed, and comprehensive testi-
mony we have come to expect from your organization.
I will not keep you long. Let me just ask you, on page 5 you state
"there exists a consensus within the United States that the ocean
alternative is not a viable disposal medium for high-level radioac-
tive wastes."
Did you hear the Department of Energy's testimony this morn-
ing? They stated, and I quote, "At present subseabed disposal ap-
pears to be a viable disposal option." I assume this is a consensus
minus the Department of Energy?
Mr. CURTIS. It may be semantics, Chairman Studds. It is not a
viable medium at the moment. There may be experimentation and
demonstration studies by the early 1990's. It's an option now that
they're looking at, not a medium that is being used.
I may have not stated--
Mr. STUDDS. Well, it wouldn't be the first consensus from which
the Department of Energy was missing. I just was wondering
whether--
Mr. CURTIS. No, I understand that the Department of Energy
does see it as an option. Obviously, the fact that they are commit-
ted or have committed close to $6 million reflects that.
Mr. STUDDS. That's a mere nothing for them.
Mr. CURTIS. Overall in the waste management program it's close
to $225 million, so it is a drop in the bucket comparatively. But it's
growing quickly.
Mr. STUDDS. Yes; I wasn't being entirely facetious. The last stat-
ute which emerged from this subcommittee, signed into law a
couple of months ago, was the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Act, for which the testimony was universally enthusiastic with the
exception of the Department of Energy which mumbled incoherent-
ly something about the next century. So they, as I say, are fre-
quently missing from consensuses.
Do you share the concern of some of us with regard to the
current effort within EPA to proceed to promulgate or to devise,
whatever they do over the years, prepare to promulgate regula-
tions with respect to future low-level dumping? Does that bother
you, or do you think that's a sensible, rational fullfilling of their
statutory responsibilities at this point?
Mr. CURTIS. It's within the ambit of their statutory responsibil-
ities. I have indicated in my testimony that I think we need a U.S.
policy decision on whether or not the use of the ocean for low-level
waste is appropriate.
It's not so much for environmental reasons in the 1970's that
they stopped dumping, although that clearly was a reason, but
PAGENO="0497"
491
economically, where shallow land burial was found to be less
costly.
I think they need to decide whether as a matter of policy the
United States is going to look to the ocean for low-level wastes.
That could well affect the need for regulations and the time-con-
suming effort that that takes. That obviously would involve bring-
ing into the discussion the Department of Navy and how serious it
is about looking to the oceans as an alternative.
I do think there was some discussion earlier about the require-
ments, of maybe needing to emphasize monitoring more now than
being involved with regulation writing. Title II of the Ocean Dump-
ing Act does clearly require comprehensive monitoring programs
be carried out, and they indicate it should be underway and set up
within 6 months after the act was passed, which would have meant
by spring of 1973. So obviously they have delayed somewhat in
accomplishing that.
I think that is the most important task that could be accom-
plished now.
Mr. STUDDS. Finally, I gather you read the London Dumping
Convention to prohibit the seabed emplacement of high-level waste,
is that correct?
Mr. CURTIS. That's correct.
Mr. STUDDS. And that reading, at least in your judgment and
that of your attorneys, is unequivocal, unlike the judgment or the
conflicting judgments you have heard from other Federal agencies
today?
Mr. CURTIS. The judgment runs somewhat similar to that pre-
sented through EPA's Office of General Counsel, that they at-
tached to their statement.
In the preamble language to the London Dumping Convention, I
would agree there's a question as to whether "at sea" is the place
to make the decision about whether or not it's legal or illegal.
That's vague language and I don't think you would find in the
debate that led to the enactment of the LDC a discussion of seabed
emplacement with respect to the use of those two words.
But the preamble language also makes reference to United Na-
tions General Assembly documents which do specifically mention
the seabed, beneath its floor, and make references to that. Then
taking it one step further, as did the State Department, if you look
at the fact that even if it isn't dumping, other activities have to not
be contrary to the spirit of the London Dumping Convention and
query whether seabed emplacement-unless you can be absolutely
certain that it's not going to leak into the marine environment-
then it's contrary to the spirit of the act which was set up to insure
that radioactive wastes do not interfere with the marine environ-
ment.
So for that colloge of concerns that I have in looking at the LDC,
I think it is an appropriate reason to say it's illegal.
Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much for your testimony. We do
appreciate it. And we also appreciate your waiting as long as you
did.
Mr. CURTIS. Thank you.
69-848 0 - 81 - 32
PAGENO="0498"
492
Mr STUDDS I am informed we have one final witness, a gentle
man who has apparently requested an opportunity to testify and
has come all the way from California, Mr Conrad Golich
We will be pleased to receive your testimony for the record, Mr
Golich. As I understand it, the staff has told you you may have 5
minutes. They're yours.
STATEMENT OF CONRAD F. GOLICH, CONSULTANT TO PROJECT
TEI(TITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Mr G0LIcH Thank you
I have presented a rather lengthy total statement here, but I will
read only a short, three-page statement here to the committee and
I will leave the reading of the rest of the material to you at a later
time.
Mr. STUDDS. Very good. I appreciate that.
[The following was received for the record]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONARD F. G0LIcH; CONSULTANT TO PROJECT TEKTITE
INTRODUCTION
I am Conrad F. Golich, a private consultant on radioactive waste management to
Project Tektite, a San Francisco, California based non-profit educational and re-
search organization concerned with the oceans. My technical background includes a
bachelors degree in mechanical engineering and graduate work in industrial design
from the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago Illinois I have approximately
eight years experience as a systems engineer and technical writer for corporations
in the aerospace industry on projects such as the Titan missile the Agena satellite
nuclear submarine communications and hydraulics for nuclear power plants
I have four years of experience involving the sujbect of radioactive waste manage-
ment as a result of studying the Farallon Island radioactive waste dump site off the
coast of San Francisco and adjacent to my home town on the coast of Mann County
north of the city. Among other activities, I have testified in San Francisco at
congressional hearings in 1976 and 1980 by the Subcommittee on Environment,
Energy, and Natural Resources of the Committee on Government Operations, at
hearings by the Federal Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management
in 1978, and at the hearings held in this year by the Federal Radiation Council.
PROBLEM
Radioactive Waste management focuses on disposal methods in the Earth, space,
and the oceans and these hearings address themselves to the subject of ocean
dumping of low and high level wastes in past present and future Disposal methods
follow the old approach of dispersion, which has now been replaced by the concept
of concept of containment. Containment must also include retrievability to assure
maximum safety for the entire planet.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no "safe" place to dump any of the
toxic wastes produced by our technological society. Dumping anywhere has to be
cleaned up later, and only creates more contaminated waste to be dumped some-
where else. Radioactive wastes can not be cleaned up by dumping them somewhere
else where they will poison more of the environment. We must invent a method of
neutralizing and transmuting and recycling all toxic wastes, especially radioactive
ones which remain deadly for thousands of years In the meantime we must safely
contain them so that they can be retrieved later when we have agreement on a
correct long term solution Therefore I will present a proposal for a safe retriev
able containment system that will buy us the time to design and implement a
genuine solution to this crucial global problem
SOLUTION
Project Tektite has received a proposal from the Marine Resources Company in
Austin, Texas for a containment system that could be, applicable to radioactive
wastes already dumped onto the ocean floor, and that might provide a retrievable
containment system for temporary storage in the ocean. This is particularly impor-
tant in view of continued dumping around the globe, such as in the North Atlantic,
and intentions by this country to dump high-level radioactive wastes in the ocean
off Hawaii or Guam or elsewhere, and the intention by Japan to dump them in the
ocean near there next year.
PAGENO="0499"
493
The proposed system utilizes electrodeposition of minerals in the sea water onto
wire mesh structures by charging the wire with low-voltage, high amperage electric-
ity. Within six months to a year, waste material could be cocooned with any size
and thickness of a covering similar to mollusk shells such as clams and oysters. The
resulting structures are stronger than concrete, impervious to sea water, last virtu-
ally indefinitely, and can be repaired in place, if found necessary, by simply re-
charging them with additional electricity.
By making these covering mechanically retrievable, they could be removed at a
later time if desired, or they might prove to be continuously safe and allowed to
remain in place. Furthermore, it is theoretically possible that electromagnetic fields
within the wire frame might provide a barrier to the radiation inside-no claims
are made to this effect, but research is now being conducted by private experiments.
Other benefits are possible, such as the fact that marine life seem to be attracted to
the structures, and could create a new fishing ground in the area, and provide
massive sources of protein to help solve the world food problem. Also, the activities
entailed in testing this system, such as at the Farallon Island dump site, could
produce many techniques and equipment essential to the development of ocean
technology which is just beginning.
This system is not merely a concept, but has been developed for some ten years,
and actual demonstrations are functioning in the ocean now. The process is patent-
ed, and considerable interest exists in numerous possible applications, and various
technical journals and publications have presented information about it. Additional
information is available from the Marine Resources Company and from Project
Tektite.
CONCLUSION
The oceans of the world are a common resource for mankind, and should be
utilized as a solution to global problems, and not as a convenient sewer for addition-
al pollution. Out of sight, out of mind, is a throw-back to the dark ages, and is not
appropriate to solving today's problems as we approach the twentieth century. The
technology of the space age must be applied to inner space in the oceans, as tektites
come from the stars to the ocean floor. That is the mission of Project Tektite.
I have appended these brief remarks with two previo.us statements made to the
Government Operations Committee and the Interagency Review Group. Additional
information is available on request. Thank you for your attention to my presenta-
tion.
STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS ON OCTOBER 7, 1980
INTRODUCTION
My technical background includes a bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering
and graduate work in Industrial Design from the Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, Illinois. I have approximately eight years experience as a systems engineer
and technical writer for corporations in the aerospace industry on projects such as
the Titan Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, the Agena Satellite program, communi-
cations equipment for nuclear submarines, and hydraulic sales engineering for
nuclear power plants.
I have been concerned about the Farallon Island radioactive waste disposal site
since May of 1976, when the subject was first brought to public attention through a
New York Times article which was reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle. I
subsequently alerted California State Senator Peter Behr to the situation, and he
obtained Environmental Protection Document ORP 75-1 (1975) and IAEA-SM-207/
65 which was presented at the "International Symposium on the Management of
Radioactive Wastes from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" in March of 1976. These were
transmitted by me to Congressman John L. Burton in July of 1976, and he in turn
arranged for the Congressional hearings held by this subcommittee in fall of that
year, chaired by the late Congressman Leo J. Ryan. Tests made subsequently in
1976 and 1977 at the Farallon Islands by the Environmental Protection Agency
were a direct result of the subcommittee hearings.
In the four years since then, I have studied the question of radioactive waste
management in general, and the situation at the Farallon Islands in particular. I
have obtained and read numerous reports and documents on these matters, and
have been personally responsible for much of the media publicity generated on the
subject. Through the assistance of many private individuals and concerned public
officials such as California State Assemblyman William Filante, Mann County
Supervisor Barbara Boxer, San Francisco Supervisor Quentin Kopp, and Congress-
man John Burton, we are once again faced with the problem of atomic wastes in the
PAGENO="0500"
494
ocean, and with their possible harmful impact on the health and safety of the
people of the San Francisco bay area, the nation, and indeed all humanity.
PROBLEM
Much of the testimony that will be presented today to this subcommittee will
address itself to the question of whether or not there is a problem at the dump site
off the Farallon Islands. Expert testimony will claim or disclaim potential health
hazards for humans who consume fish from the local area. I will leave the argu-
ments about the significance of these facts to others more qualified to discuss them.
However, recent information has been released to the public about some fifty dump
sites on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, locations on the west coast from
Mexico to Canada, air drops from military airplanes at undetermined locations,
scuttled ships from atomic bomb testing now lying off San Diego, radioactive levels
in locally caught fish, ruptured barrels and concrete blocks that were never intend-
ed to maintain structural integrity, and health problems in humans exposed ~o
supposedly harmless testing in Utah, and military personnel exhibiting unexpected
diseases from exposure to atomic bomb testing. It seems obvious that elaborate
assurances of safety from the laboratories who dumped their garbage at the Faral-
lons and elsewhere will not suffice in the face of the growing evidence of long-term
and potentially lethal poisioning of the oceans. It also seems absurd to suggest that
these hearings are concerned with matters that are "trivial" and "insignificant" as
has been reported by media accounts of researchers from the source of the problem
that we must deal with. Therefore, I will present some data on potential solutions
that should be implemented as soon as possible.
SOLUTION
As a result of my research and my attendance at various governmental hearings
on nuclear waste management, it is apparent that "official" federal efforts are being
directed towards disposal of radioactive wastes in the earth, space, or oceans.
Numerous scientific studies (referred to in the appendix to this statement) indicate
that none of these approaches are acceptable from a primary standpoint of environ-
mental safety.
From my experience as a systems engineer, I have determined that another entire
method of dealing with these toxic materials is now available, but has been virtual-
ly ignored. Specifically, I refer to what has been termed, "transmutation". It in-
volves procedures that recycle radioactive substances into inert material, with the
potential release of extremely large amounts of safe, useable energy. This approach
has been given almost no mention in federal waste management discussions and
documents, and is currently receiving little, if any, funding. Dr. Edward Teller, the
well-known expert in the nuclear field, has said that if we bury atomic wastes now,
we may have to mine them in years to come to utilize their vast energy potential.
I believe that for scientific, legal, and political reasons, disposal of radioactive
materials in the earth, air, or water, will prove to be unsafe, and impossible to
implement successfully. Therefore, it is necessary to direct our efforts to invent and
carry out methods of deactivating and neutralizing atomic wastes. This will prob-
ably require large scale research and funding, on the order of the original Manhat-
tan Project, to solve the global problem of what to do with some five billion gallons
of deadly posion.
With respect to the question of radioactive wastes already in our oceans, I suggest
that attention be given to a method recently discussed in the IEEE Journal of
Oceanic Engineering, July 1979, Volume OE-4, Number 3, (ISSN 0364-9059), "Elec-
trodeposition of Minerals in Sea Water, Experiments and Applications" by Dr. W.
H. Hilbertz (page 94). The subject is also presented in the March/April 1980 issue of
NEXT magazine. Dr. Hilbertz, of the Marine Resources Company (2812 Hemphil
Park, Austin, Texas 78705, 512-478-7164) has developed a method of creating artifi-
cial structures in the ocean that might be used to contain radioactive wastes already
on the oean floor.
On page 62 of the NEXT article, it says that: "Fortunately, others are beginning
to see merit in Hilbertz's basic idea, and some are actually experimenting. At the
State University of New York's Department of Material Science and Engineering at
Stony Brook, the department head, Dr. Herbert Herman, is growing structures in
aquariums and outdoors in water taken from Long Island Sound. Dr. Herman is
enthusiastic. `~ * * You can use it perhaps to cocoon disposed waste you don't want
to leach out. Possible nuclear waste. We're testing the material's reaction to radi-
ation in seawater by bombarding it with gamma rays.' Although his experiments
are in the early stages, Dr. Herman is very optimistic."
PAGENO="0501"
495
CONCLUSION
Radioactive waste management has been called a problem of centuries. I hope
that these hearings will prove to be a step in the direction towards a solution to one
of the most important and dangerous situations facing all of mankind. I hope that I
have been able to suggest some possible answers for your consideration. I have
appended to this statement, a report made to the federal government's "Interagency
Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management". Additional data from my extensive
files on this subject will be supplied to this committee on its request. Thank you for
your attention to these remarks.
PAGENO="0502"
496
PAGENO="0503"
497
STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE INTERAGENCY REVIEW GROUP ON NUCLEAR WASTE
MANAGEMENT ON AUGUST 3 1978
SUMMARY
The Farallons Islands Radioactive Waste Disposal site near San Francisco pro
vides a prime example of the radioactive waste problem facing the world today
Nuclear Waste Management in this country focuses on permanent disposal methods
in the Earth, the Oceans, and in Space. Available technical data indicates that all of
these methods are now unacceptable from a primary consideration of environmental
safety.
Instead management should be directed to cease further production of such long
lived and deadly poisonous wastes and to acquire a scientific method of deactivation
of radioactive substances
Public input must be utilized by means of extensive information education
debate and voting on the basic questions involved Public monies must be trans
ferred from continued pollution to safe solutions
INTRODUCTION
The Farallons Islands Radioactive Waste Disposal site lies some 22 miles offshore
of my home town in Mann County just north of San Francisco California Under
approximately six thousand feet of water lie nearly 50 000 metal drums and 150
concrete blocks containing some of this country s first radioactive wastes from as
early as the nineteen-forties. They contain irriadiated organic materials such as
discarded laboratory clothing and experimental animal remains and parts of dis
carded prototype reactors respectively
As a result of three years of investigation some facts have emerged which bear
directly on the question of nuclear waste disposal in the oceans and on the overall
nuclear waste problem While a discussion of the moral political social economic
and legal aspects of nuclear weapons and energy is essential to an overall solution
to this global problem my technical background leads me to a problem solving
approach The Nuclear Problem invokes such scientific controversy and political
hysteria, that we must attempt to achieve some concensus based on commonly agree
upon principles Consequently I will base my discussion on existing information in
the public and private sectors. Hopefully, as scientists are fond of saying, "the facts
speak for themselves."
Included in this submittal are a number of reprints from San Francisco bay area
newspapers (See Appendix A) They show some of the media response to the studies
made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the Farallons in the last
few years. In addition, references will be made to government and other documents
to substantiate observations and conclusions made in this report
The definitive report at the Interagency Review Group (IRG) hearings in Jul
1978 in San Francisco was the U S Department of Energy draft Report of Tas
Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management February 1978 (DOE/ER 0004/D)
the Deutch report It states in the Overview (page 2) that Public health and
safety must be the primary consideration and the policy and programs must be
credible to and accepted by the American public." And under Fundamental Princi-
ples (page 5), Design Criteria, it reaffirms that "The paramount consideration
should be safety."
I completely agree with these statements, and will confine this discussion to the
question of safety as it pertains to the Farallons the oceans and nuclear wastes in
general The Deutch report also says that The emphasis of this report is on the
ultimate disposal of these wastes For reasons have to do with safety I do not agree
with this premise as will e fully explained in the following discussion
THE FARALLONS FISH STORY
First then is the specific example of the Farallons Islands ocean dump site It is
obvious to all that in retrospect it was a bad idea Done under security conditions
the operations took place before much data about low level radiation hazards was
available The ordinary 55 gallon drums ruptured by implosion some immediately
and the concrete blocks materials have leached into the water Consequently
radioactivity has contaminated the ocean floor under the islands' National Wildlife
Sanctuary, amidst abundant marine life, and in the immediate proximity to a major
metropolitan area.
An extensive analysis of this situation is contained in Appendix B to this report.
The crux of the matter however is possible danger to public safety from any
retention of radioactivity in the marine environment, which could lead to contami-
nation in seafood consumed by humans At Congressional hearings in San Francisco
in 1976 (Government Operations Conservation Energy and Natural Resources
subcommittee) EPA officials said that there was probably no uptake of radioactiv
PAGENO="0504"
498
ity in the local fish. However, in 1977, the State of California's Health Department,
Radiological Health Section, detected Cesium 137 in samples taken from a Berkeley
local fish market.
And in 1978, the EPA tests at the Farallons site confirmed the State of Califor-
nia's findings. According to a Lawrence Livermore Laboratories report of January 6,
1978 (Radionuclides in the Marine Environment Near the Farallons Islands, UCRL-
52381), approximately twice the amounts noted in the State of California tests were
found in Red Rock Cod caught near the Farallons Islands. Lawrence, formerly
known as Radiation rather than Livermore, incidentally, is one of the orginal
sources of the materials which were dumped at the site. The report, prepared under
contract with the U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration, has been
made public, but the EPA has not yet issued one. It is expected to basically
substantiate the LLL document.
Essentially, the LLL report attributes the local contamination to global fallout
from the sixties, since tests from the Chicago fish markets have about the same
amounts of radioactivity. This is claimed, despite clear evidence in a previous EPA
report that Cesium and Plutonium in a core sample of the ocean floor contained
concentrations which "exceed the expected fallout range" (made to the Internation-
al Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, March 1976, IAEA-SM-207/65). One explanation
is a "very low-level manifestation of transport or radioactive contamination from an
area other than at Station 13A That the source may be from the 150
concrete blocks at the Farallons is suggested by an extensive discussion on page 10
and 11 of the same report, about Cesium 137 leaching from containers at the
Atlantic 2800 meter dumpsite.
However, when an average person looks at the color photographs of the bottom-
feeding red fish next to a ruptured barrel filled with irradiated dead animals (EPA
Operations Report, ORP-75-1), no amount of "official explanation" will suffice to
dispel obvious concern about possible contamination in the food chain to humans.
This is especially so, since Cesium 137 is some "7-15 times greater" (in potential
hazard) "than from Strontium 90." It is absorbed through the stomach into the
blood stream, and then into the bone marrow where it causes leukemia-cancer of
the blood. (Appendix B contains copies of correspondence with the California State
Department of Health and of the documents referenced therein.)
Finally, I and two other local scientists agree that the recent EPA tests at the
Farallons must be considered inadequate and superficial, since they did not
throughly monitor the local abalone, clams, oysters, and mussels, which are known
to bioconcentrate radioactivity by a factor of ten to one. In addition to local con-
sumption, oysters are grown commercially in Pt. Reyes Station, a nearby local
community in the heart of a National Seashore visited by thousands of tourists
annually.
Meanwhile, increasing argumentation continues in scientific circles about the
potential dangers of accumulating even low-level radiation over time spans as long
as thirty years (Goffman, Sternglass, and others). The general concensus, however,
seems to be that no amount of radioactivity can be guaranteed safe because of its
uncertain effects on long-term genetics in plants, animals, and humans. Hence, the
cessation of ocean dumping by this country in the sixties based on the change in the
then Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) philosophy from dispersion to containment
in its disposal methods.
Casting doubts on the overall effectiveness of the EPA's ability to monitor, under-
stand, or control risks to public health from radiation sources is a Government
Accounting Office report (described by the media as "scathing"), CED-78-27 of
January 20, 1978. While the DOE may call safety its primary criteria, the facts are
that "Of all EPA programs, radiation protection is the least funded" (from GAO
report, Digest). The bottom line of our Federal policy on radiation safety seems to be
"all talk and no money."
ADDITIONAL OCEAN DUMPING
Dissatisfaction with the EPA handling of the Farallons problem led me to suspect
the surveys had a primary purpose of preparation for consideration of renewed
ocean dumping by this country. Obviously, an existing low-level radiation dumpsite
cannot be admitted to be unsafe, if additional dumping of high-level waste is to have
any credibility. Also, it could lead to embarassing political conflict with Great
Britain, which is currently the largest source of continued ocean dumping of Euro-
pean low-level radioactive wastes. The total amount dumped by seven countries is
approximately three times the euries disposed of by the United States in the ocean
before we stopped doing it here in the nineteen-sixties.
In fact, Mr. Robert S. Dyer, who was in charge of the Farallons surveys in 1977
and 1978, has said: "For certain classes of radioactive wastes, ocean dumping onto
the ocean floor, under carefully controlled conditions, may offer an environmentally
PAGENO="0505"
499
acceptable technique . . ." And, at the outset of the 1977 effort, he said, "We need
to learn how long the drums will last, and how to improve the packages." While
omitting tests on the shelled seafood, and failing to retrieve a new kind of giant
sponge which grows on the Farallons barrels, the EPA did manage to recover one
intact drum. This was sent to Brookhaven National Laboratories to aid in designing
a new, so-called approved container-an obvious prelude to more ocean dumping.
These suspicions are confirmed by a June 30, 1978 Office of Science and Technol-
ogy Policy (OSTP) draft report. It describes a seven-million dollar study started in
1974 by the Federal Government in conjunction with Sandia Corporation and the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. And the results of this work is contained in a
seventy-page issue of Oceanus magazine from Woods Hole, Volume 20, Number 1,
Winter 1977, entitled "High-level Nuclear Wastes in the Seabed?"
The topics included in the contents are: "Burying Faust, Disposing of High-Level
Radioactive Waste, The Seabed Option, Barriers to Radioactive Migration, Physical
Processes in Deep-Sea Clays, Abyssal Communities and Radioactive waste Disposal,
and Seabed Emplacement and Political Reality." From the first subject, an editorial,
reference is made to what is regarded by some as "the Faustian nature of the
disposal bargain-present advantage in return for liability stretching millenia into
the future." The editor also says that "We have not solved . . . the problem of
permanent disposal . . . Where? . . . there is disagreement among the experts." And,
"Terrestrial disposal may prove feasible or it may not. The search for alternatives is
on, some of it at sea. Several scientists have spent the past three years (1974-1977)
investigating the sub-seabed in certain deeps. . . . They do not now advocate
emplacement of high-level radioactive wastes in those abyssal clays, but they have
not encountered anything that would automatically rule out such disposal. . . . We
are surrounded by poisons of our own making, some extremely dangerous and long
lived. We have not dealt with them well, witness our belated awakening to the
threat of `environmentally caused' cancers. Perhaps radioactive waste, with its
almost archetypal ability to inspire fear, can sharpen our sensing of reality."
In "The Seabed Option" (page 25), Mr. Hollister of Woods Hole says that "there
appears to be no scientific or technical reason to abandon the seabed disposal
concept at this time." This is claimed despite the admission (page 31) that "It is
assumed that the canister will develop cracks or leaks after a few hundred years."
And, ". . . the waste elements must not be allowed to escape from the seabed for a
million years." On page 27, the canister is described: "When newly filled, such
canisters will give off 10 to 30 kilowatts of heat as well as radiation so intense that
anyone foolish enough to spend even a second at a distance of 3 feet from the
canister would be exposed to as much radiation as the NRC presently permits
people working with radioactive materials to receive during their entire lifetimes."
And, "Their (Sandia Laboratories) best estimate at present is that material capable
of confining the wastes for a few thousand years can be found, if reasonable
temperature levels are maintained (not greater than 200 degrees Centigrade). Again,
this is far from the minimum of a million years of total containment that is
needed." He (Mr. G. Ross Heath) concludes that "The gaps in our knowledge
considerably exceed the facts in hand when it comes to deciding whether High-Level
wastes can be safely contained in the seabed of the deep ocean." Once again we are
being asked to rely on hopeful expectations that future designs will deliver us from
our continued creation of the problem today.
In the same report (page 40), Mr. Arnold J. Silva of the University of Rhode
Island says "At this stage of the program, we do not know whether the unlithified
sediments of the deep seabed form an effective barrier to contain high-level wastes."
(After they have leaded from the breached 100-year canisters. . .)
With respect to environmental impact, Hessler of Scrips Institute and Jumass of
the University of Washington say (page 46): "The fauna (involving the abyssal
bottom) is likely to be sensitive to minor environmental perterbations, and would
require a very long time to recover. Nor is its isolation so complete as to preclude
the possibility of biological transfer of harmful substances if radionuclide leakage
were to accidentally occur. . . . the amount of available data on the deep-sea
community is very small, much too small to form a sufficient base for such an
important conclusion. . . . To date, nothing is known about the ways in which deep-
sea organisms will respond to exposure to radionuclides." It appears that Mr.
Hollister's optimism is not substanciated by other data further along in the same
Oceanus report.
Despite the above scientific unsolved problems, Congress was told at a Merchant
Marine and Fisheries subcommittee hearing (May 15, 1978) that the DOE and the
NRC feel ocean disposal of nuclear wastes deserves continued investigation. Sheldon
Meyers, director of material safety for the NRC, said the commission staff is
beginning preliminary work to assess the risk of seabed disposal. He said it is an
PAGENO="0506"
500
"intriguing concept" . . . James L. Liverman, acting assistant secretary of energy for
environment said the department s study of samples from the ocean floor turned up
no surprises which would preclude the use of the sediments as a confinement
medium (Associated Press May 16 1978)
Aside from the obvious fact that a four year seven million-dollar research pro
gram is hardly preliminary work I simply do not understand how deadly radioac
tive canisters that leak into an unknown environment containing very sensitive life
forms can be considered an intriguing concept Perhaps as a plot for another
Hollywood science fiction horror movie but certainly not as a viable program which
considers safety as a paramount consideration And where does this latest mad
scientist syndrome suggest is the best location for ultimate disposal? Six hundred
miles north of Hawaii~ Plutonium Pollution in Paradise might be a successful
movie title but as reality it seems more like a nuclear nightmare to a common
sense engineer like myself.
Clifton E Curtis testified on July 11 1978 at those same committee hearings on
behalf of some three million people in numerous environmental groups around the
nation and the world While his emphasis was on legal aspects of the problem (he
represents the Center for Law and Social Policy) his conclusion ends with the clear
statement that Regarding radioactive waste that might be dumped on or beneath
the ocean floor the necessary research activities have barely begun Given the
extremely hazardous nature of radioactive wastes, their disposal into our oceans is
fraught with potentially irreparable consequences. Absent convincing research that
such adverse consequences will not occur, the current U.S. policy (dating back to
1970) that prohibits the use of the oceans for the dumping of radiological wastes
must be maintained." (Emphasis mine.)
SPACE AND GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL
If seabed disposal does not "provide reasonable assurance that there is no signifi-
cant threat to public health and safety (Deutch report fundamental principles)
what other options are there?
Fortunately no serious consideration (to my knowledge) has been given to an
other science fiction concept of sending rockets loaded with radioactive garbage into
deep space or, God forbid, into the sun. Rocket firings are not totally reliable, and
accidents could contaminate large areas of the population. And even eagerness to
get nuclear power plants off the waste disposal hook, cannot justify tampering with
the unknown processes of our local star upon which all Earth life depends. There
obviously is no way to predict accurately what the long-range consequences might
be, and we only have one test model which is not replaceable, the sun.
Now then, if the sea and the sky are unacceptable safe places for radioactive
waste disposal, then all that is left is the land. But where on land, and in whose
back yard will it be accepted as safe? New York voters and California voters have
recently said emphatically not ours And English and Japanese governments
don t have sufficient land of their own and so must return their wastes back to the
U S A where they came from Aside from the political question of State approval (or
veto) for locating a Federal depository is geological disposal a currently viable
option? See Appendix C which covers the following discussion
Both of these questions are addressed in the 9 June 1978 issue of Science maga
zine. The title says it all: "Nuclear Wastes: The Science of Geologic Disposal Seen as
Weak." While Federal agencies such as ERDA have declared that the only problems
are "straightforward technology and engineering development," the article says "It
comes as a surprise, therefore, to discover now that there seems to be an emerging
consensus among earth scientists familiar with waste disposal problems that the old
sense of certitude was misplaced. Although these scientists continue to find the
concept of geologic disposal attractive intuitively some are statin~ explicitly that
the scientific feasibility of the concept remains to be established And ac
knowledgment that a secure scientific foundation for geologic disposal is still lack
ing points to an important milestone in official deliberations over radioactive waste
management
five USGS scientists observed some key geologic questions are unan
swered, and answers are needed before the risk associated with geologic contain-
ment can be confidently evaluated . . . interactions are not well understood, and
this lack of understanding contributes considerable uncertainty to evaluations of the
risk of geologic disposal of high-level waste . . ." (See also the Department of the
Interior news release of May 2 1978 scientists conclude that a number of potential
geologic stumbling blocks must first be dealt with
A panel of eminent earth scientists which has made an evaluation for EPA of
the state of knowledge relevant to geologic disposal has put the matter much more
strongly~ ". .. We are surprised and dismayed to discover how few relevant data
PAGENO="0507"
501
are available on most of the candidate rock types even 30 years after wastes began
to accumulate from weapons development. These rocks include granite types, ba-
salts, and shales. Furthermore, we are only just now learning about the problem of
water in salt beds, and the need for careful measurements of water in (salt) domes."
The Science article concludes with the following: "In light of the consensus that
seems to be emerging, that the present waste program lacks a sure scientific footing,
some surprising developments may be in the offing. There could, for instance, be
some deemphasis of salt as the preferred geologic medium in favor of a broader and
deeper investigation of the available alternatives. These might even include an
examination of such nonconventional approaches as disposal of wastes in super-deep
holes and emplacement in the deep seabed."
Well, disposal in super-deep holes is covered in Appendix C of the OSTP draft
report of 3 July 1978. It says, "At least ten years of R & D with a level of several
millions of dollars per year, would be required to develop this proposed concept to a
level that would warrant a demonstration with radioactive wastes." This means, of
course, that the safety question is at least ten years away from being tested.
And, "emplacement in the deep seabed" brings us back to "square one," which
has previously shown to be currently unacceptable from the view of safety. So we
are faced with the dilemma of leaking and overcrowded storage facilities now, that
need replacement based on another decade of continued research with uncertain
results even then.
At this point in the discussion, it can be clearly seen that the safety problem of
nuclear waste disposal in the ocean, the sky, or the land, is unsolved. This fact is
the basis of California's moratorium on additional nuclear power plant construction.
It is also the basis for a Congressional committee's similar recommendation that: "3.
Congress and the executive branch should consider requiring that further licenses
for nuclear powerplant construction be conditioned upon the timely and satisfactory
resolution of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel permanent disposal and
storage problems." (Nuclear Power Costs, Committee on Government Operations,
Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Leo J. Ryan, Califor-
nia, Chairman.)
ALTERNATIVES TO DISPOSAL
Aside from its scientific uncertainties, the entire "disposal" approach to nuclear
waste management violates an obvious common sense observation that disposal will
never yield a truly safe solution. There is no place to safely "hide" radioactivity,
even though it is invisible. And the only acceptable safety, when we are dealing
with the survivial of all life on Earth, is "zero errors," not so-called "scientific"
guestimates about radioactive behavior over a million years based on 30 years of
actual experience.
And the whole emerging story about long-term health and genetic hazards frOm
even low-level radiation suggests an imminent world-wide cancer epidemic on hu-
manity's doorstep. (Dr. Helen Caldecot, of Australia, has documented this situation,
and it is included in Appendix D herein.)
We have fouled our own nest with deadly poisons, and seeking to "dispose" of our
wastes is akin to sweeping them under the rug or throwing them overboard. Unfor-
tunately, radioactivity, like the feared "monkey's paw," has an incredible way of
"migrating," as scientists say, back into the plant, fish, animal, and human environ-
ment. (If Plutonium sounds bad, be prepared for a shock when you read the effects
of Americium which uptakes readily into the plant kingdom.
Finally, mere "disposal" methods are an attempt to lock the gate after the
nuclear nightmare has already escaped and spread radioactive pollution into the
land, the seas, and the atmosphere. The day of reckoning is at hand. For even if a
miracle occurred today-with world peace achieved, nuclear arms dismantled, and
all radioactive production halted-the wastes we already have produced might still
kill all life on planet Earth.
It is absolutely imperative that some alternatives must be sought which are not
based on a fatally illusionary "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" disposal decision. The
"genie must be put back into the bottle," (or the devil back into the pit, if you
prefer), if true safety is to be accomplished. Of course, this general approach smacks
of the impossible. But if we are better off safe than sorry (or worse, doomed), then
necessity must surely be the mother of invention in this case. And invention by
definition, accomplishes the impossible. After all, it was Archimedes, not the poets,
politicians, priests, or businessmen, who invented the solution to a Roman fleet that
outnumbered the Greek town ten to one. Not one Roman ever reached shore from
their burning ships.
PAGENO="0508"
502
DEACTIVATION
With certainty, rather than so-called "reasonable assurances" of safety in mind,
what must be sought is some method of deactivating radioactivity. Recycling wastes
by methods such as breeder reactors does not neutralize the radioactivity-in fact,
they produce more than they consume. Moreover, the nuclear weapons proliferation
aspect of breeders has resulted in a Presidential veto over use of these devices.
Very little information on deactivation is available from some two years of
personal investigation into the radioactive waste problem. Transmutation is a little
known and strictly experimental concept, and is given only casual mention in all of
the literature surveyed. A discussion held with an Arizona State Senator indicated
that Sandia has attempted some research on a method of neutralization with no
known results.
Fusion is conceivably a basic physics answer to new energy that might be applied
to a deactivation system. However, a breakthrough in this research is still consid-
ered to be decades away, if ever. Furthermore, there is apparently a monumental
argument raging among top nuclear physicists between Plasma Fusion and Migma
Fusion (June 1978, New Times magazine).
The first method follows a process devised by the Russians, is well funded by
Federal millions, has only a 10 percent rate of energy return, and involves radioac-
tive Tritium waste products. It is not expected to yield practical results for many
years, although many scientists are trying.
The second is essentially a solo effort by a brilliant but eccentric Yugoslav named
Maglich, who claims to have a 3 to 1 energy output to input ratio. It does not have
any radioactive byproducts, and involves high intensity magnetism to contain and
bend a beam of particles to fuse after collision. Unfortunately, full data disclosure
has been requested by, but refused to, an interested environmental organization. His
continuation is currently funded by Arab oil interests (whose efforts to monopolize
the world uranium market are now well known), who may wish to hedge their bets
on energy control. Mr. Maglich displays photos of both Tito and Carter in his office
just down the road from his Plasma Fusion proponents, who believe his efforts to be
totally in error.
Some research has been done on utilization of the Earth's electromagnetic field as
an energy source and as a possible method of counteracting nuclear radioactivity.
Nicholas Tesla did extensive research in Earth fields to achieve wireless transmis-
sion of electrical power. Some mystery surrounds the exact nature of his results, if
any, including stories of government confiscation of his records following his death
in New York. Dr. Wilhelm Reich had "Orgone" theories, including a pamphlet
entitled "The Anti-Nuclear Radiation Effect of Cosmic Orgone Energy." He ended
up dying in a Federal prison after conflicts with the medical profession, and his
books were burned by the government. Aside from their medical validity (he
claimed a cure for radiation sickness), his ideas might provide some clues to radioac-
tive solutions. They should be reexamined in the light of today's needs, away from
the "witch-hunting" mood of the McCarthy era of the fifties. Patrick Flannagan,
another eccentric genius, has promoted the values of "pyramid power" as some new
energy source. All of these approaches however, have been shunned by official
scientific circles as impossible or simply incorrect. It is classic in science, of course,
for the lone wolf heretic to be proven eventually correct, only to be the founder of
yet another following of true believers who now profess the "new" irrefutable truth.
Nonewithstanding current scientific resistance to what Dr. C. G. Jung called
"non-causal reality," new evidence is rapidly being discovered by researchers in
what might be termed bio-physical and Earth magnetics. It appears that the Rus-
sians have far surpassed this country in such efforts, although national security
efforts probably preclude much public information on these matters.
In any event, hundreds of millions of our tax dollars are being expended to
produce deadly radioactivity, and to perpetuate the maladjustment with huge accu-
mulations of undisposable wastes. Surely some of the money being expended to
produce the problem could be used to fund a serious, objective, scientific inquiry
into how to clean up our nuclear pollution machines.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I cannot help but think of the similarity of the nuclear dilemma to the "Electra"
airplane problem of the late fifties. I first flew in one as a newly graduated engineer
PAGENO="0509"
503
on the way to my first out-of-town interview. The vibrations and noise in the cabin
between the wings was so loud and irritating, that I was forced to sit in the tail
section to avoid it somewhat. I could not help feeling that something was obviously
drasticaly wrong mechanically. Shortly thereafter, the wings started falling off in
flight, causing seveal fatal crashes. At that point, there was only one safe answer to
the problem, they were all grounded indefiniately. Only after extensive redesigning,
were they allowed to resume flying.
If safety is truly our prime consideration about radioactive hazards, then the facts
available today require that we must adopt the following:
1. Halt immediately all land and ocean dumping of any radioactive wastes.
2. Halt all further production of nuclear power plants and weaponry.
3. Phase out existing nuclear power production as soon as possible. Consisting of
only 13 percent of our nation's electrical energy mix, it can be readily replaced by a
combination of conservation, existing fossil fuels, and adequately funded renewable
energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass conversion.
4. Design and construct as soon as possible (from two to five years), an interim
(fifty to one hundred years to buy us precious time), maximum retrievable, below-
ground storage facility for all low- and high-level radioactive wastes.
5. Initiate and implement, as soon as possible, remedial health measures to
combat our massively expanding radiation-caused cancer and genetic damage to
untold future generations. Certain substances have already proven effective in
removing radioactivity from the human body. (Appendix D)
6. Redirect public funds from 2. and 3. above to develop ecological technologies
("Ecology"), and to investigate and create a method of deactivating deadly radioac-
tivity.
CONCLUSIONS
In the final analysis, the nuclear question in general, and radioactive wastes
specifically, is too important to be left up to politicians, agencies, or corporations
alone. It is a matter for decision of, by, and for the people. This could best be
accomplished by a nation-wide referendum equally funded to both sides of the
controversy by a Federal tax check-off, as is now done with Presidential elections.
More immediately, the lesson of California's Proposition 13 should not be lost on
the elected and appointed representatives of "we, the people." The nuclear arms
race and the radioactive poisoning of our planet proves that existing government
policy does not work. Unless our representatives listen to simple sanity, "No nukes,
or no money" will be the bottom line. It can manifest as a tax-payers' revolt at the
Federal income tax level. Or it can be the campaign slogan to elect an environmen-
tal safety conscious House of Representatives in this fall's coming elections. The
House constitutionally originates bills of revenue, and as the saying goes, "cash is
king."
It is ironic that our civilization should be faced with extinction of our own making
at the same time that we reach for the stars and imortality. I hope that I have been
able to defuse to some extent the mood of confrontation on the nuclear question,
and shed some light on possible areas of co-operation towards mutual safety and
survival. After all, the lives we save will be our own and our future generations of
children. Wake-up America, it is our spiritual destiny to show the way. And, "where
there is a will, there is a way." Put the "us" back in the USA.
Mr. GOLICH. I am Conrad Golich, a private consultant on radioac-
tive waste management to Project Tektite, a San Francisco based
nonprofit educational and research organization concerned with
the oceans.
My technical background includes a bachelors degree in me-
chanical engineering and graduate work in industrial design from
the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. I have approximately
8 years experience as a systems engineer and technical writer for
corporations in the aerospace industry on projects such as the
Titan missile, the Agena satellite, nuclear submarine communica-
tions, and hydraulics for nuclear powerplants.
I have 4 years of experience involving the subject of radioactive
waste management as a result of studying the Farallon Island
radioactive waste dumpsite off the coast of San Francisco, and
PAGENO="0510"
504
adjacent to my hometown on the coast of Mann County, north of
the city
Among other activities, I have testified in San Francisco at con
gressional hearings in 1976 and 1980 by the Subcommittee on
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the Committee on
Government Operations, at hearings by the Federal Interagency
Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management in 1978, and at
hearings held in this year by the Federal Radiation Council
Radioactive waste management focuses on disposal methods in
the Earth, space, and the oceans, and these hearings address them
selves to the subject of ocean dumping of low and high level wastes
in past, present, and future
Disposal methods follow the old approach of dispersion, which
has now been replaced by the concept of containment Containment
must also include retrievability to assure maximum safety for the
entire planet.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no safe place to
dump any of the toxic wastes produced by our technological society
Dumping anywhere has to be cleaned up later, and only creates
more contaminated waste to be dumped somewhere else
Radioactive wastes cannot be cleaned up by dumping them some-
where else where they will poison more of the environment We
must invent a method of neutralizing and transmuting and recy
cling all toxic wastes, especially radioactive ones which remain
deadly for thousands of years
In the meantime we must safely contain them so that they can
be retrieved later when we have agreement on a correct long term
solution Therefore, I will present a proposal for a safe, retrievable,
containment system that will buy us the time to design and imple
ment a genuine solution to this crucial global problem
Project Tektite has received a proposal from the Marine Re
sources Co in Austin, Tex for a containment system that could be
applicable to radioactive wastes already dumped onto the ocean
floor, and that might provide a retrievable containment system for
temporary storage in the ocean
This is particularly important in view of continued dumping
around the globe, such as in the North Atlantic, and intentions by
this country to dump high-level radioactive wastes in the ocean off
Hawaii or Guam or elsewhere, and the intention by Japan to dump
them in the ocean near there next year.
The proposed system utilizes electrodeposition of minerals in the
sea water onto wire mesh structures by charging the wire with low
voltage, high amperage electricity Within 6 months to a year,
waste material could be cocooned with any size and thickness of a
covering similar to mollusc shells such as clams and oysters The
resulting structures are stronger than concrete, impervious to sea
water, last virtually indefinitely, and can be repaired in place, if
found necessary, by simply recharging them with additional elec-
tricity.
By making these coverings mechanically retrievable, they could
be recovered at a later time if desired, or they might prove to be
continuously safe and allowed to remain in place
Furthermore, it is theoretically possible that electromagnetic
fields within the wire frame might provide a barrier to the radi
PAGENO="0511"
505
ation inside. No claims are made to this effect, but research is now
being conducted by private experiments.
Other benefits are possible, such as the fact that marine life
seems to be attracted to the structures, and could create a new
fishing ground in the area and provide massive sources of protein
to help solve the world food problem.
Also, the activities entailed in testing this system such as at the
Farallon Island dumpsite could provide many techniques and
equipment essential to the development of ocean technology which
is just beginning.
This system is not merely a concept, but has been developed for
some 10 years, and actual demonstrations are functioning in the
ocean now. The process is patented, and considerable interest exists
in numerous possible applications, and various technical journals
and publications have presented information about it. Additional
information is available from the Marine Resources Co. and from
Project Tektite.
In conclusion, the oceans of the world are a common resource for
mankind and should be utilized as a solution to global problems
and not as a convenient sewer for additional pollution. "Out of
sight, out of mind" is a throwback to the Dark Ages. It is not
appropriate to solving today's problems as we conclude the 20th
century. The technology of the space age must be applied to inner
space in the oceans, as tektites come from the stars to the ocean
floor. That is the mission of Project Tektite.
I have appended these brief remarks with two previous state-
ments made to the Government Operations Committee and the
Interagency Review Group. Additional information is available on
request.
Thank you for your attention to my presentation.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Golich, I thank you very much, both for your
patience and your willingness to be as concise as you were. You
took precisely the 5 minutes you were allocated. I know that
doesn't seem like much after the trip you made. I really do appreci-
ate that.
Your statement will appear in its entirety in the record. I don't
know if we'll be able to reproduce this cartoon from the Chronicle.
Mr. G0LIcH. I don't think that's essential.
Mr. STUDDS. We will simply try. I think it's critical.
[The cartoon follows:]
PAGENO="0512"
506
F
P.èMs$à.g Co. 1977
0
`is it too late to get you back in th. lamp?"
PAGENO="0513"
507
Mr. G0LICH. Well, I might also point out, which you will read in
there, that basically-this sounds a little outrageous, but in my
opinion I'm probably one of the world's experts on the question of
nuclear waste management. I spent 4 solid years studying this
subject, and there's a million angles to it that are just beginning to
come out now.
I would really like you to consider the fact that I would like to
make myself available as a consultant to this whole problem here.
I am willing and able to do that.
Mr. STUDDS. We're going to make your paper also available to
the relevant agencies.
It is exceptionally difficult to appear outrageous in Washington,
let me reassure you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. G0LIcH. Thank you.
Mr. STUDDS. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[The following was received for the record:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would like to commend YOU for
taking the time to hold a hearing on the important subject of radioactive waste
disposal in the oceans. The purpose of your hearing, as I understand it, is to look
ahead to the possibility that our oceans could be used as sites for the disposal of
radioactive waste materials.
This issue is of special significance to me because the 5th Congressional District of
California is on the Pacific Ocean and only 50 miles from the Farallon Islands
dumping site which served as one of the earliest sites for low level wastes placed in
the Pacific between World War II and 1970.
I know you are aware that our distinguished colleague, Congressman Moffett,
kindly complied with my request to bring his Subcommittee on Environment,
Energy and Natural Resources to San Francisco for hearings this past October on
the past practice of radioactive dumping at the Farallons.
The people I represent in the San Francisco Bay Area are justifiably concerned
that these practices which the U.S. permitted under the Atomic Energy Commission
may have resulted in serious contamination of the ocean waters and sea life.
Moreover, I think that they are outraged by the casual manner in which the
government conducted this disposal program, leaving behind a few, vague records
about what was dumped, how much and where.
The fact is, we cannot even get a comfortable handle on what the federal govern-
ment has allowed in the past in the way of radioactive disposals that occurred in
our oceans. If we do not even have a good grasp now, and it has been ten years since
the U.S. permitted low level ocean dumping, I hardly think it is wise to be consider-
ing high level radioactive disposal in the ocean unless the technology of safe
containment is fully developed and tested.
My main concern is that scientists are becoming too eager to plunge ahead on
pursuing ocean disposal of high level wastes, which could include nuclear fuel rod
assemblies. I think that this is dangerously premature because we don't have any
kind of satisfactory account of past disposals, and those were relatively low level in
comparison.
Our previous experience with nuclear waste disposal in this country has not given
me much confidence in the government's ability to safely allow ocean disposals in
the future without a major overhaul of policy and without major technological
advancements. We have learned through the San Francisco hearings that the En-
vieonmental Protection Agency has hardly been able to do more than scratch the
surface. Their surveys have only located a small percentage of the 55-gallon drums
and they report that many were broken and leaking into the ocean.
According to the EPA, the records of ocean dumping activities by the Atomic
Energy Commission only provide approximate coordinates of the dumping location,
and they do not indicate the specific content, and neither the content of the
containers not the precise dumping locations can be verified. Furthermore, records
of military operations and government contractors might exist but are not available.
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 33
PAGENO="0514"
508
Recently, we have found some information that the United States Navy scuttled
many of the ships that were used during the nuclear testing of the 1940's. Many of
these ships were radioactive as a result of the testing and then they were sunk off
the California coast. Although we have asked the Navy to verify this information
and release us related facts, I bring this up here to underline the pattern of casually
dumping radioactive materials in our oceans.
These thoughts are not encouraging. We cannot be proud of the government's
past efforts on this to protect the public and we cannot go ahead ignoring all the
gaps in the recollection of what was done. We must get a complete picture first and
that will mean active monitoring of fish, other sea food, water samples and ocean
sediments to measure any effects on the food chain and the marine environment.
Hopefully, this will produce not only greater future safeguards but also knowledge
upon which to base any future decisions about dumping nuclear wastes into the
oceans.
PAGENO="0515"
509
735 Wimbledon
Livermore, CA 9~550
December 24, 1980
Congressman Gerry E. Studds
Subcommittee on Oceanography
Committee on Itlerchant Marine and Fisheries
3577 Annex #2
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Studds:
As concerned citizens who are knowledgeable in the area of environmental
radioactivity and the Farallon situation, we are writing to offer our input to your
deliberations. Our professional experience in environmental radiation, public health,
and waste management totals over 30 years. We would be happy to provide
curricula vitae if desired.
We recently testified before the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, end
Natural Resources at their hearings in San Francisco, and we attended your hearings
in Washington last month. We requested the opportunity to present testimony at
your hearings, but this request could not be accommodated.
We are very concerned about the misinformation and lack of knowledge
exhibited in the comments of subcommittee members as well as witnesses at these
hearings.
Enclosed you will find a report we have prepared for the Subcommittee
entitled `Hazard Assessment of the Farallon Radioactive Waste Dumpsite." We
hope that this report will be included in the record and will be brought tO the
attention of the subcommittee members. We believe the report will be useful in
placing the problem in perspective.
We would be happy to discuss the report or offer any other assistance the
Subcommittee may need.
Sincerely yours,
Craig . Smith Jerry J. Cohen
Bus (415) 422-8908 Bus (415) 422-6445
Res (415) 462-9276 Res (415) 447-2265
CFS:clm
En closure
PAGENO="0516"
510
December 12, 1980
HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF THE FARALLON RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPSITE
Craig F. Smith Jerry J. Cohen
As a result of the extensive publicity devoted to the Farallon Radioactive
Waste Dumpsite, a review of this situation was undertaken. Based on the
information currently available, some useful insights and conclusions can be
stated at this time. This report will present some general observations, and
then will offer specific summary comments and conclusions relating to the
Farallon situation.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
* Leaking Barrels
A seriously mistaken impression given in media coverage is that the
unsealed waste containers observed at the dumpsite constitute an error or
miscalculation of some sort on the part of responsible officials at the
time the dumping occured.
Even forty years ago scientists were well aware of the corrosive
properties of seawater. There was, in fact, no intent or belief that the
barrels and other containers would not leak. The concept was that,
considering the dispersive capacity of the ocean, the total quantities of
radioactive material disposed simply were not sufficient to constitute a
significant hazard.
With regard to the alternative waste disposal philosophies of "dilute and
disperse" versus "concentrate and contain", it should be noted that ocean
disposal uses both principles to advantage. Since the intent of oceanic
disposal is to provide both isolation from the immediate human environment
and a huge medium for dispersal In the event of release from the dump
site, it is apparent that in either case the public health is protected.
As previously mentioned, the waste packages were never intended to be
leakproof. Their major function was to hold the waste until it reached
the ocean floor. Any subsequent leakage would be naturally dispersed by
normal oceanic processes such that no significant hazard could result.
That was the philosophy at the time and it still makes sense. For
exampl~ current International guidelines for sea disposal of radioactive
waste ~i) state:
"The container shall be made sufficiently strong or pliable to remain
intact and retain its contents under the pressure encountered during
descent to the sea floor."
Second hand drums, lined with lead or concrete, as used at the Farallons,
could well serve the purpose. Since most of the containers were lined
with concrete, it was reasonably assumed that placing steel tops would be
superfluous. The tops would have added little extra protection. It is
difficult to understand the excessive concern regarding the waste
containers used since there is no scientific indication of any significant
hazard resulting from these practices.
PAGENO="0517"
511
* How serious is the hazard?
A rational approach to placing the severity of potential hazard in
perspective is to relate it to that due to naturally occurring
radioactivity.
Nature has placed considerable quantities of toxic and radioactive
material in sea water, including such radionuclides as Uranium (10-3
parts per million), Radium (10-10 ppm) and Potassium-40 (.05 ppm).(2)
If one considers only the seawater column roughly defined by the Farallon
dumps ite ( ~10,000 km2, ~1.0 km deep), this defines a volume of 1013
cubic meters. Considering only the Radium content, one would expect a
total inventory in this volume of 1000 grams (1000 curies) of this
naturally occurring radionuclide. Via ingestion pathways (which are the
predominant route for human exposure in this case), this amount of Radium
is equivalent in toxicity to, for example, 4 tons (250,000 Ci) of
Plutonium-239.
A similar perspective is obtained from considering the naturally occurring
Radium present in the sediments (10,000 km2 by 2 meter depth) contained
in the Farallon dumpsite. The radium content in these sediments anlounts
to 6700 grams. This quantity of radium is equivalent in ingestion
toxicity to 26.8 tons (1,675,000 Ci) of Pu-239.
According to WASH-734,(3) the total inventory of all radionuclides in
the Farallon dumpsite is 14,000 Ci, of which only 30 Ci consists of long
lived alpha activity. If all 30 curies were Plutonium-239 (a very
pessimistic assumption) or even if all 14,000 curies were Plutonium (a
completely absurd assumption), the hazard would still be trivial compared
to the naturally occurring Radium in the same area. It should also be
noted that Radium follows roughly the same exposure pathways and behaves
similarly to the transuranic elements toxicologically.
In brief, from a radiological standpoint, it would be inconsequential
whether the drums leak or not!
* "High-Level" versus "Low-Level Wastes
The assertion has been made that the nuclear wastes dumped at the
Farallons and other sites were not "low-level". This assertion is found
to be rather peculiar since there was not at the time, for is there flow,
any universally accepted definition for' high or low-level wastes. There
have been, in fact, several suggested definitions, but as yet none are
official, or even generally accepted.
In the nuclear industry, "high-level" waste is usually understood to be
the raffinates from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Low-level
wastes are those produced from other sources. It should be pointed out,
however, that the term low-level waste does not necessarily imply low
hazard.
In any case, whether the waste is high or low-level is somewhat irrelevant
from a public health standpoint. The important question is how much is
there? What is the total inventory? Estimates on the total quantity of
radioactivity present have been available for some time in WASH-734 and
other reports. Once in place, the semantic classification of the waste,
by itself, has little or no bearing on its environmental consequences.
PAGENO="0518"
512
* Accuracy of Waste Inventory Estimates
Concern has been expressed that, since the inventories of radioactive
waste are not known exactly, there could be a problem. In particular,
WASH434 Indicated that estimates of total radioactivity could be off by a
factor of 10. The fact is that we are not totally Ignorant of the
inventories of waste materials, and even the limited information available
Is sufficient to permit an analysis of whether the dumping practices could
possibly pose a threat.
First It should be noted that being off by a factor of 10 could mean the
estimate could be either high or low by that value. In any case, it will
be shown that from a standpoint of potential hazard to either health or
environment It Is Insignificant whether the estimate is off by a factor of
10 or even 100 for that matter. As previously discussed, the column of
water defined by the Farallon dumpsite (104 km3) contains quantities
of naturally occuring radionuclides which make the radioactive waste
trivial in comparison, from either a radioactivity or a hazard viewpoint.
Table 1 lists these natural radionuclides, along with their mass,
radioactivity and Toxicity Index. The Toxicity Index is a simple measure
of potential hazard expressed as the volume of water required to dilute a
given quantity of a toxic or radioactive material to acceptable public
drinking water standards.
Table 1
Some Naturally Occuring Radionuclides in
10,000 km3 of Average Seawater
(Estimated Volume of Farallon dumpslte water column)
Radionuclide Mass (Tons) Radioactivity (Ci) Toxity Index (m3)
Uranium-238 3 x 3 x 106
Radium-226 10~ 1 x 1010
Potassium-40 5 x 3 x 106 3x i~8(a)
Total 1 x 1010
(a) Based on a computed dose factorfor K-40 relative to K-42.
PAGENO="0519"
513
Possibly the components of the radioactive waste of greatest concern at
the Farallon dumpsite are the long-lived alpha emitting radionuclides
whose total quantity is estimated to be about 30 Ci. Unfortunately we do
not have a nuclide by nuclide breakdown, but if we conservatively assume
the entire quantity is Plutonium-239, its toxicity index would be
106 m3, a factor of 10,000 below that of the naturally occurring
radium in the seawater. Indeed, if the entire estimated waste inventory
of 14,000 Ci (alpha, beta and gamma) were Plutonium-239 (an absurdly
conservative assumption, given only to make the point) the waste would
still constitute a small hazard relative to the natural radioactivity.
Further, it should be noted that the toxicity of the naturally occuring
radionuclides, large as it may seem, is orders of magnitude lower than
that of certain naturally-occuring, non-radioactive toxic components of
sea water. Table 2 presents the Toxicity Index for several of these
non-radioactive toxic constituents, together with the Uranium and Radium
for comparison. Thus, the waste toxicity is insignificant in comparison
with the toxicity of the local natural radioactivity; and this, in turn,
is insignificant compared to the non-radioactive toxic material. (Also,
note that the toxicity of these non-radioactive materials will last
forever.)
Table 2
Toxicity Index of Sea Water Components in
10,000 Km3 of Average Seawater
Element Mass (grams) Toxicity Index*(m3)
Selenium 4 x 1010 4 x 1012
Arsenic 3 x 1010 -2 x 1011 6 x iOu -4 x 1012
Lead 4 x 1010 -5 x 1010 8 x 1011 -1 x 1012
Barium 5 x 1011 5 x 1011
Mercury 3 x 108 1 x 1011
Silver 1 x 10~ ~3 x 1O9 ~ x 1010 -6 x 1010
Uranium 1 x 1O3~0 x 106
Radium 1 x 10~' 1 x i~10
* Cdmputed as the volume of water required to dilute inventory toEPA
drinking water standards.
Given the above, it would seem that from a standpoint of potential hazard
(which should be the overriding consideration) it would make little
difference whether the estimated inventory of the radioactive waste were
"off by a factor of 10 or even much more.
.Some important points related to this analysis are:
(a) Despite its predominance, one should not be concerned with the
biological effects of the natural radioactivity in that lifehas
evolved for billions of years in this environment and seems to have
adapted to it quite well, In fact, in previous millenia, levels of
PAGENO="0520"
514
natural radioactivity were much higher. In addition, the fraction of
total human background radiation exposure due to oceanic
radioactivity is extremely small.
(b) Special concentration mechanisms considering biological pathways of
exposure would apply to the natural radioactivity in a manner similar
to those of the radioactive waste components.
(c) Oceanic radioactivity due to worldwide fallout from atmospheric and
undersea nuclear weapons testing was not considered in this
analysis. In itself, this fallout would largely account for observed
patterns of radioactivity in environmental samples in the Farallons
vicinity. This will be discussed in greater detail later in this
report.
(d) Although comparisons based on airborne pathways (inhalation as
opposed to ingestion pathways) might have provided a somewhat
different result, such analyses have not been performed since only a
miniscule fraction of oceanic radioactivity could conceivably reach
man via air. This would be true for either the natural or waste
radioactivity.
* Comparison with International Recommendations
The International Atomic Energy Agency (4) has recommended standards for
limitations of radioactive disposal in the sea as follows:
"high-level radioactive wastes or other high-level radioactive matter
unsuitable for dumping means any material with a concentration in
curies per unit-gross mass (in tonnes) exceeding:
(a) 10 Cut for cr-active waste for half life greater than 50 years. In
the case of 226Ra, not more than 100 Ci/yr may be dumped at any one
site);
(b) ~ Cut for iI/Y.-active waste (excluding tritium) but the limit for
90Sr plus `37Cs is 102 Cut; and
(c) 106 Cut for tritium.
The definition is based on an assumed upper limit to the dumping rate
of 100,000 tonnes per year at any one site."
Assuming 47,500 containers at the Farallon dumpsite (0.2 Tons/container),
14,000 curies of beta-gamma radioactivity and 30 curies of alpha activity,
the dumpsite contains 1/1000 of the allowable annual dumping limit for
beta-gamma and'3/10,000 of the annual limit for alpha waste at an
individual site.
If the Farallon dumpsite could conceivably be considered a hazard, then
the IAEA recommendations are too lenient by many thousand fold. This is
highly unlikely, however, since considerable scientific deliberation went
into them. As a reasonable guideline to these deliberations, the
occurrence of natural radioactivity was considered. This is precisely the
approach used in this report in assessing~ the hazard of the Farallon
dumpsi te.
PAGENO="0521"
515
* Recent Studies
Recent studies on the Farallon Dumpsite released by the EPA do not support
the conclusion that there is or could be significant environmental or
public health consequences due to past waste disposal activities. The
application of common sense to the problem provides the necessary
perspective.
First, it can generally be agreed that radioactive waste containers indeed
were dumped at the Farallons and other oceanic sites. Second, these
containers undoubtedly are corroding and leaking. Given these facts, It
would be very surprising if levels of radioactivity In the immediate
vicinity of the containers were not elevated in some manner, whether we
could measure this increase or not. It would seem that the overriding
question, therefore, should be one of potential hazard or threat to health
and the environment. Any implication that the mere existence of any
radioactive material could constitute a significant hazard is patently
false.
Our assessment indicates that, although levels of radioactivity in the
immediate vicinity of the waste canisters may indeed be elevated over
background levels, the commensurate hazard involved could, at worst,
increase from negligible to insignificant levels. Such an increase may be
of academic interest, but certainly does not warrant significant concern
since, at its worst, the hazard due to the radioactive waste would still
be considerably lower than that due to naturally occurring oceanic
radioactivity.
In terms of the levels of radioactivity in the general area of the
Farallons, the report prepared in 1978 by Noshkin(5) concludes:
o Total radionuclide inventory. Quantities of 239~240Pu and 137Cs
in Farallon sediments and water are not significantly different from
the amounts from nuclear debris (from atmospheric nuclear explosions
tests) delivered to the open oceans. Open Pacific plutonium fallout
was 2.2-4.4 mCi/km2.
o Radionuclides in marine animals. Fish and benthic invertebrates
collected from the Farallon region contain body burdens of
239 + 240Pu no different than similar marine species living and
feeding in open oceans. Farallon Rockfish contain radionuclide
concentrations within the range found in fish from the open
Atlantic. Farallon benthic invertebrates have plutonium
concentrations similar to invertebrates from northern-latitude oceans.
These observations are consistent with those of the 1971 National Academy
of Science study which found:(6)
"Over the past quarter century, the major sources of artificial
radioactive materials to the sea have been worldwide fallout from the
testing of nuclear devices In the atmosphere and the chronic
discharge of low-level wastes from operating reactors and fuel
processing plants. Much less significant additions have resulted
from nuclear detonations below the surface of the sea, from the
disposal of low-level waste in~p~ckaqés, and from the inadvertent
loss of radioactive mater~als'.
PAGENO="0522"
* 516
It may be added that, the total health and environmental impact due to the
addition of all the "artificial" radioactive materials to the sea is, in
turn, much less significant than that of the naturally occuring
radioactivity (see previous calculations), which in turn, is far less
significant than the impacts due to the stable (non-radioactive) toxic
elements in seawater.
Some have suggested that, since measurements of radioactivity in the
irrinediate vicinity (within a few centimeters) of a ruptured container were
elevated compared with the levels of radioactivity in the general area of
the Farallons, a problem must exit. The fallacy of this conclusion is
best described by analogy.
Suppose one were to visit a large city, measure the height of the first
person he encountered, record the height as say, five feet, and leave to
return the following year. On the second visit the same procedure is
followed by measuring the height of the first person met and recording the
height to be six feet. From such analysis, can one conclude that the
average height of the city's residents is increasing at the rate of one
foot per year? The absurdity of such a procedure is increased if, on the
second visit, one were to seek out the tallest person before measuring the
hei ght.
The point is that from the data available, one cannot determine that
levels of radioactivity are increasing. On the other hand, the data
available do support the conclusion that levels of radioactivity are
simply too small to present a significant hazard.
In general, the interpretation of data such as that reported in the
various EPA reports must be done with caution. It is not unusual that a
set of environmental samples taken from the same population, or
"statistical universe" may vary by orders of magnitude in their
radioactivity content. Given the nature of this variance, it takes a
large number of samples and sophisticated statistical methods to
determine significant differences between sample sets, much less cause and
effect relationships. To reach a firm conclusion on the basis of a single
data point is problematic since it can result in gross misinterpretation
of the situation.
* Perspective on Units
Since many people are relatively unfamiliar with the physical units of
environmental radioactivity, it is important to offer perspectives on the
meaning of these units when presenting an analysis.
For example, granite is a material with which most people are familiar.
Many public and private buildings are constructed with granite, and man
has lived, and even thrived with granite in his immediate environment
during his entire existence. Granite contains uranium and its decay
products, just as other crustal materials do, as trace constituents. The
average granite contains some 6.7 parts per million uranium. When the
alpha activity of the uranium and its daughter products are calculated,
the result is some 18,000 picocuries of alpha radioactivity per kilogram
of granite. When this value is compared to the aplha activity (Pu 239 &
240) of ocean sediment at the Farallon dumpsite, the latter values are
found to be extremely small.
PAGENO="0523"
517
Another perspective can be seen in the concentration of the relevant
radionuclides which are permissible for public drinking water. These are
shown in Table 3, expressed in units of pCi/kg.
Table 3
Maximum Permissible Concentrations
(Public Drinking Water)
Nuclide Permissible Concentration
(pCi/kg)
Pu-239 5,000
Cs-137 20,000
Sr-90 100
When the values reported in the EPA studies (both for sediment and sea
life concentration) are viewed in terms of these drinking water standards,
once again they are found to be extremely small in nearly every case. The
only exception to this was a single core sediment sample taken within 5 cm
of a particular waste canister in the Atlantic. A similar sample 4 meters
away from the first gave readings for the most part below detectability
limits.
Another insight on relative hazard may be gained from a comparison with
the natural radioactivity of fish. According to a study of the Health and
Safety Laboratory (USAEC-HASL-224, April 1970), fish in the average San
Francisco diet contain a Radium-226 concenration of 0.26 pci/kg. (Fish in
the average New York City diet contain 0.89 pci/kg.) This is simply due
to the natural occurrence of Radium in oceanic waters.
Comparing drinking water standards, it can be shown that one picocurie
(pci) of Radium-226 is equivalent in ingestion toxicity to 250 picocuries
of Plutonium-239. Therefore the "hazard" due to eating fish in San
Francisco, simply due to its natural Radium-226 content, is equivalent to
its having a plutonium "burden" of 65 pci/kg.
The maximum value for Plutonium content of fish at the Farallon site in
the muscle tissue or edible flesh that was actually observed and measured
was 0.008 ÷ 0.003 pci/kg. From this perspective it can be concluded that
the maximum hazard from Plutonium in fish from the Farallon dumpsite is a
factor of 8125 less than that due to naturally occurring Radium in the
same fish. Note again that Radium is just one of many naturally occurring
radionuclides in the marine environment.
To place the measurement in further perspective, consider the natural
radium content of other food products. Since, curie for curie, radium is
250 times more toxic than plutonium via ingestion, the equivalent
plutonium toxicities of everyday food products can be easily computed.
For example, Brazil nuts, due to their natural radium content, have an
equivalent plutonium concentration of 3,500,000 pCi/kg. Placed in this
perspective, a one ounce serving of Brazil nuts is equivalent in terms of
plutonium radiotoxicity to 27 million pounds of fish sampled at the
Farallons. The consumption of Brazil nuts should not be a particular
PAGENO="0524"
518
hazard when done in moderation. It is likely that the hazard due to their
caloric content would exceed that due to their radioactivity. Other foods
have less radiotoxicity than Brazil nuts, but at the same time, are far
more radiotoxic than Farallon fish. Compared to the .008 pCi/kg of
measured plutonium in fish muscle, the following plutonium equivalents
(based upon radium content) are interesting:
Peanut Butter 30,000pCi/kg
Grapes 7,250 pCi/kg
Peas 1,525 pCi/kg
Carrots 1,525 pCi/kg
Bread 750 pCi/kg
Potatoes 300 pCi/kg
Beef 200 pCi/kg
Pork 200 pCi/kg
Cheese, eggs 250 pCi/kg
Fish (average San Francisco diet) 65 pCi/kg
Clearly, anyone reluctant to eat fish from the Farallons due to its
radioactive contamination would best be advised not to eat just about
anything else either!
* Use of Weapons Background as a Measure of Hazard
A comon tendency of those unfamiliar with environmental radioactivity is
to assume that weapons background levels of radioactivity represent a
significant health hazard. Thus it is used as a benchmark level for
cursory evaluation for levels of environmental contamination.
The levels of radioactivity from weapons testing and the resultant hazard
on a worldwide average basis are so low compared to naturally occurring
radioactivity that extremely sensitive techniques (such as extensive
chemical preparation and alpha spectroscopy) must be used in order to even
detect its presence in the environment. It is only due to the fact that
radionuclides are detectable at extremely low levels (i.e. far, far below
levels of health hazard) that the evaluation of weapons background
contamination of the environment can be carried out.
Since the levels of environmental contamination due to weapons testing are
extremely low compared to naturally occurring background radiation, it is
possible to have localized contamination at a dumpsite which exceeds
weapons background levels by many times, but which is still totally
insignificant compared to natural background levels. This is the case at
the Farallons, and thus it is improper to conclude that localized
contamination levels in excess of weapons background present a measurable
health hazard.
PAGENO="0525"
519
SUMMARY COMMENTS
* As a result of a review of the available information, and an analysis
based on the natural toxicity of the Farallon area, it is concluded that
there is no significant current or anticipated future public health hazard
as a result of past practices in the ocean dumping of radioactive wastes.
Even under the most pessimistic assumptions regarding the contents of the
radioactive waste containers at the Farallon dumpsite, no significant
hazard could conceivably result from even a complete release of this
material to the ocean. The toxic potential of the radioactive waste is
trivial relative to that of the naturally occurring radioactive and
non-radioactive toxic material existing in the same sediment and water
column. it is safe to assume that if the naturally-occurring oceanic
poisons were a serious problem, mankind would long since have succumbed to
their effects.
* The levels of radiotoxicity represented by the waste dumpsites are not
unprecedented either qualitatively or quantitatively. Indeed, the toxic
inventory of the natural radioactive materials far exceeds anything that
man has added. In this regard, it is important to note that no
distinction can be made between the effects of "human made" and "natural"
radioactivity. In fact, it has been determined that the major "human
made" nuclides of concern (Plutonium, Cesium 137, and Strontium 90) exist
naturally, although at low concentrations.
* The continued bombardment of the public with scientifically baseless
allegations of environmental threats can in time have serious
consequences. It can lead to the misdirection of government resources
toward solving non-existent problems such as the environmental effects of
the Farallon dumpsite. Squandering public money and effort in this manner
precludes the possiblity of spending it in areas where it might be more
beneficially appl ied.
Another consequence of pursuing the "Chicken Little" approach by causing
public alarm over such trivial or non existent problems is that, at some
future time, a genuine and serious public health threat may appear.
Because of previous false scares, legitimate warnings may be ignored by
the public. It is extremely important to consider this possiblfty before
it gets to the point where we "cry wolf" once too often.
PAGENO="0526"
520
References
1. Guidelines for Sea Disposal Packages of Radioactive Waste-NEA, OECD,
Paris, France, November, 1974.
2. Weast, R. C., Ed., CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Py~jç~, 59th Ed, CRC
Press, 1978.
3. Joseph, A.B., `United States' Sea Disposal Operations: A Summary to
December 1956," WASH-734, August 1957.
4. The Ocenaographic Basis of the IAEA REvised Definition and Recommendatt~!i~
Concerning High-level Radioactive Waste Unsuitable for Dumping at Sea,
T~ch. Doc. 210, IAEA, Vienna, 1978.
5. Noshkin, V.E. et al., "Radionuclides in the Marine Environment near the
Farallon Islands," UCRL-5281, January 6, 1978.
6. National Academy of Sciences, "Radioactivity in the Marine Environment,"
Prepared by the Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment of the
Committee on Oceanography, National Research Council, 1971.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED EISSLER, SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION
CONFERENCE
Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference is a California environmental organiza-
tion headquartered in Santa Barbara. We are concerned about the dumping of
radiological wastes in our area within the vicinity of the Channel Islands National
Park and Marine Sanctuary. We wish to support efforts to promote government
monitoring of these dumpsites and actions to control any harmful effects of the
radionuclides upon the marine ecology and edible fish.
Two sites and possibly three have been utilized for radiological dumping purposes.
Approximately 33 miles southeast of Santa Cruz Island (33°39'N, 119'28'W) is a
Navy disposal area in the Santa Crux Basin identified on navigation maps as a
munitions and chemical dump. Between 1946 and 1972 some 3,100 drums containing
108 curies of contaminated wastes were jettisoned in this area, according to availa-
ble reports which EPA officials indicate could underestimate the actual amouM by
a factor of at least ten.
A second site in the channel region (34'30'N, 122'5~0'W) is located 106 miles west
of Point Arguello, according to a reference in the Industrial Radioactive Waste
Disposal Hearings Record before the Special Subcommittee on Radioactive Wastes,
JCAE (86th Congress), page 2683.
Possibly a third site in the Santa Barbara Basin proposed by the National Acade-
my of Sciences as a safer disposal area than the Santa Cruz Basin (National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council "Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive
Waste into Pacific Coastal Water," Publication 185-1962 may have been utilized on
the basis on the NAS recommendation.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and local environmental groups
as well as our organization are on record in favor of surveillance of these dumpsites.
Scenic Shoreline addressed a letter to EPA Secretary Douglas Costle raising a
number of questions on this crucial issue and we would like to submit this letter for
your hearing record.
It is our understanding that these and other ocean disposal areas in the nation's
coastal water were multiple purpose dumps. In the case of the Santa Cruz Basin
Naval dump, munitions wastes and chemicals besides radiologically-contaminated
laboratory equipment, garments, and other materials were all jettisoned in the
same type of 55 gallon drum making the radioactive drums somewhat more difficult
to identify.
We would like to suggest since all these drums would probably be inspected to
identify the radioactive ones, that the monitoring program be extended to an
appraisal of the impact upon the marine ecosystems not only of the radiological
wastes but the assorted chemicals and munitions wastes to determine their toxicity
separately and in combination. No attention has been given to these other wastes
which may in some cases be as toxic or more toxic than the radiological materials
and could possibly have a significant synergistic effect as well.
It was not long ago that the dumping issue received national attention with the
proposed disposal of nerve gases in the Atlantic Ocean. Militray dumping and the
PAGENO="0527"
521
vast array of industrial chemicals other than radioactive materials present signifi-
cant environmental problems.
Recent studies conducted at the University of California at Santa Barbara indi-
cate that fish eggs (eelpout-melanostigma pammelas) sink to the sea bottom at the
Santa Cruz Basin and the life cycle of the species provides a potential transport
mechanism into the water column of the radionuclides posssibly leaking from the
drums deposited in that area. Fish samples of the indicated species collected rou-
tinely can be provided by the UCSB oceanography department. The university,
however, does not have the capability for measuring the potential radioactive con-
tent of the fish. The Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, however, does have this
capability. We urge that your Committee expedite the measurement of the potential
radioactivity of these fish in the basin by encouraging EPA to facilitate immediately
the necessary tests of this transport mechanism that potentially cycles radionuclides
into food chains affecting edible fish.
The slipshod manner in which the radioactive wastes were handled by a nuclear
industry that prides itself on its safety record is especially disquieting. We urge the
most careful consideration of our questions to Secretary Costle and the broadest
possible site monitoring and remedial program including surveillance of the associ-
ated munitions and chemical wastes dumped along with the radionuclides.
PAGENO="0528"
522
SCENIc SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE. INC.
!~623 More Mesa Dr.
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
(805) 96l1~.2L~92
October 3, 1980
Bonorable Douglas Costle
Environmental Protection Agency
i.~Ol "N" Street S.W.
Washington, D. 0. 2O1~60
Dear Secretary Costle:
Scenic Shoreline is a party to evidentiary hearings on
the disposal of drill muds and cuttings at Lease Sale 1~9 tracts.
Ocean dumping generally, however, is a prime interest, Recent
publicity on radionuclide dispocal at the Farallon Islands
reminds us that similar dumping has occurred in the vicinity of
the Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary. We seek
information from your agency on this channel dumping and request
specific EPA studies of' disposal procedure and the impact of
dumping upon the marine environment and on food chains reaching
man.
The Committee to Bridge the Gap has documented more than
forty..three ocean dump sites.("Table of 1~'3 Former Ocean Dump~
sites for Nuclear Wastes," August 19, 1980 the Committee
indicates five more have been identified). SPA Is concentrating
its research on four sites, two in the Atlantic and two at the
Farallon Islands on grounds that 901; of low..level waste containers
were dumped at these four sites. We request extension of' the
studies to include the channel because of the particular ecological
sensitivity of this area, the cumulative stress upon this channel
marine environment of a number of resource exploitive activities,
the difficulty of extrapolating data from the Atlantic and the
Farallons to the channel, the speCial circumstances of' disposal
under Navy auspices here, and other crucial factors.
Your recent Fact Sheet ("Radioactive Waste Dumping off the
Coast of California," EPA, Office of Ytadiation Programs, August 15,
1980) fails to offer sufficient assurance that intensive research
of past disposal practices will be undertaken to highlight the
need for the necessary vast improvements in waste disposal in
line with new legislative directives on ocean dumping.
a. The tact Sheet notes (6) that EPA has sixteen reports
on the 1977 surveys of the Farallon Islands dumping that will be
published in April 1991. There. is no indication of studies of
other disposal areas such as the Channel,
PAGENO="0529"
523
Costle 2.
b. The list of Pacific Coast dumpsites (1+) fails to
include one and possibly two sites in the Channel region in
addition to the one (Santa Crux Basin) you list (See below.).
c. Appended to the incomplete list of West Coast sites
is the note (5): "Dumping sites were designated and licensed by
the Atomic Energy Commission and data on sites, containers and
radioactivity would now be *itht;the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
if the records `still exist." This AEC..NRC information presumably
is now within the hands of EPA as a basis for its research on
agency regulatory plans. Scenic Shoreline requests this data.
We also request an investigation on the reasons for destruction
of records if in fact they are non-existent.
d. A further note (5) qualifies the curie count:
"Radioactivity at time of dumping. Much of this would be gone
now by normal radioactive decay." The long-lived radionuclides
(Plutonium 238, 239, 21~O, Cesium 137) however, would not be
dissipated for millenia.
e. The Fact Sheet claims (6) that fish caught near the
Farallon dumpsite are safe to eat with no measurable radioactivity
in edible portions and traces of Cesium 137 in the stomach and
skin comparable to amounts found in fish worldwide receiving fall-
out from nuclear tests.
The "Information Paper -- Farallon Islands Radioactive
Waste Dumpsite Surveys l971~_l977" (n.S. Dyer, Office of Radiation
Programs, EPA), however, presents evidence of only minimal in-
vestigation of radioactivity in edible fish. The Fact Sheet con-
clusion appears to be based on the analysis of but a single
sablefish specimen ~ fimb!4A the one commercial fish
sampled according to the Information Paper (13)), hardly the
basis for valid generalization about food chains reaching man.
And, furthermore, the Information Paper (l1~) refers to the
"biological abundance and diversity" of the dump site studiel as
a reason for excluding the area from further dumping "in order
to minimize any possible incidental human uptake of particulate
radioactivity released into the site." This latter statement,
however equivocal, does not warrant EPA assurance that commercial
fish are safe.
f. The Fact Sheet,nonetheless,states (6) "Our evaluation
of the scientific information.. .(from the Farallon studies),..
indicates no evidence of any harm to either nan or the marine
environment." This misleading statement is accurate only if
taken literally -- there is insufficient evidence available.
The Information Paper (15) confirms this appraisal: "More data
are needed on baseline levels of radionuclides in a geographical
area around a dumpsite if meaningful estimates are to be made of
gradual buildup and movement of any radioactive materials released
from the dumpsite." The Paper continues (22): "The information
69-848 0 - 81 - 34
PAGENO="0530"
524
Costle 3.
obtained from these two primary U.S. Pacific dumpsites is by no
means complete."
The summary of the October 18-27 1977 surveys (Infor-
mation Paper 22) offers this qualification `While we have
presented here some observations from our surveys extrapolation
of this information to general oceanographic predictors is pre..
mature We can only encourage continued examination of these
and other sites through both U S and international efforts in
an attempt to determine that no as_yet~unidentified deep-sea
process could occur which would subject man and the marine
environment fo undue health risks from the sea disposal of low-
level nuclear waste
g. The Fact Sheet indicates (6) that EPA has not issued
any permits for ocean dumping of low-level radioactive wastes
allowable under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972. The Fact Sheet states that EPA studies underway
for determining whether such dumping should be allowed and where
is scheduled to be completed by late 1985. Scenic ShorelIne :here-.
in requests additional information on these studies
h EPA and NOAA' according to the Fact Sheet (2), are
currently preparing an interagency agreement to coordinate
oceanographic activities for evaluating ocean dumping as an
option for future disposal of low-level radioactive waste."
Is a draft_agreement available? What are the op~rtunities for
1~lic~input during deliberations on the ag~eeme~~~ -
i. The Fact Sheet refers to EPA regulations and criteria
for ocean dumping issued January 11, 1977 (1): "These regulations
specify that:
1 Radioactive materials must be contained to
prevent their dispersion into ocean waters and
"2. The containment system must remain intact
until the radioactive materials decay to innocuous levels
The definition of innocuous levels in any meaningful
context would require that ocean dumping not be permitted
Further information on these legal terms would be helpful in
our studies.
In somewhat greater detail we would like to define our
findings and concerns with respect to the Santa Barbara Channel
area dumping program, not only radionuclide disposal but other
chemical dumping and munitions disposal as -
1 Your Fact Sheet and other sources refer to the Santa
Cruz Basin site (33 39' N 119' 28' w) some 33 miles southeast
of Santa Crux Island. Between 1953-61 approximately 3,100
55 gallon drums of low level l'adiation wastes were jettisoned in
PAGENO="0531"
525
Costle
a five by five mile or nine by nine mile area. In 1937. 1960,
and 1972 the dump area was evidently monitored. We would
appreciate access to these monitor reports
2 The 3 100 drums at Santa Cruz dump contained lO'3 curios
of radioactive material A similar number of barrels at one of
the Farallon sites contained 1 100 curies (The curie count at
San Diego seems low as well, ~ packages containing 33 6
curies ) Unquestionably the records for these dumpsites are
fragmentary. Additional information is useful on the accur~y
of_the records on the radioactivity of' these wastes.
There is also no sufficient reason to believe that the
number of drums alleged to have been dumped represents a valid
statistic. In correspondence with Committee to Bridge the sap,
an EPA official notes: "...there are gaps in the data, or
sometimes conflicting data concerning locations and curie amounts
of the wastes As much as l0~ error in estimate in curie amounts
should not be unexpected; effort at the time of the dumping was
not put into extremely accurate measurement and recording of
wastes as they were seen as just that -- something to throw
away In addition many existing records estimates though they
were, were periodically destroyed with other file records as they
attained twenty-five years of age This appraisal is confirmed
by ARC documents There is reason to believe that the records
could be off by considerably more than a factor of 10. For this
and other reasons each of the radionuclide disposal sites should
be investigated. What plans does EPA have for thorough investi-
flations of each specific disposals1t~ in the nationTs water~
3 Little information is available on a second site in
the Channel region (3J~ 30' N, 122' 50' w), 106 miles west of,
Point Arguello, The Fact Sheet fails to mention this site which
is referenced in "Industrial Radioactive Waste Disposal Hearings"
before the Special Subcommittee on Radioactive Wastes JCAE
(86th Congress) p 2683 Any available data and references on
this site would be helpful in our res~earch
!~. Possibly a third site exists In the Channel.. A
National Academy of Sciences report (71) observes: "Santa Barbara
Basin appears to be a better place for dumping than Santa Crus
Basin owing to its softer bottom (barrels sink deeper) faster
rate of deposition (burial in about 50 years) low oxygen content
(probably little rusting of barrels) and absence of minor amount
of benthos (no boring of concrete mixing of sediment nor transport
by migration) Probable avenues of escape of wastes of both
basins are to the west but reentrance into the borderland is
perhaps less likely for the Santa Barbara Basin than for Santa
Cruz Apparently Santa Cruz Basin was chosen merely because it
Is the deepest close basin without any regard for oceanographic
PAGENO="0532"
526
Costle 5.
factors. However, the considerations above suggest that Santa
Barbara Basin would be a better area. Field investigations
along these lines are recommended." (National Academy of Sciences --
National Research Council "Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastje
into Pacific Coastal Waters" (Publication 985 - 1962).) Marine
scientists today probably would not accept the Santa Barbara
Basin as a better alternative to the Santa Crux site, but in the
event that field studies were conducted and seemed to demonstrate
the advantage of the alternative site, dumping could have occurred
in the Santa Barbara Basin. Does EPA have informatio.n on this
possibility?__p5~dthe Academy or some other agency conduct f~i4
studies? What are the im2acts of wastes on the_basins and the
~robabi1i~eS o?escap~ wastes from both basins into the
borde rlands ~
5. Multiple sites exist at the Farallon Islands. ~
are the possth~lit~es~f multiple radioactive dumpsites wit
~iH outside the desc~na~ed areas of the Channel regio~
6. Short...dumping needs investigating. In difficult
weather, barges hauling radioactive wastes would dump their loads
in the open ocean short of the designated sites. This practice
of the 50'S and 60's may still represent a problem today in the
control of other than radioactive wastes. A 1973 NOAA.report
(Robert Brown and Edward Shenton, "Submersible Inspection of
Deep Ocean Waste Disposal Sites off Southern California." PlesseW
Environnental System) noted "indication of poor dumping control"
indicated by "lack of debris" in the official dumpsite in the
San Diego-Mexican waters. What evidence has been compiled on
dupp~ng control~ waste monUii~ing, shoi~t~dumping and ~
Uttering practices1_Refe~ences to EPA~~icy on dumping_~!~
forcement w9~lç1_be help~p~.
7. The EPA has not addressed the complexities of multiple
waste dumping at the various identified radiological sites. The
NOAA-Plessoy report (30) notes that investigators of the San Diego
site were surprised that the area was also a munitions dump. The
7arallon Island sites were also subject to multiple dumping if
such an inference from the Information Paper (1k) is accurate:
.lt was the only site (at the Farallonl)uSOd exclusively for
dumping radioactive wastes." The Santa Crux site is listed on
navigation charts as a U.S. Navy chemical and munitions dump.
What chemicals besides radio1o~lca1 wastes are dumped at this_~p4
other Channel sites? Did the EPA 1972 moratorium against rad~9~
logical ding ~ to chemicals and munitions? Is the NavI
~ Navy~,~ecLt~
8. Public attention in California recently has focused
primarily on radiological dumping. To understand this issue, a
PAGENO="0533"
527
Costle - 6.
review seems necessary of ocean dumping in general. Does EPA
have a chart or list of all ocean dumpsiteS~!_.!~.r~~0Yi
toxic and ~iier wastes? What in ation is available on the
interaction ai~id~timulatlve impact of multiple waste dispos~
[chemlcal and radiological wastes~~ndmi.rnit ions, for exampl~j
on the marine environment and food chains reaching men?
9. We~~~est_that EPA studies be conducted on the
various p~st dumpin~ activities in the Santa~ Barbara chapp~~.
This recommendation is in line with the final proposal of the
Information Paper calling for "continued examination of other
sites" (22)(See f. above). The National Academy of Sciences,
1962 Publication 985, discussing the Santa Cruz site (See ~
above), recommends (1k) that an impartial agency should reappraise
the Academy findings in ten years.
10. The WAS-NRC Publication 985 also stressed a clearly
defined dumping procedure, including biological baseline research,
monitoring, record keeping, and agency coordination-processes
which were essentially ignored, an inexcusable failure in such
an extremely hazardous enterprise and especially by an industry
that repeatedly claims it is more careful, safe, and economic
than any other. How did this inexcusable failure occur and wh~
measures are_being~ taken to assure that it cannot happen again~
S~ecifica1ly~ we request data on federal and state efforts to
coordinate their statutory and regulatory responsibilities over
ocean dum nm the analysis of past failures as the basis for
formulating rational controls overpótential future ocean'd~~
p~sal, domestically and interna~[ónally. What roles in this
coordination are performed by EPA, Department of Energy, State
Department, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Defense,
and Department of Commerce (NOAA)? What actions in the fields
of research and policy formation are being taken under the terms
of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972;
National Ocean Pollution, Research and Development and Monitoring
Planning Act of 1978; National Environmental Policy Act of 1972,,
and other applicable legislation and treaties. What statutory
authority is being developed to strengthen existing controls over
waste disposal?
While EPA evidently has completed the most extensive
research of any agency on ocean dumping, much of the data has
not been released publicly. We seek information on the con-
tinuing research program, including an inventory of the research
projects being sponsored by the EPA on past, present, and future
ocean dumping of radiological and other toxic wastes with refer-
ence to specific offices, personnel, status of research, and
documents available on these projects. We would appreciate
information on the funding level~s for these projects; estimates
of the budget necessary to complete the appropriate research;
recipients of past and future government contracts through EPA
PAGENO="0534"
528~
Costle 7.
and other agencies, the amount of the contracts and their purpose;
and the specific statutory authority for which the agencies are
receiving their funding in these research fields. Any interim
conclusions and reports on the research findings would be helpful.
We welcome and appreciate whatever information you can
provide to educate the public on the increasingly crucial issue
of ocean dumping.
Cordially yours,
Fred Eissler
President
PAGENO="0535"
529
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION
WOODS HOLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02543
Hon. Gerry E. Studds, Chairman
Subcommittee on Oceanography
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Studds:
I welcome the decision of your subcommittee to conduct hearings on the
disposal of nuclear waste in the oceans, including inter alia the emplacement
of high level radioactive waste under the deep sea floor. These hearings,
held on November 20, 1980, continue the involvement of your subcommittee in
the important issue of seabed emplacement, which was previously before the
subcommittee on May 15 and July 11, 1978. This issue has also been considered
in hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of
the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on July 26 - 27, 1976.
As a result of these three sets of hearings, as well as administrative
developments, several federal agencies have now gone on record on various
occasions concerning the feasibility of seabed emplacement of high level
waste, its legality under domestic and international law, and the policy
and institutional problems presented by this concept. As your hearing on
November 20 indicated, the federal agencies continue to be unwilling to offer
determinative opinions on the legality of emplacement; in addition, the
statements available to date are sometimes in conflict. To an extent, the
reluctance of the agencies to assume legal positions is justified in terms
of the preliminary status of the proposal and resultant unclarity about the
best ways to proceed internationally.
It is unlikely, however, that international acceptance or rejection of
seabed emplacement will depend on resolution of the abstract legal question
whether such an activity would be subject to the London Dumping Convention
as a form of ocean "dumping". Its acceptability to the industrial partners
of the United States will probably depend on the technical adequacy of the
proposal and the satisfactoriness of the consultations which have been conducted
among the OECD group. The acceptability of seabed emplacement to other nations
may depend on other factors as well as these. While discussions between the
the OECD nations and other blocs might be cast in the language of international
law (the obligation to avoid pollution of the global commons) and the law of
the sea (the common heritage in the seabed), these discussions will be
responsive to the means by which the industrialized nations of the West organize
PhOne (617) 548-1400
TWX 710-346-6601
December 16, 1980
PAGENO="0536"
530
Hon. Gerry E. Studds, Chairman, December 16, 1980
Page Two
their dialogue with these nations on other matters, such as the issue of the
benefits of nuclear technology.
To assess the potential political viability of seabed emplacement, there-
fore, it is necessary to supplement the legal discussion under the London
Convention with broader considerations. These include how to build satisfactory
frameworks for its implementation within the London Convention and OECD
framework, as well as how to relate this proposal to other outstanding issues
in the international control of the nuclear fuel cycle.
To assist your subcommittee in this endeavor, I am transmitting a study
on the subject of international institutional considerations relevant to seabed
emplacement. You may find this study illuminating in that it charts the previous
statements of the federal agencies, as well as international organizations, on
this issue as well as indicates some of the international organizational and
political issues that will have to be addressed in further development of the
concept.
* Sincerely,
* ~ (2 1~
Daniel P. Finn, Esq.
Research Fellow
DPF/efl
PAGENO="0537"
531
INTESNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR
SUB-SEABED DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
by
Daniel P. Finn
Research Fellow
Marine Policy and Ocean Management Program
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
4 August 1980
PAGENO="0538"
532
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines in a preliminary way the institutional issues
assoôiated with the potential sub-seabed disposal (SSD) of radioactive
wastes This technicue as currently conceived involves the burial of
such wastes in sediments of the seabed in abyssal plains located sway from
the edges of tectonic plates and away from the rims of the ocean basins
(mid-plate/gyre regions or MPG 1 Due to the technical complexity of
this method of disposal it will likely only be employed for certain com-
ponents of the nuclear fuel cycle waste stream. These include high-level
wastes (HLW) left after reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel spent fuel
itself in the event that it is decided to dispose of all or some of it
directly without reprocessing, and wastes containing transuranic elements
(TRU wastes) which are generated during the operation of power reactors,
military weapons, manufacturing operations, and reprocessing.2 The
intent of sub-seabed disposal for these types of wastes would be to
assure virtually complete isolation of the wastes for the time necessary
to bring them down to acceptable levels of radioactivity before significant
quantities were released into the environment -- variously estimated at
100,000 to 3,000,000 years. Emplacement techniques could also be used for
low-level wastes (LLW) which do not fall into any of the above categories;
at present, however, such wastes are regularly disposed of by shallow burial
on land or (by several countries other than the United States) through dump-
ing of containers of LLWat sea.
While the international decisions concerning sub-seabed disposal itself
and the arrangements for other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle which might
PAGENO="0539"
533
affect sub-seabed disposal will undoubtedly respond primarily to political
considerations, the institutional aspects of this proposal must be examined
in order to determine its feasibility from this perspective. By interna-
tional inst3.tutional aspects are meant the set of formal substantive and
procedural requirements which are generally recognized by nations as posi-
tive prerequisites in carrying out such a project. Such institutional
issues can be conveniently viewed from the dual perspective of law and
organization -- that is, what substantive standards apply to sub-seabed
disposal as a matter of international law and what organizational forms
can be utilized to perform such necessa~yactions as to interpret these
standards facilitate compliance with them or even conduct the various
administrative activities that might be required in connection with the
proposal Since the organizational possibilities for actually administering
a sub-seabed disposal project' on the international level are quite variouS
and could serve a number of different objectives, and since only preliminary
* steps have bean taken at this point to secure the cooperation of other
nations in the development of this proposal, concrete institutional arrange-
ments will not be discussed here At some future point in projecting an
organizational pathway to serve various objectives connected with the pro-
posal, it will be useful to' sketch out in `a systematic form the full range
of organizational possibilities so that an informed choice can be made of
appropriate institutions to serve the desired functions. At present, hew-
ever, it is enough to indicate in general the importance of involving inter-
national organizations in the development of the proposal and give some
preliminary indication of how such brganizations have been and can be
used to provide an institutional vehicle for introduction and implementation
of a sub-seabed disposal proposal.
PAGENO="0540"
534
The choice of a repository for HLW will be responsive to international
legal and political considerations in addition to technical criteria. ~`or
example, the Antarctic Treaty currently prohibits disposal of radioactive
wastes in Antarctica,3 and it is unlikely that an effort will be made to
overcome this prohibition unless there are compelling reasons to do so,
especially in view of the United States' interest in obtaining a satisfac-
tory regime for the allocation and management of Antarctic resources.
Similarly, sub-seabed disposal must be seen in connection with legal devel-
opments in the law of the sea (LOS) and also in connection with the politi-
cal questions of international equity, linked with the call for a New
International Economic Order (NIEO), which might be raised in any attempt
to use an area of the global commons for exclusive national use. Several
international political factors could, however, also tend to favor sub-
seabed disposal. Sub-seabed disposal could be promoted by the United
States as a comprehensive solution to the problem of ocean disposal of
nuclear wastea, notably by the members of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).
Sub-seabed disposal, administered through an appropriate international
regime and open to all nations, could also be viewed as a service provided
by the advanced industrial states to LDC customers, and hence as a counter
the other way, in negotiating the equity claims mentioned above. Domestic
political considerations may also be important in choosing a HLW disposal
strategy. Different regions within the advanced industrial nations may.
oppose their use for disposal sites. The problem of local acquiescence
could become particularly acute in connection with any international organ-
ization of the nuclear fuel cycle which included acceptance for disposal
of HLW attributable to nuclear programs in other countries. Both these
PAGENO="0541"
535
problems could tend to make sub-seabed disposal, which would occur at
sites outside national territory, more attractive.
Although ultimately a number of political factors will strongly
influence the viability of sub-seabed disposal as a waste disposal option,
independent consideration ii~ust be given to a range of institutional con-
siderations. These include the International legal standards applicable
to activities like sub-seabed disposal and the organizational means by
which these standards will be interpreted and applied. While political
factors are certainly important, they cannot always be addressed straight-
forwardly. Political discussion of the merits of sub-seabed disposal will
likely hinge in great part on institutional matters -- such as whether
relevant international legal standards have been followed and whether
appropriate organizational measures have been pursued. A convincing legal
interpretation which is presented in appropriate organizational forms
could carry great weight in defusing political objections or channelling
them into a structured framework in which productive negotiations can take
place. If an adequate organizational approach is taken both in developing
a sub-seabed disposal proposal and implementing it, political arguments
based on such extrinsic considerations as international economic equity,
technology transfer, and the like may be made considerably more tractable.
Once the preliminary legal and organizational questions have been addressed,
then a structure of institutions -- including appropriate standards and
procedures -- should be designed which can also cope satisfactorily with
such political factors.
The following sections will consider institutional matters arising
out of multilateral arrangements involving the U.S., its industrial partners,
-4-
PAGENO="0542"
536
and other relevant States and the general obligations created by interna-
tional law and the law of the sea. This consideration will help to charac-
terize in a preliminary way the range of international institutional con-
siderations applicable to developmedt of the seabed option.
PAGENO="0543"
537
I. Multilateral Arrangements
The chief multilateral institution dealing with pollution of the
oceans due to deliberate waste disposal is the Convention on the Prevention
o~ Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (hereinafter
"Ocean Dumping Convention' or "the Convention") signed in London in l972.~
This Convention was concluded largely through the efforts of the United
States, which had previously enacted Title I of its Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. ~l4Ol et seq. (1972). The Con-
vention was modelled to. a great extent on the provisions of the U.S. legis-
lation It became effective according to its terms in 1973 and came into
force for the United States in 1975. At the time it ratified the Convention,
the U.S. amended its own ocean dumping legislation to conform with the Con-
vention.5
The Convention generally applies to "dumping", which is defined in
Art. III, Sec. 1(a) (i) as "any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or
other matter from vessels, platforms or other man-made structures at sea."
Annexes to the Convention classif~' substances into different regimes of
regulation Dumping of substances in Annex I which includes high-level
wastes is prohibited Art IV Sec 1(a) Dumping of sthstanc"s in
Annex II, which includes other radioactive wastes or radioactive matter,
is subject to national permitting authority. Id., Sec. 1(b). The dumping
of unlisted substances is subject to general permits. Id., Sec. 1(c).
Annex III of the Convention specifies criteria to be employed in issuing
permits for any dumping at sea. Id., Sec. 2. Pursuant to Art. XIV, Sec.
(4) (a) of the Convention the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
has been designated as a recommendatory body to the Intergovernmental
-6-
PAGENO="0544"
538
Maritime Consultative Organization (`IMCO) -- which serves as the Secretariat
for the Convention -- for the purpose of technical advice, specifically with
reference to the content of the Annexes to the Convention as they pertain
to radioactive substances.
The regulatory regime' created by Art. IV of the Convention is subject
to exceptions contained in Art. V. The relevant exception here allows
issuance of a special permit for ocean dumping of substances prohibited
by Art. IV, Sec. (1) (a), including HLW, "in emergencies, posing unacceptable
risk relating to human health and admitting no other feasible solution."
Before such a permit can be granted, however, the responsible State is
obliged to consult "any other country or countries that are likely to be
affected," as well as IMCO. EMCO is supposed to recommend procedures for
such dumping, after consultations with affected States and other interna-
tional organizations (presumably the IAEA). The State proposing to issue
an emergency permit for the dumping of prohibited wastes is instructed to
follow IMCO's recommendations "to the maximum extent feasible consistent
with the time within which action must be taken and with the general obli-
gation to avoid damage to the marine environment." A State so acting is
also obliged to notify IMCO of the action it has taken.
The definition of "disposal at sea" under the Convention is also sub-
ject to an exemption contained in Art. III, Sec. (1) (b) (ii). Under that
section, "placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal.
thereof" is not considered dumping, "provided that such placement is not
contrary to the aims" of the Convention. At the time the Convention was
drafted, there was apparently little indication that sub-seabed disposal
of nuclear wastes was a technically feasible option. Soon afterward,
PAGENO="0545"
539
however, ThEA took formal note of the possibility of such disposal, and
made a preliminary recommendation that it be excluded from the terms of
the Convention.6 For th~ pact several years, a number of U.S. agencies,
both public and public-supported, have investigated the technical aspects
of sub-seabed disposal.7 Some legal and political analysis has also been
carried out, notably by Deese.8 The issue was aired at Congressional
hearings in 1976 and 1978, and the Department of State, EPA, and ERDA
presented legal positions at the earlier hearings.9 A working group on
sub-seabed emplacement has also been formed as an informal subgroup of the
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).1° Lately additional legal opinions have been
produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
11
by the Env3.ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although other aspects
of the Ocean Dumping Convention may be problemmatic in relation to sub-
seabed disposal, the legal discussion thus far has centered on whether
sub-seabed disposal would constitute "dumping" within the terms of the
Convention.
-8-
69-8'#8 0 - 81 - 35
PAGENO="0546"
540
A Legal Issues
(1) The Definition of Dumping Under the Ocean Dumping Convention
Article IV Sec (l~(a) of the Convention prohibits the dumping of
HLW Dumping is defined in Art III Sec (1) (a) to include disposal
at sea At first glance this definition would appear to include sub-
seabed disposal, because the operations leading to disposal would be
conducted from vessels at sea and because the final position of the mater-
ials deposited would be at geographic coordinates covered by ocean waters.
The definition in the Convention may also be interpreted to exclude sub-
seabed disposal however As Deese has commented the at sea phrase
of the definition can be interpreted to refer to the locus of the dumping
operation itself or the position of the materials disposed of.. Semanti-
cally, the latter interpretation appears preferable, since the definition
specifies separately that the act must be carried out from "vessels, air-
craft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea". Since the second
"at sea" applies to the location of the vessel or facility from which
disposal is undertaken (and therefore presumably to the location of the
activity itself) the first at sea may be read to apply to the position
of the materials disposed of. This position should in turn be read to be
the final position of the materials, since there is nothing that prohibits
the transportation of HLW over or through the sea for the purposes of dis-
posal elsewhere. If the final position of the wastes were such that they
would be completely isolated from the marine environment, then emplacement
of wastes in the seabed may not be "dumping" within the operational terms
of the Convention since it would not result in final disposal at sea
Thus it has been claimed that sub-seabed disposal should be considered
-9-
PAGENO="0547"
541
a variety of deep geological emplacement that happens to be beneath the
ocean This would be true due to the nature of the containment regard-
less of the fact that the ocean sediments into which the waste would be
emplaced are indisputably formed by geophysical processes operating within
the ocean basins, and are not geologically related to the underlying rock
of the seafloor.
There does not at present appear to be clear authority for resolution
of the question whether sub-seabed disposal would be "disposal at sea'
within the meaning of the Convention The Convention itself was drafted
in 1972 -- apparently before the concept of sub-seabed disposal became a
serious proposal Nothing in the Convention itself or associated documents
mentions the possibility of sub-seabed disposal The report of the U S
delegation to the negotiations does not comment on the possibility 12
Shortly after the Convention was signed and the ThEA was assigned
to develop technical recommendations for refinement of the ?nnexes to the
Convention, the ThEA proposed to adopt a draft paragraph submitted by the
U S Atomic Energy Commission taking note of the possibility of sub-seabed
disposal and suggesting that it be considered as excluded from the terms
of the Convention A preliminary report of the IAEA stated
Certain methods of radioactive waste disposal, although not
feasible at this time, may eventually be developed technically
to the point of proposing the long-term isolation of wastes by
emplacement beneath the seabed. Such methods should be evalu-
ated as variations of deep geological burial on land and are -
excluded from the scope of this document because they will not
contribute to the radioactivity of the sea 13
The Department of State obiected to the statement however on the
grounds that it was inaccurately included in a section of the IAEA draft
entitled Sources of Radioactivity in the Sea and was not in a separate
-10--
PAGENO="0548"
542
appendix on future techniques of waste disposal)4 The statement was then
deleted from subsequent ThEA recommendations, presumably in part because
of the U.S. objection and also apparently because of difficulties of
developing a definition of emplacement in or beneath the seabed.15
Furthermore, it does not appear that IAEA would have the legal autho-
rity to construe the scope of the Convention's application to specific
disposal activities. Although Annex I calls for IAEA to define which
wastes should be considered as HLW "unsuitable for dumping at sea," Art.
XIV, Sec. (4) (b) of the Convention defines the authority of the IAEA as
advisory with respect only to "any sci~ntific or technical aspect of the
Annexes". While this section gives the IAEA authority to advise the parties
to the Convention concerning what substances should be considered HLW within
the prohibition of Art. IV, Sec. (1) (a), and may give the IAEA authority
to advise the parties to what extent sub-seabed disposal would represent
an isolation of the disposed wastes from the marine environment, it does
not appear to give IAEA authority to define the scope of the Convention
even if technical considerations are involved.
The present IAEA recommendations to IMCO on revising the definition
of high-level waste in Annex I of the Convention and the dumping criteria
of Annex III do not include any reference to sub-seabed disposal. The
recommendations state only:
Nothing in this Document shall be considered as encouraging
the dumping at sea of radioactive waste or other radioactive
matter.~6 (Emphasis in original.)
Although IAEA may have no formal role in determining whether the Con-
vention applies to sub-seabed disposal of HLW, IAEA recommendations will
however be influential in creating the climate in which such proposals
-11- i
PAGENO="0549"
543
will be received. Two developments at the ThEA may result in creating
a more favorable climate for sub-seabed disposal. First, IAEA has, upon
U.S. lead, adopted recommendations applicable to the dumping of non-HLW
that encourage an "isolation and containment" rather than "dispersal and
dilution" strategy for dumped wastes)7 In connection with such a stra-
tegy, IAEA has recommended consideration, in dumping non-HLW, of several
factors that would also be relevant in case a sub-seabed disposal option
were chosen for HLW, including the physical properties at the dumping site,
pathways through which wastes might be transmitted beyond the disposal
Site, the characteristics of the conta«=ner and matrix, and geological
characteristics of the site)8 ThEA has also recommended a cessation of
dumping of liquid or unpackaged radioactive waste into surface and shallow
waters, as well as a prohibition on the dumping of unpackaged liquid radio-
active waste into the deep sea unless the liquid waste is incorporated
into an insoluble matrix)9
Second, consultants to IAEA have recommended that the distinction
between HLW and non-HLW be eliminated and that only release rate should be
considered in any regulatory regime. The consultants' report states:
2. The initial c~oncentrations of radioactivity in wastes
dumped into the deep oceans are unlikely to be important
in determining the subsequent hazards to man, although
the total radioactivity in a canister may need to be
limited for operational reasons.
3. The hazards to man and the ecosystem are largely deter-
mined by the rates of release of radioactivity to the
oceans and it is these which should be controlled. We
have not been able to establish on radiological grounds
any upper limit to the initial concentration of radio-
activity in wastes destined for deep ocean disposal.
4. We conclude therefore that there are no high level
wastes that are intrinsically unsuitable for dumping
at sea but that quantities dumped should be strictly
controlled on the basis of release rate limits.
-12-
PAGENO="0550"
544
5. The rates of release of radioactivity to the oceans can
be reduced by suitable containment and packaging of wastes.
When it hasbeen established that wastes can be contained
for a given length of time, an allowance for decay in
situ, relative to that time may be considered. Emplacement
of waste canisters into certain seafloor sediments may pro-
vide additional containment and should be further investi-
gated...20
The movement within IAEA toward waste disposal systems that achieve isola-
tion and containment of wastes, the acceptability of which are based on
the release rates from such dispositions instead of the nature of the
substance deposited, weakens the basis of the legal prohibition against
the disposal of HLW although of course it does not eliminate it
The prohibition against disposal of HLW at sea under the ConventiOn
is based on an administrative rather than a technical rationale since as
noted in the IAEA consultants' report, there is no scientific reason why
HLW should be treated differently from non-1~LW, provided the release rates
do not exceed acceptable maxima. The administrative rationale for treating
HLW differently fron non-}ILW is the assumption that the relsase of the sub-
stances contained in HIM could easily exceed the maximum acceptable rates
for such substances if there were a failure of containment devices HLW
because of its radiological chemical and thermal characteristics is also
more likely to escape from conventional containment. If the nature of the
methods of disposition were such that virtually complete isolation of the
wastes in question could be assured for the necessary time, however, then
there would be no administrative rationale to prohibit all oceanic disposal
of HLW but allow continued disposal of LLW
-13-
PAGENO="0551"
545
(2) The Effect of Other Provisions of the Convention on Sub-Seabed
Disposal
(a) Emergency permits
Art V of the Convention creates an exception to the general prohibi-
tion on disposal of HLW at sea Under Sec 2 of this article a State
party to the Convention may issue a special permit for disposal of HLW "in
emergencies posing unacceptable risk relating to human health and admitting
no other feasible solution This exception is accompanied by consultation
and notification requirements that have been described supra While this
emergency permit provision would not appear on its face to allow for dis-
posal of RLW at sea based simply on geographical factors or a difficult
storage situation the U S has entered a formal reservation to this section
which may somewhat expand its scope.
The United States understands that the word "emergency" as used
in Article V, 2 refers to situations requiring action with a
marked degree of urgency, but is not limited in its application
to circumstances requiring immediate action.21
While the U S reservation on this point may create a technical loop-
hole that would allow sub-seabed disposal of HLW even if sub-seabed dispo-
sal were determined to be disposal "at sea," it would be unlikely that a
party to the Convention, or even a nonparty like Japan, would proceed with
a systematic waste disposal system based on sub-seabed disposal relying
solely on "chronic" factors of a geographical nature, such as shortage of
available land or satisfactory geological formations for long-term storage
of HLW 22 The exception and the U S reservation to it could however
be read as permitting sub-seabed disposal as well as ordinary marine
disposal in situations with some unspecified degree of urgency
-14-
PAGENO="0552"
546
(b) Retrievable storage.
Art. III, Sec. (l)(b) (2) of the Convention exempts from the scope of
`dumping' the "placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere dispo-
sal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of
this Convention." It has keen argued that this provision could allow
23
for retrievable storage of HLW.
Retrievable storage could be pursued either as a systematic disposal
option or as a test program to determine whether the isolation from the
marine environment achieved by sub-seabed disposal would be complete. Reso-
lution of the question whether a particular retrievable storage program
would or would not be within this exemption to the coverage of the Conven-
tion would hinge on the purposes of the program and the actual prospects
for retrieval. Any systematic program of storage would probably be con-
strued as "contrary to the aims" of the Convention, especially if the
prospects for retrieval were dim -- as they would likely be, because of
the expense and technical difficulty of retrieval. However, a test program
of retrievable storage of actual HLW would appear to fall within the exemp-
tion, since such a program would be on a limited scale, retrieval would be
a genuine prospect, and the program would not be construed as a subterfuge
for ultimate disposal.
(3) Federal Agency Views
A number of federal agencies have now issued statements of one sort
or another on the legality of sub-seabed disposal under international law.
Several such statements were triggered by Congressional inquiries, the
first round stemming from hearings conducted by Rep. Udall in 1976.24
The Department of State concluded at that time on the international issue:
-15-
PAGENO="0553"
547
The Convention defines "dumping" as "any deliberate disposal
at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft,
platforms or other man-made structures at sea." Under these
definitions, disposal of high-level radioactive wastes upon
the ocean bottom faIls within the Convention's prohibition,
as will disposal under the ocean bottom if it poses a threat
of pollution to the marine environment.
We note that the concept of seabed emplacement is a novel one.
No concrete proposal has yet been made for such a method of
disposal, and there exists the possibility that new technolo-
gies might be developed which would permit the emplacement
of wastes in the seabed with little or no danger to the marine
environment. The Department would wish to examine the question
of applicability of the Ocean Dumping Convention to such a
technology if it were proposed. 25 (Emphasis added.)
NOAA has issued a very scholarly legal opinion on the question of the
legality of sub-seabed disposal under the Convention.26 The NOAA opinion
concludes:
Disposal of high-level radioactive wastes through sub-seabed
emplacement is not necessarily "disposal at seau of such
wastes, as prohibited by the Ocean Dumping Convention, and the
resolution of this issue will depend largely on technical devel-
opments. A technically satisfactory showing that such emplace-
ment of high-level wastes in the subsoil of the seabed would
not lead to release of radioactive materials into the marine
environment could be considered to place such disposal outside
the operative terms of the Convention. To a significant degree,
however, this issue will be resolved by the future actions of
States parties to the Convention.
The Convention also contains other provisions, including a
provision allowing for disposal of wastes under "emergency"
conditions and a provision exempting placement of materials
for purposes other than disposal, that could be construed as
allowing limited sub-seabed en~lacement under suitable condi-
tions.
Strangely, the "Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development,
and Monitoring, Fiscal Years 1979-83" prepared by an interagency committee
chaired by NOAA in response to the 1978 act of similar name contains the
following contradictory statement. (It is not clear whether or this repre-
sents a reversal of position by NOAA or a failure to properly clear the
-16-
PAGENO="0554"
548
latter document through agency legal channels.)
International treaty and U.S. law currently ban at-sea
disposal of high-lev~el radioactive wastes by deep-ocean
emplacement. However, this disposal option should be
evaluated and compared with land disposal options for
* future use in any overall comparative study of methods
* for nuclear waste disposal.27
EPA has also issued a legal opinion on the applicability of the Ocean
Dumping Convention to sub-seabed disposal.28 EPA' s lawyers, while conced-
ing that the language of the Convention itself was ambiguous, concluded
that "the better view" was that the Convention prohibits sub-seabed dispo-
sal. In reaching this conclusion, EPA argued that a reference to U.N.
General Assembly Resolution 2749 (XXV) in the preamble to the Convention
(in which the resolution is "recalled" by the parties to the Convention)
justifies the view that the Convention was intended to prevent all pollution
of the oceans, including the seabed itself. The General Assembly resolution
spoke of prevention of pollution to the marine environment and protection
and conservation of the natural resources of the "area" (i.e., the seabed
and ocean floor and its subsoil) and prevention of damage to the flora and
fauna of the marine environment. (The United States voted in favor of
this resolution.) It is unclear whether these provisions are binding,29
are an authoritative guide to interpretation of the Ocean Dumping Convention,
or even apply to sub-seabed disposal. Nevertheless EPA found in them suffi-
cient support to ascribe a protective interpretation to the Convention.
Of course, this application is not directly supported in the operative
terms of the Convention or in any material accompanying the Convention.
Indeed work done by the IAEA shortly after the Convention was concluded
sought to exclude sub-seabed disposal since it was thought by IAEA that
-17-
PAGENO="0555"
549
sub-seabed disposal should not be considered as contributing to radiation
30
in the sea
Finally representatives of the State Department have recently indi-
cated continued willingness to entertain the concept of sub-seabed disposal
as an internationally acceptable waste disposal option.31 ~inbassador
* Richardson indicated recently that if sub-seabed disposal led to no radio-
logical effects outside the sediments themselves that it would not come.
within the terms of the Convention, or for that matter . the Law of the Sea
Treaty currently being negotiated.32
-18-
PAGENO="0556"
550
B. Organizational Issues
International organizations car' have an important role in interpreting
the provisions of new proposals under existing multilateral arrangements
and providing a range of services associated with formulating and imple-
menting such proposals. The NSA, for example, has played an important
role in implementation of the Ocean Dumping Convention and the other regional
dumping conventions in assuring the parties that appropriate safeguards were
being taken during operations. The OECD Council has established a Multi-
lateral Consultation and Surveillance Mechanism for Sea Dumping of Radio-
active Waste under the auspices of the NSA which strengthens NEA's previous
role in overseeing dumping operations.33 Under this mechanism, regular pro-
cedures are established for prior notification and consultation, interna-
tional surveillance, and reports on dumping operations. NEA has also
developed guidelinea for .~thé construction of sea dumpir~g packages for radioactive
waste and has recommended operational proced~ires for dumping.34
International organizations can, however, serve an important role in
defining the regime applicable to new proposals such as sub-seabed disposal.
We have seen how the work of the IAEA and its consultant groups has already
played a role in interpretation of the application of the Ocean Dumping Con-
vention to sub-seabed disposal. While ThEA is not authorized to interpret
the operative terms of the Convention, its recommendations about interpre-
tation of the Annexes (including defining the scope of HLW as an Annex I
substance which is prohibited for disposal at sea and making recommendations
on the dumping of LLW) could be important in determining how to proceed
in constructing an institutional framework for sub-seabed disposal. The
recent amendment of the Annexes of the Ocean Dumping Convention to include
-19-
PAGENO="0557"
551
special regulations for the incineration at sea35 of hazardous chemicals
and the adoption of technical guidelines for such operations36 is a good
illustration of how a creative use of such international organizational
channels might work.
The applicability of the Convention to incineration at sea was deter-
mined through amendments which were adopted through th&"speedy amendment"
provisions of the Convention applicable to amendments of the Annexes.
Art. XV (2). The amendment and accompanying material were prepared by
spedial consultative groups,37 including ad hoc scientific committees,38
which met under the auspices of IMCO, the secretariat for the Convention.
The amendment themselves and the other material were adopted by the parties
to the Convention39 at their regular consultative meetings.
Incineration at sea of toxic substances, primarily halogenated hydro-
carbons, had been carried out by several European nations both prior to the
effective date of the Convention and after it.4° The United States had
issued special permits for incineration operations on three occasions,
twice for chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes stored in Mississippi (which were
burned at a site in the Gulf of Mexico) and once for the incineration of
Agent Orange, a notorious Vietnam-era herbicide contaminated with extremely
toxic dioxin, for which incineration was authorized at a site in the Pacific.4~
For a number of reasons, the application of the Convention to incineration
operations was not clear. First, such disposal may not be "disposal at
sea" at all, since effective incineration at sea may not lead to measurable
changes in the marineenvironment at the incineration site. Second, although
the substances for which incineration at sea would be conducted would likely
include substances whose dumping is prohibited by Annex I of the Convention,
-20-
PAGENO="0558"
552
a paragraph of that Annex provides that the prohibition on dumping of
Annex I substances does not apply to substances which are "rapidly rendered
harmless by physical, ch~mical or biological processes in the sea" and
which do not make marine organisms unpalatable or endanger the health
of humans or domestic animals. Annex I Par. 8. Incineration at sea
is likely to produce wastes that. are either completely neutralized by sea
water (}iCl) or are present in such small quantities that the specified
harms would not ordinarily occur. Third, the prohibition on dumping Annex
I substances does not apply to the dumping of certain substances -- includ-
ing mercury and cadmium compounds, organohalogen compounds, persistent plas-
tics or synthetics, or oil mixtures -- which are contained only as "trace
contaminants'. Incineration of prohibited wastes.at sea would, in addi-
tion to providing virtually complete elimination of the organohalogens,
probably result in only small amounts of these other prohibited substances.
It was not clear, furthermore, how the notion of "trace contaminants' in
the Convention should have been applied to substances considered for incin-
eration, i.e., whether the wastes themselves should be considered or the
wastes as transformed during incineration and dispersed. through an atmos-
pheric plume. (It was ultimately decided that combustible substances should
be considered in their plume densities but that incombustibles like cadmium
and mercury, which would be delivered to the ocean as particulates, should
be evaluated in terms of their initial concentrations in the waste.)
The device of amending the Annexes to define more clearly the meaning
of the Convention's prohibitions in relation to incineration enabled the
parties to the Convention to bring such operations within effective regu-
lation without having to resolve in detail the underlying question of
-21-
PAGENO="0559"
553
whether or to whet extent such operations were covered by the Convention
and how such questions would be resolved for specific operations The
amendments to Annex I authorized incineration of organohalogen compounds
and oils (which would ordinarily be incinerated along with other more
toxic substances in order to achieve satisfactory combustion) provided
the regulations adopted by the parties which were also inserted into Annex
I were followed.42 These regulations43 provide performance and other stan-
dards applicable to many aspects of incineration operations including
flame temperature and other operational controls survey of incinerators
and other equipment, recording of performance, and the like. A set of.
technical guidelines44 was also adopted which provide more definite stan-
dards for equipment which, if adopted, would make such operations much
safer; the parties agreed to take these guidelines into account in issuing
permits for incineration of Annex I substances.45 The parties also agreed
to consider the regulations and guidelines in issuing the special permits
they were authorized to issue anyway for substances included in Annex II.46
A similar multilateral approach could be tried in constructing a regime
for sub-seabed disposal and in determining the effect of the Ocean Dumping
Convention on this proposal. By means of a technical amendment to the
Annexes, the parties could agree among themselves not to contest the lega-
lity of sub-seabed disposal provided it were implemented conformably to
mutually agreed standards. If this procedure were chosen, it would be
possible for the parties to agree on rigorous international standards for
sub-seabed disposal without on the one hand prejudicing their freedom to
implement such a project by declaring it within the scope of the Convention,
or on the other hand losing their ability to control it by declaring it
-22-
PAGENO="0560"
554
outside the framework of the Convention. Political conflict based on the
legality of such a proposal under the Convention could also be avoided.
Although it is to be hoped that any institutional developments under the
Convention associated with sub-seabed disposal are given careful and full
deliberation, use of this ~ort of procedure would also simplify their
adoption, since amendments to the Annexes can be made by the simplified*
technical amendment procedure used for the incineration amendments; in
addition, no further domestic measures would be necessary to ratify such
amendments.
The marine incineration amendments' indicate one way in which efforts
could be made through international organizations to facilitate agreement
on an international regime for a new proposal like sub-seabed disposal.
These amendments secured multilateral recognition of incineration opera-
tions and regulation of them without the political conflict that could have
arisen had the parties proceeded to make unilateral interpretations of the
Convention. Thus, specific standards for various operations connected
with sub-seabed disposal, developed by standing international organizations
or through structured consultations, may represent a method of interpreting
existing legal obligations under multilateral agreements like the Ocean
Dumping Convention in relation to this emerging proposal. In the field
of disposal of radioactive wastes at sea, the ThEA has issued a definition
of HLW within the Annex I prohibition and a set of recommendations con-.
cerning dumping operations, as authorized by Annex II. ThEA would logi-
cally provide a forum to deal with other aspects of HLW disposal such as
sub-seabed disposal, espcially in relation to its other functions under the
Ocean Dumping Convention. IMCO and the NEA could also provide a forum for
-23-
PAGENO="0561"
555
resolution of the institutional issues presented by sub-seabed disposal.
Aside from their functions under multilateral agreements, such inter-
national organizations.as the IAEA and IMCO, and to a lesser extent such
regional bodies as NEA, may also have a role in defining the requirements
that arise not from multilateral agreements but from general international
law. This point will be examined next.
-24-
69-8~8 0 - 81 - 36
PAGENO="0562"
556
II Global Responsibilities
A Legal Issues
In addition to multilateral arrangements sub-seabed disposal must
be evaluated from the perspective of the general international institutional
framework which is evolving both with respect to environmental matters in
general and specifically the new provisions on marine pollution and the
regime of the seabed being developed by the Third United Nations Conference
47
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) In terms of general environmental
obligations there are now no clear standards of a substantive or proce-
dural nature to guide States Commentators have nevertheless noticed a
trend toward a shared resource/common heritage" approach in which States
would be obliged to undertake certain procedures before commencing activi-
ties that would be likely to cause severe environmental problems outside
national ~urisdiction and also to ensure that their activities do not
cause significant harm to the environment or interfere with the equitable
interests of other States 48 Conceptually speaking these procedural and
substantive duties are primary rules of obligation which impose require-
ments on the conduct of States, regardless of the difficulty of ascribing
these rules a definite content at the present time.49 For example, recent
work on the allocation of shared resources (in this case international
rivers) emphasizes the importanc~ of prior notification of actions likely
to affect the interests of other States environmental assessment and
the need to consult with a view toward an equitable solution of resource
conflicts Similarly decisions of the OECD Council have recommended
both substantive and procedural standards for proposed actions which could
have a transfrontier environmental effect 51
25-
PAGENO="0563"
557
In addition to such nebulous but still primary rules the actions of
States that have an international environmental effect may generate secon-
dary legal consequences52 These secondary rules define the legal conse-
quences both of failure to act in accordance with primary rules and also
of cases in which the relevant primary obligations were observed but
legally cognizable effects nevertheless occurred.53 Thus, a State may be
held responsible for certain actions with international environmental con-
sequences this responsibility could entail an obligation to take appropriate
steps to restore the situation or to pay damages Recent authoritative work
has even included a notion of international crimes which would include inter
alia massive pollution of the oceans or atmosphere.54 While no international
criminal machinery exists at present, an action which falls into this cate-
gory could have serious legal and political consequences for the acting
State
With regard to marine pollution specifically the draft negotiating
text of UNCLOS III carries over the definition of pollution from the
55
Stockholm Declaration of 1972. This definition, which is reproduced
here, appears to contain much the same ambiguity with regard to sub-seabed
disposal as the Ocean Dumping Convention.
Pollution of the marine environment means the introduction
by man directly or indirectly of substances or energy into
the marine environment (including estuaries) which results or
is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living
resources and marine life hazards to human health hindrance to
marine activities including fishing and other legitimate uses of
- the sea, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction
of amenities 56
The negotiating text officially referred to as the Informal Composite
Negotiating Text/Revision 2 (ICNT/Rev. 2), also states a general obligation
-26-
PAGENO="0564"
558
of States to protect the marine environment. With respect to `dumping',
States would be obliged' to minimize to the fullest possible extent the re-
lease of toxic substances.57 Interestingly, the definition of dux~ping
in the ICNT/Rev. 2 could be construed to include sub-seabed disposal, since
the double use of the phrase "at sea" has been deleted. Dumping is now
defined to mean, inter alia: ``
any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from 58
vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea.
In view of all the ambiguities of terminology and the qualifying words on
obligations, however, certainly this cl~use cannot be construed absolutely
to prohibit sub-seabed disposal.
In addition to the articles on marine pollution and associated matters,
the important results of UNCLOS III for present purposes is the establish-
ment of a regime of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. Under the
proposed LOS text, the seabed is declared the common heritage of mankind.59
The United States previously recognized this status by voting in favor of
General Assembly Resolution 2749(XXV) in 1970; in the recently passed Deep
Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, however, Congress has indicated that this
resolution was signed in the expectation that a comprehensive LOS treaty
would be agreed upon.6° One could argue therefore that the adherence of
the U.S. to the common heritage concept was limited in scope and was in-
tended to be in connection with development of an international regime for
61
the exploitation of seabed minerals. In addition, the text of the General
Assembly resolution speaks primarily about the resources of the seabed (in
addition to its environment as discussed above); one could also argue
that the acquiescence of the U.S. in its principles was limited to mineral.
-27-
PAGENO="0565"
559
exploitation activities. It is not, at all clear that sub-seabed disposal
should be considered a `use of the seabed included in the scope of these
provisions. Sub-seabed disposal would not appear to be a use of the re-
sources of the seabed. No tangible resource would be used, and it does
not appear that the storage capacity of the deep sea sediments is so limited
that it itself should be considered a scarce good which should be removed
from national appropriation. Provided sub-seabed disposal was performed
in resource-poor areas, it would appear unlikely that sub-seabed disposal
sites would become candidates for mineral extraction. Furthermore, while
this possibility should be explored further, emplacement would probably be
far enough into the sediments that subsequent seafloor mineral activities
could still be carried out. Finally, while minerals no doubt exist in the
earth's crust beneath the sediments, it is unlikely that it would become
an exploitable resource in the foreseeable future. Similarly, it would
appear unlikely that the existence of HLW repositories in the seabed would *
significantly impede mining of the sediments themsel~bs or"underlying resources
should this be pursued' as an `economic activity.
Also, the ICNT/Rev. 2, in defining the scope of activities subject
to regulation under the seabed regime, limits itself mostly in terms of
"activities in the Area', which has a technical definition as:
all activities of exploration for, and exploitation of,
the resources of the Area.62
This would appear to exclude sub-seabed disposal operations. (There is
some ambiguity in the text on this point, however.)
Regardless of the technical legal validity of applying the concepts
of the UNCLOS III seabed regime to sub-seabed disposal, however, political
-28-
PAGENO="0566"
560
realities are likely to be such that a sub-seabed disposal proposal would
generate considerable international attention revolving around the notions
of preservation of the global marine environment and utilization of the
seabed beyond national jurisdiction At the very least lengthy consul-
tations with other nations and rigorous environmental assessment will be
necessary to deal with such a political reaction Multilateral or inter-
national institutions measures using existing frameworks such as the Ocean
Dumping Convention consultations and international organizations such as
the IAEA and IMCO could also provide an opportunity to obtain international
recognition o~ such a proposal These functions of the international organ-
izations are also recognized in the ICNT/Rev 2 at several points it could
be argued on this basis that the standards developed in these organizations
represent new international law applicable to emerging uses of the oceans
and seabed and provide an acceptable channel to obtain international recog-
nition of such new uses The following paragraphs from the ICNT/Rev 2
are presented to illustrate how the use of international organizations to
create generally recognized standards is authorized by the text
~g~ption fron].nd-bsedam~,~
***** **** *** * ** * *
4 5t~.toa, ctin~ especially through competent international or~anizations
or diploortic conference, shall ondeavour to establish global and regional rubs
standards an~1 recotmxirided practices and procoduros to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment free land-based sourcos, taking into account
characteristic regional foatures, the economic capacity of devoboping States and
their need for ocononic dovolopsont. Such rules, standards and recommended practices
and procedures sh-tll bc. re-ox nined from tim. to tine s necossary
~ i ws, regulations, no auras, rules, at nd rds and r~oona~.ndod pr ctices
and procedures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 rospoctivoly shall includo those
de.sigued to minimize, to the fullost possiblo ~.xtont the reL.aso of toxic, h .rnful
and noxious substances, especially persistent subst neea, into the n .rrnc environment
-29-
PAGENO="0567"
561
~rtic1c 208
Pollution fron so -bed ectivities
1 Coret l St toe sh .11 adopt laws and regulations to erevent
reduce nd control pollution of tb.. a rin cnvirontacnt arising fron or in conncxzon
with ee'--bed ctivitiez~ sub~ct to thoir pu-i diction nd from tifici-tl isl nds~
installations cost structures under their ~urisdictiort
*** ******** ***********
4. States shell endavour to harnonize their nationo~1 policies o~t the
appropriate reGional level.
5 St t~s, etin~ especially through comoetent international oiaani4ations
or diplotr~tic conference, . eh~'.ll establish global ond rugional rules, standards end
recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce end control pollution of the
n~ r a. environment arising from or in connoxion with s~ -bed etivitios subject to
their jun diction end from rtifici-~1 isi nols, inst .11 tiens nd structures urdor
their ~uri diction ref rred to in p r-v~rtph 1 Such rules, st-tad role -uxi rocor?nLndcd
prtcticcs end procedures sh .11 b ro-oi-wu.no& from time to tin~ a nec~ss ry
~cl~
ilution free activities in tha~roa
1. International rubs,. standards and recommended prac1~ices and procedures
shall be eatablishod in accordence with the previsions of Part XI to prevent
reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from activities
in the Area Such rules standards and recommended practices and procedures
shall be re-examined from time to time as nedessary
2 Subject to other relevant provisions of this section, States shall
adopt laws and regulations to prevent reduce and control pollution of
the marine environment_fr_em_activities in the Area undertaken by vessels
installations structures and other devices flying their flag or of their
registry The requirements of such laws and regulations shall be no less
effective than the international rules standards recommended practices and
procedures referred to in paragraph 1.
Lrtiolo 210
1 States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment from dumping
****** * * ** **
4 States, acting especially through competent international organizations
or diplomatic conference, ah2l oncleevour to establish global ersi regional ~uboa,
at n&xds end recommended pr ctieos -tad procedures to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment by dumping Such rules, standards ant recommended
practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary.
-30-
PAGENO="0568"
562
Article2ll_
Pollution from vessels
1. States, acting through th~ competent international, organization or general
diplomatic conference, shall establish international rules end standards for the
prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels
end promote the adoption, in the same mnnr~er, wherever appropriate, of routing
systems designed to minimize tho throat of accidents which might cause pollution of
tho marine environment, including the coastline and related interests of coastal
States. Such rules end standards shall, in the same manner, be re-examined from
time to time as nocessal7.
-31-
PAGENO="0569"
563
B. Organizational Issues
While the substantive standards applicable to actions with an impact
on the global environment are difficult to state in any detail, there appears
to be a growing consensus amozig commentators that the primary obligations
of States in this area also encompass certain procedural duties. These
include prior notification of other States, adequate environmental assess-
ments including information sharing and jointly-conducted envirubmental
analyses where possible, as well as good faith consultations with other
States toward the objective of achievin9 a solution to environmental con-
flicts which respects the equitable interests of all affected States, both
in their rights to enjoyment of a healthy environment and their exercise
of rights to use national and global resources with appropriate considera-
tion of the interests of other States. These procedural obligations suggest
the range of functions which international organizations could serve in
relation to development of sub-seabed disposal as a waste-disposal option.
Technical and institutional issues related to sub-seabed disposal could be
aired in international organizations in order to fulfill the* duty to notify
other States of proposed activities and consult with them about the extent
of anticipated environmental effects and the effect of the proposed activity
on other beneficial aàtivities. The international organizations could also
be involved in environmental assessment efforts. Optimally, such organi-
zations could also be brought to develop a set of substantive standards*
as well as procedures for development and implementation of a sub-seabed
disposal proposal. Ultimately, a new organization could even be created
which would exercise a range of functions related to sub-seabed disposal.
-32-
PAGENO="0570"
564
Such an organization conceptually could serve a variety of functions
including facilitation (e g information sharing observation and sur-
veillance and other functions) management (formulation of operational
criteria and other policies) and even actual operational responsibilities 63
Aside from serving as an important element of a legal case for sub-
seabed disposal under the provisions cited earlier such an organizational compo-
nent could also provide an important vehicle to resolve outstanding poli-
tical issues Political opposition to sub-seabed disposal could easily
arise since sub-seabed disposal could be perceived to pose some level of
risk for the global marine environment and would represent a use of the
deep seabed which has been claimed as the common heritage of mankind
Although sub-seabed disposal could be claimed to be a universal benefit
in that it could solve a severe problem for many nations, viz, the HLW
disposal problem, the less-developed countries (LDC's) could plausibly
contend that the proposal would primarily at least in the intermediate
term benefit the advanced industrial States which are accumulating signi-
ficant amounts of HLW as a result of widespread commercial nuclear power
generation The creation of a new international institutional framework
for sub-seabed disposal which involved appropriate forms of international
organization could moderate these objections. Through a new institutional
régime, sub-seabed disposal could be linked to other issues involving the
nuclear fuel cycle and the much-contested obligations of States under
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Sub-seabed disposal since
it would occur in areas beyond national jurisdiction could be linked to
an overall internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle For example
an institutional framework to implement sub-seabed disposal could be linked
-33-
PAGENO="0571"
565
to the establishment of multinational spent fuel reprocessing centers 64
Such centers it has been argued could contribute greatly to alleviating
the problem of diversion of weapons material while still offering adequate
assurances of supply of fuel for existing and planned LWR's and the FBR
when it comes into commercial operation.65 One of the leading legal and
political difficulties with sub-seabed disposal could then be turned into
an advantage. Since sub-seabed disposal would occur in international areas,
it could be more easily linked with other forms of international organiza-
tion of the nuclear fuel cycle 66 Sub-seabed disposal would also circumvent
the problem of the reluctance of nuclear supplier States to provide per-
manent disposal within their borders for HLW generated by nuclear programs
elsewhere. Instead of being viewed as a use of international areas for
national purposes, then, sub-seabed disposal could be seen as linked to the
general international equity issue created by the contrasting duties of the
nuclear weapons States and non-nuclear weapons States under the NPT, under
which the non-nuclear weapons States have agreed to forego nuclear weapons
development while the nuclear weapons States have undertaken to transfer
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. NPT, Art. IV(2).67 The provision
of international fuel cycle services including HLW disposal as well as re-
processing could mitigate demands for a further sharing of reprocessing
technology.68 Depending on the regime which is chosen for international
disposal of HLW and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, reprocessing and
waste disposal services could be provided through an international organi-
zation, a consortium of nuclear suppliers, or some other international
arrangement.69 Recipient countries could be brought into the system through
-34--
PAGENO="0572"
566
dissuasion (i e provision of efficient and reliable fuel and waste ser-
vices) or through threat of sanction (exclusion from services or other
measures) in case they proceed with national reprocessing efforts.7°
Such a resolution of the equity issue inherent in the NPT could also go
far in resolving the more general equity concerns that could be voiced
in relation to uses of the marine environment and the seabed by the ad-
vanced industrial countries These concerns which are related to the
general call for the creation of a New International Economic Order could
be alleviated by an international regime for sub-seabed disposal which
would benefit all nations by providing an essential fuel cycle service
In this way, international organizational measures could provide both a
legal and political support for a sub-seabed disposal program
-35-
PAGENO="0573"
567
III ConclusiOn
It must be concluded that the Ocean Dumping Convention is at best
ambiguous with regard to sub-seabed disposal As both the NOAA and EPA
opinions indicate this ambiguity likely means that political considera-
tions will be important in deciding what institutional regime will apply
to sub-seabed disposal The United States has already through the Seabed
Working Group of the NEA taken steps to obtain the cooperation of some of
the other major parties to the Ocean Dumping Convention If such efforts
are successful both within the NEA group and the parties to the Convention
then appropriate organizational channels could be followed to achieve
institutional acceptance of sub-seabed disposal and an appropriate regime
for it under the Convention If the agreement of the other parties to the
existing multilateral arrangements is not obtained -- for instance if the
other parties seek to pursue other ocean disposal strategies such as direct
dumping of HLW -- then the Convention would no longer provide an adequate
framework for discussion of this issue and general principles of interna-
tional law would have to be addressed
Good models of international organizations that might provide the
technical and administrative support for the implementation of a sub-seabed
disposal program do exist These include the NEA and the Multilateral
Consultation and Surveillance Mechanism of the OECD Council. The amend-
ment of the Ocean Dumping Convention to include control of and provision
of technical guidance for the incineration of hazardous chemicals at sea
was described above as an example of how the institutional implementation
of a sub-seabed disposal program might occur
-36-
PAGENO="0574"
568
Given the recent accelerated development of the concept of a nation S
global responsibility (and accountability) for its actions any sub-seabed
disposal program will likely require extensive international consultation
even outside of any existing multilateral arrangements. Specifically, the
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has been developing
a regime of the seabed that, in some future form, will have to be addressed
by the nation or group of nations that seeks to implement sub-seabed disposal
Examples were provided above of how international organizations adhering to
the Informal Composite Negotiating Text (Revision 2) can be used to create
generally recognized standards for new activities
The organizational structure of previously established internationally
recognized standards for a new activity such as sub-seabed disposal might
be a critical vehicle for resolving the political issues that will arise
when a formal proposal is made Either the standards themselves or a new
regime tied to them which truly internationalizes the program sight serve
to answer the likely (and reasonable) contention of less-developed countries
that the sub-seabed disposal program would primarily benefit the advanced
industrial countries. Thus, appropriate international organizations might
help provide both legal and political support for a sub-seabed disposal
program.
-37-
PAGENO="0575"
569
FOOTNOTES
1. Descriptions of SSE contained, in this report are taken
primarily from the following sources:
(1) `ERDA, "Alternatives for Managing Wastes From Reactors
and Post-Fission Operations in the LWR Fuel Cycle,"
Vol. 4, May 1978;
(2) Sandia Laboratories, "Report to the Radioactive Waste
Management Committee on the First International
Workshop on Seabed Disposal of High-Level Wastes,
Woods Hole, `Massachusetts, Feb. 16-20, 1976;
(3) "High-Level Nuclear Wastes in the Seabed?", 20 Oç~axig~
1 - 67 (1977) (papers from the Woods Hole Workshop,
supra).
(4) 94th Cong., 2d Sass., House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and the Environment, Oversight
Hearings, "Radiological Contamination of the Oceans,"
July 26-27, 1976 (1977) (hereinafter "Hearings");
(5) 95th Cong., 2d Sees., House of Representatives,
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Sub-
committee on Oceanography, Hearings, May 15 and
July 11, 1978 (unpublished).
2. For a more complete description of the nuclear waste problem,
see Willrich & Lester, Radioactive Waste: Management and
RegulatiOn (1977); for more formal analysis of the insti-
tutional concerns raised by waste management as well as
the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, see Rochlin, Plutonium,
Power, and Politics: International Arrangements for the
Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel (1979).
3. The Antarctic Treaty, 12 U.S.T. 794, hAS No. 4780, in force
(1961), Art.V(l).
4. 26 U.S.T. 2403, TIAS Mo. 8165, in force (1975).
5. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1301 ~
6. IAEA Doc. GOV/l622 (Sept. 3, 1973).
7. See sec. (3), infra.
8. Papers by Deese include:
(1) "Law of the Sea and High Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal: a Potential Geologic Option under the
Deep Seabed?", in Hearipg~, supra n. 1(4), at 823~
PAGENO="0576"
(2) Seabed Emplacement and Political Reality,' 20 Oceanus
47 (1977);
(3) Nuclear Power and Radioactive Waste (1978).
9. Heari~~q~, ~ n. 1(4). Legal positions of the State
Department, EPA, and ERDA appear at 798, 813, and 816
respectively V sec. (3), infra.
10. See, e.g., Seabed Working Group, Report to the NEA Radio
active Waste Management Committee (NEA/RWMC), transmitted
with letter from D. Glenn Boyer, Chairman, Seabed Working
Group and Alex Paige, U.S. Representative to NEA/RWMC to
0. Ilari, Nuclear Energy Agency (March 15, 1979).
11. See sec. (3), infra.
12. See "Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Intergovernmental
Conference on the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at
Sea Held at London, October 30-November 13, 1972, Which
Produced the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter," in 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess., House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conserva-
tion and the Environment, `Ocean Dumping," at 16 (1973).
13. See IAEA Doc. GOV/l622 (Sept. 3, 1973).
14. Airgram No. A 9894, from U.S. Dept. of State to IAEA
(Nov. 30, 1973).
15. Deese, in Hearing~, ~ n. 1(4) at 963, n. 1.
16. IAEA Doc. INPCIRC/205/Add.l/Rev. 1.
17. Id.. It has been claimed that the regulation of disposal
at sea under the Convention is based on the need to
develop a regulatory regime that would ensure that wastes
dumped into the ocean would be adequately diluted and
dispersed by ocean waters to prevent environmental damage,
and therefore that sub-seabed emplacement is outside the
regime of the Convention. James L. Liverman of ERDA has
stated:
The (sub-seabed emplacement) concept involves
locating a suitable, stable sub-seafloor geologic
formation and emplacing canisters of wastes within
the formation, utilizing one of a number of techniques
to penetrate and emplace, that are applications of
current technology. The radioactive material itself
does not, therefore come into contact with the ocean
and became dispersed.
-39-
570
PAGENO="0577"
571
The seabed concept is thus quite unlike sea dumping and
should be thought of as a variant of isolation of radio-
active waste within stable geological formations on land,
the difference being that the coordinates are at sea. Also,
because of the potentially higher costs of this technique,
it would almost certainly be reserved for solidified,
encapsulated high-level waste which could not be sea
dumped under the London Convention.
~ ~n. 1(4), at 554-555. This logic could be
read to mean that as IAEA and the international community
move toward a regime of ocean dumping that stresses the
need for isolation and containment of wastes, that a
single conceptual model is being developed that should apply
to sub-seabed emplacement as well. However, although IAEA
has begun to stress the containment of wastes, containment
of wastes that are not embedded in the sea floor will nevet
achieve complete isolation. The IAEA containment strategy
is therefore not a complete isolation strategy, unlike
sub-seabed emplacement. It may thus be argued that sub-
seabed emplacement remains a unique method of disposal that
does not fal~. under the terms of the Convention.
18. IAEA Doc. GOV/l622 (Sept. 13, 1973).
19. Id..
20. The Radiological Basis of the IAEA Revised Definition and
Recommendations Concerning High-Level Radioactive Waste
Unsuitable for Dumping at Sea: Report of the Consultants
Meeting to Review the Radiological Basis of the provisional
Definition and Recommendations for the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter Organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency,
IAEA - 211 (1978).
21. The Convention, Appendix IV.
22. See Deese, Nuclear Power and Radioactive Waste (1978), at 82.
23. See Deese, "Seabed Emplacement and political Reality," 20
Oceanus 47, 52 (1977).
24. Hearings, ~ n. 1(4).
25. Id., at 798-799.
26. Memorandum from Daniel Finn, Staff Attorney, to Sam Bleicher,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, NOAA, "Sub-Seabed Disposal
of High-Level Radioactive Wastes" (Nov. 10, 1978).
-40-
69-8'~8 0 - 81 - 37
PAGENO="0578"
572
27. NOAA, August 1979, at 86. S
28 Memorandum from Michele Beigel Corash General Counsel
to Dr. Donald Oakley, Acting Director, Office of Inter-
national Activities and Eckardt C Beck Assistant
Administrator for Water and Waste Management Deep
Seabed Emplacement of High Level Radioactive Wastes and
the Ocean Dumping Convention" (Feb. 25, 1980).
29 See Kronmiller The Lawfulness of Deep Seabed Mininq~ (1980)
at 234 et seq
30 IAEA Doc G0V/1622 (Sept 13 1973)
31. See, e.g., Address by Thomas R. Pickering, Asst. Secy. for
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs, "Ocean Development in the 1980s," reprinted in
U.S. Department of State, C~irrent Policy No. 146.
32 See Ocean Science News (Feb 18 1980)
33 See Nuclear Law Bulletin (No 20 (Dec 1977)
34 See Nuclear Law Bulletin No 23 (June 1979)
35. Resolution of the Parties to the .London Dumping Convention
at the Third Consultative Meeting 12 October 1978,
with Attachment Amendments to Annexes to the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter Concerning Incineration
at Sea," and Addendum, "Regulations for the Control
of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea."
36 See Technical Guidelines on the Control of Incineration of
Wastes and Other Matter at Sea, IMCO Doc. IV/4 (13 March 1979),
adopted at the Fourth Consultative Meeting
37. For example, the Ad Hoc Group on Incineration at Sea.
See, e.g., IMCO Doc. LDC IV/4 (i3 March 1979).
38. For example, the Ad Hoc Scientific Group on Dumping.
See, e.g., "Report of the Ad Hoc Scientific Group on
Dumping,' IMCO Doc. LDC IV/3 (30 March 1979).
39. See nfl. 35 - 36, ~.
40. See U.S. Department of State, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Incinera-
tion of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention
(Feb. 1979), at I - 7 ~
-41-
PAGENO="0579"
573
41 See id at I - 10 ~
42. Ocean Dumping Convention, as amended, Annex I, Par. 10.
43 Id Annex I Addendum
44 See n 36 ~
45 See n 43 ~
46 Ocean Dumping Convention as amended Annex II Par E
47. Of course it is speculative at present whether the draft
treaty being negotiated at UNCLOS III will result in an
actual international agreement. In the absence of such
an agreement, States could claim that the articles of the
draft text do not represent .a codification of international
law and that they are not bound by them. Regardless of.this
point however it is probable that the provisions of the
text will speed the development of customary international
law in the directions indicated in the text this would be
true especially for sections of the text like the articles
on marine pollution upon which general consensus had been
reached at UNCLOS III See e g Laylin Emerging Cus-
tomary Law of the Sea 10 Int Law 669 (1976)
48. ~ Prof. Willem Riphagen. (Professor, University of
the Hague and Member International Law Commission) The
International Concern for the Environment as Expressed in
the Concept of `Common Heritage of Mankind' and of `Shared
Natural Resources" (forthcoming).
49. See R.Q. Quentin-Baxter, "Preliminary Report on Inter-
national Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising
Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law UN Doc
A/CM 4/334 (24 June 1980) par 20
50 See e g~ S Schwebel Special Rapporteur International
Law Commission second Report on the Law of the Non-Navi-
gational Uses of International Watercourses UN Doc
A/CN 4/332
51. See generaliy resolutions contained in the publication
OECD and the Environment (Paris, 1976).
52. See generaliy International Law Commission, Draft Articles
on State Responsibility,' Yearbook of the International
* Law Commission 1979.
-42-
PAGENO="0580"
574
53 See R Q Quentin-Baxter supra n 49
54 See Draft Articles on State Responsibility supra n 52
Art 19
55 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment Report
of the United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment Stockholm June 5 - 16 1972 UN Doc A/Conf
48/14
56. United Nations, Third Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Informal Composite Negotiating Text/Revision 2, UN Doc.
A/Conf 62/WP 10/Rev 2 (11 April 1980) Art 1
57 Id Art 194(3)
58 Id Artl
59 Id Art 136
60 Pub L 96-283 94 Stat 553 (June 28 1980) Sec 2(a) (7)
61 See generally Kronmiller supra n 29
62. ICNT/Rev. 2, ~ n. 56, Art. 1.
63 This general classification of potential functions is
given in Rochlin Plutonium Power and Politics Inter
national Arrangements for the Disposition of Spent Nuclear
Fuel (1979) at 189 et seq See especially pp 302 ~
in which extraterritorial arrangements for nuclear waste
disposal like SSE are considered within this framework
64 See Rochlin supra n 63 at 257
65 See e g Futter The Case for Multinational Reprocessing
Centers -- Now 16 Colum J Trans L 430 (1977)
66 See supra n 64
67 See e g Greig The Interpretation of Treaties and
Article IV 2 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1978
Austr mt L Yrbk 77
68 See Rochlin supra n 63 at 269
69 Id
70. Id.
-43-
PAGENO="0581"
575
DECEMBER 8, 1980.
Dr. ROGER R. MATTSON,
Director, Surveillance and Emergency Preparedness Division, Office of Radiation
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
DEAR DR. MATTSON: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the
House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I wish to thank you for appear-
ing as a witness at our November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the
oceans.
I am enclosing several follow-up questions the answers to which I would like to be
able to include in the record of the hearings.
Thank you again for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely
information on this increasingly important and controversial area of concern.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
GERRY E. STUDDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography.
Enclosure.
1. EPA, in its testimony, mentioned the need for "a strong, cooperative inter-
agency program" to monitor radioactive waste sites in the ocean.
a. What specific plans does EPA have to devolop such a program?
b. What would be the scope and primary purpose of such a program?
c. What would be the anticipated cost of implementing such a plan?
d. Are legislative changes necessary to allow such a program to go forward?
2. To what extent are we able to assess the possibility that the increased dumping
of waste at the northeast Atlantic dumpsite will have a damaging cumulative effect
on the ocean? Please describe the status of current and proposed research into this
question.
3. In formulating regulations for low level waste dumping, how does EPA propose
to compare the relative harmfulness of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes versus
"other practical methods of disposal"?
4. (a) In EPA's view, does the definition of "high level waste" used in the Ocean
Dumping Act accurately reflect the relative hazards of dumping various kinds of
radioactive materials into the marine environment? For example, is it not true that
waste from a research laboratory could have radiation emission levels equal to a
similar amount of waste from a reprocessing facility and yet not fall under the
definition of "high level waste"? If EPA agrees that the current definition is
inadequate, what language would it recommend?
(b) Please describe EPA's supplemen~t (specific activity number) to its high level
radioactive waste definition, and discuss how that number is determined and the
purpose for which it is used.
(c) How does the IAEA definition of high level radioactive waste differ from the
U.S. definition?
5. (a) From a regulatory standpoint, to what extent has the ocean dumping of
military generated radioactive waste historically been treated differently from civil-
ian waste?
(b) To what extent is such waste treated differently today?
6. Dr. William Schell, under contract to EPA, found very high levels of Amen-
cium-241 in the rattail fish at the Atlantic dumpsite in 1978. The rattail fish is
highly mobile and could possibly transport radionuclides from ocean depths to
surface waters. Would you please comment on the high concentration of radionu-
clides found in the fish and the role of marine organisms in the transport of
radionuclides?
DECEMBER 11, 1980.
Dr. D. RICHARD ANDERSON,
Program Manager, Seabed Program Division, Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, N Mex.
DEAR DR. ANDERSON: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the
House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I wish to thank you for appear-
ing as a witness at our November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the
oceans.
I am enclosing several follow-up questions the answers to which I would like to be
able to include in the record of the hearings.
PAGENO="0582"
576
Thank you again for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely
information on this increasingly important and controversial area of concern
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
GERRY E. STUDDS,
Chairman Subcommittee on Oceanography
Enclosure
DECEMBER 11, 1980.
Dr. CHARLES D. HOLLISTER,
Senior Scientist and Dean of Graduate Studies,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass.
DEAR DR. HOLLISTER: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the
House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I wish to thank you for appear-
ing as a witness at our November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the
oceans.
I am enclosing several follow up questions the answers to which I would like to be
able to include in the record of the hearings.
Thank you again for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely
information on this increasingly important and controversial area of concern.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
GERRY E. STUDDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography.
Enclosure.
1. What specific findings might cause you to make the determination that the
subseabed option is unacceptable? For example, if after extensive research, there
still remain doubts about the ability of sediments to act as a barrier, would that be
a logical program termination point?
2. (a) Please summarize if you can, the subseabed disposal research program of
other countries, and explain how they compare in scope and funding to that of the
(b) Do you believe that as long as any nation is considering subseabed disposal,
the U.S. should be researching this option?
3. To the best of your knowledge, what would be the scientific advantages (predict-
ability, safety, monitoring, etc.) of subseabed disposal over land-based disposal, and
vice versa?
4. How deep in the sediment would you project the waste cannisters should be
emplaced? Isn't there a trade-off between isolation and safety (greater depth), and
retrievability (more shallow burial)9 Is retrievability being investigated?
5. (a) Given the extremely slow maturation rate of some deep sea organisms, how
is it possible to measure in an experimental framework the potential effects of
radionuclides on such creatures?
(b) What research is being performed on the possibility that biological mecha-
nisms could influence the movement of radionuclides9
6 If radioactive wastes were to escape from both the cannister and the sediment
do we know enough about deep sea currents to predict accurately the fate of
radionuclides in the ocean?
SANDIA LABORATORIES,
Albuquerque, N Mex., January 20, 1981.
Hon. GERRY E. STUDDS,
Subcommittee on Oceanography,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Enclosed are answers to the questions in your December 11 letter for
inclusion in the record of the November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in
the oceans The responses of Dr Hollister are included in these answers
We were grateful to have the opportunity to describe the project. If you or any
other members of congress have any questions about the subseabed program we
would be most willing to provide answers or an overview of the program.
Sincerely, -
D. R. ANDERSON,
Supervisor, Seabed Programs Division 4536.
1. The finding that the deep sea sediments would not prevent the release of
radioactive wastes to the environment, below the standards to be set by EPA, would
PAGENO="0583"
577
make the subseabed option unacceptable. Present models indicate that the sedi-
ments will be able to contain the wastes. If these models cannot be verified by field
experiments, or if properties in-situ are such that the models predict unacceptable
release of radionuclides, the program would be halted. Results that might prove the
sediments an inadequate barrier would include: There is extensive natural water
movements through the deep sea sediments in question: The absorption properties
of the sediment are lower or more unpredictable in-situ than in the laboratory; the
strength of the heated sediment is inadequate to prevent extensive cannister migra-
tion: The sediment cannot properly be sealed after cannister emplacement. Field
verification of these properties and models, is necessary research before a proper
evaluation of the subseabed option can be complete. If the subseabed option was
found unacceptable the major research programs of the project would be terminat-
ed. It would be desirable to maintain some organization responsible for evaluating
other nations programs of oceanic disposal of high radioactive waste and to be able
to demonstrate and document the finds of the U.S. subseabed program.
2. Five nations currently spend some funds for research to assess the feasibility of
seabed disposal of radioactive wastes. One other nation will start research in 1981
and two others are considering research. The U.K. and France have the most active
programs. Our program is complimentary with theirs in that we are not presently
funding U.S. ships to study areas in the Atlantic. The U.K. and France fund ships to
research the Atlantic and we are allowed to participate in their cruises and obtain
copies of their data, If one were to consider the European programs as a whole it
would be fair to state that their scope of investigations is as broad if pot more so
than the U.S. program.
It is difficult to delineate specifically the funds expended for research on sub-
seabed disposal of radioactive wastes. Research in the ocean is often of use in a
number of program areas and cannot be strictly defined as research for subseabed
disposal. For example, in the U.S. research on subseabed disposal it is quite easy to
state how much money goes through the program. However without ongoing re-
search in oceanography and to some extent land based nuclear waste disposal, the
subseabed program budget would be unable to make significant progress in evaluat-
ing the option. With this in mind some 1981 budgets for the various countries are
listed:
United.States 6.1 million dollars.
United Kingdom 3
France 3
Japan 1
West Germany 0.5
Canada 0.5
Netherlands To begin 1981.
Switzerland Considering.
Belgium Considering.
It would be prudent for the U.S. to maintain the capability to evaluate other
nation's research programs, which may involve funding some field research, until
that time when the nation proposing disposal can document the safety of the
program to the standards we expect of ourselves.
3. The use of the ocean sediments as a repository for high-level nuclear wastes
would offer a number of advantages to land-based mined repositories. Pirst, the
areas of the ocean that would be suitable for disposal offer a very predictable
geologic environment. The central portions of the oceanic plates have the lowest
seismic activity on earth. Areas can be chosen that have no volcanism. The continu-
ously depositional nature of the central gyre areas of the ocean is remarkably
insensitive to climatic changes. Second, the oceans present an unsurpossed natural
barrier to man's intrusion to the repository. The deep sea floor is perhaps the least
valuable property on earth. The clay sediments (essentially dust blown off the
continents) is of no commercial value. Manganese nodules of high copper and nickel
content are concentrated in areas of the ocean that are being avoided even though
the collection of nodules from the sea floor above a repository would be unlikely to
disturb the repository. We cannot trust societal controls to prevent intrusion into
the repository for the 10,000 year minimum life of a repository. Thus, it is signifi-
cant that a society less technically advanced than our own would simply be unable
to disturb the repository. The cannisters placed in the deep sea sediments would be
essentially independent of each other. Any operation that disturbs one or a few
cannisters would not degrade the barrier properties of the remainer of the reposi-
tory. These first two features are very important since EPA calculations on mined
repositories indicate that almost all of the risk of a repository is associated with
unexpected breaching of a repository. The third desirable feature of the ocean
PAGENO="0584"
578
sediments is that they are structurally a very simple geologic formation. The sedi-
ments are uniform over a great horizontal extent and are free from faults, fissures
or cracks. This means that the models that are developed to predict the behavior of
waste movement (beyond the heated zone) in the far field will be relatively simple
and less, difficult to verify. The far field will be the barrier after a cannister fails
and will be the barrier for perhaps 90 percent of the lifetime of a repository. Fourth,
the maximum temperature that the sediment will experience occurs within about 2
years after emplacement and the heat will begin to dissipate into the ocean after 15
years allowing us to experiment and monitor in real time the worst case conditions
that will exist in the repository. This is a result of the relatively short distance
between the heat source of the waste cannister and the heat sink of the ocean's
waters and the high thermal conductivity of the sediments. The deeper a heat
source is placed in a geologic media the longer it takes for the heat pulse to pass
through the surrounding media.
Land based disposal offers the advantage that it can be done completely within
the U.S. making the disposal operations free from international consideration of
control. Since man has been mining for thousands of years the engineering neces-
sary for mined repositories will probably require less development than the engi-
neering necessary for a subseabed disposal. Although there is considerable scientific
technology to draw upon there has never been a commercial scale operation on the
deep sea floor.
4. The necessary depth of emplacement of containers cannot be stated precisely at
this time. The depth will depend in part on the exact physical and chemical
properties of the sediments at a given site in the ocean. Thus the burial depth could
well be different at various regions in the oceans. The necessary depth will also be
in part determined by the requirements for safety. The shallowest burial presently
considered as a reference case for calculation is burial of 30 meters. For most of the
major radionuclides this would be a very adequate barrier. Plutonium for example
would migrate (based on present model predictions) only about 10 meters in 100,000
years. The lifetime of a repository will probably be required to be 10,000 years.
Other isotopes that absorb less strongly to the sediments may make it desirable to
have a deeper burial. If emplacement of cannisters is done by a drilling operation
they would probably be placed deeper into the sediments, perhaps to depth of a few
hundred meters.
There probably would be a trade-off between depth and ease of retrievability. We
assume that with present technology cannisters placed 30 to 100 meters into the
sediment should be relatively easy to recover. The emplacement, recovery, and
other engineering considertations have not been major areas of research of the
program to date. It is not planned to pursue these topics in earnest until the
fundamental scientific question of the deep sea sediments ability to contain radioac-
tive waste is more adequately answered.
5. Researchers in the project have for the first time collected and cultured in the
laboratory bacteria that are native to the deep sea. It can safely be stated that they
are native to the deep sea since they can only be grown at deep sea temperatures
and pressures. These organisms, with very reasonable doubling times of a few hours
are being tested for their radiosensitivity. Deep sea amphipods, apparently ubiqui-
tous in the deep oceans, have also been captured and maintained in the laboratory
are also useful experimental organisms. Although there appears to be nothing
unique about the biochemistry of dep sea organisms except that their enzymes may
function optimally at deep sea pressures, it has been hypothesized that the organ-
isms have evolved at different background radiation levels and thus may have
radiosensitivity different from terrestrial or shallow water organisms. For example,
their capacity to repair sublethal radiation damage may be different from non-
barophilic organisms. The organisms isolated from the deep sea will be used to test
that hypothesis. The deep sea organisms maintained in the laoratory will also be
used to see if the uptake of radioisotopes is different from similar shallow water
organisms.
Another area of biological research within the project is to determine any possible
biological pathways in the ocean that could transport radioisotopes to the surface
waters and to man. A second part of this research is to build models that will allow
as to quantify the rates of transfer. The first half of the research has to date
involved studying the mobile near-bottom scavenging organisms. We wish to know
their abundance, their vertical and horizontal range, their life history, and their
metabolism. ~`or the second half of the project models are presently being construct-
ed that should allow us to make the necessary calculations of biological transport of
nuclides.
In an effort to obtain the best possible guidance for the program's biological
research, the program is funding a biological oceanography workshop. About 50
PAGENO="0585"
579
deep sea oceanographers and radioecologists, most of whom have no affiliation with
the project assemble for a week in January 1981 to consider the biological ramifica-
tions of nuclear waste disposal in the seabed and to make research recommendations.
6. Our present knowledge of the ocean would allow us to predict the movement of
radioisotopes by water movement on a short time frame, months to a few years, or
in a long time frame, about 1,000 years. The intermediate time frame is far less well
understood. This is an active area of interest on experimentation in physical ocean-
ography. A nunber of research projects sponsored by various funding agencies have
advanced our understanding of meso-scale motion in the last decade. During the
next decade a considerable resolution of the picture of meso-scale oceanic circulation
is expected.
DECEMBER 16, 1980.
Hon. EDWARD HIDALGO,
Secretary of the Navy,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On November 20, 1980, the Subcommittee on Oceanography
of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee conducted an oversight
hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the oceans.
At this hearing, the subject of the possible scuttling by the Navy of older model
nuclear submarine reactors was broached. This raised questions about the potential
environmental impacts such disposal would engender. It would be most helpful to
the Subcommittee if the Navy could respond to questions for the record about this
potential action, in addition to details on the research the Navy has conducted into
locating the previously scuttled USS Seawolf reactor.
Thank you for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely informa-
tion on this issue.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
GERRY E. STUDDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography.
[The questions submitted are the same as those included in the
letter of response which follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., February 13, 1981.
Hon. GERRY E. STUDDS,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives,
Washingtion, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter to the Secretary of the
Navy dated December 16, 1980. In your letter you requested answers to questions on
the Navy's plans for ultimate disposal of decommissioned nulcear-powered subma-
rines and~on the Navy's efforts to locate the SEAWOLF nuclear reactor vessel that
was disposed of in the Atlantic in 1959.
In accordance with your request, I have attached the information responding to
your questions for inclusion in the Committee hearing record. Should you have any
further questions, we will be pleased to provide you with any additional information
necessary.
Sincerely,
THOMAS E. HARVEY,
Principal Deputy,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Logistics).
Enclosure.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, COMMITTEE
ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
Question 1. Approximately how many nuclear-powered submarines does the Navy
plan on phasing out of its fleet, and when does it anticipate that these phase-outs
will occur?
Answer 1. There are three submarines, the TRITON, HALIBUT and NAUTILUS,
which have been decommissioned and have been in protective Storage since 1967,
1976, and 1979 respectively. In addition, the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT and
ABRAHAM LINCOLN are presently undergoing final defueling and decommission-
ing for placement in protective storage. Excluding the THEODORE ROOSEVELT
and ABRAHAM LINCOLN, the Navy has 113 commissioned nuclear-powered sub-
PAGENO="0586"
580
marines. All 113 will eventually be. decommissioned as they reach the end of their
useful service lives, nominally considered to be in the range of 25-30 years.
Question 2. (a) What are the options that are being considered for disposal?
(b) If scuttling in the ocean is a possible option, what portions of the submarine
would be scuttled?
(c) If this option is pursued, will the Navy apply to the Environmental Protection
Agency for ocean dumping permits?
Answer 2. The Navy is currently conducting preliminary studies of two alterna-
tives for the ultimate disposal of defueled decommissioned nuclear-powered subma-
rines. one alternative is to bury the submarine's reactor compartment housing the
reactor plant, after defueling, at an existing Federal land disposal site. The second
alternative under preliminary study for ultimate disposal is to place the entire
submarine after defueling, at a site in a deep part of the ocean where there is
virtually no likelihood of its being disturbed by human activities, seismic action, or
ocean movement. No decision has been made on one alternative for disposal over
the other since the Navy is still collecting data. Any decision to proceed would not
be taken until completion of an Environmental Impact Statement, taking into
account the views of the public and government and non-government organizations.
If the Navy were to choose land disposal as a preferred alternative, arrangements
with the Department of Energy would have to be made for use of a DOF land
disposal site. If the Navy were to choose sea disposal as a preferred alternative, the
Navy would have to apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for a permit
under the Marine, Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
A fact sheet on these Navy preliminary studies is provided as enclosure (1).
Question 3. (a) Wh~t effort~ has the Navy made to locate the nuclear reactor from
the submarine, SEAWOLF?
Answer 3(a). The first reactor in the USS SEAWOLF was a liquid metal interme-
diate range power reactor and was not a breeder reactor. Although the original
reactor plant operated satisfactorily for approximately two years, it was replaced
with a pressurized water reactor because the liquid metal type of reactor plant was
determined to be unsuited for continued submarine application. The weight savings
that had been sought in using the more compact liquid metal design was lost due to
the need for additional shielding. With a water-cooled reactor the reactor compart-
ment can be entered to make repairs immediately after the reactor is shut down.
With a liquid metal plant there is a considerable delay time which was considered
undesirable for a warship which might suffer battle damage requiring immediate
repair. There was also a fire hazard with liquid sodium which can react with water
creating an additional hazard in a submarine application.
The reactor was designed by the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. General Elec-
tric was the primary manufacturer.
The USS SEAWOLF reactor plant was disposed of at sea. On April 18, 1959 the
radioactive reactor vessel and reactor plant components from the sodium-cooled
nuclear reactor plant in the submarine SEAWOLF were placed on a barge, escorted
by the U.S. Coast Guard to a disposal site in the Atlantic Ocean 120 miles off the
East Coast of the U.S. and sunk in 9,000 feet of water at latitude 38'30'N and
longitude 72°06'W. The expended nuclear fuel was not disposed of at sea but was
shipped to special Government facilities for processing in the same manner as for
other expended nuclear fuel. The disposal was conducted at a site approved for sea
disposal of radioactive waste by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. This disposal
site was used by other organizations for a number of years for radioactive waste as
noted in a report issued by the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (Ocean
Dumping, A National Policy, October 1970).
The radioactivity was sealed within the heavy steel reactor vessel for disposal.
The radioactivity was restricted from release not only because it was located inside
the reactor vessel but because it was further contained as an integral part of the
corrosion resistant stainless steel internal reactor vessel structure. A release into
the surrounding area would be expected to occur only due to corrosion of both the
reactor vessel followed by slower corrosion of the stainless steel. Furthermore, the
products of corrosion of the steel are primarily solid rust-like materials which are
extremely insoluble in sea water and therefore tend to remain attached to the metal
surfaces or remain locally on the bottom sediments. The total amount of radioactiv-
ity was approximately 33,000 curies, which in the twenty-one years since disposal,
has decayed to less than one tenth this quantity, essentially all cobalt 60.
In view of the above, the radioactivity should remain within the SEAWOLF
reactor vessel while it decays away and no significant effect on the marine environ-
ment is expected. However, the Navy has been interested in locating the SEAWOLF
disposal barge and conducting radiological monitoring to provide direct verification
PAGENO="0587"
581
of the inherently low radioactivity release characteristics over a period of more than
two decades.
( Thus the Navy has attempted tolocate the SEAWOLF reactor vessel disposal
barge using the state of the art search capabilities within the Navy
This work was carried out primarily in 1979 during which approximately 27 days
of at sea search effort resulted in searching an area of approximately 36 square
miles centered on the recorded disposal location The search of this area initially
detected numerous objects with the potential of being the barge However photo
graphic examination of most of these indicated they were only large rocks or rock
outcropings present in the disposal area Thus the barge has not been located
Question 3 (b) Please provide for the Subcommittee any information which you
may have available which would allow us to assess in general the potential impac
of nuclear submarine reactors on the marine environment
Answer 3(b) As indicated in the answer to question 3(a) no significant effect on
the marine environment from the SEAWOLF disposal barge is expected Informa
tion to assess in general the potential and actual impacts on the marine eviron
ment of nuclear submarine reactors is contained in an annual Navy report issued
by the Navy This report is included each year in Congressional testimony and
published in the hearing record This report shows that operation of the more than
100 Navy nuclear powered ships and their support facilities has had no significant
effect on the radioactivity of the marine environment
More specifically this report also provides pertinent information on the environ
mental effect of the accidental sinking of two U S Naval nuclear powered subma
rines The submarine THRESHER sank 10 April 1963 100 miles from land in water
8 500 feet deep at latitude 41 45 N and longitude 65 00W The submarine SCORPI
ON sank between 21 and 27 May 1968 400 miles southwest of the Azores in more
than 10 000 feet of water
Radiation measurements water samples bottom sediment samples and debris
collected~ from the area where THRESHER sank were analyzed for radioactivity
shortly after the sinking and again in 1965 by various laboratories with highly
sensitive equipment Similarly sea water and bottom sediment samples taken near
SCORPION s hull were analyzed for radioactivity None of these samples showed
radioactivity above naturally occurring background levels and none showed evi
dence of radioactivity released from either THRESHER or SCORPION
In 1977 followup samples of water sediment marine life and debris were collect
ed from the immediate THRESHER debris areas In 1979 followup samples of
water sediment marine life and debris were collected from the immediate SCORPI
ON debris areas None of these samples showed any evidence of release of radioac
tivity from the reactor fuel elements in either THRESHER or SCORPION Howev
er cobalt 60 released from both THRESHER and SCORPION coolant systems was
detectable at low levels in sediment samples from localized areas which were not
sampled during the original surveys The cobalt 60 radioactivity in these sediment
samples was small compared to natural1y~-occurring radioactivity. Cobalt 60 was not
detectable in the samples of water, marine life or debris. Thus, the THRESHER and
SCORPION have not had a sigmficant effect on the radioactivity in the environ
ment.
In this connection it should be noted the absence of significant environmental
effect for both the THRESHER and SCORPION exists even though both were lost in
a catastrophic manner with nuclear fuel installed Should future sea disposal of
nuclear submarines be carried out the nuclear fuel would be removed in all cases
and the submarine placed on the sea bottom in a controlled manner to enhance
compartment and system integrity
Enclosure (1)
DISPOSAL OF DECOMMISSIONED NAVAL NUCLEAR REACTOR PLANTS
The U.S. Navy is currently conducting preliminary studies of alternatives for the
ultimate disposal of the defueled nuclear reactor plants of decommissioned nuclear-
powered submarines. Three submarines, the TRITON, HALIBUT, and NAUTILUS,
have been decommissioned and have been in protective storage since 1967 1976 and
1979 respectively The measures used to prepare these ships for protective storage
ensure that no radiological concern exists either to Navy personnel shipyard em
ployees or the general public
When a ship is decommissioned the nuclear fuel is removed and handled accord
ing to established procedures for treatment of such material With removal of the
fuel the uranium and fission products are also removed since they are contained
within the fuel. However, after the fuel has been removed, portions of the reactor
plant are still radioactive as a result of the operation of the nuclear reactor and
PAGENO="0588"
I 582
therefore must be disposed of in a manner which will have a negligible impact on
the environment The radioactive material exists primarily as an integral part of
the metal forming the reactor pl~nt components The radioactivity was created by
neutron irradiation of the iron and alloying elements in the metal components The
predominant radioactive isotope present is cobalt 60 which decays by a factor of two
every 5 3 years The only mechanism for release of the radioactivity to the environ
ment is through corrosion of the metal
One alternative for disposal is to place decommissioned nuclear powered ships ~n
long term protective storage at a shipyard While this alter~iative does allow tI~ie
radioactive material to decay under contrplled conditions ~ithout ~elease to t~ie
enviro~iment other alternatives may be more desirable for ultimat~/ disposal T~kwo
practical alternatives for the ultimate disppsal of radioactive ~iuclea~ reactor plant~
are under preliminary study by the Navy One alternative is to ~ury the submt~
rine 5 reactor compartment which houses the defueled reactor pli~ht at an existu~g
Federal land disposal site The other alternative is to place the/entire ship after
removal of the nuclear fuel on the deep ocean bottom at a kite/considered accept
able for such disposal Either of these alternatives would be carried out so as to
provide containment and isolation of the1 radioactive material in the reactor plant
from human activities
The land disposal alternative if it were selected, would be implemented at an
approved Federal waste disposal site This option Nwould take advantage of the
containment provided by the submarine s reactor compartment which would form
~ an outer disposal container of high strength and durability Furthermore the radio
activity is contained within the metal walls of the defueled reactor plant located
within the reactor compartment The general approach would be for the reactor
cothpartment to be removed froi/p the remainder of the ship and all reactor com-
par~ment openings sealed The compartment ~ou1d then be moved by barge and
moving equipment to ~tn approved burial site and buried Radiation levelsassoci~ited
witI~ the entire operr~tion would meet all Department of Transportattön Envilon
mei~tal Protection A~ency and Department of Energy requirements for disposal of
low~level radio~ctiviQy The potential effect on the environment from the land
disr~osal alternative is expected to be extremely low and only a sn)ail fraction of
nor~nal background radiation exposure Land area use would be small This alterna
tiv~ would be in compliance with existing regulations for radioactive was~e ship
ment and disposal and no new regulations would be required
1~he sec~nd alternative under preliminary study for ultimate disposal is to place
the) entire submarine at a site in a deep part of the ocean where there is virtually
no likelihood of its being disturbed by human activities seismic action or ocean
mo~rement There is little biological activity in the deep oceans The currents near
th~ sea floor of such a site would be very low and the sea floor itself would be very
sti~ble if the area is sufficiently deep and remote from the knowi~ locations of
seismic and volcanic instability. Previous research in the deep oceans ha1s identified
the existence of several such areas that have little potential for othel\ activities
u~eful to humans The concept would be to tow the defueled ship to ~e~ected
di~posal site flood it and place it on the ocean floor Preliminary ~info~mation
ir~dicates that t1~e submarine would be intact after landing on the bottom aitçl that
tI~e reactor plant and containment would remain intact Corrosion of the me1~al of 1
the hull and the reactor plant would then be the only way that the radioact\vity
~yould be released This is a very slow process because of the low temperaturè~ at
great ocean depths and the use of corrosion resistant metals in key parts of t~e
reactor plant During the tiniè ~equired for the corrosion process a significatij/
reduction in the radioactivity wô~.ild result because of normal radioactive decay Fdr
example in 50 years the total cobalt 60 radioactivity in the reactor' plant would be
reduced by a factor of about 1000. /
The potentiali disposal site would be determined in conjunction with the U S /
Environmental Protection Agency complying with requirements established by that /
ager~cy in consideration of U S and international laws and treaties Studies of ocean
geophysics chemistry currents and biology are being conducted to describe the
characteri~tics ~f the deep ocean which would provide maximum tholation and to
develop information on methods for predicting the behavior of giateriats in the deep
oceans / /
1The Navy has spent appproximately one million dollars ~o date in research to
explore important factors related to the possible disposal at ~ea option Most of the
expenditures have been for oceanographic surveys of several general deep ocean
~reas to determine characteristics which would affect the/prediction of effects on
/humans or the environment and verification of corrosioi~ characterist,ics in such
// areas It is expected that approximately one r'rnllion dollarye ptere/I'nay be needed to
complete this research / / ~ -~
//
PAGENO="0589"
583
While the United States has not been disposing of radioactive material in the
oceans during the last decade, several Western European countries have been
disposing of radioactive waste into the Eastern Atlantic Ocean for several years
under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Energy Agency (former European Nuclear
Energy Agency). These disposals have been conducted in accordance with existing
international treaties and are considered by the responsible international authori-
ties to have no adverse effects on humans or the environment. The material dis-
posed of in the European operations was composed of various kinds of low-level
radioactive wastes encased in concrete inside metal drums. Due to the containment
and unique character of the radioactivity being an integral part of corrosion resist-
ant materials the environmental protection for the reactor plant of a decommis-
sioned submarine is inherently better. Preliminary estimates have been made that
the radiation exposure to humans would be much less than the exposure due to
natural background radiation.
The assistance of Department of Energy laboratories and its subcontractors per-
forming specific tasks in the area of oceanographic sciences has been obtained to
evaluate the technical considerations involved. In addition, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has been informed of the preliminary work being conducted to
evaluate the alternatives for ultimate disposal of the reactor plants from decommis-
sioned submarines. No decision has yet been made on the advantage of one alterna-
tive for disposal over the other since the Navy is still collecting data and evaluating
both options. Any decision to proceed will not be taken until an Environmental
Impact Statement is prepared taking into account the views of the public, and other
interested government and non-government organizations.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
0
PAGENO="0590"