Martin B. Biles -5- r ~ All of this discussion leads to one basic question, which ig more important in a given situation, to protect the environment or to protect man? The current U.S. ocean dumping legislation, aa interpreted by EPA, allows for no consideration of current conditions of environmental contamination, i.e., contamination of land from past events. It better fits the situation where the objective is to prevent the generation of wastes that would require disposal in the ocean. While EPA staff said they would like to help where‘they could, no tale te assurance of obtaining a permit and approved deep ocean site for disposal of Enewetak contaminated debris and soil could be given regardless of any benefit to the Enewetak people or their nearby environment. This is true even if all studies were conducted and all needed evaluations and information were provided as required under EPA Rega. This opinion, stated by those with the responsibility to grant or not grant permite, is in effect an absolute prohibition against ocean dumping conducted by any U.S. agency. The large cost to comply with the information requirements under the Act would Hkely be money wasted. The inflexible and narrow view on protecting the environment that is built into the Act, is being voiced by EPA staff as indicative of almost certain failure for any agency that would consider ocean dumping as one of several possible alternatives. I can only conclude that this is a carefully designed barrier framed by those who secured the U.S. legialation. Others who may one dayface a similar problem should know that these samo restrictions will probably be applied regardless of any cir- cumstances one could believe to be unique, and regardless of how uncertain or costly other disposal options may be. As with Enewetak, the facts of the case, i.e., the risk to people of near surface entombment of radioactive debris in a container with a limited service life (EPA etaff have assumed that euch containment may not last 50 years) and release of the contained debris and subsequent additional exposure of people and their descendants, does not deter EPA staff from recommending that an occan dumping permit not be sought, that prospects are poor if a permit is sought, and that disposal of this debris should be on land at Enewetak. The explanation given is bisiicts tenet eet that EPA is bound by the Act. Dr. Rowe stated that the U.S. law was not perfect but the best we have. I would argue that the U.S. law has certain features that make it appear to have been translated from the International Ocean Dumping Agreement, but the "public hearing" requirement of the Act and ''sole option" requirement of EPA constitute a prohibition . a OFFICE > SURNAME cean, o * a Thesejcould not have been translated from tha results of the | It:ternational On the other hhnd, the recommendations 1 IAEAand their provisions and requirements for obtaining an -. pare > Form ABC-318 (Rev. 9-53) ABCM 0240 aD vwttemneeseser sete essmenmer eae reagan terns cle ance ‘ bet eererceeereenecen cohen neseeneneate SY u. a; GOVERNMENT PAINTING OFFICE: 1974-020-106°