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 one? 



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 operation? 



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 

 statement? 



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 unattractive? 



Mr. Meyers. Probably the latter. 



Mr. Studds. Let me ask you one final thing. 



On the last page, page 7, you say, 'Tt 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 Energy? 



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? 



