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)(f). 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:] 



