490 



thought given to changing our present U.S. pohcy 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 fullfiUing 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 



