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. 



