442 



was the Nuclear Engineering Co. And the EPA site you chose on 

 that was not located in the licensed area and was 5 ¥2 miles from 

 the dump site. And then going on, the next one, the circled site 

 here, that is the one where the Ocean Transport Co. and the 

 Nuclear Engineering Co. used that as the center for their dumping 

 operation. 



And again the area which EPA chose is not in the dump site and 

 is 7 miles from the center of the dump. The fourth one, the trape- 

 zoid section there, that is by the Nuclear Engineering license and 

 the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. Again they were over 6 

 miles from the center of the dump site. So my question is why did 

 you choose two sites to test the barrels — I should first ask is why 

 should you have found barrels located that far out of the dump 

 site? Second, why did you choose those barrels rather than those 

 that were in the actual dump site itself? 



Dr. Mattson. Let me try a general answer and then Mr. Dyer 

 can give you the reasons for the specific locations that were chosen. 

 There are more than the four sites you just listed at the Farallon 

 Islands area. 



Mr. Anderson. There are three licensed there, are there not? 



Dr. Mattson. There are eight subsites within the Farallon Is- 

 lands dump site area. 



Mr. Anderson. Are they licensed? 



Dr. Mattson. I am sorry but the person who put together the list 

 is not here and we cannot answer that question. The sources of the 

 wastes were both licensed and unlicensed activities. That is, some 

 of the activities were conducted by AEC licensees and the others 

 conducted by AEC contractors. My guess is that the eight sites 

 represent some of each. This is the reason that the estimated size 

 of the Farallon Islands site has grown over the last 2 or 3 months. 

 We were developing testimony in September for the October hear- 

 ings. We were using 250 to 300 square miles. Today we are saying 

 something in excess of 500 square miles. As the records continue to 

 become available and as we are able to pin down precisely where 

 the specific locations are — and we are not finding a lot of new 

 materials that were dumped but we are finding more information 

 about where — the area tends to expand. 



So first of all I do not think there is anything mysterious about 

 not being in the three sites that you have listed. There are in fact 

 eight subsites. But let us let Mr. Dyer refresh our memory on this. 



Mr. Dyer. When we first looked for information in 1973 we went 

 back to the only published records we could find generally availa- 

 ble, which was Joseph's paper of 1956. If you will note the slide we 

 showed in California, there was the large AEC-licensed area, there 

 was also the NECO and Chevron Research dumping areas, but then 

 there was a very large polygon closer to shore which was the 

 original area reported by Joseph as having been used. What we 

 now know, that is the large square AEC-licensed area, and the 

 NECO and Chevron Research dumping areas come to light only a 

 few weeks ago after NRC completed its first review of their licens- 

 ing records. This information is still not complete. We have not 

 completed receiving information from DOD or DOE. But the poly- 

 gon area is the area that contains the so-called three sites: The 

 very shallow, apparently accidental, site at about 300 feet, and the 



