449 



fixed facilities on land, waste disposal or power generating, which- 

 ever. 



A fair amount of progress has been made, but again, this is a 

 relatively small effort in EPA. It would have to grow in order to 

 get into public health assurance monitoring, and if it didn't grow, 

 and we were to get into that, then the regulatory development 

 would be slowed. 



Mr. Hughes. It is a very modest effort; $1 million is relatively 

 modest when you consider the potential risk involved and the 

 magnitude of the problem. But in the short time I've been around 

 here, I find that agencies have a way of expediting these matters 

 once it becomes critical, that they find a need to dump. 



When you suggest to me that the Navy is already concerned that 

 they have materials to dump, I have a feeling that all of a sudden 

 we're going to awaken a few years from now and discover there's a 

 critical need to dump yesterday. That's what gives me such great 

 concern — and I know Massachusetts is concerned. I have a few 

 dumpsites in my region, and my colleague from California has 

 dumpsties and he's concerned about it. It seems that whenever we 

 find ourselves in a bind we always take the easy way out and we 

 dump. That's how we dumped before. 



I am uncomfortable with the progress we're making, I'm not so 

 sure that it makes sense to differentiate really between high-level 

 waste and low-level waste, given how much we really know about 

 the subject. I am concerned because it is so difficult to retrieve 

 from the ocean bottom. At least with land disposal methods, it's a 

 lot easier to retrieve the material than it is from 13,000 feet down. 



Are you comfortable with the distinction between low level and 

 high level, and do you feel that makes sense? 



Mr. Mattson. Well, I think there are two broad categories in 

 waste disposal problems that we need to deal with in this country, 

 and it is convenient to speak of high level on the one hand and low 

 level on the other. It's when you try to get very precise and use 

 those definitions, to say this is OK and that one's not, that you get 

 into difficulty 



Mr. Hughes. That's 



Mr. Mattson. If somebody says low-level waste portends no 

 health problem to this Nation, either on land or in the ocean, then 

 he's wrong. There are problems that have to be dealt with. 



Mr. Hughes. That's why I questioned it. But I have some very 

 basic problems, as to whether it makes sense to differentiate be- 

 tween high-level and low-level wastes. 



Mr. Mattson. Well, I think it does make sense to differentiate. 



Mr. Hughes. I realize that, but I felt that what we make we 

 could unmake. 



Mr. Mattson. One point that does come into this conversation is 

 worth mentioning, and that is we haven't concentrated in our 

 discussion here about research on the subject of radioactivity in the 

 marine environment. The NOAA people are next on the agenda, 

 and there is a continuity in this problem area. That is, you make 

 measurements in a dumpsite, we make measurements in the mar- 

 ketplace, and you ask yourself two kinds of questions: Is there 

 enough radioactivity in the things that are reaching man to hurt 



