453 



Mr. Mattson. I must say that the budget process winds it's way 

 yearly, and we get an opportunity yearly to give you an answer to 

 that question. 



Mr. Anderson. Just 2 years ago the General Accounting Office 

 said you didn't have enough. 



Mr. Mattson. Yes; in fiscal year 1983, in the next budget round, 

 I would expect that if we're going to undertake a lot of new 

 monitoring responsibilities in radioactivity in the marine environ- 

 ment, and NOAA is going to undertake them, you will see growing 

 budgets in those areas. But for what we are charged with accom- 

 plishing today, the budget is adequate. 



Mr. Anderson. Now, one kind of report on what you have been 

 doing. 



This year the Office of Radiation Programs spent $9,950 for post- 

 operations filming for a documentary production of your Atlantic 

 and Pacific dumpsite surveys, and $27,000 for the preparation of 

 this film. 



My question is, why spend this $37,000 of the taxpayers' moneys 

 for a documentary film when we should be spending that money to 

 document what's going on and the dangers that these things may 

 pose to the marine environment? 



Now, maybe you have a use for that documentary film today 

 that we'd like to hear about. I just wondered why we needed a 

 movie of it today. 



Mr. Mattson. Well, one thing that happens to people when they 

 work in radiation is that they get frustrated at the inability to 

 communicate the dangers of radiation, factually and straightfor- 

 wardly, to the American people, to Congressmen, to the lawyers, to 

 whoever doesn't have an education in radiation science. 



I didn't first approve that movie, but I am sympathetic with the 

 money that is being spent there. It is a legitimate attempt 



Mr. Anderson. Are you using it, then, to educate the people? 



Mr. Mattson. We will be when it's finished. It isn't finished yet. 

 I have seen working drafts of it. There are difficulties in making 

 movies that communicate factually and still keep people's atten- 

 tion. You walk a fine line between scaring them to death and not 

 keeping their attention. 



We're going to try it. We may fall on our face. But this seemed 

 like a good place to try. This is a complicated issue. As the Con- 

 gresswoman from Baltimore said this morning, it's like meddling 

 with mother nature. People are concerned about radioactivity in 

 the ocean. We're going to try to communicate to them in a form 

 somewhat different than we have in the past. We're used to techni- 

 cal documents read by engineers and other scientists. In my judg- 

 ment, it was worth the expenditure of the $37,000, or whatever it 

 adds up to. 



Mr. Anderson. When will we see the premiere? 



Mr. Mattson. It will be some weeks yet. 



Mr. Anderson. It's some weeks off? 



Mr. Mattson. Yes; we're still walking that fine line. 



Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. 



You say you've only been with EPA for 3 months? Or with the 

 Government for 3 months? 



