575 



December 8, 1980. 



Dr. Roger R. Mattson, 



Director, Surveillance and Emergency Preparedness Division, Office of Radiation 

 Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

 Dear Dr. Mattson: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the 

 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I wish to thank you for appear- 

 ing as a witness at our November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the 

 oceans. 



I am enclosing several follow-up questions the answers to which I would like to be 

 able to include in the record of the hearings. 



Thank you again for your willingness to provide the Subcommittee with timely 

 information on this increasingly important and controversial area of concern. 

 With kind regards. 

 Sincerely, 



Gerry E. Studds, 

 Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography. 



Enclosure. 



1. EPA, in its testimony, mentioned the need for "a strong, cooperative inter- 

 agency program" to monitor radioactive waste sites in the ocean. 



a. What specific plans does EPA have to devolop such a program? 



b. What would be the scope and primary purpose of such a program? 



c. What would be the anticipated cost of implementing such a plan? 



d. Are legislative changes necessary to allow such a program to go forward? 



2. To what extent are we able to assess the possibility that the increased dumping 

 of waste at the northeast Atlantic dumpsite will have a damaging cumulative effect 

 on the ocean? Please describe the status of current and proposed research into this 

 question. 



3. In formulating regulations for low level waste dumping, how does EPA propose 

 to compare the relative harmfulness of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes versus 

 "other practical methods of disposal"? 



4. (a) In EPA's view, does the definition of "high level waste" used in the Ocean 

 Dumping Act accurately reflect the relative hazards of dumping various kinds of 

 radioactive materials into the marine environment? For example, is it not true that 

 waste from a research laboratory could have radiation emission levels equal to a 

 similar amount of waste from a reprocessing facility and yet not fall under the 

 definition of "high level waste"? If EPA agrees that the current definition is 

 inadequate, what language would it recommend? 



(b) Please describe EPA's supplement (specific activity number) to its high level 

 radioactive waste definition, and discuss how that number is determined and the 

 purpose for which it is used. 



(c) How does the IAEA definition of high level radioactive waste differ from the 

 U.S. definition? 



5. (a) From a regulatory standpoint, to what extent has the ocean dumping of 

 military generated radioactive waste historically been treated differently from civil- 

 ian waste? 



(b) To what extent is such waste treated differently today? 



6. Dr. William Schell, under contract to EPA, found very high levels of Ameri- 

 cium-241 in the rattail fish at the Atlantic dumpsite in 1978. The rattail fish is 

 highly mobile and could possibly transport radionuclides from ocean depths to 

 surface waters. Would you please comment on the high concentration of radionu- 

 clides found in the fish and the role of marine organisms in the transport of 

 radionuclides? 



December 11, 1980. 



Dr. D. Richard Anderson, 



Program Manager, Seabed Program Division, Sandia National Laboratory, 



Albuquerque, N. Mex. 



Dear Dr. Anderson: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the 

 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I wish to thank you for appear- 

 ing as a witness at our November 20 hearing on radioactive waste disposal in the 

 oceans. 



I am enclosing several follow-up questions the answers to which I would like to be 

 able to include in the record of the hearings. 



