114 
Mr. JANES. We are not in a position yet to be able to identify ra- 
dioactive waste containers. We have identified locations of contain- 
ers but we do not know whether they are radioactive or not. 
Mr. Stupps. Are you able to do that by the use of underwater 
cameras and can you pinpoint where these damn things are so that 
you can take some tests that have some meaning rather than just 
sailing about the Bay and taking them from place to place? We 
know they are there. Can we locate them with precision and test in 
those precise areas? 
Mr. JANES. I am not going to promise you that we will find them 
but we are certainly going to attempt to. When we begin the 
survey in July we will use underwater cameras, underwater televi- 
sion. 
Mr. Stupps. OK. That is whated I want to get at. 
What is the projected cost of the monitoring plan? 
Mr. JANES. For Massachusetts Bay? 
Mr. Stupps. Yes. 
Mr. JANES. I would be happy to supply that for the record, but I 
do not have it in my head. 
[The following was received for the record:] 
The projected cost of the monitoring plan is $100,000 and 3 person years. 
Mr. Stupps. Can you give me an approximation? I will not hold 
you to it, just a ball park figure, as we say. 
Mr. JANES. Well, we are anticipating from the Office of Radiation 
programs supplying something like six-person weeks or so but I do 
not have the figures. . 
k ve Stupps. Six person weeks? You have that left? That is won- 
erful. 
Have any funds been budgeted for this or do you just have to 
draw people out of other duties? 
p Mr. JANES. For this one we are drawing people out of other 
uties. 
Mr. Stupps. In other words the EPA budget for that is zero? 
Mr. JANES. Well, we have some monitoring responsibilities that 
we can put this under as well. 
Mr. Stupps. What is your reaction—not you personally but the 
Agency’s reaction—to the contention by the General Accounting 
Office that monitoring past dump sites does not make a lot of sense 
and should be curtailed? 
Mr. JANES. We, in general, have taken the position that in terms 
of developing information for assessing the adequacy of future 
dump sites, that there is not much information—there is not much 
more information to be gained by monitoring dump sites as shallow 
as the dump sites that were used in the past. 
Mr. Stupps. Is that because you do not propose to use equally 
shallow sites in the future? 
Mr. JANES. I think it is fairly evident that if any dumping is re- 
sumed it will go at a minimum to the international recommenda- 
tions and those are 4,000 meters or deeper. 
Mr. Stupps. Am I correct that your statement then rests on the 
the assumption that any future dumping will occur in deeper 
waters where the effects will not be analogous and, therefore, not 
relevant? 
