591 



reactors, in 30 years, and it might be prudent to therefore store 

 subs on land for 30 years and then dump them into the ocean when 

 they won't be a danger to anyone or even risk getting any radioac- 

 tivity into the food chain? 



Mr. Sjoblom. One of the comments I beUeve we made was for 

 the Navy to examine the timing as to when they have to make a 

 decision, and to provide more information on the option that you 

 described. 



But as to either recommending or deciding which option the 

 Navy should take, no, we do not do that. The purpose of an envi- 

 ronmental impact statement, basically, is to provide in one place 

 all of the relevant scientific and other information on all the op- 

 tions, so that a reasonable response and decision can be made. 



Mrs. Boxer. I know, I am very aware of EIS and EIR's because I 

 served in local government and we couldn't do anything without an 

 EIS or an EIR. We also have a situation in the San Francisco Bay 

 Area where 50,000 radioactive containers were dumped near the 

 Farallon Islands, as you probably are aware, and that dumping 

 continued for many years, starting in the 1940's. 



I am very concerned about the movement of that radioactivity 

 from those barrels into the fish and it is my understanding that 

 studies have been made, but not released by EPA, regarding the 

 movement of that radioactivity, and that it is very possible that the 

 person who wrote that study may go public with that study, but 

 EPA is not releasing it. 



Could you tell me if there is any truth to that? 



Mr. Sjoblom. EPA did environmental surveys, EPA conducted 

 environmental surveys of the Farallon Islands dumpsites in 1974, 

 1975, and 1977, and all the reports of that have been released. 



Some of them were released in draft form, others were released 

 in final form. 



Mrs. Boxer. So far as you know, there are no studies dealing 

 with migration of radioactivity from the barrels of fish. There are 

 none that have been withheld from the public? 



Mr. Sjoblom. I don't know of any. 



Mrs. Boxer. OK. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. D' Amours. We thank you, Mrs. Boxer. 



I would like to address a question to Mr. Lawrence, but also 

 would be very much interested in having EPA respond, particular- 

 ly Mr. Davies. 



One of the purposes of the moratorium, that was adopted by this 

 subcommittee, this committee and the Congress, was to provide ad- 

 ditional time for research on the effects of rad waste disposal. 



We received a letter, however, from one of the DOE contractors 

 saying the response of DOE to the moratorium has not been to col- 

 lect the additional data, but to stop or to drastically slow all pro- 

 grams and, in fact, Mr. Coffman's statement, which is submitted 

 into the record today, which I know you are familiar with, seems to 

 reflect the position that all of the research is over and it is time to 

 close shop. 



Beyond that, information provided to the subcommittee by DOE 

 contractors indicates that DOE support of the Marine Ecosystem 



