567 
same time, the Department of Energy is advancing a proposal to 
dispose of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soils and 
other radioactive materials remaining from the Manhattan Project 
and nuclear energy ns 
However, the most noticeable reason that EPA has presented in 
recent months in support of the regulatory revisions concerning 
ocean dumping is the conclusion that such dumping will not harm the 
Marine environment or man. This position is anchored in the belief 
that past dumping has been harmless. 
In stating this view, some EFA and other Administration 
officials have referenced the GAO Report to bolster their view 
that the oceans are an appropriate medium for the disposal of 
radioactive waste. A recent example of such a reference occurred 
at the June 16, 1982 hearings before the House Subcommittee on 
Water Resources, when an EPA official cited the GAO Report as 
evidence that a two-year moratorium on ocean dumping of low-level 
radioactive waste was sel ge, THC 
It is in the context of these recent developments in U.S. 
policy concerning ocean dumping of radioactive waste that the 
GAO Report requires rebuttal. To the extent the Report serves 
18/ U.S. Dept. of Energy, Description of the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program, ORO-777 (Sept. 1980). 
19/ Testimony of EPA's Steven Schatzow before the House Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation's Subcommittee on Water Resources, 
June 16, 1982, prepared testimony, page 6. The proposed moratorium 
was the subject of an amendment adopted by the House Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries Committee. As the committee report indicated, it 
was proposed because "[t]he uncertainties associated with radio- 
active waste disposal remain a major concern, and the Committee 
regards additional research as necessary." H.R. Rep. No. 562, 
97th Cong., 2d Sess: 9 (1982). 
