574 
=G= 
statement is not supported by any quantitative information or any 
@irect citations from experts. Unsupported references to "an 
overwhelming consensus among experts" as the basis for such an 
important finding reflects poorly on GAO's traditional attention 
to detail. In any event, the GAO's leap of faith, coupled with 
a lack of documentation, does not contribute to a useful analysis 
of the issues. 
III. Determinations of Hazards From Past Dumping Are Inadequate 
Has the government done an effective job of assessing possible 
dangers from past U.S. dumping of radioactive waste? While the 
Report mentions the efforts of various federal agencies addressing 
this issue, the GAO reaches an independent eonenmsion that "EVI- 
DENCE OVERWHELMINGLY SHOWS PAST U.S. OCEAN DUMPING POSES NEITHER 
AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOR A PUBLIC HEALTH ce fay Wee GAO's analysis 
and review of studies on this point leaves much to be desired. 
As shown herein, very little evidence exists that would enable 
federal officials to provide effective assurances that past dump- 
ing poses no undue hazards to public health and the marine environ- 
ment. Consistent with the recommendations of numerous studies and 
documents cited below, further monitoring is needed before such 
assurances can be given. 
A. Domestic Concerns 
t is difficult to define how much is "enough study” in a case 
involving nuclear waste disposal. Responsibility for environmen- 
tal surveys of ocean nuclear dumping was given to EPA under the 
Sei), Id. at ll (emphasis in original). 
