About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

RCED-83-45 1 (1982-12-17)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabmuh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                    UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

                                                     GEC 17 .J
 P ' Am: ES CO \,ALJN1 Ty
L.NL  ~' )tN,' \V  )C V IL DP , jT
                                    .  .. .


       F-2C4946                           ' *,-,.       


       The Honorable Norman E. E'Prours
       Chairm~an, Eui-corinIttee on Cceancqraphy
       Committee cn Merchant Marine and
          Fisheries
      House of Fepresentatives

      Lear Mr. Chairman:

           Subject: Corrments on a Critique of CAC's Padioactive
                      Waste Ccean Dun-ping Feport (C-AC/FCEE-E3-45)

              In your August 2, 19E2, letter you requested that we
       review a criticue of our Cctober 21, 1981, report entitled
       hazards of Past Low-Level Radioactive h4aste Ccean Eumping
       Fave Peer. Overemphasized (EME-82-9). The critique, Fre-
       pared ty Yr. Clifton E. Curtis of the Center for Law and
       Eccial rclicy, disagrees with the overall conclusions
       stated in cur report that concerns over past radioactive
       waste ocean dumping have been overemphasized, and that
       ronitoring past duurpsites is of limited value as an aid to
       developing future ocean-du-ping regulations. The critique
       alsc asserts that our report did not acknowledge pertinent
       evidence and misrepresented other evidence which did not
       supEcrt our conclusions.

            In contrast to our report, the critique concludes that
      rcnitoring existing dumpsites is necessary to effectively
      assure public health and safety and to develop sound future
      ccean-durping regulations.

           Pfter carefully reviewing the evidence in the critique,
      we telieve tie findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
      our earlier report are valid, our presentation of scientific
      studies and oyinion is accurate, and the methodology we used
      is sound. Enclosure I presents our detailed evaluation of
      the issues raised in the critique and the methodology we
      used to make our evaluation. In iaking this evaluation, we
      reviewed the evidence presented in the critique, reexamined
      the information we had gathered during our earlier evaluation,
      and discussed the critique and/or our earlier report with many
      of the scientists we had originally contacted.


                                             1111111111111111 l(301595)


                                                 120388

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most