62 
SECOND, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT EPA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIKELY TO 
PREVAIL ON THE MERITS HAD IT APPEALED THE DECISION- JUDGE SOFAER’S 
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IS A REASONABLE ONE- A CONTRARY 
INTERPRETATION REQUIRES ACKNOWLEDGING AT LEAST THE THEORETICAL 
POSSIBILITY THAT OCEAN DUMPING CAN BE BANNED EVEN WHEN ALTERNATIVE 
SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS POSE AN EVEN GREATER RISK TO HEALTH AND THE 
ENVIRONMENT 
THIRD, JUDGE SOFAER’S DECISION Gives EPA ADDED IMPETUS TO MODIFY 
ITS REGULATIONS WHEN NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ADDITIONAL 
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND THE EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM ADMINISTERING 
THE OCEAN DUMPING PROGRAM. THE AGENCY AGREES WITH THE COURT THAT THE 
1977 AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT WERE NOT INTENDED TO FREEZE EPA’s 
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA- A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE 
WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE AGENCY’S FLEXIBILITY- FOR EXAMPLE, IN 
REVIEWING THE REGULATIONS THE AGENCY IS CONSIDERING REORIENTING OUR 
LABORATORY TESTS, BIOASSAYS AND BIOACCUMULATION PROCEDURES TO BETTER 
REFLECT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN THE OCEAN ENVIRONMENT- IN MANY CASES 
WE WILL BE MAKING OUR TESTS MORE SITE-SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF TARGET 
SPECIES USED AND METHODS USED TO PREDICT CHRONIC EFFECTS- 
WE ARE CONSIDERING SOME SPECIFIC CHANGES IN THE PROPOSED 
REGULATION- FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF USING LABORATORY ANIMALS, WE MAY 
USE SPECIES FROM THE FIELD- WE MAY ALSO USE ALTERNATIVES TO A 
STANDARD APPLICATION FACTOR OF -Ol TIMES THE ACUTE TOXICITY 
