113 
NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the Corps of Engineers as to what is 
required to adequately manage the program, sir. 
Mr. D’Amours. My time is up. 
Mr. Studds? 
Mr. Stupps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I have never seen Mr. Hughes quite so calm on this subject 
before. Unfortunately, I think that was attributable to the fact that 
you, as I said before, are not the people toward whom his anger is 
most appropriately directed, although one at least or more of you 
were present at the meeting months ago with the administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency in which the people who 
wrote the law in question told her what they meant and she looked 
them straight in the eye and said, “Oh no, you did not.” Sometimes 
I wonder whether the Administrator’s contempt is greater for the 
ocean or for the law, quite frankly. 
Every single person of both parties in this committee who wrote 
the law in question told you that, in the unlikely event you were 
unable to read the legislative history which says precisely the same 
thing as what they meant in writing the law. We were in turn told 
by the administrator of EPA that that was not what the Congress 
meant. 
In this Alice in Wonderland world which has befallen us in the 
last couple of years one wonders which language to turn to, given 
the obvious inadequacy of the English language, in order to convey 
one’s intentions these days. Mr. Hughes might feel a little better if 
somebody said that since he was very close to saying it. 
If I can go back to the Massachusetts Bay question, let me start 
again, Mr. Janes I assume that you are the appropriate person to 
ask this of. If you could state once again and more clearly, what is 
the current status of that monitoring plan? 
Mr. JANES. When we testified last September, we indicated to 
you, to the subcommittee, that we intended to—— 
Mr. Stupps. Could you put the microphone a little closer or 
speak up a little? 
Mr. JANES. When we testified last September before the subcom- 
mittee we indicated that it was our intention to go forward with a 
survey of the principle dump site in Massachusetts Bay. 
Shortly following the hearings there was some side scan sonar 
work done in cooperation with NOAA and we have located some 
targets on the ocean floor to look at. The marketplace sampling 
has been put in place both there and at two other sites and the ini- 
tial samples have been analyzed. The marketplace sampling will be 
repeated again in April. There have been, on various occasions, I 
think, spanning periods from July, September, November, and per- 
haps even later, samples of both biota and fish collected for us by 
NOAA and most of those have been analyzed. 
In all the analyses that we have conducted so far we have seen 
nothing unusual. 
Mr. STUDDs. Were those sites at which the tests were conducted 
chosen randomly? 
Mr. JANES. Which tests? 
Mr. Stupps. From which the samples were taken—the biota? In 
other words, did you identify radioactive waste containers before 
you took the samples? 
