115 
Mr. JANES. That is my contention; yes, sir. 
Mr. Stupps. You know what bothers me here, obviously, is that 
you keep assuring us, or your draft regulations or your concept 
papers or whatever it is that is in vogue at the moment at EPA, 
that we have enough information, that there is no need for concern 
about these things and yet we have not done the studies on what 
we have done in the past. If we do not know what we have done in 
the past—and you will recall last fall that we found out that you 
did not have the slightest, foggiest, if I may be polite, notion of 
what had been dumped in Massachusetts Bay, you had not even 
talked to the people who dumped it—if we do not even know that, 
how in the world can you assure us that we can proceed with rela- 
tive equanimity and calm to dumping in the future? Maybe logic, 
again, is also out of vogue, but I do not understand how, in the ab- 
sence of sound, scientific research with respect to activities of the 
past one can give such bland assurances with respect to activities 
of the future. It does not sound very scientific to me. 
Mr. JANES. There are two ways of approaching an evaluation of 
what has happened in the past and I do not think I would agree 
with you that for all of the dump sites that we have looked at that 
we do not have good information or reasonable information. 
Mr. Stupps. We do not have any information. 
Mr. JANES. We do have. 
Mr. Stupps. We did not last fall when we started asking the 
questions. You obviously would not have done it if we had not 
pressed you. One wonders what about all the rest of these things. 
I know that my time is up. I trust that the Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency at every level is aware of the fundamental differ- 
ence—a fundamental difference—between land and water. They 
are different elements. We can retrieve mistakes on land but in 
dealing with the ocean there are some mistakes that you can only 
make once. It just seems to me that a good dose of humility might 
be in order at this point before we take off in who knows what di- 
rection with those parts of the ocean that we have not managed yet 
to spoil in our ignorance and arrogance in the past. 
Again, you are all very nice people and you are not in charge, 
which is probably one reason why you are so nice, but someday we 
will have the rest of them here. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. D’Amours. Mr. Hughes? 
Mr. HuGues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Let me pick up where I left off with regard to permits being 
granted for the New York Bight area. 
When did the initial Sofaer decision come down? 
Mr. Scuatzow. In April, the judge—— 
Mr. HuGues. Early April? 
Mr. ScHatzow. Came up with a tentative decision to give the 
parties an opportunity to react to correct his opinion. 
Mr. HuaGues. Early April is your answer. 
In early April, when the decision came down, how many permit 
applications were pending before EPA for dumping in the New 
York Bight? 
Mr. Scuatzow. I am not aware of how many were pending at 
that point. There were, at that time—— 
