312 
appeal, held that sludge could be determined to be “unreasonably 
degrading" only if a balancing analysis demonstrated that the 
harms of ocean dumping outweighed the incremental costs and 
impacts of land-based alternatives. It is noteworthy that 
neither party raised and the court did not consider the require- 
ments of the London Dumping Convention ("LDC"). 
As an interesting footnote to the LDC issue, it is worth 
noting that following a meeting of several Members of this 
Committee (led by Chairman D'Amours) with EPA Administrator 
Gorsuch, at which Ms. Gorsuch was urged to reconsider her 
decision to not appeal the New York City judgment, detailed 
written arguments were prepared by the subcommittee staff and 
conveyed to Ms. Gorsuch by Chairman D'Amours (by letter dated 
December 7, 1981). That letter documented in detail the bases 
for seeking Court of Appeals resolution of unaddressed LDC 
issues, among others. Administrator Gorsuch's December 28th 
response, rejecting the pleas to take an appeal, cryptically 
noted that the "concerns regarding 2 Convention do not 
provide a basis for appeal" because Judge Sofaer's opinion "did 
not address the London Dumping Convention" (which was precisely 
why an appeal was needed). The only explanation offered for 
this circular logic was that the court decision, having not 
addressed the Convention issue, "does not tie the Agency's 
hands with regard to the Convention and leaves EPA with ample 
authority to assure that our legal obligations in this area 
are fulfilled." In other words, EPA wants the "flexibility" to 
construe its obligations under the Convention in its own fashion 
