398 
tion.” For reasons previously stated herein, such a policy is unwarranted and unrea- 
sonable, and is unsupported by the experience with ocean dumping to date. 
Much the same is true for the proposed requirement of Sec. 104(c)(2)(C), p. 16, that 
the permittee take affirmative steps to develop alternatives to ocean dumping, or 
plans for reducing or eliminating contaminants in the dredged material or for recy- 
cling of the material. Such requirements establish a bias against ocean dumping 
that is unsupported by recent experience, and would impose added costs upon ports 
which would go far beyond protection of the marine environment from “unreason- 
able degradation.” 
The restriction of final site designations to 6 years (Sec. 102(c)(2), p. 10), and the 
limitation of interim permits to 12 months (Sec. 102(c)(2)(A), p. 15), will also serious- 
ly impact needed port operations. Ports will not have the assurance of long term 
usage necessary to allow capital investments in maintenance dredging equipment. 
D. Compliance with the London Dumping Convention.—In Part B above (in the 
discussion of the “trace amounts” issue), the AAPA pointed out the past assertion 
by the National Wildlife Federation that the London Dumping Convention imposes 
independent requirements relating to ocean dumping which override the provisions 
of the MPRSA. The NWF has asserted that where substances listed in Annex I of 
the Convention are present as other than “trace contaminents’”—a determination 
which, under our domestic criteria, is presently made solely on the basis of labora- 
tory tests not used by other countries—the Convention not only prohibits the dispos- 
al at sea, but also prohibits the grant of a “waiver of compliance” under Sec. 103(d). 
This assertion is wrong. The Convention is not self-executing. It requires enabling 
legislation on the part of Contracting Parties. In the case of the United States, the 
enabling legislation is the MPRSA. Sec. 103(d) of this enabling legislation provides, 
in appropriate circumstances, for the grant of a ‘‘waiver” of compliance for the 
ocean dumping of dredged material. The Convention has no independent force and 
effect which would override Sec. 103(d). 
In this Statement, the AAPA urges the Subcommittee to recognize this role of the 
MPRSA in implementing the Convention and to avoid any assertion of conflict be- 
tween the two by deleting the provision of Sec. 102(a) that provides: 
“To the extent that he may do so without relaxing the requirements of this title, 
the Administrator in establishing or revising such criteria, shall apply the stand- 
ards and criteria binding upon the United States under the Convention, including 
its Annexes’; and by inserting in lieu thereof the following provision: “The action of 
the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be, in issuing a permit under 
Sec. 102(a) or Sec. 103(a) of this Title, or in issuing a waiver of compliance under 
Sec. 103(d) of this Title, shall satisfy the standards and criteria binding upon the 
United States under the Convention, including its Annexes.” 
CONCLUSION 
In this Statement, the AAPA has described numerous respects in which amend- 
ments to the MPRSA proposed in the Discussion Draft would have a devastating 
impact upon AAPA member ports. In order to avoid such effects, and with a view to 
implementing much needed changes in the MPRSA, the AAPA has recommended 
specific amendments which would accommodate and satisfy major port concerns. 
The need for these changes has never been more urgent. No less than our National 
interest and world position is at stake. The AAPA asks the Subcommittee to give its 
serious consideration to the recommendations presented herein. 
Mr. BrEAvux. Thank you, Colonel Haar and Mr. Brinson, for your 
presentations. 
I take it, Mr. Brinson, when you start off in your testimony you 
mentioned the corps study that was done, the 5-year dredge materi- 
al research program, something I need to be more aware of myself 
as to what it really concluded. 
You say that one of the conclusions reached during the corps 5 
years of dredged material research was that the environmental im- 
pacts of most disposal operations, especially open water ones, are 
not as severe as had been generally believed. What are some of the 
other conclusions that might have been drawn from that study? 
Mr. BRINSON. We don’t mean to oversimplify the conclusions of 
this very detailed work, Mr. Chairman, but I think on the bottom 
