483 
Mr. LEBuianc. In the presentation that we made for the AAPA, 
we have not tried to focus in on particular port concerns and tried 
to keep the statement general. 
We would have no basis in this testimony to express support for 
the phasing out of the use of the New York Bight, but I think a 
formal position on that statement would better be issued by the 
Port of New York-New Jersey. 
I think that was the reason we did not cover that directly. We do 
have a number of—if it would be appropriate in response to your 
question, a number of other concerns relating to whether we would 
prefer to stay with the current law or go with the discussion drafts 
before the subcommittees. 
If we start from the premise that we see changes that need to be 
made in the discussion draft as well as changes that need to be 
made in the current law, we might add that if the focus would be 
upon retaining the current provisions of the MPRSA, we feel that 
these provisions could be retained perhaps with one I guess rela- 
tively direct and significant amendment, and this would be in a 
certain provision of section 102, and it would relate to the relation- 
ship between the London Dumping Convention and our domestic 
legislation known as the MPRSA. 
The critical problem that ports have experienced under the pres- 
ent provisions of the law have related to the availability of the sec- 
tion 103(d) waiver in a situation where based upon our current test- 
ing requirement the dredged material has been found to contain 
annex | substances as other than trace contaminants. 
A problem arose at the Port of Lake Charles, at the Port of New 
York, and after much travail with the development of the interim 
matrix, pursuant to which the permit was finally granted, but the 
problem went like this. Article 4 of the convention prohibits, abso- 
lutely: prohibits the dumping of certain substances listed in annex 
1. That annex provides some exceptions to the prohibition. One is 
where the annex 1 substances will be rapidly rendered harmless 
upon disposal. Another exception is where they are present only as 
trace contaminants. 
The convention does not specify how countries that are signator- 
ies to the convention need implement the annex 1 prohibition. It 
doesn’t require a test procedure, doesn’t contain numerical limits 
on interpreting test results. 
The problem has risen in the regulations promulgated by the 
EPA under section 102. The critical trace contaminants determina- 
tion is made on the basis of laboratory bioassay and bioaccumula- 
tion test results, under circumstances where you may not even 
know what caused the mortality in the bioassays or the tissue con- 
centrations in the bioaccumulation. 
You presume it must be annex 1 substances and it is a presump- 
tion that can have a devastating effect—— 
Mr. HuGues. The convention seems to be rather clear; trace con- 
taminants mean just that. If in fact you have substantial concen- 
trations of a toxic substance, that would seem to violate both the 
letter and the intent of the accord that we signed as a signatory. 
Mr. LEB.LANc. The convention doesn’t say what is meant by trace 
contaminants. It is in general terms of producing undesirable re- 
