TL: BRIEFING ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING AT SEA SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: JANUARY, 1989 Keywords: ldc ocean dumping nuclear power waste radioactive disposal conferences london uk europe greenpeace gp / GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL THE CONTROVERSY OVER OCEAN DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES: THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION CONTENTS Summary in English................................... P. 2 Resumen en Espa¤ol................................... P. 2 R‚sum‚ en fran‡ais................................... P. 2-3 1. Introduction...................................... P. 4-5 2. The London Dumping Convention..................... P. 6 3. The Moratorium.................................... P. 6-8 4. The Scientific Review............................. P. 8-9 5. Continuation of the Moratorium.................... P. 9-11 6. International Liability........................... P. 11-12 7. Seabed Emplacement of Radioactive Waste........... P. 12-15 8. Disposal of Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Military Vessels.................................. P. 15-18 9. Conclusions....................................... P. 18-20 ANNEX 1: Votes on Radioactive Waste Dumping at Sea by LDC Consultative Meetings (1983-1985).................... P. 21 ANNEX 2: Resolution LDC21(9) adopted by the 9th Consultative Meeting of the LDC (Sept 85)......................... P. 22-24 ANNEX 3: Draft Resolutions on the Disposal into the Seabed of High-Level Radioactive Waste Proposed and Tabled at LDC-8 (Feb 84).................................... P. 25-27 SUMMARY This paper is an overview of the history of radioactive waste dumping at sea, a practice that has been exercised by several industrialised nations since the end of World War II, until it was suspended in 1983 by the adoption of a resolution by the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention (LDC). It provides a review of the political and scientific debate that took place - and still continues - as a result of the proposal made by several LDC Contracting Parties in 1983 at LDC-7 to amend the annexes to the Convention so that all radioactive waste dumping be prohibited. In light of the different views expressed at the meetings held to review the proposal to ban radioactive waste dumping, and in light of information available that indicates that a number of countries are still seriously considering sea-based options for the disposal of their ever-growing production of radioactive wastes, the paper concludes that the Contracting Parties to the LDC should resume their efforts to prevent a resumption of radioactive waste dumping, and adopt the proposal to amend the annexes. RESUMEN EN ESPA¥OL Este documento es un repaso de la historia de los vertidos de residuos radioactivos al mar, practica empleada por varias naciones industrializadas desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, hasta que fuese suspendida en 1983 por la adopci¢n de una resoluci¢n de las Partes Contratantes al Convenio de Londres sobre Vertidos Marinos (LDC). Contiene una descripci¢n del debate politico y cientifico suscitadopor la propuesta, hecha por varias Partes Contratantes alConvenio en 1983 en la Septima Reuni¢n Consultiva, de enmienda a los annexos del Convenio con el fin de que todo vertido radioactivo sea prohibido. Tomando en cuenta los distintos puntos de vista expresados durante las reuniones sostenidas para examinar la propuesta de prohibici¢n de estos vertidos, e informaci¢n disponible que indica que varios paises siguen considerando seriamente opciones marinas para deshacerse de su creciente producci¢n de desechos radioactivos, este documento concluye que las Partes Contratantes al Convenio de Londres deber¡an reanudar sus esfuerzos para impedir la reanudaci¢n de vertidos radioactivos, y adoptar la propuesta de enmienda a los annexos. RESUME EN FRAN€AIS Ce document est un aper‡u de l'histoire des immersions de d‚chets radioactifs en mer, pratique exerc‚e par plusieurs nations industrialis‚es depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, jusqu'… sa suspension en 1983 par l'adoption d'une r‚solution des Parties Contractantes … la Convention de Londres (LDC). Il contient une description du d‚bat politique et scientifique suscit‚ par la proposition de plusieurs Parties Contractantes pr‚sent‚e au cours de la SeptiŠme R‚union Consultative en 1983, d'amender les annexes de la Convention afin que toute immersion de d‚chets radioactifs soit interdite. Tenant compte des diff‚rents points de vue exprim‚s au cours des r‚unions tenues pour examiner la proposition d'interdiction de ces immersions, et des informations disponibles qui indiquent que plusieurs pays continuent … considerer s‚rieusement des options marines pour le d‚versement de leur production croissante de d‚chets radioactifs, ce document conclue que les Parties Contractantes … la Convention de Londres devraient reprendre leurs efforts pour emp‚cher la reprise des immersions de d‚chets radioactifs, et adopter la proposition d'amendement des annexes. 1. INTRODUCTION It is virtually impossible to make an accurate estimation of the amount of radioactive wastes dumped into the marine environment since World War II. The United States alone, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), during this period dumped 75,000 barrels containing 60,000 curies of radioactivity in several Atlantic and Pacific Ocean sites. A curie is the equivalent of the radioactivity available in one gram of radium. But the United States are thought to have dumped much larger amounts of radioactive waste from aircraft and ships, including at least one nuclear reactor with a total radioactivity of 33,000 curies, at over fifty marine sites. In 1970, the Council for Environmental Quality in the US published a report which concluded that the practice of sea- disposal of radioactive wastes was a serious and growing threat to the marine environment. It advised Congress to forbid the disposal of highly radioactive waste and to allow only the rare and exceptional disposal of low and intermediate level material. As a result, commercial interests investigated alternative waste management options. Since 1970 such material has been stored at a variety of sites on land. However, the problems associated with the management of a growing inventory of radioactive waste has not only confronted the United States. Between 1949 and 1966, the United Kingdom disposed of an estimated 45,000 curies of radioactivity in a variety of Atlantic Ocean sites, primarily in the Bay of Biscay and in the Hurd Deep, a mere 20 miles North of Guernsey, one of the Channel Islands. In 1960, France announced its intention to dump 6,500 barrels of radioactive waste in the Mediterranean. This plan was forced to be abandoned following protests by the City Council of Nice and Prince Reinier of Monaco, among others. To avoid protests from areas concerned about the impact on the tourist industry, France disposed of its waste in the Atlantic where the marine environment had no champion. The Law of the Sea Conference in 1958 gave a mandate to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to submit recommendations with respect to the sea-dumping of radioactive wastes. Two years later, the "Brynielson report" was published, embodying the findings of the study which encompassed such issues as the method of packaging of the waste, and the choice of dump- sites. The publication of the report came at a time when countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, for example, were contracting passenger liners en route to the USA to dispose of their waste in unknown quantities at undefined sites in the vicinity of the Azores. In the mid'60's, member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) decided that dumping operations needed to be regulated, and that more cooperation and oversight was required. The OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was appointed as the secretariat to coordinate radioactive waste dumping operations. In 1967, a 4000 meters deep area in the Atlantic Ocean, 700 kilometers off the Northwest of the Spanish coast was designated as the European dump-site. Eight countries, under the supervision of the NEA, carried out a total of twenty six dumping operations at this site between the years 1967 and 1981. This represented 85,000 tonnes of waste containing 900,000 curies of radioactivity. In 1974, France, Italy, West Germany and Sweden withdrew from the operation, opting for the more environmentally acceptable option of land storage for waste products. This left Belgium, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Switzerland to continue the calculated pollution of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1979, both Japanand the USA announced their intention to initiate new programmes of radioactive waste dumping into the ocean. Japan plans to dump up to 100,000 curies per year of low level waste into a Pacific ocean site 600 miles north of the Northern Marianas. The US considered a plan to scuttle ageing nuclear submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. As many as 100 submarines would be involved in this dumping programme, each representing 50,000 curies of radioactive wastes. The US Environmental Protection Agency formulated new regulations that would permit a resumption of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes, including decommissioned nuclear submarines. At the same time, the US Department of Energy (DOE) advanced a proposal to dispose of thousands of cubic yards of radioactively contaminated soils and other materials remaining from weapons and nuclear energy programmes that date back to the 1940's. These proposals were met with huge opposition especially in the Pacific. Early in 1982 twenty two Pacific island nations signed a document formally protesting these plans at a meeting of the South Pacific Forum in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands. Despite this worldwide opposition, expressed by scientists, governments, trade unions, environmental organisations and local councils in numerous countries the biggest dumping operation in history was carried out in 1982. Four ships were involved in dumping over 10,000 tonnes of radioactive waste in the European dump-site, representing nearly 130,000 curies of radioactivity. Alarmed by this development, several European countries decided to take their case to the 1972 London Dumping Convention, and to join forces with nations in the Pacific area to oppose the continued dumping of ever increasing amounts of nuclear wastes in the world's oceans. 2. THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION "Recognizing that the marine environment and the living organisms which it supports are of vital importance to humanity, and all people have an interest in assuring that it is so managed that its quality and resources are not impaired". (Preamble of the 1972 London Dumping Convention) In 1972 representatives from eighty countries met in London in order to establish a convention to regulate the pollution of the oceans resulting from dumping. This conference resulted in the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters, known as the London Dumping Convention (LDC). The Contracting Parties agreed "that the capacity of the sea to assimilate wastes and render them harmless, and its ability to regenerate natural resources, is not unlimited". Also, that all possible actions should be taken "to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human health, and to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea". The Convention contains two annexes: Annex One, the so-called "black list", details those materials which may not be disposed of at sea under any circumstances (except in case of emergency). Annex Two, or the so-called "grey list" contains substances which require special permits prior to dumping. Radioactive waste is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and under the current definition only the dumping of highly radioactive waste is prohibited. In order to comply with the LDC national authorities of those nations who are Contracting Parties to the Convention, wishing to dispose of radioactive waste, are required to issue a licence to dump. However, such permits can only be issued when compliance with Annex Three of the Convention is achieved. That is, inter alia, that the dumping can be justified "when weighed against landbased alternatives", including the calculated dose of radioactivity to human populations. The spirit and intentions of the LDC make it clear that landbased waste management options are prefered to sea dumping, especially when damage to the marine environment is evidenced. 3. THE MORATORIUM At the 7th Consultative meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention (LDC-7), which was held in February 1983, two proposals were submitted calling for an amendment to the Annexes to the Convention such as to prohibit all nuclear waste dumping at sea: A proposal for an immediate ban, presented by two Pacific Island states - Nauru and Kiribati; And a proposal for a ban as of January 1st, 1990, presented by the five Nordic states - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Both proposals call for amending the Annexes such that all radioactive matter, regardless of the levels of radioactivity (low, intermediate and high) be placed on Annex 1, the so-called "black list". The amendment proposed by Nauru and Kiribati was supported by a 200 page scientific study outlining the major arguments against the continuation of radioactive waste dumping. The Nordic "phase out" proposal contained recommendations concerning the programme to be implemented during the period until 1990: it called on non-dumping states to refrain from initiating this practice during the transitional period, and on dumping nations not to exceed the yearly levels corresponding to the average amount having been dumped during the period 1980- 1982. Both proposals were tabled to allow passage of a resolution presented by Spain, calling for a moratorium on dumping, pending the outcome of a review of all technical and scientific considerations relevant to the amendment proposals put forward by Nauru, Kiribati and the five Nordic states. After a hectic debate, the Spanish resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of 19 countries in favour, 6 against, and 5 abstentions. The six nations opposing the Spanish resolution included the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Switzerland, all engaged in sea- dumping operations, and Japan and the USA, both considering to start dumping. Directly after the vote, the UK, responsible for about 90 % of the nuclear waste disposed at sea, decided to ignore the LDC's decision. A 500,000 Pounds Sterling project to convert the vessel "Atlantic Fisher" for the 1983 annual dumping operation was approved and the UK government announced its intention to dump over 5,000 barrels of waste, containing nearly 150,000 curies of radioactivity. A further 50 % increase compared to 1982. Mass demonstrations took place in Northern Spain in the summer of 1983 against the planned British dumping operation. The Spanish government announced a plan to send a protest vessel, manned with officials, to the Atlantic dumpsite. At the initiative of the British National Union of Seamen, the five major transportation unions in the UK decided to call upon their members not to handle any nuclear waste destined for sea- dumping. This boycott was supported by the International Transport Unions Federation (ITF) representing over 300 unions in 65 countries. Hamstrung by this massive opposition the UK government was forced to abandon its dumping programme, and to abide by the LDC's decision to institute a moratorium on radioactive waste dumping, turning 1983 into the first year since World War II that no nuclear waste was dumped anywhere in the world's oceans. Since then, no other nuclear dumping operation has taken place. 4. THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW At LDC-8, held in February 1984, the Contracting Parties agreed on the terms of reference and the procedure of the scientific review called for in the Spanish resolution adopted by the LDC the year before. A Panel of Experts selected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) was charged with the task of drafting a report which could be discussed and finalized at a meeting of the Expert Panel with experts from LDC-member states, the "Expanded Panel". The overall objective of the review was to produce a report: "presentinga thorough and objective assessment of the impact of past ocean dumping of radioactive waste and the impact that any future dumping may have on man and the marine environment. The assessment should cover all scientific issues and questions that are judged pertinent to an adequate assessment. Overall conclusions should be drawn concerning the scientific basis of proposals for amending the Convention to prohibit ocean dumping of low-level radioactive wastes." The Expert Panel under the chairmanship of Dr. Beninson from Argentina, Chairman of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), met twice at IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, in late 1984 and early 1985. The Meeting of the Expanded Panel of Experts was then held in London in June, 1985. The Panel's report, submitted to the expanded meeting in London attempted to estimate the health impact of sea-dumping operations. Based on oceanographic models, they calculated a collective detriment of a thousand severe cases of cancer over the next 10,000 years resulting from past dumping operations in the Northeast Atlantic European dump site alone. Furthermore, based on the average amounts dumped in the past, the Panel estimated that for each year that dumping is continued, the detriment would be an extra 100 cancer deaths over the next 10,000 years per year of dumping. Moreover, it should be noted that these figures might be underestimated by a considerable factor given the fact that many uncertainties exist in relation to the model and the effects of low-level radiation. Most of the cancers will occur outside the dumping nations, clearly demonstrating the fundamental issue at stake - the distribution of costs and benefits. If they are allowed to dump radioactive waste into the oceans, the nuclear nations will be able to export the major cost of their activities to other countries while retaining the "benefits" of nuclear power for themselves. The Panel concluded, with the exception of Dr Hsu from Switzerland, that there are "no scientific grounds to treat dumping differently from other options for waste disposal applying international standards of radiation protection". However, the Expanded Panel could not reach consensus. Consequently there was no firm advice from the experts on whether or not the amendment proposals submitted by Nauru, Kiribati and the five Nordic states are based on sufficient scientific grounds. 5. CONTINUATION OF THE MORATORIUM Once again the Contracting Parties attending LDC-9, held in September 1985, were faced with the question whether to ban sea dumping of radioactive wastes, continue the moratorium adopted at LDC-7, or support the resumption of dumping. The respective views of delegations with regard to the work of the original and expanded Panels of Experts were discussed at length during LDC-9. In addition during the first three days of that meeting, informal working groups convened in an effort to test support for the various positions. While there appeared to be growing support for amending the Convention's annexes to ban radioactive waste dumping, the two- thirds majority required was still uncertain. Moreover, several delegations expressed the view that a continued moratorium would be preferable to pressing for a formal amendment, given the continued questions surrounding sea-dumping. Following several unsuccessful efforts to adopt a less stringent moratorium resolution - either through deletion of various proposed studies and assessments, or by setting a moratorium end- date (such as the 11 month period proposed by the USA or the three year period proposed by the FRG) - an indefinite moratorium resolution was adopted. This Spanish-sponsored resolution was adopted by a vote of 25 nations in favour, 6 against, and 7 abstentions (1). The moratorium resolution calls for the completion of four sets of studies and assessments. These cover the "political, legal, economic and social aspects of radioactive waste dumping at sea", and serve as conditions preceeding further action of the LDC, while also requesting that two other initiatives be undertaken in relation to a liability assessment and a global inventory of radioactive waste from all sources entering the marine environment. Moreover, the resolution requires that "...studies and assessments examine the question of whether it can be proven that any dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea will not harm human life and/or cause significant damage to the marine environment". This paragraph effectively puts the burden of proof on the nations intending to dump their radioactive wastes into the oceans to demonstrate that such operations will not cause any harm, and sets an important precedent in international environmental legislation. LDC-10, held in October 1986, adopted a resolution setting up an inter-governmental panel and established a mechanism for the continued review of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes. The panel is requested to consider: - The "wider political, legal, economic and social aspects" of radioactive waste dumping at sea; - The issue of comparative land-based options and the costs and risks associated with these options; - The question whether it can be proven that any dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea will not harm human life and/or cause significant damage to the marine environment." A first meeting of the "Intergovernmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea" was held at the headquarters of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London in October 1987. It was followed by a second meeting held in September 1988, the week before LDC-11. The Panel is scheduled to meet again to discuss Political, Social, Legal and Economic aspects of radioactive waste disposal at sea in October 1989, and in the course of 1990 to discuss Scientific and Technical aspects. ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Shortly after LDC-9, the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the Contracting Parties by letter that the Canadian delegation had made a mistake by not supporting the moratorium, changing the outcome of the vote into 26 in favour, 5 against, and 7 abstentions. The delay in resuming debates on scientific and technical aspects is due to the fact that the Panel has referred, to the IAEA and GESAMP (1) parts of the tasks it was asked by the Contracting Parties to complete. This strategy has been criticized because the role of the IAEA is not limited to controlling and monitoring nuclear activities but also promoting the use of nuclear energy, especially in the Third World. At the second meeting of the Panel, in October 1988, the Convention's Secretariat and the Chairman of one of the two Working Groups,Mr. Dominique De Stoop from Australia, reaffirmed the view that the present moratorium is indefinite and does not require periodic review. This reaffirmation is useful in light of the fact that a number of countries would like very much to see the Contracting Parties agree to an end-date as soon as possible. The United States, for example, came to LDC-11 with instructions to press for a termination of the Panel's work by 1990. Such an approach is unscientific and irrational, as it precludes the outcome of the work remaining on the Panel's agenda. Participation at the meetings of the Inter-governmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea is restricted. International Non-Governmental Organizations are not allowed to participate, nor attend those meetings. In addition many Contracting Parties that should participate have not, so far, sent delegates to the meetings: at the last Panel meeting in October 1988, only twenty six countries were represented, out of the sixty two LDC Contracting Parties. Another issue relevant to the future of the moratorium on radioactive waste dumping at sea, international liability, also deserves serious attention from the Contracting Parties. 6. INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY Resolution LDC.21(9) adopted in 1985 to establish the indefinite moratorium "calls upon Contracting Parties to develop as envisaged in Article X (of the Convention) procedures for the assessment of liability in accordance with the principles of international law regarding State responsibility for damage to the environment resulting from dumping" (Paragraph 7 of the resolution). Article X of the LDC expressly mandates the Contracting Parties to develop the details of a liability regime pertaining to wastes dumped at sea: "In accordance with the principles of international law regarding State responsibility for damage to the environment of other States or to any other area of the environment caused by dumping _________________________________________________________________ (1)Group of Experts for the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, formed in 1969 by IMCO,FAO,IAEA,UNESCO,WHO and the UN Secretariat. of wastes and other matter of all kinds, the Contracting Parties undertake to develop procedures for the assessment of liability and the settlement of disputes regarding dumping." Between 1972 (when the LDC Convention was drafted) and 1985(when resolution LDC.21(9) was adopted) no further consideration had been given to the issue of State responsibility, liability and compensation. Nevertheless Article X contains a clear commitment by all those who have ratified the Convention. However, the wording of the 1985 resolution is unclear as to whether a liability regime should be in place before the moratorium can be lifted, and radioactive waste dumping operations resumed. Some countries such as, notably, Spain consider that no dumping operation may be carried out before the obligation contained in Article X has been fulfilled (1). Others do not share this opinion. The third meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Legal Experts on Dumping (19-22 October 1987) failed to clarify the issue and reported to LDC-11 the discrepancy of opinions expressed at their meeting. Athough the issue of liability was placed as a specific agenda item for LDC-11, very little progress could be made. A Task Team of legal experts was appointed to examine the existing literature on the subject and later report to the Contracting Parties. Like several Contracting Parties, Greenpeace International and other International Non-Governmental Organizations are of the opinion that the least the contracting Parties should do is to insure that the obligation contained in Article X to develop a liability regime is fulfilled (2). This should be prior to considering some countries' intention to resume radioactive waste dumping and after the Panel of Experts concludes its task (and assuming that the Panel does not clearly recommend that dumping be prohibited). 7. SEABED EMPLACEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE Emplacementof highly radioactive waste into the seabed is still being considered by a number of countries who coordinate their research within the Seabed Working Group (SWG) of the OECD's ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) See: "International Liability for Damage resulting from the Dumping of Radioactive Wastes at Sea: Paragraph 7 of Resolution LDC.21(9)" by Jos‚ Juste Ruiz, Professor of International Law, University of Valencia - Document submitted by Spain to the First Meeting of the Inter-governmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea (Doc LDC/IGPRAD 1/3/18). (2) For a thorough consideration of Greenpeace's position on this issue, see: "International Liability for Damage resulting from the Dumping of Radioactive Wastes at Sea" prepared for Greenpeace International by Professor R. Michael M'Gonigle, M.Sc., J.S.D., distributed at LDC-11 (Doc LDC 11/INF.20). Available from Greenpeace International upon request. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), despite the concerns expressed by the vast majority of LDC Contracting Parties. And plans are being considered in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to use this option in different forms to dispose of low and intermediate radioactive waste. Seabed emplacement of highly radioactive waste is presently envisaged in the North East Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean. But the countries who are studying this option have notprovided proper information to the neighbouring nations who would carry the cost of the likely environmental and economic consequences of this method if it was implemented. Given the fact that the dumping of low and intermediate level radioactive waste has been suspended by the LDC Moratorium resolutions of 1983 and 1985, and that high level radioactive wastes are listed on annex 1 of the LDC, Greenpeace believes that no seabed emplacement of any radioactive waste should take place at present.But the enormous financial effort, displayed by those considering the implementation of this method of wastedisposal, should be a warning for the Contracting Parties of the fact that - despite their past efforts - the question of radioactive waste dumping at sea is not yet resolved. Seabed emplacement confirms fears that dumping of low-level radioactive wastes is only the first step to massive dumping of all types of nuclear wastes, including high-level wastes, reprocessing wastes, decommissioned nuclear power stations and dismantled nuclear submarines. The nations researching this option since the mid 1970s have been careful over the years to keep seabed emplacement outside the LDC forum for political reasons. The LDC, as written, prohibits "disposal at sea" of high-level waste. Does disposal at sea refer to the final resting place of the wastes, or does it refer to the place where the disposal activities occur ? In 1983 at the 7th Consultative Meeting of the LDC Contracting Parties (LDC-7) the delegates from Norway and Finland addressed the issue. A resolution was adopted calling for a special meeting of legal experts to report to the Contracting Parties whether or not seabed emplacement is covered by the LDC. This Legal Experts Meeting was held in December 1983, but no consensus was reached. It was up to the participants to the 1984 meeting of Contracting Parties (LDC-8) to discuss the issue further. After a long and hectic debate at LDC-8, two basic points were agreed upon: a. the Consultative Meeting of the LDC Contracting Parties is the appropriate international forum to address the question of the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes into the seabed. Including the question of the compatibility of this type of disposal with the provisions of the LDC; b. no such disposal should take place unless and until it is proven to be technically feasible and environmentally acceptable, including a determination that such waste can be effectively isolated from the marine environment, and a regulatory mechanism is elaborated in accordance with the provisions of the LDC to govern the disposal into the seabed of such radioactive wastes. Beyond this basic agreement, two principal blocks expressed notably different views on the legality issue: The dominant coalition of nations - a large majority of those who stated a position - argued that high-level waste disposal is covered by the LDC and prohibited. While the express language of the LDC may be unclear, those nations agreed that protection of the marine environment under the LDC requires an interpretation that views seabed disposal as "disposal at sea". This view was expressed in a draft resolution sponsored by 17 nations, joined by eight more at LDC-9. France, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK and the USA submitted a draft resolution which took the position that seabed disposal is not covered by the LDC, as now written. Therefore it is not prohibited. All these nations are actively involved in the research effort. Since a number of delegations were concerned about forcing the legality issue to a formal vote, particularly given the high tensions that were experienced at the 1983 meeting in relation to the moratorium resolution on low level wastes, no vote was called. But instead both resolutions were attached to the final report of LDC-8 and tabled. At LDC-11 in October 1988, the Irish delegation reopened the debate on seabed emplacement in light of the UK's present plan to develop a programme of seabed emplacement for low and intermediate wastes in coastal areas into repositories either accessed from the sea (via a platform), or accessed from the shore (via a tunnel). While clarification on the legal status of the tunnel option - that may circumvent LDC regulations - is needed, platforms clearly enter the scope of the LDC. According to the Convention: "dumping" means any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea, and "sea" means all marine waters other than internal waters. As a result of the Irish intervention at LDC-11, the Contracting Parties adopted the suggestion of the Chairman that the matter of seabed emplacement be reconsidered at LDC-12, in October 1989 (1), as well as the question of the disposal of decommisioned nuclear-powered vessels, also raised by the Irish delegation. Thus, in October 1989 LDC-12 will constitute a new opportunity ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Ref. Paragraph 7.34 on page 47 of the Report of the Eleventh consultative Meeting (Doc. LDC11/14). for the Contracting Parties to undertake appropriate actionand prevent - in light of the hazards it represents for the environment and human health (1) - a minority of nations from disposing of radioactive wastes into the seabed. 8. DISPOSAL OF DECOMMISSIONED NUCLEAR-POWERED MILITARY VESSELS Together with their legitimate concern over seabed emplacement, the Irish delegation also expressed at LDC-11 their concern over recent reports indicating that the UK is considering dumping at sea decommissioned nuclear submarines in the 1990s. It was also agreed that this matter would be referred to LDC-12 in October 1989. The issue of disposal of decommissioned nuclear reactors (both civil and military) is certainly going to become in the 1990s and beyond the most crucial issue for nuclear nations. Many informed sources have expressed their belief that it is this unresolved question - rather than the current issue of low and intermediate radioactive waste - that motivates countries such as the US, the UK or France to oppose so strongly the LDC when it takes action to prevent radioactive waste dumping. The US Navy gives a nominal lifetime of a nuclear powered vessel of 25 years, although it is studying the possibility of extending this to 30 years (2). Assuming the four other major nuclear navies of the UK, USSR, France and China have similar lifetime expectations, then over the next 25-30 years the world will have to dispose of approximately 544 nuclear-powered vessels. It is the announcement by the US of their plan to dump decommissioned nuclear submarines in the Pacific that - together with the Japanese planned radioactive waste dumping operation - motivated small South Pacific nations to raise their voices in the early 1980s and ask the LDC to prohibit radioactive waste dumping. In addition to the increase in numbers of nuclear powered vessels, in the five nuclear nations, the future problems of decommissioning will increase because nuclear propulsion is likely to spread to more countries. The Soviet Union has leased one of its nuclear powered submarines to India. In addition other countries have expressed an interest in building or acquiring nuclear submarines. The first British nuclear powered submarine, the "Dreadnought" came out of service in 1982 and is at present berthed in a naval dockyard in Scotland, awaiting a decision on its final form of ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) See: "Seabed Emplacement of Radioactive Wastes" by Greenpeace International, Briefing Document for the 11th Consultative Meeting of the LDC, Oct 88. Available from Greenpeace International upon request.Updated version to be releasedFeb 89. (2) "Hearing before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives, Disposal of Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines", Serial 97-47, Oct 19,1982,US Govt Printing Office, Page 15. disposal. A further nine British nuclear submarines are planned to come out of service by the year 2000 (1). British Ministry of Defence officials told the Commons Select Committee on Defence in March 1988 that no indication could be given of when a decision will be reached on which method to choose for disposal (2), but recent reports point to a preference for sinking nuclear submarines in the Atlantic (3). When they are decommissioned submarines will have their uranium fuel removed from their nuclear reactors. However, when the reactors are in operation, the nuclear fission process creates radioactivity. There are essentially two forms of radioactivity that remain after the fuel is removed. First, the material that the reactor is made of is very highly corrosion resistant but a slight amount of corrosion does occur due to the high temperatures inside. These corroded metal particles pass through the reactor, become radioactive and adhere tightly to the coolant piping surface in the sealed primary coolant system. Secondly, the high radiation present during the fission process means that there is neutron bombardment of the thick, heavy steel reactor vessel. As a result some of the elements in the steel become "activated" (neutron emitters) but remain structurally part of the steel. Cobalt 60, Iron 55 and Nickel 63 are the principal radionuclides. These are beta/gamma emitters. The predominant radioactive isotope present in the de-fuelled reactor plant is Cobalt 60 which looses half its radioactivity every 5.3 years. Other typical isotopes present in lesser amounts are Iron 55, Nickel 63, Cobalt 58, Chromium 51, Manganese 54, Iron 59 and Nickel 59. US and UK submarines are propelled by a pressurized water reactor (PWR). Concern has been expressed in connection with land based PWRs about the presence of considerable quantities of Nobium 94 and Nickel 59 in significant quantities. These have long half lives of 20,300 and 80,000 years respectively. They would therefore continue to produce substantial amounts of radiation long after the containment of the reactor compartment and submarine hull had corroded on the sea bed (4). When nuclear submarines programmes were initiated, little thought went into how to deal with them once they reached the end of ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "Areas Around Nuclear Facilities should be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies, GAO Report to US Congress, page 46. (2) "Fears over Nuclear Submarine Disposal", The Times, March 31st 1988. (3) Glasgow Herald, 9th Feb 1988, and "MoD seeks resting place for old Reactors", The Guardian, 3rd Oct 1987. (4) C. Norman, "Isotopes, the Nuclear Industry Overlook", Science 215, 1982, page 377. their life. The British Royal Navy decided to acquire nuclear propulsion and the major consideration was to build a reliable unit which operate for a large number of years. In the words of Mr. J. Peters, Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Navy: "There were quite enough problems to contemplate at that time without thinking too much about what on earth we should do with it when we were finished with it"(1). The US Navy's development of nuclear propulsion predates that of the UK, yet it wasn't until "about 1978" that the first work was begun when "the US Navy recognised that we were moving into a time when nuclear submarines were beginning to be decommissioned, and it was time having been responsible for building them, to face up to the question of how to get rid of them"(2). Very little or no information is available on decommissioning plans by other nuclear countries, such as the USSR, France or China. At the IAEA's International Symposium on Management of Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Wastes held in Stockholm in May 1988, Mr. Leonid Chamjanov, an official from the USSR State Committee for the Utilization of Atomic Energy, said: "Solid waste is not now a problem, but it may become one once we embark on a decommissioning program. We are trying to assess the situation and make the necessary arrangements. Decontamination and cutting into scrap will be difficult work and will produce much more contaminated material"(3). LDC-12 in October 1989 constitutes a unique opportunity for the LDC Contracting Parties to take appropriate action to exercise their right to decide whether decommissioned nuclear-powered military vessels may or may not be dumped on the ocean's floor. And prevent that the international community pays yet another cost of the nuclear arms race. There is no question that the LDC is the appropriate international forum to discuss this question: According to Article III sub 1, "dumping" means (I) "any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea", or (II) "any deliberate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures". As far as the military nature of the operation, it is true that Article VII sub 4 states that the Convention shall not apply to those vessels and aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity under international law, but it adds that "each party shall ensure by ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "Third Report of the Defence Committee on the Progress of the Trident Programme", HMSO 11th May 1988, House of Commons, UK. (2) "Hearing before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives, Disposal of Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines", Serial 97-47, Oct 19th 1982, US Govt Printing Office, pages 15-17. (3) Nucleonics Week, May 19th, 1988. the adoption of appropriate measures that such vessels and aircraft owned or operated by it act in a manner consistent with the object and purpose of this Convention, and shall inform the organization accordingly". Furthermore, at LDC-11 the Argentine delegation rightly made the point that once it is decommissioned, a military vessel looses automatically its military function, and therefore its sovereign immunity. LDC Contracting Parties at their next Consultative Meeting in October 1989 should: - REAFFIRM that the LDC is the appropriate body to regulate disposal at sea of decommissioned nuclear reactors; - RECALL that disposal of decommissioned nuclear reactors is covered by the present moratorium on radioactive waste dumping at sea, and therefore cannot be carried out until further notice; - REQUEST all Contracting Parties to provide the IMO Secretariat with complete information with regard to their plans or studies on the disposal of decommissioned (civil and military) reactors, including comparative analysis of land-based and sea disposal options, and an inventory of future decommissioning needs; - CALL UPON all Contracting Parties to refrain from developing sea disposal options arising from decommissioning without having previously sought and received the advice of the LDC Consultative Meeting. 9. CONCLUSIONS The production of radioactive wastes is an unavoidable consequence of the use of nuclear energy. During the reprocessing of irradiated fuel elements, unused uranium and plutonium are recovered for further use. The fission products, together with remaining actinides, some residual uranium and plutonium, and some activation products are segregated as high level waste. At present this waste is stored as a liquid in suitable containment vessels. Although such storage is possible for relatively short time scales (decades), a long-term alternative has yet to be found. Many Governments of nations possessing a civil nuclear power programme consider the development of permanent disposal options for nuclear waste to be an objective of the highest priority. The reasons for the urgency include not only the need to overcome the problem of waste accumulation within engineered storage facilities, but also the intense public opposition experienced by some Governments to attempts to store or dispose of waste in land-based facilities. Many Governments of highly industrialized nations therefore seriously consider the oceans as convenient disposal sites for inconvenient wastes. Despite opposition expressed by a vast majority of LDC member- states seabed emplacement of highly radioactive wastes, seaburial of low and intermediate radioactive wastes and ocean disposal of waste arising from decommissioning nuclear power plants and nuclear powered submarines is actively researched and constitutes a serious threat to the marine environment. Comparative analysis has shown that of the three imaginable radioactive waste repositories - space, land, and sea - the latter is the worst thinkable place on at least five grounds. FIRST and foremost, the oceans are a living, interconnected environment that can return radioactive wastes to humans via the ocean's food chain. The objective of radioactive waste management should be to contain the wastes so that they are isolated from the biosphere instead of diluting and dispersing them in the environment, which is the case with ocean dumping. SECOND, the ocean is a formidable environment. Pressures and temperatures reach planetary extremes in the seas and the corrosive powers of ocean waters are legendary. The ocean is the most destructive environment for placement of radioactive waste containers. THIRD, although rapid strides have been made in the last two decades, the oceans are still relatively unknown. New discoveries are made on an almost annual basis. Scientific opinion on the capacity of the seas to absorb wastes is in constant and rapid flux, with the emergent pattern in constant revision. FOURTH, the oceans represent a global "commons" for the benefit of all people and their descendants. It is fundamentally unfair for a minority of the planet's population to disproportionately damage this resource and thus deprive a vast majority - including literally hundreds of future generations - of their birth rights. FIFTH, this moral principle is codified in international law, which places the burden of proof on those who would damage the global commons rather than on those who stand to suffer from the damage. DUMPING INTO THE OCEAN IS AN IRREVERSIBLE PRACTICE. Barrels lying 4000 meters beneath the surface are not only out of sight, but also out of reach. Sea dumping of radioactiove wastes can have serious implications for public health and for the environment. Once polluted by radioactivity the sea cannot be decontaminated. These wastes MUST NOT and NEED NOT be dumped at sea. Alternative methods of disposal do exist, such as storage on land. To reduce the quantities of wastes produced however, remains the most sensible way of avoiding dumping at sea. In any case, to prohibit sea dumping would constitute the best incentive to force the industry to look for true solutions to its waste management problem. Greenpeace welcomes the steps already taken by the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention to prevent the resumption of sea dumping of radioactive wastes, and urge them to ban this practice by supporting the proposed amendment to the Annexes submitted by Nauru and Kiribati. ANNEX 1 VOTES ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING AT SEA BY LDC CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS (1983-1985) _________________________________________________________________ 1983 LLW 1984 LEGALITY OF 1985 LLW MORATORIUM HLW SEABED EMPLACEMENT MORATORIUM _________________________________________________________________ In Favor (19) Nordic Res. Sponsors (25) In Favor (26) Argentina Argentina Australia Canada Brazil Brazil Chile Canada Canada Denmark Chile Chile Finland Cuba Cuba Iceland Denmark Denmark Ireland Dominican Republic Dominican Rep Kiribati Finland Finland Mexico Federal Rep of Germany FRG Morocco Kiribati Haiti Nauru Iceland Honduras New Zealand Ireland Iceland Nigeria Kiribati Ireland Norway Mexico Kiribati Papua New Guinea Nauru Mexico Philippines New Zealand Nauru Portugal Norway Netherlands Spain Panama New Zealand Sweden Poland Norway Portugal Oman Spain Panama StLucia Papua New G. Sweden Philippines Yugoslavia St Lucia Zaire Spain Sweden ________________________________________________________________ Against (6) US Res. Sponsors (6) Against (5) Japan France France Netherlands Japan South Africa South Africa Netherlands Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland UK UK UK USA USA USA _________________________________________________________________ Abstaining(5) Abstaining(7) Brazil Argentina Federal Rep of Germany Belgium France Greece Greece Italy USSR Japan Portugal USSR ANNEX 2 RESOLUTION LDC.21(9) ADOPTED BY THE NINTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF THE LDC (SEPTEMBER, 1985) INDEFINITE MORATORIUM ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING Submitted by Spain, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Haiti, Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Saint Lucia and Sweden THE NINTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING, RECOGNIZING that the marine environment and the living resources of the sea are of vital importance to all nations and that the objective of the London Dumping Convention is to prevent the pollution of the seas by dumping, CONSIDERING that the Convention should continue to provide an effective global forum for the Contracting Parties ,in which to pool the advances of science and technology in their effort to combat marine pollution, TAKING NOTE of the increasing concern of a growing body of public opinion, and in particular among the populations living near present or potential dumping sites, with regard to the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea, RECOGNIZING that dumping of radioactive wastes at sea may adversely affect the environment of other nations and of regions located beyond the limits of national jurisdiction in contravention with Principle 21 of the UN Declaration on the Human Environment adopted in Stockholm in June 1972, RECOGNIZING that, under Article 1 of the Convention, Contracting Parties have pledged themselves specially to take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of the seas by the dumping of wastes and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, RECALLING that the Seventh Consultative Meeting in February 1983 adopted Resolution 14(7) which called for the suspension of all dumping at sea of radioactive materials pending the presentation to the Contracting Parties of the final report of an expert meeting on radioactive matters related to the London Dumping Convention, RECOGNIZING that the practice of dumping radioactive wastes at sea has been limited to a few States which have halted such dumping since the adoption of resolution LDC.14(7) of February 1983, NOTING the findings of the Expert Panel on the Disposal at Sea of Radioactive Wastes contained in document LDC 9/4, Annex 2, and expressing its appreciation to the experts involved in the preparation of this report, NOTING that the Expanded Panel of Experts recognizes deficiencies in scientific information that need to be resolved for a rigorous and precise assessment of the consequences of sea dumping of radioactive wastes, ACCEPTING that, as noted by the Expert Panel, in the comparison between options, social, economic, scientific and technological factors are difficult to quantify on a common basis, especially where the social factors have international dimensions; and that, as also noted by the Expert Panel, in the final analysis social and related factors may outweigh those of a purely scientific and technical nature. NOTING also the absence of comparison between land-based and sea dumping options, 1. Agrees to a suspension of all dumping at sea of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter to permit time for the further consideration of issues which would provide a broader basis for an informed judgement on proposals for the amendment of the Annexes of the Convention. This suspension will continue pending the completion of the studies and assessments referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5 hereunder. 2. Requests that additional studies and assessments of the wider political, legal, economic and social aspects of radioactive waste dumping at sea be undertaken by a panel of experts to complement the existing Expanded Panel Report. 3. Requests that further assessments examine the issue of comparative land-based options and the costs and risks associated with these options. 4. Requests that studies and assessments examine the question of whether it can be proven that any dumping ofradioactive wastes and other radioactivematter at sea will not harm human life and/or causesignificant damage to the marine environment. 5. Requests the IAEA to advise Contracting Parties with respecttocertain outstanding scientific and technical issues relating to the sea dumping of radioactive wastes; specifically to: 1) Determine whether additional risks to those considered in the revised IAEA Definition and Recommendations justify re-examination of the definition of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter unsuitable for dumping at sea for certain individual radionuclides; 2) Establish source (dose) upper bounds appropriate to the practice of radioactive waste dumping under the Convention, 3) Define quantitatively the exempt levels of radionuclides for the purposes of the Convention, 6. Requests the Organization to approach appropriate internationalagencies toestablish andmaintainan inventory ofradioactive wastes from all sources entering the marine environment. 7. Calls upon Contracting Parties to develop as envisaged in Article X procedures for the assessment of liability in accordance with the principles of international law regarding State responsibility for damage to the environment of other States or to any other area of the environment resulting from dumping. ANNEX 3 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON THE DISPOSAL INTO THE SEABED OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES PROPOSED AND TABLED AT LDC-8 (FEBRUARY,1984) 1. Draft resolution proposed by argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Mexico, Nauru, Norway, Panama, Spain and Sweden (LDC 8/WP.6/Rev.3) THE EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING, RECOGNIZING that the marine environment and the living resources of the sea are of vital importance to all nations, RECOGNIZING FURTHER that the disposal at sea of high-level radioactive wastes or other high-level radioactive matter, as defined by paragraph 6, Annex 1, of the convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (hereinafter referred to as high-level radioactive wastes), is prohibited by Article IV of the Convention, RECALLING that the intersessional group of experts convened as a result of resolution LDC.15(7) recommended that the Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention is the appropriate international forum to address the question of disposal of high-level radioactive wastes into the sea-bed, NOTING that studies are in progress concerning the technical feasibility and environmental effects of emplacement into the sea-bed of high-level radioactive wastes and that several Contracting Parties continue these studies in order to determine the feasibility of such emplacement as a possible future waste disposal alternative, NOTING FURTHER that other international instruments support the view that the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention should interpret broadly their responsibilities to take all necessary measures to protect the marine environment from pollution by substances that are as highly toxic and persistent as high-level radioactive wastes, CONSIDERING that consistent with the object and purpose of the London Dumping Convention and in order to ensure its effective implementation, the term "disposal at sea" in its definition of "dumping" should include emplacement into the sea-bed, CONCLUDES that: - any deliberate disposal of high-level radioactive wastes from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea, into the marine environment, including the sea-bed, is currently incompatible with the provisions of the Convention; - high-level radioactive wastes shall not be emplaced into the sea-bed as part of any experimental operations; - should future technological developments provide methods of emplacement into the sea-bed that secure the isolation from the biosphere of high-level radioactive wastes, the Contracting Parties shall consider appropriate amendments to the Annexes to the Convention. The competent international body in this field, at present the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be consulted as to whether any method of emplacement into the sea-bed secures isolation. 2. Draft resolution proposed by France, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (LDC 8/WP.8/Rev.2) THE EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING, RECOGNIZING that the disposal at sea of high-level radioactive wastes, as defined in Annex 1 of the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, is prohibited by Article IV of the Convention, RECALLING that the intersessional group of experts convened as a result of resolution LDC.15(7) recommended that the Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping +Convention is the appropriate international forum to address the question of disposal of high-level radioactive waste into the sea-bed, RECOGNIZING FURTHER that the marine environment and the living resources of the sea are of vital importance to all nations, BELIEVING that the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention should interpret broadly their responsibility to take all practicable steps to protect the marine environment, RECOGNIZING that there is a divergence of views among Contracting Parties as to whether the Convention as drafted presently precludes disposal of high-level radioactive waste into the sea- bed, CONVINCED, however, that Contracting Parties, in pursuit of their responsibilities to protect the marine environment, should not engage in disposal of high-level radioactive waste into the sea-bed unless and until such activity can be undertaken in an environmentally acceptable manner, NOTING that studies are in progress concerning the technical feasibility and environmental effects of deep geological disposal on land as well as disposal into the sea-bed and that these studies must continue in order to determine their potential as future waste disposal alternatives, NOTING FURTHER that the research will not be sufficiently advanced to make a determination whether or not high-level radioactive waste can be effectively isolated from the marine environment before the next decade at the earliest, and that operational activity, if any, is not foreseen before the year 2000, REQUESTS countries and international organizations involved in research on disposal into the sea-bed to keep the Contracting Parties informed as to the progress of such research, CONCLUDES that no Contracting Party should proceed with an operational activity for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste into the sea-bed unless and until: 1. research permits a finding that such disposal is technically feasible and environmentally acceptable, including a determination that such waste can be effectively isolated from the marine environment; and 2. a regulatory mechanism is elaborated under the London Dumping Convention to govern the disposal into the sea- bed of such radioactive wastes.