TL: POLITICAL ASPECTS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING AT SEA IN THE
1990S AND BEYOND
SO: Greenpeace International (GP)
DT: November 6, 1992
Keywords: nuclear power waste radioactive ocean dumping treaty
greenpeace reports gp /

Prepared for the Fifth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel of
Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea (IGPRAD)

2-6 November 1992
At the IMO, London, UK

Greenpeace International


INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1 This is the second paper submitted by Greenpeace
International to IGPRAD on the political aspects of radioactive
waste dumping at sea.

1.2 At the 3rd Session of IGPRAD in 1990, we presented a paper
called "Political and Social Impact of a Resumption of
Radioactive Waste Dumping at Sea", which contained an assessment
of the political and social perception and problems that would
arise if any country attempted to resume the dumping of
radioactive wastes at sea.

1.3 In that paper, we showed that the political and social costs
and consequences of such a resumption by far outweigh the
claimed technical benefits of the practice of sea dumping. We
showed that sea dumping is commonly perceived as an
irresponsible practice that is very much at odds with the
responsible waste management methodologies which the public is
demanding.

1.4 Two years later, we now find that new policy developments
have confirmed our view, and that from a political and social
perspective - let alone technical and scientific aspects - those
who might still believe in ocean dumping options as a convenient
way to get rid of their wastes are currently more and more
isolated, and they are misleading their governments with their
continuous efforts to justify such inappropriate practices.
Unless they evolve and follow current social and political
trends, these advocates of ocean dumping will belong more and
more to the past, because evidence overwhelmingly shows that sea
dumping has no future.

1.5 We go one step further in this submission, and conclude that
the mandate of IGPRAD as it was designed in the mid 1980s is
clearly outdated. At this point in time, what is needed is an
immediate decision to ban radioactive waste dumping at sea. It
is the only rational and responsible decision that the LDC can
take on this issue.

1.6 The world has changed drastically since the last ocean
dumping operation took place at the NEA North East Atlantic
dump-site of radioactive wastes in 1982 (ten years ago !).
Unless the LDC changes too, it seriously runs the risk of
becoming obsolete or of being perceived more and more as an
anachronism.

2 BAN ON INDUSTRIAL WASTE DUMPING

2.1 In the week following our first submission to IGPRAD
referred to above, our view that sea dumping was no longer
acceptable was confirmed by the unanimous adoption by the 13th
Consultative Meeting of the LDC (October 1990) of a resolution
called "Phasing Out of Industrial Waste", by which all the
governments present at the meeting agreed (Resolution
LDC.43(13)):

That the dumping of industrial wastes shall cease by 31 December
1995 at the latest;

and

2 That Contracting Parties should endeavour to adopt individual
or regional commitments to cease dumping of industrial wastes
before 31 December 1995

2.2 Resolution LDC.43(13), welcomed by the international
environmental community as a historic step to clean up the
international law pertaining to sea disposal contains a footnote
in which "industrial wastes" are defined as "waste materials
generated by manufacturing or processing operations. It does not
include inert materials and uncontaminated organic materials of
natural origin. These inert materials or materials of natural
origin may be dumped in such a way that they do not interfere
with other legitimate uses of the sea, in accordance with Annex
III to the Convention". From this definition, radioactive wastes
would clearly fall within the category of wastes for which
dumping at sea is to be phased out by 31 December 1995 at the
latest, according to this resolution.

2.3 Nevertheless, the authors of the resolution added in their
footnote that "The inclusion of radioactive matter in this
definition will be considered when the current London Dumping
Convention review of issues relating to radioactive waste
dumping has been completed".

2.4 Whereas it is can be understood that the inclusion of
radioactive wastes in the definition contained in this
resolution can await the termination of the work of IGPRAD, it
is imperative that IGPRAD, as part of its mandate to study and
assess the wider political and social aspects of radioactive
waste dumping at sea, measures the obvious political
implications of Resolution LDC.43(13).

2.5 Clearly, Resolution LDC.43(13) has sent a strong message
applicable to radioactive waste dumping at sea. It is a message
that is fully relevant to the work of IGPRAD on political and
social issues: the dumping of industrial waste is unacceptable,
and the LDC (via its Contracting Parties) must stop this
practice as soon as possible.

2.6 In this context, an exemption for radioactive wastes in the
implementation of Resolution LDC.43(13) would be irrational, and
would - inevitably - put into question the respectability and
good will of the London Dumping Convention.

2.7 The logic behind, and public reaction to, a situation where
the only kind of industrial wastes which would be allowed for
sea dumping would be radioactive residues is simply not
sustainable. It can only be said that anyone advocating such a
scenario is out of touch with current realities.

2.8 For these reasons, IGPRAD must take Resolution LDC.43(13) as
a very significant element in its current assessment of
political and social issues.

3 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

3.1 In 1991, during its 14th Consultative Meeting, the LDC took
another step to move away from the permissive pro-dumping
approach. With the unanimous adoption of Resolution LDC.44(14)
on "The Application of a Precautionary Approach in Environmental
Protection within the Framework of the London Dumping
Convention", the Contracting Parties agreed that:

in implementing the London Dumping Convention the Contracting
Parties shall be guided by a precautionary approach to
environmental protection whereby appropriate preventive measures
are taken when there is reason to believe that substances or
energy introduced in the marine environment are likely to cause
harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal
relation between inputs and their effects. (...)

3.2 The Precautionary Principle has become the modern link
between science and policy for the 1990s and beyond. When they
consider a disposal option, policy makers implementing the
Precautionary Principle must not pursue a preventive approach by
not only considering other, more environmentally sound or safer
disposal, storage or elimination options available; they must
also consider whether the disposal option will encourage the
production of more wastes, or - on the contrary - whether it can
provide an incentive for waste avoidance and the implementation
of clean production methods, in order to eliminate the
generation of wastes.

3.3 In the case of the current review of radioactive waste
dumping at sea, it appears that the irreversible nature of this
practice makes it absolutely incompatible with the Precautionary
Principle, and that - on the basis of Resolution LDC.44(14)
alone - there are sound, rational and scientifically valid
grounds to adopt immediately amendments to the Annexes of the
LDC with a view to replace the current moratorium on radioactive
waste dumping at sea by a ban.


3.4 In its second operative paragraph, Resolution LDC.44(14)
states that Contracting Parties shall:

(d) endeavour to reduce risk and scientific uncertainty relating
to proposed disposal options; and

(e) continue to take measures to ensure that potential adverse
impacts of any dumping are minimised, and that adequate
monitoring is provided for early detection and mitigation of
these impacts.

3.5 For radioactive wastes, on the one hand, there are
significant scientific uncertainties identified prior to and
during the entire IGPRAD process as to the nature and magnitude
of the risks involved with radioactive waste dumping at sea. On
the other hand, there exist the difficulties, at best, with
implementing adequate monitoring for early detection of impacts
of sea dumping operations (as opposed to monitoring of land-
based storage). Taking both these considerations, the only
responsible and consistent step to incorporate the mandate of
Resolution LDC.44(14) is the adoption of a permanent ban on
radioactive waste dumping at sea.

4 REGIONAL CONTROVERSY IN EUROPE

4.1 A controversy which has mobilised (and is still mobilising
at the time of writing this document) in recent months all the
countries bordering the North East Atlantic is also indicative
of the current trend towards banning sea dumping options.

4.2 The Contracting Parties to the Oslo (1972) and Paris (1974)
Conventions regulating respectively the dumping of wastes and
land-based sources of marine pollution in the North East
Atlantic (1) have recently reviewed both conventions, and are
currently finalising a new treaty and protocols to replace them.
This new regional treaty and protocols will be formally adopted
by a Conference of Ministers of the Environment from those
countries, in Paris, 21-22 September 1992.

(1) France, the UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the EEC are
Parties to the Oslo and Paris Conventions; Finland is Party to
the Oslo Convention only.

4.3 In the course of the process leading to the Paris
Conference, most of the countries involved have consistently and
firmly stated, without ambiguity, that the new convention should
include a ban on the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea. As of
early July, 1992, the delegations from France and the UK were
alone opposing this view, and - as a result - the draft protocol
on dumping which is currently circulating does include a
paragraph establishing that no ocean dumping of radioactive
wastes will take place, as well as a footnote indicating that
the delegations from France and the UK expressed an objection.
Interestingly, among the countries who have agreed to such a ban
on radioactive waste dumping in the new North East Atlantic
convention, four have been dumping countries in the past
(Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium) and two (Belgium
and the Netherlands) were still dumping radioactive wastes at
the NEA North East Atlantic dump-site until the LDC moratorium
was adopted in 1983.

4.4 Whatever happens in the final instance with the issue of
radioactive waste dumping in the new North East Atlantic
Convention that will be adopted in September 1992, the current
situation is clearly indicative of the fact that in Europe,
including former dumping nations, this practice enjoys so little
acceptability and respectability that the vast majority of
governments agreed that it must be banned.

4.5 How long will the French and UK governments remain blind to
this evidence? In part, the answer to this question depends on
the kind of political response that the LDC will provide. A weak
response by the LDC to the insistence by those countries to
continue to dump their nuclear rubbish in the ocean can trigger
a resumption of this practice. However, a strong response, i.e.
a ban on radioactive waste dumping, is the only initiative that
could force those countries to accept responsibility for the
wastes which they have produced voluntarily, and that they now
want to dump on the global commons.

5 FROM RlO TO LONDON

5.1 Agenda 21 adopted by the Rio "Earth Summit" in June, 1992
contains a section - Chapter 22 called "Promoting the Safe and
Environmentally Sound Management of Radioactive Wastes" with
language directly relevant to the work of IGPRAD and the LDC on
ocean dumping of radioactive wastes.

5.2 Paragraph 22.5(b) states that States should:

Encourage the London Dumping Convention to expedite work to
complete studies on replacing the current voluntary moratorium
on disposal of low-level radioactive wastes at sea by a ban,
taking into account the precautionary approach, with a view to
taking a well informed and timely decision on the issue.

5.3 Whereas this language does not specifically call for an
immediate ban on radioactive waste dumping, because Agenda 21 is
the reflection of the lowest common denominator among the more
than 150 countries who attended the Earth Summit, it is clearly
indicative of the global trend against the dumping of
radioactive wastes at sea. In particular, it is interesting to
note that the purpose acknowledged for the IGPRAD studies is to
"replace the current voluntary moratorium (...) by a ban".
Nowhere is the possibility of a resumption of dumping mentioned
in Agenda 21, and it can be said that by not including this
option, the Heads of States present in Rio have sent a clear
message to the LDC.


5.4 We would urge all IGPRAD participants to act in a manner
consistent with Paragraph 22.5(b) of Agenda 21, and to now
concentrate their effort in designing the best way to replace
the current moratorium by a ban.

5.5 Objectively, acting otherwise would be inconsistent with
Agenda 21. In this regard, IGPRAD participants, and the LDC at
large, bear an important responsibility in the sense that the
upcoming IGPRAD and LDC meetings can be seen as tests of the
ability or willingness of governments to implement in good.
faith what has been agreed in Rio.

5.6 Paragraph 22.5(c) of Agenda 21 is also directly relevant to
the LDC. In it, it is said that States should:

Not promote or allow the storage or disposal of high-level,
intermediate-level and low-level radioactive wastes near the
marine environment unless they determine that the scientific
evidence, consistent with the applicable internationally agreed
principles and guidelines, shows that such storage or disposal
poses no unacceptable risk to people and the marine environment
or does not interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea,
making, in the process of consideration, appropriate use of the
concept of the precautionary approach.

5.7 If States must not promote or allow disposal NEAR the marine
environment, absent compliance with the stringent criteria
contained in Paragraph 22.5(c), it can be argued that they
certainly should not do so for disposal IN the marine
environment. Any other interpretation, especially when read in
combination with Paragraph 22.5(b) would effectively constitute
a perversion of the spirit of Rio.

6 CONCLUSION: FROM STOCKHOLM TO LONDON

6.1 We have provided here a number of additional reasons as to
why we believe strongly that the dumping of radioactive wastes
at sea must be banned permanently.

6.2 It is clear to us that, in light of the political, social
and scientific considerations contained in our four submissions
to IGPRAD (see: Appendix), as well as other considerations
expressed by various Contracting Parties, there is a compelling
case for a permanent ban.

6.3 The only remaining question is: when should such a decision
take place?

6.4 Twenty years ago, the June 1972 Stockholm Conference on the
Human Environment was quickly followed by the Inter-governmental
Conference on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea where the Convention
on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter, known as the London Dumping Convention, was
adopted.


6.5 It is clear - as we have seen in Rio, but also with the
other examples described in this paper - that, in those twenty
years, the evolution of customary and contractual international
law, as well as policies, reflects a growing concern with, and
antipathy towards, practices such as radioactive waste dumping
at sea.

6.6 Now, in Rio, governments from around the world, at the
highest levels have realised that mere regulation was not
sufficient, and they have pledged to effectively prevent further
pollution associated with radioactive waste dumping at sea.

6.7 This coincidence of dates, coupled with the fact that
virtually every IGPRAD task has been completed, places the
spotlight on the 15th Consultative Meeting of the LDC, in
November of 1992, as the appropriate time to ban radioactive
waste dumping at sea permanently.

6.8 The work put in by all IGPRAD participants all these years
should be acknowledged. As a result of their dedication, ocean
dumping of radioactive wastes is the disposal option which has
received the most attention and critical review.

6.9 At the same time, it is necessary to acknowledge that,
because the perception of the relationship of humans with their
environment has evolved so much in the last few years -
primarily because of the environmental crises facing the planet
- if IGPRAD were being initially constituted now, its mandate,
as well as the composition of the Panel itself and its
procedures, would need substantial changes for it to be
technically and socially compatible with the current political
realities.

6.10 For all of the above reasons, Greenpeace International
urges the members of IGPRAD to bring to closure their assessment
of the risks associated with radioactive waste dumping at sea,
and to call upon the Contracting Parties at the 15th
Consultative Meeting to ban this practice permanently.


APPENDIX

LIST OF GREENPEACE SUBMISSIONS TO IGPRAD

1 Political & Social Impact of a Resumption of Radioactive Waste
Dumping at Sea - IGPRAD 3, October, 1990.

2 Review of the IAEA Approach to Comparative Assessment of Land-
Based and Sea Disposal Options - IGPRAD 4, November 1991.

3 Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Wastes in the USSR - IGPRAD 4,
November 1991.

4 Political Aspects of Radioactive Waste Dumping at Sea in the
1990s and Beyond - IGPRAD 5, November 1992.

(5) (Review of Technical and Scientific issues Relevant to the
Work of IGPRAD - title undecided) - to be submitted to IGPRAD 5,
November 1992.