TL: BRIEFING ON OCEAN DUMPING OF MUNITIONS BY GOV'T OF UK (GP) SO: Greenpeace UK DT: September 8, 1992 Keywords: uk arms ocean dumping army conventions illegal europe oceans toxics military waste disposal gp / MUNITIONS BRIEFING Summary The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has for many years been dumping live munitions unmonitored 400 miles off Land's End in the Atlantic. (1) The Government has failed to formally notify contracting parties to either the London Dumping Convention (LDC) or Oslo Commission (OSCOM) of their activities. From January 1 1993 all contracting parties to OSCOM have to prove that what they are dumping does not harm the marine environment and that there are no suitable alternatives on land. In anticipation of having to go through this procedure the UK intends to dump almost 8 times more waste this year than last. (1) A dangerous loophole exists in international agreements regulating dumping whereby some believe that ships under sovereign immunity could dump wastes at sea which would otherwise be banned. The Dump The MOD dumps military waste 400 miles off the UK coast in a site previously used as an industrial waste dump site. The ships carrying out the dumping operations are military vessels, the Resource, Regent and Kinterbury sailing from Glen Douglas at the head of Loch Long. Munitions come from all over the country to a store on Loch Long. Dumping is scheduled to take place between August and November this year, although it may be delayed beyond the first half of September due to maintenance work on the dump vessels. The MOD argues that 'preparation of stores for dumping includes the removal of components containing toxic heavy metals not permitted to be disposed of in this manner'. The MOD also states that 'the depth of the site precludes effective monitoring but there is no evidence to suggest that controlled dumping of conventional ammunition and explosives in this manner constitutes a risk to the marine environment'. Whereas in 1991 only 1093 tonnes were dumping in 1992 the MOD intends to dump 8405 tonnes. (1) As the operation has Crown immunity it therefore falls outside of MAFF's control. In a conversation with Greenpeace on July 1st this year, the MOD stated that it has been instructed by MAFF that the Government is committed under OSCOM to ending dumping and that the MOD will therefore not be dumping after the end of this year. The MOD is building an incinerator instead, again probably subject to Crown immunity. Greenpeace wrote to the MOD on July 2nd asking for further information. As yet no reply has been received. It appears that because it will be politically more difficult for the MOD to dump redundant munitions at sea after January 1 1993 because of new international agreements, it is accelerating its sea dumping programmme to dispose of as much waste as possible prior to this deadline. Potential Environmental Effects No information on precisely what is being dumped is available. However, it is possible to comment on the likely composition and toxicity based on information from the U.S. (2) where effluents and wastes from explosives manufacture are regulated. Dinitrotoluenes (DNTs) are a by-product of explosives manufacture (TNT) and are used as a primary raw material in the production of smokeless gunpowders. Although the database for other health effects is incomplete, there is evidence of renal and liver damage. DNTs can also cause genetic damage. There appears to be very little data on marine effects. 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene is likely to be the most common high explosive present in dumped munitions. Again there are very few data but exposure can cause headache, weakness, anaemia and liver injury and it can be absorbed through the skin. It is very sparingly soluble in water and is likely therefore to associate predominantly with sediments. The production of this explosive can lead to the formation of in excess of thirty nitroaromatic compounds many of which can cause cell damage. In marine environments these will prove toxic to marine organisms. High explosive needs a high velocity detonating compound. Some of these are amines, while others are based on lead compounds. These too are toxic. Some surveys of areas round munitions plants impacted by wastewaters have shown adverse impacts on bacterial, invertebrate and fish communities. A key question in the case of munitions dumped at sea is the time taken for the materials to be released. The most probable scenario is the gradual release of these materials as the munitions casings corrode, leading to an extensively contaminated sediment. Natural breakdown and detoxification is likely to be slow. The chemicals may be transported off the dumpsite in association with sediments and the organic matter they contain. In conclusion, a disposal strategy based on dumping of these compounds is associated with a risk element close to 100% given the general lack of marine toxicological data, the relative persistence of these compounds and degradation products and the lack of any plausible evaluation of release scenarios. International Agreements on Dumping The Oslo Convention and the new Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. The Oslo Convention, to which the UK is a contracting party, governs the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircraft in the north east Atlantic. Under this Convention, all contracting parties are committed to end sea dumping of all industrial waste by December 31 1989 in the North Sea area and by December 31 1995 in the other parts of the Convention waters EXCEPT for those industrial wastes which it can be shown to the Commission through the Prior Justification Procedure (PJP) both that there are no practical alternatives on land and that the materials cause no harm to the marine environment. The PJP comes into effect for the North Sea on 1 January 1990 covering any permits assigned for dumping from that date. In the case of the other parts of the Convention waters the PJP applies as of 1 January 1993. This means that if the UK wishes to dump industrial waste in Oslo Convention waters, even those outside of the North Sea, from January 1st next year, it is obliged to satisfy the Oslo Commission that there exist no alternatives on land, and to prove that the materials cause no harm to the marine environment. The contracting parties to both the Oslo and Paris Conventions are due to adopt a new Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic in Paris this month, at a ministerial meeting in Paris, 21-22nd September. This new Convention will prohibit sea dumping of industrial waste and politically all the signatories will be bound by it when it is signed, ie., a full ban right away. Although the new Convention does not mention the PJP, it does contain a clause (Article 9 of the Annex on Dumping) which states that if disposal on land creates 'unacceptable damage or danger' the state in question should immediately consult other states. Only by arguing this case to the satisfaction of all contracting parties to the new Convention would any industrial dumping be permitted. However, a loophole could exist. Under both the Oslo Convention and the new Convention, if the vessel being used to dump the munitions is a military vessel, it is feared that the UK might try to argue that it is covered by sovereign immunity. In summary, legally the UK has until January 1st 1993 to dump the munitions - this is 'the law' while the new Convention is being ratified. However, politically a full ban is in place when the Ministers put their signatures to the new Convention on September 22nd; but a dangerous loophole exists whereby some will try and argue that dumping can occur under sovereign immunity. The London Dumping Convention The London Dumping Convention (LDC) is a global convention governing dumping at sea to which the UK is a contracting party. This Convention is stronger on the point of sovereign immunity than the Oslo Convention. The LDC qualifies the responsibility of vessels operating under sovereign immunity: Measures must be taken to ensure that these ships act in a manner consistent with the object and purpose of the LDC, and contracting parties must inform the Convention's Secretariat in the event that any of their vessels subject to sovereign immunity undertake activities which would be regulated by the Convention if carried out by a vessel not subject to immunity (Article VII, 4). Consistent with the LDC's requirements, in the early 1980's the US Department of Navy contemplated scuttling obsolete nuclear submarines at sea. The Navy prepared a detailed environmental impact assessment for that proposal, following the requirement of the LDC (eg., Annex III). While the Navy might have argued that, under the sovereign immunity concept, such analyses were not required, it recognised that such positions were at odds with US treaty obligations under the LDC. In 1984, the Navy abandoned the sea disposal option, stating that land disposal was its preferred choice. Though the Navy did not state that the LDC moratorium was a factor in its decision, it is noteworthy that the US Congress adopted amendments to the US ocean dumping act on 6 January 1983 that banned any radwaste dumping at sea for at least two years, action that was directly linked to the LDC moratorium. US observers of that process have noted that the ban (and the LDC moratorium) strongly influenced the Navy's decision to reject the sea disposal option. Likewise, at the 12th consultative meeting of the LDC, in 1989, there was unanimous agreement that the UK Government's plans to dump decommissioned nuclear submarines at sea would be subject to LDC regulation, and therefore, to the radioactive waste dumping moratorium. In addition, it should be noted that the Scientific Group of the LDC discussed dumping of unused ammunition at this years meeting (11-15 May 1992). Paragraph 3.4.7 reads (with regard to what constitutes industrial waste): "The delegation from South Africa asked the Scientific Working Group whether used ammunition was considered to be within the definition of industrial wastes and therefore subject to resolution LDC.43 (13). Two delegations expressed the view that unused ammunition should be considered as an industrial waste; no further discussion ensued nor were any reservations expressed." The UK is bound by the terms of both the Oslo and London Conventions. This means that: 1. Politically, once it has signed the new Convention in September it cannot dump industrial waste. 2. Legally, from January 1st 1993, it cannot dump industrial waste under the Oslo Convention without going through the PJP, and once the new Convention comes into legal force dumping is banned except under exceptional circumstances and only with the expressed consent of the member states. 3. Under the Oslo Convention and the new Convention, the UK may want to argue that military vessels may dump anything they want without control. 4. Under the LDC, of which the UK is also a member, in the case of a dumping operation covered by sovereign immunity, the UK should have informed the Secretariat about its dumping operations, and it should have taken adequate measures to ensure that the vessels involved respect LDC regulations. Despite extensive checking, Greenpeace has been unable to find any evidence of the UK sending reports to the contracting parties of either OSCOM or LDC notifying them that the dumps are or have been licensed. Other OSCOM member states consulted by Greenpeace expressed alarm that the UK is still dumping. In conclusion, based on both current environmental and current political realities, an ocean dumping exception based on sovereign immunity - which permits the dumping of otherwise prohibited substances - is not justified. The loophole in the Oslo and new Convention which could allow this should be closed and the provision covering sovereign immunity in the LDC has been interpreted to ensure that no vessels under sovereign immunity can dump waste which would otherwise be banned. This would be the clearest case of an act which would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of these Conventions. Trades Unions Response The MOD industrial trade unions who are lobbying for the establishment of a European Agency at Trecwn (near Fishguard) to dismantle armaments from around Europe argue that the "Mod then accelerated its sea dumping operation at great environmental cost in order to meet its deadline." (3) They confirm that the MOD is currently disposing of large quantities of live ammunition including shells, bombs and hand grenades by sea dumping in the Atlantic. References: (1) Written parliamentary questions, Hansard column 820, 15th July 1992 and Hansard Column 615, 14 July 1992. (2) D.R. Wellington and W. R. Mitchell, 1991. In Vitro Cytotoxicity of certain Munition Nitroaromatic Compounds. Chemosphere, Vol.23, No.3, pp 363-373, 1991 and Life Systems Inc., prepared under subcontract to Clement Associates, Inc. Under contract No.205-88-0608. December 1989. Toxicological Profile for 2,4- and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service. (3) Ministry of Defence Industrial Trades Unions press release of 24th July 1992. CONTACTS 1. Cynog Dafis MP. 071 219 4002 Commons Number 219 5021 Party Number 0559 363419 Constituency number Plaid Cymru MP for West Wales. Trecwyn Naval Arms Deport in his constituency. 2. Nick Ainger MP for Pembroke Tel: 0646 698903 (office) Mr. Ainger has information on the dump operation. 3. Paul Johnston, Greenpeace scientist. Exeter Labs. Tel: (0392) 263917 For questions on potential environmental dangers of dumping munitions. 4. Janus Hillgaard, Greenpeace International, for international convention issues. Tel: Work: 010 45 3393 5344 Greenpeace, September, 1992.