Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

98 Chapter 6
did not specify what criteria should be followed to distinguish between a
general permit and a special permit, it was also inquired what the limits of
the general permit would be. Speaking in reply, the United States agreed, to
some extent, with the views expressed, and declared that the draft would
be revised to take into account the points raised with respect to dumping criteria
and the need for international principles and guidelines to harmonize
national regulatory approaches. In general, the draft was intended only as
a first step toward an international regulatory arrangement.
With respect to pollutants to be regulated by the convention, it was
agreed to focus on a number of pollutants: urban effluents; oil; toxic and
persistent substances (e.g., organochlorine pesticides and other persistent
chlorinated hydrocarbons); metals that accumulated in the food chain (e.g.,
mercury and other heavy metals); and industrially produced organic wastes
(e.g., pulp and paper mill wastes and organic wastes from refineries)
(A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 8). The list was not intended to be definitive,
and it could be revised to take into account scientific advice given by advisory
bodies such as GESAMP. In fact, the listed pollutants were identified on
the basis of advice given by GESAMP. Importantly, radioactive substances
were not among the listed pollutants. Pointing out that existing arrangements
already were in place (see chapter 2), the United States and Britain
did not intend to include radioactive wastes in the list of pollutants.
As the first meeting came to the end, a general optimism prevailed as to
the possibility of reconciling the different approaches to regulation of
ocean dumping. However, whether the primary emphasis should be on
prohibiting ocean dumping remained a question. Canada and some other
countries favored a strong anti-dumping policy, whereas the U.S. draft convention
made no mention of prohibition of dumping. 26 In the view of the
Canadian delegation, the U.S. draft proposed little more than a “license
to dump” regime (Duncan 1974, p. 300). Nonetheless, the IWGMP
decided to continue negotiating a global dumping convention. A feeling of
urgency was unmistakable. In the unusually forthright and impelling
words of the meeting report’s summary of conclusions: “There are specific
actions which should be prepared for completion at the time of [the
Stockholm conference]. Although recognizing that final answers for many
serious marine pollution problems must await more complete understanding
of the marine environment, certain particular actions were identified
which, if taken in the near future, could materially improve the