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

106 Chapter 6
dumping reduction on developing countries. As a result, “double standards”
were established. 42
The black and gray lists were evaluated by a group of experts from
Canada, France, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Spain, Tunisia, Britain, the
United States, and the Soviet Union. They were asked to examine only scientific
and technical aspects of ocean dumping, and not address whether
radioactive waste and bacteriological and chemical weapons should remain
on the black list (“Report of Technical Working Party,” DWS(T)7 1st
Revise (3 November 1972), p. 1; memo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Denmark, December 6, 1972, p. 2). They examined both the draft article
from Reykjavik (which had put high-level radioactive waste in brackets)
and the alternative formulation from London. They proposed an amended
version of the latter, and they agreed that states should take the recommendations
of a competent international organization into account when
they blacklisted high-level radioactive waste. 43 The IAEA was not explicitly
mentioned, although the group agreed on the amendment after it had
“fully considered” an IAEA report on the subject (DWS(T)7 1st Revise, p.
3). Significantly, the technical working group now put medium and lowlevel
radioactive wastes (which were not on the black list) on the gray list.
Thus, the group proposed that these wastes might be dumped when a special
permit was issued and the recommendations of the competent international
body in this field were followed. But again, the group did not
designate the competent international body. 44
It was subsequently agreed by the IWGMP that dumping of radioactive
waste which the IAEA found unsuitable for dumping for public health reasons,
biological reasons, or other reasons was prohibited. Apart from the
strengthened role of the IAEA, the final convention text of the black list
and the proposed amendment from London were nearly identical. 45 The
gray list now included a clause stating that radioactive waste, which was not
subject to regulation by Annex I, might be dumped when a special permit
was issued and IAEA guidelines and recommendations were followed. 46 In
retrospect, the issue of regulation of ocean dumping of radioactive waste
had been more of a hindrance to completion of the convention at an earlier
phase of the negotiations. The final agreement—clearly a necessary solution
to a very contentious issue, and perceived as such—meant that important
regulatory decisions remained with the IAEA (memo, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Denmark, December 6, 1972, p. 19).