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

146 Chapter 8
opposed ocean dumping. Spain and Ireland explained that factors other
than scientific and technical ones—for example, availability of land-based
disposal alternatives—also should be taken into account. Several of the
governments opposing dumping and several international environmental
organizations stressed that available knowledge was insufficient for it to
be modeled adequately and with a sufficient margin of safety. A representative
of the scientific panel, however, objected that the scientific findings
were being “ignored, distorted or misinterpreted by some parties in unprofessional
attempts to exaggerate the uncertainties in that report” (LDC
1985c, p. 22).
Japan explained that, although it presently did not intent to dump without
the consent of the Pacific region, it needed to dispose of radioactive
waste, and that, as a small country, it had to consider ocean disposal.
Provided that scientific and technical studies showed disposal would be
safe, the option should remain open. France concluded that no scientific
grounds for suspension of ocean dumping had been found, and that the
option should be reopened. Britain and the United States also argued that
the available scientific evidence did not support a change of the convention.
The United States suggested ending the suspension of dumping. Belgium
and Switzerland supported the position of the United States. Thus, the
panel report did not help to resolve the conflict. Later, one member of the
U.S. delegation remarked that “both those for and those against sea disposal
have pointed to the panel’s conclusion as vindication of their own
positions” (Sielen 1988, p. 10). “Scientifically,” Sielen later noted in an
interview (August 29, 1991), “you seem to be able to argue either way.”
Intense negotiations followed but did not result in agreement. Although
Britain had hoped to avoid a vote altogether, a resolution co-sponsored by
Spain and 15 other states for an indefinite moratorium pending further
considerations of the issues involved was then brought to a vote (Brown
1985b). The group of governments supporting a moratorium had grown
(mostly because several developing countries had joined) to 26; five governments
(almost the same ones that had been against the 1983 moratorium)
opposed it; and seven abstained (see table 8.2). 59
Governments opposing the moratorium resolution protested fiercely
against the vote. The British press reported “UK threatens to withdraw
from convention on nuclear dumping” and “the big nuclear nations,
including the United States, had pointed out that they would have to recon-