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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 Notes to pp. 21–24 199 1. Among non-ionizing types of radiation are microwave, ultraviolet, laser, and radio-frequency radiations. 2. For a discussion, see Templeton and Preston 1982, pp. 79–80. 3. Regarding the choice between disposal or storage of radwaste, Preston (1983, p. 108) writes: “Storage is expensive, and it may not in the long run offer any better chance than does prompt disposal in optimizing the choice between cost of protection from radiation and the value of the radiation detriment thus avoided. Storage is thus, except in a very few cases, no substitute for disposal, and disposal should be the preferred management option as soon as it offers a reasonable chance of optimizing with respect to the resulting radiation detriment.” See also Rochlin 1979, pp. 95–96. 4. At least two American and one Soviet nuclear-powered submarines have been lost at sea, however. See National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere 1984, p. 5. 5. The Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water of 1963, commonly known as the Limited Test Ban Treaty, has been signed by more than 100 states, including all the major powers except France and China. More than 2000 nuclear tests have been conducted around the world, 528 of them in the atmosphere. See Norris and Arkin 1998. 6. Bewers and Garrett (1987) add: “However, the mix of radioisotopes involved is different in each case and radioisotopes vary widely in the extent to which they can affect marine organisms and man, so that the total radioactivity is only a very rough guide to the risk. It must also be stated that the dumping cannot be considered safe just because the releases of radionuclides are small compared to the natural incidence of radionuclides in the environment.” 7. One example is the de minimis risk approach, according to which a material may not be regarded as radioactive and therefore may be considered “below regulatory concern.” For a discussion, see Whipple 1986, pp. 44–60. 8. Half-life: the time required for the decay of half of the radioactivity in a radioactive substance. Half-lives vary greatly; for example, iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days, whereas plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. 9. So far there are no permanent disposal facilities in the United States for highlevel nuclear waste. In 1987 Congress directed the Department of Energy to determine whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be suitable as a permanent disposal facility for spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 10. On the early history of this disposal option, see Deese 1978. 11. See Carter 1987, pp. 11–14. According to Carter, containment of tailings need not create a major problem for a properly regulated industry. Others disagree; see, e.g., Goble 1983, pp. 170–171. 12. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act—P.L. (96–573), December 22, 1980—is quoted from p. 85 of Parker 1988.
200 Notes to pp. 25–30 13. Information on the number of containers dumped and their radionuclide content is incomplete. A later evaluation of all available data for past U.S. dumping resulted in an increase in the estimate of the quantity of radioactivity dumped of about 25% from earlier estimates. See LDC 1985a, Annex 2, p. 12. 14. UN Convention on the High Seas, Geneva, Article 25, paragraph 1, quoted in “Note on International Conventions Relating to Radioactive Marine Pollution,” Nuclear Law Bulletin 13 (April 1974), p. 41. 15. Ibid. 16. See also Finn 1983a, p. 71. 17. Harry Brynielsson chaired the panel. A not-for-publication version of the report is Radioactive Waste Disposal into the Sea—Report of the Ad Hoc Panel under the Chairmanship of Mr. H. Brynielsson (TO/HS/21, 6 April 1960). 18. See Finn 1983a, pp. 71–73. 19. European Nuclear Energy Agency, Radioactive Waste Disposal Operation Into the Atlantic-1967 (Paris: OECD, 1968), quoted on p. 12 of Dyer 1981. 20. See Preston 1983, p. 115. 21. See LDC 1985a, Annex 2, p. 73. 22. Hagen (1983, p. 49) estimates the radioactivity to be 4.3 × 1015 Bq. The information on the number of containers dumped and their radionuclide content is incomplete. 23. Hagen (1983, p. 51), who also assesses the number of containers dumped at about 350, estimates the activity to be 8.5 × 1012 Bq. This is practically identical to the activity reported by Holcomb. 24. Eighty countries participated: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Britain, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Liberia, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somali, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, United States, Uruguay, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia. Twelve governments sent observers. 25. However, Switzerland did not participate in 1973, and Belgium did not participate in 1974 or in 1977. 26. See Van Dyke 1988, p. 86. According to another source, up to a million drums, with an annual radioactivity of approximately 105 Ci during the operational phase, would be disposed of over the decade. See Finn 1983b, p. 215. Japan was of the opinion that the global dumping regime justified its planned low-level dumping. See Van Dyke et al. 1984, p. 743; Branch 1984, p. 327. 27. Protest was rising against this dumping.
Page 1 and 2:
Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea P
Page 3 and 4:
Global Environmental Accord: Strate
Page 5 and 6:
© 2001 Massachusetts Institute of
Page 8:
Series Foreword A new recognition o
Page 11 and 12:
x Preface International Climate and
Page 14 and 15:
1 Introduction In this book I seek
Page 16 and 17:
Introduction 3 aimed to identify ca
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction 5 that I document cont
Page 20 and 21:
Introduction 7 may not fit easily i
Page 22 and 23:
Introduction 9 many regime analysts
Page 24 and 25:
Introduction 11 broad range of nons
Page 26 and 27:
Introduction 13 international organ
Page 28 and 29:
Introduction 15 caught my attention
Page 30 and 31:
Introduction 17 my understanding of
Page 32:
Introduction 19 prohibition even th
Page 35 and 36:
22 Chapter 2 it enters the body, th
Page 37 and 38:
24 Chapter 2 most important being r
Page 39 and 40:
26 Chapter 2 (McDougal and Burke 19
Page 41 and 42:
28 Chapter 2 mainly disposed of in
Page 43 and 44:
30 Chapter 2 In 1983, in response t
Page 45 and 46:
32 Chapter 2 Table 2.3 Status of lo
Page 47 and 48:
34 Chapter 2 In a world searching f
Page 49 and 50:
36 Chapter 3 War, Machiavelli’s T
Page 51 and 52:
38 Chapter 3 of international organ
Page 53 and 54:
40 Chapter 3 constructed. For examp
Page 55 and 56:
42 Chapter 3 order to pave the way
Page 57 and 58:
44 Chapter 3 It seems quite plausib
Page 59 and 60:
46 Chapter 3 constrained to take ca
Page 61 and 62:
48 Chapter 3 change. For instance,
Page 63 and 64:
50 Chapter 3 involving large number
Page 65 and 66:
52 Chapter 3 begin.” The consumer
Page 67 and 68:
54 Chapter 3 advocate policies only
Page 69 and 70:
56 Chapter 3 for a regime that refl
Page 72 and 73:
4 Scientific Advice and Ocean Dumpi
Page 74 and 75:
Knowledge-Based Regime Analysis 61
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
5 Ocean Dumping and U.S Domestic Po
Page 88 and 89:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 75 seri
Page 90 and 91:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 77 Grou
Page 92 and 93:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 79 the
Page 94 and 95:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 81 said
Page 96 and 97:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 83 be t
Page 98 and 99:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 85 Poll
Page 100 and 101:
6 Negotiating the Global Ocean Dump
Page 102 and 103:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 89 e
Page 104 and 105:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 91 S
Page 106 and 107:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 93 c
Page 108 and 109:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 95 1
Page 110 and 111:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 97 v
Page 112 and 113:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 99 s
Page 114 and 115:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 101
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
7 Explaining Regime Formation Build
Page 124 and 125:
Explaining Regime Formation 111 ori
Page 126 and 127:
Explaining Regime Formation 113 dem
Page 128 and 129:
Explaining Regime Formation 115 Tim
Page 130 and 131:
Explaining Regime Formation 117 Pow
Page 132 and 133:
Explaining Regime Formation 119 mot
Page 134 and 135:
Explaining Regime Formation 121 tri
Page 136 and 137:
Explaining Regime Formation 123 blo
Page 138 and 139:
Explaining Regime Formation 125 enc
Page 140 and 141:
Explaining Regime Formation 127 At
Page 142 and 143:
Explaining Regime Formation 129 inp
Page 144 and 145:
8 Changing the Global Ocean Dumping
Page 146 and 147:
Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163: Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 164 and 165: Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 166 and 167: 9 Explaining Regime Change The Chan
Page 168 and 169: Explaining Regime Change 155 engage
Page 170 and 171: Explaining Regime Change 157 adopt
Page 172 and 173: Explaining Regime Change 159 Yet th
Page 174 and 175: Explaining Regime Change 161 to tha
Page 176 and 177: Explaining Regime Change 163 Schola
Page 178 and 179: Explaining Regime Change 165 First,
Page 180 and 181: Explaining Regime Change 167 compan
Page 182 and 183: Explaining Regime Change 169 al. 19
Page 184 and 185: 10 Conclusion Since the 1960s a num
Page 186 and 187: Conclusion 173 mon, moreover, the U
Page 188 and 189: Conclusion 175 entrepreneurs, in co
Page 190 and 191: Conclusion 177 nomic arrangements o
Page 192 and 193: Conclusion 179 nalized by other soc
Page 194 and 195: Conclusion 181 It should also be ac
Page 196 and 197: Conclusion 183 likely to be influen
Page 198 and 199: Conclusion 185 sidered of paramount
Page 200 and 201: Looking Back and Looking Ahead Conc
Page 202 and 203: Conclusion 189 importance of agreei
Page 204 and 205: Conclusion 191 social and economic
Page 206: Conclusion 193 costly and unwise so
Page 209 and 210: 196 Key Events 1993 Results of stud
Page 211: 198 Notes to pp. 5-18 12. The Conve
Page 215 and 216: 202 Notes to pp. 35-42 2. On policy
Page 217 and 218: 204 Notes to pp. 46-51 31. For exam
Page 219 and 220: 206 Notes to pp. 61-64 4. Barry Com
Page 221 and 222: 208 Notes to pp. 67-74 27. See P. H
Page 223 and 224: 210 Notes to pp. 75-78 10. See also
Page 225 and 226: 212 Notes to pp. 82-83 September 9,
Page 227 and 228: 214 Notes to pp. 90-93 3. For the p
Page 229 and 230: 216 Notes to pp. 97-100 ecological
Page 231 and 232: 218 Notes to pp. 106-115 42. On the
Page 233 and 234: 220 Notes to pp. 122-127 the Pacifi
Page 235 and 236: 222 Notes to pp. 134-135 Draft Envi
Page 237 and 238: 224 Notes to pp. 140-145 36. Hollis
Page 239 and 240: 226 Notes to pp. 150-158 73. See LC
Page 241 and 242: 228 Notes to pp. 165-182 19. “The
Page 243 and 244: 230 Notes to pp. 189-192 24. The LC
Page 245 and 246: 232 References Birnie, Patricia W.,
Page 247 and 248: 234 References Cooper, Richard N. 1
Page 249 and 250: 236 References Finnemore, Martha, a
Page 251 and 252: 238 References Haas, Peter M. 1990a
Page 253 and 254: 240 References Jervis, R. 1976. Per
Page 255 and 256: 242 References LDC. 1983b. Critical
Page 257 and 258: 244 References Miles, Edward L. 198
Page 259 and 260: 246 References Pearson, Charles S.
Page 261 and 262: 248 References Rosenau, James N. 19
Page 263 and 264:
250 References Spiller, Judith, and
Page 265 and 266:
252 References U.S. Senate. 1971. O
Page 268:
Interviews Cited Aarkrog, Asker, He
Page 271 and 272:
258 Index Environmental nongovernme
Page 273 and 274:
260 Index Oceanic Society, 135 Ocea
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?