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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 8 Notes to pp. 131–134 221 1. For the situation of those four nations at the time, see table 2.3. 2. Pro-dumping and anti-dumping governments had later been unable to reach an agreement at a 1966 meeting held in Lisbon. See van Weers et al. 1982, p. 451. 3. These shipments and the subsequent storage of plutonium in Japan caused (and still cause) considerable domestic and international controversy. See O’Neill 1999. 4. “Mariana Islanders Protest Plans By Japan to Dump Atomic Waste,” New York Times, August 3, 1980; Van Dyke et al. 1984, p. 742; Branch 1984, pp. 329–330. 5. Plans by the United States will be discussed below. 6. See also “Japan: Seabed Dumping Delayed as Other Nations Object,” Nuclear News 24, March 1981, 61–62. 7. Japan’s desire to act in a responsible way internationally motivated this and later decisions on the issue (interview, Takao Kuramochi, August 30, 1991). This consideration might have been given some weight by Japanese governments as the United States had urged Japan to join, or even provide international leadership behind, efforts to protect the environment; see, e.g., Friedman 1991. In 1980, however, Japanese fishermen, fearing adverse effects from dumping on the fish stocks that constituted their livelihood, threatened to use their boats to hinder dumping; see Trumbull 1980; see also Junkerman 1981, p. 32. At the same time, the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas reportedly warned that Japanese vessels would be excluded from its fishing zone should dumping operations be commenced; see Finn 1983b, p. 216. The following considerations have also been suggested to explain Japan’s decision not to dump: “Japan has been cultivating an image of peace and conciliation in an effort to live down its prewar reputation as the Pacific Basin’s strong-arm bully; [and] it has made substantial investments in the island nations and territories, and wants to make more.” (Carter 1987, p. 364) 8. In 1980, officials of the Japanese Science and Technology Agency noted it was still “not necessary to get approval of foreign governments” (Kirk 1980, p. 4). In 1981, a leading official of the same agency reportedly (Kamm 1981) said: “We will continue to have a plan to dump. We did not give up the plan.” 9. See also Bakalian 1984. 10. See also Shabecoff 1982. 11. In 1982, the Department of Energy estimated that land disposal of 60,000 metric tons of slightly radioactive soil would cost well over $100 million, but ocean disposal less than $10 million. See Roberts 1982, p. 774. In 1984, it was estimated that dumping nine retired submarines would cost about $5.2 million, whereas burying them on land would cost $13.3 million (Trupp 1984, p. 34). Both of the Navy’s cost estimates (which did not include the costs of monitoring over a period of several hundred years, and which presented scientific documentation claiming that no harm would be inflicted on the marine environment and human health) were criticized by U.S. groups opposing the Navy’s plans. See “Joint Comments of Environmental and Other Citizen Organizations in Response to the Department of Navy’s
222 Notes to pp. 134–135 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants” (submitted to the Department of the Navy by the Center for Law and Social Policy and the Oceanic Society, June 30, 1983). 12. See Roberts 1982. 13. See Carter 1980, pp. 1495–1997; Norman 1982, pp. 1217–1219. A report sponsored by the EPA concluded that “the disposal of radioactive waste into the ocean evokes strong feelings. There are those who feel that radioactive materials should be completely prohibited from deep ocean disposal.” It was further assessed, however, that “it is naive to believe that all other countries will accept a position of not permitting the disposal of packaged low-level waste when for certain countries it is the only option available to them.” (Hagen 1980), pp. 7-1 and 7-2. 14. “Contamination Survey Set for Boston Harbor,” New York Times, September 18, 1982. 15. For the expectations of the EPA researchers, see “Offshore Waste Study Begun,” New York Times, September 21, 1982. Compared to samples taken in areas where no dumping had occurred, the dumpings were not found to have caused detectable levels of radioactivity in Massachusetts Bay. (See “Radwaste in Massachusetts Bay,” BioScience 33 (February 1983), p. 87.) For doubts about the scientific value of these measurements, see Sielen 1988, p. 26. 16. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Disposal of Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines: October 19, 1982 (97th Congress, 2nd session); Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste off the Pacific Coast: October 7, 1980 (96th Congress, 2nd session). 17. The Oceanic Society represented 26 environmental and public-interest groups (including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists) opposed to the Department of Navy’s proposal. The Oceanic Society and other groups also organized a series of citizen workshops on the proposal to dump aged nuclear submarines. Workshops were to be held in Boston, in Washington, in Winston-Salem and Beaufort, North Caroline, in Charleston, South Carolina, in Eureka, California, and in Seattle. See “Joint Comments of Environmental and Other Citizen Organizations in Response to the Department of Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants”; see also “Oceanic Society Leads Opposition to Nuclear Dumping,” Oceans 16 (September-October 1983), p. 70. 18. See also Joseph A. Davis, “Legislation to Strengthen Rules on Ocean Dumping Approved by the House,” Congressional Quarterly, Weekly Report 40 (September 25, 1982), p. 2386. 19. At the end of the moratorium, the bill required EPA to make a comprehensive environmental statement before a permit for ocean disposal of low-level radioactive waste could be issued. Congress was given 30 days to review and block issuance of each permit which made it very unlikely that any dumping permit would be issued
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:
Page 164 and 165:
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 and 212: 198 Notes to pp. 5-18 12. The Conve
Page 213 and 214: 200 Notes to pp. 25-30 13. Informat
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: 220 Notes to pp. 122-127 the Pacifi
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?