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

Notes to pp. 145–149 225
56. Since 1981 Greenpeace International had status as observer at consultative
meetings of the regime. The organization was allowed to make oral statements and
submit written material. See LDC 1981, pp. 3–4.
57. (LDC. 1985a, p. 26)
58. See LDC 1985c, pp. 16–41.
59. A few months later, Canada changed its negative vote to a positive vote.
60. According to the meeting report (members of the global ocean dumping regime
adopt the meeting report at the end of their meeting, and it might therefore not be
an entirely accurate account of what was said), Britain told the meeting that “such
tactics had brought the Ninth Consultative Meeting very close to the point at which
some Contracting Parties might have to reconsider the terms of their participation
in the Convention.” For the British and American statements, see LDC 1985c,
annex 5, pp. 10–11.
61. The chairman, Geoffrey Holland of Canada, later circulated a letter to all members
in which he pointed out that “the integrity of the Convention could suffer if a
sequence of amendments were adopted that were unacceptable to some Contracting
Parties.” He also noted that decisions on the annexes should be based on scientific
and technical considerations. See Miles 1987, p. 49.
62. See Spiller and Hayden 1988, p. 352.
63. For an environmental NGO’s view on the significance of this decision, see
Curtis 1986, p. 14.
64. See LDC 1986, pp. 22–33. For statements made by contracting parties during
the discussion on radwaste disposal, see Annex 10 of that report.
65. According to an announcement made on May 23, 1989 in the British parliament
(quoted on p. 324 of Birnie and Boyle): “The Government have decided not
to resume sea-disposal of drummed radioactive waste, including waste of military
origin. None the less, the Government intend to keep open this option for large
items arising from decommissioning operations, although they have taken no decisions
about how redundant nuclear submarines will be disposed of.”
66. See Fairhall 1989 and Pienaar 1989.
67. In 1989, the EPA was redrafting regulations for ocean disposal of low-level
radioactive wastes. See Galpin et al. 1989, pp. 177–180.
68. On concern in Massachusetts, see Dumanoski and McLaughlin 1991. On concern
about Pacific dumpings, see “Atomic Waste Reported Leaking in Ocean
Sanctuary Off California,” New York Times, May 7, 1990); “US Sees Threat in
Nuclear Dump,” Boston Globe, May 6, 1990; “Radioactive Waste Threatens
Sanctuary,” Washington Post, May 6, 1990; Bishop 1991.
69. I attended the meeting as an observer.
70. See Stairs and Taylor 1992, pp. 123–127.
71. On the weight attributed to the concept of assimilative capacity in Britain, see
Boehmer-Christiansen 1990, pp. 139–149.
72. See Sielen 1988.