Radwaste at sea: A new era of polarization or a new basis for consensus?

Abstract

A coalition of third world nations, led by the Pacific island countries and those European nations who have developed land‐based disposal programs for their radioactive wastes, seek to amend the London Convention on Dumping (the international treaty controlling ocean disposal of radioactive and other wastes) in order to ban ocean disposal of low‐level radioactive wastes. Pro‐dumping nations maintain that the treaty may only be amended based on science and that current scientific research indicates that low‐level waste represents neither a threat to the integrity of the marine environment nor human health. Anti‐dumping nations, on the other hand, argue that the same science, particularly the models used to predict the fate and the effects of these wastes, exhibits sufficient uncertainty to preclude judgments about the absence of harm from future disposal activities. These differing conclusions mirror differing assessments of risk. These assessments build on the differing social, political, and economic values placed on use of the ocean and on conflicting conceptions of the fundamental rights and obligations of nations whose use of the ocean may impinge on the resources of others. Each side's continued intransigence may result in unilateral ocean disposal activities with serious consequences for the London Convention on Dumping (LDC) and its control over other wastes transported to sea for disposal. Initiatives of anti‐dumping nations to expand the LDC's decision‐making framework to examine the social, economic, and political issues underlying each side's interpretation of scientific evidence offer hope to address the underlying non‐scientific issues and perhaps to strengthen decision‐making within the LDC.