CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE · PDF filesequestration in sub-seabed geological formations...

https://edocs.imo.org/Final Documents/English/LC 38-16 (E).docx

E

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE LONDON CONVENTION & ELEVENTH MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE LONDON PROTOCOL 19 – 23 September 2016 Agenda item 16

LC 38/16

18 October 2016 Original: ENGLISH

REPORT OF THE THIRTY-EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING AND THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES

Table of Contents

Section Paragraph

Nos. Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION – ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 – 1.9 3

2 STATUS OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL

2.1 – 2.8 4

3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LC-LP STRATEGIC PLAN 3.1 – 3.16 6

4 CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS

4.1 – 4.5 9

5 MARINE GEOENGINEERING INCLUDING OCEAN

FERTILIZATION 5.1 – 5.12 10

6 CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL

FORMATIONS (LP) 6.1 – 6.20 11

7 COMPLIANCE ISSUES 7.1 – 7.22 15

8 TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE 8.1 – 8.37 19

9 INTERPRETATION OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL

9.1 – 9.34 27

10 MATTERS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

RADIOACTIVE WASTES 10.1 – 10.9 34

11 MONITORING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LONDON

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL 11.1 – 11.15 36

LC 38/16


Section Paragraph

Nos. Page No.

12 OUTREACH TO PROSPECTIVE NEW CONTRACTING

PARTIES TO THE PROTOCOL AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE FIELD OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 12.1 – 12.13 39

13 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND FUTURE

WORK 13.1 – 13.17 41

14 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 14.1 – 14.15 44

15 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR BOTH GOVERNING BODIES 15.1 46

16 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT 16.1 46

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 AGENDA FOR THE THIRTY-EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING AND THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES

ANNEX 2 STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE LONDON PROTOCOL AND LONDON CONVENTION

ANNEX 3 REPORT OF THE NINTH MEETING OF THE COMPLIANCE GROUP UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL

ANNEX 4 ONGOING AND PLANNED B2C WORKSHOPS AND PROJECTS 2016-2017

ANNEX 5 BENEFITS OF BEING A PARTY TO THE LONDON PROTOCOL

ANNEX 6 COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE DOCUMENT TITLED "BENEFITS OF BEING A PARTY TO THE LONDON PROTOCOL" AND THE LOW COST, LOW TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING GUIDELINES

ANNEX 7 REVISED SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF VESSELS

ANNEX 8 RECOMMENDATION TO ENCOURAGE ACTION TO COMBAT MARINE LITTER

ANNEX 9 LITERATURE REVIEW PERFORMED IN SUPPORT OF THE 25-YEAR SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF OCEAN DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATTER

ANNEX 10 JOINT WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS (2017-2019)

ANNEX 11 LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA FOR THE THIRTY-NINTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING AND TWELFTH MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES

LC 38/16


1 INTRODUCTION – ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 The thirty-eighth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Convention), convened in accordance with article XIV(3)(a) of the Convention, and the eleventh Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, 1972 (London Protocol), convened in accordance with article 19.2.1 of the Protocol, were concurrently held at the Headquarters of the International Maritime Organization, London, from 19 to 23 September 2016, and chaired by Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea). Ms. Betsy Valente (United States) was Second Vice-Chair. 1.2 The session was attended by delegations from Contracting Parties to the London Convention, Contracting Parties to the London Protocol, observers from IMO Member States, IMO Associate Members, and observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental international organizations in consultative status, as listed in document LC 38/INF.1. Opening of the Meetings 1.3 In opening the proceedings, the Chair welcomed all participants to both Meetings. Opening address 1.4 The Secretary-General, Mr. Kitack Lim, welcomed participants and delivered an opening address. The full text of the opening address can be downloaded from the IMO website at the following link: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary-GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings/Pages/LC-LP-38-11-opening.aspx

Chair's remarks 1.5 Dr. Hong thanked the Secretary-General for the words of welcome and guidance on, in particular, the work the London Convention (LC) and London Protocol (LP) Parties were undertaking. He also expressed thanks for the support that IMO continued to give to the activities of the London Convention and Protocol. Adoption of the agenda 1.6 The agenda for the thirty-eighth Consultative Meeting and the eleventh Meeting of Contracting Parties (LC 38/1), as adopted, is contained in annex 1. It includes, under each agenda item, a list of documents that were submitted for consideration. Both governing bodies also agreed on a timetable for their work (LC 38/1/1, annex 2). Participation of intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental international organizations (NGOs) 1.7 The governing bodies, having recalled the decision made in 2015, to extend the invitation to the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), on a provisional basis until this session, and having noted their contribution to the Scientific Groups in 2016, agreed to continue with the invitation to the IOGP, on a provisional basis, and to reconsider its status at their next joint session (LC 37/16, paragraph 1.12).

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary-GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings/Pages/LC-LP-38-11-opening.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary-GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings/Pages/LC-LP-38-11-opening.aspx

LC 38/16


Action by the governing bodies 1.8 Both governing bodies agreed to invite United Nations organizations and intergovernmental organizations to the thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting and the twelfth Meeting of Contracting Parties and to intersessional meetings of their respective subsidiary bodies, as follows:

UNITED NATIONS EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR THE SOUTH PACIFIC (CPPS) HELSINKI COMMISSION (HELCOM) OSPAR COMMISSION PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (SPREP) INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA) INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (WORLD BANK) INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA (ICES) REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP)

1.9 Both governing bodies, at the conclusion of their sessions, decided that the following non-governmental international organizations should be invited to the thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting and the twelfth Meeting of Contracting Parties and to intersessional meetings of their respective subsidiary bodies:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) THE WORLD ASSOCIATION FOR WATERBORNE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (PIANC) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS (IAPH) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL & GAS PRODUCERS (IOGP)1 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF THE SEA (ACOPS) GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) THE INSTITUTE OF MARINE ENGINEERING, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (IMarEST) INTERNATIONAL OCEAN INSTITUTE (IOI) WORLD ORGANIZATION OF DREDGING ASSOCIATIONS (WODA)

2 STATUS OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL The London Convention, 1972 (London Convention) 2.1 The Meetings were informed of the status of the London Convention and noted that 87 Governments had ratified or acceded to the Convention. The governing bodies also noted that 20 Contracting Parties had accepted the 1978 amendments concerning the settlement of disputes and that this number had not increased since 1996, the year in which the London Protocol had been adopted with, in its annex 3, the same settlement of dispute arrangements.

1 On a provisional basis until the next joint session of the governing bodies in 2017.

LC 38/16


The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, 1972 (London Protocol) 2.2 The Meetings were also informed that two new accessions had occurred in the intersessional period and that 47 States had now ratified or acceded to the London Protocol. The Meetings were further informed that four of the 18 Contracting Parties to the Convention that were signatories to the London Protocol had not yet ratified it (Argentina, Brazil, Finland and the United States). 2.3 The Meetings noted with increasing concern the continued low annual increase of accessions to and ratifications of the Protocol (see table of accessions and ratifications per year below).

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Rate 1 3 3 6 3 NIL 2 3 1 8

Total 1 4 7 13 16 16 18 21 22 30

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Rate 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1

Total 32 36 37 39 41 42 43 45 46 47

2.4 The Meetings acknowledged that, even with the Protocol in force, it remained important to obtain accurate information concerning the progress made towards ratifying the Protocol by the Contracting Parties to the London Convention and by the observer States represented at the Meetings. That information would help the Meetings to plan their work and to monitor any shift in momentum from the Convention to the Protocol. 2.5 The Meetings also noted that since the entry into force of the London Protocol, three amendments had been adopted, as follows:

.1 the 2006 amendment on the inclusion of CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations in annex 1 to the London Protocol (resolution LP.1(1)), which had entered into force in 2007 for all Parties;

.2 the 2009 amendment on the export of carbon dioxide streams for disposal in

accordance with annex 1 (resolution LP.3(4)), which had been accepted by three Parties; and

.3 the 2013 amendments on the regulation of the placement of matter for ocean

fertilization and other marine geoengineering activities (resolution LP.4(8)), which had been accepted by one Party.

2.6 The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran informed the Meetings that formalities of ratification to the London Protocol had been completed in conformity with the constitution on 5 October 2015, and that the instrument of ratification will be deposited with the Secretary-General in the near future. 2.7 The delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Finland, Peru and the United States reported on their progress towards joining the London Protocol. 2.8 All States preparing to join the Protocol were encouraged to keep the Secretariat informed of developments.

LC 38/16


3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LC-LP STRATEGIC PLAN 3.1 It was recalled that in 2015 the governing bodies re-established the correspondence group to further develop the draft strategic plan for the LC/LP which has been under development since 2013, and to provide a revised draft strategic plan based on the draft revised outline for a strategic plan, set forth in LC 36/16, annex 2, to the governing bodies for consideration with a view to approval at this session (LC 37/16, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.16 and annex 2). 3.2 In considering document LC 38/3/1 (submitted by the Vice-Chairs) reporting on the work of the correspondence group, the Meetings noted that contributions and input had been provided by Argentina, Canada, Germany, Norway, Panama, the Republic of Korea, the United States, and Greenpeace International and also by the B2C Steering Group and the LP Compliance Group in the intersessional period. The report of the correspondence group contained, in the annex, a draft revised text for the outline of the strategic plan for the next 10 years (2016-2026). 3.3 The Meetings considered document LC 38/3/2 (Canada) which provided additional comments on the strategic plan, in particular on the targets. Canada reiterated the importance of the plan and noted that if it were possible to complete the plan at this session of the governing bodies, it would be a fitting achievement of the first decade of the London Protocol being in force. It could set the tone and goals for marine pollution prevention in the future and also be timely in supporting the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 3.4 The Meetings also considered the information provided in document LC 38/3 (Secretariat) on the linkages between the draft LC/LP strategic plan and the First World Ocean Assessment (WOA I), as well as with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The document highlights the chapters in WOA I that are of possible relevance to the LC/LP and the SDGs where the LC/LP may contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 3.5 In the ensuing discussion:

.1 some delegations expressed the need to ensure that the current draft Plan does not broaden the scope of the two instruments, in particular, beyond the remit of protecting the marine environment from pollution arising from the dumping of wastes at sea;

.2 other delegations shared the opposite view and welcomed actions in order

to ensure that no significant source of marine pollution is left unregulated through, inter alia, cooperation with other organizations;

.3 while some delegations viewed that targets should be clear, measurable and

short-term to allow progress to be measured and they should take the new SDGs and their targets and indicators into consideration, others stated that they should not be too specific, nor be time-bound, overlap or duplicate targets set under other international or global processes;

.4 it was noted that the process to finalize the indicators under the SDG process

was still ongoing and that it was important to revisit this issue once these indicators, in particular for SDGs 6 and 11 to 14, were available. This could be addressed through a stepwise approach, increasing specificity when more information became available;

LC 38/16


.5 delegations supported the focus on increasing ratifications, particularly the emphasis on increasing the ratification of the London Protocol; and

.6 delegations requested that the Plan include tasks for the Secretariat,

including providing input about the London Protocol to the WOA II to address the gaps identified in the WOA I and other relevant processes such as the Ocean Conference(s) and the SDGs.

Establishment of the working group on the development of a strategic plan for the London Convention and Protocol 3.6 Following further discussion, the Meetings re-established the Working Group on the Development of a Strategic Plan for the London Convention and Protocol, under the co-lead of Ms. Betsy Valente (United States) and Ms. Anne Daniel (Canada), and instructed the group to:

.1 review document LC 38/3/1 and, taking into account documents LC 38/3/2

and LC 38/3, as well as comments made in plenary, prepare a revised final text of the draft Strategic Plan for the London Convention and Protocol, with a view to its adoption at this meeting; and

.2 develop any further recommendations that may be necessary for the

operationalization and implementation of the Strategic Plan, once adopted. Report of the working group 3.7 The Co-Chairs of the working group, Ms. Betsy Valente (United States), and Ms. Anne Daniel (Canada), in presenting the report (LC 38/WP.4), explained that the group had met on 20 and 21 September 2016 and had been attended by representatives from: Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Italy, Japan, the Marshall Islands, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International and WWF. 3.8 The Meetings noted that the group had focused on revising the draft text and developing a plan for the operationalization and implementation of the Strategic Plan. The resulting final draft text was contained in the annex to the working group's report (LC 38/WP.4). 3.9 Ms. Valente provided an overview of the revised final draft text of the Strategic Plan. The Plan is set over a period until 2030, which dovetails with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and includes a Purpose, Background, four Strategic Directions and Sub-directions, along with targets aligned with two of the four Strategic Directions. 3.10 Ms. Daniel explained that while the working group noted that the Plan was aspirational in nature, it was nevertheless felt to be important to provide targets, where possible, in order to be able to evaluate progress towards achieving the Strategic Directions. While 2030 was the ultimate target date, interim target dates of 2022 (the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the London Convention 1972) and 2026 (the thirtieth anniversary of the adoption of the 1996 London Protocol) were included in order to measure progress in the shorter term. The first Strategic Direction (to promote ratification of or accession to the London Protocol) has a target to "substantially increase the rate per year of new ratifications or accessions to the London Protocol". A footnote to this provides the rate by outlining that there have been 21 ratifications since the entry into force in 2006.

LC 38/16


3.11 For the second Strategic Direction (enhance effective implementation of the London Convention and London Protocol) there were targets selected for reporting by Parties to both treaties by the key dates of 2022 (75%), 2026 (85%) and 2030 (100%). Similarly, those dates were used for the target of Parties to both treaties having established a national authority. However, the target of 100% was chosen for each target date (2022, 2026, and 2030) because it was felt that this was a crucial institution for the effectiveness of the treaties, such that by 2022 all Parties should have established a national authority. Furthermore, in light of ongoing efforts to increase the number of Protocol Parties, the target of 100% of Parties having established a national authority should be maintained for the target dates of 2022 and 2026, and with any increase in the number of Parties. Targets were also set for Parties having appropriate domestic legislative or regulatory authorities to implement the Protocol, with the same targets for the Convention. A target was also set to have a full membership in the Compliance Group, with 15 members representing all five United Nations regions by 2022. 3.12 For the third Strategic Direction (promoting the work of the London Protocol and Convention externally) and the fourth Strategic Direction (identifying and addressing emerging issues in the marine environment within the scope of the treaties), no targets were developed. 3.13 On addressing the second part of the working group's mandate to develop any further recommendations to operationalize and implement the Strategic Plan once adopted, owing to limited time the working group did not discuss this in detail, but recommended the establishment of an intersessional correspondence group to undertake this task. 3.14 The Meetings concluded that there was a need to prepare recommendations for the revision and implementation of the Plan, such as the review of the objectives and targets, the identification of outputs and possibly the development of an action plan, as well as the development of recommendations on the communication and outreach, including the involvement of the subsidiary bodies. Action by the governing bodies 3.15 Following a brief discussion, the governing bodies approved the report of the working group (LC 38/WP.4) and in particular:

.1 adopted the Strategic Plan for the London Protocol and London Convention, as set out in annex 2; and

.2 decided to establish an intersessional correspondence group, under the lead of

the two Vice-Chairs of the governing bodies2, to develop recommendations on how to operationalize and implement the Strategic Plan, such as the establishment of periodic reviews of the Plan.

3.16 The governing bodies thanked the two Co-Chairs of the working group and all members who had taken part during the last three years.

2 Mrs. Azara Prempeh (Ghana, First Vice-Chair) and Ms. Betsy Valente (United States, Second Vice-Chair)

can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.

mailto:[email protected]


LC 38/16


4 CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 4.1 The First Vice-Chair of the Scientific Groups, Commander Enrique Vargas Guerra (Chile), informed the Meetings of the main points from the joint session of the Scientific Groups under the London Convention and Protocol, held from 7 to 11 March 2016, at the Secretariat for the Pacific Community in Suva, Fiji (LC 38/4). The report of the Scientific Groups had been circulated as document LC/SG 39/16. 4.2 The Meetings noted, in particular, that the Groups had continued their efforts to develop further guidance for the assessment of wastes, and to update existing guidance. 4.3 The Meetings noted that the Scientific Groups had agreed to re-establish the intersessional correspondence group on the development of further guidance on action lists and action levels for dredged material, under the lead of Chile3, with a view to finalizing its work by the next joint session in 2017 in accordance with the revised terms of reference and work plan. The coordinator of the correspondence group provided a brief overview of the progress made in the intersessional period, and noted that the correspondence group members would meet informally during the course of the Meetings, to progress work even further. Action by the governing bodies 4.4 Following a brief discussion, the governing bodies adopted the report of the thirty-ninth session of the LC Scientific Group and the tenth session of the LP Scientific Group, and, in particular: .1 endorsed the Scientific Groups' recommendation that further work on

guidance about the development of action lists and levels for organic material of natural origin should not be pursued, given that only high-level, generic advice can be provided and that this is already sufficiently addressed in existing guidance documents. However, the governing bodies recognized the usefulness of receiving more specificity in the dumping reports submitted to the Secretariat for this waste stream, to be able to assess more thoroughly the types of wastes permitted as organic material of natural origin;

.2 encouraged Contracting Parties to make submissions on experiences with

waste prevention techniques to future sessions of the Scientific Groups, in particular, on novel techniques that have not yet previously been discussed by the Groups, as well as the submission of pertinent links to websites containing overviews of information in relation to the application of the waste assessment guidance, which can be included on the LC/LP website, for information purposes.

.3 encouraged Contracting Parties to present their case studies on the

beneficial use of wastes and experiences with habitat enhancement activities to the next session of the Scientific Groups; and

.4 welcomed the re-election of Ms. Linda Porebski (Canada) as Chair,

Commander Enrique Vargas Guerra (Chile) as First Vice-Chair, and Dr. Andrew Birchenough (United Kingdom) as the Second Vice-Chair, for the intersessional period and for the next joint session of the Scientific Groups in 2017.

3 The coordinator, Commander Enrique Vargas Guerra, may be contacted at [email protected]


LC 38/16


4.5 Other action points emanating from the report of the Scientific Groups, as presented in document LC 38/4, were dealt with under the corresponding agenda items. 5 MARINE GEOENGINEERING INCLUDING OCEAN FERTILIZATION Update on the 2012 ocean fertilization incident 5.1 The delegation of Canada updated the Meetings on the alleged ocean fertilization incident that had occurred in the summer of 2012 in waters off Canada's west coast and highlighted that the matter was still under investigation. It was expected that once the investigation was completed a report would be provided to the governing bodies. Progress with ratification of the 2013 amendment to the London Protocol 5.2 It was recalled that, in 2013, the Meeting of Contracting Parties adopted resolution LP.4(8) on the amendment to the London Protocol to regulate the placement of matter for ocean fertilization and other marine geoengineering activities. 5.3 The Meetings were informed that the Secretary-General had received, on 24 June 2016, an instrument of acceptance of the 2013 amendments by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 5.4 The delegation of Germany informed the Meetings that preparations had commenced to ratify the 2013 amendments but had been delayed by resource constraints. 5.5 The delegation of the Republic of Korea had also commenced preparations for ratification and expected these to be completed in two years. Other issues

5.6 The Meetings were informed of activities conducted under the new GESAMP Working Group (WG 41) on marine geoengineering, and in particular, in relation to the inception meeting, which was held at IMO Headquarters from 23 to 25 May, 2016 (LC 38/INF.2). 5.7 The Meetings noted that the inception meeting was attended by 10 members of the group. It was also noted that GESAMP was developing a working definition of marine geoengineering, able to satisfy LC/LP needs as well as broader GESAMP needs. Work had also commenced on a scoring table, as shown in annex 2 to document LC 38/INF.2, to filter proposed techniques. It is envisaged that a second meeting of the working group will be held in the first half of 2017. 5.8 The Meetings were also informed of progress of GESAMP WG 41 by Dr. Chris Vivian (Co-Chair of WG 41) and noted that the definition of marine geoengineering may be broadened for GESAMP reasons but would not affect the usefulness of the work for the purposes of the London Protocol. A first phase of the work currently being undertaken would allow a screening of proposed techniques. The resulting techniques would then be analysed in more detail in a second phase. It was expected that the report of the inception meeting would be available in the near future. The second phase would commence in the spring of 2017. 5.9 In response to concerns regarding the work that GESAMP would undertake in relation to economic and social impacts, the Meetings noted that GESAMP had specifically requested that such issues be considered, and had been included in the terms of reference of the working group.

LC 38/16


5.10 The governing bodies invited Dr. Vivian to engage with the Scientific Groups as much as possible on this topic and to provide a report on progress of the group to the governing bodies at their next joint sessions in 2017, respectively. Experiments of marine geoengineering 5.11 The delegation of China informed the Meetings that a scientific experiment had been conducted by Zheijang University that included artificial upwelling of deep waters to the surface. The experimental system could move some 600 cubic metres of seawater per hour for three hours per day and was carried out for eight days. The equipment used for this experiment was retrieved after the experiment and according to the university's report, no damage had occurred in the marine environment. A report on this experiment would be submitted to the Scientific Groups in 2017. 5.12 The Meetings also noted that reports of an experiment off the coast of Chile, in the south east of the Pacific, may be under preparation. It was further noted that funding had been made available by the Research Council4 in the United Kingdom over a period of four years to conduct research on general aspects of marine geoengineering. 6 CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS (LP) Progress with the ratification of the 2009 amendment to article 6 of the London Protocol 6.1 It was recalled that in 2009 the Meeting of Contracting Parties adopted resolution LP.3(4) on the Amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol (LC 31/15, paragraph 5.17 and annex 5). 6.2 The governing body, having noted that there were only three ratifications (Norway (July 2011), the United Kingdom (February 2012) and the Netherlands (November 2014)) of the 2009 amendment, encouraged Contracting Parties to the London Protocol to do their utmost to facilitate the process to ensure entry into force as soon as possible. 6.3 The Chair invited delegations to provide an update on efforts towards ratification of resolution LP.3(4). Comments were made by several delegations, including:

.1 the delegation of Canada informed the Meeting of their support for the amendment and of efforts to look at options for ratification in the shortest possible time frame, but that no timeline has been agreed upon; and

.2 the delegation of the Philippines commented on their wish to fully implement

the amendment, but noted that for developing countries questions remain on the capacity of Administrations to implement and requested that a workshop be held to facilitate understanding on how the amendments will work within Administrations. The delegation of Norway offered to share information and experiences with interested parties to help remove barriers to ratification.

6.4 The governing body reminded delegations that the acceptance by Parties of the 2009 amendment to article 6 is seen as a crucial element of the 2006 amendments that could make this climate change mitigation technology a success.

4 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programmes/ggr/news/ao-ggr/

LC 38/16


Experiences with CO2 sequestration technologies and their application 6.5 It was recalled that the Meetings have benefited from regular updates by Parties on their experiences with CO2 sequestration technologies and their application of the relevant guidelines. This commitment has led to very informative reports both to the governing bodies and the Scientific Groups. 6.6 The delegation of Nigeria introduced document LC 38/6 on the International Workshop on Offshore CO2 Storage (Austin, Texas, United States, 19-21 April 2016). It was noted that the workshop was organized in response to a recommendation for international knowledge-sharing outlined in the CSLF Final report on technical barriers and R&D opportunities for offshore, sub-seabed storage of CO2, which was finalized in September, 2015 (see https://www.cslforum.org/sites/cslf/publications/documents/OffshoreStorageTaskForce_FinalCombinedReport.pdf). 6.7 The aims of the workshop were to undertake a global needs assessment for offshore geological CO2 storage, to initiate a discussion about the various aspects of offshore transport and storage, and to build an international community of parties interested in offshore storage. This was achieved by bringing together those who are undertaking offshore Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to share knowledge with those who are interested in this activity, and by facilitating countries to identify their specific issues, challenges, opportunities, and then to identify synergies, common gaps and goals, and define common action items. There was a pre-workshop survey to assess the status and needs for each country. 6.8 At the workshop, Nigeria emphasized the collaboration between the CCS Team and that of the London Convention and Protocol communities and GESAMP, and it was so recorded in the main report of the workshop. If developing countries access the funds made available through the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre (CTC), it can serve as a way of meeting up with technology experts and build up knowledge of Contracting Parties from developing countries to implement the disposal of CO2 waste streams under the London Protocol. 6.9 Recommendations from the workshop included:

.1 international collaboration and funding mechanism for a demonstration project;

.2 development of a test programme and pilot project for infrastructure

developments; .3 workshops and training on a range of topics including: storage resource

assessment, funding sources for early stages of CCS resource assessment in developing countries, platform infrastructure and transport infrastructure issues and developments, and comparing specific aspects across projects such as environmental monitoring;

.4 assistance with access to existing key information sources, and a common

language on storage; and .5 creation of an "Offshore Network" or other means of continuing the

momentum from this workshop.

LC 38/16


6.10 The delegation of Saudi Arabia informed the Meetings of their full support for CCS technologies, both on and off shore, and encouraged the Contracting Parties to continue to work towards adoption of the 2009 London Protocol amendment, noting that the success of the Paris Agreement is heavily dependent upon technologies such as CCS. Action by the governing bodies 6.11 The governing bodies noted the information provided and in particular:

.1 acknowledged the support provided by IEAGHG; .2 noted that Nigeria is available to share the lessons learnt as may be needed; .3 encouraged the Secretariat to work more closely with UNFCCC (CTC) and

IEAGHG in this regard; and .4 noted that the workshop identified the London Protocol as the primary global

instrument that can be used to regulate CCS. 6.12 The observer from OECD/IEA introduced document LC 38/INF.4 on Review of CO2 Sequestration Permit under the London Protocol – An assessment of the proposed P18-4 CO2 storage site in the Netherlands. 6.13 The Meetings noted that a review of a CO2 Sequestration Permit under the London Protocol was undertaken as part of the assessment of the proposed P18-4 CO2 storage site in the Netherlands. The objective is to assess to what extent the proposed P18-4 storage site complies with the London Protocol's 2012 Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Streams for Disposal into Sub-seabed Geological Formations (CO2 Specific Guidelines), and therefore the 1996 London Protocol itself. 6.14 The P18-4 field, originally part of the ROAD carbon capture and storage (CCS) Project, is a near-depleted gas field at a depth of 3.5 km under the seabed, located approximately 20 km off the Dutch coast in the North Sea. The operator of the gas field applied for a CO2 storage permit to the Dutch authorities in 2011. 6.15 The project was permitted primarily under the Dutch Mining Act (2011). This Act applies the conditions required by the EU's CCS Directive (2009). The Directive applies the conditions required by the OSPAR CCS amendment and permit guidelines (2007). These follow closely the conditions required by the London Protocol amendment (2006) and CO2 Specific Guidelines (2007 version). Therefore, it would be hoped that the conditions required on the project at the national level should be consistent with those of the London Protocol. The assessment has been achieved through a simple, but systematic, cross-check of the requirements of the CO2 Specific Guidelines against the contents of the application material provided by the operator to the National Authority. This involved the appraisal of approximately 1,100 pages of submitted material in order to identify evidence of compliance. TNO were contracted by IEAGHG to undertake this assessment and this report represents their findings (IEAGHG Report 2016/TR45, annex).

5 Available online at: http://www.ieaghg.org/publications/blog/129-publications/new-reports-list/681-2014-tr4

LC 38/16


6.16 Several recommendations are made to the Contracting Parties to the London Protocol:

.1 clarification could be sought on the extent to which the applicant must comment on the economic and operational feasibility as a consideration in the selection of a sub-seabed geological formation for the disposal of CO2 streams; and

.2 clarification could be sought on the extent and nature of public participation

recommended in the permitting process of CO2 storage sites, given a lack of experience and suitable legal provisions for enforcing such participation in some Contracting Parties.

6.17 Several delegations commented on document LC 38/INF.4, including:

.1 the delegation of Norway welcomed the report and stated that the findings are in line with their experience from a recent review conducted by Norway of the permits for two existing CCS sites and that the recommendations to the Contracting Parties also make sense;

.2 the delegation of the Netherlands welcomed the OECD report and stated that

they will study the recommendations in more detail and take them into account when considering any future permits. They also noted that while the London Protocol overarches permits granted by national authorities, the permit for permanent storage of CO2 for the P18-4 location is irrevocable, and could not easily be altered; and

.3 the observer from Greenpeace International suggested that future

recommendations include monitoring of marine biota, which was noted by the delegation of OECD/IEA.

6.18 The Meetings were also informed on CCS technology updates, as follows:

.1 the delegation of Saudi Arabia reported that they currently have one CCS project under way and a second project proposal, in partnership with Japan, is being considered; and

.2 the delegation of the United Kingdom commented that they believe CCS

technology can be crucial if the costs can be reduced, noting that two CCS projects were curtailed owing to budget constraints. The United Kingdom further commented that they are committed to finding ways to reduce the costs of CCS technology, as well as looking at the potential to develop new markets and revenue streams to support projects.

6.19 The observer from OECD/IEA updated the Meetings on IEA and IEAGHG policy and technical work associated with CCS. He highlighted the following items:

.1 the importance of CCS as a technology that allows the challenge of reducing emissions to be met while meeting growing energy demand around the world. The 2015 edition of IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP 2015) highlights the role for technological innovation in meeting the challenge of climate change and the importance, in particular, of near-term opportunities for continued development of CCS. This analysis supports the goals of the IEA 2013 CCS Roadmap, which also includes ratification of the LP export amendment as key action for CCS;

LC 38/16


.2 the IEA continues to support governments in implementing enabling policies and regulatory frameworks for CCS, including those that pertain to sub-seabed storage of CO2. The main vehicles through which the IEA supports its member and non-member governments in this area are the IEA International CCS Regulatory Network and its regular update on CCS regulation, the IEA Carbon Capture and Storage Legal and Regulatory Review. The Regulatory Network provides a neutral forum for CCS regulators, policymakers and stakeholders to share updates and views on CCS regulatory developments. The next meeting of the Regulatory Network will be 23 to 24 November 2016 in Paris, France;

.3 IEAGHG runs several Research Networks relevant to CCS and the marine

environment. The report of the combined meeting of the Risk Management Network and the Environmental Research Network has been published in September 2015, which had an offshore theme and was hosted by the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK (IEAGHG Report 2016-08); and

.4 IEAGHG initiated work to assess a permit issued to a CCS project in

the Netherlands in the context of London Protocol requirements. The objective of this work was to assess to what extent the proposed storage site complies with the London Protocol's 2012 Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Streams for Disposal into Sub-seabed Geological Formations (CO2 Specific Guidelines), and therefore the 1996 London Protocol itself.

6.20 For more information on IEA activities contact [email protected] or visit their website http://www.iea.org/, and for more information on IEAGHG activities contact [email protected] or visit the website http://www.ieaghg.org/. 7 COMPLIANCE ISSUES Review of reports on dumping permits issued in 2013 and 2014 7.1 The Meetings considered the final draft compilation report containing data on permits issued in 2013 (LC 38/7/2) and the first draft summary report on dumping permits issued in 2014 (LC 38/7/3). 7.2 The Meetings noted that the final 2013 compilation report would be circulated in January 2017, following a quality check of the data, and taking into account any further submissions of dumping reports (before the end of December 2016). The Secretariat would forward a final draft compilation report for 2014, for which submissions were requested by the end of December 2016, and a first draft compilation report for 2015, to the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Dumping Reports (CGADR) for review, after which these draft reports would be submitted to the next session of the Scientific Groups, in 2017, for consideration. The Meetings were also informed that the CGADR had finalized its review of the 2013 data and had forwarded this to the Secretariat. 7.3 The Meetings also noted that, of the 36 Parties providing reports for 2013 so far, nine were Party only to the Convention, and 27 were Party to the Protocol (either only the Protocol or both the Convention and Protocol). This was equivalent to a reporting rate of 17% for the Convention only Parties, and 63% for the Protocol Parties.


http://www.iea.org/


http://www.ieaghg.org/

LC 38/16


7.4 Furthermore, the Meetings noted that with respect to the compilation of 2014 dumping data, the final draft compilation report would be available for review by the Scientific Groups and the governing bodies in 2017. So far, out of the 22 Parties that had reported for 2014, eight were Party only to the Convention, and 14 were Party to the Protocol, equivalent to a reporting rate of 15% for the Convention only Parties, and 31% for the Protocol Parties, which was deemed to be too low a reporting rate for any valuable statistics or analysis, and the detailed tables had not been compiled at this point. Action by the governing bodies 7.5 In conclusion, the governing bodies:

.1 noted the need to strengthen the Correspondence Group on Assessment of dumping reports by identifying additional volunteers to contribute to the work of the group6;

.2 urged all Parties, if they had not done so, to provide the Secretariat with their

annual reports, including NIL reports that indicate no dumping activities in a particular year, as soon as possible but no later than the end of December 2016 for their 2013 and 2014 activities;

.3 encouraged States to continue to reach out to neighbouring countries who

are not reporting, and to indicate if they need assistance in preparing the reports; and

.4 instructed the Secretariat to:

.1 publish the final 2013 compilation report in early 2017, taking into

account comments or amendments made; and .2 submit a final draft 2014 compilation report and a first draft 2015

compilation report to the Scientific Groups and the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Dumping Reports, for their review.

Review of the status of compliance requirements 7.6 The Meetings considered document LC 38/INF.3 containing information on the extent to which Contracting Parties had notified the Secretariat of the annual reports on their dumping activities from 1976 up to and including 2014. 7.7 The Meetings noted that since the entry into force of the Convention in 1975, the overall response rate of Contracting Parties had continued to fall and was now below 40%. The Meetings also noted the large disparity between Convention and Protocol Parties with respect to reporting rates, as was indicated in paragraph 7.3 above. The governing bodies reiterated that this trend needed to be reversed, and that the issue needed to be kept on the agenda of the Compliance Group as well as the B2C Steering Group. 7.8 With respect to the annex to document LC 38/7/4, the Meetings noted that 44 Parties had not reported in the previous five years (2010–2014), which was identical to the period 2008 to 2012. However, looking at the reporting rate for each year, it was noted that the number of non-reporting Parties continues to increase, despite the increasing number of Contracting Parties to the Protocol.

6 The coordinator, Ms. Margot Cronin (Ireland) can be contacted at: [email protected]


LC 38/16


7.9 With regard to the notification of illegal dumping ("Reporting Procedure of observed dumping incidents which may be in violation of international ocean dumping treaties", LC-LP.1/Circ.47), it was noted that no such reports had been received by the Secretariat in the last twelve months. 7.10 The Meetings noted that circular LC-LP.1/Circ.74, dated 16 November 2015, had announced the availability of the online reporting module, and was now available in the IMO Global Integrated Shipping information System (GISIS), at https://gisis.imo.org. The circular also contains guidance on how data should be entered. Parties were invited to use this online reporting system as the preferred option for their annual dumping reports, and to notify the Secretariat of any issues encountered when entering the data so that these can be addressed as a matter of priority. Action by the governing bodies 7.11 In conclusion, the governing bodies:

.1 urged all Parties to start using the online reporting module for submission of their data on dumping permits as soon as possible using LC-LP.1/Circ.74 as guidance;

.2 urged all Parties to ensure that the contact details of the National Focal

Points are kept up to date in the GISIS Contact Points module for the LC/LP; .3 invited the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Dumping Reports,

under the lead of Ireland, to report on the outcome of its work to the next session of the Scientific Groups in 2017;

.4 endorsed the Scientific Groups' instruction to the Secretariat to continue its

efforts to increase reporting through collaboration with regional bodies, and in particular, explore ways to encourage the use of the new online reporting module in GISIS; and

.5 noted that it would be important to develop a procedure for uploading larger

datasets into the GISIS module, and instructed the Secretariat to initiate this work as soon as possible.

Other compliance issues 7.12 The Meetings recalled that in 2007 the governing bodies discussed the issue of "Monitoring for Convention and Protocol purposes" under this agenda item as these compliance issues are submitted directly to the governing bodies. Activities related to research and assessment (field monitoring), are of particular interest to the Scientific Groups. 7.13 The Meetings also recalled that Contracting Parties to both the Convention and the Protocol had been invited to submit reports on compliance monitoring to the current session, as such reports would not only be important to show that the goals of dumping policies and permit conditions had been met, but would also show to a wider audience that the London Convention and Protocol were effective agreements. Such reports would also offer valuable information for the LP Compliance Group. 7.14 The Meetings, having noted that no reports had been submitted in recent years, urged Parties to both the Convention and the Protocol to submit reports on compliance monitoring to the next session of the governing bodies.

https://gisis.imo.org/

LC 38/16


7.15 The Republic of Korea provided an overview of statistics of dumping permits for the period from 1972–2010 (LC 38/7/1). The Meetings noted that these records provided evidence of the effectiveness of, as well as some challenges for, the London Convention and Protocol, and welcomed the opportunity to continue the work, with a view to providing further statistical analysis through future publications. 7.16 In considering document LC 38/7 (Republic of Korea) the Meetings noted the administrative activities that led to the cessation of disposal of sewage sludge at sea in the Republic of Korea by the end of 2015. Noting that there had been a continuous and transparent dialogue with other Parties throughout the process, several delegations noted that the insight into the experiences presented would prove valuable to many other countries, and it was suggested that the information would benefit from a wider circulation, possibly in the academic literature. Compliance Group matters (including the report of its ninth session)

7.17 The Chair of the Compliance Group, Dr. Felicia Chinwe Mogo (Nigeria), introduced the report of the ninth meeting of the Compliance Group (LC 38/WP.2). 7.18 Following discussion, the Meeting of Contracting Parties:

.1 approved the report of the Compliance Group, as set out in annex 3 and the recommendations therein, and agreed to the proposed work programme of the Compliance Group for the period up to and including its tenth session in 2017, as amended;

.2 invited Parties to provide electronic versions of their administrative and

legislative measures to the Secretariat, even if they have already provided paper copies;

.3 instructed the Scientific Groups to update the list of technical experts

contained in the appendices of "The London Protocol – What it is and how to implement it" and instructed the Secretariat to make this list available online;

.4 extended the terms of the two members whose terms would expire in 2017 (Prof. Akiko Okamatsu from Japan and Ms. Suzanne Agius from Canada) by a further three years (i.e. until the thirteenth meeting in 2020); and

.5 instructed the Compliance Group to support the implementation of the Strategic Plan, once adopted.

7.19 The Meeting thanked the Compliance Group for its efforts and expressed its appreciation to all its members, and in particular to Dr. Felicia Chinwe Mogo, who was stepping down as Chair of the Compliance Group, after several years of sterling leadership.

LC 38/16


Status of membership in the Compliance Group 7.20 The Meeting, having recalled that the second Meeting of Contracting Parties had adopted, in 2007, the Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms pursuant to article 11 of the London Protocol, noted that the current membership of the Compliance Group, taking into account the extensions agreed in paragraph 7.18.4 above, was:

.1 Prof. Young Sok Kim (Republic of Korea), elected for three terms in 2012, extended for three terms in 2015, membership expiring in 2018;

.2 Ms. Zhao Lei (China), elected for three terms in 2012, extended for three terms in 2015, membership expiring in 2018;

.3 Prof. Akiko Okamatsu (Japan), elected for three terms in 2014, extended for

three terms in 2016, membership expiring in 2020;

.4 Ms. Radia Razack (South Africa), elected for three terms in 2011, extended for one term in 2014 and again for three terms in 2015, membership expiring 2018;

.5 Dr. Felicia Chinwe Mogo (Nigeria), elected for three terms in 2012, extended

for three terms in 2015, membership expiring in 2018;

.6 Ms. Anja Elisenberg (Norway), elected for three terms in 2012, extended for three terms in 2015, membership expiring in 2018;

.7 Ms. Suzanne Agius (Canada), elected for three terms in 2014, extended for

three terms in 2016, membership expiring in 2020; .8 Mr. Felipe González (Chile), elected for three terms in 2015, membership

expiring in 2018; and .9 Mr. Gildardo Alarcon Daowz (Mexico) was elected for three terms in 2015,

membership expiring in 2018.

7.21 The Meeting noted that none of the current nine Compliance Group members' terms would expire at the end of this Meeting. However, the Meeting was informed that Ms. Anja Elisenberg (Norway) would not be able to continue her tenure with the Compliance Group resulting in one extra vacancy in the WEOG. Election of members for future sessions of the Compliance Group 7.22 As no new nominations had been received, the Meeting reconfirmed the existing agreement that any of the five United Nations regions which has not provided three members at this session may do so in the intersessional period with the approval of the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Meeting of Contracting Parties. 8 TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE Update of the Barriers to Compliance (B2C) Implementation Plan and Progress Report, including workshops and projects 8.1 The Meetings recalled that in 2015, the governing bodies had reviewed the execution and planning of various activities under the "Barriers to Compliance" (B2C) Project and noted, with appreciation, new contributions pledged for this project by China and the Republic of

LC 38/16


Korea. This was in addition to a three-year grant provided by Canada and annual funding by Norway to sponsor participants to various meetings of the Convention and Protocol. The Meetings also noted requests for technical assistance from several countries and regions. 8.2 The Meetings were informed of progress made by the B2C Steering Group in the intersessional period, and had for their consideration the following documents submitted by the Chair of the B2C Steering Group (Ms. Azara Prempeh (Ghana)):

.1 LC 38/8/2, guiding discussions related to the further consideration of the Pilot

Country Concept within the London Protocol along the lines of the Lead Partnering Countries concept in the GloBallast Partnership Project for the implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention. The Meetings noted that even though there were many merits in applying the concept, further discussion on the modalities of operationalizing such a concept would be needed, for example on the scope and focus, funding, project management and specific activities to be undertaken;

.2 LC 38/8/3, providing an update on the status of activities/items approved

under the B2C work plan. The Meetings noted the progress made, in particular those items that needed further work, as highlighted in other submissions by the Chair of the B2C Steering Group;

.3 LC 38/8/4, presenting a summary of the intersessional work carried out by

correspondence on the development of a document on the benefits of ratifying and being Party to the London Protocol. The Meetings noted that this was an interim report and that further work was needed; and

.4 LC 38/8/5, containing a draft communications plan for the publication

Guidelines on low cost, low technology assessment of dredged material: 2015 edition. The Meetings noted that the communications plan had been finalized by the B2C Steering Group, and was ready for implementation.

8.3 In the ensuing discussions, the following points were made:

.1 the Meetings noted the request by some delegations with respect to model

or sample legislation to assist in the national implementation of the Protocol, and that for some regions, model legislation exists, including those made available by regional bodies such as SPREP in the Pacific. There are several relevant tools available such as the "The London Protocol: What it is and how to implement it", the "How to seek assistance guidance" (available on the website) and the Guide to national implementation (also available on the website and currently being updated);

.2 the delegation of the Philippines suggested that the use of networks such as

WMU or IMLI graduates could provide a useful roster of expertise who could be further trained and become a valuable resource in the regions; and

.3 it was suggested that presentations by countries during the Meetings of the

governing bodies or the Scientific Groups on their experiences with implementing the Protocol could be a useful source of information for prospective Parties.

LC 38/16


8.4 The governing bodies decided to reconvene the B2C Steering Group and to add the consideration of the above-mentioned documents to the group's terms of reference (refer to paragraph 8.33, below). 8.5 The Meetings were also informed of progress with current projects, including an overview of national and regional workshops and of projects currently planned. 8.6 The Meetings noted that since the last meeting of the governing bodies, four workshops on the promotion and implementation of the London Protocol had been implemented. 8.7 A national workshop for the Islamic Republic of Iran was held in Tehran, from 2 to 4 November, 2015. A report of this workshop was provided to the Scientific Groups (LC/SG 39/6). 8.8 The delegation of Fiji informed the Meetings of the outcomes of the regional workshop for the Pacific region, held in Suva, Fiji, 2 to 4 March 2016, funded by the IMO ITCP and the LC/LP Trust Fund and held back-to-back with the joint session of the Scientific Groups (LC 38/8/6). The workshop was attended by 15 delegates from the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, as well as representatives from South Pacific Community (SPC) and SPREP. Experts were kindly provided in-kind by the Governments of Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as SPREP. The workshop identified that the main barriers to implementation of the LP in the region were a lack of human, financial and technological resources, lack of political support and lack of awareness. The workshop, therefore, recommended: .1 the development of an action plan for the region; .2 the creation of a network for continued dialogue; and .3 that SPREP could act as a focal point for London Protocol matters in the

region. 8.9 The Meetings were informed of the outcomes of a national workshop for Viet Nam, held in Hanoi from 25 to 27 May, 2016, and funded by the LC/LP Trust Fund and with substantial in-kind support from the Republic of Korea, including two experts. The workshop was attended by approximately 70 participants. One main outcome from the workshop was the development of a national work plan, as well as a request for further assistance from IMO for the implementation of this plan (LC 38/8/1). 8.10 The Meetings were also informed of the outcomes of a national workshop held in Antananarivo, Madagascar, on 11 and 12 August 2016, and funded by the IMO ITCP. The workshop was attended by 23 participants drawn from maritime and environmental authorities of Madagascar, as well as representatives from industry and academia. The lectures were provided in a mix of French and English, with one expert provided in-kind by the Government of Canada. A key recommendation from the workshop was to create a national coordinating committee composed of representatives from the different government agencies, private sector organizations, non-governmental organizations, related research institutions, universities and other key stakeholders so that the London Protocol and its impact on the present regulatory framework for the control of marine pollution from dumping at sea can be studied and appropriate recommendations can be formulated for the possible ratification of the Protocol.

LC 38/16


8.11 The Meetings noted that the Secretariat had received further requests for national and regional workshops that may be implemented, depending on funds available from the Trust Fund and other sources, in 2016-2017. The Meetings were reminded of the continued need for Parties to encourage experts to register with the IMO roster of experts for technical cooperation, as initially announced in LC-LP.1/Circ.59. 8.12 The governing bodies thanked those that had contributed to the workshops, by hosting activities as well as by providing funding and experts, and extended their appreciation, in particular, to the Governments of Canada, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom, as well as SPREP, for providing experts in-kind to the activities during the intersessional period. Follow-up evaluation questionnaire for regional or national workshops under the "Barriers to Compliance" Project 8.13 The Meetings recalled that in 2010 the governing bodies adopted a Follow-up Evaluation Questionnaire, which would be forwarded to workshop participants sometime after the conclusion of a regional or national workshop, to evaluate the effectiveness of past national or regional workshops on the London Convention and Protocol. 8.14 The Meetings also recalled that given the low rate of responses to the Questionnaire, the B2C Steering group was instructed to develop recommendations on how to improve the feedback from the technical cooperation activities (LC/SG 38/16, annex 5). 8.15 The Meetings were informed of progress in assessing the effectiveness of workshops and noted the following response rates, as provided by the IMO Internal Oversight and Ethics Office: .1 national workshop, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 23 and 24 March 2015:

one ex-post response received, from 22 participants emailed; .2 subregional workshop, Mexico City, Mexico, 8 to 10 July 2015: seven

responses from 23 participants emailed; .3 subregional workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, 10 and 11 August 2015:

six responses from 37 participants emailed; and .4 regional workshop on the London Protocol and PSSAs, Jeddah, Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia, 24 to 28 May 2015: two responses from 21 participants emailed.

8.16 The Meetings reiterated the urgent need to improve the situation considerably, and to understand the reasons for this low interest in the Questionnaire, and requested the Secretariat to monitor these developments and report back to the governing bodies at future sessions, as appropriate, as any new information emerges. Action by the governing bodies 8.17 Following discussion, the governing bodies: .1 encouraged all delegations to ensure that when they host a workshop, the

post-activity evaluation be submitted to the IMO Internal Oversight and Ethics Office to ensure that the impacts of the activities can be properly assessed;

LC 38/16


.2 instructed the Secretariat to continue to distribute the Questionnaire, or when appropriate the IMO questionnaire, to past participants and provide further updates to the governing bodies in the future, as new information emerges; and

.3 instructed the Secretariat to provide a summary of the evaluations to the next

joint session of the Scientific Groups, in 2017. Progress with bilateral technical cooperation projects and national or regional workshops as reported by contracting or non-contracting parties, as well as promotion activities in regional fora 8.18 The Meetings recalled that this item was meant to encourage countries reporting on bilateral projects they had established for capacity building in the field of protection of the marine environment and promotion of sound waste management. It was noted that the reports of the representatives of the international organizations, which had in previous years been captured under agenda item 12, was since last year discussed under this agenda item. 8.19 The delegation of Spain informed the Meetings of progress under the Barcelona Convention. It was noted that the Contracting Parties at their nineteenth meeting, held in Athens, Greece, from 9 to 12 February 2016, requested the Secretariat of the Barcelona Convention to undertake a review of the implementation of the technical guidelines adopted under Articles 5 and 6 of the Dumping Protocol of UNEP/MAP – Barcelona Convention. With a view to ensuring synergies, where appropriate, with the London Protocol and its recently updated generic and specific guidelines, COP 19 also requested the Secretariat to update the respective MAP/MED POL guidelines taking into account the Mediterranean specifics. It was also noted that the Barcelona Convention Dumping Protocol is not yet in force, missing only one Contracting Party to meet its entry-into-force criteria. More information about the work under the Barcelona Convention could be found at http://www.unepmap.org. 8.20 The delegation of Spain also informed the Meetings of progress under OSPAR and highlighted that, following the 2016 meeting of Contracting Parties that took place in Tenerife (Spain), work had been conducted to prepare a set of tools for protecting the marine environment from various sources of pollution and biological diversity. The meeting took account of different matters of relevance to the London Convention and Protocol. In particular, there was a discussion on mine tailings and the way to undertake the issue in collaboration with LC/LP; in addition, there was work ongoing on dredged materials, marine litter, offshore oil and gas, all this from the perspective of the implementation of the ecosystem approach. Last but not least, there was a clear interest of Contracting Parties to strengthen the collaboration of OSPAR and IMO in relation to the management of marine protected areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. More information, as well as a list of forthcoming OSPAR meetings, could be obtained at http://www.ospar.org. 8.21 The delegation of Chile informed the Meetings of activities under the Lima Convention, and recent work carried out under the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS). It was noted that the importance of the London Protocol had been raised in relation to the Southeast Pacific Action Plan. Chile also informed of planned technical cooperation activities with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) on issues related to environmental emergencies, dumping of wastes at sea, etc., during the period 2017-2018. More information about work in relation to the Lima Convention could be found at http://www.cpps-int.org/.

http://www.unepmap.org/

http://www.ospar.org/

http://www.cpps-int.org/

LC 38/16


8.22 The delegation of the United States informed the Meetings of activities conducted under the Cartagena Convention and highlighted that the third meeting of the Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee (STAC) to the Protocol concerning Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities (LBS) in the Wider Caribbean, would be held in Miami, United States, from 31 October to 2 November 2016. More information about the work in relation to the Cartagena Convention could be found at http://www.cep.unep.org/.

8.23 The delegation of Sweden informed the Meetings of activities under the Helsinki Convention. The regional expert group on environmental risks of hazardous submerged objects (SUBMERGED), aiming to produce a regional overview assessment of wrecks, dumped munitions and other underwater hazards, had held two meetings. The mandate of the group, as well as the deadline for a final product, has been extended until the end of 2018. The next meeting of the group will take place on 4 and 5 October 2016 in Helsinki, Finland. This meeting will focus on wrecks, including the creation of a regional dataset on hazardous wrecks. Furthermore, HELCOM has been working for better regional overview on dredging activities and aims to use this information as part of forthcoming publications on human activities in the sea. The meeting of HELCOM Heads of Delegation, held in June 2016, welcomed the possibility of arranging a regional seminar on implementing the London Protocol in the Baltic Sea during 2016 or 2017. More information about the Helsinki Convention could be found at http://helcom.fi. 8.24 The delegation of the United States informed the Meetings of activities carried out under the Arctic Council, which is currently focusing its work on three pillars, namely safety, security and stewardship of the Arctic Ocean. Discussions are ongoing with respect to the establishment of a Pan-Arctic network of protected areas, strengthening of search and rescue capabilities, the enhancement of scientific cooperation, and the improvement of oil pollution preparedness in the region. Further information could be obtained at www.arctic-council.org. 8.25 The delegation of the United States also informed the Meetings of the outcomes of the recently concluded "Our Ocean" conference, which was held in Washington D.C., United States, on 15 and 16 September 2016. The conference had resulted in 136 new initiatives and pledges amounting to $5.25 billion to support the core themes of the conference. More information about the conference can be found at http://ourocean2016.org/. 8.26 The delegation of Kenya informed the Meetings of activities undertaken by the secretariat of the Nairobi Convention. It was noted that a vision for the region, entitled "Vision: A prosperous Western Indian Ocean Region with healthy rivers, coasts and oceans" had recently been produced by the Nairobi Convention Secretariat. Further information about the Nairobi Convention could be obtained at http://www.unep.org/nairobiconvention/. 8.27 The delegation of Nigeria informed the Meetings of activities undertaken in the Abidjan Convention region. It was noted that Nigeria had established a national task force on the implementation of the London Protocol, and that several issues were being addressed at the national level, including those related to CCS and marine litter (see also under item 9, below). Efforts were also being made to establish a regional centre on issues related to the London Protocol. Further information about the Abidjan Convention and its work in the region could be obtained at http://abidjanconvention.org/. 8.28 The delegation of Saudi Arabia informed the Meetings of activities undertaken in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden area, through the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA), including a regional workshop on biofouling, held in Djibouti on 1 and 2 June 2016, focusing on how to implement IMO's 2011 Biofouling Guidelines, which provide a globally consistent approach to managing biofouling and reducing the transfer of invasive aquatic species by ships. A regional workshop on

http://www.cep.unep.org/

http://helcom.fi/

http://www.arctic-council.org/

http://ourocean2016.org/

http://www.unep.org/nairobiconvention/

http://abidjanconvention.org/

LC 38/16


Antifouling Systems (AFS), was held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on 10 and 11 May 2016, discussing the environmentally sound practices for the disposal of waste generated in applying and removing anti-fouling systems. Further information could be obtained at http://www.persga.org. 8.29 In conclusion, the governing bodies thanked all delegations that had spoken and invited them to continue contributing to the outreach activities and play an ambassadorial role to promote the London Protocol in their respective forums, and report back on the results to the next Meetings. Action by the governing bodies 8.30 In the ensuing discussion, the governing bodies re-emphasized the importance of a continuous and active dialogue with the regional environmental conventions and their secretariats to promote the London Protocol, and instructed the Secretariat to make every effort to strengthen the cooperation at regional level. The governing bodies also instructed the Secretariat to continue forwarding LC/LP brochures and other useful information to the secretariats of various regional bodies to promote the London Protocol. Status reports on other technical cooperation and outreach activities, and outstanding matters deferred from the Report of the Scientific Groups 8.31 The Republic of Korea informed the Meetings of their plan to establish a Graduate School of LP Engineering Master of Project Administration (LPEM) to further deepen technical cooperation in the area of science and technology in the Republic of Korea (LC 38/8). It was noted that the intention was to ensure that the LPEM would benefit from international support, for example with the selection of students and identification of suitable lecturers. 8.32 Delegations welcomed the initiative by the Republic of Korea, and the Meetings noted that further information would be useful in order for delegations to understand how they could best contribute to the LPEM. The Meetings, therefore, agreed to forward document LC 38/8 to the B2C Steering Group for further discussion. Re-establishment of the B2C Steering Group 8.33 The Meetings reconvened the B2C Project Steering Group, with the following terms of reference: .1 taking into account new requests for assistance, donor pledges and

comments made in plenary, review the overview of planned activities; .2 using document LC 38/8/2 as a basis and taking any comments from plenary

into account, continue its work on the Pilot Country Concept; .3 using document LC 38/8/3 as a basis and taking any comments from plenary

into account, continue its work on:

.1 finalize the implementation plan for the measures to increase ratification; and

.2 work on the scope and content of promotional material to be

developed to increase ratification;

http://www.persga.org/

LC 38/16


.4 using document LC 38/8/4 as a basis and taking any comments from plenary into account, the development of a document on the benefits of being a Party to the Protocol;

.5 using document LC 38/8 as a basis and taking any comments from plenary

into account, prepare a work plan and timelines on how to address the issue of establishing and operating the LPEM under the auspices of the London Protocol; and

.6 prepare recommendations on any other actions to take. Report of the B2C Steering Group 8.34 The Chair of the B2C Steering Group (Mrs. Azara Prempeh, Ghana) informed the Meetings that the group had met on 20 and 21 September 2016 (LC 38/WP.5) attended by delegations from Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, and an observer from IMarEST. 8.35 The Meetings noted that the group had completed its tasks, making several proposals for issues to be further discussed intersessionally. Action by the governing bodies 8.36 Having received the report of the B2C Steering Group, the governing bodies approved the report in general, and:

.1 took note of the updated list of ongoing and planned workshops and projects, 2016-2017, as set out in annex 4;

.2 approved the document on the "Benefits of being a Party to the London

Protocol", set out in annex 5;

.3 approved the communication plans for the document on the Benefits of being a Party to the London Protocol and the "Low cost, Low technology Assessment and Monitoring Guidelines", as set out in annex 6;

.4 encouraged States with relevant resources, including experts, to contribute

to the establishment and operation of the LPEM as appropriate; .5 encouraged States to nominate qualifying students to undertake the

proposed LPEM course when applications are open;

.6 endorsed the B2C Steering Group's intersessional work plan, as follows:

.1 undertake the tasks identified for the group in the communication plans for the document on the benefits of becoming Party to the London Protocol and the low cost, low technology assessment and monitoring guidelines;

.2 further develop the revision of the draft "Guidance on National

Implementation" with a view to its adoption at the next meeting of the governing bodies;

LC 38/16


.3 further consider the Pilot Country concept, taking into account additional information obtained through engagement with the Secretariat (document to be submitted to the next meeting of the governing bodies);

.4 further consider the establishment and operation of the LPEM,

taking into account additional information to be provided by the Republic of Korea;

.5 work further on the scope and content of promotional material to be

developed to increase ratification to the Protocol;

.6 in collaboration with the Secretariat, improve the technical cooperation aspect of the LC/LP website; and

.7 finalize the draft of the implementation plan for the measures to increase ratification (by November 2016).

8.37 The governing bodies thanked all those who had contributed to the work of the B2C Steering Group, both in the meeting and in the intersessional period, and in particular Mrs. Prempeh for her continued leadership.


Review of the 2000 Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels

9.1 The Meetings recalled that in 2015, the governing bodies were informed that a first revised draft of the Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels had been developed by the correspondence group established under the Scientific Groups and led by the United States, in light of the adoption of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HK-SRC) and its 2011 and 2015 Guidelines (LC 37/16, paragraph 4.4.1 and LC/SG 39/16, paragraphs 2.23 to 2.29).

9.2 The Chair of the correspondence group (Ms. Betsy Valente, United States) provided an overview of the progress made in the intersessional period. The Meetings were informed that, in 2016, the Scientific Groups had considered a near-final draft of the revised Specific Guidelines for the assessment of vessels and agreed to forward the draft text to the governing bodies, with a view to its approval (LC 38/9 and annex). It was noted that the correspondence group included representatives from Canada, Chile, China, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

9.3 Several delegations, while recognizing that disposal at sea may be needed in some cases, stated that more emphasis should be given to the HK-SRC and the inventory list of hazardous materials set out in resolution MEPC.269(68), and to recycling in general and to alternatives to disposal at sea.

9.4 Following further discussion, the governing bodies decided to forward the draft revised Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels to a working group in order to finalize the text with a view to its approval at this session (see paragraph 9.9).

Disposal of fibreglass vessels

9.5 The Meetings noted the discussion at the joint session of the Scientific Groups regarding the widespread problem of disposing of fibreglass vessels, particularly those that have been abandoned (LC/SG 39/16, paragraphs 2.26 and 2.28).

LC 38/16


9.6 The Meetings were informed about the growing nature of this issue worldwide, and the lack of recycling or destruction facilities in Small Island Developing States as well as limited capacity at facilities in developed countries. It was recognized that information about the construction of fibreglass vessels could play a vital role in minimizing waste at the end of life of such vessels. The Meetings noted that disposal at sea was not the best option as material could easily break up and become marine litter or could cause damage and also affect other uses of the marine environment.

9.7 In the discussion that followed, it was evident that more in-depth research and information was needed before a decision could be made on whether a (separate) guidance should be developed to manage the disposal at sea of fibreglass vessels, particularly, given that the draft revised vessel assessment guidelines did not specifically address the issue. Any new guidance to be developed would need to take into account guidance developed under the HK-SRC, and elements of the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, with regard to the management of fibreglass vessels or parts of vessels that are either abandoned, wrecked or are no longer usable. Action by the governing bodies 9.8 Given the need for further exploratory work, the governing bodies:

.1 invited delegations to forward information, best practices and/or guidance, if any, or case studies on the recycling and/or destruction of fibreglass vessels to the next joint session of the Scientific Groups in 2017;

.2 instructed the Scientific Groups to propose recommendations regarding

whether to develop advice on the disposal of fibreglass vessels for consideration at the next joint session of the governing bodies in 2017; and

.3 instructed the Secretariat to liaise with the appropriate bodies of IMO

(e.g. MEPC and LED), to inform of the ongoing work of the LC/LP Parties, and exchange information as needed.

Establishment of a working group on disposal of vessels 9.9 The governing bodies established a working group on disposal of vessels, under the co-lead of Ms. Betsy Valente (United States) and Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom) and instructed the group as follows: taking into account comments made in plenary, update the draft text of the revised Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels (LC 38/9), with a view to its finalization at this session for approval. Report of the working group 9.10 The Chair of the working group, Ms. Betsy Valente (United States), in presenting the report (LC 38/WP.6), explained that the group had met on 21 and 22 September 2016 and had been attended by delegations from: Canada, Chile, France, Italy, Japan, Peru, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International, IMarEST and WWF. It was noted that the group had reviewed the draft text of the revised Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels, as instructed. The resulting text is contained at annex to LC 38/WP.6.

LC 38/16


Action by the governing bodies 9.11 Following a brief discussion, the governing bodies approved the report of the working group, and in particular:

.1 approved the Revised Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels, as set out in annex 7; and

.2 instructed the Secretariat to publish the revised guidance as soon as

possible in all three working languages of IMO following a final technical editorial review.

Riverine and sub-sea disposal of tailings and associated wastes from mining operations, including deep seabed mining 9.12 The Meetings recalled that in 2015, the governing bodies, having reviewed the work of the correspondence group on mine tailings and the outcomes of the IMO-GESAMP workshop on mine tailings held in Peru from 10 to 12 June 2015, re-established the correspondence group on mine tailings, under the leadership of Peru, to continue the information gathering and to provide advice, as appropriate, in the dialogue with the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) regarding issues related to deep seabed mining (LC 37/16, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.26). 9.13 The Chair of the correspondence group (Peru) provided an overview of the progress made in the intersessional period. The Meetings noted that the correspondence group included Argentina, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, ACOPS, Greenpeace International and IMarEST. 9.14 The Meetings also noted that:

.1 the group had finalized the development of a draft terms of reference for a GESAMP working group on the impacts of tailings from mining operations on the marine environment and that these had been considered by the Executive Committee of GESAMP and also by the Scientific Groups at their joint session in March 2016;

.2 the Scientific Groups had recommended that GESAMP commence work

addressing the first terms of reference and to proceed when funds were available;

.3 the group had continued to gather information on best practices and existing

guidance and legislation and other relevant issues of marine disposal of tailings from mining operations on land, and identify any gaps in best practices and existing guidance. An overview of Best Management Practices: extracted from Chapter VI of the International Assessment of Marine and Riverine Disposal of Mine Tailings (Vogt, 2013)7 and a list of references that include Best Management Practices for mining was made available; and

7 The assessment, commissioned by the Secretariat, can be downloaded from the LC/LP website at:

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/newandemergingissues/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/newandemergingissues/Pages/default.aspx

LC 38/16


.4 the group had not made progress on monitoring the activities of ISA, SPC and SPREP, to identify emerging issues of relevance to LC/LP and engage the governing bodies and scientific groups as necessary, with regard to, inter alia, providing advice to these bodies.

9.15 The Meetings were informed of an IUCN resolution adopted recently at the World Conservation Congress in Hawaii (1 to 10 September 2016) which called, inter alia, "on all states to ban marine disposal of mine tailings for new mines as soon as possible" and which asked "UNEP-GPA and IMO to recommend regulation of submarine tailings disposal from land-based activities in the same manner as in the open sea, applying the general principles of the IMO, and the London Convention and Protocol". 9.16 The Meetings, having observed the strong relationship between deep seabed mining wastes and that of marine disposal of tailings from mining operations, reviewed progress made with regard to collecting information relevant to deep seabed mining (LC 37/16, paragraphs 9.4 and 9.5). It was noted that, while no further information or submissions in response to the request made in LC-LP.1/Circ.69 had been received, the Scientific Groups had, in March 2016, reviewed new information provided by Mexico and considered information provided by the United States on their domestic practices which had been summarized previously in the report of the joint session of the Groups in 2015. 9.17 It was also noted that Science Day 2016 was devoted to the topic of Environmental management of deep seabed mining (DSM) and that the Groups discussed methods of extraction, sediment plumes and the rehabilitation of areas' post-mining activities. The Meetings agreed that it was evident that there were many uncertainties about the environmental risks and potential impacts of deep seabed mining and that the body of knowledge and experience that exists within the Scientific Groups of analogous activities, such as the assessment of wastes and mitigation of impacts on the marine environment, can provide an important contribution to the regulation of deep seabed mining activities (LC/SG 39/16, paragraph 11.4). 9.18 The delegation of the Philippines, supported by others, expressed interest in the discussions on this topic and the body of knowledge and experience that exists within the Scientific Groups of analogous activities can provide an important contribution to the regulation of DSM activities. It was noted that many countries were developing legislation on DSM and it was suggested that information shared during the Science Day could be cascaded to other countries, either through technical cooperation (e.g. IMO ITCP) or seminars and workshops for IMO coastal States to assist in the development of their national codes for seabed mining. The objective would be to establish a basis for the control and management of seabed exploration activities in the 200 nautical mile continental shelf and extended continental shelf in the context of the obligations under the London Protocol. 9.19 The delegation of Germany announced that an international workshop would be held in Berlin in March or April 2017 in cooperation with the Secretariat of the ISA to discuss conceptual issues of the draft regulations on exploitation of deep seabed resources. Topics would include legal and technical aspects, such as regional planning, adaptive management, institutional arrangements and pilot mining. The outcome of the workshop will then feed into the development of the new DSM regulations. The workshop programme will be made available in due time.

LC 38/16


9.20 The Meetings were informed that the ISA consultations for input to the draft framework for the regulation of exploitation activities would close on 2 November 2016, and that this was an opportunity to provide input from the LC/LP perspective. It was noted that some areas had already been identified by the ISA where specific input on the LC/LP had been requested. Additionally, the Meetings noted that consultation on the UNCLOS Article 154 review remained open for submissions until 15 October 2016. 9.21 The Meetings were informed that the Secretariat had provided written input to the consultations, and that further information could be provided to the ISA as required, through the ongoing dialogue between the IMO and ISA secretariats (see item 12 below). Action by the governing bodies 9.22 Following discussion, the governing bodies:

.1 endorsed the Scientific Groups' recommendation to, through IMO, invite GESAMP to commence work addressing the first terms of reference and to proceed when more funds were available (LC/SG 39/16, paragraph 8.5.2);

.2 invited delegations to provide the Secretariat with possible names of experts

in relevant fields who, in their own capacity, could be members of the GESAMP working group (LC/SG 39/16, paragraph 8.5.3);

.3 encouraged delegations to donate funds or sponsor experts to support the

work of the GESAMP working group (LC/SG 39/16, paragraph 8.5.4); .4 encouraged Contracting Parties to continue to share information (with the

Secretariat and with the correspondence group on mine tailings) on relevant regulations and best practices on mine tailings and deep seabed mining;

.5 encouraged a continued dialogue between the Secretariat and relevant

global and regional bodies;

.6 agreed to allow the correspondence group on mine tailings to continue its work in accordance with the terms of reference agreed in 2015, under the leadership of Peru8, and invited the group to report on the outcomes of its work to the next joint session of the governing bodies in 2017; and

.7 requested the Secretariat, and Contracting Parties as appropriate, to engage

with the ISA to ensure that the LC/LP perspectives are captured for input to the draft framework for the regulation of exploitation activities.

Marine litter 9.23 The Meetings recalled that, in 2014, the governing bodies were informed of ongoing efforts under the UNEP-GPA initiated Global Partnership for Marine Litter (GPML), to address marine litter, in particular from sea-based sources, including the commissioning of a study on the topic, which was submitted to the Scientific Groups for review (LC/SG 37/16, paragraphs 8.28 to 8.31).

8 The coordinator, Captain Fídel Reyes Meléndez, can be contacted at [email protected]


LC 38/16


9.24 The Meetings also recalled that, in 2015, the governing bodies welcomed the final draft report "Review of marine litter in relation to the various waste streams under the London Convention and Protocol" and instructed the Secretariat to publish the report as soon as possible following inclusion of any further comments and corrections suggested by Parties, as well as a final editorial review (LC 37/16, paragraphs 9.28 to 9.33). 9.25 The Meetings noted the Scientific Groups' discussions in relation to marine litter in the waste streams under the LC/LP, and in particular, the need for guidance that could be developed on this issue with a view to reduce the disposal of microplastics at sea resulting from dredged material and sewage sludge (LC/SG 39/16, paragraph 8.15.3). 9.26 The delegation of Nigeria informed the Meetings of the UNEP-GPA and NIMASA partnership on sustainable management of marine litter in Nigeria's beaches and waterways (LC 38/9/1). The Meetings noted the information provided, including that Nigeria is willing to pass on the advice on achieving such success as may be needed by other Parties, especially in the west and central African regions. 9.27 The Meetings were also informed about a number of activities and programmes related to plastics in the marine environment, including:

.1 the outcome of the second United Nations Environment Assembly which adopted two resolutions on plastics9 and on Oceans and seas10;

.2 the introduction of a ban by the United Kingdom Government on the sale and

manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads which may cause harm to the marine environment. The plans will be informed by a consultative process later this year, and more information is being gathered with respect to other products that may contain microbeads;

.3 the delegation of China announced that a national research project on marine

microplastic monitoring and ecological assessment techniques has been established recently. The project will be operated from 2016 to 2020, with expectations to strengthen the integrated capabilities on marine microplastic monitoring, risk assessment and management;

.4 the delegation of France informed the Meetings of the ban on single use

plastic bags, and the intention to extend this ban to other types of bags and plastic packaging, in the near future. The Meetings' attention was also drawn to the launch of an international coalition by France, Monaco and Morocco, and delegations were encouraged to join;

.5 the Meetings were informed that in June 2016, the Government of Canada

had added microbeads to the list of toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Canada is developing proposed regulations to prohibit the manufacture, import and sale of microbead-containing personal care products;

.6 the delegation of the United States announced that a

Microbeads-free Waters Act had been signed by the President in 2015; and

9 UNEP/EA.2/Res.11 – Marine plastic litter and microplastics. 10 UNEP/EA.2/Res.10 – Oceans and seas.

LC 38/16


.7 the observer from Greenpeace International announced that several reports11 on microbeads and microplastics were recently published, and that these would be submitted to the next joint session of the Scientific Groups.

9.28 The Meetings were also informed of the G7 Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter, through a lunchtime presentation by the delegation of Germany, outlining the elements of the Action Plan and its relation to the London Convention and Protocol. 9.29 The Meetings welcomed the publication of the Review of the current state of knowledge regarding marine litter in wastes dumped at sea under the London Convention and Protocol, and noted its usefulness in describing the issue of marine litter in relation to the treaties to the wider audience. Development of a draft statement on marine litter 9.30 In the ensuing discussion, the governing bodies established an informal drafting group, to develop a draft statement on marine litter. The group met on 22 September under the chairmanship of Mr. Dikko T. Bala (Nigeria) and was attended by representatives from Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International and IMarEST (LC 38/WP.8). Action by the governing bodies 9.31 In considering the outcomes of the group, and acknowledging the significant quantity of marine litter entering the ocean and the severe and long-lasting threat it poses to the marine environment, and noting that plastics are making their way into sewage sludge and dredged material and that there is firm evidence that the oceans are heavily contaminated with litter, the governing bodies:

.1 adopted the recommendation to encourage action to combat marine litter, as set out at annex 8;

.2 encouraged Parties to take into account the issue of plastics and marine litter

when applying the dredged material waste assessment guidance; .3 encouraged delegations to submit their practices and experiences on this

issue to the future sessions of the Scientific Groups; and .4 noted that the issue of plastics may be revisited in the next revision of the

waste assessment guidance, as appropriate. Cooperative measures to assess and increase awareness of environmental effects related to waste originating from chemical munitions dumped at sea 9.32 It was recalled that in 2015, the governing bodies, having endorsed the inclusion of the issue under the Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups in 2014, reviewed progress on this topic and noted that the Secretariat had contacted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), OSPAR, and with the HELCOM SUBMERGED group, which is dealing with historically dumped munitions in the Baltic Sea (LC 37/16, paragraphs 8.19, 8.22 and 9.34 to 9.39).

11 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/sites/files/gpuk/PlasticsInSeafood-Final.pdf and

http://www.greenpeace.to/greenpeace/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/plastics-in-seafood-technical-review.pdf

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/sites/files/gpuk/PlasticsInSeafood-Final.pdf

http://www.greenpeace.to/greenpeace/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/plastics-in-seafood-technicalreview.pdf

LC 38/16


Action by the governing bodies 9.33 Following a brief discussion, the governing bodies:

.1 decided to await further information from the United Nations General Assembly before initiating any further work in relation to cooperative measures to assess and increase awareness of environmental effects related to waste originating from chemical munitions dumped at sea; and

.2 instructed the Secretariat to continue its outreach and dialogue with the

regional bodies, the OPCW, other stakeholders, as well as the United Nations General Assembly dialogue on this matter.

Other issues, including outstanding action points from the Report of the Scientific Groups 9.34 The governing bodies noted the remaining action points from the Report of the Scientific Groups (LC 38/4), and consequently:

.1 endorsed the Scientific Groups' decision to remove the outstanding issues common to UNEP-GPA and the LC/LP from the Joint Work Programme, and invite interested delegations to submit documents or proposals at future joint sessions, as appropriate (LC 38/4, action point .24);

.2 endorsed the Groups' decision to remove the topic of sewage treatment

facilities and sewage sludge management from the Groups' agenda, since no documents had been submitted on this issue for several sessions, and invite Contracting Parties to make relevant submissions under other parts of the agenda, as appropriate (LC 38/4, action point .25);

.3 instructed the Secretariat to issue a questionnaire, by way of a circular, to

solicit further information on the current practices of dumping of sewage sludge and provide a report of the outcomes to the next session of the governing bodies in 2017; and

.4 noted the Scientific Groups' discussion and the information provided

in relation to underwater noise from anthropogenic sources (LC 38/4, action point .26).

10 MATTERS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES Twenty-five-year scientific review of all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter 10.1 It was recalled that in 2014, the governing bodies, having reviewed the Scientific Groups' work to prepare advice regarding the requirement to conduct a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter, agreed that a step-by-step assessment approach could be employed, in order to determine the type and level of review that would be needed to fulfil the requirements of the London Convention and London Protocol. This could include, inter alia, a literature review focusing on the period after 1993, and a review of the Intergovernmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Report. It was also recalled that the governing bodies established, in 2015, a correspondence group under the co-lead of the United Kingdom, the United States and the IAEA, to prepare a draft literature review with a view to submitting this to the Scientific Groups in 2016 for consideration and to this session of the governing bodies.

LC 38/16


10.2 The Meetings considered document LC 38/10/1 (Co-Chairs of the correspondence group) that presented the results of the work conducted by the group, and contained a draft literature report on the 25-year scientific review of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter as required under the London Convention at annex 1 to the document (annex 1, paragraph 12) and the London Protocol (annex 1, paragraph 3). The Meetings, having noted the Scientific Groups' consideration of the draft literature review, endorsed their recommendation as follows:

"There is little reason to believe that additional radiological monitoring or scientific research would yield scientific results that would have any significant bearing on the decision to retain or change the dumping ban. A significant amount of scientific information was available in 1993 when the decision was made to ban ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The information that is available today from the studies that have been performed in the past 20 years is not significantly different from that available 20 years ago. Furthermore, there is little possibility that additional scientific study, even if carried out on a large scale with generous funding support, would yield a substantially different result."

10.3 Consequently, the Meetings agreed there was no need to consider commissioning any additional scientific study beyond the scope of this literature review, thus fulfilling the requirement of the 25-year review of the ban on the dumping of radioactive waste. 10.4 The Meetings also concluded that the ban on the dumping of radioactive wastes should remain in place. Action by the governing bodies 10.5 Following a brief discussion, the governing bodies:

.1 approved the Literature review performed in support of the 25-year scientific study of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter (2016 Literature Review), as set out in annex 9 issued as an addendum to this report;

.2 instructed the Secretariat to publish the 2016 Literature Review, on the

London Convention and Protocol website, as soon as possible in all three working languages of IMO, following an editorial review;

.3 agreed there was no need to consider commissioning any additional

scientific study beyond the scope of this 2016 Literature Review; .4 on the basis of this advice, concluded that the requirement of the 25-year

review of the ban on the dumping of radioactive waste had been fulfilled for both the Convention and the Protocol; and

.5 agreed that the ban on the dumping of radioactive wastes should remain in

place. Considerations on IAEA Safety Standards and dumping of radioactive waste 10.6 The representative from IAEA, Mr. Diego Telleria, informed the Meetings that document LC 38/10 on "IAEA Safety Standards and dumping of radioactive waste" describes the history of IAEA's considerations on the dumping at sea of high-level radioactive material under the London Convention and Protocol. Until 1994, a list of other radioactive materials

LC 38/16


were permitted to be dumped under the provisions contained in the LC, with special care and permits issued by national authorities. During this period, in its role as the international competent body, the IAEA provided definitions regarding radioactive waste and recommendations and guidance for dumping at sea. This guidance was used by several Contracting Parties until the ban on dumping was adopted in 1994. Following the entry into force of the ban, no dumping operations have been reported. 10.7 The Meetings noted that the IAEA had also summarized past definitions, recommendations and guidance for dumping provided until 1986. Additionally, despite the fact that no Contracting Party has expressed an interest in amending the LC/LP to allow the resumption of dumping, the IAEA presents an analysis of current international safety standards applicable to dumping at sea. The conclusion is that those safety standards, as they were done in the past, are currently not valid. Other issues 10.8 The Meetings noted the information provided by the representative from IAEA on transportable nuclear power plants and its innovative nuclear and fuel cycles project (INPRO). 10.9 In this regard the representative reminded the Meetings that it had provided, in 2014, a report on the legal and institutional issues of transportable nuclear power plants: A preliminary study, which had been published in late 2013. IAEA was conducting further generic studies within the INPRO project on the deployment of factory fuel small modular nuclear reactors. The objective is to explore legal and institutional issues related to the export and deployment of small nuclear reactors. Once the report is ready it will be made available to the Meetings. 11 MONITORING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND

PROTOCOL Progress with the Monitoring and Assessment Project in relation to sea disposal activities carried out since 1996 under The London Convention and Protocol 11.1 The Meetings recalled that in 2011, the governing bodies, having considered the report of the "Monitoring and Assessment Project", had noted that many developing countries would benefit from practical advice on monitoring methods, equipment and standards. Subsequently, at their meeting in May 2013, the Scientific Groups had established a correspondence group on the development of guidance on low tech field monitoring techniques. 11.2 The Meetings also recalled that, in 2015, the governing bodies approved the Low cost, low technology field monitoring: Assessment of the effects of disposal in marine waters of dredged material or inert inorganic, geological material. It was also recalled that the Scientific Groups had re-established the correspondence group to finalize the related Compliance Monitoring Guidance, with a target completion date of 2016. 11.3 The delegation of the United Kingdom, as one of the two coordinators of the Correspondence Group on the Development of guidance on low-tech compliance monitoring techniques, informed the Meetings that in 2016, the Scientific Groups considered a near final draft of the "Guidelines on low cost, low technology compliance monitoring: assessment of permit compliance for disposal of wastes and other matter at sea" (Compliance Monitoring Guidance) and agreed to forward the document to the governing bodies, with a view to its approval (LC 38/11).

LC 38/16


11.4 The Meetings noted that this guidance document complemented the two earlier guidance documents that had been developed and approved by the governing bodies in recent years. The current guidance addresses all waste streams except that of carbon dioxide waste streams for sequestration. 11.5 Members of the correspondence group met informally during the Meetings and were able to identify a limited number of editorial amendments to the draft text which would be forwarded to the Secretariat for inclusion in the final publication.

Action by the governing bodies

11.6 Following a brief discussion, the governing bodies:

.1 approved the Guidelines on low cost, low technology compliance monitoring: assessment of permit compliance for disposal of wastes and other matter at sea (Compliance Monitoring Guidance), as set out at annex to document LC 38/11, as amended;

.2 instructed the Secretariat to publish the Compliance Monitoring Guidance as soon as practical in all three working languages of IMO, following a final editorial review; and

.3 encouraged delegations to continue to submit information on field monitoring techniques to the Scientific Groups for consideration at their next joint session in 2017.

Contribution to the Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (UN Regular Process) 11.7 The Meetings recalled that in 2015, the governing bodies having noted that the first global integrated marine assessment under the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socio-economic Aspects, had been finalized (World Ocean Assessment (WOA I)) would be published following approval at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), invited delegations to provide relevant comments on the published report, and instructed the Secretariat to provide a review of relevant elements of the report, to the next joint meeting of the governing bodies in 2016. 11.8 The Meetings were informed that the WOA I was available to download from the Division of the Ocean and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) website at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RegProcess.htm. 11.9 The Meetings noted that several chapters of WOA I were of direct relevance to the London Convention/Protocol, e.g. chapter 17 (shipping), chapter 18 (ports), and chapter 24 (solid waste disposal). In addition, a number of chapters may also be of interest, such as chapter 20 (coastal, riverine and atmospheric inputs from land), chapter 23 (offshore mining industries), chapter 25 (marine debris) and chapter 30 (marine scientific research). The Meetings also noted that document LC 38/3 discussed these issues further (refer paragraph 3.4, above). 11.10 Finally, it was noted that the outcome of WOA I is expected to feed into other global (and regional) mechanisms, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RegProcess.htm

LC 38/16


11.11 Several delegations noted that the WOA I had been a successful process and that more in-depth work would need to be undertaken in the next cycle. Action by the governing bodies

11.12 In conclusion, the governing bodies: .1 instructed the Secretariat to continue its outreach efforts to increase the

awareness of the work undertaken under the LC/LP, and in particular in relation to the WOA and its second cycle; and

.2 given the conclusions in the WOA I regarding the low ratification and

compliance levels under the LC/LP, encouraged delegations to intensify their efforts with respect to annual reporting, as well as supporting prospective Parties to join the Protocol to increase its membership.

11.13 The governing bodies also encouraged Contracting Parties to submit monitoring reports (including those submitted under regional conventions) to future sessions of the Scientific Groups. Other issues 11.14 The Meetings noted the Scientific Groups' discussion on marine cumulative effects assessment and disposal site selection methodologies (LC 38/4, action point .12). Action by the governing bodies 11.15 Following discussion, the governing bodies: .1 encouraged delegations to make further submissions concerning cumulative

effects assessment on the marine environment at disposal sites and disposal site selection methodologies to the next joint session of the Scientific Groups in 2017;

.2 instructed the Scientific Groups to, taking into account any submissions on

these topics, initiate the development of additional guidance on marine cumulative effects assessment and disposal site selection methodologies to support contracting and prospective Parties; and

.3 reminded delegations that reports on monitoring are reported under table 6

of the electronic reporting format. Actual physical reports are also welcomed by the Secretariat, as has been done in the past.

LC 38/16


12 OUTREACH TO PROSPECTIVE NEW CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE PROTOCOL AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE FIELD OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Review of current and proposed LC/LP Publications 12.1 The Meetings were informed of progress to publish several documents under the London Convention and Protocol (LC 38/INF.5), and noted that the following publications had recently been issued by the IMO Publishing Service:

.1 the "Waste Assessment Guidelines under the London Convention and

Protocol" was available in three languages: English, French and Spanish (sales ref IA531);

.2 the Guidelines on low cost, low technology assessment of dredged material

had been published in August 2015, and was now available from IMO Publications in all three languages (I540);

.3 "The London Protocol – what it is and how to implement it", which was now

available in all three languages (I533); and .4 an updated version of the Convention and Protocol legal texts, entitled

"London Convention and London Protocol: 2016 edition" had just been published in English (IB532E), replacing the 2013 edition. French and Spanish versions would follow eventually.

12.2 The Meetings also noted that the following documents were currently in their final stages of preparation, both expected to be published before the end of 2016:

.1 the "CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations under the

London Protocol" (English version); and

.2 the publication on "Low cost, low technology field monitoring assessment of the effects of disposal in marine waters of dredged material or inert, inorganic, geological material" (English version).

12.3 The Meetings were also informed that a stand-alone publication with the London Protocol and its associated legal texts may be published, subject to availability of funds. 12.4 Several delegations stressed the importance of making publications and outreach material available in all United Nations languages, and suggested that options for publishing LC/LP publications in more than the three working languages of IMO should be explored. As an example, the Meetings were informed that China had recently published a Chinese version of The London Protocol: What it is and how to implement it. 12.5 The Meetings were informed that two complimentary copies of all IMO publications are sent to the Member Governments, and that further copies can be purchased from IMO Publishing. More information is available at http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx.

http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx

LC 38/16


Action by the governing bodies 12.6 In conclusion, the governing bodies:

.1 instructed the Secretariat to continue its work on the publications as planned, in consultation with interested Parties; and

.2 instructed the Secretariat to explore options, such as the use of the LC/LP

Trust Fund or other funding sources, including in combination with in-kind support from Contracting Parties, to translate and publish the LC/LP publications in other languages.

The London Convention and Protocol website 12.7 The Meetings were informed that since the migration of the London Convention/Protocol website into the new IMO trilingual website last year, the Secretariat was continuously updating the website, taking into account comments and suggestions from Contracting Parties. 12.8 The Meetings also noted the list of recommendations to improve the website, as provided by the Compliance Group in its report to the Meeting of Contracting Parties (LC 38/WP.2, annex 3). Action by the governing bodies 12.9 In conclusion, the governing bodies instructed the Secretariat to continue improving the website, in particular addressing the recommendations by the Compliance Group in its report (LC 38/WP.2, annex 3), as appropriate, and report back to the governing bodies at future sessions. Review of progress with collaborative arrangements 12.10 The Meetings were informed that no new partnerships had been concluded in the intersessional period, but that the Secretariat had continued its dialogue with the International Seabed Authority (ISA). It was noted that IMO had concluded a formal agreement of cooperation with ISA in 2015, with respect to matters under the remit of the two organizations. It was noted that, while formally the LC and LP do not fall under the IMO Convention, cooperative work conducted between ISA and the LC/LP Secretariat can proceed under the above agreement if the governing bodies agree to abide by the conditions set out under the agreement. While noting that the Secretariat had a role to play in reaching out to ISA, the Meetings urged Parties, attending meetings under ISA, to take the lead on matters of common interest and provide input to the development of the ISA draft guidance on exploitation of deep seabed mineral and other codes. 12.11 The Meetings were informed that under the current procedure of inviting intergovernmental organizations to the Meetings, only a few regional bodies are specifically addressed, and that the work of the governing bodies may benefit from reaching out to additional organizations such as APEC, ASEAN or the African Union. Conversely, such bodies could benefit from the knowledge and regulations that the London Convention and Protocol had developed to protect the marine environment from the disposal of wastes and other matter at sea.

LC 38/16


12.12 It was suggested that such invitations should target organizations in all regions, and that a review of the current procedures, followed by a policy decision by the governing bodies, would be appropriate. Action by the governing bodies 12.13 The governing bodies instructed the Secretariat to prepare an overview of the current procedures for inviting intergovernmental organizations to the Meetings, and provide a policy recommendation, for consideration, to the next joint session of the governing bodies in 2017. 13 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND FUTURE WORK Review of the Joint Long-Term Programme for the period 2017 to 2019 13.1 The Meetings noted that the Joint Long-Term Programme (JLTP) for 2016-2018 had been distributed as LC-LP.1/Circ.76, covering, as far as possible, all activities agreed by the governing bodies. 13.2 Both governing bodies, having reviewed progress made in implementing the JLTP (annex to LC-LP.1/Circ.76), instructed the Secretariat to update the JLTP for the period 2017-2019 in light of achievements during the current session, for distribution and posting on the London Convention and Protocol website. 13.3 The governing bodies also agreed that the title of the document be changed to Joint Work Programme (JWP) for 2017-2019. The document would also need to be reviewed for consistency and be aligned to take into account developments under the Strategic Plan for the London Protocol and London Convention. Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups 13.4 The Meetings were informed about the proposed Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups (2017-2019), as shown in their report (LC/SG 39/16, annex 6). It was noted that the following items would remain high-priority issues:

.1 further guidance for action lists and action levels for dredged material as

required; .2 review of the Specific Guidelines for assessment of platforms; .3 development of recommendations on whether to develop further guidance

on disposal of fibreglass vessels; .4 assessment of field monitoring reports including the development and

publication of low cost, low tech guidance on monitoring/reporting; .5 implementation of the communications plan for the "Low cost, low technology

assessment of dredged material"; .6 review and improvement of reporting on dumping activities including

assessment of online reporting trial; .7 discharge of mine tailings into marine waters;

LC 38/16


.8 cooperative measures to increase awareness of environmental effects related to waste originating from chemical munitions dumped at sea; and

.9 contributions to the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

Selection of "Science Day 2017" 13.5 With regard to the selection of a suitable topic for Science Day 2017, to be held during the fortieth session of the LC Scientific Group and the eleventh session of the LP Scientific Group, the Meetings noted a range of topics that had been recommended by the Scientific Groups (LC/SG 39/16, paragraph 11.5). Action by the governing bodies 13.6 Following a short discussion, the governing bodies:

.1 agreed that the topic for Science Day 2017 would be "Waste prevention audits", and that delegations will be notified through the issuance of a circular inviting Contracting Parties to the Scientific Groups' meetings in 2017;

.2 invited the Scientific Groups to prepare recommendations on the topic for

Science Day to be held in 2018; and

.3 approved the Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups for the period 2017-2019, as amended, and shown in annex 10.

Budget and financial accounts for the administration of the London Protocol (LP) 13.7 It was recalled that one of the Secretariat duties defined in the London Protocol was that of "preparing, every two years, a budget and a financial account for the administration of this Protocol which shall be distributed to all Contracting Parties" (LP article 19.2.6). 13.8 The Secretary informed the Meeting of Contracting Parties that document LC 38/13 contained the IMO budget for LC/LP Secretariat duties for the period 2016-2017 and the actual costs for 2014 and 2015. It was recalled that IMO only provided the administrative support costs, as specified in the notes in annex 1 to document LC 38/13, and expects the Contracting Parties to cover any additional costs. 13.9 Following a request for further clarification of the budget figures for the period 2014-2015, the Meeting was informed that IMO Management Accounting had provided a further breakdown for the actual expenditure in 2014-2015, as set out in table 2 of annex 1 to document LC 38/13. The differences between the actual and budgeted figures for 2014-2015 are a result of reductions in staff costs allocated to activities directly related to LC/LP matters. The LC/LP Secretariat staff contribute some 40% of their time to non-LC/LP matters. The estimated and actual, direct and indirect costs for carrying out Secretariat duties for the London Convention and Protocol are shown in table 1 of annex 1, together with some explanatory notes. The Meeting noted that additional information could be provided by the Secretariat upon written request. 13.10 After discussion, the Meeting of Contracting Parties:

.1 concluded that it currently had no specific request to IMO to perform additional functions or duties for the administration of the London Protocol in the next biennium;

LC 38/16


.2 thanked IMO for the continued support it provided for the administration of the London Convention and Protocol; and

.3 agreed that the outcome of this discussion should be considered as part of

the IMO budget for the next biennium (2018-2019). Report on the LC-LP Trust Fund for technical cooperation activities 13.11 It was recalled that, on 1 December 2009, the Secretary-General had established, at the request of the governing bodies, the voluntary London Convention and Protocol Technical Cooperation Trust Fund to be used to collect and administer funds approved by the governing bodies for that purpose. The Trust Fund had been inaugurated on 1 January 2010 and LC/LP national focal points had been informed by circular LC-LP.1/Circ.33 and Rev.1. 13.12 The Secretariat provided the Meetings with an audited statement of income and expenditure for 2014 (LC 38/13/1). It was noted that the Trust Fund had a balance of $127,865 on 31 December 2015. The Meetings noted that not all expenditure for particular workshops conducted in 2015 was shown, as some activities had been supported by the IMO ITCP. 13.13 The governing bodies thanked the Governments of Canada, China, Norway, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States for their ongoing support of the Trust Fund. 13.14 In conclusion, the governing bodies instructed the Secretariat to report in 2017 on the audited statement for the income and expenditure administered under the Trust Fund in 2016. Substantive items for the agenda and date for the next meetings 13.15 The Meetings reviewed the list of substantive items for the thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting and the twelfth Meeting of Contracting Parties, as set out in document LC 38/WP.3, regarding the points listed under each substantive item as early annotations and as priorities for action in relation to those meetings. 13.16 The Meetings approved the list of "Substantive items for the agenda for the thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting and the twelfth Meeting of Contracting Parties", as shown in annex 11. Contracting Parties were invited to prepare submissions on the priority items contained therein. 13.17 The governing bodies:

.1 agreed the dates for the 2017 sessions to be held under the London Convention and Protocol, as shown in the table below; and

.2 instructed the Secretariat to inform the IMO Council, at its 117th session,

accordingly.

MEETING: LOCATION: DATE:

40th meeting of the LC Scientific Group & 11th meeting of the LP Scientific Group

IMO Headquarters

27-31 March 2017

39th Consultative Meeting & 12th Meeting of Contracting Parties

IMO Headquarters

9-13 October 2017 – tbc

10th session of the LP Compliance Group IMO Headquarters

5-6 October 2017 – tbc

LC 38/16


14 ANY OTHER BUSINESS GESAMP Activities 14.1 The Meetings were informed (LC 38/14) about progress made by GESAMP on topics of relevance to the London Convention and Protocol since the forty-second session of GESAMP, which was held in Paris, France from 31 August to 3 September 2015 at IOC-UNESCO. 14.2 The Meetings noted that Working Group (WG) 1 (Evaluation of hazards of harmful substances carried by ships) had started evaluation of the chemical group of alkanes, chemicals which are transported in very large quantity by tankers. The use of the GESAMP Hazard Profiles, as a validated and directly available source of information during the first stages of chemical spills at sea, had been discussed extensively. These discussions will have an influence on the broader use of evaluations of harmful substances. 14.3 It was also noted that WG 38 (the atmospheric input of chemicals to the ocean), which has important links to WG 41 (Marine geoengineering), had developed a major summary on the current understanding of the impact of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on marine biogeochemical cycling. An upcoming article comparing observation and model-based estimates of atmospheric nitrogen deposition to the ocean is under development. New proposals for additional activities of WG 38 had been approved on: a) the Impact of Ocean Acidification on Fluxes of Atmospheric non-CO2 Climate-Active Species; b) Changing Atmospheric Nutrient Solubility; and c) the Integrated Nitrogen Management System (INMS). Funding for the first two proposals had been secured and workshops will be held for these simultaneously at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom from 27 February to 2 March, 2017. A total of 32 scientists have been invited to attend. 14.4 It was further noted that WG 40 (Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment) met twice since the GESAMP session in Paris. A drafting group met immediately after the GESAMP session at IOC-UNESCO (4 and 5 September 2015) to review work to date and agree detailed next steps and timetable. The second workshop took place from 3 to 5 November, 2015 in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The event was organized and hosted by the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) and 18 working group members attended. The workshop achieved its objective of producing an agreed draft of the group's full assessment of the second phase of the report and an action plan to finalize the content. The report was presented at the second United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-2) in May 2016 and it is due to become available in the GESAMP Reports and Studies Series before the end of 2016. 14.5 The Meetings also further noted that the forty-third session of GESAMP will tentatively be held from 14 to 17 November, 2016, hosted by UNEP in Nairobi. Further information about GESAMP's activities, as well as copies of all its reports of sessions and working groups, can be obtained by visiting http://www.gesamp.org. Experience in implementing article 8.2 of the London Protocol in respect of emergency cases in Chile 14.6 The Meetings noted document LC 38/14/1 (Chile) which describes the most relevant aspects of the environmental emergency that occurred in 2016 in the Los Lagos region, Chile, triggered by the mass mortality of fish that affected the salmon industry, caused by a Chattonella sp. harmful algal bloom (HAB), and which, for reasons of force majeure, meant it was necessary to authorize the dumping of 4,655 tonnes of fish waste under article 8.2 of the London Protocol in respect of emergency cases.

http://www.gesamp.org/

LC 38/16


14.7 In the discussion that followed, several delegations expressed appreciation for the information provided by Chile, and noted that information sharing and transparency is very important for the successful implementation of the LC/LP. The delegation of Chile informed the Meetings that it intends to provide further information to the next Joint Session of the Scientific Groups in 2017. Other issues 14.8 The Meetings noted that more information would be required before a more thorough discussion can take place, and invited delegations to make submissions to future sessions of the governing bodies and the Scientific Groups. 14.9 The delegation of Italy announced the issuance of Decree July 15, 2016 no. 173 which updates technical procedures on how to apply for a dumping permit for dredged sediments originating from marine and brackish waters or from reclaimed coastal lands. This decree will enter into force on 21 September 2016 and was issued by the Italian Ministry of Environment in agreement with other Ministries concerned. The Annex to the Decree was prepared by the Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), National Research Council (CNR) and the Institute of Health (ISS), with the support of universities. The Decree was also shared with regional authorities and environmental protection agencies. More details will be provided at the next session of the Scientific Groups. 14.10 The Meetings were informed that the World Organization of Dredging Associations (WODA) had held its World Dredging Conference (WODCON) XXI in Miami, Florida in June 2016. At the opening session of the conference WODA issued an official "Statement on Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change". The statement notes that coastal cities all over the world are threatened by the rise in sea level caused by climate change, and the dredging community has unique expertise with respect to coastal protection. The full statement is available on the WODA website at http://www.dredging.org/news/news/woda-issues-statement-on-mitigating-and-adaptating-to-climate-change/detail_news=0048_000304_000000 14.11 The delegation of Saudi Arabia informed the Meetings that the an event to celebrate the World Maritime Day 2016, which this year had the theme of "Shipping: indispensable to the world" would be held at the Maritime Front in Al-Khobar City, Saudi Arabia, from 25 to 29 September 2016. 14.12 The delegation of Chile offered to host the joint session of the Scientific Groups in 2018. As a Party to the London Protocol since 2012, Chile stressed its commitment to promote the Protocol, as well as the importance of hosting these scientific meetings in various regions as a tool to encourage further ratifications. 14.13 To further strengthen the technical assistance and outreach aspects of hosting the joint session of the Scientific Groups, Chile therefore also proposed to hold a regional workshop prior to the session, which would be of great benefit to the countries in the region. Chile also informed that they had already initiated preparations, subject to the approval from the governing bodies, including the identification of funding, suitable venues, and other logistical aspects of the workshop and the joint session. 14.14 The governing bodies welcomed, with appreciation, the kind offer from Chile. 14.15 The delegation from Greenpeace International brought the Meetings' attention to the issue of launch vehicles for spacecraft, and that this could be of interest to future sessions, given that the Revised Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Vessels, had now been approved.

http://www.dredging.org/news/news/woda-issues-statement-on-mitigating-and-adaptating-to-climate-change/detail_news=0048_000304_000000

http://www.dredging.org/news/news/woda-issues-statement-on-mitigating-and-adaptating-to-climate-change/detail_news=0048_000304_000000

LC 38/16


15 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR BOTH GOVERNING BODIES 15.1 In accordance with rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, the Consultative Meeting unanimously elected Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) as Chair, Ms. Azara Prempeh (Ghana) as First Vice-Chair, and Ms. Betsy Valente (United States) as Second Vice-Chair for the intersessional period and for the thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting. In accordance with the same rule, the Meeting of Contracting Parties also unanimously elected the same officers for the intersessional period and for the twelfth Meeting of Contracting Parties. 16 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT 16.1 The joint report of the thirty-eighth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention and the eleventh Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Protocol was adopted on the final day of the Meetings, Friday, 23 September 2016.

***

LC 38/16 Annex 1, page 1


ANNEX 1

AGENDA FOR THE THIRTY-EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING AND THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES

1 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

LC 38/1 Secretariat: Provisional Agenda LC 38/1/1 Secretariat: Annotations to the Provisional Agenda

2 STATUS OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL

LC 38/2 Secretariat: Overview of the status of the London Convention and Protocol and their respective amendments

3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LC-LP STRATEGIC PLAN

LC 38/3 Secretariat: Overview of the London Convention/Protocol linkages with the First World Ocean Assessment and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda

LC 38/3/1 Co-Chairmen of the Correspondence Group: Report of the

Correspondence Group on the development of a strategic plan for the London Convention and London Protocol

LC 38/3/2 Canada: Comments on the draft LC-LP strategic plan LC 38/WP.4 Report of the Working Group

4 CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS

LC 38/4 Secretariat: Action by the governing bodies

5 MARINE GEOENGINEERING INCLUDING OCEAN FERTILIZATION

LC 38/INF.2 Secretariat: Progress under the GESAMP Working Group on Marine Geoengineering

6 CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS (LP)

LC 38/6 Nigeria: Report on the International Workshop on Offshore CO2 Storage (Austin, Texas, United States, 19-21 April 2016)

LC 38/INF.4 OECD: Review of CO2 Sequestration Permit under the London

Protocol – An assessment of the proposed P18-4 CO2 storage site in the Netherlands



7 COMPLIANCE ISSUES

LC 38/7 Republic of Korea: Cessation of sewage sludge at sea LC 38/7/1 Republic of Korea: Overview of statistics of dumping permits for the

period from 1972–2010 for the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the London Protocol

LC 38/7/2 Secretariat: Final draft summary report on dumping permits issued

in 2013 LC 38/7/3 Secretariat: First draft summary and overview of the number of

dumping permits reported in 2014 LC 38/7/4 Secretariat: Status of compliance with the notification and reporting

requirements under article VI(4) of the London Convention 1972 and article 9.4 of the London Protocol

LC 38/INF.3 Secretariat: Summary of the notification and reporting under the

London Convention and Protocol by Contracting Parties from 1976 to 2014

LC 38/WP.2 Report of the ninth meeting of the Compliance Group under the

London Protocol 8 TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE

LC 38/8 Republic of Korea: A Graduate School of LP Engineering Master of Project Administration

LC 38/8/1 Viet Nam: Report of the National Workshop on the London Protocol

held in Ha Noi, Viet Nam

LC 38/8/2 Chair of the B2C Steering Group: A guide to further discussion on the consideration of the Pilot Country Concept (PCC)

LC 38/8/3 Chair of the B2C Steering Group: Update on Barriers to Compliance

Steering Group activities LC 38/8/4 Chair of the B2C Steering Group: Document on the benefits of

ratifying the London Protocol LC 38/8/5 Chair of the B2C Steering Group: Draft communications plan for the

publication Guidelines on low cost, low technology assessment of dredged material: 2015 edition

LC 38/8/6 Secretariat: Report of the regional workshop on the London Protocol

held in Suva, Fiji

LC 38/WP.5 Report of the Barriers to Compliance Steering Group




LC 38/9 Chairman of the Correspondence Group: Report of the Correspondence Group on the Review of Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Vessels

LC 38/9/1 Nigeria: Draft report on the UNEP-GPA – NIMASA partnership on

sustainable management of marine litter in Nigeria's beaches and waterways: A case study of Lagos

LC 38/WP.6 Report of the working group on disposal of vessels

LC 38/WP.7 Draft text on a statement of concern in relation to marine litter LC 38/WP.8 Report of the informal Drafting Group set up to review and amend the draft statement to combat Marine Litter 10 MATTERS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES

LC 38/10 IAEA: Considerations on IAEA Safety Standards and dumping of

radioactive waste LC 38/10/1 Chairman of the Correspondence Group: Literature review report in

connection with the 25-year scientific review of all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter

11 MONITORING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND

PROTOCOL

LC 38/11 Co-Chairmen of the Correspondence Group: Development of low cost, low technology compliance monitoring guidance

12 OUTREACH TO PROSPECTIVE NEW CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE

PROTOCOL AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE FIELD OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LC 38/INF.5 Secretariat: Progress report on LC/LP publications

13 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND FUTURE WORK

LC 38/13 Secretariat: Budget and financial accounts for the administration of the London Protocol (LP)

LC 38/13/1 Secretariat: Report on the LC-LP TC Trust Fund LC 38/WP.3 Draft list of substantive items for the agenda for the thirty-ninth

Consultative Meeting and twelfth Meeting of Contracting Parties

14 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

LC 38/14 Secretariat: Progress report on activities under GESAMP

LC 38/14/1 Chile: Experience in implementing article 8.2 of the London Protocol in respect of emergency cases



15 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR BOTH GOVERNING BODIES No documents

16 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

LC 38/WP.1 Draft report of the thirty-eighth Consultative Meeting and the eleventh Meeting of Contracting Parties

***



ANNEX 2

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE LONDON PROTOCOL AND LONDON CONVENTION

Purpose

The Strategic Plan is intended to facilitate the implementation of the London Protocol and the London Convention in order to contribute to the prevention of marine pollution and to advance the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. This strategic plan sets out the strategic directions and targets that London Protocol and London Convention Parties are working to achieve by 2030. It is intended to serve as an overarching tool to guide, focus, and prioritize the work of the Parties and to communicate their shared objectives to the outside world. Background The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 ("the London Convention") was one of the earliest multilateral environmental agreements. It was an international policy response to decades of dumping into the ocean, dredging and incineration at sea. Its creation was spurred on by the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, and its provisions influenced the negotiation of the ocean dumping provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, particularly Articles 210 and 216. Recognizing the need for a more precautionary and preventive approach the Parties undertook a comprehensive review of the Convention leading to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (the "London Protocol"), a new, free-standing treaty which entered into force in 2006 and is intended to replace the London Convention. The London Protocol now prohibits the dumping of wastes at sea with only a limited number of waste streams that can be considered for permits. The Parties to the Protocol have responded to new activities such as marine geoengineering and carbon capture and storage through amendments to the Protocol adopted in 2006, 2009 and 2013.1 Strategic Directions

Promote ratification of or accession to the London Protocol

o Provide specific technical and legal assistance and support to countries wishing to ratify or accede to the London Protocol

o Conduct regular promotional events, disseminate information, and conduct

regional outreach, etc. o Promote the objectives of the London Protocol and the benefits of

ratification/accession

1 Resolutions LP.1(1), LP.3(4) and LP.4(8).



o Strongly encourage countries to transition from the London Convention to the London Protocol

Target: Substantially increase the rate per year of new ratifications or accessions to the London Protocol2

Enhance effective implementation of the London Convention and London Protocol

o Provide technical assistance and support to Contracting Parties, in particular developing countries

o Develop guidance and take measures to address regulatory, technical, and

scientific barriers to support effective implementation o Encourage and facilitate improved compliance, including on reporting, by

Contracting Parties o Encourage and facilitate participation by Contracting Parties in the work of

the London Convention and London Protocol Targets:

By 2022: 75% of all Parties report By 2026: 85% of all Parties report By 2030: 100% of all Parties report By 2022: 100% of all Parties with a national authority By 2026: 100% of all Parties with a national authority By 2030: 100% of all Parties with a national authority

By 2022: 50% of Parties with appropriate domestic legislative or regulatory

authorities to implement the London Protocol By 2026: 75% of Parties with appropriate domestic legislative or regulatory



authorities to implement the London Convention By 2026: 75% of Parties with appropriate domestic legislative or regulatory

authorities to implement the London Convention By 2030: 100% of Parties with appropriate domestic legislative or regulatory

authorities to implement the London Convention By 2022: the London Protocol Compliance Group has 15 members representing all

five United Nations regions

2 Since entry into force until 2016, 21 Parties have ratified or acceded to the London Protocol. The rate of

ratification or accession to the London Protocol is 2.1 per year during this period.



Promote the work of the London Convention and London Protocol externally o Promote the objectives of the London Convention and London Protocol

within relevant international, regional and national organizations o Strengthen cooperation with other relevant international bodies on issues of

common interest

Identify and address emerging issues in the marine environment within the scope of the London Convention and/or London Protocol

o Identify and evaluate emerging trends and risks to the marine environment

based on best available scientific evidence o Respond as appropriate to newly identified risks to the marine

environment taking into account recommendations from the London Convention and London Protocol Scientific Groups

***



ANNEX 3

REPORT OF THE NINTH MEETING OF THE COMPLIANCE GROUP UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The ninth Meeting of the Compliance Group under the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, 1972 was convened at IMO Headquarters, London, on 15 and 16 September 2016 and chaired by Dr. Felicia Chinwe Mogo (Nigeria). 1.2 The members of the Compliance Group in attendance were:

Ms. Suzanne Agius (Canada, Vice-Chair) Prof. Akiko Okamatsu (Japan) Dr. Felicia Chinwe Mogo (Nigeria, Chair) Prof. Young Sok Kim (Republic of Korea, Vice-Chair) Ms. Radia Razack (South Africa) Mr. Gildardo Alarcon Daowz (Mexico) Mr. Felipe Gonzalez (Chile)

1.3 The members unable to attend, with apologies, were:

Ms. Anja Elisenberg (Norway) Ms. Zhao Lei (China)

1.4 Observers from the following Contracting Parties to the London Protocol also attended the meeting:

CHINA JAPAN MEXICO NIGERIA REPUBLIC OF KOREA

SAUDI ARABIA

1.5 Observers from the following Contracting Parties to the London Convention also attended the meeting:

ARGENTINA UNITED STATES 1.6 The Chair of the B2C Steering Group, Ms. Azara Prempeh (Ghana), also attended the meeting as an observer. 2 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2.1 The group adopted the Provisional Agenda for the session, as presented in document LP-CG 9/1.



3 ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS 3.1 The group considered the organizational matters and agreed to arrange the order of work in such a way that those items that were related could be addressed together. 4 REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS 4.1 The group noted that there were no individual submissions on non-compliance received, and that the meeting would focus mainly on systemic issues of non-compliance. 5 CONSIDERATION OF ANY REPORTS REFERRED UNDER PARAGRAPHS 6.2

AND 6.4 OF THE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND MECHANISMS 5.1 The group noted that CPM paragraph 6.2 referred to the records Contracting Parties should keep under LP article 9.4.1, specifically articles 9.1.2 and 9.1.3, which concern dumping and monitoring reports that Contracting Parties are required to submit annually. 5.2 The group considered national situations that can constitute barriers to compliance whereby multiple agencies have authority to issue permits. Dr. Mogo explained how it coordinates activities of such agencies to ensure proper reporting to IMO, and mentioned that letters were written to such agencies advising them of the need to forward such information to the national focal point, Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA). Generally, networking with the agencies and producing the dumping report can be daunting as there were both overlapping of roles and conflict of responsibilities of the respective agencies. 5.3 A member of the group explained difficulties that can be experienced in complying with reporting under article 9.4.2 of the London Protocol, in view of the fact that there is no guidance about the meaning of reporting "on a regular basis". In addition, there is no guidance or format for reporting under this article. The member therefore suggests that the Compliance Group explores initiatives to assist parties to comply with article 9.4.2. The group agreed that Prof. Okamatsu can collaborate with Ms. Razack in developing a working template for the Compliance Group to consider and eventually forward to the governing bodies. 5.4 Mr. Alarcon noted that in previous dumping reports, it had included permits issued for placement activities (such as the construction of wharves, and the placement of aquaculture pens, etc.), which include materials that are not listed in Annex 1 of the Protocol. This reporting practice, which went beyond the minimum reporting obligations under the Protocol, generated questions about possible non-compliance. 5.5 In the ensuing discussion, the group agreed to: .1 continue work intersessionally, under the lead of Prof. Okamatsu and

Ms. Razack, to develop a working template for reporting under article 9.4.2, including a comparison of reports submitted under article 9.4.2 to date to determine how the template could be structured;

.2 request the Secretariat to continue the practice of sending letters to

non-reporting Parties, and listing non-reporting Parties in meeting reports. In addition, the Compliance Group should continue the practice of meeting with non-reporting Parties opportunistically to offer support to bring non-reporting parties in compliance. These measures were identified as being effective as non-reporting Parties can share this information internally to create incentives to improve coordination;



.3 request the Secretariat to remind Parties that they can list contacts that should be copied whenever information is sent to LP focal points. For example, countries may consider listing contacts in agencies with a role to play in gathering information to meet LP reporting obligations, including reporting contacts for the LP/LC GISIS module; and

.4 recommend that GISIS include a check box to indicate whether a permit was issued for a placement rather than a dumping activity, making clear that this is voluntary information that countries are not required to report.

6 IDENTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY PROTOCOL PARTIES IN FULFILLING THEIR REPORTING OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 9.4.1 and 9.4.2 OF THE PROTOCOL

6.1 In 2016, the group continued its activities to identify and review factors contributing to the difficulties experienced by Protocol Parties in fulfilling their reporting obligations. Dr. Mogo suggested that documents on reporting are organic, implying that they will continue to be reviewed. 6.2 Previous Compliance Group meetings identified the development of a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document as a potential measure to address some of the factors contributing to reporting difficulties. Under the lead of the Mr. Gonzalez and the observer from Estonia, the draft FAQ document presented in LC/SG 39/6/2 was distributed and commented on by members of the London Protocol Compliance Group (LP-CG). The results were presented during the Compliance Group meeting in document LP-CG 9/9. The LP-CG further revised this draft (results are presented in LC 38/WP.2, annex 1) beginning by answering the questions presented at the beginning of LP-CG 9/9 as follows:

.1 Should the FAQ document address the London Convention beyond explaining its historical role as the precursor to the London Protocol?

The LP-CG prioritized a revision of a "FAQ-type" document pursuant to the Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms (CPM) sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.8, which deal with promoting compliance with the Protocol and supporting countries that request assistance to become parties to the Protocol. Given the mandate of the LP-CG in promoting the Protocol and its ratification, it was decided that the FAQ document should not address the London Convention beyond explaining its historical role as the precursor to the London Protocol. Revisions to the draft were started to remove Convention references that went beyond this scope.

.2 Does the document address all the obvious questions that a prospective London Protocol Party might want to have answered?

The LP-CG reviewed the questions asked in the draft after reviewing the outputs of surveys conducted to examine the barriers to Protocol ratification (see LC 37/3/2 and LC 37/3/3). The barriers identified in those surveys ranged from a lack of domestic political awareness of the London Protocol and the benefits of ratification, to a need for support in developing national implementing legislation, and a belief that regional agreements already regulated dumping at sea adequately. The draft was revised to ensure that questions addressed these issues at a minimum. As such, information was added to explain the advantages of the London Protocol over regional agreements, and to clearly explain how to seek assistance to ratify and implement the London Protocol.



In addition, the LP-CG wanted to ensure that the FAQ document contained at least a few questions that represent actual queries from countries that come up on a regular basis, rather than a list containing only questions that the LP-CG wants to answer for promotional purposes. The draft was reviewed with this objective in mind, and it was agreed that questions about the costs of implementation, sample permits, and developing implementing legislation are frequently asked. The LP-CG will reach out to countries during the intersessional period to identify other potential questions to include in the document.

.3 Do the LP benefits sufficiently reflect the messages in the new LP Benefits

brochure?

The draft was revised to refer to the benefits brochure being developed by the Barriers to Compliance Steering Group (see LC 38/8/4).

.4 To what extent should the FAQs rely on links to other guidance, versus

repeating or summarizing the information they contain?

The LP-CG decided that the FAQ should not repeat information that is available elsewhere but, rather, should refer to this information through references and links. The intent is for the FAQ text to become part of the LP website, with cross-references to other information on the site wherever appropriate.

6.3 Additional recommendations by the group include: .1 the group decided to continue to encourage Contracting Parties who had not

reported for many years to report their dumping activities in accordance with their reporting obligations, particularly for the 2014 reporting year during which only 31% of Protocol parties had reported;

.2 the group also noted that with regard to the new GISIS reporting module,

countries using the new system are encouraged to report technical issues with the module and make suggestions for improvement to the Secretariat;

.3 the group reviewed a document which summarized responses to a circular

sent out in 2009. The group agreed that some of the information in the summary was outdated, particularly the column summarizing reporting under article 9.4.1. It was agreed that the information in this column is no longer useful and should be removed from future iterations of this paper; and

.4 the group agreed to continue the work intersessionally, under the lead of

Mr. Gonzalez, towards completion of the FAQ document by 2017 for consideration by the governing bodies.

7 EXAMINATION OF REPORTS RECEIVED UNDER ARTICLES 9.4.2 AND 9.4.3 OF

THE PROTOCOL 7.1 The group noted that it was not clear what information must be submitted by Contracting Parties to comply with reporting under articles 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 and decided to clarify the intention behind these requirements, and to identify the benefits of reporting. In particular, the group noted that the development of a reporting template and guidance as to the expectations around the requirement to "report on a regular basis" under these articles.



7.2 In addition, the group noted that another factor contributing to the lack of reporting under articles 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 is that when resources are limited, reporting under article 9.4.1 is often prioritized. Additional support for Parties that have not reported under these articles could therefore be beneficial. 7.3 The group reviewed progress by the Barriers to Compliance Steering Group towards the completion of a Guidance for National Implementation of the London Protocol, and agreed to provide comments on the guidance intersessionally by correspondence under the lead of Ms. Agius. The development of this guidance was identified as a key measure to overcome difficulties experienced by parties in developing measures to implement the Protocol. 7.4 The group identified the need to develop a library of sample legislation at its last meeting, and this work is being led by Prof. Kim. During the meeting, the Secretariat provided copies of administrative and legislative measures that have been provided by countries to date. The group noted that only 13 Protocol Parties have supplied this information as required under article 9.4.2. The group agreed to continue work on the library intersessionally, and to make efforts to collect electronic copies of measures submitted under article 9.4.2 for inclusion in the library of sample legislation. The group also noted that the ocean fertilization repository that is available on the Protocol website may serve as a useful model for consideration. 7.5 Additional recommendations by the group include: .1 Prof. Okamatsu and Ms. Razack will lead efforts to develop a template and

clarify reporting requirements under article 9.4.2, and provide recommendations as to meaning of "reporting on a regular basis" under article 9.4, and "effective measures" under article 9.4.3;

.2 the governing bodies are requested to ask parties to provide electronic

versions of their administrative and legislative measures to the Secretariat, even if they have already provided paper copies; and

.3 Prof. Kim will continue to lead the development of a library of sample

legislation. 8 CONSIDERATION OF COMPLIANCE ISSUES RELATED TO THE "BARRIERS TO

COMPLIANCE (B2C)" PROJECT 8.1 A number of tasks were assigned to the B2C Steering Group in the past year following on from the Meeting of the Contracting Parties, the meeting of the Scientific Group and the meeting between the Compliance Group, the CGADR and the B2C Steering Group to streamline roles and functions. 8.2 The B2C Chair provided an update on B2C activities in the intersessional period. The update highlighted a number of documents that have been developed by the B2C Steering Group and submitted to the Meeting of the Contracting Parties:

.1 LC 38/8/4 – Documents on the benefits of ratifying the London Protocol;

.2 LC 38/8/3 – Update on Barriers to Compliance Steering Group activity;

.3 LC 38/8/2 – A guide to further Consideration of the Pilot Countries Concept; and

.4 LC/38/8/5 Draft communications plan for the Guidelines on low cost, low technology assessment of dredged material: 2015 edition.



8.3 The Chair of the B2C Steering Group also informed the meeting about the revision of the "Guidance for National Implementation of the London Protocol" document. She indicated that Canada had kindly contracted a consultant to support the development of the revised "Guidance for National Implementation of the London Protocol" within the group and that the first draft has been circulated within the B2C Steering Group and will be further deliberated upon by the group on the sidelines of the Meeting of Contracting Parties if so directed by the governing bodies. It was agreed that the B2C Steering Group would officially forward a copy of the draft to the Compliance Group for comment.

8.4 The Compliance Group agreed to urge the CGADR, and other related correspondence groups to attend future Compliance Group meetings. It was recalled that the meetings of the Chairs of these groups were organized in order to avoid duplication of work.

8.5 The group agreed to:

.1 continue to hold meetings of the Compliance Group, B2C Steering Group and CGADR (or at least their Chairs), as this has been a useful means of collaborating and avoiding the duplication of work; and

.2 provide comments on the Guidance for National Implementation of the London Protocol during the intersessional period, under the lead of Canada.

9 REVIEW OF PROGRESS OF THE VIABILITY OF MAKING HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE LONDON PROTOCOL AVAILABLE ON THE LC/LP WEBSITE

9.1 The Meeting of Contracting Parties had agreed that historical documents leading up to the adoption of the London Protocol should be made available on the website. The Secretariat confirmed that these documents cannot be housed on the IMO/Protocol website due to space restrictions. The Group was in agreement regarding the request for the Secretariat to follow up to see if the Maritime Knowledge Centre (MKC) will upload these documents on behalf of the London Protocol as was the case for the London Convention. The group recalled that although some documents were issued by IMO, many copies were obtained from the United Kingdom national archives and this may require permission from the archives to publish them. 9.2 The group member leading this work noted the difficulties experienced in compiling a complete list of historical documents in electronic format. The group needs to explore options to convert hard copies of historical documents into electronic versions. The IMO MKC has agreed to help catalogue the documents once electronic copies are obtained, and so the group will consider this as a potential cataloguing option. Further advances on this task would benefit from having a locally based co-lead to chase down documents and hold discussions with MKC staff. 10 COMPLIANCE PROMOTION AND OUTREACH: DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS

AND INPUTS INTO THE WORK OF OTHER LP BODIES 10.1 The group reviewed the list of tasks identified at previous meetings held between the Compliance Group, B2C Steering Group, and the CGADR, as outlined in LP-CG 9/7.



10.2 In relation to the second and third tasks identified in LP-CG 9/7, the group considered a draft set of slides summarizing reporting requirements under the London Protocol, which was developed by Mr. Alarcon. The draft was based on existing presentations used at previous workshops, modifying the content and adding slides to address important questions including: .1 Why it is important that Contracting Parties submit the information required

by the LP? .2 What is its utility? .3 Who can use this information? 10.3 Several members and observers made comments on the appropriateness of including specifications about the periodicity of many of the mandatory reporting requirements, and sought to clarify which reports are mandatory and which are optional. The results of these efforts are presented in LC 38/WP.2, annex 2. 10.4 The Secretariat provided an update concerning the fourth task identified in LP-CG 9/7, about interactive platforms to support and promote compliance. The Secretariat indicated that it cannot provide support to any interactive page with IMO branding. However, a Party could create such a page and the Secretariat could help to administer it. The Secretariat suggested "Trello" as a potential platform for further consideration by the group. Nigeria will continue to lead this work intersessionally. 10.5 With respect to the list of experts suggested in the sixth task, the group agreed that it was not practical to develop a list of experts to support the development of administrative and legislative measures, since queries on this topic will be highly case specific. A sample report or template was seen to be more useful for contracting parties seeking to meet their reporting obligations under article 9.4.2. On the other hand, a list of technical experts could be generated (or updated from the list provided in the appendices of "The London Protocol – What it is and how to implement it") to answer questions related to dumping and permitting reports. 10.6 To complete the ninth task, the group agreed to ask the Secretariat to revise the letters it sends to non-reporting parties to make it clear that the Compliance Group is available to provide support. 10.7 The group discussed recommendations to improve the London Protocol website, as presented in LP-CG 9/7. The recommendations were accepted with minor revisions to clarify the relevant website links, and are presented in LC 38/WP.2, annex 3. 10.8 The group noted the need to continue work to ensure a sustainable rate of participation in the LP-CG. While the decision to extend the majority of members for three years in 2015, and the addition of two new members at the last meeting, has greatly improved the current situation, the group noted that the majority of these members will see their terms expire in 2018, and the rate of new nominations this year has returned to zero. This presents ongoing challenges in terms of future participation and continuity of work within the LP-CG. The group discussed whether to recommend further extending the terms of current members this year, and even though no terms are expiring this year, it was decided that the governing bodies should be asked to consider extending the terms of the two members whose terms will expire in 2017. In the meantime, the group agreed to continue work during the intersessional period, under the lead of Prof. Kim and Ms. Agius, to continue to explore options for improving the participation rate and continuity (i.e. overlap in terms of old and new members) in the LP-CG. It was agreed that any permanent revision to the CPM should be approached with caution, but that a long-term solution to the challenges faced by the group should be found if



possible. Intersessional work should consider updating the list of challenges being faced by the group that were presented in document LC 37/3/3, and to further develop the potential list of options to address these challenges also contained in that paper. 10.9 The group also expressed appreciation of Saudi Arabia's recent efforts to improve regional implementation and compliance of the London Protocol through the establishment of an Environment Ministry who will deliver on the London Protocol. 10.10 The group agreed to: .1 continue to work towards the completion of a set of slides summarizing LP

reporting requirements by 2017, under the lead of Mexico; .2 Nigeria will continue to lead work concerning interactive platforms to support

and promote compliance, including a consideration of "Trello" as a potential interactive platform;

.3 request that the governing bodies instruct the Scientific Groups to update the

list of technical experts contained in the appendices of "The London Protocol – What it is and how to implement it" and to instruct the Secretariat to make this list available online;

.4 request the Secretariat to revise the letters it sends to non-reporting parties

to make it clear that the Compliance Group is available to provide support. .5 request the governing bodies to consider extending the terms of the two

members whose terms will expire in 2017 (Prof. Akiko Okamatsu (Japan) and Ms. Suzanne Agius (Canada)); and

.6 continue intersessional work related to improving the rate of participation and

continuity of membership in the LP-CG. 11 FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME OF THE COMPLIANCE GROUP UP TO AND

INCLUDING ITS TENTH SESSION IN 2017 11.1 The group reviewed its ongoing work programme and agreed that it was necessary to continue to keep the programme under review. 11.2 The group reviewed each item in its future work programme and agreed to make minor changes to a few items in order to clarify the exact nature of the work to be done, to remove duplication among listed tasks, and ensure better alignment with the Compliance Mechanisms and Procedures, and to ensure that work to potentially revise the CPM is reflected in the programme. The group recommended its future work programme to be as follows: .1 treat individual submissions of possible non-compliance as a priority in the

work programme when they arise; .2 continue working relationships with other relevant LP groups; .3 continue to review dumping reports referred to the Compliance Group

pursuant to paragraph 6.2 of the CPM, including where concerns have been identified by the LP Scientific Group;



.4 consistent with the CPM, assist non-Contracting Parties requesting support in acceding to the Protocol;

.5 assist Contracting Parties to meet compliance obligations, and support

interested non-Contracting Parties in strengthening reporting and other requirements that would facilitate their accession to the Protocol;

.6 continue to identify and review the factors contributing to the difficulties

experienced by Contracting Parties in fulfilling their reporting obligations under article 9.4.1 of the Protocol; identify and review the factors contributing to the difficulties experienced by Contracting Parties in fulfilling their reporting obligations under article 9.4.2 of the Protocol; identify options to address those factors; and make recommendations for improving the rate of reporting under the Protocol and keep under review the presentation of the information contained in the reports;

.7 examine reports received under all relevant LP articles, use these results in

combination with historical documents to clarify the intention behind these requirements, and develop materials to facilitate compliance with these reporting requirements;

.8 ensure historical documents related to the development of the London

Protocol are available to Contracting Parties; .9 review and develop materials and inputs regarding its role in compliance

promotion in collaboration with the Secretariat; .10 facilitate the creation of tools to support the development of implementing

legislation for the London Protocol; and .11 develop recommendations to increase participation in the group, including

potential revisions to the Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms, for submission to the next Meeting of Contracting Parties, in 2017 as per paragraph 7.31.2 of document LC 37/16.

11.3 At the seventh session of the Compliance Group, held in 2014, it was decided that the group would benefit from a detailed work plan outlining the specific tasks to be completed in support of the items outlined in its future work programme. This detailed work plan will continue to be used and developed intersessionally, and presented to the group for review. 12 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 12.1 Mr. Gonzalez informed the meeting of the harmful algal bloom (HAB) which caused an environmental emergency this year in the Los Lagos region that triggered mass mortality of fish that affected the salmon industry. He stated, further, that the fisheries authority swung into action in handling the disposal of the fish waste in accordance with the international rules and regulations and where they were in doubt they sought the advice of the International Maritime Organization. It is also expedient to note that the monitoring and the follow-up dumping activities was expeditiously carried out according to the established procedures. The group noted that there were no compliance issues associated with the report from Chile, and considered this an excellent example of implementation of the emergency requirements under the London Protocol.



12.2 Prof. Kim shared a success story about overcoming difficulties experienced in the Republic of Korea in ensuring compliance with a domestic ban on the disposal of sewage sludge that has been in place since 2015. The group agreed to share the Republic of Korea's experiences further at the Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Protocol and the London Convention. 13 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIRS FOR NEXT TERM 13.1 The current Chair, Dr. Felicia Mogo, who has been chairing the group since 2013, voluntarily decided to step down to give other members an opportunity to lead. She expressed her appreciation to the group and the Secretariat for the opportunity to serve. Members thereafter elected Ms. Suzanne Agius (Canada) as the new Chair for the next term (i.e. through to the end of the next Compliance Group meeting), and Prof. Young Sok Kim (Republic of Korea) and Ms. Radia Razack (South Africa) as Vice-Chairs.

***



ANNEX 4

ONGOING AND PLANNED B2C WORKSHOPS AND PROJECTS 2016-2017

B2C workshops/activities Host country or organization

Planned delivery date

Estimated cost (USD)

Activities implemented or under preparation

National Workshop: Ratification and Implementation of the LP

Islamic Republic of Iran

November 2015 Implemented

Regional Workshop: Ratification and Implementation of the LP

Pacific/Fiji/SPREP March 2016 Implemented


Viet Nam May 2016 Implemented


Madagascar August 2016 Implemented

National workshop: Ratification and Implementation of the LP

Jordan November 2016 20,000


Sierra Leone TBD 20,000

Follow-up to national workshop Viet Nam 2017 15,000


Mozambique February 2017 20,000

Activities requested/planned

Sub-regional/National Workshop: Ratification/Implementation of the LP

Sri Lanka TBD 20,000


Turkey TBD 20,000


Angola TBD 20,000

Regional workshop: Ratification and Implementation of the LP

South East Pacific/CPPS

TBD (2017) TBD

Regional Workshop: Ratification and Implementation of the LP in the West Africa Region

Ghana TBD TBD

Regional workshop: Ratification and Implementation of the LP in the Baltic Sea Region

HELCOM TBD (2017) 10,000


Russian Federation TBD 20,000


India TBD 20,000

National Workshop: Implementation of the LP

Philippines TBD 20,000

Total Estimated Costs for Projects and B2C Workshops, excluding TBD values and confirmed IMO funded activities (2016-2017)

$185,000

***



ANNEX 5

BENEFITS OF BEING A PARTY TO THE LONDON PROTOCOL The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 ("the Convention"), was an international policy response to decades of dumping into the ocean and incineration at sea, and one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities. In the early 1990s the Parties to the Convention recognized the need for a more precautionary and preventive approach and undertook a comprehensive review of the Convention. In 1996 Contracting Parties to the London Convention concluded negotiations toward a new, free-standing treaty, to modernize and eventually replace the London Convention, referred to as the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 ("the London Protocol"). The London Protocol entered into force in 2006. The London Protocol is a separate treaty from the Convention and may be ratified by States without being a party to the Convention. The London Protocol is the more modern and comprehensive of the two global treaties relating to the prevention of marine pollution from dumping at sea. The Protocol provides the precautionary framework needed for parties to effectively prevent pollution of the sea caused by dumping of waste and other matter, incineration, and new activities such as marine geoengineering or carbon capture and storage. The London Protocol is one of the key pillars of marine environmental protection in an important international regime that includes MARPOL, UNCLOS and Regional Seas Agreements. Practical benefits arising from the London Protocol Broadly, the London Protocol provides practical and comprehensive regulations that address the prevention of marine pollution from:

.1 dumping activities; and .2 new marine activities (e.g. carbon sequestration and marine

geoengineering). In addition, the London Protocol offers guidance and best practices to address deposits into the marine environment that are done for a purpose other than disposal (for example, "placement" activities like artificial reefs).



The regulation of dumping activities creates concrete protection for the marine environment

• Regulating dumping in the high seas protects areas of the marine environment that are beyond the reach of regional dumping agreements.

• All dumping is prohibited except for wastes listed in Annex 1 that are authorized by permit.

• Assessment is required before permitting. Assessments generate economic benefits by: o Identifying resources and thereby preventing the dumping of waste, and;

o Ensuring that wastes are reduced, reused or recycled before they can be

considered for dumping at sea; reducing waste generally increases economic efficiency.

• Assessment done before permitting protects the marine environment by ensuring that:

o Wastes are assessed so that their potential impacts are well understood1.

o Wastes are dumped under conditions that mitigate risks and prevent

pollution.

o Dump sites are monitored so that effects can be corrected if required. The regulation of new activities protects the marine environment and provides the opportunity to influence global policy

• The regulation of emerging activities like carbon sequestration and marine geoengineering offer similar environmental protection as listed under the regulation of dumping.

• Parties to the Protocol influence the direction and implementation of global efforts to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment by dumping by setting the latest global rules and standards in this regard, and considering emerging issues such as marine litter, deep sea litter, and the disposal of mine tailings at sea.

• Parties develop guidance for implementing the London Protocol and amendments to it, thus increasing domestic marine environmental protection.

• Even if a State does not intend to conduct emerging activities aforementioned, Protocol membership provides countries with a forum to have their concerns about activities conducted by others heard.

• The Protocol provides countries with regulatory and scientific tools to ensure that deposits in the marine environment do not cause marine pollution (e.g. guidance on artificial reefs, ocean fertilization research).

1 The London Protocol has developed guidance about low cost, low technology methods to conduct

assessments and dumpsite monitoring.



General benefits arising from being a London Protocol Party Access to technical support and cooperation

• State Parties benefit from a wealth of practical tools, scientific information and expertise to support implementation of the London Protocol (e.g. Specific Waste Assessment Guidelines for various waste streams, generic waste assessment guidelines, monitoring guidelines, training tools, technical meetings, low technology low cost guidance, etc.).

• Parties can participate in the Compliance Group and enjoy the benefits of its work in effective implementation and promotion of compliance with the Protocol.

• Access to information and expertise of the Scientific Group Meetings and GESAMP2.

Economic benefits through better protection of the marine environment

• Clean coasts and oceans.

• Protocol membership enables efficiencies in trade negotiations by allowing all countries to build trade relationships from a uniform level of environmental protection.

Social and political benefits

• Being Party to the London Protocol effectively supports achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14 and its targets.

• The London Protocol facilitates international relations by providing easier access to other international bodies, focused information exchanges, and by fostering dialogue between Member States about coastal management issues.

• Protocol membership may have a positive effect when applying to join other influential organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

• Being Party to the most modern treaty for protecting the marine environment from ocean dumping and other new activities at sea provides countries with a seat at the table to influence future regulation in the area of marine environmental protection.

Benefits for Convention Parties ratifying the London Protocol

• Convention Parties that ratify the London Protocol will benefit from: o The London Protocol's greater protection of the marine environment, in part

due to the introduction of the "precautionary approach to environmental protection".

o The London Protocol being clearer than the Convention about what is and what is not permitted for dumping.

2 GESAMP stands for the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection.



o The London Protocol's more pragmatic orientation towards commonly generated wastes rather than contaminants.

o Continuity through application of the same technical waste assessment standards and procedures as are used by the Convention.

o The implementation of provisions of the London Protocol being less burdensome and cost-intensive for national competent authorities because most dumping activities are prohibited.

o Environmental protection in internal waters and a level playing field with other Protocol Parties who are also obliged to take similar measures.

o The opportunity to benefit from and shape amendments to address emerging marine pollution issues under the London Protocol because the Convention is no longer being amended.

***



ANNEX 6

COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE DOCUMENT TITLED "BENEFITS OF BEING A PARTY TO THE LONDON PROTOCOL" AND

THE LOW COST, LOW TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING GUIDELINES

1 Benefits of being a Party to the London Protocol The communication tools and interventions proposed are intended to be based on the document on the benefits of being a Party to the Protocol approved by the governing bodies.

What Who When

1 Development of workshop slides Secretariat with support from B2C

Near future

2 Development of brochure for policy makers and politicians

Secretariat with support from B2C

Near future

3 Development of a poster Secretariat with support from B2C

Near future

4 Publication of benefit document on IMO website

Secretariat As soon as possible after adoption

5 Circular attaching the benefit document to all IMO Member States on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the LP

Secretariat 2016

6 Presentation on the LP including the document on the benefits of being a Party to the LP in the sidelines of MEPC with contributions of LP Contracting Parties


MEPC 71

7 Targeted outreach, in particular as a follow up to the three surveys and workshops

Secretariat LP Contracting Parties involved with the surveys

Before next Scientific Group meeting

2 The low cost, low technology assessment and monitoring guidelines

What Who When

1 Make low cost, low tech assessment and monitoring guidelines available free of charge for intended audience

Secretariat Ongoing

2 Develop a specific low cost, low tech assessment and monitoring web page for the LC/LP section of the IMO website


February 2017

3 Flyer to promote the low cost, low tech assessment and monitoring web page (and three guidelines)


2018



What Who When

4 Distribute low cost, low tech assessment and monitoring guidelines for a "road-test" to appropriate bodies/organizations

Contracting Parties, IAPH, WODA

Ongoing

5 Seek feedback from contacts in those bodies/organizations on results of testing including case studies

Scientific Groups

Ongoing

6 Development of case studies for inclusion on the web page

Scientific Groups and Contracting Parties

Ongoing

7 Present low cost, low tech assessment and monitoring PowerPoint presentations at future workshops

Secretariat Ongoing

8 Further develop low cost, low tech assessment and monitoring PowerPoint presentations

B2C and Scientific Groups

Ongoing

9 Translate English text into the other United Nations working languages (low cost, low tech WAG already available in French and Spanish)

LC/LP Parties When resources are available

***



ANNEX 7

REVISED SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF VESSELS 1 Introduction 1.1 The Specific Guidelines for assessment of vessels1 are intended for use by national authorities responsible for regulating dumping of wastes and embody a mechanism to guide national authorities in evaluating applications for dumping of wastes in a manner consistent with the provisions of the London Protocol and when applicable the London Convention. The use of either generic or specific guidelines complements but does not replace the requirements described in annex 2 of the London Protocol. 1.2 The London Protocol follows an approach under which dumping of wastes or other matter is prohibited except for those materials specifically enumerated in annex 1, and in the context of that Protocol, these Guidelines would apply to the materials listed in that annex. The London Convention prohibits the dumping of certain wastes or other matter specified therein and in the context of that Convention these Guidelines meet the requirements of its annexes for wastes not prohibited for dumping at sea. When applying these Guidelines under the London Convention, they should not be viewed as a tool for the reconsideration of dumping of wastes or other matter in contravention of annex I to the London Convention. 1.3 The schematic shown in figure 1 provides a clear indication of the stages in the application of the Guidelines where important decisions should be made and is not designed as a conventional decision tree. In general, national authorities should use the schematic in an iterative manner ensuring that all steps receive consideration before a decision is made to issue a permit. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the operational components of annex 2 of the London Protocol and contains the following elements:

.1 waste prevention audit (section 2) .2 vessels: waste management options (section 3) .3 waste characterization: chemical/physical properties (section 4) .4 disposal at sea: best environmental practices (section 5, action list) .5 identify and characterize dump-site (section 6, dump-site selection) .6 determine potential impacts and prepare impact hypothesis(es) (section 7,

assessment of potential effects) .7 issue permit (section 8, permit and permit conditions) .8 implement project and monitor compliance (section 9, monitoring) .9 field monitoring and assessment (section 9, monitoring).

1 These guidelines do not address the specific concerns with the disposal of fibreglass vessels.



1.4 These Guidelines are specific to vessels. Adherence to the following is intended to provide additional clarification to enable compliance with annex 2 of the London Protocol, and represents neither a more restrictive nor a less restrictive regime than annex 2 to the Protocol. 1.5 These Guidelines refer to "vessels at sea" as specified in annex 1(1.4) to the London Protocol and in annex I (11)(d) to the London Convention 1972. The Protocol defines vessels as any waterborne craft of any type whatsoever. For the purpose of these Guidelines, this includes submersibles, air-cushioned craft and floating craft whether self-propelled or not. The assessment of platforms or other man-made structures at sea is covered in separate specific Guidelines. 1.6 These Guidelines set out the factors to be addressed when considering disposal of vessels at sea, with particular emphasis on the need to evaluate alternatives to sea disposal prior to sea disposal being determined the preferred alternative. Reuse of the vessel, reuse of parts of vessels, and recycling at appropriate facilities are preferred alternatives to disposal at sea. For the purposes of these Guidelines, appropriate facilities would be those that respect the requirements set out in the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, and its implementation guidelines.2 1.7 National authorities should bear in mind the importance of worker safety during vessel clean-up envisioned in agreements such as the Hong Kong Convention, as well as the protection of the marine environment under the London Convention and London Protocol, because preparing vessels for environmentally safe disposal at sea is likely to involve removal of hazardous materials. With this in mind, the development of accurate inventories of the hazardous materials on vessels following the 2015 Guidelines for the Development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, developed for the Hong Kong Convention and adopted by IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at its sixty-eighth session, should assist national authorities with waste characterization for both protecting worker safety and determining what materials should be removed from vessels to make them suitable for disposal at sea (see section 4 of these guidelines).

2 The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (Hong

Kong Convention) is aimed at ensuring that ships, when being recycled after reaching the end of their operational lives, do not pose any unnecessary risk to human health and safety or to the environment. The Hong Kong Convention intends to address all the issues around ship recycling, including the fact that ships sold for scrapping may contain environmentally hazardous substances such as asbestos, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and others. As of […] 2016 the Hong Kong Convention, adopted on15 May 2009, is not yet in force.



Figure 1 – Assessment framework



2 Waste prevention audit 2.1 The initial stages in assessing alternatives to dumping of wastes and other matter that may be considered for dumping under the London Convention or London Protocol should, as appropriate, include an evaluation of the types, amounts and relative hazards of wastes generated (see also section 4). 2.2 In general terms, if the London Protocol required audit reveals that opportunities exist for waste prevention at source, an applicant is expected to formulate and implement a waste prevention strategy in collaboration with relevant local and national agencies which includes specific waste reduction targets and provision for further waste prevention audits to ensure that these targets are being met. Permit issuance or renewal decisions shall assure compliance with any resulting waste reduction and prevention requirements. Note: This paragraph is not directly pertinent to the disposal of vessels at sea. However, it is important to acknowledge the obligation to take steps to prevent waste arising, thereby reducing the need for disposal at sea. Such waste prevention audits may inform future design, construction, operation, maintenance and conversion of vessels. 3 Vessels: waste management options 3.1 When vessels are no longer needed, there are several options to consider after taking the vessel out of service, ranging from reuse of the vessel or parts of the vessel, to recycling or scrapping, to final disposal on land or at sea. A comprehensive evaluation of alternatives to disposal at sea, including engineering, safety, economic, and environmental analyses, should be carried out. Applications to dump wastes and other matter under the London Protocol, including disposal of vessels at sea, shall demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to the following hierarchy of waste management options under the London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 5:

.1 reuse of the vessel, or reuse of parts removed from the vessel (e.g. generators, machines, pumps, cranes, and furniture). On rare occasions, vessels may be used as artificial reefs if they pass all criteria in the Guidelines for the Placement of Artificial Reefs3 and if there is a scientifically and technically sound reason for the placement of the vessel as an artificial reef;

.2 recycling (such as use for scrap (e.g. ferrous or non-ferrous metals

copper/aluminium/nickel scrap metals) at appropriate facilities where ship-breaking is taking place under controlled conditions, in a harbour and wharf where deconstruction and the collection and disposal of hazardous constituents, such as oils, sludges and other materials, can be managed in an environmentally sound manner); and

.3 disposal on land and into water.

3 London Convention and Protocol/UNEP (2009). London Convention and Protocol/UNEP Guidelines for the

Placement of Artificial Reefs. London, UK, 100 pp.



3.2 To facilitate the above waste management options for vessels, the following actions are recommended, if applicable:

.1 in the case of a vessel at sea, repairs or other measures should be conducted to the extent necessary to ensure that the vessel does not sink unexpectedly while being assessed, prepared for disposal, or transported to the disposal at sea location;

.2 destruction of hazardous constituents contained within the vessel using

environmentally sound techniques (e.g. in certain cases, on-shore incineration of liquid wastes from the vessel or wastes generated during the cleaning of the vessel); and

.3 cleaning of the vessel or its components, removal of components, or

treatment in order to reduce or remove the hazardous constituents (such as removal of transformers and storage tanks) and treatment of hazardous constituents, such as oils, sludges and other materials, in an environmentally sound manner.

3.3 It should be noted that the actions outlined in section 3.2 can be very complex to carry out and frequently require highly specialized knowledge and experience, depending on the vessel. Parties should consider this complexity and the potential expertise and resources that will be needed when considering the preparation for a vessel for disposal at sea. Parties are encouraged to seek support and advice from organizations or countries that have experience with the preparation, sinking, and post-disposal monitoring of vessels. 3.4 A permit to dump a vessel at sea shall be refused if the permitting authority determines that appropriate opportunities exist to reuse, recycle or treat the vessel without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs (London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 6). The practical availability of other means of disposal should be considered in the light of a comparative risk assessment involving both dumping and the alternatives, taking into account the general obligation to apply a precautionary approach to dumping and the objective of protecting the marine environment from all sources of pollution. 3.5 The comparative risk assessment should take into account factors such as the following:

.1 Potential impact upon the environment:

.1 effect upon marine habitats and marine communities; .2 effects upon other legitimate uses of the sea; .3 effect of on-shore reuse, recycling, or disposal, including potential

impacts upon land, surface and ground water, and air pollution; and .4 effect of energy and materials usage (including overall assessment

of energy and materials use and savings) of each of the reuse, recycling or disposal options, including transportation and resultant impacts to the environment (i.e. secondary impacts).



.2 Potential impact upon human health:

.1 identification of routes of exposure and analysis of potential impacts upon human health of sea and land reuse, recycling, and disposal options including potential secondary impacts of energy usage or vessel cleanup;

.2 quantification and evaluation of safety risks associated with reuse, recycling, disposal and cleanup; and

.3 consideration of worker safety as envisioned in agreements such as

the 2009 Hong Kong Convention.

.3 Technical and practical feasibility:

.1 evaluation of the technical and practical feasibility (e.g. evaluation of engineering aspects per specific types and sizes of vessels) for reuse or for ship-breaking and recycling.

.4 Economic considerations:

.1 analysis of the full cost of vessel reuse, recycling, or disposal

alternatives, including secondary impacts; and

.2 review of costs in view of benefits, such as resource conservation and economic benefits of steel recycling.

3.6 In considering the range of options available to manage vessels as wastes, IMO has offered the following observations:

"in the process of recycling ships, virtually nothing goes to waste. The materials and equipment are almost entirely reused. Steel is reprocessed to become, for instance, reinforcing rods for use in the construction industry or as corner castings and hinges for containers. Ships' generators are reused ashore. Batteries find their way into the local economy. Hydrocarbons on board become reclaimed oil products to be used as fuel in rolling mills or brick kilns. Light fittings find further use on land. Furthermore, new steel production from recycled steel requires only one third of the energy used for steel production from raw materials. Recycling thus makes a positive contribution to the global conservation of energy and resources and, in the process, employs a large, if predominantly unskilled, workforce. Properly handled, ship recycling is, without question, a "green" industry."4

Reuse of the vessel, reuse of parts of vessels, and recycling at appropriate facilities are preferred alternatives to disposal at sea and should be regarded as the environmentally preferable options. 5 A permit should only be considered if it can be demonstrated that vessel recycling is not a technically or economically feasible option based on case-specific circumstances.

4 IMO, 2014: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/ShipRecycling/Pages/Default.aspx

(accessed 3 May, 2016)

5 The Basel Convention Technical Guidelines for the environmentally sound management of the full and partial

dismantling of ships provides guidance to its Parties on the establishment of facilities for ship-dismantling and recommendations on procedures, processes and practices to attain environmentally sound management at such facilities.

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/ShipRecycling/Pages/Default.aspx



4 Waste characterization: chemical/physical/biological properties

4.1 With regard to vessel disposal at sea, waste characterization is primarily relevant to the pollution prevention plan. A pollution prevention plan should be developed that includes specific actions regarding identification of potential sources of pollution. The purpose of this plan is to assure that wastes (or other matter and materials capable of creating floating debris) potentially contributing to pollution of the marine environment have been removed to the maximum extent possible. 4.2 A detailed description and characterization of the waste including potential sources of contamination (including chemical and biological) is an essential precondition for the consideration of alternatives and the basis for a decision as to whether a waste may be dumped at sea. For disposal at sea of a vessel, a detailed description and characterization of the vessel and any items/materials remaining on the vessel is an essential precondition for the consideration of alternatives and the basis for a decision as to whether a vessel may be dumped (London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 7). The detailed description of the vessel, including its age, use, and maintenance history can be very helpful in identifying the hazards and pollution sources that should be considered further and the degree to which they pose a pollution concern. Characterization by biological or chemical testing is not needed if the required pollution prevention plans are developed and implemented as well as the best environmental practices described in the appendix. However, if a vessel and its contents are so poorly characterized that proper assessment cannot be made of its potential impacts on human health and the environment, that vessel shall not be dumped (London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 7). Some national authorities have developed clean-up standards for the disposal of vessels at sea.6 4.3 In order to be able to characterize the wastes on a vessel, the first requirement is to produce an inventory of hazardous materials on the vessel. The process described in sections 3 and 4 and appendices 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the 2015 Guidelines for the Development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials, developed for the Hong Kong Convention and adopted by MEPC 68, should be considered when developing an inventory of the hazardous materials on the vessel. 4.4 Characterization of the wastes on a vessel and their constituents shall take into account:

.1 origin, total amount (volume and concentration), form and average composition;

.2 properties: physical, chemical, biochemical and biological;

.3 toxicity, including, where appropriate, additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects among constituents of the waste;

.4 persistence: physical, chemical and biological; and

.5 accumulation and biotransformation in biological materials or sediments (London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 8).7

6 Environment Canada, 2015. Clean-up Standard for Disposal at Sea of Vessels, Aircraft, Platforms & Other

Structures, Revision 4. To obtain a copy, contact Environment Canada at [email protected].

7 Similar considerations are described in London Convention annex III.A and .C required by London

Convention article 4, paragraph 2.




4.5 A pollution prevention plan should be developed that includes specific actions regarding identification of potential sources of pollution. See appendix of these guidelines. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that wastes (including materials identified in the hazardous materials inventory or that could act as potential sources of pollution, and those capable of creating floating debris) have been removed to the maximum extent possible leaving no contaminants on board that would require some form of chemical or biological testing. For example the composition and condition of the anti-fouling systems and paints and resulting bioavailability of contaminants left on board in those coatings can be considered when deciding whether remaining paint should be sampled. 5 Disposal at sea: best environmental practices (action list) 5.1 It is very important that vessels are cleaned of contaminants and potential sources of pollution prior to disposal at sea. Relevant authorities should ensure that qualified personnel have taken appropriate measures to remove to the maximum extent practicable all materials that may degrade the marine environment. The pollution prevention plan and the associated clean-up techniques (see appendix) should be implemented in order to ensure that it has been cleaned to the maximum extent feasible, and that no materials remain on board that could require chemical or biological testing. 6 Dump-site selection Site selection considerations 6.1 Proper selection of a dump-site at sea for vessels is of paramount importance.

6.2 Information required to select a dump-site shall include:

.1 physical and biological characteristics of the seabed and surrounding area, and oceanographic characteristics of the general area in which the site is to be located;

.2 consideration of the potential implications of the vessel's presence on

amenities, values (for example, cultural or historical values) and other uses of the sea in the area of consideration;

.3 assessment of the constituent fluxes associated with dumping in relation to

existing fluxes of substances in the marine environment; and .4 economic and operational feasibility (LP annex 2, paragraph 11).8

6.3 Further guidance for dump-site selection can be found in a report of the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 16 – Scientific Criteria for the Selection of Waste Disposal Sites at Sea).9 Prior to selecting a dump-site, it is essential that data are available on the oceanographic characteristics of the general area in which the site is to be located. This information can be obtained from the literature but fieldwork should be undertaken to fill the gaps. Information

8 Similar considerations are described in London Convention annex III.B and .C required by London

Convention Article 4, paragraph 2.

9 http://www.gesamp.org/publications/publicationdisplaypages/rs16.

http://www.gesamp.org/publications/publicationdisplaypages/rs16



most relevant to the disposal of properly cleaned vessels at sea pertains largely to ensuring that the vessel sinks to the bottom in the desired dump-site and stays at that dump-site, and that only acceptable physical effects result from the disposal. Generally, appropriate information includes:

.1 the nature of the seabed, including its topography, geochemical and geological characteristics, its biological composition and activity, identification of hard or soft bottom habitats, and prior dumping activities affecting the area;

.2 the physical nature of the water column, including temperature, depth,

possible existence of a thermocline/pycnocline and how it varies in depth with season and weather conditions, tidal period and orientation of the tidal ellipse, mean direction and velocity of the surface and bottom drifts, velocities of storm-wave induced bottom currents, general wind and wave characteristics, and the average number of storm days per year, suspended matter; and

.3 although not generally needed for vessel disposal at sea, it might be useful

to know the chemical and biological nature of the water column, including pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen at surface and bottom, chemical and biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients and their various forms and primary productivity.

6.4 Some of the important amenities, biological features, and uses of the sea for consideration in determining the specific location of the dump-site include:

.1 the shoreline and bathing beaches; .2 areas of beauty or significant cultural or historical importance; .3 areas of special scientific or biological importance, such as sanctuaries; .4 fishing areas; .5 spawning, nursery and recruitment areas; .6 migration routes; .7 seasonal and critical habitats; .8 shipping lanes; .9 military exclusion zones; and .10 engineering uses of the sea floor, including mining, undersea cables,

desalination or energy conversion sites.



Size of the dump-site

6.5 The size of the dump-site is an important consideration for anticipating the possible disposal of more than one vessel at the site:

.1 it should be large enough to have the bulk of the material remain either within the site limits or within a predicted area of impact after dumping;

.2 it should be large enough in relation to anticipated volumes for dumping so that it would serve its function for many years; and

.3 it should not be so large that monitoring would require undue expenditure of time and money.

Site capacity 6.6 In order to assess the capacity of a site, the following should be taken into consideration:

.1 the anticipated number of vessels to be sunk at the site; .2 expected maximum currents at the site which may move vessels resting on

the sea bottom; and .3 the allowable reduction in water depth over the site because of the size of

the vessels that are to be disposed of, or should more than one vessel come to rest on top of another.

Evaluation of potential impacts 6.7 The most important impacts associated with disposal of vessels at sea should be the physical impacts of the vessel on the sea floor and those on existing and adjacent habitats and marine communities (e.g. coral reefs and soft bottom communities). The physical impacts of vessels disposed of at sea can be significant. While physical impacts where the vessel rests on the sea bottom or within a dump-site may be acceptable, permitting authorities should take all steps necessary to ensure that a vessel sinks quickly and comes to rest where it is supposed to, and that once a vessel comes to rest on the sea bottom that it will not move due to wave action or storm water currents. Permitting authorities should also take steps to avoid physical interference with sensitive species, such as marine mammals that may be in the area of the dump-site. Efforts to minimize impacts could include timing activities to avoid sensitive seasons or times of day and selecting disposal sites to avoid particularly sensitive areas. Note: Paragraphs 6.8 to 6.12 are concerns about impacts, but if the pollution prevention plan (see appendix) and the best environmental practices are followed, these paragraphs are not directly pertinent. 6.8 The extent of adverse effects of a substance is a function of the exposure of organisms (including humans). Exposure, in turn, is a function, inter alia, of input flux and the physical, chemical and biological processes that control the transport, behaviour, fate and distribution of a substance. 6.9 The presence of natural substances and the ubiquitous occurrence of contaminants means that there will always be some pre-existing exposure of organisms to all substances contained in any waste that might be dumped. Concerns about exposure to hazardous



substances thus relate to additional exposure as a consequence of dumping. This, in turn, can be translated back to the relative magnitude of the input fluxes of substances from dumping compared with existing input fluxes from other sources. 6.10 Accordingly, due consideration should be given to the relative magnitude of the substance fluxes associated with dumping in the local and regional area surrounding the dump-site. In cases where it is predicted that dumping will substantially add to existing fluxes associated with natural processes, dumping at the site under consideration should be deemed inadvisable. 6.11 In the case of synthetic substances, the relationship between fluxes associated with dumping and pre-existing fluxes in the vicinity of the site may not provide a suitable basis for decisions. 6.12 Temporal characteristics should be considered to identify potentially critical times of the year (e.g. for marine life) when dumping should not take place. This consideration leaves periods when it is expected that dumping operations will have less impact than at other times. If these restrictions become too burdensome and costly, there should be some opportunity for compromise in which priorities may have to be established concerning species to be left wholly undisturbed. Examples of such biological considerations are:

.1 periods when marine organisms are migrating from one part of the ecosystem to another (e.g. from an estuary to open sea or vice versa) and growing and breeding periods;

.2 periods when marine organisms are hibernating on or are buried in the

sediments; and .3 periods when particularly sensitive and possibly endangered species are

exposed.

Contaminant mobility 6.13 A vessel that has been properly cleaned prior to disposal should be relatively free of contaminants. Contaminant mobility is dependent upon several factors, among which are:

.1 type of matrix; .2 form of contaminant; .3 contaminant partitioning; .4 physical state of the system, e.g. temperature, water flow, suspended matter; .5 physicochemical state of the system; .6 length of diffusion and advection pathways; .7 biological activities, e.g. bioturbation; and .8 age of contaminants.



7 Assessment of potential effects 7.1 Assessment of potential effects should lead to a concise statement of the expected consequences of the sea or land disposal options, i.e. the impact hypothesis. It provides a basis for deciding whether to approve or reject the proposed disposal option and for defining environmental monitoring requirements. As far as possible, waste management options causing dispersion and dilution of contaminants in the environment should be avoided and preference given to techniques that prevent the input of the contaminants to the environment. Thus, vessels shall be cleaned of all potential contamination to the maximum extent feasible to avoid contaminant-related effects. 7.2 The assessment of disposal options should integrate information on vessel characteristics, contaminants remaining on board, and conditions at the proposed dump-site, specify the economic and technical feasibility of the options being considered, and evaluate the potential effects on human health, living resources, amenities, other legitimate uses of the sea, and the environment in general. For vessels, this assessment should be based upon the underlying premise that with implementation of the pollution prevention plan of best environmental practices in the appendix, any adverse impacts will be minimized and will primarily be those resulting from the physical presence of the vessel on the sea floor because the disposed vessels will have had contaminants removed to the maximum extent. 7.3 The assessment should be as comprehensive as possible. The primary potential impacts should be identified during the dump-site selection process. These are considered to pose the most serious threats to human health and the environment. Alterations to the physical environment, risks to human health, devaluation of marine resources and interference with other legitimate uses of the sea are often seen as primary concerns in this regard. 7.4 In constructing an impact hypothesis, particular attention should be given to, but not limited to, potential impacts on amenities (e.g. presence of floatables), sensitive areas (e.g. spawning, nursery or feeding areas), habitat (e.g. biological, chemical and physical modification), migratory patterns, and marketability of resources. Consideration should also be given to potential impacts on other uses of the sea including: fishing, navigation, engineering uses, areas of special concern and value, and traditional uses of the sea. Note to paragraphs 7.5 to 7.8: The disposal of vessels at sea, where the waste is a solid, does not present the same types of potential environmental concerns as the disposal of other wastes, such as liquids, where the waste materials can be readily distributed into the environment; and thereby does not necessarily fit the standard paradigm of rigorous biological or chemical monitoring due to contaminants in the waste. Potential sources of pollution as described in the appendix, other substances that are likely to cause harm to the environment, and materials capable of creating floating debris shall be removed to the maximum extent possible prior to disposal. When developing the monitoring plan, these factors should be considered. 7.5 Even the least complex and most innocuous wastes left on board a vessel to be disposed of at sea may have a variety of physical, chemical and biological effects. Impact hypotheses cannot attempt to reflect them all, as it must be recognized that even the most comprehensive impact hypotheses may not address all possible scenarios and unanticipated impacts. It is therefore imperative that any monitoring programmes developed be linked directly to the hypotheses and serve as a feedback mechanism to verify the predictions and review the adequacy of management measures applied to the dumping operation and at the dump-site. It is important to identify the sources and consequences of uncertainty.



7.6 The expected (potentially both negative and positive) consequences of dumping should be described in terms of affected habitats, processes, species, communities and uses. The precise nature of the predicted effect (e.g. change, response, or interference) should be described. The effect should be quantified in sufficient detail so that there is no doubt regarding the variables that should be measured during field monitoring. In the latter context, it would be essential to determine where and when the impacts can be expected. 7.7 Emphasis should be placed on biological effects and habitat modification as well as physical and chemical change. However, if the potential effect is due to substances left on board, the following factors should be addressed:

.1 estimates of statistically significant increases of the substance in seawater, sediments, or biota in relation to existing conditions and associated effects; and

.2 estimate of the contribution made by the substance to local and regional

fluxes and the degree to which existing fluxes pose threats or adverse effects on the marine environment or human health.

7.8 In the case of repeated or multiple vessel disposals, impact hypotheses should take into account the cumulative effects of such operations. It will also be important to consider the possible interactions with other waste dumping practices in the area, both existing and planned. 7.9 An analysis of each disposal option should be considered in light of a comparative assessment of the following concerns: human health risks, environmental costs, hazards (including accidents), economics and exclusion of future uses. If this assessment reveals that adequate information is not available to determine the likely effects of the proposed disposal option, including potential long-term harmful consequences, then this option should not be considered further. In addition, if the interpretation of the comparative assessment shows the dumping option to be less preferable, a permit for dumping should not be given. 7.10 Each assessment should conclude with a statement supporting a decision to issue or refuse a permit for dumping. 7.11 Where monitoring is required, the effects and parameters described in the hypotheses should help to guide field and analytical work so that relevant information can be obtained in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. 8 Permit and permit conditions 8.1 A decision to issue a permit should only be made if all vessel clean-up requirements are satisfied, impact evaluations are completed and all monitoring requirements are determined. The provisions of the permit shall ensure, as far as practicable, that environmental disturbance and detriment are minimized and the benefits maximized. The permitting process should include the following essential elements: (1) a description of the best environmental practices (see appendix) for the disposal option selected; (2) cleaning of the vessel; (3) inspection/verification by relevant authorities that adequate cleaning has taken place; and (4) permit issuance. The national permitting authority should ensure that the appropriate hydrographic surveying authority is notified of the longitude and latitude coordinates, depth, and dimensions of the dumped vessel on the sea bottom. The national permitting



authority should also ensure that advance notice of the dumping is issued to national shipping, fisheries, hydrographic surveying authorities and other users of the sea. Any permit issued should contain data and information specifying:

.1 name, IMO number (where available), type, or tonnage of the vessel;

.2 the location of the dump-site(s) for example using specific coordinates or requirements for siting (i.e. depth, distance from shore);

.3 the method of vessel sinking or other sinking-related requirements; and

.4 monitoring and reporting requirements.10

8.2 If dumping is the selected option, then a permit authorizing dumping must be issued in advance. It is recommended that opportunities be provided for public review and participation in the permitting process. In granting a permit, the hypothesized impact occurring within the boundaries of the dump-site, such as alterations to the physical, chemical and biological compartments of the local environment is accepted by the permitting authority. If the information provided is inadequate to determine whether a project would pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, the permitting authority should request additional information before taking a decision on issuing a permit. If it becomes evident that a project would pose significant risks to human health or the marine environment, a permit should not be issued. If the information provided is still inadequate to make a decision, a permit shall not be issued (London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 7).11

8.3 Regulators should strive at all times to enforce procedures that will result in environmental changes as far below the limits of allowable environmental change as practicable, taking into account technological capabilities as well as economic, social and political concerns.

8.4 Permits should be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account the results of monitoring and the objectives of monitoring programmes. Review of monitoring results will indicate whether field programmes need to be continued, revised or terminated, and will contribute to informed decisions regarding the continuance, modification or revocation of permits. This provides an important feedback mechanism for the protection of human health and the marine environment.

8.5 The duration of potential impacts should be considered in determining the appropriate periods of time for retaining permits and other supporting documentation.

8.6 Permits should specify sinking requirements such as route and transit/time of sinking during daylight hours, acceptable method(s) of sinking, observation/clean-up of any materials floating to the surface, documentation of date/time/location/depth at time of sinking, confirmation of the final resting location, etc.

10 See London Protocol, annex 2, paragraph 17 (permit and permit conditions). Similar considerations are

described in London Convention annex III required by London Convention article 4, paragraph 2. 11 London Convention article 4, paragraph 2 provides for permit issuance only after careful consideration of

the factors set forth in London Convention annex III.



8.7 Permits should specify reporting requirements including the name/address of the individual to be sent the sinking report, and the information to be included in the report such as coordinates of the vessel when it disappeared below the surface or where it rests on the bottom, depth at sinking location, observations during sinking, etc.

9 Monitoring

9.1 Monitoring is used to verify that permit conditions are met (compliance monitoring) and that the assumptions made during the permit review and site selection process were correct and sufficient to protect the environment and human health (field monitoring). It is essential that monitoring programmes developed for vessels disposed at sea have clearly defined objectives based on realistic expectations. An appropriately cleaned vessel, dumped in an appropriate location, is unlikely to require much, if any, field monitoring relative to other types of waste disposed of at sea. However, field monitoring should be considered to verify the appropriateness of clean-up and site selection efforts when there is reason to believe that they can be improved.

9.2 The impact hypothesis forms the basis for defining field monitoring. The measurement programme should be designed to ascertain that changes in the receiving environment are within those predicted. The following questions should be answered:

.1 What testable hypotheses can be derived from the impact hypothesis?

.2 What measurements (type, location, frequency, and performance requirements) are required to test these hypotheses?

.3 How should the data be managed and interpreted?

9.3 It may usually be assumed that suitable specifications of existing (pre-disposal) conditions in the receiving area are already contained in the application for dumping. If the specification of such conditions is inadequate to permit the formulation of an impact hypothesis, the permitting authority will require additional information before any final decision on the permit application is made. 9.4 The permitting authority is encouraged to take account of relevant research information in the design and modification of monitoring programmes. The measurements can be divided into two types: those within the zone of predicted impact and those outside. Impacts expected from appropriately cleaned vessels disposed of at sea in suitable locations should be limited to physical perturbations at the resting location. 9.5 When there is reason to believe that the clean-up processes applied to a vessel before disposal could have been improved, the potential impacts of contaminants remaining on the vessel should be addressed through monitoring. Measurements should be designed to determine the extent of change that occurs as a result of the sinking of the vessel, including its presence thereafter. The extent of change is evaluated relative to the baseline state of the environment or potential growth of organisms on the vessel itself. This baseline state should be either based on the newly selected dump-site prior to its use in the case of a new dump-site, or on a nearby zone where historical dumping has not induced changes to the environment. Frequently, these measurements will be based on a null hypothesis, i.e. that no significant change can be detected. Measurements should also take into account those physical, chemical and biological characteristics identified during the waste characterization phase.



9.6 The results of monitoring (or other related research) should be reviewed at regular intervals in relation to the objectives and can provide a basis to:

.1 modify or terminate the field-monitoring programme; .2 modify or revoke the permit; .3 redefine or close the dump-site; and .4 modify the basis on which applications to dump wastes are assessed

(including the processes used to ensure that all contaminants have been removed from vessels prior to disposal).



APPENDIX

POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

1 Contaminants that are likely to cause harm to the marine environment should be removed from vessels prior to disposal at sea. Because vessels disposed of at sea should have had contaminants removed prior to disposal, action limits for vessels are to be met through the implementation of the pollution prevention plan and the best environmental practices, in order to ensure that it has been cleaned to the maximum extent feasible. The best environmental practices, specifically identified for vessels in the next paragraph, should be followed. Care should be taken during cleaning to ensure that the stability of the vessel remains safe and does not create an environment where the vessel may sink in advance of finishing the clean-up efforts and/or in a location that is not the proposed dump-site. 2 The pollution prevention and clean-up techniques described below should be implemented for vessels that are to be disposed of at sea. The pollution prevention plan should include specific actions regarding those potential sources of pollution identified by the inventory of hazardous materials for the vessel concerned (paragraph 4.3 above, taking into account the amounts and relative hazards of the identified contaminants – both chemical and biological – that may be released to the marine environment). Within technical and economic feasibility and taking into consideration the safety of workers, to the maximum extent, (1) vessels shall be cleaned of potential sources of pollution to the maximum extent feasible as described in paragraph 5.1, and of fuel or other substances that are likely to cause harm to the marine environment, and (2) materials capable of creating floating debris shall be removed to the maximum extent feasible, as required under LP annex 1, paragraph 2.12 After the required removal, resulting wastes or materials should be reused, recycled or disposed of on land in an environmentally sound manner, among other measures:

.1 floatable materials that could adversely impact safety, human health, or the

ecological or aesthetic value of the marine environment are to be removed to the maximum extent feasible;

.2 materials remaining in tanks, piping or holds should be removed to the

maximum extent feasible (including, for example, fuels, stocks of industrial or commercial chemicals, or wastes that may pose an adverse risk to the marine environment). All drummed, tanked, or canned liquids or gaseous materials should be removed from the vessel. All materials removed should be managed on land in an environmentally sound manner (e.g. recycling and, in certain cases, on-shore incineration). The decision for removal of equipment containing liquid PCBs, such as fluid filled transformers or fluorescent light ballasts, should be a priority;

.3 any capacitors and transformers containing dielectric fluid from the vessel

should be removed to the maximum extent feasible; .4 if any part of the vessel was used for storage of fuel or chemical stocks such

as in tanks, these areas shall be flushed, cleaned, and, as appropriate, sealed or plugged;

12 London Convention annex I, paragraph 11d provides that a vessel is not an industrial waste provided that

material capable of creating floating debris or otherwise contributing to pollution of the marine environment has been removed to the maximum extent.



.5 to prevent release of substances that could cause harm to the marine environment, cleaning of tanks, pipes and other vessel equipment and surfaces should be accomplished in an environmentally sound manner prior to disposal using appropriate techniques, such as high-pressure washing techniques with detergents. The resulting wash water should be handled in an environmentally sound manner consistent with national or regional standards to address potential pollutants; and

.6 to avoid the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms, which may be attached to

the vessel or present in the ballast water on board the vessel, as far as practicable, consideration should be given to removing the organisms for treatment and/or disposal on land.

3 The pollution prevention plan should consider the following:

.1 details of the vessel's operational equipment and potential sources, amounts

and relative hazards of potential contaminants (including chemical and biological) that may be released to the marine environment; and

.2 feasibility of the following pollution prevention/reduction techniques:

.1 cleaning of pipes, tanks, and components of the vessel (including environmentally sound management of resultant wastes); and

.2 reuse/recycling/disposal of all or some vessel components. Besides

ferrous scrap materials, there may be high value components available, such as non-ferrous metals, (e.g. copper, aluminium, nickel) and reusable equipment such as generators, machines, pumps and cranes. Removal from the vessel for reuse should be based on a balance between their age, condition, demand, cost of removal and presence of any hazardous constituents.

4 The principal components of a vessel (e.g. steel/iron/aluminium) are not an overriding concern from the standpoint of marine pollution. However, there are a number of potential sources of pollution that should be addressed when considering management options. These may include:

.1 fuel, lubricants, and coolants; .2 electrical equipment; .3 stored paints, solvents, and other chemical stocks; .4 floatable materials (e.g. plastics, styrofoam insulation); .5 sludges; .6 cargo; and .7 harmful aquatic organisms.



5 Items on vessels that potentially contain substances of concern include:

.1 electrical equipment (e.g. transformers, batteries, accumulators);

.2 refrigeration systems;

.3 scrubbers;

.4 separators;

.5 heat exchangers;

.6 tanks;

.7 storage facilities for production and other chemicals;

.8 diesel tanks including bulk storage tanks;

.9 paints and coatings;

.10 sacrificial anodes;

.11 fire-extinguishing/fighting equipment;

.12 pumps;

.13 engines;

.14 generators;

.15 oil sumps;

.16 hydraulic systems;

.17 piping, valves, anchor chain vaults and fittings;

.18 compressors;

.19 light fittings/fixtures; and

.20 cables.

***



ANNEX 8

RECOMMENDATION TO ENCOURAGE ACTION TO COMBAT MARINE LITTER Recalling the RIO+20 outcome document "the future we want", paragraph 163, the United Nations Environment Assembly 2 Resolution on Marine plastic litter and microplastics, and the final report of the Review of the Current State of Knowledge Regarding Marine Litter in Waste Dumped at Sea under the London Convention and Protocol; Recognizing the progress reported by a number of Contracting Parties to date in highlighting and addressing the particular problems of plastics pollution through measures applied both in the environment and at source; The Contracting Parties to the London Protocol and the London Convention express concern around the issue of plastic litter and microplastics in the marine environment; and Encourage Member States to make every effort to combat marine litter, including through the identification and control of marine litter at source and to encourage monitoring, additional study and knowledge-sharing on this issue.

***



ANNEX 9

LITERATURE REVIEW PERFORMED IN SUPPORT OF THE 25-YEAR SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF OCEAN DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND

OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATTER I Background and charge for the Literature Review The history of the London Convention is discussed in detail in The London Dumping Convention: The First Decade and Beyond, which was prepared by the IMO Secretariat and attached to LDC 13/INF.9. This report is listed and a web link provided in the general references at the end of Section II of this Literature Review. In the original text of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Convention), low-level radioactive wastes appeared in Annex II (the "grey list"). Thus, low-level radioactive wastes could be dumped at sea under certain conditions. In 1983, at the Seventh Consultative Meeting of London Convention Contracting Parties, two Contracting Parties proposed a ban on dumping at sea of any radioactive waste (LDC 13/INF.9, page 49). After considerable discussion, the Seventh Consultative Meeting adopted a voluntary and non-legally binding moratorium on further dumping pending a review, by an independent panel of experts, of the relevant scientific and technical considerations (LDC 13/INF.9, page 49). This panel presented its findings at the Ninth Consultative Meeting in 1985. At this meeting, there was general agreement that the scientific report had not shown that dumping of low-level waste was environmentally dangerous, but neither had it proved that dumping was harmless. Resolution LDC.21(9), Dumping of Radioactive Wastes at Sea (listed in the general references with web link in Section II), requested Contracting Parties to suspend radioactive waste dumping pending completion of additional scientific studies as well as additional studies on the wider political, legal, economic and social aspects of radioactive waste dumping at sea (LDC 13/INF.9, page 50). In 1986, the Tenth Consultative Meeting adopted a further resolution establishing an Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts to consider the above mentioned topics. In addition to considering these topics, the panel was asked to consider whether it could be proven that dumping of radioactive wastes at sea will not harm human life or cause significant damage (LDC 13/INF.9, page 50). The Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea (IGPRAD) held its sixth and final meeting in July 1993. The final IGPRAD report, LC/IGPRAD 6/5 (listed in the Category D references with web link in Section II) was issued on 31 August 1993. The Panel of Experts ultimately did not reach consensus on several aspects of their charge. For example, the final report includes a detailed discussion of the lack of consensus on the question of whether it could be proved that dumping of radioactive wastes at sea will not harm human life or cause significant damage to the marine environment. There was a similar lack of consensus among the experts on other aspects of their charge, including legal questions and social aspects. The "Final and Comprehensive Statement" at the conclusion of the IGPRAD report did not provide a clear and consensual answer to the charges given to the Panel. While the Panel did develop and explore a range of potential actions the Consultative Meeting could take, the Panel did not include a recommendation for any particular alternative in its Final and Comprehensive Statement.



At the 1993 Consultative Meeting, the London Convention was amended to ban the dumping of radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter at sea (resolution LC.51(16), listed in the general references with web link in Section II). The amendment included the following provision: "Within 25 years from the date on which the amendment to paragraph 6 enters into

force and at each 25-year interval thereafter, the Contracting Parties shall complete a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter other than high level wastes or matter, taking into account such other factors as the Contracting Parties consider appropriate, and shall review the position of such substances in Annex I in accordance with the procedures set forth in article XV." (LC Annex I, paragraph 12)

Similarly, the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Protocol) provides:

"Notwithstanding the above, materials listed in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.8 containing levels of radioactivity greater than de minimis (exempt) concentrations as defined by the IAEA and adopted by Contracting Parties, shall not be considered eligible for dumping; provided further that within 25 years of 20 February 1994, and at each 25-year interval thereafter, Contracting Parties shall complete a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter other than high level wastes or matter, taking into account such other factors as Contracting Parties consider appropriate and shall review the prohibition on dumping of such substances in accordance with the procedures set forth in article 22."

The London Convention's ban on dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter entered into force on 20 February 1994. Thus, the scientific study is to be completed by 20 February 2019. In the annotated agenda for the 2014 meeting of the Scientific Groups (LC/SG 37/1/1, listed in the general references with web link in Section II), the Secretariat stated that the Scientific Groups will be invited to initiate the preparatory work in terms of developing a work plan, scope and timelines, with a view to advising the governing bodies at their next joint session in November 2014. In the report of this meeting (LC/SG 37/16, listed in the general references with web link in Section II), the working group reported: "As far as the Scientific Groups are aware, there is no new scientific information or a change in circumstances that would indicate a need to review the prohibition on dumping radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter as set out in LC, annex I, article 12, and LP annex 1, article 3. The IAEA informed the Scientific Groups that no radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter had been dumped at sea since the prohibition came into force in 1993."

At the 2014 Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention and the Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Protocol, the governing bodies, having reviewed the Scientific Groups' work to prepare advice regarding the requirement to conduct a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter, established a correspondence group to submit a proposal for a work plan for the 25-year study (LC 36/16, listed in the general references with web link in Section II). The governing bodies also stated that the literature review could focus on the period after 1993 when the Convention was amended. The correspondence group worked under the lead of Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom). At their 38th session in 2015, the Scientific Groups reviewed an updated draft work plan for the 25-year scientific study and instructed the Secretariat to transmit the draft, once completed by the correspondence group, to the governing bodies for consideration in October 2015 (LC/SG 38/16). At the 2015 joint Meetings, the governing bodies approved the work plan for the 25-year scientific review (LC 37/16, listed in the general references with web link in section II).



Both the London Convention and the London Protocol require a two-part process be followed. Using the London Convention wording, first the Contracting Parties "complete a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter other than high level wastes or matter, taking into account such other factors as the Contracting Parties consider appropriate…"After that, the Contracting Parties "…review the position of such substances in Annex I in accordance with the procedures set forth in article XV." It is noteworthy that nothing in the 25-year scientific study and review provisions in either the Convention or Protocol provides any short cut or eased hurdle for proposing and approving any change to the Convention or Protocol. A two-thirds majority of Contracting Parties at a Consultative Meeting or Meeting of Contracting Parties would still be required for any change to the Convention or Protocol. At this time, no Contracting Party has expressed an interest in proposing such a change. This Literature Review is the initial step of the first part of the two part process, the "scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter other than high level wastes or matter, taking into account such other factors as the Contracting Parties consider appropriate." After completion of this Literature Review, the Contracting Parties at their joint Meetings may decide that this Literature Review fully satisfies the requirement for a "scientific study" and proceed to the second part of the process, the "review", i.e. deciding whether or not to propose any amendment to the Convention and Protocol. Alternatively, the Contracting Parties may elect to commission an additional scientific study beyond the scope of this literature review.

It should be emphasized that this scientific study is being conducted solely because it is a requirement of both the Convention and Protocol that a scientific study be conducted every 25 years. No Contracting Party has expressed any interest in revising the current provisions of the Convention or Protocol pertaining to dumping of radioactive waste. II Categorization and list of reports reviewed

Consistent with the direction from the 2014 joint Meetings, this Literature Review focuses on scientific reports completed since the decision to amend the Convention in 1993 to ban disposal at sea of low-level radioactive waste. The reports reviewed in this Literature Review have been divided into four categories. Category A – Integrated studies that attempt to address all aspects necessary to assess the risk and impact of an ocean dumping operation. Such an integrated programme would include the studies of waste characteristics, packaging, performance of the packaging in the ocean environment, release to the ocean environment, local impact on the ocean environment and modelling of the more distant impact. Category B – Reports of monitoring expeditions to old ocean dumpsites, or to sites of accidents. Category C – Model studies of dumping at sea, or of the impact of past dumping or past accidents at sea. Category D – Other potentially relevant studies like the IAEA revised inventory of past dumping and accidental losses of radioactive material at sea and the IGPRAD Report. A proposed list of literature to be reviewed was circulated in advance of the 2015 meeting of the Scientific Groups and the 2015 meeting of the Contracting Parties. Several additional reports were suggested to be reviewed. The reports covered in this Literature Review are listed below.



25-Year Scientific Study – List of Literature reviewed

Category A – Integrated Studies

OECD-NEA, Co-ordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme Related to Sea Disposal of Radioactive Waste, CRESP Final Report 1981-1995, OECD 1996. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/1996/CRESP-1981-1995.pdf Category B – Monitoring of Past Ocean Dumpsites or Accident Sites AMAP, 2015, Summary for Policy-Makers - Arctic Pollution Issues 2015 – Persistent Organic Pollutants; Radioactivity in the Arctic: Human Health in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Summary-for-Policy-makers-Arctic-Pollution-Issues-2015/1195 AMAP, 2010, AMAP Assessment 2009: Radioactivity in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/download/1164 AMAP, 2004, AMAP Assessment 2002: Radioactivity in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2004. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2002-radioactivity-in-the-arctic/93 AMAP, 1998, AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues, Chapter 8 – Radioactivity, P. Strand, editor, Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-report-arctic-pollution-issues/68 CEFAS, 2015, Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2014, RIFE-20, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, (and earlier reports in the annual RIFE series) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radioactivity-in-food-and-the-environment-2014-rife-20 Dale,P., 1012, Dalgety Bay Radium Contamination, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, August 2012, http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/62124/dalgety-bay-2012-dose-assessment-report-1-10-04-13.pdf, one of numerous reports available at the SEPA Dalgety Bay web page. http://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/radioactive-substances/dalgety-bay-updates/dalgety-bay-reports/ Edson, R. et al., The Arctic Nuclear Waste Assessment Program, Oceanography, Vol 10, No. 1, 1997. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-1_edson.pdf Feldt, W. et al., 1987, Radiookologie der Tiefsee – Kenntnisstand fur die Beurteilung der Versenkung niedrigaktiver Festabfalle in der Tiefsee (Radioecology of the Deep Sea – State of Knowledge for Evaluation of Disposal of Low Level Activity Solid Waste in the Deep Sea), in Heller, H., Band 06: Empfehlungen der Strahlenschutzkommission 1985/1986, pages 123-165, ISBN 3-437-11138-8.

Gwynn, J. P. and Nikitin, A. I., Joint Norwegian-Russian Expert Group for Investigation of Radioactive Contamination in the Northern Areas – Investigation into the Radioecological

https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/1996/CRESP-1981-1995.pdf

http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Summary-for-Policy-makers-Arctic-Pollution-Issues-2015/1195


http://www.amap.no/documents/download/1164

http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2002-radioactivity-in-the-arctic/93

http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-report-arctic-pollution-issues/68


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radioactivity-in-food-and-the-environment-2014-rife-20


http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/62124/dalgety-bay-2012-dose-assessment-report-1-10-04-13.pdf


http://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/radioactive-substances/dalgety-bay-updates/dalgety-bay-reports/


http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-1_edson.pdf



Status Of Stepovogo Fjord - the Dumping Site of the Nuclear Submarine K-27 and Solid Radioactive Waste – Results from the 2012 Research Cruise. http://www.nrpa.no/dav/063b47fa42.pdf Grottheim, S., Artificial Radionuclides in the Northern European Marine Environment – Distribution of Radiocaesium, Plutonium and Americium in Sea Water and Sediments in 1995, NRPA, StrålevernRapport 2000:1. http://www.nrpa.no/dav/b3144e52c1.pdf Holliday, F.G.T. et al., 1984, Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North-east Atlantic, United Kingdom Department of the Environment, 1984, ISBN 0 11 751772 0. Hong, G.H., et al., 2004, Artificial Radionuclides in the Western North Pacific: A Review, in Global Environmental Change in the Ocean and on Land, Eds., M. Shiyomi et al., pp. 147-172, TERRAPUB, 2004. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/kawahata/pdf/147.pdf Hughes, L.M. et al., Marine Radioactivity in the Channel Islands, 1990 – 2009, CEFAS, 2011. https://gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20greener%20living/R%20Radioactivity%20in%20Channel%20Islands%201990%20to%202009%2020110127%20AI.pdf Japan Coast Guard Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, 2007, The Report of the Japanese-Korean Joint Survey Program on Radioactivity, Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, Japan Coast Guard, August 2007. Jones, D.G. et al., Measurement of Seafloor Radioactivity at the Farallon Islands Radioactive Waste Dump Site, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-62, 2001, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-062/OFR_01_062.pdf Kanisch, G. et al., Radiookologische Untersuchungen in Marinen Okosystemen (Radioecological Research in Marine Ecosystems), Schriftenreihe Reaktorsicherheit un Strahlenschutz No. 158, Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Baturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Bonn. https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:2413349-1/data Karl, H.A., Search for Containers of Radioactive Waste on the Sea Floor, pp 207-217 in Beyond the Golden Gate – Oceanography, Geology, Biology, and Environmental Issues in the Gulf of the Farallones, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1198, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1198/chapters/207-217_RadWaste.pdf Marx, D.R., Deep Sea Radiological Environmental Monitoring performed during September 1998 at the Sites of the Sunken Submarines USS THRESHER and USS SCORPION, KAPL-4842, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, July 2000. NRPA, 2015, Radioactivity in the Marine Environment 2011, Results from the Norwegian National Monitoring Programme (RAME), StrålevernRapport 2015:3, Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, 2015. http://www.nrpa.no/filer/d1694e636a.pdf NRPA, 2014, Joint Norwegian-Russian Expedition to investigate the Sunken Nuclear Submarine K-159 in the Barents Sea, NRPA Bulletin 4.14, June 2014. www.nrpa.no/dav/71cbf617f1.pdf

Pettersson, H.B.L., et al., 1998, Anthropogenic Radionuclides in Sediments in the NW Pacific Ocean and its Marginal Seas. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/038/30038773.pdf

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/063b47fa42.pdf

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/b3144e52c1.pdf

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/kawahata/pdf/147.pdf

https://gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20greener%20living/R%20Radioactivity%20in%20Channel%20Islands%201990%20to%202009%2020110127%20AI.pdf


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-062/OFR_01_062.pdf

https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:2413349-1/data

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1198/chapters/207-217_RadWaste.pdf

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/71cbf617f1.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/038/30038773.pdf



Rissanen, K. et al., 1998, Radioactivity contamination of the Russian Arctic Seas, in Final Reports of the Sub-projects within the Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Project EKO-1, pp. 68--80, NKS-8, ISBN 87-7893-056-1, July 1998. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/004/33004742.pdf Strand, P. and Cooke, A. editors, Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic - Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic, NRPA, 1995. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/041/28041349.pdf Suchanek, T.H. et al., Radionuclides in Fishes and Mussels from the Farallon Islands Nuclear Waste Dump Site, California, Health Physics, Volume 71, Number 2, August 1996 Woodhead, D, 1999. International Arctic Seas Assessment Project. Science of the Total Environment, 237/238: 153-166 Category C – Modelling Studies

AMAP, 2010, AMAP Assessment 2009: Radioactivity in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/download/1164

Amundsen, I., et al., The Kursk Accident, StrålevernRapport 2001:5, Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, 2001. www.nrpa.no/dav/3b3a226c34.pdf

ARMARA 1999, Radioecological Assessment of the Consequences of Contamination of Arctic Waters: Modelling the Key Processes Controlling Radionuclide Behaviour under Extreme Conditions (ARMARA) – Final Report, EC Nuclear Fission Safety Programme, 1995-99, Contract No. F14P-CT95-0035, Mitchell, P. I. et al., December 1999. http://www.santateresa.enea.it/wwwste/artico/doc/finalrepARMARA.pdf

IAEA, 1997, Predicted Radionuclide Release from Marine Reactors Dumped in the Kara Sea, IAEA, Vienna, 1997, IAEA-TECDOC-938, ISSN 1011-4289. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_0938_scr.pdf

IAEA, 2003, Modelling of the Radiological Impact of Radioactive Waste Dumping in the Arctic Seas, IAEA, Vienna, 2003, IAEA-TECDOC-1330, ISBN 92-0-100203-3. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1330_scr.pdf

Layton, D. et al., 1997, Radionuclides in the Arctic Seas from the Former Soviet Union: Potential Health and Ecological Risks, Arctic Nuclear Waste Assessment Program (ANWAP), UCRL-CR-136696, November 1997. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/237390.pdf

Palsson, S. E. et al., Marine Radioecology - Final Report of the Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Project EKO-1, NKS (Nordic Nuclear Safety Research), NKS(97)FR4, ISBN 87-7893-024-3, June 1998. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/Public/30/013/30013855.pdf Woodhead, D, 1999. International Arctic Seas Assessment Project. Science of the Total Environment, 237/238: 153-166. Category D – Other Relevant Studies or Reports IAEA, 1995, Sources of Radioactivity in the Marine Environment and their Relative Contributions to Overall Dose Assessment from Marine Radioactivity (MARDOS), IAEA, VIENNA, 1995, IAEA-TECDOC-838, ISSN 1011-4289. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_838_web.pdf




http://www.nrpa.no/dav/3b3a226c34.pdf

http://www.santateresa.enea.it/wwwste/artico/doc/finalrepARMARA.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_0938_scr.pdf


https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/237390.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/Public/30/013/30013855.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_838_web.pdf



IAEA, 2005, Worldwide Marine Radioactivity Studies (Womars) Radionuclide Levels in Oceans and Seas, IAEA, Vienna, 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1429, ISBN 92–0–114904–2, ISSN 1011–4289. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1429_web.pdf IAEA, 2015, Determining the suitability of materials for disposal at sea under the London

Convention 1972 and London Protocol 1996: A Radiological Assessment Procedure,

Edition 2015, IAEA-TECDOC-1759.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1759_web.pdf

IAEA, 2015, Inventory of Radioactive Material resulting from Historical Dumping, Accidents

and Losses at Sea for the Purposes of the London Convention 1972 and London Protocol

1996, IAEA-TECDOC-1776.


IAEA, 2015, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, ISBN 978-92-0-107015-9. http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10962/The-Fukushima-Daiichi-Accident IMO, 1993, Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea, LC/IGPRAD 6/5, 31 August 1993. Linsley, G. et al., (IAEA Marine Environmental Laboratory), 2004, Overview of Point Sources of Anthropogenic Radionuclides in the Oceans, Chapter 4 in Marine Radioactivity, Livingston, H.D., (Ed.), Elsevier (2004).

Livingston and Povinec, 2000, Anthropogenic Marine Radioactivity, Ocean and Coastal Management 43(2000), pp689-712, 2000.

General Reference Material (Not Specifically for Study)

IMO (1991) The London Dumping Convention. The First Decade and Beyond. IMO, London, 292 pp. Out of print but a near final version is available in the London Convention Archives at: http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/VariousArticlesAndDocumentsAboutTheLondonConvention/Documents/London%20Dumping%20Convention%20%20the%20First%20Decade%20and%20Beyond.%20%20IMO%20Document%20LDC%2013%20INF.9%201990.pdf

London Convention Consultative Meeting Reports, 1975 – 1997. In the London Convention Archives at: http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/LCandLDCReports/Pages/default.aspx

Ringius, L. (2001), Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas, Transnational Policy Entrepreneurs, and Environmental Regimes, MIT Press, 275 pp. To be found at: http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/VariousArticlesAndDocumentsAboutTheLondonConvention/Documents/Ringius,%20Lasse%20%20Radioactive%20waste%20Disposal%20at%20Sea.pdf London Convention Resolution LDC.21(9), Dumping of Radioactive Wastes at Sea. To be found at: http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15944&filename=LDC.21(9).pdf

London Convention Resolution LC.51(16), Amendments to the Annexes to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution By Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 Concerned Disposal at Sea of Radioactive Wastes and Other Radioactive Matter. To be found at: http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15984&filename=LC51(16).pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1429_web.pdf



http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10962/The-Fukushima-Daiichi-Accident

http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/VariousArticlesAndDocumentsAboutTheLondonConvention/Documents/London%20Dumping%20Convention%20%20the%20First%20Decade%20and%20Beyond.%20%20IMO%20Document%20LDC%2013%20INF.9%201990.pdf




http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/LCandLDCReports/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/LCandLDCReports/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/VariousArticlesAndDocumentsAboutTheLondonConvention/Documents/Ringius,%20Lasse%20%20Radioactive%20waste%20Disposal%20at%20Sea.pdf



http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15944&filename=LDC.21(9).pdf

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15984&filename=LC51(16).pdf



LC/SG 37/1/1, Adoption of the Agenda - Annotations and Provisional Timetable, 17 January 2014, available at: https://docs.imo.org

LC/SG 37/16, Report of the Thirty-seventh Meeting of the Scientific Group of the London Convention and the Eighth Meeting of the Scientific Group of the London Protocol, 12 June 2014, available at: https://docs.imo.org

LC 36/16, Report of the Thirty-sixth Consultative Meeting and the Ninth Meeting of Contracting Parties, 10 November 2014, available at: https://docs.imo.org

LC/SG 38/16, Report of the Thirty-eighth Meeting of the Scientific Group of the London Convention and the Ninth Meeting of the Scientific Group of the London Protocol, 27 April 2015, available at: https://docs.imo.org

LC 37/16, Report of the Thirty-seventh Consultative Meeting and the Tenth Meeting of Contracting Parties, 22 October 2015, available at: https://docs.imo.org

III Review of the listed reports

The scientific literature related to radioactivity, radioactive waste, and other radioactive material in the oceans is extensive. There are many good review articles and books in this literature. The intent of this Literature Review is not to create a compendium of all of the literature or to duplicate or improve on any existing review of this literature. This Literature Review is tightly focused on the specific charge given by the text of the London Convention and London Protocol. The objective of this Literature Review is to satisfy the requirement for a scientific study (unless the Contracting Parties decide that further study is required), and to support the Contracting Parties in their decision whether or not to amend the provisions of the Convention and Protocol dealing with the dumping at sea of low-level radioactive waste.

With this objective in mind, the review of each report will have the following format. There will be a very brief summary of what each report finds and concludes with respect to ocean dumping of radioactive waste or the accidental deposition of radioactive material in the ocean. After that, each report will be evaluated with regard to the charge of this 25-year review. The decision that the Contracting Parties must take following the Scientific Review is whether or not to amend the provisions of the Convention and Protocol regarding ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. If the decision is made to retain the ban and make no change, little or no additional scientific justification is needed. The existing ban is protective of the ocean environment. As reported by the IAEA, there has been no deliberate dumping at sea of low-level radioactive waste since the ban was adopted in 1993. On the other hand, if the Contracting Parties were to decide to pursue a change to the ban, there would have to be significantly greater scientific information available today than there was in 1993 when the decision was made to adopt the ban. There was an extensive body of evidence available to the Contracting Parties in 1993 when the Convention was amended, that the harm to the ocean environment from low-level radioactive waste dumping at sea was not widespread or severe. Nevertheless, the large majority of Contracting Parties, with only a few abstentions, proceeded to approve the amendment. No Contracting Party has since expressed any interest in revising this amendment. Thus, for each report, an assessment will be made about the degree to which each report provides scientific information that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 when the ban was adopted.

Individual reports will be reviewed in the order of their appearance on the above list, that is, by category, and alphabetically within each category.

https://docs.imo.org/







Category A – Integrated studies

OECD-NEA, Co-ordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme related to Sea Disposal of Radioactive Waste, CRESP Final Report 1981-1995, OECD 1996. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/1996/CRESP-1981-1995.pdf

This is the final report of the Co-ordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme (CRESP). While this final report was issued in 1995, nearly all of the work described in this final report had been done prior to the 1993 Convention amendment, and this work was available to the Contracting Parties when they made the decision to amend the London Convention. Thus, this report nominally does not qualify for this Literature Review with the mandate to evaluate scientific work after 1993. The chief reason for including this report in the current Literature Review is because the CRESP was the only truly integrated scientific programme of its type, both at its time and in the subsequent 20 years. No other government or organization has attempted to perform the full range of studies that the CRESP performed. These included monitoring of ocean dumpsites, investigation of ocean biology, investigation of geochemistry and physical oceanography as it related to ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste, and comprehensive modelling of the potential future impact of ocean dumping.

The final CRESP report did not compile all of the results of the CRESP, but rather provided a final road map of what work had been done and where it was published. With regard to the specific assessment of the North-east Atlantic Dumpsite, the CRESP final report cited the earlier 1985 published assessment. The results of the CRESP programme were known and taken into account in the decision taken by the London Convention Contracting Parties in 1993. Thus, the CRESP final report does not provide substantially different information than was available in 1993.

Category B – Monitoring of past dumpsites or accident sites

AMAP, 2015, Summary for Policy-makers - Arctic Pollution Issues 2015 – Persistent Organic Pollutants; Radioactivity in the Arctic: Human Health in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Summary-for-Policy-makers-Arctic-Pollution-Issues-2015/1195

The Arctic Assessment of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) has published a series of comprehensive assessments of radioactivity in the Arctic. The 2009, 2002, and 1998 AMAP assessments of radioactivity in the Arctic are reviewed below. Although the latest AMAP radioactivity assessment has not yet been published, several key points from the updated assessment are included in this Summary report for policy-makers.

This summary report states that the levels of anthropogenic radioactivity measured in the Arctic that are attributable to already identified sources are generally very low and declining. The associated risks to human health are also declining, in part due to natural decay of radionuclides previously introduced into the environment as well as actions to prevent new introduction of radioactivity into the environment. As a result of the long-term radioactivity monitoring performed by the national networks that contribute to AMAP, it was possible to assess the potential impact from the nuclear accident at Fukushima and conclude that Arctic impacts have so far proved to be minimal and of no concern to human health. However, this report lists potential new sources of radioactivity introduction into the Arctic environment, including decommissioning of nuclear reactors in Europe and the potential for accidental releases from new and existing nuclear power plants in the Arctic region.

*

https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/1996/CRESP-1981-1995.pdf





AMAP, 2010, AMAP Assessment 2009: Radioactivity in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/download/1164 The 2009 Radioactivity in the Arctic Assessment of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is the latest comprehensive assessment from the AMAP organization. This thorough report covers a wide variety of topics beyond that of ocean dumping. It addresses releases from land-based nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, releases into inland rivers in the Russian Federation, and large radioactivity sources on land, including stored spent fuel and Sr-90 heat sources. With respect to the charter of this review to consider information related to ocean dumping, the section of most interest to this Literature Review is the summary of monitoring near dumped waste in Abrosimov bay on the east coast of the Novaya Zemlya southern island. The waste dumped at that location ranges from containers with contaminated equipment to nuclear submarines with fuelled reactors. The AMAP port presented seawater and sediment data from samples taken in the immediate vicinity of waste containers. The same areas were sampled in 1994 and 2002, and the radioactivity concentrations measured had declined between those years. The highest concentration seawater samples in 2002 had measured concentrations of Cs-137, Sr-90, and Pu-239 that were 3.2, 6.0, and 0.0064 Bq/m3, respectively. The highest sediment concentration measured for Cs-137 and Co-60 was approximately 62 and 2.3 Bq/kg dry weight, respectively. The 2009 AMAP report also included data from the site of the Thule, Greenland B52 bomber nuclear weapons accident in 1968. However, the 2002 AMAP report had significantly more data from Thule, so these results will be discussed in the review of the 2002 AMAP report. Overall, the 2009 AMAP report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993. While the monitoring data from Abrosimov Bay are encouraging in that the concentration of radioactivity in seawater and sediment in the vicinity of previously dumped radioactive waste is low and decreasing, this result by itself is not significantly different from data that were available in 1993 from other ocean dumpsites or accident sites.

* AMAP, 2004, AMAP Assessment 2002: Radioactivity in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2004. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2002-radioactivity-in-the-arctic/93 The 2002 Radioactivity in the Arctic Assessment of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), like the 2009 AMAP report, covers a wide variety of topics related to radioactivity in the Arctic. The 2002 AMAP report discussed the results of several monitoring expeditions to the site of the Russian nuclear-powered submarine Kursk, which sank in 2000. Samples taken in the immediate vicinity of the submarine after the sinking, during salvage operations, and after recovery of the section of the submarine containing the nuclear power plant all found radioactivity concentrations consistent with the normal background in the Barents Sea.


http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2002-radioactivity-in-the-arctic/93



The 2002 AMAP report did not have the same level of detailed monitoring data from the site of radioactive waste dumping as were in the 2009 AMAP report. Rather, this report included information on various attempts to confirm independently the amount of radioactivity in the dumped waste. There was reasonable agreement among the various estimates. The 2002 AMAP report included detailed monitoring from the vicinity of the 1968 crash of a U.S. B52 Bomber near Thule, Greenland. The plutonium released to the marine environment following that crash is mostly in the form of small insoluble plutonium oxide particles. Seawater samples in the vicinity of the crash site do not have elevated plutonium concentrations. In the sediment, plutonium concentrations are relatively well mixed within the top 3 to 5 cm of sediment, and are lower at deeper depths. At the location of the highest reported surface sediment concentration, the Pu-239 concentration was approximately 640 Bq/kg dry weight. Several species of bottom dwelling marine life were sampled and generally had radioactivity concentrations of one to two orders of magnitude lower than the sediment. There was one mollusc sample that had a significantly higher concentration than the sediment, which was attributed to a hot particle. Beyond approximately one kilometre from the crash site, sediment concentrations were a factor of ten lower than the highest sediment concentration, and thus, the bottom dwelling marine life would also be expected to have correspondingly lower radioactivity concentrations. Overall, the 2002 AMAP report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites or accident sites. While the monitoring data from the Kursk site showed little if any release, this result was consistent with the previously available information from sites of sunken nuclear-powered submarines. Similarly, the Thule crash monitoring data, while more extensive than was available in the past, was consistent with past understanding of the Thule accident site. The Kursk submarine was recovered in 2001 and no releases were detected during the process.

* AMAP, 1998, AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues, Chapter 8 – Radioactivity, P. Strand, editor, Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-report-arctic-pollution-issues/68 The 1998 Radioactivity in the Arctic Assessment of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), like the 2002 and 2009 AMAP reports, covers a wide variety of topics related to radioactivity in the Arctic. The 1998 AMAP report discussed the results of several monitoring expeditions to the site of the Russian nuclear-powered submarine Komsomolets, which sank in 1989 in the Norwegian Sea. Sediment samples taken in the immediate vicinity of the submarine in 1995 had very low radioactivity concentrations which were not much higher than samples taken one kilometre away. Several modelling studies of potential future release from the submarine by both Russian and NATO authors were reviewed. The AMAP authors stated "based on the results of the studies carried out by NATO and Russian Navy experts, it can be concluded that the threats posed by radionuclides in the wreckage of the Komsomolets submarine are minor." The 1998 AMAP report included a discussion of samples taken during monitoring near radioactive waste and submarines dumped in the Abrosimov and Stepovogo Bays. The Abrosimov Bay results were discussed in the 2009 AMAP report above. In the Stepvogo Bay, a sample chart was provided that showed that sediment samples in the bay were less than 800 Bq/kg dry weight for Cs-137, with concentrations declining to less than 40 Bq/kg dry weight outside the central area, respectively. However, in the immediate vicinity of some steel





containers, much higher concentrations were measured, with the highest Cs-137 concentration being 109,000 Bq/kg dry weight. Fish caught in Stepovogo Bay had measured Cs-137 and Sr-90 concentrations of approximately 2.2 and 1.6 Bq/kg, respectively.

The 1998 AMAP report included a discussion of samples taken during monitoring near radioactive waste and submarines dumped in the Abrosimov and Stepovogo Bays. The Abrosimov Bay results were discussed in the 2009 AMAP report above. In the Stepvogo Bay, a sample chart was provided that showed that sediment samples in the bay were less than 800 Bq/kg dry weight for Cs-137, with concentrations declining to less than 40 Bq/kg dry weight outside the central area, respectively. However, in the immediate vicinity of some steel containers, much higher concentrations were measured, with the highest Cs-137 concentration being 109,000 Bq/kg dry weight. Fish caught in Stepovogo Bay had measured Cs-137 and Sr-90 concentrations of approximately 2.2 and 1.6 Bq/kg, respectively.

Discussion and sampling results of monitoring of the Thule, Greenland accident were not as extensive as in the 2002 AMAP report, so this subject is not reviewed further.

The 1998 AMAP report concluded that the large-scale sources of artificial radioactivity in the Arctic marine environment were from past nuclear weapons testing, from European reprocessing plants, and from the Chernobyl accident. In the case of radioactive wastes dumped at sea, the radionuclides remain mostly localized. The AMAP authors conclude that "the additional contamination of the Arctic by radionuclides from these diverse sources is of negligible radiological significance."

Overall, the 1998 AMAP report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites or accident sites. While the monitoring data from the Komsomolets site showed little release, this result was consistent with the previously available information from sites of sunken nuclear-powered submarines. Similarly, the 1997 AMAP report concluded that the dumping source term was a small contributor to radioactivity in the Arctic marine environment at a regional scale compared to fallout and discharges from reprocessing plants. This conclusion is not significantly different from what was known in 1993 about other dumpsites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

CEFAS, 2015, Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2014, RIFE-20, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, (and earlier reports in the annual RIFE series) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radioactivity-in-food-and-the-environment-2014-rife-20

The Radioactivity in Food and the Environment RIFE-20 is the latest in the long running series of annual reports from the United Kingdom on releases of radioactivity to the environment and radiological environmental monitoring. This report notes that disposals of small amounts of radioactive waste were conducted in an area of the English Channel known as the Hurd Deep from 1950 to 1963. Samples analyzed in 2014 from the Channel Island States showed the influence of discharges from nuclear fuel reprocessing plants. No results were noted that would indicate any contribution from the Hurd Deep disposals. This monitoring was not conducted in the immediate vicinity of the waste disposed of in the Hurd Deep, but rather was from nearby areas to detect and assess any impact over time.

The Rife-20 and earlier reports do not provide significant additional information relative to ocean dumping compared to that which was available in 1993. Previous United Kingdom reports in the RIFE and AEMR (Aquatic Environmental Monitoring Report) report series have long provided similar information and reached similar conclusions relative to past ocean dumping in the Hurd Deep.

*





Dale,P., 2012, Dalgety Bay Radium Contamination, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, August 2012, http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/62124/dalgety-bay-2012-dose-assessment-report-1-10-04-13.pdf, one of numerous reports available at the SEPA Dalgety Bay web page, http://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/radioactive-substances/dalgety-bay-updates/dalgety-bay-reports/ Among the large number of reports available at the SEPA Dalgety Bay web page, this August 2012 report presents the best overall summary of the radium contamination at this site. Dalgety Bay issues resulted from the disposal of a variety of wastes from a United Kingdom air base along the shoreline of Dalgety Bay in the 1940s and 1950s. These wastes included incinerated and crushed radium dials and instruments along with fragments of pots, which had been used for holding radium used in radium dial painting. The disposal area for these wastes has been subject to wave erosion for many years, and radium sources have been found to be washing up on the shore area about 500 meters in length for the past 25 years. Numerous surveys of the area have been performed, and hundreds of individual small radium sources have been collected and removed. After each removal operation additional radium sources have been found to wash ashore at an approximate rate of 100 sources per year. The shore area is heavily used for recreational purposes including walking and boating. Currently the shore area is posted with signs warning the public not to remove objects from the shore. After discovery of four higher activity radium sources up to 16 MBq, one shore area was posted with signage warning the public to keep out of this area. No permanent corrective action either to remove the source of contamination or to restrict access has yet been determined. The Dalgety Bay situation does not provide any new information compared to that which was available in 1993 when the ocean dumping ban was decided. The shore contamination had already been discovered in 1993. Also, dumping in a shoreline area subject to wave erosion and redistribution would not have been consistent with the requirements of the Convention prior to 1993.

* Edson, R. et al., The Arctic Nuclear Waste Assessment Program, Oceanography, Vol 10, No. 1, 1997. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-1_edson.pdf This report provides a summary of the Arctic Nuclear Waste Assessment Program (ANWAP), a program managed by the U.S. Office of Naval Research to assess the fate and impact of radioactive waste deposited in the Arctic by the former Soviet Union. This report was written four years after the initiation of the ANWAP Program. The report provides a brief summary of work performed by ANWAP-associated researchers as well as other researchers, but includes little actual data. Drawing upon data published elsewhere, the authors concluded that initial results show little evidence of widespread radioactivity in the Arctic from the ocean dumping of radioactive waste in the Arctic. The ANWAP Program did not produce the same type of thorough and comprehensive reports as the AMAP Program. Therefore, this report does not provide significant additional information relative to ocean dumping compared to that which was available in 1993.

*





http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-1_edson.pdf



Feldt, W. et al., 1987, Radiookologie der Tiefsee – Kenntnisstand fur die Beurteilung der Versenkung niedrigaktiver Festabfalle in der Tiefsee (Radioecology of the Deep Sea – State of Knowledge for Evaluation of Disposal of Low Level Activity Solid Waste in the Deep Sea), in Heller, H., Band 06: Empfehlungen der Strahlenschutzkommission 1985/1986, pages 123-165, ISBN 3-437-11138-8. Dr. Feldt was the Chairman of a working group on Radioecology of the Deep Sea that was chartered by the German Radiation Protection Commission to evaluate a list of documents submitted on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste and to provide a clear summary of then-current knowledge. Dr. Feldt's working group was requested to report in language that could be understood by people who were not experts in the topic. The resulting report included background material on the amount of radioactivity dumped between 1965 and 1982. The report reviewed the models used to assess the potential migration of radioactivity from the barrels through the food chain and potentially to humans. The authors used several models and compared the results concerning radiation dose to organisms and the so-called critical groups of humans. In addition, several disposal scenarios were tested including a ten times increase of the disposed amount of activity for five years. After the OECD/NEA model and the model from German Hydrographic Institute (from 1985), all doses from potential exposition paths lead to doses below 10-7 Sv per year. In the final section of the working group report, the authors discuss what they consider to be remaining open issues at that time. The authors noted that the relatively simple box models might not be suitable for predictions over long time periods of over 10,000 years. They noted that the then-current models needed to be improved. Similarly, the authors concluded that knowledge of food chains and migration of radionuclides through the food chains was incomplete, and that one could not exclude the possibility that the biological component the spread of the radioactive release is underestimated. Finally, the authors noted that, although doses to biota seem to be low, it should be taken into account that deep sea biota are highly specialized and occur in small numbers. Therefore, dose effects on the level of individual organisms may have a higher impact compared to other ecosystems with a higher biodiversity. This report was available at the time the decision was made in 1993 to ban ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. Several of the concerns discussed in this report remained concerns in 1993. Therefore, this report does not provide significant additional information relative to ocean dumping compared to that which was available in 1993.

* Gwynn, J. P. and Nikitin, A. I., Joint Norwegian-Russian Expert Group for Investigation of Radioactive Contamination in the Northern Areas – Investigation into the Radioecological Status of Stepovogo Fjord – The Dumping Site of the Nuclear Submarine K-27 and Solid Radioactive Waste – Results from the 2012 Research Cruise. http://www.nrpa.no/dav/063b47fa42.pdf This report discusses a very thorough survey of the Stepovogo Bay in 2012 by a joint Norwegian and Russian team. Radioactivity analysis was performed by laboratories in the Russian Federation, Norway, and the IAEA. Analysis of a sediment sample split among the various laboratories showed good agreement among all of the laboratories. Overall, the radioactivity concentrations measured in Stepovogo Bay were significantly lower than what was measured in the 1990s, and was discussed above in the AMAP 1998 report. Extensive sampling of seawater and marine life showed very little, if any radioactivity above what is normal outside the Bay. The highest concentration in a sediment sample was over a factor of 100 lower than the highest concentration from samples collected on a previous expedition.

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/063b47fa42.pdf



This is likely due to the fact that the 2012 sampling survey collected samples in the immediate vicinity of different dumped containers when compared with the previous expedition. Nevertheless, the overall average for the inner Bay was still substantially lower than that measured in the 1990s. This very thorough survey showed that there was no immediate cause for concern in the Stepovogo Bay. However, this report does not provide significant additional information relative to ocean dumping compared to that which was available in 1993.

* Grottheim, S., Artificial Radionuclides in the Northern European Marine Environment – Distribution of Radiocaesium, Plutonium and Americium in Sea Water and Sediments in 1995, NRPA, StrålevernRapport 2000:1. http://www.nrpa.no/dav/b3144e52c1.pdf This report discusses the results of a 1995 research cruise to locations in the North Sea, Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, Iceland Sea and North Atlantic. Seawater radioactivity measurements were made at various depths in the water column and sediment cores were taken and analysed as well. One of the locations visited and sampled was the site of the Komsomolets submarine. Seawater measurements near the sunken submarine were not elevated compared to other locations. Cs-137 in surface sediment near the submarine was about a factor of three higher than at locations about 0.5 kilometre away in each direction from the submarine, and a very small concentration of Cs-134 was detected in the sediment near the submarine. This result would be consistent with small leakage from the submarine. However, because higher concentrations of both nuclides were measured at other locations far distant from the submarine, another source could not be ruled out. Overall, this report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other ocean dumpsites or accident sites. While the monitoring data from the Komsomolets site showed little if any release, this result was consistent with the previously available information from sites of sunken nuclear-powered submarines.

* Holliday, F.G.T. et al., 1984, Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North-east Atlantic, United Kingdom Department of the Environment, 1984, ISBN 0 11 751772 0. This is the report of an independent review of the evidence regarding the safety of ocean dumping. This review was chartered by the Secretary of State for the Environment following the suspension of the annual United Kingdom dumping of solid radioactive waste in the North-east Atlantic in 1983. The review provided a summary of the history of the dumping as well as the amount of radioactive waste dumped. The modelling work done to evaluate the radioactive waste dumping was described in detail as well as the very low human population doses calculated by that modelling. The authors were generally very favourable on the quality of the work that had been done to date, and concluded that the calculated doses were likely conservatively overestimated. However, due to the complexity of the calculations and the number of unknown factors, the authors concluded that the safety of the dumping could not be proved to the satisfaction of all concerned without a great deal of additional work. At a minimum, the authors recommended that the then-current suspension of United Kingdom ocean dumping be

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/b3144e52c1.pdf



continued at least until the conclusion of the next planned NEA Site Suitability Review as well as the Ad Hoc Scientific Review under the London Convention. The authors also recommended that land-based disposal alternatives be given further consideration in the United Kingdom. This report was available at the time the decision was made in 1993 to ban ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. Several of the concerns discussed in this report were also concerns in 1993. Therefore, this report does not provide significant additional information relative to ocean dumping compared to that which was available in 1993.

* Hong, G.H. et al., 2004, Artificial Radionuclides in the Western North Pacific: A Review, in Global Environmental Change in the Ocean and on Land, Eds., M. Shiyomi et al., pp. 147-172, TERRAPUB, 2004. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/kawahata/pdf/147.pdf This review article focuses on artificial radionuclides in the Western North Pacific Ocean. The scientific literature is reviewed with this regional perspective in mind. Compared to the North-east Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, the Western North Pacific has experienced less input from nuclear fuel reprocessing plants. However, the Western North Pacific has received radioactivity from nuclear weapons testing as global fallout, and in some cases as more localized fallout. With regard to past ocean dumping of radioactive waste, this review article cites results from joint Korean, Japanese, and Russian monitoring at the sites of former Russian/Soviet dumping. Samples of seawater, sediment and marine life had artificial radioactivity concentrations that were low and predominantly due to global fallout. While this report provides information on the Western North Pacific that may not have been available in 1993, this information is not substantially different from the conclusions reached in the vicinity of dumpsites in other parts of the world.

* Hughes, L.M. et al., Marine Radioactivity in the Channel Islands, 1990–2009, CEFAS, 2011. https://gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20greener%20living/R%20Radioactivity%20in%20Channel%20Islands%201990%20to%202009%2020110127%20AI.pdf This report reviews the results of radiological environmental monitoring at the islands of Guernsey, Alderney, and Jersey in the English Channel from 1967 through 2009. These data are included in the United Kingdom annual reports in the RIFE and AEMR series. However, in this report, the Channel Islands data are separated and represented graphically over time. The Channel Islands are relatively close to the French reprocessing plant at Cap La Hague as well as the Hurd Deep in the English Channel, where small amounts of radioactive waste were disposed of by the United Kingdom from 1950 to 1963. Overall, the concentrations of radioactivity in sediment and marine life are low and declining. The report concludes that there was no detectable effect in Channel Islands waters from past disposals in the Hurd Deep. This monitoring was not conducted in the immediate vicinity of the waste disposed of in the Hurd Deep, but rather at the nearby Channel Islands. This report does not provide significant additional information relative to ocean dumping compared to that which was available in 1993. Previous United Kingdom reports in the RIFE and AEMR series have long provided similar information and reached similar conclusions relative to past dumping in the Hurd Deep.

*

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/kawahata/pdf/147.pdf





Japan Coast Guard Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, 2007, The Report of the Japanese-Korean Joint Survey Program on Radioactivity, Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, Japan Coast Guard, August 2007. This report presents the results of a survey conducted jointly in October 2006 by Japan and South Korea to investigate radioactivity in the marine environment with regard to waste disposals by the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in the sea between Japan and Korea. At six different sampling stations in the East Sea/Sea of Japan, sea water samples were collected at various depths of the water column, and sediment samples were collected at each site. While the sample stations were in the vicinity of previously reported radioactive waste dumping activity, there was no attempt to find specific waste containers and sample in their immediate vicinity. The analysis result in water and sediment shows that the concentration of all radionuclides was low and in the range of the natural background and fallout. The Japanese and Korean results were generally in good agreement. Small differences of up to a factor of two were attributed to variability in where the specific samples were collected. This report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Nearly all of the previous sample results from other dumpsites showed that seawater and sediment concentrations away from the immediate vicinity of waste containers were not elevated.

* Jones, D.G. et al., Measurement of Seafloor Radioactivity at the Farallon Islands Radioactive Waste Dump Site, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-62, 2001, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-062/OFR_01_062.pdf Having mapped a significant portion of the Farallon Islands Radioactive Waste Dump Site in the early 1990s (Karl, 2001 – reviewed below), the U.S. Geological Survey partnered with the British Geological Survey, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct radiological monitoring of the newly mapped areas. Two survey methods were used. One involved the British Geological Survey towed seabed spectrometer (EEL) system. This system consists of a gamma scintillation detector in a pressure housing towed along the sea floor while encased in a flexible tube to provide protection against objects that the detector might hit while being towed. This system has been used previously in relatively shallow areas such as the Irish Sea. It was modified to be able to be used in the deeper 900 metre and 1800 metre areas of the Farallon dumpsite as well as the shallower 90 metre area. After doing a series of traverses in the 90 and 900 metre areas, one traverse was made toward the deeper area with a maximum operating depth of 1200 metres being achieved. A series of sediment samples also was collected in the immediate vicinity of waste containers and in areas covered by the EEL survey tracks. Radiological safety support during conduct of survey operations was provided by U.S. EPA personnel. Overall, the amount of Cs-137 gamma emitting radioactivity on the sea-floor was very small. After experimenting with various post-processing methods, coherent patterns of potential Cs-137 radioactivity were obtained by analysing 500 second increments of gamma spectrum data. Shorter analysis intervals had high signal variability. The authors cautioned that the levels of Cs-137 measured by the EEL system must be regarded as being close to the limit of detection of the system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-062/OFR_01_062.pdf



Laboratory analysis of the collected sediment samples confirmed the very low Cs-137 concentrations as well as low Pu-238 and Pu-239/240 concentrations. Both USGS and BGS performed gamma spectroscopy analysis with good agreement on the results. BGS performed the analysis of the alpha emitters, Am-241, Pu-238 and Pu-239/240, and the measured concentrations were all less than 10 Bq/kg. The plutonium concentrations were sufficiently low that the authors were not able to conclusively conclude that the waste containers were causing the concentration of radioactivity in the sediment to increase even in areas very close to the waste containers. They did conclude that there was no significant enhancement of the radionuclides on a regional scale in the areas surveyed. While this report provides data from the vicinity of many more waste containers than were found and investigated in the 1970s, the overall result is not significantly different than the results that were available in 1993. Radioactivity concentrations were potentially elevated only in the immediate vicinity of the waste containers and without a widespread increase in sediment radioactivity concentration.

* Kanisch, G. et al., Radiookologische Untersuchungen in Marinen Okosystemen (Radioecological Research in Marine Ecosystems), Schriftenreihe Reaktorsicherheit un Strahlenschutz No. 158, Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Baturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Bonn. https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:2413349-1/data , This report has the best summary to date of information on the North-east Atlantic Site, and in particular the results of various monitoring cruises conducted after 1990. The mandate for this report was twofold. The first was to conduct radioecological studies in both the Barents Sea and at the former dumping site in the Iberian Deep Sea (the North-east Atlantic Site) with financing from 1997 to 2001. In addition, the findings related to the North-east Atlantic Site were added to previous data from that site, including findings on the radiological situation at the North-east Atlantic Site since 1990 that had not been published previously. This report discussed in detail methods used to measure the concentration of specific plutonium isotopes in an effort to distinguish between world-wide fallout plutonium and plutonium that might have leaked from dumped barrels. Some measurements in the deeper water layer had a plutonium isotope concentration ratio of Pu-238 compared to Pu-239/240 that was five times higher than that typically found in fallout. This indicated a potential source from the dumped barrels. The report also considered the potential for an artificial reef impact from the dumped barrels. While there was one unusual occurrence of a large number of holothurians found in 1996, this observance was not limited to the dumping area, and there appeared to be no change in the composition of deep sea organisms over the complete range of years observed.

* Karl, H.A., Search for Containers of Radioactive Waste on the Sea Floor, pp 207-217 in Beyond the Golden Gate – Oceanography, Geology, Biology, and Environmental Issues in the Gulf of the Farallones, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1198, 2001. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1198/chapters/207-217_RadWaste.pdf This report discusses efforts by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the U.S. Navy, to locate and map waste containers dumped at the Farallon dumpsite. Investigations of this site in the 1970s using both a manned and unmanned submersible were only able to locate a very small number of waste

https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:2413349-1/data

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1198/chapters/207-217_RadWaste.pdf



containers. The USGS and the Marine Sanctuary initiated in 1990 a multi-year programme to use side scan sonar to locate and map containers in two of the three areas of the dumpsite, known as the 90 metre and 900 metre sites. The surveys covered an area of 200 square kilometres, which is about 15% of the total dumpsite area. The equipment and post-processing techniques used were able to distinguish waste containers from other signals with a high level of confidence. In order to demonstrate the accuracy of the mapping, USGS arranged in 1994 for the U.S. Navy's Deep Submergence Vehicle Sea Cliff and the unmanned Advanced Tethered Vehicle to verify the mapping by direct observation of the sea bottom. Unlike the 1970s methods that had very little success in locating waste containers in the deeper water, the Sea Cliff and Advanced Tethered Vehicle were able to "drive" from one suspected container to the next without doing any searching on their own. In every instance, the suspected container sites identified by side scan sonar were confirmed to be actual containers, and no additional containers were found where they were not indicated by the side scan sonar data. In other words, there were no false positives or false negatives. Visual observations showed that the conditions of the containers ranged from completely intact to completely deteriorated. This study demonstrated that monitoring in the vicinity of actual dumped waste containers is much more practicable than it was a few decades earlier. This additional capability does not so much change the results of dumpsite monitoring as much as it increases the efficiency of such monitoring. A follow-on radiological survey of the area mapped in this USGS effort is reviewed above in Jones, 2001.

* Marx, D.R., Deep Sea Radiological Environmental Monitoring performed during September 1998 at the Sites of the Sunken Submarines USS THRESHER and USS SCORPION, KAPL-4842, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, July 2000. This report covers the most recent U.S. monitoring expedition in 1998 to the sites of the two U.S. sunken nuclear-powered submarines, Thresher and Scorpion. The results of these surveys were similar to previous surveys. Co-60 from the primary coolant systems was detectable in sediment in the vicinity of the wreckage. However, elevated radioactivity was not detected in marine life. There were no elevated Cs-137 concentrations above worldwide fallout levels found in sediment or marine life, which indicates that there has been no significant leakage of fission products to the local environment from the nuclear fuel. In the case of Scorpion, which carried two nuclear weapons, there has been no spread of plutonium in the local environment since both the concentration of plutonium and the isotopic ratio of Pu-239 to Pu-240 were consistent with worldwide fallout. The Co-60 concentrations measured in the sediment are low, consistent with past surveys, and declining with time. At the Scorpion site, the highest measured Co-60 sediment concentration was 1.6 Bq/kg. At the Thresher site, the maximum Co-60 sediment concentration was 75 Bq/kg. The next highest sample was a factor of five lower, and the average concentration in the vicinity of the wreckage was a factor of ten lower than the highest concentration. One interesting result in this survey was the detection of low levels of Mn-54 at the Thresher site. Mn-54 was detectable at concentrations less than 1 Bq/kg in surface sediment both in the immediate vicinity of the wreckage and at the one kilometre distant "background" site. The half-life of Mn-54 is 312 days, so this nuclide could not still be present from a reactor that stopped operating at the time of the 1963 sinking. Also, Mn-54 was not detected in the previous survey at the Thresher site in 1986. Therefore, this report concludes that the Mn-54 must be coming



from a different source. Although this report does not speculate on a potential source, the Thresher site lies in the Western Underboundary Current, and this nuclide could be transported from northern Europe. Higher and readily detectable quantities of Mn-54 were detected in passive chemical monitors that were deployed at the site in 1986 and recovered and analysed in 1997 and 1998. Mn-54 was detected in all four posted passive chemical monitors, with the highest one containing 8.6 Bq of Mn-54. Each of these submarine sites has been monitored at least four times since the sinking of the two submarines in 1963 and 1968. Not only has this provided a long-term data set, but the results provide insight into the information that is available now compared to what was available in 1993. The environmental monitoring techniques used in the earliest surveys of the Thresher and Scorpion sites were relatively crude. Only a few samples were collected, the ability to select a precise sample location or precisely locate a collected sample was not good, and the radioactivity analysis methods available were not as good as more modern methods. By the late 1970s and 1980s, the environmental monitoring performed at the Thresher and Scorpion sites was much better. Precise sampling was performed using manned deep submersibles. Also, acoustic transponder networks were employed to help guide surface deployed sampling tools. High resolution gamma spectroscopy was available for analysis of gamma emitting radionuclides. Sensitive mass spectroscopy methods were used for determining plutonium isotope ratios. By contrast, the only significant improvement in the 1998 surveys involved the collection of precisely placed samples by an unmanned remotely operated tethered vehicle rather than manned deep submersibles. This allowed the sampling to be performed more safely and efficiently. However the technical information obtained was not substantially improved compared to the late 1970s and 1980s surveys. Thus, this report does not provide significant additional information compared to that which was available in 1993.

* NRPA, 2015, Radioactivity in the Marine Environment 2011, Results from the Norwegian National Monitoring Programme (RAME), StrålevernRapport 2015:3, Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, 2015. http://www.nrpa.no/filer/d1694e636a.pdf This is the 2011 annual report of the Norwegian National Monitoring Programme. Noteworthy from the perspective of this Literature Review is a graph of sediment and seawater samples collected in the vicinity of the sunken submarine Komsomolets in nearly every year from 1993 through 2011. The sample results do not show any elevated Cs-137. Overall, this report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites or accident sites. While the monitoring data from the Komsomolets site showed little if any release, this result was consistent with the previously available information from sites of sunken nuclear-powered submarines.

* NRPA, 2014, Joint Norwegian-Russian Expedition to investigate the Sunken Nuclear Submarine K-159 in the Barents Sea, NRPA Bulletin 4.14, June 2014. www.nrpa.no/dav/71cbf617f1.pdf

http://www.nrpa.no/dav/71cbf617f1.pdf



This NRPA Bulletin discussed planning for a joint Norwegian-Russian expedition in 2014 to monitor the environment in the vicinity of the K-159 nuclear submarine, which sank under tow during heavy weather in 2003. This bulletin states that an international expedition to the same site in 2007 measured seawater and sediment at the K-159 site and found no evidence of leakage of radioactivity. This report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites or accident sites. While the description of the 2007 K-159 monitoring indicated no release of radioactivity, this result was consistent with the previously available information from sites of sunken nuclear-powered submarines.

*

NRPA et al., 2014, Preliminary Results of the Joint Norwegian-Russian Expedition to the Barents Sea to the Location of Sunken Nuclear Submarine K-159, Presented at the 28th IAEA Contact Expert Group Plenary Meeting at Rome, Italy on 19 November 2014. https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Technical-Areas/WTS/CEG/documents/ Rome/English/2.5_Expedition_to_K-159_Submarine_Eng.pdf

In this slide show presentation by a team of Norwegian, Russian, and IAEA investigators at an IAEA-sponsored meeting, preliminary results from the 2014 K-159 survey are presented. In the background material for the 2014 survey, additional information was provided on the results of the 2007 expedition. In addition to seawater and sediment samples taken near the hull that were consistent with background levels, seawater samples were taken inside the reactor compartment. These seawater samples were reported as having low concentrations of radioactivity, but no specific value was reported. In-situ gamma spectroscopic measurements of nearby sediment also were reported to show no elevated radioactivity. A sample chart from the 2007 surveys was presented.

The preliminary results from the 2014 survey included a sample chart showing locations of in situ gamma spectroscopy locations, remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) sediment sampling locations, marine life samples, and a grid pattern for sediment core samples and seawater samples at bottom, intermediate, and surface depths. The in-situ gamma spectroscopy was consistent with background levels. The initial on board analysis of seawater and sediment for Cs-137 was also consistent with background levels. Additional laboratory analysis will be published in a later report.

This preliminary report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites or accident sites. While the preliminary results of the 2014 K-159 monitoring indicated no release of radioactivity, this result was consistent with the previously available information from sites of sunken nuclear-powered submarines.

*

Pettersson, H.B.L., Hong, G.H. et al., 1998, Anthropogenic Radionuclides in Sediments in the NW Pacific Ocean and its Marginal Seas. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/038/30038773.pdf

In this report, Pettersson, Hong, and others report the results from two joint Japanese-Korean-Russian scientific expeditions conducted in 1994 and 1995. A series of sediment core samples were collected from sites of past radioactive waste dumping in the East Sea/Sea of Japan and in the Okhotsk Sea where a large Sr-90 source has been reported to be lost. While the samples were collected within the reported dumping areas, there was no report that actual waste containers were located for the purpose of sampling. Thus, these samples are broadly

https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Technical-Areas/WTS/CEG/documents/%20Rome/English/2.5_Expedition_to_K-159_Submarine_Eng.pdf

https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Technical-Areas/WTS/CEG/documents/%20Rome/English/2.5_Expedition_to_K-159_Submarine_Eng.pdf




representative of the dumping area, but not the immediate area of the waste material. Background samples were obtained away from the dumping areas and Sr-90 source. The sediment radioactivity inventories did not differ significantly from the background samples, and the Pu-238 to Pu-230/240 ratios were typical of global fallout. This report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Nearly all of the previous sample results from other dumpsites showed that sediment concentrations away from the immediate vicinity of waste containers were not elevated.

* Rissanen, K. et al., 1998, Radioactivity contamination of the Russian Arctic Seas, in Final Reports of the Sub-projects within the Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Project EKO-1, pp. 68-80, NKS-8, ISBN 87-7893-056-1, July 1998. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/004/33004742.pdf In this paper, Rissanen and others provide results of radioactivity measurements in sediment samples collected in Russian Arctic Seas during expeditions from 1993 to 1996. The concentrations of Cs-17 in sediment were reported to be very low, ranging from 0.3 to 40 Bq/kg dry weight. The concentrations of Pu-239 in sediment were also reported to be very low, ranging from 0.14 to 4.4 Bq/kg dry weight. The authors conclude that the levels of anthropogenic radionuclides in the Russian Arctic Seas are low and mainly originate from global fallout, Chernobyl fallout, and from the nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in Western Europe. This report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Nearly all of the previous sample results from other dumpsites showed that sediment concentrations away from the immediate vicinity of waste containers were not elevated.

* Strand, P. and Cooke, A. editors, Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic - Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic, NRPA, 1995. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/041/28041349.pdf This is the report of a large conference on Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic that was held in 1995. There was extensive participation from many nations. The conference proceedings include many detailed reports as well as some overall conclusions from the conference organizers. This conference included a lot of the preliminary investigation of the recently revealed radioactive waste dumping from the former Soviet Union. This included evaluation of the radionuclide content of the dumped waste and submarines as well as some of the initial results of monitoring expeditions at or near the dumpsites. Based on all of the work presented at this conference, the Norwegian Minister for the Environment provided an overall summary of the conference findings. The major sources of radioactivity in the Arctic remained historical fallout from nuclear weapons testing and discharges from Western European nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, along with fallout from Chernobyl in some regions of the Arctic. With regard to the former Soviet Union dumping, the preliminary results indicated that radioactivity was elevated only in the immediate vicinity of the dumped waste. Additional detailed results from these dumpsites, including some results from repeat monitoring expeditions, are discussed elsewhere in the Literature Review.





While these conference proceedings provided an early indication that the impact of the former Soviet dumping would be limited and localized, this report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Nearly all of the previous sample results from other dumpsites showed that sediment concentrations away from the immediate vicinity of waste containers were not elevated. Suchanek, T.H. et al., Radionuclides in Fishes and Mussels from the Farallon Islands Nuclear Waste Dump Site, California, Health Physics, Volume 71, Number 2, August 1996. This report discusses radioactivity concentrations measured in fish caught in the vicinity of the former ocean dumpsite near the Farallon Islands near San Francisco, California, in the United States as well as fish caught at a reference location over 100 kilometres away from the dumpsite. Although this paper was published in 1996, the fish were collected in 1987 and 1988. The samples were analysed for Cs-137, Pu-238, Pu-239/240, and Am-241. The authors noted that the measured results were significantly higher than those reported by others at other sites around the world including at other dumpsites. The ratio of Pu-238 to Pu-239/240 was also unusual in that measured Pu-238 was higher than Pu-239/240 by approximately a factor of four. Further confounding the results of this study was the observation that there was no significant difference between the results for the fish collected in the dumpsite and those collected at the distant reference location. The reported concentrations of both Pu-238 and Pu-239/49 were significantly higher than those reported during expeditions to the Russian Kara Sea sites that are reviewed elsewhere in this Literature review. The Pu-239/240 results were much higher than the values measured in fish at the Scorpion submarine site. In order to assess the reported results from both the Farallon site and the reference site, the reported Farallon plutonium and americium fish concentrations were compared to the extensive data set for the Sellafield from the annual United Kingdom report from 1988, one of the same years that the Farallon fish were collected. The average reported Pu-238 concentration for the Farallon fish, 0.39 Bq/kg wet weight, was higher than the Pu-238 concentration from the Sellafield coastal area, and over 100 times higher than more distant North Sea fish. Pu-239/240 reported for the Farallon fish was slightly higher than that reported for the Sellafield coastal area. The average reported Am-241 concentration for the Farallon fish, 1.35 Bq/kg, was also substantially higher than the Sellafield coastal area fish. Thus, the results of this study are suspect for several reasons. It is difficult to conceive how the measured Am-241and plutonium concentrations in fish from the Farallon dumpsite could be significantly higher than those measured at any other site in the world when a subsequent very careful survey found very little, if any, elevated radioactivity in the vicinity of actual waste containers (Jones, 2001, reviewed above). The Pu-238 to Pu-289/240 ratio was also unlike that reported at any other site in the world, including the more contaminated Sellafield offshore area. It is also unclear how fish caught 100 kilometres away from the dumpsite could have radioactivity concentrations higher than those measured at more contaminated locations such as the Sellafield offshore area. Unlike several other studies evaluated in this Literature Review, this study does not discuss cross checking measurements with other laboratories. For all of these reasons, there appears to be a significant possibility that there was a systematic analysis error in this study. Thus, this study does not provide any significant information beyond that which was available in 1993.



Category C – Modelling Studies AMAP, 2010, AMAP Assessment 2009: Radioactivity in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no/documents/download/1164 The 2009 AMAP assessment included an extensive discussion of the application of models to estimate the impact of radioactivity in marine organisms. In particular, the ERICA (Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment and Management) and EPIC (Environmental Protection from Ionizing Contaminants) approach were reviewed for their applicability to the Arctic environment. For marine animals, one cited study of the adult ringed seal using these methodologies found that the calculated doses were dominated by naturally-occurring radionuclides while the contribution from anthropogenic radionuclides was small. This study was based on existing concentrations of radioactivity in the Arctic and did not incorporate a prediction of future radioactivity concentrations. The 2009 AMAP report did include discussion of some modelling studies of potential future radioactivity introductions to the Arctic. These model studies dealt with potential releases from land-based sources (an accidental release from the Kola Nuclear Power Plant and from the United Kingdom nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield), and thus are not considered further in this Literature Review. The modelling aspects of the AMAP 2009 report thus do not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993.

* Amundsen, I. et al., The Kursk Accident, StrålevernRapport 2001:5, Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, 2001. www.nrpa.no/dav/3b3a226c34.pdf No significant leakage of radioactivity was detected in the vicinity of the Kursk submarine following the sinking. In this report two modelling scenarios were analysed for potential future releases from the submarine. In one scenario, all of the reactor core radionuclide inventory was assumed to be released instantly during the operation to raise the submarine. In the second scenario, 100% of the core inventory was assumed to be released after 100 years. Both of these scenarios were considered to be highly conservative since the likely release rate would be much slower in either scenario. However, without detailed design information from which to calculate a more realistic release rate, this conservative approach was used. Even for the highly conservative first scenario, the highest calculated concentration of radioactivity in fish was between 80 and 100 Bq/kg. Also, the total population radiation dose for either scenario was a very small fraction of the population dose commitment resulting from discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield. The relatively small calculated impacts from this model study do not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993.

* ARMARA 1999, Radioecological Assessment of the Consequences of Contamination of Arctic Waters: Modelling the Key Processes controlling Radionuclide Behaviour under Extreme Conditions (ARMARA) – Final Report, EC Nuclear Fission Safety Programme, 1995-99, Contract No. F14P-CT95-0035, Mitchell, P. I. et al., December 1999. http://www.santateresa.enea.it/wwwste/artico/doc/finalrepARMARA.pdf


http://www.nrpa.no/dav/3b3a226c34.pdf

http://www.santateresa.enea.it/wwwste/artico/doc/finalrepARMARA.pdf



The European Commission's ARMARA project was initiated in 1995 to address the issue of radioactive contamination of the Arctic environment in response to the disclosure of dumping of large quantities of radioactive waste in the Barents and Kara Seas by the former Soviet Union. The ARMARA project included sampling campaigns in the Arctic, collection and evaluation of data on radionuclide transfer mechanisms, the development of an improved model, refinement and testing of the model against radionuclide data sets from several different locations, and finally application of the model to the inventory of dumped waste and submarines in the Barents and Kara Seas. The ARMARA project concluded that, to date, there is no evidence that anthropogenic radionuclide concentrations in general Arctic waters are elevated as a result of dumping practices by the former Soviet Union. The improved models predicted a collective dose in the order of 1 man-Sv with an upper uncertainty bound not to exceed 100 man-Sv. The resulting annual doses to individual members of the public are significantly below 10 µSv/yr, which is the lower dose limit considered to be of regulatory concern by both the IAEA and EURATOM. These potential doses are also significantly below those arising from natural radioactivity in the Arctic. The authors recommended that remediation or retrieval of the dumped waste not be attempted since the hazards associated with the deliberate movement of dumped material are likely to be greater than those estimated were no action to be taken.

The plausibility of the model projections was supported by the observations in Thule (Greenland), where 30 years after the B-52 accident involving the dispersion of weapons-grade plutonium over the seabed, there is no evidence of any significant remobilization of the deposited inventory into the water column. The estimated quantity of Pu-239 deposited in the Thule local seabed, in a highly divided form, is nearly one third of the total projected future release of Pu-239 from all of the Barents and Kara Seas dumping.

The ARMARA authors noted that although one of the main conclusions from the experimental and modelling work carried out in the course of the ARMARA project was that the potential radioecological risks to human and marine life arising from the dumping of these radioactive materials were very small, the authors believe that dumping of radioactive waste in the ocean is highly undesirable and any attempt to renew the practice should be strenuously opposed.

Although the ARMARA project results provided favourable information about the low projected hazards from the past dumping, they were not significantly different from previous projections of the impact from dumped waste at other sites. Thus, this project does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993.

*

IAEA, 1997, Predicted Radionuclide Release from Marine Reactors dumped in the Kara Sea, IAEA, Vienna, 1997, IAEA-TECDOC-938, ISSN 1011-4289. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_0938_scr.pdf

This report provided a detailed assessment of available information for the waste and submarines disposed of in the Barents and Kara Seas by the former Soviet Union. In general, the calculations discussed in this report yielded a lower radioactivity inventory than that provided in the initial report of this dumping. Estimates of potential future releases were made for the purpose of dose assessment modelling which was to be done later.

The analysis in this report concluded that releases from the liquid metal reactors would be very much slower than for the water cooled reactors because of the solidified metal coolant in the liquid metal cooled reactors. For the pressurized water reactors (PWRs), the calculated release rate in most years was relatively small – from 3 to 20 GBq per year. Larger releases of up to 3000 Bq were calculated to occur when the containers holding the spent fuel were breached,




which could be as early as 2040 or as late as 2305. The release rates assumed that all material corroded is immediately available to the environment for the purposes of the models. The authors noted that this assumption makes the estimated release rates perhaps overly pessimistic, as much of the corroded material will slump to the bottom of containment structures, or be buried in surrounding sediments.

This report included some discussion of potential remediation methods, including both retrieval and installation of enhanced barriers. It was noted that disturbance of the submarines might actually increase the release rate. There is sufficient remaining fuel such that the possibility of future criticality can't be excluded, although no release rates were calculated for such an event. Calculated release rates from this work were used in the modelling effort reported in IAEA-TECDOC-1330, which is evaluated separately in this Literature Review. This report has limited applicability to the question of whether the London Convention and London Protocol prohibition on ocean disposal should be revisited. Ocean disposal of spent fuel or reactors containing spent fuel has been prohibited since the inception of the London Convention.

* IAEA, 2003, Modelling of the Radiological Impact of Radioactive Waste Dumping in the Arctic Seas, IAEA, Vienna, 2003, IAEA-TECDOC-1330, ISBN 92-0-100203-3. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1330_scr.pdf In 1993 in response to the disclosure that the former Soviet Union had dumped radioactive wastes in the Arctic Seas, the IAEA set up the International Arctic Seas Assessment Project (IASAP) in order to assess the radiological consequences to human beings and to the environment. This report published the results of modelling calculations of the impact of this dumping. Three release scenarios were considered – a best estimate; a "plausible accident" scenario, and a worst case scenario involving glaciation scouring of the waste sites. Maximum individual doses were calculated for several postulated local groups for each scenario. A total collective dose for the worldwide population was also calculated. For all three of the release scenarios the calculated maximum dose was less than 1 µSv for nearly all of the groups. For a hypothetical critical group assumed to be a military population spending a large amount of time patrolling a shoreline, the individual doses for the accident and glaciation scenarios approached typical natural background doses. The collective population dose was calculated to be 10 Sv over a period of 1000 years. Approximately 80% of this dose was from the C-14 inventory assumed in the wastes. For comparison, these C-14 doses were a very small fraction of the population doses from naturally occurring C-14. Also, the calculated collective dose from the dumping sources was a very small fraction of the collective dose calculated by the EC MARINA Project from Sellafield reprocessing plant discharges (4600 man Sv) and from nuclear weapons testing fallout (1600 man Sv). This report concluded that the global contribution from the waste dumped in the Kara Sea is insignificant compared with other sources. Doses to marine organisms were also considered. The estimated maximum total dose rates to wild organisms from predicted releases in Abrosimov Fjord were within the range of expected doses from natural background. Therefore, dumping is not considered to have radiological impact on populations of aquatic organisms. This IAEA report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993 from other dumpsites or accident sites.

*




Layton, D. et al., 1997, Radionuclides in the Arctic Seas from the Former Soviet Union: Potential Health and Ecological Risks, Arctic Nuclear Waste Assessment Program (ANWAP), UCRL-CR-136696, November 1997. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/237390.pdf

This report discussed the detailed modelling of the potential dose that might be received in the future by residents of Alaska in the U.S. from radioactivity that might be released in the future from waste and submarines dumped in the Kara Sea by the former Soviet Union. The report included detailed information on the estimated quantities of radioactivity in the waste and submarines, a detailed discussion of the estimated release scenario, and modelling of the expected dose to people in Alaska as well as the impact on plants and animals. While the modelling was large in scale, only the Alaska results were reported. The reported calculated doses were very small. This is consistent with several of the other modelling studies covered in this Literature Review, which were not limited to populations as distant from the Kara Sea. This report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993.

*

Palsson, S. E. et al., Marine Radioecology – Final Report of the Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Project EKO-1, NKS (Nordic Nuclear Safety Research), NKS(97)FR4, ISBN 87-7893-024-3, June 1998. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/013/30013855.pdf

This is the final report of the EKO-1 Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Project coordinated by the Nordic Nuclear Safety Center. This project supported several field and modelling studies during the period from 1994 to 1997. From the standpoint of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes, the portions of this report of most interest to this Literature Review are the modelling studies performed for the Kara Sea dumped material and the Komsomolets submarine. For the Kara Sea modelling, the source terms from the dumped material were taken from previous reported estimates and the box model developed in this project as well as sediment-water interface data developed in this project were used to calculate future doses. The calculated long term integrated doses from both of these sources would be a very small fraction of that resulting from the main sources of radioactivity in the Arctic – past nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl fallout, and discharges from reprocessing plants.

This report does not provide information relative to ocean dumping that is substantially different from that which was available in 1993.

*

Woodhead, D, 1999. International Arctic Seas Assessment Project. Science of the Total Environment, 237/238: 153-166.

The radiological situation in the Arctic waters was examined to assess whether there is any evidence for releases from the dumped waste. Releases from identified dumped objects were found to be small and localized to the immediate vicinity of the dumping sites. Projected future annual doses to members of the public in typical local population groups were very small, less than 1 µSv – corresponding to a trivial risk. Projected future doses to a hypothetical group of military personnel patrolling the foreshore of the fjords in which wastes have been dumped were higher, up to 4 mSv/year, which still is of the same order as the average annual natural background dose. Moreover, since any of the proposed remedial actions were estimated to cost several million US dollars to implement, remediation was not considered justified on the basis of potentially removing a collective dose of 10 man Sv. Doses calculated to marine fauna were insignificant, orders of magnitude below those at which detrimental effects on fauna populations might be expected to occur. Remediation was thus concluded not to be warranted on radiological grounds.

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/237390.pdf




Category D – Other Relevant Studies or Reports IAEA, 1995, Sources of Radioactivity in the Marine Environment and their Relative Contributions to Overall Dose Assessment from Marine Radioactivity (MARDOS), IAEA, VIENNA, 1995, IAEA-TECDOC-838, ISSN 1011-4289. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_838_web.pdf The International Atomic Energy Agency's Marine Environment Laboratory conducted a coordinated research programme on Sources of Radioactivity in the Marine Environment and their Relative Contributions to Overall Dose Assessment from Marine Radioactivity (MARDOS). This programme reviewed and analysed comprehensive information on radionuclide levels in the marine environment and estimated doses from marine radioactivity through ingestion of marine food. Two radionuclides – natural Po-210 and anthropogenic Cs-137 were studied, as they are radiologically the most important representatives of each class of marine radioactivity on a global scale.

The results confirm that the dominant contribution to doses comes from natural Po-210 in fish and shellfish and that the contribution of anthropogenic Cs-137 (mostly coming from nuclear weapons tests) is negligible (100 to 1000 times lower).


*

IAEA, 2005, Worldwide Marine Radioactivity Studies (Womars) Radionuclide Levels in Oceans and Seas, IAEA, Vienna, 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1429, ISBN 92–0–114904–2, ISSN 1011–4289. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1429_web.pdf The International Atomic Energy Agency's Marine Environment Laboratory in Monaco completed a four year project on Worldwide Marine Radioactivity Studies (WOMARS). The specific objectives of the project were to identify the major sources of anthropogenic radionuclides in the world ocean and develop present knowledge of the distributions of key radionuclides (Sr-90, Cs-137, and Pu-239/240) in seawater and sediment.

The WOMARS results confirmed that the dominant source of anthropogenic radionuclides in the marine environment is global fallout from nuclear weapons testing. Total inputs from fallout, reprocessing plants, accidents, and waste dumping were listed.

With regard to the former Soviet Union disposal of radioactive waste in the Kara and Barents Seas, the WOMARS report cited other studies that calculated that the total collective dose over the next 1000 years to be on the order of 10 man Sv, and much smaller than previously calculated for the North-east Atlantic sites.


*

IAEA, 2015, Determining the suitability of materials for disposal at sea under the London Convention 1972 and London Protocol 1996: A Radiological Assessment Procedure, Edition 2015, IAEA-TECDOC-1759. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1759_web.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_838_web.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1429_web.pdf




This IAEA revised TECDOC updates the IAEA-TECDOC-1375 procedure for assessing whether candidate material (including dredged) can be considered de minimis and, therefore, suitable for disposal at sea. The revised TECDOC considers potential impacts to plants and animals in addition to the potential impact to humans. The procedure developed by IAEA has been incorporated in the IMO's Guidelines for the London Convention and Protocol and provides an upgraded mechanism to permit sustainable uses of the sea for dumping of materials with minor traces of radioactivity (natural or artificial) without violating the Convention and ensuring protection of humans and the marine environment. The definition of de minimis and existence of this mechanism is the necessary complement to the banning.

*

IAEA, 2015, Inventory of Radioactive Material Resulting from Historical Dumping, Accidents and Losses at Sea for the Purposes of the London Convention 1972 and London Protocol 1996, IAEA-TECDOC-1776. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1776_web.pdf This document provides an updated inventory of radioactive waste dumped at sea along with radioactive material lost at sea by accident. The report was prepared after a request from the Contracting Parties of the Convention and Protocol. The updating process was conducted by the IAEA in cooperation with IMO and consisted of formal invitations to all IAEA Member States and to the Contracting Parties of the London Convention and Protocol to submit any new or historical information on dumping activities or accidents in the sea involving sources of radiation resulting in radioactive material entering the oceans. A verification process was conducted, including a confirmation of record process and bilateral discussions for clarifications. The report constitutes an official record of the materials dumped or lost at sea confirmed by the involved States. This updated inventory report confirms that no new radioactive waste dumping has occurred since the London Convention was amended in 1993 to ban the practice. The report provides some new information on relatively small scale historical dumping not included in previous reports and on accidents which occurred after 2001. This TECDOC report on inputs of radioactivity resulting from dumping activities, including: radioactive waste dumped at sea, nuclear reactor pressure vessels dumped at sea; solid radioactive waste dumped at sea, liquid radioactive waste dumped at sea at designated sites. Also radioactive materials at sea resulting from accidents and losses are included in the TECDOC, i.e. nuclear powered military surface or underwater vessels, nuclear weapons and military vessels capable of carrying such weapons, nuclear powered civilian ships, nuclear energy sources used in spacecraft, satellites and in the deep sea as acoustic signal transmitters, radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) used, for instance, to supply power to lighthouses, cargoes of nuclear material in transit, sealed radiation sources. The Literature Review includes a discussion of monitoring or modelling results for many of the sites listed in this inventory report, including the sites of former Soviet Union dumping in the Barents and Kara Seas, the North-east Atlantic sites, the Hurd Deep in the English Channel, the former Soviet Union dump sites in the East Sea/Sea of Japan, the site near the Farallon Islands near the U.S., and at accident sites including the sunken submarines Thresher, Scorpion, Komsomolets, Kursk, and K-159. Thus, the information covered in this Literature Review includes many of the most significant sites reported in the IAEA-TECDOC-1759. With this broad coverage, it is unlikely that any additional scientific work at other sites would add significantly to the body of scientific knowledge in the reports covered in this Literature Review. Also of note in IAEA-TECDOC-1759 is the discussion of a future IAEA TECDOC (in preparation) that will provide a comprehensive compilation of the inventories including all relevant anthropogenic and natural sources of radionuclides contributing to the oceans' inventory. The




objective is to put in perspective all the inventories and to have an idea of the relative possible radiological impacts to humans and the environment. This report is considered a complement of IAEA TECDOC on inventory mentioned above, by adding those inputs of radioactivity to the oceans which are not included in that report. The inputs included are: (1) historical dumping at sea of radioactive waste; (2) accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive materials; (3) discharges of radioactive liquid effluents from coastally located or riverine industrial

or nuclear power facilities; (4) inputs to the oceans from past atmospheric and underwater nuclear weapon testing

and production of weapons (i.e. H-3, C-14, Cs-137, Tc-99, I-129); (5) accidental releases from land based nuclear installations (i.e. H-3, C-14, Cs-137, Tc-

99, I-129, Pu-isotopes), etc.; and (6) inventories of naturally occurring radionuclides in the oceans (Be-7, K-40, Po-210,

Pb-210, Th-228/232, Ra-226/228, U-234, 245,238) through inputs by run-off, erosion, volcanism, and deposition of cosmogenic radionuclides.

The report will also contain a broad discussion on the resulting potential radiological impacts to the public which allows comparing the radiological relevance of the anthropogenic and natural radionuclides. The information and data that will be presented in the proposed TECDOC will be compiled from diverse existing bibliography.

* IAEA, 2015, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, ISBN 978-92-0-107015-9, http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10962/The-Fukushima-Daiichi-Accident

This multi-volume report presents a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, including the impact on the marine environment. While the Fukushima accident was not a case of ocean dumping, it did result in the introduction of large amounts of radioactivity into the ocean both from deposition of atmospheric releases as well as leakage of high radioactivity liquids directly into the local marine environment. In Technical Volume 2 of this report, IAEA reviewed several different estimates of the release of radioactivity into the ocean. While the release of noble gas radioactivity was comparable to that of Chernobyl, the amount of Cs-137 released was up to a factor of ten lower, and the release of plutonium was approximately four orders of magnitude lower. The Cs-137 release to the ocean from Fukushima was estimated to be between 7-20 PBq from atmospheric deposition and 1- 6 PBq from direct liquid releases. For comparison, the Cs-137 introduced into the world's oceans from nuclear weapons testing was approximately 290 PBq, with 69 PBq going into the Pacific Ocean. Technical Volume 4 of this report contains the detailed analysis of environmental impacts, including marine environmental impacts. Most of the atmospheric deposition from Fukushima was deposited into the ocean beyond the continental shelf, and was relatively rapidly dispersed within the Pacific Ocean by strong currents. The direct liquid releases resulted in higher localized seawater concentrations, and also were responsible for much of the residual radioactivity in the sediment. The most highly contaminated sediments are in the immediate vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi liquid releases. The Japanese Government has undertaken an extensive set of measurements of radioactivity in marine fish. The Japanese Government initially controlled fish consumption at a limit of 500 Bq/kg, which is half of the recommended WHO post-accident limit. Several months later, this limit was lowered to 100 Bq/kg. As of 2015, nearly all of the fish caught beyond Fukushima

http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10962/The-Fukushima-Daiichi-Accident



Province are below this concentration. Even though commercial fishing is prohibited off Fukushima Province, test fishing beyond 20 km from the plant shows that the large majority of the fish are less than 100 Bq/kg. Because of the restriction of human consumption of affected fish, radiation exposure of the Japanese population from marine product consumption has been very much lower than the radiation exposure from terrestrial pathways. The average human exposure has been less than 1 µSv/yr from marine pathways. The IAEA report also includes an analysis of the direct impact to marine organisms using methodologies developed in the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The organism with the highest calculated dose was brown seaweed. For the period of a few weeks after the accident, the calculated dose was above the rate where some population impact could have resulted if the exposure continued for a long period of time. However, because of the reduction in radioactivity concentrations, no long term impact is expected. Other representative species, including marine fish, did not have calculated doses that would have an impact on the population or ecosystem.

*

IMO, 1993, Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea, LC/IGPRAD 6/5, 31 August 1993.

In 1986, the Tenth Consultative Meeting adopted a further resolution establishing an Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts to consider the relevant scientific and technical considerations involving ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste as well as the wider political, legal, economic and social aspects. The Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea (IGPRAD) issued its final IGPRAD report on 31 August 1993. The Panel of Experts ultimately did not reach consensus on several aspects of their charge. For example, the final report includes a detailed discussion of the lack of consensus on the question of whether it could be proved that dumping of radioactive wastes at sea will not harm human life or cause significant damage to the marine environment. There was a similar lack of consensus among the experts on other aspects of their charge, including legal questions and social aspects. The "Final and Comprehensive Statement" at the conclusion of the IGPRAD report did not provide a clear and consensus answer to the charges given to the Panel. While the Panel did develop and explore a range of potential actions the Consultative Meeting could take, the Panel did not include a recommendation for any particular alternative in its Final and Comprehensive Statement. Since this report was available prior to the amendment to the London Convention to ban dumping of low-level radioactive waste, it does not provide any new scientific information beyond that which was available in 1993

* Linsley, G. et al., (IAEA Marine Environmental Laboratory), 2004, Overview of Point Sources of Anthropogenic Radionuclides in the Oceans, Chapter 4 in Marine Radioactivity, Livingston, H.D., (Ed.), Elsevier (2004). This book chapter provides a comprehensive review of anthropogenic radioactivity that has entered the oceans from ocean dumping, accidents, and discharges from land-based sources. It does not include more diffuse sources such as fallout from nuclear weapons testing of nuclear accidents from land-based sources such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. The discussion of ocean dumping and accidents involving nuclear material closely follows the information in the IAEA TECDOC-1105 and IAEA TECDOC-1242. These IAEA documents were recently updated and combined in IAEA TECHDOC -1776, which is covered elsewhere in this literature review. Regarding environmental impact of past ocean dumping, the authors review prior environmental monitoring at dumpsites in the North-east Atlantic, the North-east



Pacific and North-west Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Sea of Japan. The authors conclude that "the leakages from the dumped waste packages are insignificant, although in some cases measurable. The localized increase in radioactivity concentrations in seawater and sediment represent less than 0.1% of the natural radioactivity in those media." The authors found that available data on discharges from land-based sources is less comprehensive than that from ocean dumping and accidents. An extensive data set is available for discharges from United Kingdom sources, and the EU MARINA project has good data from other European Sources. UNSCEAR has published a series of reports with data from nuclear power plants from much of the world. However, comprehensive data is lacking for some parts of the world, including the Indian sub-continent, West Asia, and the Russian Federation. While this report includes some information about the impacts of past ocean dumping, this information is similar to information that was available in 1993.

* Livingston and Povinec, 2000, Anthropogenic Marine Radioactivity, Ocean and Coastal Management 43(2000), pp. 689-712, 2000. This review paper discusses the main sources of anthropogenic radioactivity in the marine environment, namely global fallout, nuclear test sites, reprocessing plants, dumping of radioactive wastes and nuclear accidents, as well as the radionuclide contamination of the marine environment. Much of the paper was devoted to a review of available information on sites of radioactive waste dumping throughout the world. The review of the Arctic and North-east Atlantic sites is consistent with other studies covered elsewhere in the Literature Review. The Western Pacific sites (East Sea/Sea of Japan, Sea of Okhotsk, and North-west Pacific) were reviewed in detail. The conclusion for each of these sites was that the distributions and inventories of radionuclides observed appeared consistent with known nuclear weapons fallout sources and with natural oceanographic processes. This review concluded that the dumping sites represent sources of only local importance with negligible radiological impact. With respect to the global oceans, this review reached a similar conclusion as other studies, namely that global fallout is still the main source of anthropogenic radionuclides in the marine environment, although in some regions like the Irish and North Seas, releases from nuclear reprocessing facilities dominate and in the Baltic and Black Seas, the dominant source of radioactivity is the Chernobyl accident. The authors conclude that the world's oceans and seas are only slightly contaminated by anthropogenic radionuclides with negligible radiological impact on the world population.

IV Overall Conclusions

Several conclusions can be drawn from the body of literature covered in this review.

Twenty-two years of monitoring of the dumpsites of both waste containers and nuclear submarines in the Russian Arctic has consistently shown less leakage and spread of radioactivity from the dumpsites than was feared at the time this dumping was made known to the world community in 1993. Radioactivity concentrations in seawater have not been found to be elevated above the concentrations observed within that area of the Arctic Ocean. While elevated radioactivity concentrations have been detected in the sediment in the immediate vicinity of waste containers and dumped submarines, the radioactivity has not spread to larger areas away from the dumpsites. Where multiple monitoring expeditions have been made to



the same locations, the sediment radioactivity concentrations have decreased. Thus, the loss of Cs-137 in the sediment due to radioactive decay, resuspension, dilution and dispersion appears greater than the addition of new Cs-137 to the sediment through leakage from containers or submarines. Measured concentrations of plutonium in environmental samples have been very low. Thus, it appears clear that the time of maximum environmental risk from this past dumping has passed for all of the short- and intermediate-lived radionuclides. Any future risk would appear to be chiefly limited to the long-lived plutonium isotopes, which are present in much smaller amounts, and do not appear to have leaked appreciably so far.

Monitoring of several deep ocean sites of accidental nuclear submarine sinkings has shown little leakage of radioactivity over time. Again, these results are somewhat encouraging, but do not provide significant new information that would be applicable to a large scale ocean dumping program.

One common theme of the studies evaluated in this literature review is that the state of the art for monitoring of ocean disposal or accident sites has advanced since 1993 chiefly in the efficiency of monitoring, and not in the actual results. Several studies have demonstrated an impressive ability to find and map containers or other large objects on the ocean floor. Remotely operated vehicles can collect precisely located samples where manned submersibles would have been used in earlier years. The radioactivity analysis of samples of seawater, sediment, and marine life has become more efficient in recent years, but the ability to measure very low concentrations of key radionuclides was already available 20 years ago. Overall, monitoring has become more efficient in all of these aspects, but the results are not substantially different or better than 20 years ago.

There is little reason to believe that additional radiological monitoring or scientific research would yield scientific results that would have any significant bearing on the decision to retain or change the dumping ban. A significant amount of scientific information was available in 1993 when the decision was made to ban ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The information that is available today from the studies that have been performed in the past 20 years is not significantly different from that available 20 years ago. Furthermore, there is little possibility that additional scientific study, even if carried out on a large scale with generous funding support, would yield a substantially different result.

***



ANNEX 10

JOINT WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS (2017-2019)

Description

2017

2018

2019

Target completion date

WASTE ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

Guidance for the development of action lists and action levels for annex 1 wastes: organic waste of natural origin

Further guidance for action lists and action levels for

dredged material as required Review of the Specific Guidance for platforms Development of recommendations regarding fibreglass

vessels Disposal site selection guidance for waste streams except

CO2 Overview of waste prevention techniques Review of and experience with practical implementation of

the WAGs

Guidance on marine cumulative effects assessment and disposal site selection methodologies

XX XXX XX XX X XX XX XX

X X XXX XXX XX X XX XXX

X X X X XXX X XX XX

2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2017 ONGOING 2018

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT Assess field monitoring reports

Research results, new techniques, strategies, etc.

Contribution to the United Nations Regular Process

(World Ocean Assessment)

XXX XX X

XXX XX X

XXX XX X

ONGOING ONGOING ONGOING

CO2 SEQUESTRATION - Experience with practical implementation of the

CO2 Sequestration Guidelines and with CO2 sequestration technologies and their application

XX

XX

XX

ONGOING



Description

2017

2018

2019


MARINE GEOENGINEERING - Keep under review the marine environmental

implications of marine geoengineering

X

X

X

ONGOING

TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE

- Implementation of the communications plan for the

Guidelines on low cost, low technology dredged material assessment, field monitoring and compliance monitoring

- "Barriers to Compliance" Project – review of the

Implementation Plan

- Regional and national workshops and evaluation of feedback questionnaires

- Technical advice to specific countries, including "twinning" and lead-country arrangements

- Implementation of a communication strategy for London Protocol Manual

- Improvement/update of the LC/LP Website

XXX XX XX XX X XX

X XX XX XX X XX

XX XX XX X XX

2017 ONGOING ONGOING ONGOING ONGOING ONGOING

HABITAT MODIFICATION/ENHANCEMENT - Beneficial use of waste or other materials - Experience with habitat enhancement

XX XX

XX XX

XX XX

ONGOING ONGOING

REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT OF REPORTING - Review of dumping reports - Assess trial of new format - Review of reporting requirements - Implementation of the online reporting module for GISIS

(building on work of the review of reporting requirements) - Collaboration with other international bodies - Collaboration with the LP Compliance Group

XXX XXX XX XX XX XX

XXX XX XX X XX XX

XXX X XX XX XX

ONGOING 2017 ONGOING 2017 ONGOING ONGOING



Description

2017

2018

2019


MATTERS RELATED TO RADIOACTIVE WASTES

ONGOING

COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION - Cooperation with other United Nations agencies and

industry organizations, as appropriate, with regard to: .1 Discharge of tailings and associated wastes into coastal and oceanic waters from mining operations .2 Marine litter (LC/LP-relevant issues only) .3 Risks of industrial wastes kept in storage near the coast .4 Chemical munitions dumped at sea .5 Deep sea-bed mining - Underwater noise from anthropogenic sources

(LC/LP-related issues only)

XXX XX XX XX X X

XX XX XX XX X X

X X X X X

2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 ONGOING

GUIDELINES, MANUALS, BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE

XX

XX

XX

ONGOING

SCIENCE/TECHNICAL SESSION: ISSUE-FOCUSED DAY

XX

XX

XX

ONGOING

REVIEW OF WORK PROGRAMME

- Review Scientific Groups Work Programme

- Support the implementation of the Strategic Plan

XX XXX

XX XX

XX XX

ANNUAL ONGOING

Legend: XXX high-priority item XX medium-priority item X low-priority item

***



ANNEX 11

LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA FOR THE THIRTY-NINTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING AND TWELFTH MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES

1 Consideration of the report of the Scientific Groups

- Waste assessment guidance - Possible guidance on the disposal of fibreglass vessels - Monitoring and assessment - Dumping reports/GISIS module and feedback - CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations - Marine geoengineering including ocean fertilization - Technical cooperation and assistance - Cooperation with the LP Compliance Group - Coastal management and prevention of marine pollution - Matters related to the management of radioactive wastes - Matters related to chemical munitions dumped at sea - New Science Day topic - Review of the Joint Work Programme

2 Progress on the implementation of the LC-LP Strategic Plan 3 Compliance issues

- Compliance Group matters - Review of dumping reports - Review of the status of compliance requirements - Compliance monitoring - Examination of reports received under LP articles 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 - Guidance on implementation and reporting obligations

4 Technical cooperation and assistance

- Removal of Barriers to Compliance project – implementation plan and progress - Results of workshops – bilateral, national, regional and feedback questionnaires - Progress with bilateral technical cooperation projects and national or regional

workshops as reported by contracting or non-contracting parties, as well as promotion activities in regional fora

- Technical advice, projects and activities - Update of LC/LP publications

5 Marine geoengineering including ocean fertilization

- Progress towards ratification of the 2013 LP amendment - Report of the GESAMP working group on marine geoengineering

6 CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations

- Progress towards ratification of the 2009 LP amendment - Experiences with CO2 sequestration projects



7 Interpretation of the London Convention and Protocol

- Marine disposal of wastes from mining operations, including deep seabed mining - Marine litter - Matters related to chemical munitions dumped at sea - Disposal of fibre-glass vessels

8 Matters related to the management of radioactive wastes 9 Monitoring for the purposes of the London Convention and Protocol

- Cooperation with other organizations on monitoring and assessments - Contribution to the global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine

environment (UN Regular Process)

10 Relations with other organizations in the field of marine environmental protection

- Reports from United Nations bodies and programmes, IGOs and NGOs - GESAMP activities

11 Administrative arrangements and future work

- Report on the LC/LP Trust Fund - Review of the Strategic Plan for the LP&LC and the Joint Work Programme

___________

CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE · PDF filesequestration in sub-seabed geological formations...

Documents

Transcript of CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE · PDF filesequestration in sub-seabed geological formations...