|
SCHEDULE 6
|
|
|
ASSESSMENT OF WASTE OR OTHER MATTER |
|
|
1. This schedule shall be applied with a view that acceptance of
disposal at sea under certain circumstances does not remove
the obligation to make further attempts to reduce the necessity
for disposal.
|
|
|
2. The initial stages in assessing alternatives to disposal at sea
shall, as appropriate, include an evaluation of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. In general terms, if the required audit reveals that opportuni
ties exist for waste prevention at source, an applicant shall for
mulate and implement a waste prevention strategy, where it
has jurisdiction to do so, (in collaboration with relevant local
and national agencies) which includes specific waste reduc
tion targets and provision for further waste prevention audits
to ensure that these targets are being met. Permit issuance or
renewal shall be subject to compliance with this requirement.
|
|
|
4. For dredged material, the goal of waste management shall be
to identify and control the sources of contamination. This
should be achieved through implementation of waste preven
tion strategies and requires collaboration between the relevant
local and national agencies involved with the control of point
and non-point sources of pollution. Until this objective is met,
the problems of contaminated dredged material may be ad
dressed by using disposal management techniques at sea or on
land.
|
|
|
5. Applications to dispose of waste or other matter shall demon
strate that appropriate consideration has been given to the fol
lowing hierarchy of waste management options, which im
plies an order of increasing environmental impact:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. A permit to dispose of waste or other matter shall be refused
if opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste or oth
er matter without undue risks to human health or the environ
ment or disproportionate costs. The practical availability of
other means of disposal shall be considered in the light of a
comparative risk assessment involving both disposal and the
alternatives.
|
|
|
7. A detailed description and characterization of the waste or oth
er matter is an essential precondition for the consideration of
alternatives and the basis for a decision as to whether the waste
or other matter may be disposed of at sea. If the waste or other
matter is so poorly characterized that proper assessment can
not be made of its potential impacts on human health and the
environment, the waste or other matter shall not be disposed
of at sea.
|
|
|
8. Characterization of the waste or other matter and their constit
uents shall take into account
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. A national Action List shall be developed to provide a mecha
nism for screening candidate waste or other matter and their
constituents on the basis of their potential effects on human
health and the marine environment. In selecting substances for
consideration in the Action List, priority shall be given to tox
ic, persistent and bio-accumulative substances from human
sources (e.g. cadmium, mercury, organohalogens, petroleum
hydrocarbons and, whenever relevant, arsenic, lead, copper,
zinc, beryllium, chromium, nickel and vanadium, organosili
con compounds, cyanides, fluorides and pesticides or their
by-products other than organohalogens). An Action List can
also be used as a trigger mechanism for further waste preven
tion consideration.
|
|
|
10. The Action List shall specify an upper
level and may also specify a lower level. The upper level shall
be set so as to avoid, as much as reasonably possible, acute or
chronic effects on human health or on sensitive marine organ
isms representative of the marine ecosystem. Application of
the Action List will result in three possible categories of waste
or other matter:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Information required to select a disposal
site shall include
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Assessment of potential effects shall lead
to a concise statement of the expected consequences of the sea
or land disposal options (i.e., the Impact Hypothesis). It pro
vides a basis for deciding whether to approve or reject the pro
posed disposal option and for defining environmental moni
toring requirements.
|
|
|
13. The assessment for disposal shall, as ap
propriate, integrate information on waste characteristics,
conditions at the proposed disposal site(s), fluxes and pro
posed disposal techniques and specify the potential effects on
human health, living resources, amenities and other legitimate
uses of the sea. It shall, where it is reasonably possible to do
so, define the nature, temporal and spatial scales and duration
of expected impacts based on reasonably conservative as
sumptions.
|
|
|
14. An analysis of each disposal option shall
be considered in light of a comparative assessment of the fol
lowing concerns: human health risks, environmental costs,
hazards (including accidents), economics and exclusion of fu
ture uses. If this assessment reveals that adequate information
is not available to determine the likely effects of the proposed
disposal option, then this option shall not be considered fur
ther. In addition, if the interpretation of the comparative as
sessment shows the disposal option to be less preferable, a per
mit for disposal at sea shall not be given.
|
|
|
15. Each assessment shall conclude with a
statement supporting a decision to issue or refuse a permit for
disposal at sea.
|
|
|
16. Monitoring is used to verify that permit
conditions are met (compliance monitoring) and that the as
sumptions made during the permit review and site selection
process were correct and sufficient to protect human health
and the environment (field monitoring). It is essential that
such monitoring programs have clearly defined objectives.
|
|
|
17. A decision to issue a permit shall only be
made if all impact evaluations are completed, and where rea
sonably possible, the monitoring requirements are deter
mined. The provisions of the permit shall ensure, as far as
practicable, that environmental disturbance and detriment are
minimized and the benefits maximized. Any permit issued
shall contain data and information specifying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18. Disposal sites shall be reviewed at regular
intervals, taking into account the results of monitoring and the
objectives of monitoring programs. Review of monitoring re
sults will indicate whether field programs need to be contin
ued, revised or terminated, and will contribute to informed de
cisions regarding the continuance, modification or closure of
disposal sites. This provides an important feedback mecha
nism for the protection of human health and the marine envi
ronment.
|
|