¹ Kindt, J. W., Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea 1087 (Buffalo: William S. Hein & Co., 1986).Google Scholar

² Rémond-Gouilloud, M., “Prevention and Control of Marine Polltuion,” in Johnston, D. (ed.), The Environmental Law of the Sea 196–97 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1981).Google Scholar

³ Kunig, P., “Dumping at Sea,” in Cuisine, D. and Grant, J. (eds.), The Impact of Marine Pollution 181 (London: Croom Helm, 1980).Google Scholar

⁴ 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention) 26 U.S.T. 2403, Art. 3(1) ;T.I.A.S. 8165. In force, Aug. 1975.

⁵ Kunig, supra note 3, at 181.

⁶ Kindt, supra note 1, at 1087.

⁷ Ibid., 1086; Nybakken, J., Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach 1 (New York: Harper & Row, 1982).Google Scholar

⁸ Kindt, supra note 1, at 6; Nybakken, supra note 7, at 1.

⁹ Kindt, supra note 1, at 6.

¹⁰ Increases in carbon dioxide contribute to global warming trends (the “greenhouse” effect). Kindt, supra note 1 at 101, 146; Kilho Park, P. and O’Connor, T., “Ocean Dumping Research : Historical and International Development,” in Ketchum, B. et al. (eds.), Ocean Dumping of Industrial Wastes 4 (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).Google Scholar

¹¹ Kindt, supra note 1, at 112, 1086.

¹² Ibid., at 1087 ; Nybakken, supra note 7, at 400.

¹³ Nybakken, supra note 7, at 383; Letalik, N., “Pollution from Dumping” in Johnston, , supra note 2, at 217.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Kindt, supra note 1, at 1087; Nybakken, supra note 7, at 400.

¹⁵ Kindt, supra note 1, at 4–5.

¹⁶ Letalik, supra note 13, at 218; Kindt, supra note 1, at 770, 1088–90; Marx, W., The Frail Ocean 75 (New York: Ballantine Books, 1967)Google Scholar; Guyvers, L., Ocean Uses and Their Regulation, Ch. 4, “Waste Disposal in the Sea,” at 74 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984)Google Scholar; Brown, E., “International Law and Marine Pollution: Radioactive Wastes and Other Hazardous Substances,” (1971) 11 Nat. Res. J. 221, 235Google Scholar; Soni, R., Control of Marine Pollution in International Law 215 (Johannesburg: Juta & Co., 1985)Google Scholar; Environment Canada, “Ocean Dumping Control Act Annual Report 1985–86,” at 29; Hardy, M., “International Control of Marine Pollution,” (1971) 11 Nat. Res. J. 296, 317.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 14.

¹⁸ Kindt, supra note I, at 1089.

¹⁹ Ibid., 1090.

²⁰ Ibid., 1091.

²¹ Simon, A., Neptune’s Revenge: The Ocean of Tomorrow 36 (New York: Bantam Books, 1984)Google Scholar. For further information on biological effects, see Bezanson, D. S. et al., Research and Related Work on Ocean Dumping: An Annotated Bibliography, Ocean Dumping Report 2 (Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1979).Google Scholar

²² Kilho Park, supra note 10, at 4.

²³ Letalik, supra note 13, at 218.

²⁴ Duedall, I. et al., “Global Inputs, Characteristics and Fates of Ocean Dumped Industrial and Sewage Wastes: An Overview” in Duedall, I. et al. (eds.), Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 1: Industrial and Sewage Wastes in the Ocean 5 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983).Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ 327 U.N.T.S. 3, 12 U.S.T. 2989; T.I.A.S. 4900. Major amendments in 1962 and 1969.

²⁷ Hardy, supra note 16, at 322–23.

²⁸ Ibid., 324. Canada has not signed or ratified many of these latter instruments, although it is a party to the original 1954 Convention. Williams, S. et al., An Introduction to International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada, 2nd ed., at 276–78 (Toronto: Butterworths, 1987).Google Scholar See also An Act to Amend the Canada Shipping Act, S.C. 1987, c. 7.

²⁹ 450 U.N.T.S. 82; 13 U.S.T. 2312; T.I.A.S. 5200.

³⁰ Including the 1970 U.S. Operation Chase nerve gas dumping, the discovery of the Baltic arsenic dump in 1969, and the Dutch proposal to dump chemical wastes in the North Sea in 1970. Letalik, supra note 13, at 218–19; Soni, supra note 16, at a 17.

³¹ Kindt, supra note 1, at 1126.

³² Including the Oslo Convention, 11 I.L.M. 262, in force Apr. 1974, and the Helsinki Convention, 13 I.L.M. 546, in force May 1980.

³³ Supra note 4.

³⁴ Added by amendment in 1978.

³⁵ Kunig, supra note 3, at 193.

³⁸ The major convention in this area is the 1973 MARPOL Convention and its 1978 Protocol.

³⁷ Letalik, supra note 13, at 222; Art. 3.

³⁸ Organohalogens, mercury, cadmium, persistent plastics, oil, high-level radioactive wastes, biological and chemical warfare agents.

³⁹ Arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, organosilicons, cyanides, flourides, pesticides, beryllium, chromium, nickel, vanadium, scrap metal, other bulky wastes, radio-active material other than high-level wastes.

⁴⁰ Organohalogens and oil (Annex I, Item 10) and pesticides (Annex II, Item E). The use of ocean incineration may be phased out by 1994. “65 nations to ban burning of chemical wastes at sea,” Vancouver Sun, Oct. 7, 1988, at A5.

⁴¹ The lack of a formal enforcement mechanism in the Convention has attracted some criticism.

⁴² While states must “carefully consider” these factors, there are no binding regulations in the Convention to set maximum levels of contaminants in dredged materials, or similar matters.

⁴³ The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention had not come into force by 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future 270 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) (Brundtland report).

⁴⁴ 21 I.L.M. 1361.

⁴⁵ Williams, supra note 28, at 280.

⁴⁶ S.C. 1974–75–76, c. 55, as am. SOR/81–721.

⁴⁷ S.C. 1988, c. 22.

⁴⁸ Supra note 4, Art. 4.

⁴⁹ C.R.C. 1978, c. 1243.

⁵⁰ Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 31.

⁵¹ Ibid., 32.

⁵² Ibid., 12. This may be somewhat misleading, however, as more recent policy allows one permit to cover repeated dredged material dumpings during a given project, whereas previously a new permit was issued for each load.

⁵³ The ship galley refuse was incinerated. The waste was from foreign vessels and could not be brought into Canada. It was therefore burned and the ashes brought ashore for landfill disposal. This type of incineration is of an entirely different nature from that of toxic waste incineration, which is discussed in detail later on in this paper. Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 4–6, 19.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 29.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 8.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 14.

⁵⁷ Kindt, supra note 1, at 1101–2.

⁵⁸ Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 21–22. Canada voted against the moratorium: Brundtland, supra note 43, at 121.

⁵⁸ Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 21.

⁶⁰ Personal communication, H. Nelson, Environmental Protection, Oct. 1987.

⁶¹ CEPA, s.71(3) (a).

⁶² Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 21.

⁶³ Ibid., 14.

⁶⁴ C.R.C. 1978, c. 1243, section 5(e).

⁶⁵ Swiss, J. et al., Regulated Levels of Schedule I Substances in the Ocean Dumping Control Act: A Review, Ocean Dumping Report 3, at 1 (Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1980).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ 1465 +/- 217 mg/kg to Mar. 1978. Ibid., 51.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 51 et seq., for an explanation for the rationale.

⁶⁸ “ODCA Management Guidelines,” July 1986, Ottawa, at 10.

⁶⁹ Karau, J., “National ODCA Research Priorities,” in Woods, S. M. (ed.), Report on Ocean Dumping R & D Pacific Region 1958–86 26 (Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1987).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See, for example, Kindt, supra note 1.

⁷¹ C.R.C. 1978, c. 1243, s. 5(a).

⁷² Personal communication, H. Nelson, Environmental Protection, Oct. 1987. This guideline is based on coastal sediment levels in the Pacific and Yukon region. A different guideline is used on the East Coast.

⁷³ C.R.C. 1978, c. 1243, s. 5 (b).

⁷⁴ Personal communication, Nelson, H., Environmental Protection, October 1987.Google ScholarPubMed

⁷⁵ Swiss, supra note 65, at 3.

⁷⁶ Woods, supra note 69, at 2.

⁷⁷ Personal communication, Nelson, H., Environmental Protection, Oct. 1987.Google ScholarPubMed

⁷⁸ Such as the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Fisheries Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Canada Water Act.

⁷⁹ ODCA Management Guidelines, supra note 68, at 3.

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ Constitution Act, 1867,30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.) as amended.

⁸² A. G. Canada v. A. G. Ontario (Labour Conventions), [1937] A.C. 326 (P.C.).

⁸³ Williams, supra note 38, at 351; Hogg, P., Constitutional Law of Canada 242 (2nd ed.) (Toronto: Carswell, 1985).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Labour Conventions case, supra note 82.

⁸⁵ Hogg, supra note 83, at 251–54; Williams, supra note 28, at 357.

⁸⁶ R. v. Crown Zellerbach Ltd., [1988] 3 W.W.R. 385 (S.C.G.).

⁸⁷ Preamble of s. 91, Constitution Act, supra note 81.

⁸⁸ Zellerbach, supra note 86, at 412.

⁸⁹ Ibid.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 419.

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² Ibid.

⁹³ Ibid., 426.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 428.

⁹⁵ Envirochem Services, National Technical Guidelines for At Sea Incineration of Liquid Hazardous Wastes, Mar. 11, 1987, at 1, Working draft, Burnaby, B.C.

⁹⁶ Ibid., Appendix A2 and B2.

⁹⁷ Outlined ibid., 6.

⁹⁸ Combustion efficiencies average 99.98 +/- 0.01%, with destruction efficiencies generally 0.01 to 0.03% higher. Ibid., 6.

⁹⁹ Ibid., 9.

¹⁰⁰ Approximately 20% of harzardous wastes are incinerable; about half of this is suitable for shipboard incineration. Ibid., 6.

¹⁰¹ Approximately 0.01% of hazardous wastes or byproducts of their incomplete combustion are released. During a systems failure or accident this inefficiency potentially could be higher. LDC/OSCOM, “Summary of Meeting on Incineration at Sea,” April 1987, at 2–5. See also Envirochem Services, supra note 95.

¹⁰² Karau, J., “Incineration at Sea,” (1987) 10 O.D. News, July 87–1, at 10.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ibid., 11. See generally Kamlet, K., “Ocean Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes by At Sea Incineration” in Ketchum, , supra note 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see Bond, D., “At-Sea Incineration of Hazardous Wastes: The Risk is Yet to Be Justified,” (1984) 18:5 Env. Sci. Technol. 148A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Karau, supra note 102, at 11; Envirochem Services, supra note 95, at 62. The two major risks of land-based incinerators are the proximity to large human populations and the need to dispose of contaminated scrubber wastes.

¹⁰⁵ Karau, supra note 102, at 14.

¹⁰⁶ Environment Canada, supra note 16, at 20. Some highly chlorinated wastes cannot be disposed of by land-based incinerators.

¹⁰⁷ OSCOM, “Summary of Meeting on Incineration at Sea,” May 1987, at 1; Walker, C., “The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal for At-Sea Incineration of Hazardous Wastes : A Transnational Perspective,” (1988) 21 Vanderbilt J. of Transnational Law 157, 162Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Vancouver Sun, supra note 40; Report of the Eleventh Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the [London Dumping] Convention … (London: IMO, 1988), Annex 7.

¹⁰⁹ Envirochem Services, supra note 95.

¹¹⁰ Karau, supra note 102, at 12–15.

¹¹¹ Emergencies, if rapidly rendered harmless, or if necessary to avert an unacceptable risk to human health which admits no other feasible solution. CEPA, s. 71.

¹¹² Kindt, supra note 1, at 1103.

¹¹³ The only real advantages are political and economic.

¹¹⁴ Kindt, supra note 1, at 1103.

¹¹⁵ Ibid., 873.

¹¹⁶ 33 U.S.C. 1401 (1976 & Supp. V 1981).

¹¹⁷ Proposed under the National Parks Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-13, as amended, and established under some provincial enactments.

¹¹⁸ For example, to reduce conflict with marine developments such as aquaculture projects. Kindt, supra note I, at 1919.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 1917–19.

¹²⁰ Ibid.

¹²¹ Art. 194(5). See also Arts. 162(2) (x), 211 (6) (a), and 234.