85 



exposure for use in setting and reviewing our own risk-based exposure 

 standards. 



CONCLUSION 



This statement has not exhaustively examined the possibilities for 

 characterizing and monitoring contamination in the Arctic. There are a 

 variety of undersea characterization techniques that could be ernployed to 

 locate and characterize the extent of deep-sea dumping in the Arctic. For 

 example, remote submersibles could be used to monitor currents in the Arctic. 

 This monitoring could then be used to conduct subsurface ocean-current 

 analysis of thermal circulation and radioactive transport. In addition, ocean 

 circulation models developed to study global warming could be employed to 

 determine whether any measured contamination is moving from Novaya Zemlya 

 through the Barents Sea and into Atlantic fishing regions. Much of the 

 Department's work in environmental remediation and technology may contribute 

 to the Nation's understanding of the contamination problems in the Arctic, and 

 much can be applied to solving those problems. As noted in our testimony, the 

 first step in the cleanup of radioactive or hazardous wastes is to 

 characterize the nature and magnitude of the contaminant. Once this happens, 

 many of these technologies no doubt could be employed expeditiously. In' 

 addition, not all of the research and applied technology at DOE will provide 

 an adequate framework for addressing this contamination issue. For example, 

 very little of DOE's experience in characterizing and treating contamination 

 can be applied to the contamination of oceans. Although these environmental 



10 



