230 



Let me take another example. About 80 nuclear submarines of 

 the Northern Fleet should be disposed of during this decade, and 

 that is about 150 nuclear reactors. And presently representing a 

 hazard to the Arctic environment. Russia lacks proper nuclear stor- 

 age and the resources to do it safely. This problem represents a 

 major challenge both as to costs and to safety, and there are few 

 countries that can contribute to the solution. 



The next item, which might be a good one, but worse at the start, 

 nuclear testing to start at Novaya Zemlya in October this year. 

 This decision is depending on U.S. stopping their nuclear testing. 

 And I've noted that the U.S. Senate recently has voted positively 

 on this issue, and I really hope that that also will be the final out- 

 come. The fragile Arctic environment has been exposed to sufficient 

 radionuclides already. 



I also want to take just one item outside this radionuclear feat, 

 namely industrial emissions. This is a different tjrpe of threat but 

 it is a known threat. It is a thing going on all the time, both by 

 industrial emissions within the Arctic and those being transported 

 to the Arctic. And in some places there have come forward some 

 alarming levels of heavy metals, PCB and other pesticides. 



If I should give just some figures for emissions in the Arctic part 

 of Russia, there is in the Kola area about 716,000 tons of various 

 toxic emissions every year. In the Norilsk area 2.6 million tons of 

 the same stuff. Of course, this contamination has the worst effects 

 within the region locally, with also grovmig industrial deserts, in 

 the Kola area about one kilometer each year, causing severe health 

 damages, toxic clouds are however drifting all over the Arctic. 



Just to give an illustration, in Norilsk they report claims that the 

 children in the town have to stay in house 90 days a year because 

 of the local contamination. 



The second question pu 'e, also about monitoring programs. 



As to ongoing monitoring p^og,. ^s, there is a model network of 

 sampling stations in the Arctic as to radionuclides transported by 

 air, and of course supplemented by airborne programs. My major 

 concern, however, is the marine environment, there is no regular 

 monitoring program going on on a circum- Arctic basis, although 

 some samplings have occurred in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent 

 seas on more or less an ad hoc basis. 



You will also have in the written statement a reference to a re- 

 view of this question, given in The State of the Arctic Environment 

 Reports, Paris and Rovaniemi. 



The next one I would like to mention is AMAP, as mentioned 

 esirlier. I will not repeat what has already been said. Planning on 

 this program has started, and radionuclides will be included. But 

 the plans will be finished at the end of this year, so it's too early 

 to give fiirther details. However, I would strongly encourage the 

 United States not to stand in the doorway as to AMAP but come 

 in and join the others with full participation. You should be a lead 

 country, not a slightly interested country. 



I also was asked about future needs. And of course, this question 

 had been answered by several at the table already. Documentation 

 of information; we'll not go into that except for mentioning these 

 bilateral Norwegieui-Russia field investigations. I've had a possibil- 

 ity to read all the reports and seen all the planning documents. 



