405 



indicates the magnitude of the problem. This map is a composite of a 

 map published in 1991 by the Norwegian Mapping Authority and a 

 Greenpeace document which shows the position of dumped nuclear 

 reactors off the coast of Novaya Zemlya. 



In addition to the radioactive waste sites, other dumping grounds 

 are indicated. It is forbidden to anchor in these sites because they 

 have been the repository of military dumping since World War 11. The 

 hatchured regions are locations on the seafloor that Russian fisheries 

 biologists consider to be devastated habitats. If one compares this 

 with the high concentrations of benthic biomass (biological material on 

 the sea floor)in the Barents Sea from Zenkovitch, 1963, one observes 

 the overlap of the dumping sites and the highly productive regions 

 (figure 11). If the data that were used to compile this map could be 

 located in Russia, one could begin to ascertain the degree of impact of 

 dumping activities in this region. If these areas are resurveyed and 

 are found to have changes in the character or number of its biota, 

 then a quantitative assessment of the damage can be ccurried out. 



Figures 12 and 13 show the oceanography of the Barents Sea as 

 compiled by Tansiura, 1973. The arrows indicate the directions of 

 currents both in the surface and deep waters. Using information on 

 current flow, we can estimate the transport pathways of pollutants, 

 including radioactivity, in this region. Therefore, this kind of data is 

 crucial to assess the regions that may be affected by materials dumped 

 in the Barents Sea. If we do not act now to locate these data and 

 support the former Soviet Union scientists who have access the 

 information, then most of it will probably be lost and we will have to 

 spend substantial resources redoing the earlier studies 



In addition to the threat of leaking radiation from the nuclear 

 reactors dumped on the sea floor, there are numerous threats facing 

 the Arctic environment today. The combined effects of these stresses 

 may range from immediate harm to humans (as indicated by the 

 Russian health statistics that we have heard today) and destruction of 

 plant and animal habitats, to long>term damage to entire ecosystems 

 and potential disruption of the global climate system. 



It is imperative for the U.S. to take a lead role not only in the ^ 

 assessment of the dangers facing the Arctic environment, but in clean- 

 up and preventive measures that must be initiated to protect the 

 Arctic. The Arctic has not been adequately protected by the existing 

 international legal regime. The recently adopted Arctic Environmental 

 Protection Strategy may make a contribution if effectively 

 implemented, but this requires a much higher priority be accorded to 

 it by U.S. agencies, along with correspondingly higher level of 

 resources to support their involvement in the Arctic Monitoring and 



