[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              FACING THE THREATS TO THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, more than 2 years ago I joined with 
several others in sounding the alarm over environmental practices in 
the former Soviet Union that threatened areas beyond the borders of 
that crumbling empire.
  The end of the Soviet Union and the fall of the iron curtain had 
brought a looming environmental disaster into focus. Visitors to Russia 
returned with videotapes of uninhabitable areas poisoned by chemical 
dumping, radioactivity and ground-water contamination.
  The disastrous environmental legacy of the soviet Union was also 
mirrored in the declining health of many of its people. Infant 
mortality was up sharply. Life expectancy was declining rapidly. In 
some areas, birth defects seemed almost commonplace.
  Meanwhile, we heard tales of leaking nuclear reactors dumped in 
shallow Arctic seas--scuttled nuclear subs--secret nuclear accidents 
that rivaled Chernyobl.
  Eventually, the Russians confirmed that many of these things had 
indeed happened--including some which occurred in the Arctic.
  The Arctic, aside from being a harsh and beautiful place, is the very 
``incubator of life'' responsible for the food and subsistence of the 
indigenous Inupiat Eskimo, Yupik, Aleut and other Alaskans who depend 
on the living resources of the land and sea.
  As we learned what had occurred in Russia, a number of questions 
arose: Would the environmental disaster in the former Soviet Union be 
confined within its borders? Or would it affect Americans who live in 
Alaska and subsist from the living resources of the Arctic? Might it 
even affect the fisheries of the North Pacific or beyond?
  Today, I am pleased to report to the Senate that we have some 
answers. There is some good news, some bad news, and some areas where 
more work is clearly needed. On the whole, I believe that Alaskans can 
breathe a bit easier--for the moment.
  Thanks to the use of a small portion of Nunn-Lugar funds in support 
of scientific research to examine the extent of Russian radioactive 
waste in the oceans of the Arctic and Northern Pacific, we have a 
better, but still incomplete picture of the dangers to Americans and 
the Arctic ecosystem posed by the radioactive wastes carelessly 
disposed in Russian and international waters by the Soviets.
  I will summarize some of the preliminary findings:
  While it is clear that liquid nuclear wastes and fueled nuclear 
reactors have been dumped in the Arctic, there is no imminent danger to 
the Western Arctic and Alaska from the radioactive sources we currently 
know about.
  Radionuclide concentrations and emission rates from samples near 
Alaska are low and consistent with expected background levels from 
natural sources and past atmospheric nuclear testing.
  Current models of ocean circulation and other factors indicate that 
the known dumped materials, even if they become totally uncontained and 
soluble in seawater, would not significantly increase radiation levels 
in Alaska above background.
  That, Mr. President, is the good news. But those findings came with 
other sobering news:
  Many of the potential radioactive sources the Russians admitted were 
dumped have not been found. We still don't know if the Russian 
descriptions of the dumped materials are accurate, and we haven't had 
the benefit of direct measurements at many of the dump sites.
  The Arctic Ocean is still perhaps the least understood area of our 
planet--so the ocean circulation and chemistry models are not as 
accurate as we would wish them to be. The predictions that can be made 
about the spread of contamination in the Arctic are only as good as the 
models.
  Elevated levels of radioactivity were found in the Ob and Yenisey 
River sediments, suggesting that the inland weapons plants--not the 
materials dumped in the oceans--may be the cause for long term concern. 
We are told there are a billion and a half curies of waste being stored 
at the Mayak plutonium plant; a billion at Tomsk and an unknown amount 
at Krasnoyarsk. All of these are in watersheds that flow to the Arctic.
  The scientific research performed thus far focused on radioactivity--
while perhaps an even greater danger to Alaskan subsistence resources 
are persistent organics, such as DDT and PCB, and trace metals, such as 
mercury and cadmium. Indeed, last summer's research uncovered elevated 
levels of these nonradioactive contaminants.
  My purpose in taking the floor today was not only to report some of 
these findings, but to suggest a few of the things that we ought to be 
doing to better understand the environmental threats to the Arctic from 
activities in the former Soviet Union.
  This is not a matter of sole concern to Alaskans. It is an issue of 
international importance.
  I must confess that I often disagree with many of the pronouncements 
of the Clinton administration as they relate to environmental matters. 
But I took some comfort when President Clinton made the following 
statement last September, and I quote:

       The United States is committed to protecting the Arctic 
     environment. . . . The difficult task of protecting the 
     pollution-sensitive Arctic relies on careful scientific 
     monitoring and international cooperation.

  Unfortunately, I was somewhat disappointed when the President's 
budget came to Congress without proposals to fund the scientific 
monitoring and international cooperation the President had said we were 
committed to doing.
  It's important to remember that the scientific work performed thus 
far has been funded at Congress' initiative, in large part through the 
efforts of my friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens. Thus 
far, we have not seen any initiatives addressing this matter emerging 
from the administration.
  Nearly a year and a half ago, the Clinton administration began a 
comprehensive review of U.S. international environmental policies. This 
review, known as Presidential Review Directive/NSC-12, was designed to 
update United States policy in the Arctic and provide a framework for 
dealing with the problems posed by radioactive and other contaminants 
in the Arctic resulting from activities in the former Soviet Union.
  This review was expected to result in a new Presidential Decision 
Directive--a guiding policy document on U.S. policy in the Arctic--by 
the summer of 1993.
  Over a year has passed, and there is still no guiding policy 
document. I'm told that the review is complete, but that a decision 
document has still not been agreed upon.
  Fortunately, a group of dedicated scientists and program managers 
within a number of Federal agencies have been working on a 
comprehensive Arctic Contamination Research and Assessment Program for 
consideration in the next budget submission. If it survives review at 
the White House, the program will help us to answer remaining questions 
about the threat to the Arctic environment from Soviet and other 
activities. Such a program would also help us to meet our international 
obligations under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.
  So I challenge the administration to back up its promises with the 
sustained scientific assessments, risk analyses, and long-term 
monitoring that we have committed to.
  We must begin to work with the Russians as partners in protecting the 
Arctic environment and promoting environmentally sound, sustainable 
development in that region of the world. But we don't have to wait for 
the appropriations cycle or the next budget submission. There are some 
things we can do now.
  For example, the Murmansk Shipping Co. operates Russia's only 
facility for cleaning up low-level liquid nuclear waste. The plant 
currently lacks sufficient capacity to handle all of the low-level 
waste produced from the Northern Fleet and the Russian nuclear 
icebreaker fleet. When capacity isn't available, the Russians simply 
dump the liquid waste at sea, notwithstanding the provisions of the 
London Convention which prohibit that practice.
  We recently sent a technical team to Murmansk which concluded that 
the plant could be upgraded to accommodate all of the Northern Fleet's 
liquid waste for $1.7 million. I'm not suggesting that we pay the total 
bill, but we ought to join with the Russians and the Norwegians to 
assist with a share of it provided we receive a commitment from the 
Russians that they will fully abide by the provisions of the London 
Convention.
  There are arguments against assisting the Russians in this effort. It 
is argued, for instance, that as long as Russians continue to build new 
subs without coming to grips with their long-term nuclear waste 
problem, they are demonstrating a lack of good faith. Others argue that 
since the costs of dealing with nuclear waste are part of the total 
costs of maintaining a nuclear fleet, we would in effect, be 
subsidizing the Russian Navy if we assisted them with their nuclear 
waste disposal problems. I know this is the current position of the 
U.S. State Department and the Department of Defense, and I certainly 
understand that point of view.
  But let's be realistic. It doesn't look as if the Russians are going 
to stop building nuclear subs to satisfy our sense of priorities. We 
must recognize the value of assisting Russia and employing Russians in 
the business of preventing the environmental insults that have been the 
rule rather than the exception in Russia.
  As for the argument that this kind of assistance would represent a 
subsidy to the Russian Navy, let us remember that the Russian Navy pays 
the privatized Murmansk Shipping Co. to process their waste, so this is 
not a subsidy to the navy. It costs the Russian Navy nothing to dump 
their liquid nuclear waste over the side. What we are doing is removing 
their excuse for dumping at sea, and thus forcing them to come to grips 
with the costs of proper waste disposal.
  While the liquid nuclear waste problem is not the biggest threat to 
the Arctic, it is an area where we can achieve tangible results without 
great expense. It's a start.
  I know that the Japanese are working with the Russians on the liquid 
waste disposal problem in the Russian far east, where a new plant will 
have to be built from the ground up. The costs there will be much 
higher, but the Japanese apparently view it to be in their interests to 
consider building such a plant.
  The Russian Chairman of the Government, Viktor Chernomyrdin, will be 
in Washington to meet with Vice President Gore later this month. I 
challenge Vice President Gore to use this opportunity to offer 
assistance to the Russians in this area. If the administration will 
provide discretionary funding this year to get the project started, 
then I will be happy to work with the administration in attempting to 
secure funding in Congress to finish the job.
  I would further challenge the administration to support the program 
proposals being discussed by the community of Arctic and environmental 
scientists and program managers inside Government. This is an 
international problem. The United States--an Arctic nation--has a 
leading role to play.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________