TED Case Studies

Arctic Sea Dumping



     CASE NUMBER:        204  
     CASE MNEMONIC:      ARCTIC
     CASE NAME:          Russian Toxic Dumping in the Arctic Sea

A.        IDENTIFICATION
1.        The Issue
     Dumping of highly radioactive wastes at sea has been banned
worldwide for more than three decades, still it has been revealed
that Russia (the former Soviet Union) has been dumping highly
radioactive materials in the Arctic Sea (more precisely the Barents
Kara Seas) since the late 1950s. This act has international
implications, especially in view of Russia's relations to the
Scandinavian countries (in particular Norway), as rich fishing
grounds could be threatened. The Norwegian Prime Minister said the
dumping represents a "security risk to people and to the natural
biology of northern waters" , and the former Minister of Foreign
Affairs Johan Jorgen Holst stated that Russian pollution was "the
biggest security problem Norway faces."  Today scientists are
trying to assess what possible damage the dumping might have done
to the fragile environment of the Arctic region. 

2.        Description

     The extent and the precise locations of Russia's nuclear
polluting may forever remain a mystery.  However, since the 
beginnings of Perestroika some of those secrets have begun to
trickle out of the former Soviet Empire, much to the chagrin of her
neighbors and the international community as a whole.  The culprit
in this mess, not to anyone's surprise, has been the Russian
military. 
     While fact and fiction have been hard to differentiate (it
depends on whose figures your consulting) these numbers have been
confirmed. In the 1950's, the effluent from the nuclear-weapons
factory near Chelyabinsk was dumped into the River Techa.  It ended
up in the Arctic Ocean.  Between 1964 and 1986, some 7,000 tons of
solid radioactive waste and 1,600 cubic meters of liquid waste was
pitched into the Kara and Barents Seas from the base in Murmasnk
which serviced the Soviet fleet of nuclear powered naval and
merchant ships.  Likewise, nuclear reactors from at least 18
nuclear submarines and icebreakers were dumped in the Barents sea,
and an entire nuclear sub was deliberately sunk after an accident
in May 1968.  Another nuclear submarine, the Komsomolets, sank 300
miles of Norway with the loss of 42 sailors.  It went down with two
nuclear warheads.  Finally, the Russians were dumping unprossed
nuclear waste into The Sea of Japan.  As late as October 1993, the
Russians confirmed that one of their ships discharged 900 tons of
radioactive water from scrapped nuclear submarines.
     One of the best indicators to measure the degree of danger in
the dumped material is its curie count.  A curie is the measure of
radioactivity associated with a decaying radioactive element. 
Elements in nuclear waste include caesium 137, cobalt 60, strontium
and iodine, all of which produce types of radioactivity that are
extreamly dangerous.  To put all that into perspective, if one
were to carry even one curie of those around in ones pocket, it
would probably kill.  The number of curies involved in the Sea of
Japan dump sites is disputed.  The Russians estimate it at no more
than 46.2, although according to Greenpeace's scientists and other
oceanographers this number is unrealistically low.  However,
compared to Soviet polluting in the Arctic sea it's mild.  There,
an estimated 312,500 curies were dumped between 1959-91.  
     The water depth is another important factor in determining the
danger of nuclear dumping.  According to experts, a depth of 3,000
meters is required to insure a high degree of safety.  Otherwise,
anything dumped in shallower waters could easily be taken up by
living organisms quickly.  Unfortunately, many of the confirmed
Russian dumping sites are not at that depth.
     The dangers of nuclear waste dumping come mostly from the
threat that it poses to marine life.  A poisoning of the Arctic
Ocean and the Sea of Japan would have enormous economic, social and
environmental costs not only to Russia, but Japan and the
Scandinavian countries as well.  Many of these countries depend on
fish harvested from these regions to feed their own populace and to
export.  While Russia acknowledges that dumping nuclear waste into
the ocean could be harmful Moscow has warned the international
community that it has run out of places to store the waste on land
and if financial aid is not forthcoming Russia will have no choice
but to resume dumping it into the sea.  This has stained Moscow's
relationship with Japan, the Scandanavian countries, and others,
who feel that it's not that Russia does not have the resources to
devote to the problem but rather it's a matter of priorities.  They
want these priorities changed.  
     To date, no large scale poisonings have been reported although
the possibility still exists.  The first signs that there could be
trouble on the horizon came in early 1993 when seals in the White
Sea and Barents Sea were found to be dying from blood cancer. 
Autopsies conducted at the Northern Polar Institute in Archanagel
suggested that pollution was the cause.  This was worrying because
seals are near the top of the food chain which could suggest that
their might be allot of radioactive fish below them.  However, thus
far no fish poisonings have been reported.  Nonetheless, the real
possibility that humans are in danger of being poisoned through
their ingestion of these same fish is all too real.  If this were
to happen, the consequences would be ominous.
     Rumors about the secret illegal dumping had been flourishing
for a while when a member of the old Soviet Parliament, in the fall
of 1992, reported on the dumping practices. The result of Mr.
Zolotkovs inquiries, himself a radiation engineer with the state
company that operates the icebreaker fleet from Murmansk, was that
Yeltsin ordered his top environmental adviser to produce a report
on the matter. This report was released in March of 1993, and tells
a disturbing tale of disregard for the environment and
international treaties.
     The Yablokov report states that the Soviet Union dumped an
estimated 2.5 million curies of radioactive wastes in the Arctic
Sea , including 16 nuclear reactors (a Norwegian environmental
group, Bellona,  has identified 21 nuclear reactors, nine still
containing their fuel rods ) dumped in the shallow waters of the
Barents and Kara Seas, and the reactor from the nuclear-powered
icebreaker Lenin  (sunk 1967) . About seven of the reactors still
contained spent fuel, as it was impossible to remove them due to
accidents etc. Waste water from naval and civilian reactors was
also dumped by special ships, which diluted radioactive liquid with
seawater.  In addition, thousands of containers (estimated at
11,090 containers by Bellona ) of solid wastes from the Northern
Fleet and icebreakers were dumped. (Mr. Zolotkov has estimated the
it at almost 7,000 tons of solid wastes, and 1,600 cubic meters of
liquid wastes.) In fact, seamen would cut holes in the sealed
containers if they would not sink. It is believed, according to the
Yablokov report, that Russian nuclear submarines are continuing to
dump liquid radioactive wastes at sea for lack of on-shore storage
and reprocessing facilities.  
     Further, there is also the case of the sunken submarine, the
Komsomolets, which caught fire and sank near the edge of the
Barents Sea in April 1989. An enormous crack in the subs bow,
which left the torpedoes exposed, has been discover, and it is
predicted that plutonium could begin to leak from the subs reactor
and warheads by 1995 . In addition, the environmental group
Bellona, has stated that at least five barges holding large
quantities of nuclear wastes are floating or have sunk off the
island of Novaya Zemlya .
     Now that it has been proven beyond a doubt that dumping of
nuclear wastes occurred in the Arctic Sea, the next step is to
assess the possible effect it might have had on the environment.
This is no easy task and scientists in both Russia and the
Scandinavian countries have yet to reach a final conclusion. Thus
the following statements are mere suggestions and speculation.
     As mentioned above, it is estimated that the Soviet Union
dumped 2.5 million curies of radioactive waste. This is about twice
the amount the IAEA estimated a dozen other nuclear nations dumped
from 1946 to 1982 . A curie is the amount of radiation given off
by one gram of radium and, in any nuclear material, is equal to the
disintegration of 37 billion per second. In theory, the oceans
should be able to dilute such material, making radioactive wastes
almost harmless. However, localized releases of high concentration
can do damage when picked up by marine life. It is believed that
the wastes dumped in the Arctic Sea is similar to the long-lived
isotopes from the Chernobyl accident in 1986 (which released an
estimated 50 million curies, mostly short-lived isotopes). Today,
the radioactivity of dumped Russian wastes is little less than a
million curies . In fact, for years Norway has only registered
small amounts of radioactivity in the Barents Sea, and has
attributed this to the fallout from Soviet nuclear tests and
Chernobyl. "Those nuclear tests served as a sort of cover for these
dumping operations," a Russian expert said .
     The threat to marine life, however, is unclear since no
records are yet available on the exact composition of the
radioactive refuse and no one knows for sure if containment vessels
are intact or leaking. It seems likely that the damage done has
been minimum. For one, the Kara Sea, where most of the reactors
were dumped, is frozen nine months out of the year and is said to
have little biological activities. The fishing grounds of the
Barents, White and Norwegian Seas lie hundreds of miles away. This
limits, if not eliminates, risks to physical or biological
migration of the radioactive wastes. Norwegian scientists have not
detected any significant contamination of the fish in the area.
However, waters near the dumping  sites have not been tested, and
waste containers could spring a leak, possibly presenting a
environmental threat in the future. 
     On the other hand, there have been some disturbing incidents
in recent years.  In 1990, six million starfish, shellfish, seals,
and porpoises washed up dead on the shores of the White Sea, and
the areas natural fish population--flatfish, smelt, and cod--
migrated away. In 1992, seals in the White and Barents Sea were
dying of blood cancer, suggesting that they had been exposed to
radioactivity and other toxic substances. Yuri Moshenko at the
Northern Polar Institute in Arkangelsk maintains that the nuclear
testing at Novaya Zemlya during the 1950s and the nuclear wastes
dumping in the Arctic Sea are responsible.   
     Last but not least it is worth considering the impact, if any,
which the dumping has had on the international as well as local
economies. If the marine food chain has been contaminated, this
could pose severe problems for the local fishing industry, and
tourism. "If the rumors get around that Norwegian and Russian fish
are contaminated with radioactivity, we arent going to sell many
fish," said the former Norwegian Defense Minister, Johan Jorgen
Holst.  Regardless of whether the wastes represents a hazard, the
issue could exact a serious economic toll if the public
misunderstands the danger. As an example, Norway banned Russian
icebreakers from entering Norwegian ports to take aboard tourists
for $20,000 excursions to the North Pole. Russian experts have
estimated that if plutonium leaks from the Komsomolets, it could
contaminate fish with twice the allowed limits of radioactivity,
causing millions of dollars in damage. This estimate has been
disputed by Norwegian experts, who say that the sub contains only
a very small amount of plutonium and is far from the fishing
grounds. Further, the sub lies at a significant depth, while the
fish live in the upper layers of the ocean.
     Perhaps the biggest concern and financial question to people
in Norway  and Russia, as well as the rest of the world, is what to
do with the rest of the Russian submarine fleet. So far, Russia has
saved an undisclosed amount of money by dumping the waste instead
of having to build and operate expensive storage and recycle
facilities. The Northern Fleet operates more than 200 nuclear
propulsion reactors in its ballistic missile and attack submarines.
60 old decommissioned nuclear subs are standing idle in Russian
harbors, and 14 must be scrapped by 1998  (at the cost of about
100 million rubles -- $1 million in May 1992) in accordance with
the START II nuclear disarmament treaty.  Further, the Norwegian
environmental group, Bellona, has obtained information that
suggests (as of July 1993) that the cost of outfitting and updating
the shipyards in Severodvinsk, near Arkangelsk, (so as to be able
to handle the decommissioning of the Russian nuclear submarine
fleet) could reach at least 23 billion rubles. Russia seeks to
cut the size of its fleet by a third by 1995, and have approached
Norway (the Fridjof Nansen Institute) for expertise and money to
decommission about 50 subs from 1992 to the end of the decade.
Proposals have been put forward, suggesting the building of a
permanent radioactive waste repository on Novaya Zemlya using one
or more of the shafts built for underground nuclear explosions.
This plan has been supported by the Murmansk shipping line and the
Northern Fleet, but the local authorities reject any plan where the
military will be in charge of running the facilities. In addition,
the cost of lifting the Komsomolets, as has been suggested as an
option, has been estimated at $250-500 million. Thus, an
alternative solution has been suggested, to smother the wreck with
a gel of chitin and chitosan, which absorb heavy metals such as
plutonium.
     Some related issues should be briefly mentioned as they may be
of consequence in the future. Facilities inside Russia that have
far greater quantities of nuclear wastes stored in insecure
reservoirs and a lake could leak into rivers flowing into the
Arctic Sea. In fact, a subsurface plume of pollution (discharged
from the Mayak facilities) from Lake Karachai is seeping toward the
nearby Misheliak River at a rate of 80 meters per year and will
soon reach the river. This represents nearly 50 times the
radioactivity of the wastes dumped in the ocean. In addition the
Mayak facilities (the Mayak facilities are located 60 kilometer
north of the town of Tshelabinsk in South Ural, and during the
Soviet era, was the largest production site for weapongrade
plutonium in the Soviet Union) has 200,000 ci stored in a system
of reservoirs that are in danger of overflowing. The problem is
that the water from this region ultimately drains into the Ob
River, which flows north into the Arctic Sea. In addition,
Bellona reports that1 billion ci of radioactive waste, 26,000 kilos
of plutonium, and 44,000 used fuel assemblies are stored at Mayak
as of August 1992.
     Finally, it should be mentioned that even though these
problems do not pose an immediate threat to North America, the U.S.
Congress appropriated $10 million to the Defense Department to
organize a program for rapidly assessing the threat from the dumped
Soviet wastes 
     
3.        Relevant Cases

     JAPANSEA Case 
     CHERNOB Case
     BENIN Case
     
4.        Draft authors: Hilde Elin Haaland, Chad Cummins and Shehu
Ibrahim

B.        Legal Cluster
     This dumping of nuclear wastes does not only go against
international practice, but is also a violation of international
treaties. Dumping of radioactive wastes is regulated by the 1972
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter (the 1972 London Convention), which has
been ratified by both Norway and the Soviet Union. The 1972 London
Convention on ocean dumping outlawed the disposal of high-level
wastes at sea and further required that nations disposing low-level
radioactive wastes do so in ocean basins at depths greater than
12,000 feet. The depths at the actual dump sites range from 200
to 1,000 feet, a clear violation of the convention. In 1983, the
members of the London Dumping Convention agreed to stop dumping
even low level radioactive waste. Further, as late as in 1989,
Moscow still maintained that it had never dumped radioactive wastes
and had no plans to do so in the future. 
5.        Discourse and Status: AGR and ALLEGE
     The parties (Norway and Russia) agree that the dumping of
nuclear reactors and other wastes did take place, thus no steps
have been taken towards any legal proceedings.
6.        Forum and Scope: IAEA and MULTI
      The IAEA is in charge of controlling whether the signatory
countries are observing the regulations set forward by the
Convention.
7.        Decision Breadth: 72
8.        Legal Standing: TREATY

C.        Geographic Cluster
9.        Geographic Location
     The affected area is primarily the Arctic Sea, which includes
the Barents, White and Kara Seas. Most of the reactors were dumped
on the eastern side of the Russian island Novaya Zemlya, while some
were dumped on the western side.
     a.   Continental Domain: ARCTIC    
     b.   Geographic Site: ARCTIC
     c.   Geographic Impact: NORWAY
10.            Sub-National Factors: NO
11.       Type of habitat: OCEAN

D.        Trade Clusters
     As has been mentioned earlier, the impact on trade is almost
impossible to measure. First, it has not been proven that the fish
have been contaminated. Thus, second, no trade measures/sanctions
in relation to the fish industry have been implemented by the
Norwegian government or any other government to this date. In other
areas including tourism, environmental technology and industry, the
evidence is similarly inconclusive. The only possible applicable
ban would be the ban on any vessel propelled by or carrying any
radioactive material from entering Norwegian harbors (which was
used against Russian icebreakers picking up tourists). 
12.       Type of Measure: NAPP
13.       Direct vs. Indirect: DIR
14.       Relation of Measure to Impact 
     a.   Directly Related: YES
     b.   Indirectly Related: NO   
     c.   Not Related to Product: NO
     d.   Process Related: YES     
15.            Trade Product Identification: MEAT (fish)
16.       Economic Data
     According to the E.I.U. Country Report on Norway, fishing
accounted for only 0.7% of the GDP and 0.7% of employment in 1992.
In addition, it is estimated that the export of fish and fish
products will total 19 billion n.kr. (about $2.9 billion, $1=6.5
n.kr), about 15-16 % of all exports (the Norwegian-language
newspaper,Nytt Fra Norge, October 18, 1994, p.5). The main
importers are France, Portugal, Germany, Japan, and the U.S.A. (the
Norwegian-language newspaper,Nytt Fra Norge, October 18, 1994,
p.5). These numbers should be modified, due to the fact that the
industry is highly localized. Should it become evident that the
fish are contaminated, which would result in a large loss of
revenue and employment for the industry, many local villages in
Norway (especially the northern regions) would be left practically
empty, displacing entire communities and cultures. 
          Industry Output ($): 0.7% of GDP in 1992
          Employment: 0.7% of total employment
17.       Degree of Competitive Impact: LOW
     As of this date, the degree of competitive impact must be said
to be rather low, as no contamination has been traced in the fish.
Should this change or rumors circulate that it has, this could
rapidly change the competitive impact on the fishing industry.
18.       Industry Sector: FOOD
19.       Exporters and Importers: Norway and Japan
According to the 1992 International Trade Statistics Yearbook
(United Nations), Norway is the leading exporter of fish (Fresh,
chilled, frozen, salted, dried, and smocked), while Japan is the
leading importer. In 1992, Norway exported 33.6% of total fish
exports, and Japan imported 42.9% of the total. 

E.        Environmental Cluster
20.       Environmental Problem Type: Waste, Sea [POLS]
     The waste includes nuclear reactors with or without fuel rods,
and solid and liquid waste, as well as other low-level waste. The
implication of such dumping is explained in curies.  According to
Zyla, "elements in nuclear waste include caesium 137, cobalt 60,
strotium and iodine - all of which produce types of radioactivity
extremely dangerous to life forms" (21). The above issue is
significant because it touches on international and domestic trade
(people trading in fishes and micro-organism ), and its attendant
negative externality on the environment, which destroys the
productive capacity of the people.  This is applicable where
dumping is done around shallow waters, and sea shores, which would
have severe impact on the immediate environment.
     
     The Soviet Union Navy and other atomic fleet depends on the
use of nuclear powered system.  This issue has become compounded
due to Soviet's inability to provide storage, hence, resulted in
the dumping of the nuclear waste at sea.  According to Andre
Baiduzhy, "Dumping began in 1959, with nuclear submarines (as)
major culprits; can't stop dumping until reprocessing is in place
(not before 1997); 235 nuclear ships (407 reactors) produce more
radioactive waste than storage sites can take" (21). The effect of
nuclear dumping becomes apparent when Viktor Litovkin, Izvesta
staff, states that, "Every year, in the process of operating
nuclear-powered submarines and other vessels with nuclear
propulsion plants, up to 20,000 cubic meters of liquid radioactive
waste and up to 6,000 tons of solid waste is produced" (18).  
     Although, the USSR denies any wrong doing about the nuclear 
dumping, which has been made secretive due to the nature of its
system.  Baiduzhy cites a Soviet expert's response to a question
during the London conference about Soviet's dumping,"  the USSR has
not dumped, is not dumping and does not plan to dump any
radioactive wastes into the sea" (21).  However, Litovkin cites
Vice-Admiral Viktor Topilin, director of the Navy's Chief
Administration for Operation and Maintenance, who underscores the
truth about USSR involvement, "Under the law on protection of the
environment, we are forbidden to bury liquid and solid radioactive
waste at sea, as we did up until 1992.  Our storage facilities- two
in the North and two in the Far East - are almost 100% filled and
there's no place to put spent fuel" (18). The USSR runs a centrally
command system (lack of openness), which makes information very
difficult to come by.  

     According to Denise Chai, one of the dangers is that, "uranium
in nuclear fuel has a half-life of 24,000 years" (48). Even the
Greenpeace supports Chai's view that the radioactive effect
continues even after several years.  Denise further states that
"But the 3000 tons of liquid waste, with about 925 trillion
becquerals (tBq) of radioactivity, which were dumped in the Sea of
Japan in 1991 alone, are believed to have resulted in levels of
radioactivity several times higher than permissible Japanese
standards" (49). The impact could be devastating on the income of
fishermen and the coutry's sectoral revenue. Chug Name-Kwan,
director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Science and
Environment Division as cited by Denise, "Chug cannot hazard a
guess as to the impact of the waste on Korea's fishing industries,
since the 12 dumping sites are perhaps 'as large as the entire
Korean peninsular'" (49).  In addition, such dumping would have
impact on other marine animals and other organisms in the sea. 

21.       Species Information
22.       Impact and Effect: LOW/MEDIUM and PROD  
     As already mentioned, due to the lack of evidence of
contamination, the impact on the environment must be regarded as
low to medium.
23.       Urgency and Lifetime: ?
24.       Substitutes: LIKE
     If the fish should turn out to be contaminated, the industry
could turn to fish-farming in safer waters, thus producing a
substitute goods.

F.        Other Factors
25.       Culture: NO
26.       Human Rights: YES
     If it should become evident that the seas and its habitants
have been polluted, this could potentially hurt the livelihood of
thousands of people in Norway (and Russia), not to mention the
possible health risks that could be involved (especially for people
living on the Kola peninsula and in the border region). Thus,
human-rights must be seem as a potentially contributing factor in
this case.
27.       Trans-Border: YES
     This case does involve some trans-boundary problems,
especially because part of the Barents Sea is already a contentious
issue between Norway and Russia. Even though it seems that the dump
sites are within Russian water, radioactivity migrates and effects
other areas (the Norwegian Sea), thus creating potential
international problems. This case also ties into a larger picture
with includes the whole Kola Peninsula and the Russian-Norwegian
border area. This is a problem of immense magnitude and an
unthinkable level of pollution. Even though this is technically
Russia's problem, it has to be solved in cooperation with Norway
and the EU.

28.       Relevant Literature

Agafanov, Sergei. "Far East" Current Digest of the Post-Soviet
Press. June 9, 1993, V45n19, p16.

Anderson, Ian.  "License Row Hangs over Soviet Waste" New
Scientists. Dec 23, 1989, V124, n1696-1696, p.4.

Baiduzhy, Andre.  "Is Russia still Dumping Nuclear Waste at Sea?"
Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press.  May 5, 1993, V45n14, .p
21-22.

Broad, William J.; "Russians Describe Extensive Dumping of Nuclear
Waste", The New York Times, April 27, 1993.

Chai, Denise.  "Cold War's Legacy"  Business Korea. June 1993,
V10,n12, p 48-50.

Chazan, Guy, "Ecologist warns of danger from sunken sub",
United Press International, April 6, 1993.

"Chronology of Developments Concerning the Dumping of Radioactive
Wastes at Sea by the USSR/Russian Navy and Merchant Marine and the
Loss of Nuclear-Powered Vessels ar Sea, 1975-1993", Greenpeace,
March 3, 1993.

"Cruise report Norwegian/Russian Expedition to the Kara Sea,
August-September 1992".

Dahlburg, John-Thor, The Soviet's Deadly Nuclear Legacy, "Reader's
Digest" v.142 (March 1993), p.139-44.

"Economist", Pollution in Russia: Nuclear Winter, v.326, (Feb. 13,
1993 p.84-85.

Edwards, Mike, "After the Soviet Union's Collapse: A Broken
Empire", National Geographic v.183. (March 1993) p.2-53.

Environment Today, "U.S. Navy will help Russia Combat Nuclear Waste
in Arctic', v.4 (April, 1993) p.50.

"Greenpeace Position Regarding Dumped Reactors", Greenpeace,
Moscow, March 1993.

Johnston, Paul and Ruth Stringer. "Radioactive Waste Dumping in the
Kara Sea: A Critique of the Joint Russian/Norwegian Survey
Programme", University of Exeter, October, 1992.

Land, Thomas. "Nuclear Wastes Seek Home" Nature. Feb 13, 1992, V355
n6361, p580.

Litovkin, Viktor.  "More Environmental Disasters predicted for
Russia"  Current Digest of Post-Soviet Press.  August 4, 1993,
V45n27, p18-19.

MacKenzie, Debora, "Russia Owns up to Sea Burial for Nuclear
Waste", New Scientist v.138 (Apri 17, 1993), p.5.

MacKenzie, Debora, "Whole Reactors Lurk Under Barents Sea", New
Scientist v.137 (Feb. 13, 1993) p.9

Mallory, Maria, "Dropping a Bomb on Radioactive Junkyards",
Business Week, (July 3, 1989) p.29-30

Marshall, Eliot, "A Scramble for Data on Arctic Radioactive
Dumping", Science v.257 (July 31, 1992) p.608-9.

Millot, Lorraine, "A Cruise in the Atomic Sea", World Press Review,
v.40 (March 1993) p.20.

Monastersky, R. "Hazard from Soviet nuclear dump assessed", Science
News, May 15, 1993

Nilsen, Thomas and Nils Bohmer; Sources to radioactive
contamination in Murmansk and Arkangel'sk counties, The Bellona
Foundation, Oslo, 1994.

"Norway Escapes Nuclear Leak", Power Europe, March 26, 1992.

"Norway Fails to Substantiate Claim of Soviet Dumping of
Radioactive Wastes", BNA International Environment Daily, February
4, 1991.

Pasternak, Douglas.  "Moscow's Dirty Nuclear Secrets"  US News and
World Report.  Feb 10,1992, V112n5, p.46-47.

Perera, Judith; "Russia: Nuclear Systems to Be Monitored by
Norway", Inter Press Service, August 3, 1992.

"Radioactive Risk to Norwegian Waters", Power Europe, September 26,
1991.

"Russia says Soviets dumped Nuclear waste" News For You.  Jul 7,
1993, V41n26, p.2.

Sagers, Matthew J., "Nuclear Waste Illegally Dumped at Sea off
Novaya Zemlya", Soviet Geography v.32 (Dec. 1991) p.706-7.

Sakurai, Kiyoshi, From Russia with Love: Oceans Around Japan Full
of Nuclear Waste, Tokyo Business Today v.62 (April 1994) p.36-8.

Sanger, David E., Nuclear Material Dumped off Japan, New York Times
(Oct. 19, 1993) p.A1+

Schoenfeld, Gabriel, "Rad Strom Rising", Atlantic v.266 (Dec. 1990)
p.44-5.

"Scientists Begin Month-long Expedition to Investigate Sunken
Nuclear Submarine", BNA International Environment Daily, August 17,
1993.

Swinbanks, David, Japan to Study Damage from Russian Dumping,
"Nature" v.365 (Oct. 26, 1993) p.777.

Tarasov, Aleksei. "Commonwealth relations" Current Digest of the
Post-Soviet Press. February 12, 1992, V44n2, p.21.

"The Ocean-dumping debate"  US News and World Report. May 10, 1993,
V114n18, p.9.

Tyler, Patrick E.  "Soviet's Secret Nuclear Dumping Causes Worry
for Arctic Waters", The New York Times, May 4, 1992.

Walters, Robert, Poison in the Pacific, "Progressive" v.56 (July
1992) p.32-5.

Watson, Traci, Soviets Reported to have Dumped Nuclear Waste in
Arctic, "Nature" v.358. (Aug. 6, 1992)  p.444.

Whitney, Craig R., Russia Halts Nuclear Waste Dumping in Sea, "New
York Times" (Oct. 22, 1993) p.A9.

Zolotkov, Andrei, "On the Dumping of Radioactive Waste at Sea Near 
Novaya Zemlya", Greenpeace Nuclear Free Seas Campaign/Russian
Information Agency Seminar: "Violent Peace -- Deadly Legacy",
Moscow, September 23 and 24, 1991.

Zylam, Melana, Deep Trouble: Russian Nuclear Waste Dumped in Sea of
Japan, "Far Eastern Economic  Review" v.156 (March 18, 1993) p.21.



Go to Super Page1/11/97