|
With the exception of Finland, all the countries bordering the Arctic
area have oil terminals, or major transportation routes of oil or hazardous
materials in their Arctic areas. Other human activities include the exploitation
of petroleum and mineral resources by all countries except Finland and
Sweden. Iceland has a hazardous materials waste site, and the Russian
Federation has several nuclear sites and radioactive waste sites in its
Arctic area. An environmental risk survey of human activities in the Arctic,
carried out under the auspices of the Arctic Council, concluded that the
greatest threat from a release of a pollutant requiring emergency response
is the transportation and storage of oil. Nuclear sites, although assessed
as less of a threat overall, could affect much larger areas (EPPR 1997).
Pipeline ruptures and leakages, such as in the Usinsk area of Russia
in 1994 when 116 million litres of crude oil were spilled (Oil Spill Intelligence
Report 2002), and the Exxon Valdez tanker accident in Alaska in
1989 with almost 50 million litres of crude oil spilled (NOAA 2001), are
examples of catastrophic environmental impacts in the region. Many smaller
accidents, such as uncontrolled oil gushers and the accidental discharge
of contaminated mud during drilling, also result in local environmental
pollution (AMAP 1997).
Both past and current activities involving radioactive
materials in the Arctic create a high potential risk of accidents, although
there has been no large-scale radioactive pollution yet. For example, accidents
such as the sinking of the Soviet nuclear submarine Komsomolets in
1989 and the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk in 2000, and the crash
of a US aircraft with nuclear weapons aboard near Thule in Greenland in
1968, did not result in the release of radioactive substances to the environment.
The Soviet Union dumped high, intermediate and low level radioactive
waste in the Kara and Barents Seas between 1959 and 1991 (see map), including
six nuclear submarine reactors and a shielding assembly from an icebreaker
reactor containing spent fuel (AMAP 1997). Since then, the research and
data collected have indicated that no significant amounts of radioactive
materials have migrated from the dumping, and only very local samples
show elevated radionuclide levels. The major risks may be over the long
term as the containers corrode.
Radioactive contamination from European reprocessing plants in the 1970s
and atmospheric weapons testing in the 1960s have contributed to current
low-level Arctic contamination (AMAP 1997, OTA 1995). There is limited
data on how much or where radioactive materials have been dumped in the
Arctic, and any of these sites may be 'a disaster waiting to happen' (AMAP
1997).
Governments, businesses and international organizations are all taking
action to increase disaster preparedness in the region. Intergovernmental
cooperation is carried out on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis,
especially via the Arctic Council. Two of the Arctic Council's programmes
- Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR), and Protection
of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) - have produced important information
and guidelines on environmental risks in the Arctic. For example, EPPR
developed the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines aimed at regulatory
agencies in 1997. A guideline on the transfer of petroleum products from
ship to shore and ship to ship has been produced by PAME (Arctic Council
2001). The IUCN and the Oil and Gas Producers Association have prepared
guidelines for environmental protection in the Arctic and sub-Arctic (IUCN
and E&P Forum 1993).
|