AMAP Assessment 2009: Radioactivity in the Arctic

106 Pages·2010·13.13 MB·English

A AMAP Assessment 2009:
M
A
P

A Radioactivity in the Arctic
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9
:

R
a
d
i
o
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
n

t
h
e

A
r
c
t
i
c
A
M
A
P Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)
ISBN 13 978-82-7971-059-2
Abbreviations
ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
AMAP Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
AMOC Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
Bq Becquerel
Ci Curie
CO Carbon dioxide
2
CR Concentration ratio
DCC Dose conversion coefficient
DL Detection limit
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
dw Dry weight
EARP Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EPIC Environmental Protection from Ionizing Contaminants
ERICA Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment and Management
FMBA Federal Medical-Biological Agency (Russia)
Gy Gray
HAL Highly active liquor
HLW Vitrified high-level waste
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LLW Low-level waste
MLW Medium-level waste
MOX Mixed oxide
NRPA Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
O Oxygen
2
PA Production Association (Russia)
POP Persistent organic pollutant
RAPS Reference Animals and Plants
RTG Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
Sev RAO Federal State Unitary Enterprise (Russia)
SMP Strategic Master Plan (Russia)
STS Sites of Temporary Storage
STUK Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
Sv Sievert
TENORM Technologically enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive material
UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
ww Wet weight

Main radionuclides discussed
Am Americium
Be Beryllium
Cs Cesium
I Iodine
Pb Lead
Po Polonium
Pu Plutonium
Ra Radium
Sr Strontium
Tc Technetium
AMAP Assessment 2009:
Radioactivity in the Arctic
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 2010
ii
AMAP Assessment 2009: AMAP Working Group:
Radioactivity in the Arctic Russel Shearer (Chair, Canada), Fred Wrona (Canada), Mikala Klint
(Denmark), Henrik Larsen (Denmark), Morten Olsen (Vice-chair,
ISBN 13 978-82-7971-059-2 Denmark), Outi Mähönen (Finland), Helgi Jensson (Iceland), Per
© Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Døvle (Norway), Yuri Tsaturov (Vice-chair, Russia), Yngve Brodin
Programme, 2010 (Sweden), Tom Armstrong (USA), John Calder (Vice-chair, USA),
Jan-Idar Solbakken (Permanent Participants of the indigenous
Published by peoples organisations).
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Programme (AMAP), P.O. Box 8100 AMAP Secretariat:
Dep, N-0032 Oslo, Lars-Otto Reiersen, Simon Wilson, Yuri Sychev, Janet Pawlak, Inger
Norway (www.amap.no) Utne.
Citation Indigenous peoples’ organizations, AMAP observing countries, and
AMAP, 2010. AMAP Assessment 2009: international organizations:
Radioactivity in the Arctic. Arctic Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council
Monitoring and Assessment (AAC), Gwitch’in Council International (GCI), Inuit Circumpolar
Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. Conference (ICC), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the
xii + 92 pp. North, Siberia and Far East (RAIPON), Saami Council.
France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom.
Ordering
AMAP Secretariat, P.O. Box 8100 Dep, Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS), Arctic
N-0032 Oslo, Norway Circumpolar Route (ACR), Association of World Reindeer Herders
(AWRH), Circumpolar Conservation Union (CCU), European
This report is also published as Environment Agency (EEA), International Arctic Science Committee
electronic documents, available from (IASC), International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA),
the AMAP website at www.amap.no International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFFCRCS), International Union for
Production Circumpolar Health (IUCH), International Union for the Conserva-
tion of Nature (IUCN), International Union of Radioecology (IUR),
Scientific, technical and linguistic International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Nordic
editing Council of Ministers (NCM), Nordic Council of Parliamentarians
Carolyn Symon (carolyn.symon@ (NCP), Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO), North
btinternet.com) Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), Northern Forum
(NF), OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), OSPAR Commission
Lay-out and technical production (OSPAR), Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic
management Region (SCPAR), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
Nel Punt ([email protected]) and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE), United
Frits Steenhuisen (Arctic Centre, Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), University of the Arctic
University of Groningen) (UArctic), World Health Organization (WHO), World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
Design and production of
computer graphics AMAP data centers:
Frits Steenhuisen (Arctic Centre, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Norwe-
University of Groningen) and John gian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Norwegian Radiation
Bellamy ([email protected]) Protection Authority (NRPA), University of Alaska – Fairbanks (UAF).
Cover photograph
Reconstruction of nuclear waste storage
facilities at Andreeva Bay, Russia. Photo
courtesy of N. McAtamney, Nuvia Ltd.,
UK
Printing and binding
Narayana Press, Gylling, DK-8300
Odder, Denmark (www.narayanapress.
dk); a Swan-labelled printing company,
541 562
iii
Contents
Preface v 3.3.5. Coal mining and energy production from
Acknowledgements vi coal 24
Executive Summary to the Arctic Pollution 2009 3.3.5.1. Coal mining at Svalbard 24
Ministerial Report vii 3.3.6. Geothermal energy production 25
1 Introduction 1 4 Monitoring 26

4.1. Radionuclides in the atmospheric
2 Sources of Artificial Radionuclides 2 environment 26
4.1.1. Alaska, USA 26
2.1. Existing sources 2 4.1.2. Canada 26
2.1.1. Northwest Russia 2 4.1.2.1. Artificial radionuclides 26
2.1.1.1. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators 3 4.1.2.2. Natural radionuclides 27
2.1.1.2. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines 4 4.1.3. Norway 28
2.1.1.3. Andreeva Bay and Gremikha 6 4.1.4. Finland 29
2.1.2. Mayak 7 4.1.5. Russia 29
2.1.3. Sellafield 10
2.1.3.1. Discharges to the Irish Sea 10 4.2. Radionuclides in the marine environment 30
2.1.3.2. Accident scenarios 11 4.2.1. 129I transport from Western Europe to
2.1.4. La Hague 11 North American coastal waters 30
2.1.5. Operational releases from nuclear 4.2.2. Seawater 31
powerplants and other industrial facilities 11 4.2.2.1. 99Tc in seawater 32
2.1.6. Abrosimov Bay 12 4.2.3. Seaweed 33
2.1.7. Thule 14 4.2.4. Fish 33
4.2.5. Seabirds 34
2.2. Potential sources 16 4.2.6. Cetaceans 34
2.2.1. Floating nuclear power plants 16
2.2.2. Transport of spent nuclear fuel along the 4.3. Radionuclides in the terrestrial and
Norwegian coastline 16 freshwater environments 35
2.2.2.1. Concentrations of radionuclides in biota/ 4.3.1. 137Cs in soil 35
seafood 17 4.3.2. Lakes, rivers and fish species 35
2.2.2.2. Doses to the critical group 17 4.3.3. Wild berries 38
2.2.2.3. Doses to marine organisms 17 4.3.4. Fungi 38
2.2.2.4. Concluding comments 17 4.3.5. 90Sr and 137Cs in deposition, grass and milk 39
4.3.6. The lamb food chain 40
4.3.7. Reindeer and their forage 42
3 TENORM 19 4.3.8. Humans 43
3.1. Introduction 19 4.4. Concluding comments 44
3.1.1. Natural radioactivity 19
3.1.2. Primordial radionuclides 20
3.1.3. Serial radionuclides 20 5 Protection of the Arctic Environment 45
3.2. Typical levels of natural radioactivity 20 5.1. Background 45
5.1.1. Environmental protection – Arctic legal
3.3. TENORM industries 20 regime 45
3.3.1. Oil and gas industry 21 5.1.2. Special considerations for the protection
3.3.1.1. Northern Canada and Alaska 22 of the Arctic environment 45
3.3.1.2. Norwegian Sea 22 5.1.3. Recent developments 45
3.3.2. Uranium mining 22 5.1.4. Emerging framework 46
3.3.2.1. Northern Canada 22
3.3.2.2. Finland 23 5.2. Problem formulation and pre-assessment
3.3.3. Mining for metals other than uranium 23 considerations 47
3.3.4. Phosphate mining and processing 24 5.2.1. Radionuclides considered 47
3.3.4.1. Phosphate mining in Finland 24 5.2.2. Reference organisms 47
iv
6.3. Terrestrial Arctic radioecology and climate
5.3. Exposure assessment 48 change 67
5.3.1. Radionuclide transfer to biota 48 6.3.1. Radon 67
5.3.1.1. Transfer in terrestrial environments 48 6.3.2. Soil-to-plant transfer 68
5.3.1.2. Transfer in freshwater environments 49 6.3.3. Specific climate vulnerabilities for Arctic
5.3.1.3. Transfer in marine environments 49 radioecology 69
5.3.2. EPIC transfer look-up tables 51
5.3.3. Identification and management of transfer 6.4. Arctic marine radioactivity and climate 70
data gaps 51 6.4.1. Anticipating changes 70
5.3.4. Some criticisms of the concentration-ratio 6.4.1.1. Sea ice 70
approach 52 6.4.1.2. Dense water formation 70
5.3.5. Absorbed dose rates 52 6.4.1.3. Precipitation and river runoff 70
5.3.5.1. EPIC methodology for deriving dose 6.4.2. Arctic Ocean circulation and transport of
conversion coefficients 52 radioactivity 71
5.3.5.2. ERICA’s dosimetric approach 53 6.4.3. Consequences for Arctic marine radioactivity 71
5.3.6. Dose rate calculation 54 6.4.3.1. Ocean transport 71
6.4.3.2. Transport by sea ice 72
5.4. Placing the exposure estimates in context 55 6.4.3.3. River water 73
5.4.1. Background dose rates in Arctic 6.4.3.4. Precipitation 73
environments 55
5.4.2. Effects of radiation within the Arctic 55 6.5. Uptake of radioactivity 73
5.4.2.1. Compilation of data on dose-effect 6.5.1. Freshwater environment 73
relationships 56 6.5.2. Marine environment 75
5.4.2.2. Effects and climate change 57
5.4.2.3. Possible multi-stressor effects 57
5.4.3. Criteria and standards 57 7 Arctic Ecosystem Vulnerability,
5.4.3.1. General 57 Human Exposure and Resource
5.4.3.2. Arctic 58 Impacts 78
5.5. Risk characterization 59 7.1. Management of threats, risks and harm 78
5.5.1. Assigning probability distributions to input
data and parameters 59 7.2. Risk profile and recommendations in 2002 79
5.5.2. Undertaking uncertainty and sensitivity
analyses 59 7.3. International developments in protection
5.5.2.1. Monte Carlo analysis 59 standards and their implementation 80
5.6. Available assessment tools and examples of 7.4. Progress and ongoing threat and risk
their use 60 mitigating activities 80
5.6.1. Case study: Integrated environmental
management of the Barents Sea 60 7.5. Trends in threats and risks 81
5.6.2. Case study: Komi Republic 60 7.5.1. Threats and risks arising within the Arctic 81
7.5.2. Threats and risks arising remote from the
5.7. Concluding comments 62 Arctic 81
7.5.3. Impacts 81
6 Climate Change 63 7.6. Status of implementation of the AMAP 2002
recommendations 81
6.1. Introduction 63
6.1.1. The IPCC, ACIA and AMAP assessments 63 References 83
6.1.2. Potential impacts on possible sources of
radioactive contamination in the Arctic 64 Abbreviations
6.1.3. Arctic radioprotection 65
6.2. Actual and potential sources of
anthropogenic radioactivity 65
6.2.1. Nuclear facilities in the Arctic – vulnerability 65
6.2.2. Power plants 65
6.2.3. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators 66
6.2.4. Tundra 66
6.2.5. Ice masses 67
v
Preface
This assessment report details the results of the 2009 AMAP in the preparation of the assessment. Lead countries for this
assessment of Radioactivity in the Arctic. It builds upon the AMAP Radioactivity Assessment were Norway and Russia.

previous AMAP radioactivity assessments that were present- The assessment is based on work conducted by a large
ed in 1998* and 2002**. number of scientists and experts from the Arctic countries

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (Canada, Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands, Finland, Ice-

(AMAP) is a group working under the Arctic Council. The land, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States),
Arctic Council Ministers have requested AMAP: together with contributions from indigenous peoples organ-
izations, from other organizations, and from experts in other
• to produce integrated assessment reports on the status and countries.
trends of the conditions of the Arctic ecosystems; AMAP would like to express its appreciation to all of these
• to identify possible causes for the changing conditions; experts, who have contributed their time, effort, and data;
• to detect emerging problems, their possible causes, and the and especially to the lead experts who coordinated the pro-
potential risk to Arctic ecosystems including indigenous duction of this report, and to referees who provided valuable
peoples and other Arctic residents; and comments and helped ensure the quality of the report. A list
• to recommend actions required to reduce risks to Arctic of the main contributors is included in the acknowledge-
ecosystems. ments on page vi of this report. The list is not comprehen-
sive. Specifically, it does not include the many national insti-
This report is one of the detailed assessment reports that tutes, laboratories and organizations, and their staff, which
provide the accessible scientific basis and validation for the have been involved in the various countries. Apologies, and
statements and recommendations made in the AMAP State of no lesser thanks, are given to any individuals unintentionally
the Arctic Environment report, ‘Arctic Pollution 2009’ that omitted from the list. Special thanks are due to the lead
was delivered to Arctic Council Ministers at their meeting in authors responsible for the preparation of the various chap-
Tromsø, Norway in April 2009. It includes extensive back- ters of this report.
ground data and references to the scientific literature, and The support of the Arctic countries is vital to the success
details the sources for figures reproduced in the ‘Arctic Pol- of AMAP. AMAP work is essentially based on ongoing activi-
lution 2009’*** report. Whereas the ‘Arctic Pollution 2009’ ties within the Arctic countries, and the countries also pro-
report contains recommendations that specifically focus on vide the necessary support for most of the experts involved
actions aimed at improving the Arctic environment, the in the preparation of the assessments. In particular, AMAP
conclusions and recommendations presented in this report would like to express its appreciation to Norway and Russia
also cover issues of a more scientific nature, such as propos- for undertaking a lead role in supporting the Radioactivity
als for filling gaps in knowledge, and recommendations rel- assessment. Special thanks are also offered to the Nordic
evant to future monitoring and research work, etc. Council of Ministers for their financial support to the work
To allow readers of this report to see how AMAP inter- of AMAP, and to sponsors of projects that have delivered data
prets and develops its scientifically-based assessment prod- for use in this assessment.
uct in terms of more action-orientated conclusions and rec- The AMAP Working Group that was established to over-
ommendations, the ‘Executive Summary of the Arctic see this work, and the AMAP radioactivity expert group are
Pollution 2009 Ministerial Report’, which also covers other pleased to present its assessment.
priority issues (Persistent Organic Pollutants, and Radioac-
tivity), is reproduced in this report on pages vii to xii. Russel Shearer
The AMAP assessment is not a formal environmental risk AMAP Working Group Chair
assessment. Rather, it constitutes a compilation of current
knowledge about the Arctic region, an evaluation of this Per Strand
information in relation to agreed criteria of environmental AMAP Radioactivity assessment co-lead (Norway)
quality, and a statement of the prevailing conditions in the
area. The assessment presented in this report was prepared Yuri Tsaturov
in a systematic and uniform manner to provide a compara- AMAP Radioactivity assessment co-lead (Russia)
ble knowledge base that builds on earlier work and can be
extended through continuing work in the future. Lars-Otto Reiersen
The AMAP scientific assessments are prepared under the AMAP Executive Secretary
direction of the AMAP Assessment Steering Group. The
product is the responsibility of the scientific experts involved Oslo, August 2010
* AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xii+859 pp.
** AMAP, 2004. AMAP Assessment 2002: Radioactivity in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xi+100 pp.
*** AMAP, 2009. Arctic Pollution 2009. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xi+83 pp.
vi
Acknowledgements
The AMAP Working Group would like to thank the following persons Contributors:
for their work in preparing the AMAP 2009 Radioactivity Assessment. Frits Steenhuisen, Arctic Centre, University of Groningen, Groningen,
Netherlands
Assessment Leads: Jarkko Ylipieti, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK),
Per Strand, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, Rovaniemi, Finland
Norway Antti Tynkkynen, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
Yuri Tsaturov, Roshydromet, Moscow, Russia (STUK), Rovaniemi, Finland
Coordinating Editors: Provision of data:
Per Strand Unless otherwise indicated, original graphics presented in this report
Yuri Tsaturov were prepared by the AMAP Radioactivity Thematic Data Centre at the
Astrid Liland, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA). The majority of
Norway the data incorporated in the graphics were provided by the following
Martin Ytre-Eide, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, organizations:
Norway
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, AK, USA
Contributing Authors: Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Rovaniemi,
Justin Brown, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, Finland
Norway Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), Østerås, Norway
Ann Heinrich, Office of International Emergency Management and Radiation Research Department, Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde,
Cooperation, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, USA Denmark
Mikhail Iosjpe, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, Roshydromet, Moscow, Russia
Norway University of the Faroe Islands, Thorshavn, Faroe Islands
Hans Pauli Joensen, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Radiation Protection Bureau, Canada
the Faroe Islands, Argir, Faroe Islands
Vincent McClelland, Office of International Emergency Management
and Cooperation, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, USA
Alexander Nikitin, SPA Typhoon, Roshydromet, Obninsk, Russia
Morten Sickel, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Dina Solatie, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK),
Rovaniemi, Finland
Bliss Tracy, Radiological Impact Section, Radiation Protection Bureau,
Health Canada
Sven P. Nielsen, Radiation Research Division, Risø National Laboratory
for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde,
Denmark
Mark Dowdall, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Lavrans Skuterud, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Håvard Thørring, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Mahwash Ajaz, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Ali Hosseini, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Torbjørn Gäfvert, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Ingar Amundsen, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Malgorzata Sneve, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås,
Norway
Ari-Pekka Leppänen, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
(STUK), Rovaniemi, Finland
Maarit Muikku, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
(STUK), Rovaniemi, Finland
Jussi Paatero, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK),
Rovaniemi, Finland
Graham Smith, consultant to Norwegian Radiation Protection
Authority
Yuri Tsaturov
Sergei Vakulovski, SPA 'Typhoon', Obninsk, Russia
vii
Executive Summary to the Arctic Pollution 2009 Ministerial Report
Preamble
peer review and are in the process of being published in
AMAP scientific assessment reports or scientific journals. All
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) of these documents are made available on the AMAP website,
was established in 1991 to monitor identified pollution risks www.amap.no.
and their impacts on Arctic ecosystems. The first AMAP This Executive Summary provides the main conclusions
report, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Envi- and recommendations of the 2009 AMAP assessments.
ronment Report1 and its update Arctic Pollution 20022 were
published in 1997 and 2002, respectively. Three further
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP s)
reports have been published on specific topics: the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment3 (produced by AMAP in coopera-
tion with the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna work-
Legacy POP s
ing group and the International Arctic Science Committee in
2004), and reports on Acidification and Arctic Haze4 (2006) P1. Levels of many POPs have declined in the Arctic environ-
and Arctic Oil and Gas5 (2008). ment. This is a consequence of past bans and restrictions on
These assessments show that the Arctic is closely con- uses and emissions in Arctic and other countries. ‘Legacy’
nected to the rest of the world. The Arctic receives contami- POPs that contaminate the Arctic mainly as a result of past
nants from sources far outside the Arctic region; Arctic cli- use and emissions include PCB s, DDT s, HCB, chlordane, diel-
mate influences the global climate and vice versa. The AMAP drin, toxaphene, and dioxins.
assessment reports have been welcomed by the Arctic gov- P2. National policy efforts to reduce the use and emis-
ernments, who have agreed to increase their efforts to limit sions of these POP s have been extended regionally and glo-
and reduce emissions of contaminants into the environment bally through the UN ECE LRTAP POP s Protocol and Stock-
and to promote international cooperation in order to address holm Convention, respectively. These initiatives made
the serious pollution risks and adverse effects of Arctic cli- extensive use of the information presented in AMAP assess-
mate change reported by AMAP. ments. The Stockholm Convention on POP s explicitly
AMAP information assisted in the establishment, and acknowledges that “... Arctic ecosystems and indigenous
continues to assist the further evaluation and development communities are particularly at risk.” The occurrence of
of the protocols on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and chemicals in the Arctic can be evidence of their ability for
heavy metals to the United Nations Economic Commission long-range transport and environmental persistence.
for Europe’s (UN ECE) Convention on Long-range Trans- P3. Firm conclusion about the impact of policy decision
boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Convention) and the Stock- on environmental levels will require continued monitoring
holm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Infor- of ‘legacy POP s’ in both abiotic environments and in key
mation from AMAP is useful in documenting trends and in biota. AMAP information on temporal trends in the Arctic
showing whether persistent substances are accumulating in has contributed to the evaluation of the ‘effectiveness and
the Arctic, which is relevant with respect to the screening sufficiency’ of the UN ECE LRTAP Convention Protocol on
criteria for persistence, long-range transport, and bioaccu- POP s, and the Stockholm Convention.
mulation that are applied to proposals to add substances to P4. Additional years of monitoring are needed to increase
the above international agreements. statistical power of existing time series in order to verify
The Arctic Council’s Arctic Contaminants Action Pro- temporal trends. This will allow examination of the response
gram (ACAP) was established to undertake cooperative to efforts to reduce global emissions and how this may be
actions to reduce pollution of the Arctic as a direct follow-up affected by climate variability and possible changes in con-
to address the concerns raised by AMAP. AMAP information taminant pathways.
is also used in establishing priorities for the Arctic Council/ P5. Despite these reductions, concentrations of some
PAME Regional Programme of Action for the Protection of legacy POP s, such as PCBs in some top predators in the
the Arctic Marine Environment from Land-based Activities marine food web, are still high enough to affect the health of
(RPA). A number of activities have been initiated to follow- wildlife and humans.
up on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
The current assessment report updates to the informa-
Emerging and current-use POPS
tion presented in the AMAP 1997 and 2002 assessment reports
with respect to three subject areas: persistent organic pollut- P6. Many chemicals in commercial use today have the poten-
ants, contaminants and human health, and radioactivity. tial to transport to and accumulate in the Arctic but are not yet
The POPs update has a particular emphasis on ‘emerging’ regulated by international agreements. Although knowledge
and current use POPs. The human health update addresses about these chemicals in the Arctic remains much more lim-
health effects of POPs, mercury, and lead exposure. ited than for legacy POP s, new monitoring efforts have extend-
The information presented in the Arctic Pollution 2009 ed the information concerning their presence in the Arctic.
report is based on scientific information compiled for AMAP This information is relevant to ongoing consideration of new
by scientists and experts, as listed on page 83. The back- chemicals for inclusion under existing national, regional and
ground documents to this assessment have been subject to global agreements to regulate use and emissions of POPs.
viii
P7. Many of these compounds transport over long dis- Time trends of PFOS in wildlife show an initial increase
tances and accumulate in Arctic food webs. New knowledge starting in the mid-1980s. In recent years, some studies
highlights the potential importance of ocean transport path- show a continuing increase while others show a sharp
ways. In contrast to atmospheric pathways ocean currents decline. The declines follow reduction in PFOS production.
are slow. This may delay the environmental response to reg- PFCA s have increased in Arctic wildlife since the 1990s,
ulations. reflecting continued production of their precursors.
P8. Compounds that have some POP characteristics and
that are documented in the current AMAP assessment • Polychlorinated naphthalenes
include: Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCN s) are no longer man-
ufactured and levels in the environment peaked almost
• Brominated flame retardants (BFR s) half a century ago. However, PCN s are still present in the
The current AMAP assessment includes new information Arctic with indications of further input from a combina-
on three groups of chemicals used as flame retardants: tion of combustion sources and emission from old prod-
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE s) (including Pen- ucts. There are no studies to assess their temporal trends in
ta-, Octa- and Deca-BDE s), Hexabromocyclododecane the Arctic. They contribute to dioxin-like toxicity in Arctic
(HCBD) and tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA). The assess- animals but are generally much less important than PCB s.
ment shows that:
Penta-BDE transports over long distances and bioaccu- • Endosulfan
mulates in biota. Penta-BDE and Octa-BDEs have been Endosulfan is a pesticide that is still in use in many parts
banned/restricted in Europe, parts of North America. They of the world. Endosulfan and its breakdown products
are no longer produced in Russia and use there is very lim- appear to be persistent in the environment. The presence
ited. Penta-BDE and Octa-BDE s are under consideration of endosulfan in the Arctic confirms its ability to transport
for inclusion under the international Conventions regulat- over long distances. There is clear indication of bioaccu-
ing POP s; Deca-BDE s are now restricted in the EU. mulation in fish but there is no evidence for biomagnifica-
HBCD is ubiquitous in the Arctic. It undergoes long- tion by marine mammals.
range transport and accumulates in animals. It has also Long-term trend analysis of samples taken at Alert
been proposed as a candidate for inclusion under interna- (Ellesmere Island, Canada) indicates that endosulfan con-
tional regulations. centrations have remained unchanged in the remote Arctic
There is some evidence that environmental levels of Pen- atmosphere, unlike most legacy POP s. Calculations based
ta-BDE are now starting to level off or decline due to on air and seawater concentrations suggest that endosul-
national regulations and reductions in use and production. fan enters open (i.e. ice-free) waters of the Arctic Ocean.
TBPPA is present at low levels in several Arctic animals and The limited information available in wildlife indicates
plants, but more data are needed to assess its potential to that concentrations of endosulfan and its breakdown
undergo long-range transport. product endosulfan sulphate in blubber of marine mam-
Some BFR s that are used as substitutes for phased-out mals are an order of magnitude lower than those of major
substances have been detected in occasional Arctic sam- legacy POP s such as DDT and chlordane.
ples. Their presence in the Arctic is a warning sign that Endosulfan is currently under discussion for inclusion
they may have some POP characteristics. under the UN-ECE LRTAP POP s Protocol and the Stockholm
Convention.
• Fluorinated compounds
Fluorinated compounds reach the Arctic both via the • Other current-use pesticides
atmosphere and via ocean currents. They are extremely Previous AMAP assessments have highlighted lindane
persistent and accumulate in animals that are high in the (gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane [HCH]) as a current-use
marine food web. pesticide that is ubiquitously present in the Arctic. Several
Production of products containing perfluorooctane sul- other current use pesticides (including chlorpyrifos, chlo-
fonate (PFOS) was substantially reduced in 2001, but PFOS rothalonil, dacthal, diazinon, diclofol, methoxychlor, and
continues to be produced in China. Products that contain trifluralin) have been detected in the Arctic. The levels are
PFOS and other fluorinated compounds can still serve as often low, but their presence shows that they can transport
sources to the environment. PFOS and related compounds over long distances and accumulate in the food web.
are currently subject to review for both international and
national regulation.
Biological effects
Perfluorooctanate (PFOA) and other perfluorocarboxy-
lates (PFCAs) continue to be produced. Fluorinated sub- P9. Recent studies of biological effects of POP s have been
stances can also degrade to PFOA and other PFCAs. Canada able to confirm the causal link between POP s and observa-
is the only Arctic country so far to ban some import and tions of adverse health effects in Arctic top predators. These
manufacture of several products that are suspected to controlled experiments on sled-dogs and captive Arctic fox-
break down to PFOA and PFCA s. es show effects on hormone, immune and reproductive sys-
Precursors of PFOS and PFCA s have been detected in Arc- tems.
tic air and may be a source of PFOS and PFCA s in Arctic P10. The observed effects are mainly due to the break-
wildlife. Concentrations in Arctic air are one order of mag- down products, indicating that these may be more impor-
nitude lower than in more southern, urban regions. tant than the original POP compounds.