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.