91
Chapter 8
Summary
ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ
New information on actual and potential sources of ra-
during the first AMAP assessment, whereas the new esti-
dioactive contamination in the Arctic environment has
mates for doses to the indigenous populations in Canada
been provided for this assessment. More detailed knowl-
and northwest Russia were lower and higher, respec-
edge for several sources has enabled new impact assess-
tively. In both cases, the difference was due to revised es-
ments; however the major sources of radioactive contam-
timates of the intake of reindeer/caribou meat.
ination of the Arctic environment are still fallout from
Previously, the focus of radiation protection has been
atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted between
the protection of human health. A new initiative, high-
1945 and 1980, discharges from European spent nuclear
lighted in this assessment, is an attempt to develop a
fuel reprocessing plants, and fallout from the accident at
basis for protecting the environment from the effects of
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine in
radiation. An international consensus has emerged for
1986. Doses to humans are derived mainly from global
the rapid development of a system and framework for
fallout and fallout from the Chernobyl accident.
the protection of the environment. The International
A topic new to this assessment is the loss of the sub-
Union of Radioecology, with support from AMAP, was
marine Kursk of the Russian Northern Fleet off Mur-
one of the first international organizations to promote
mansk in August 2000 after an explosion on board. The
this. It is recommended that AMAP be asked to take an
Kursk has now been recovered and monitoring shows
active part in continued efforts to address environmental
that the accident did not result in any measurable re-
protection, taking special responsibility for the Arctic.
leases of radionuclides to the Arctic environment.
This should focus on the scientific needs associated with
In general, levels of radionuclides in the Arctic are
protection of the environment, and the development of
declining. The exceptions are seawater concentrations of
associated monitoring strategies and assessment tools.
the long-lived water-soluble fission products 99Tc and
The major concern regarding potential environmen-
129I. This is due to increased releases from nuclear fuel
tal contamination relates to accidents involving nuclear
reprocessing in Western Europe and supports the recom-
material, especially accidents at nuclear power plants.
mendation by AMAP in 2000 that the Arctic Council
Models show that a major accident at the Kola nuclear
encourage the United Kingdom to reduce the releases
power plant in Russia resulting in substantial release of
from Sellafield to the marine environment of tech-
radioactive material to the atmosphere would require
netium, by implementing best available technology.
countermeasures to avoid high radiation doses to the
There is evidence that sediments are now a source of
population, which may then need to be applied for sev-
Pu and 137Cs to the Arctic. Previous releases, such as
eral years. Vulnerability, expressed as dose from a given
those from Sellafield that have deposited in Irish Sea sed-
fallout, can vary considerably, even over small areas.
iments, are being remobilized such that these deposits
Owing to high transfer rates and long ecological half-
now act as sources to the Arctic. Thus, even if opera-
lives, previous deposition must be quantified when esti-
tional releases from reprocessing plants are reduced, ra-
mating the consequences of potential accidents. It is rec-
dionuclides remobilized from contaminated sediments in
ommended that AMAP be asked to clarify the vulnera-
the Irish Sea and the Baltic Sea will continue to be ob-
bility and impact of radioactivity on the Arctic environ-
served in the Arctic. Nevertheless, present doses to Arc-
ment and the consequences for emergency preparedness
tic peoples from radionuclides originating from spent
planning.
nuclear fuel reprocessing plants are small, although the
Major efforts are underway to reduce radiation risks
uncertainty surrounding the pathways to and effects of
associated with nuclear reactors and radioactive waste
such radionuclides in the Arctic indicates the need for
handling. Nevertheless, further improvements are war-
further assessment. Impacts on the Arctic should be con-
ranted. The main criterion of success for a nuclear safety
sidered when evaluating discharge reduction measures,
project is its net contribution to the improvement of nu-
and it is recommended that the Arctic Council support a
clear safety. Projects must be undertaken within a con-
more detailed study on the remobilization of radionu-
text that includes safety assessments and environmental
clides from sediment and its potential long-term effects
impact assessments that incorporate a variety of risk
on the Arctic.
analyses, to demonstrate compliance with risk objectives
Despite the decline in current levels, there is continu-
relating to environmental and human health protection.
ing uncertainty about the amount of radionuclides pres-
Future effort will continue to be concentrated on the
ent at a number of sources and potential sources in the
areas of greatest risk and the operations and facilities
Arctic. Access to information about civilian and military
that pose the greatest potential threat. To reduce risk, to
sources continues to be a problem. It is recommended
mitigate the consequences of possible future accidents,
that the Arctic Council promotes more openness for re-
and to optimize the use of resources, work has been un-
stricted information.
dertaken on risk management and risk analysis of nu-
New work has been done on doses to populations in
clear activities and on assessments of the vulnerability of
the Faroe Islands, Canada, and northwest Russia. Doses
Arctic areas. This provides a basis for improved emer-
to the non-indigenous populations in Russia and to the
gency prevention, preparedness, and response to nuclear
Faroe Islands' population were the same as estimated
incidents, with the optimal use of resources.

92
AMAP Assessment 2002: Radioactivity in the Arctic
It is recommended that risk and impact assessment
health and safety risks immediately before, during, and
programs, including uncertainty estimates, be performed
after a risk reducing initiative. Although such coopera-
before action is taken to reduce risk. Risk and impact as-
tion has not been prioritized to date, current coopera-
sessments, including accident scenarios, should be un-
tion between the authorities responsible for radiation
dertaken for the transport of nuclear waste and fuel
protection, environmental protection, and nuclear safety
within the Arctic and nearby areas, and with regard to
is working well and contributing to effective interna-
storage and reprocessing within the Arctic and nearby
tional programs. Such efforts are not costly and con-
areas. Since the first AMAP assessment, nuclear safety
tribute significantly to the development of large multi-
programs have been undertaken in Russia at nuclear
lateral internationally funded projects. At the same time,
power plants and other nuclear installations relevant to
they have wider significance ญ one consequence is that
the Arctic. It is recommended that the Arctic Council
Russian management practices and demands relating to
continue its cooperation with Russia to improve the
radiation protection are now becoming more transpar-
safety and safeguarding of nuclear installations and
ent and more compatible with international guidelines.
waste sites.
A further strengthening of the Russian authorities re-
Co-operation is required between relevant authori-
sponsible for nuclear protection would increase their
ties on the development of initiatives concerning health
ability to effectively implement these improved manage-
and safety, and preparedness. Of particular interest are
ment practices.