Elsevier

Environmental Research

Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 316-323
Environmental Research

A model for selecting bioindicators to monitor radionuclide concentrations using Amchitka Island in the Aleutians as a case study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2007.05.017Get rights and content

Abstract

World War II and the Cold War have left the Unites States, and other Nations, with massive cleanup and remediation tasks for radioactive and other legacy hazardous wastes. While some sites can be cleaned up to acceptable residential risk levels, others will continue to hold hazardous wastes, which must be contained and monitored to protect human health and the environment. While media (soil, sediment, groundwater) monitoring is the usual norm at many radiological waste sites, for some situations (both biological and societal), biomonitoring may provide the necessary information to assure greater peace of mind for local and regional residents, and to protect ecologically valuable buffer lands or waters. In most cases, indicators are selected using scientific expertise and a literature review, but not all selected indicators will seem relevant to stakeholders. In this paper, I provide a model for the inclusion of stakeholders in the development of bioindicators for assessing radionuclide levels of biota in the marine environment around Amchitka Island, in the Aleutian Chain of Alaska. Amchitka was the site of three underground nuclear tests from 1965 to 1971. The process was stakeholder-initiated, stakeholder-driven, and included stakeholders during each phase. Phases included conceptualization, initial selection of biota and radionuclides, refinement of biota and radionuclide target lists, collection of biota, selection of biota and radionuclides for analysis, and selection of biota, tissues, and radionuclides for bioindicators. The process produced site-specific information on biota availability and on radionuclide levels that led to selection of site-appropriate bioindicators. I suggest that the lengthy, iterative, stakeholder-driven process described in this paper results in selection of bioindicators that are accepted by biologists, public health personnel, public-policy makers, resource agencies, regulatory agencies, subsistence hunters/fishers, and a wide range of other stakeholders. The process is applicable to other sites with ecologically important buffer lands or waters, or where contamination issues are contentious.

Introduction

Governmental and non-governmental agencies, Tribal Nations, scientists, conservationists, managers, regulators, and the public are increasingly interested in assessing and monitoring public health and that of species, populations, communities, and ecosystems. This interest has led to the development of assessment tools and biomonitoring plans aimed at determining the overall health of species and ecosystems that both affect human health directly, and are sentinels or indicators of human health. Biota can serve as indicators of potential harm to people living within a system and consuming food from that system (Piotrowski, 1985; Peakall, 1992; DiGuilio and Monosson, 1996; Burger and Gochfeld, 1996, Burger and Gochfeld, 2001, Burger and Gochfeld, 2004; Carignan and Villard, 2001; Burger, 2006). Bioindicators and biomarkers need to be developed to fit the specific assessment needs of humans and the environment, within the framework of governmental, Tribal, and public needs. Long-term monitoring programs, and their associated bioindicators, require the interest and support of the general public, as well as governmental acceptance and commitment, since public funds are needed to conduct these programs.

One of the largest biomonitoring tasks facing the Nation is that of assessing and monitoring radiological and other hazardous wastes produced by the nuclear weapons complex. The Cold War left the United States, and other Nations, with massive cleanup and remediation tasks for radioactive and other legacy hazardous wastes. The legacy waste complex, administered by the Department of Energy (DOE), has over 100 sites in 34 states (Crowley and Ahearne, 2002). Some of these sites can be cleaned up and returned to other uses, but some have hazardous wastes that will need to be contained in place for centuries, and monitoring tools are required to assure the public of continued safety. Monitoring tools are essential for both contaminated sites, and buffer lands around these sites. While media (soil, sediment, groundwater) monitoring is the usual norm at many radionuclide waste sites, for some situations, where biological resources are critical and recreational or subsistence use is high, biomonitoring may lead to more cost-effective and relevant data, while providing greater peace of mind for local and regional residents (Greenberg et al., 2007). This may be particularly true where local residents distrust the DOE, or feel they have been lied to about these sites (Ahearne, 2001; Thomas, 2001).

This paper provides a conceptual model for developing a biomonitoring plan for radionuclides, using Amchitka Island as a case study. The paper describes a method for developing the plan that is stakeholder-driven and involves stakeholders at every stage. Three underground nuclear tests were detonated on Amchitka Island, and residual wastes will remain in the underground cavities for centuries. It is not feasible to design a groundwater, soil, or sediment monitoring plan because of the depth of the test cavities, and the vast expanse of ocean surrounding Amchitka where there could be radionuclide seepage. It is the biota that are of interest because they form the basis for the Aleut subsistence lifestyle and over 50% of the fish and shellfish consumed in the US comes from the Bering Sea/Northern Pacific Ocean (AFSC, 2003). The NRC (2003) noted that over 40% of all the United States fish and shellfish landings (by weight) derive from the Eastern Bering Sea (including Dutch Harbor). Mito et al. (1999) noted that the total catch of groundfishes on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf and the Aleutian Basin is 2–3 million metric tons per year. Further, although the contamination resides on Amchitka Island itself, it is the potential for off-site movement (in this case into marine waters) that poses the risk. For many DOE sites, and other contaminated places, groundwater, rivers, and other aquatic habitats provide the pathway for possible exposure.

CRESP, a multi-university, multi-discipline Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, was asked to develop an Independent Science Assessment Plan to define and describe the science that would be necessary to assure the public that the subsistence and commercial foods from the marine waters around Amchitka were safe, that the marine environment was not currently impacted, and to provide information that could be used to develop a long-term biomonitoring plan (CRESP, 2003). This paper describes the process of selecting bioindicators for the biomonitoring plan, but other information is described in Burger et al., 2005, Burger et al., 2007a and Burger and Gochfeld (in press) for stakeholder participation, and in Burger et al., 2007b, Burger et al., 2007c, Burger et al., 2007d for radionuclide levels. The species selected for bioindicators are described in detail elsewhere (Burger et al., 2007f).

Instead of dealing with the details of radionuclide levels in biota, risk to these organisms or to consumers, and the species selected as bioindicators, this paper focuses on a process of bioindicator selection that can be adapted for other contentious contaminated sites. Most studies of bioindicators present only the species selected as bioindicators, with their justifications, and in rare cases, the contaminant levels used in their selection. While managers, public policy makers and the public can deduce the process, it seems more straightforward to outline a process that can be adapted in other contentious situations.

Section snippets

Background on DOE and Amchitka

During and immediately after World War II, the predecessors of US DOE (the Army Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Energy Research and Development Administration) obtained many tracts of land for the purpose of developing, producing, and testing nuclear weapons. With the ending of the Cold War, the Nation faced the need to clean up these sites to protect human health and the environment. DOE sites have highly toxic, and long-lived radiological wastes, both in storage

Background on the Amchitka independent science assessment

The objective of this paper is to examine the process of selecting bioindicators that involved a full range of stakeholders at several different points (Burger et al., 2005, Burger et al., 2007e). The radionuclide data are presented elsewhere (Burger et al., 2007a, Burger et al., 2007b, Burger et al., 2007c, Burger et al., 2007d), and clearly showed that there was no risk to the biota themselves, the food chain, or to humans, from anthropogenic radionuclides. However, the levels found in algae,

Results: Developing bioindicators

The development of bioindicators was a multiphase, 4-year process that involved two main components: selecting biota and tissues for analysis, and selecting radionuclides for analysis (Fig. 2). Armed with this information, it would then be possible to select bioindicators. The critical first step was developing a conceptualization of the key elements for species and radionuclide selection. The approach taken was to determine the major receptors of concern for potential radiation exposure. A

Discussion

While the DOE has protocols for developing environmental monitoring plans for its legacy sites (mainly groundwater, soil, and sediment), the need for a biomonitoring plan (and for indicators at Amchitka) came from a wide range of stakeholders, including the State of Alaska. The stakeholders, and indeed the DOE, recognized early that it would be impractical to monitor soil, sediment or groundwater because of the cavity depths and vastness of the marine environment where seepage could occur. A

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to various aspects of this research and thinking about bioindicators over the years, and I thank them now: M. Gochfeld, C. W. Powers, D. Kosson, S. Jewett, R. Patrick, B. Friedlander, L. Bliss, D. Volz, M. Stabin, D. Favret, E.J. Zillioux, M. Greenberg, B.D. Goldstein, K. Cooper, I.L. Brisbin Jr., R. Ramos, C. Dixon, C. Jeitner, S. Burke, C. Safina, T. Shukla, and S. Shukla, and the people of Adak, Atka, Nikolski, and Unalaska, particularly R. Snigaroff, D. Snigaroff,

References (40)

  • AFSC (Alaska Fisheries Science Center), 2003. Alaska Fisheries. 〈http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/species/pollock.php〉...
  • J.F. Ahearne

    Scientists, policy makers, and the public: a needed dialogue

    Health Phys.

    (2001)
  • J.D. Bascietto et al.

    Ecotoxicity and ecological risk assessment: regulatory applications at EPA

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (1990)
  • K.S. Brown

    The great DOE land rush?

    Science

    (1998)
  • J. Burger

    Bioindicators: types, development, and use in ecological assessment and research

    Environ. Bioindicat.

    (2006)
  • J. Burger et al.

    Ecological and human health risk assessment: a comparison

  • J. Burger et al.

    On developing bioindicators for human and ecological health

    Environ. Monit. Assess.

    (2001)
  • J. Burger et al.

    Bioindicators for assessing human and ecological health

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M. Changes in Aleut perceptions following the stakeholder-driven Amchitka independent science...
  • J. Burger et al.

    Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: protecting human and ecological health

    Environ. Manage.

    (2003)
  • J. Burger et al.

    Science, policy, and stakeholders: developing a consensus science plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska

    Environ. Manage.

    (2005)
  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Kosson, D.S., Powers, C.W., 2006. Biomonitoring for ecosystem and human health protection at...
  • J. Burger et al.

    Selecting species for marine assessment of radionuclides around Amchitka: planning for diverse goals and interests

    Environ. Monit. Assess.

    (2007)
  • J. Burger et al.

    Radionuclide levels in benthic invertebrates from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Aleutian Chain, Alaska. Environ. Monit

    Assess

    (2007)
  • J. Burger et al.

    Radionuclides in marine macroalgae from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Aleutians: establishing a baseline for future biomonitoring

    J. Environ. Radioact.

    (2007)
  • J. Burger et al.

    Radionuclides in marine fishes and birds from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Aleutians: establishing a baseline

    Health Phys.

    (2007)
  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C.W., Kosson, D.S., Halverson, J., Siekaniec, G., Morkill, A., Patrick, R., Duffy,...
  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, Kosson, D.S., Powers, C.W. 2007f. A bioindicator plan for assessing potential radionuclide...
  • V. Carignan et al.

    Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review

    Environ. Monit. Assess.

    (2001)
  • CRESP (Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation), 2002. Amchitka Island: long-term stewardship...
  • Cited by (16)

    • Tobacco plant as possible biomonitoring tool of red mud dust fallout and increased natural radioactivity

      2020, Heliyon
      Citation Excerpt :

      Biomonitoring of environmental discharge is a favoured option both in industrial risk estimation and after environmental disasters. By using biomonitoring, the level of many potentially harmful sources can be examined at the same time (Burger, 2007) in a representative but relatively economical manner (Nørregaard et al., 2018). Biomonitoring is also an efficient way to monitor the ecological consequences of harmful incidents (Bolsunovsky, 2004) and is capable of detecting the efficiency of remediation efforts, too.

    • Risk evaluation for federally listed (roseate tern, piping plover) or candidate (red knot) bird species in offshore waters: A first step for managing the potential impacts of wind facility development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf

      2011, Renewable Energy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Maintaining healthy ecosystems, and the organisms within them, is a daunting task given the literally hundreds or thousands of species in any ecosystem. This complexity has necessitated the development of bioindicators of ecosystem health [13–15,18,46], ranging from algae to birds [5] and mammals [88]. To develop an effective bioindicator, one requires a sufficient science base from which to evaluate the health status, abnormalities of biological significance, and long-term changes in health status and reproductive success.

    • Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

      2010, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      The results of the scientific studies indicated that the subsistence foods and commercial fish were free of radionuclides from the nuclear test, but could provide no assurance that the foods would continue to be safe (Burger et al., 2007e,f,g). The data were used to develop a biomonitoring plan that included subsistence foods and commercial fish (Burger, 2007a,b,c; Burger et al., 2007c) that was incorporated into the DOE long-term stewardship plan for Amchitka (DOE, 2008b). The Amchitka case illustrates 4 key points 1) Computer models are not necessarily successful in convincing Native Americans and others that there is no risk from contaminants, especially when there is already a level of distrust of the entity providing the assurance, 2) Screening human health risk assessments that are based on no site-specific data on radionuclide levels or consumption pattern are not persuasive, 3) When faced with a screening risk assessment or conducting site-specific analysis of radionuclides in biota of interest, the screening risk assessment is not sufficient, and 4) The federal waste law processes (both RCRA and CERCLA) provide for site-specific feasibility or characterization work, which was not performed before DOE completed its human health risk assessment.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text