PubMed2002
Three underground nuclear tests representing approximately 15-16% of the total effective energy released during the United States underground nuclear testing program from 1951 to 1992 were conducted at Amchitka Island, Alaska. In 1996, Greenpeace reported that leakage of radionuclides, 241Am and 239+240Pu, from these underground tests to the terrestrial and freshwater environments had been detected. In response to this report, a federal, state, tribal and non-governmental team conducted a terrestrial and freshwater radiological sampling program in 1997. Additional radiological sampling was conducted in 1998. An assessment of the reported leakage to the freshwater environment was evaluated by assessing 3H values in surface waters and 240Pu/239Pu ratios in various sample media. Tritium values ranged from 0.41 Bq/l +/- 0.11 two sigma to 0.74 Bq/1 +/- 0.126 two sigma at the surface water sites sampled, including the reported leakage sites. Only at the Long Shot test site, where leakage of radioactive gases to the near-surface occurred in 1965. were higher 3H levels of 5.8 Bq/1 +/- 0.19 two sigma still observed in 1997, in mud pit #3. The mean 240Pu/239Pu for all of the Amchitka samples was 0.1991 +/- 0.0149 one standard deviation, with values ranging from 0.1824 +/- 1.43% one sigma to 0.2431 +/- 6.56% one sigma. The measured 3H levels and 240Pu/239Pu ratios in freshwater moss and sediments at Amchitka provide no evidence of leakage occurring at the sites reported by Buske and Miller (1998 Nuclear-Weapons-Free America and Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Ak, p.38) and Miller and Buske (1996 Nuclear Flashback: The Return to Anchitka, p.35). It was noted that the marine sample; 240Pu/239Pu ratios are statistically different than the global fallout ratios presented by Krey et al. (1976) and Kelley, Bond, and Beasley (1999). The additional non-fallout component 240Pu/239Pu ratio, assuming a single unique source, necessary to modify the global fallout 240Pu/239Pu ratio to that measured in the marine samples is on the order of 0.65 (Hameedi, Efurd, Harmon, Valette-Silver, & Robertson, 1999; Kelley et al., 1999). While this potentially suggests another plutonium source, such as high burn-up nuclear reactor fuel, rather than underground nuclear tests, the uncertainties in analyses and environmental processes need to be fully assessed before any conclusion can be reached. Further work is needed to evaluate these findings and to support any radiological assessment of the marine environment surrounding Amchitka. Based on geohydrological testing and modeling, leakage from the Amchitka Underground Nuclear Tests is projected to occur to the marine environment (Claassen, 1978; Fenske, 1972; Wheatcraft, 1995).