阿拉斯加乌纳拉斯卡岛上曾经使用过的防卫场所：绘制环境污染遗产图。

IF 3 4区环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Pub Date : 2024-02-14 DOI:10.1002/ieam.4902

Renee Jordan-Ward, Frank A. von Hippel, Jennifer Schmidt, Marc P. Verhougstraete

{"title":"阿拉斯加乌纳拉斯卡岛上曾经使用过的防卫场所：绘制环境污染遗产图。","authors":"Renee Jordan-Ward, Frank A. von Hippel, Jennifer Schmidt, Marc P. Verhougstraete","doi":"10.1002/ieam.4902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unalaska Island, Alaska, served as a US military base during World War II. The military installed bases on Unalaska and nearby islands, many of which were built adjacent to Unangan communities. The military used toxic compounds in its operations and left a legacy of pollution that may pose health risks to residents and local wildlife. The goals of this study were to identify hotspots of contamination remaining at Unalaska formerly used defense (FUD) sites, evaluate the risk posed by arsenic, and examine “no US Department of Defense action indicated” (NDAI) status determinations for FUD sites near communities. We compiled soil chemistry data from remediation reports prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers at 18 FUD sites on and near Unalaska. Nine had past and/or active remediation projects and on-site sampling data. Eight sites did not have sampling data and were characterized as NDAI. One site was listed as closed. For the nine sites with sampling data, we compiled data for 22 contaminants of concern (COC) and compared concentrations to soil cleanup levels for human health (18 AAC 75.341). We mapped contaminant concentrations exceeding these levels to identify hotspots of contamination. We found that concentrations of some of the 22 COC exceeded Alaska cleanup levels despite remediation efforts, including diesel range organics, arsenic, and lead. The highest COC concentrations were at the FUD site adjacent to the City of Unalaska. A quantitative risk assessment for arsenic found that the risk of exposure through drinking water is low. We highlight concerns with NDAI designations and current remedial practices at remote FUD sites located adjacent to communities. Our data suggest the need for further remediation and monitoring efforts on Unalaska for certain contaminants and research to examine potential threats to human and animal health associated with these sites. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1420–1431. © 2024 SETAC","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":"20 5","pages":"1420-1431"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formerly used defense sites on Unalaska Island, Alaska: Mapping a legacy of environmental pollution\",\"authors\":\"Renee Jordan-Ward, Frank A. von Hippel, Jennifer Schmidt, Marc P. Verhougstraete\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ieam.4902\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Unalaska Island, Alaska, served as a US military base during World War II. The military installed bases on Unalaska and nearby islands, many of which were built adjacent to Unangan communities. The military used toxic compounds in its operations and left a legacy of pollution that may pose health risks to residents and local wildlife. The goals of this study were to identify hotspots of contamination remaining at Unalaska formerly used defense (FUD) sites, evaluate the risk posed by arsenic, and examine “no US Department of Defense action indicated” (NDAI) status determinations for FUD sites near communities. We compiled soil chemistry data from remediation reports prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers at 18 FUD sites on and near Unalaska. Nine had past and/or active remediation projects and on-site sampling data. Eight sites did not have sampling data and were characterized as NDAI. One site was listed as closed. For the nine sites with sampling data, we compiled data for 22 contaminants of concern (COC) and compared concentrations to soil cleanup levels for human health (18 AAC 75.341). We mapped contaminant concentrations exceeding these levels to identify hotspots of contamination. We found that concentrations of some of the 22 COC exceeded Alaska cleanup levels despite remediation efforts, including diesel range organics, arsenic, and lead. The highest COC concentrations were at the FUD site adjacent to the City of Unalaska. A quantitative risk assessment for arsenic found that the risk of exposure through drinking water is low. We highlight concerns with NDAI designations and current remedial practices at remote FUD sites located adjacent to communities. Our data suggest the need for further remediation and monitoring efforts on Unalaska for certain contaminants and research to examine potential threats to human and animal health associated with these sites. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1420–1431. © 2024 SETAC\",\"PeriodicalId\":13557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"volume\":\"20 5\",\"pages\":\"1420-1431\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4902\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4902","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

阿拉斯加乌纳拉斯卡岛在第二次世界大战期间曾是美军基地。军方在乌纳拉斯卡和附近的岛屿上建立了基地，其中许多基地毗邻乌南甘社区。军方在行动中使用了有毒化合物，留下的污染可能会对居民和当地野生动物的健康造成危害。本研究的目标是确定乌纳拉斯卡以前使用过的防御设施（FUD）的污染热点，评估砷造成的风险，并检查社区附近的防御设施是否处于 "无美国国防部行动指示"（NDAI）状态。我们从美国陆军工程兵部队编写的修复报告中汇编了乌纳拉斯卡及其附近 18 个 FUD 遗址的土壤化学数据。其中九处有过去和/或正在进行的修复项目和现场采样数据。八个地点没有取样数据，被列为 NDAI。一个地点被列为已关闭地点。对于有取样数据的 9 个地点，我们汇编了 22 种受关注污染物 (COC) 的数据，并将其浓度与针对人类健康的土壤清洁水平（18 AAC 75.341）进行了比较。我们绘制了超过这些水平的污染物浓度图，以确定污染热点。我们发现，尽管进行了修复工作，但 22 种 COC 中仍有一些的浓度超过了阿拉斯加的清洁水平，其中包括柴油系列有机物、砷和铅。COC 浓度最高的地方是乌纳拉斯卡市附近的 FUD 遗址。砷的定量风险评估发现，通过饮用水接触砷的风险很低。我们强调了对邻近社区的偏远 FUD 遗址的 NDAI 指定和当前补救措施的关注。我们的数据表明，有必要对乌纳拉斯卡的某些污染物进行进一步的修复和监测，并开展研究，检查这些地点对人类和动物健康的潜在威胁。综合环境评估管理》2024;00:1-12。© 2024 SETAC.

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Formerly used defense sites on Unalaska Island, Alaska: Mapping a legacy of environmental pollution

Unalaska Island, Alaska, served as a US military base during World War II. The military installed bases on Unalaska and nearby islands, many of which were built adjacent to Unangan communities. The military used toxic compounds in its operations and left a legacy of pollution that may pose health risks to residents and local wildlife. The goals of this study were to identify hotspots of contamination remaining at Unalaska formerly used defense (FUD) sites, evaluate the risk posed by arsenic, and examine “no US Department of Defense action indicated” (NDAI) status determinations for FUD sites near communities. We compiled soil chemistry data from remediation reports prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers at 18 FUD sites on and near Unalaska. Nine had past and/or active remediation projects and on-site sampling data. Eight sites did not have sampling data and were characterized as NDAI. One site was listed as closed. For the nine sites with sampling data, we compiled data for 22 contaminants of concern (COC) and compared concentrations to soil cleanup levels for human health (18 AAC 75.341). We mapped contaminant concentrations exceeding these levels to identify hotspots of contamination. We found that concentrations of some of the 22 COC exceeded Alaska cleanup levels despite remediation efforts, including diesel range organics, arsenic, and lead. The highest COC concentrations were at the FUD site adjacent to the City of Unalaska. A quantitative risk assessment for arsenic found that the risk of exposure through drinking water is low. We highlight concerns with NDAI designations and current remedial practices at remote FUD sites located adjacent to communities. Our data suggest the need for further remediation and monitoring efforts on Unalaska for certain contaminants and research to examine potential threats to human and animal health associated with these sites. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1420–1431. © 2024 SETAC

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESTOXICOLOGY&nbs-TOXICOLOGY

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

6.50%

发文量

156

期刊介绍： Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas: Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making Health and ecological risk and impact assessment Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems Sustaining ecosystems Managing large-scale environmental change Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society: Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.