Survey of Environmental Monitoring Programmes in the CBSS

1
Survey of Environmental Monitoring Programmes
in the CBSS

• Anne Liv Rudjord

Topcal Day on Monitoring of Radioactivity in the
Environment Oslo 12-13. April 2011
2
Introduction

• A proposal in EGNRS to consider whether the CBSS
  should harmonise their programmes and share
  results essentially creating one regional
  monitoring programme
• Identified tasks
• 1 Overview of ongoing monitoring programmes
• 2 Analysis of information on monitoring
  programmes
• 3 Streamlining towards a regional monitoring
  programme
• 4 Sharing information
• 5 Assessments
• EGNRS decided to move forward on task 1 and 2,
  and initiated a survey on monitoring programmes
  in the CBSS member and observer states.

3
Introduction

• The benefits of data compatibility and sharing
  over the whole region would include
• a more cost-effective environmental monitoring
  programme by avoiding redundancies and filling
  gaps
• a better and broader basis for detecting and
  responding in abnormal situations
• a better and broader basis for more complete
  information to the public
• a better basis for maintaining compatible
  measurement capabilities for emergency response
• a better and broader basis for predicting
  movement of radioactive materials in the
  environment

4
Introduction

• Priorities
• aiming for overview rather than detail
• looking for gaps and overlaps
• monitoring around nuclear installations not
  included

5
Outline

1. Introduction
2. Overview of multilateral actors and agreements
3. Survey
4. Variability among national monitoring programmes
5. Evaluation
6. Conclusions

6
Relevant multilateral actors and agreements

• Euratom
• (EURDEP and recom. 2000/473)
• HELCOM
• OSPAR
• The Arctic Council (AMAP)
• IAEA

7
Survey collecting information
8
Survey

• We have gathered information from 12 countries
• Questionnaires (7) Finland, Germany, Lithuania,
  Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania
• Collected from documents (5) Denmark, Estonia,
  Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden
• Results are summarized in a large xcel table
• All countries asked to verify the information

9
Survey objectives of monitoring programmes

• The stated objectives for performing
  environmental monitoring often differ from
  country to country
• Estimating doses to the public
• Documenting levels and trends
• Providing background information for research
• providing information to the public
• Controlling/reducing exposure to the public
• Facilitating data exchange with neighbouring
  countries
• Controlling discharges from facilities
• Complying with legislation and agreements
• Providing a warning in case of a radiological
  emergency
• Maintaining competence for emergency situations

10
Survey- sampling media

• 17 categories of sampling media
• External gamma dose/dose rate (12)
• Airborne particulates (12)
• Deposition (9)
• Soil (5)
• Surface freshwater (11)
• Freshwater biota (3)
• Freshwater sediments (4)
• Sea water (11)

11
Survey sampling media

• cont.
• Marine biota (9)
• Marine sediments (9)
• Drinking water, ground water (10)
• Milk (11)
• Mixed diet (8)
• Other individual food products (10)
• Sewage (2)
• Indicator biota (4)
• Whole body measurements (3) -

12
Survey - Variability among national environmental
radiation monitoring programmes

• The degree of variability differs greatly among
  the different sampling media.
• Some observations
• data from external gamma and aerosols is already
  shared and therefore reasonably harmonised.
• Monitoring included in international co-operation
  also tends to be fairly harmonised
• HELCOM/OSPAR marine environment
• EU recommendations drinking water, milk, and
  mixed diet
• Other monitoring of food and terrestrial biota
  vary widely

13
Survey variability

• Chapter 3
• describes variability for each sampling media
• Example table 3.9 gt
• Key summary on variability marine biota
  monitoring

Countries that monitor marine biota 9 members (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden)
Countries that measure
gamma spectrum/cesium-137 9 members (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden)
strontium-90 2 members (Germany, Lithuania)
technetium-99 2 members (Denmark, Norway)
polonium-210 2 members (Denmark, Norway)
alpha spectrum 1 member (Germany)
plutonium-239240 1 member (Norway)
radium-226 1 member (Poland)
Type of biota sampled Fish only (Poland, Sweden), seaweed only (Lithuania), fish seaweed (Estonia, Iceland), or fish seaweed benthic animals (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway).
Number of sites For fish Ranges from 2 (Estonia) to 20-40 (Norway). For seaweed Ranges from 1 (Lithuania) to 13 (Norway) For benthic animals Ranges from 1 (Denmark) to 20-40 (Norway)
Sampling frequency Once per year for most countries (twice per year in Germany, 4 times per year for seaweed in Iceland and Denmark)
14
Survey radiation measurements and analysis

• Practically all sampling media are analysed by
  gamma spectrometry by all countries.
• The most important exception is the external
  gamma monitoring
• Sr-90 analyses are performed by several countries
  in several sampling media, especially drinking
  water, foodstuffs and milk.
• gross alpha, gross beta, tritium a few/some
  countries in some media
• other radionuclides one or a few in some
  sampling media

15
Priorities among the sampling media

• Evaluation Criteria

• Relevance for doses to the public
• Relevance for emergency preparedness
• Usefulness for other countries
• Need for further harmonisation for data to be
  comparable
• Whether harmonisation of methods would require
  big changes

To be discussed and further developed !
16
Evaluation- gaps and overlaps
Example Gaps in deposition monitoring in the CBSS
17
The draft report- conclusions

• Main survey observations
• CBSS members tend to monitor radioactivity in
  many of the same media
• Nearly all sampling media analysed by gamma
  spectrometry, but otherwise measurement methods
  vary widely
• Current monitoring in the CBSS is partly
  harmonised through international programmes, but
  none of these cover the whole environment or the
  whole region, and there are still
  incompatibilities among these sampling media as
  well.
• Preliminary evaluations suggest that some
  sampling media (for instance deposition and milk)
  would be relatively easy to harmonise.

18
The draft report - recommendations

• to be developed!
• Will be based on discussions and conclusions of
  the Topical Day.
• The final report will be submitted from EGNRS to
  the CBSS CSO meeting in June
• Opinions and contributions welcome!