Survey of Environmental Monitoring Programmes in the CBSS

1. Anne Liv Rudjord Survey of Environmental Monitoring Programmes in the CBSS 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 • Introduction • Overview of multilateral actors and agreements • Survey • Variability among national monitoring programmes • Evaluation • 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 => Key summary on variability marine biota monitoring

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!