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
www.nrpa.no
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.
www.nrpa.no
Introduction
The benefits of data compatibility and sharing over the whole
region would include:
–
–
–
–
–
www.nrpa.no
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
Introduction
Priorities
-
aiming for overview rather than detail
-
looking for gaps and overlaps
-
monitoring around nuclear installations not included
www.nrpa.no
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Overview of multilateral actors
and agreements
3. Survey
4. Variability among national
monitoring programmes
5. Evaluation
6. Conclusions
www.nrpa.no
Relevant multilateral actors and agreements
– Euratom
(EURDEP and recom. 2000/473)
– HELCOM
– OSPAR
– The Arctic Council (AMAP)
– IAEA
www.nrpa.no
Survey – collecting information
www.nrpa.no
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
www.nrpa.no
Survey – objectives of monitoring programmes
The stated objectives for performing environmental monitoring often differ
from country to country:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
www.nrpa.no
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
Survey- sampling media
17 categories of sampling media
External gamma dose/dose rate
Airborne particulates
Deposition
Soil
Surface freshwater
Freshwater biota
Freshwater sediments
Sea water
www.nrpa.no
(12)
(12)
(9)
(5)
(11)
(3)
(4)
(11)
Survey – sampling media
cont.
Marine biota
Marine sediments
Drinking water, ground water
Milk
Mixed diet
Other individual food products
Sewage
Indicator biota
Whole body measurements
www.nrpa.no
(9)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(8)
(10)
(2)
(4)
(3) -
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
www.nrpa.no
Survey – variability
Chapter 3
describes variability for
each sampling media
Example table 3.9
=>
Key summary on variability
marine biota monitoring
www.nrpa.no
Countries that monitor marine
biota
9 members (Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway,
Poland, Sweden)
Countries that measure…
…gamma spectrum/cesium137
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-239+240
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)
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
www.nrpa.no
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 !
www.nrpa.no
Evaluation- gaps and overlaps
Example: Gaps in deposition
monitoring in the CBSS
www.nrpa.no
The draft report- conclusions
Main survey observations:
•
•
•
•
www.nrpa.no
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.
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!
www.nrpa.no