1. Euratom monitoring and Article 35 verifications
Vesa Tanner
European Commission DG Energy Radiation Protection Unit

2. DG Energy (ENER) Directorates
General Policy
Security of supply, Energy markets and Networks
New and renewable sources of energy, Energy efficiency and Innovation
Nuclear energy
Nuclear safeguards
As of 14 April 2010 8

3. Directorate D (Nuclear Energy)
D.1: EURATOM co-ordination, international relations
D.2: Nuclear Energy, waste management
D.3: Nuclear accountancy
D.4: Radiation protection
Sector D.4.001: „Implementation of EURATOM Articles 35 and 36 “ (includes Article 35 verifications) 8

4. Legal background (1) Art. 35 Euratom Treaty:
“Each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards.”
“The Commission shall have the right of access to such facilities; it may verify their operation and efficiency.”
DG ENER – Radiation Protection unit has the responsibility of undertaking these verifications.
Historically, the intensity of the verification activity has been a matter of Commission current policy. 8

5. Legal background (2)
Commission Communication* and Bilateral Protocols deal with the practical arrangements of verification visits:
Applicability
Scope
Guiding Principles
Planning of Visits
Realisation of Visits
Procedure of Reporting
* ES:
?uri=OJ:C:2006:155:0002:0005:ES:PDF 8

6. General scope and purpose (1)
Verification visits can cover:
(1) environmental radiation monitoring of
Air
Dose and dose rate
Water (drinking, ground, marine, inland, precipitation, …)
Soil
Fallout
Biological samples (marine/terrestrial)
Foodstuffs (individual samples, mixed diet, milk, wild food products)
Feed
(2) monitoring of radioactive discharges to the environment (liquid, gaseous) 8

7. General scope and purpose (2)
Verification visits can cover:
National monitoring systems (on-line and off-line)
Nuclear power plants
Nuclear fuel cycle installations
Radioactive isotope production plants
Hospitals using radioactive isotopes
Current and past mining activities
NORM activities
Research facilities
Decommissioning projects 8

8. General scope and purpose (3)
The main purpose is to provide an independent assessment on the adequacy of the monitoring facilities
Verification visits should allow a correct evaluation and a judgement of the:
Operation of monitoring facilities (their set-up and use)
Suitability of sampling and sample preparation methods
Suitability of analytical methods, effectiveness of equipment
Management of records, results, archives
Data handling and reporting procedures
Quality control measures 8

9. Targets Verification visits of installations are split into:
discharge monitoring with regard to aerial and liquid effluents, and
site-specific environmental monitoring, as performed by the operator and by or on behalf of the regulator
Verification visits of national monitoring systems give an overview of
country-wide automatic and laboratory based networks
emergency monitoring arrangements 8

10. Reporting by the Commission
Draft technical report (in one of the working languages of the European Commission)
Checking of factual accuracy by the Member State (groups involved in verification)
Finalisation of technical report by the Commission, sent to MS via Permanent Representation
Main findings report by the Commission, sent to MS
Translation into the MS language if needed, sent to MS for checking language
Publication of main findings, technical report and any MS comments on the Europa web site
A general report on the whole programme is prepared for the European Parliament on a regular basis.

11. Planning of visits – Considerations
Visit ‘new’ EU Member States in a timely manner
Provide follow-up to past visits; in particular if actions were recommended
Continue to cover major nuclear activities in all Member States
Act in case of (public) concerns
Seek a balance between large nuclear facilities and national networks 8

12. Usual feedback items (1)
Frequency of foodstuffs sampling
Density of automatic monitoring networks
Rain and grass sampling
Laboratory hardware and software
Laboratory accreditations and quality systems
Availability of expertise for online monitoring and database management
Long term continuity of the monitoring programmes of past activities

13. Usual feedback items (2)
Lack of discharge monitoring in medical facilities
Public availability of results
Sample and results archiving
Sample management in laboratories
Inadequate number of personnel (especially for emergency situations)
Lack of in-house expertise in radiation measurements (measurements outsourced to another country)

14. Recent verification visits (1)
Reports of the recent verification visits can be downloaded from the Radiation Protection web site on the EUROPA server:
article_35_en.htm
This includes the Technical Report, the Main Findings and any Comments by the Member State in which the verification visit took place. Generally these reports are in the language of the Member State as well as in English. 8

15. Recent verification visits (2)
Denmark 2008
Romania Uranium production 2008
Tricastin site (FR) 2008 8

16. Recent verification visits (3)
IRE-Fleurus (Belgium) 2009
Forsmark (Sweden) 2009 8

17. Recent verification visits (4)
Isar-2 (Germany) 2009
Jaslovske Bohunice (Slovakia) 2009 8

18. Recent verification visits (5)
Świerk (Poland) 2009
Bulgaria (former uranium mining issues)
2009 8

19. Recent verification visits (6)
Huelva (Spain) 2009 8

20. The Article 35 Team Vesa Tanner Three full-time EC officials
Four part-time EC officials
Detached national experts needed, hard to find
Constant Gitzinger
Eberhardt Henrich
Alan Ryan
Vesa Tanner
Stefan Mundigl
Remigiusz Baranczyk
Cecile Hanot 8