The Euratom Safeguards On-site Laboratories at the Reprocessing Plants of La Hague and Sellafield

In the European Union, nuclear material is reprocessed from irradiated power reactor fuel at two sites ¿ La Hague in France and Sellafield in the United Kingdom. These are the largest nuclear sites within the EU, processing many hundreds of tons of nuclear material in a year. Under the Euratom Treaty, the European Commission has the duty to assure that the nuclear material is only used for declared purposes. The Directorate General for Energy (DG ENER), acting for the Commission, assures itself that the terms of Article 77 of Chapter VII of the Treaty have been complied with. In contrast to the Non Proliferation Treaty, the Euratom Treaty requires to safeguard all civil nuclear material in all EU member states ¿ including the nuclear weapons states. The considerable amount of fissile material separated per year (several tonnes) calls for a stringent system of safeguards measures. The aim of safeguards is to deter diversion of nuclear material from peaceful use by maximizing the chance of early detection. At a broader level, it provides assurance to the public that the European nuclear industry, the EU member states and the European Union honour their legal duties under the Euratom Treaty and their commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Efficient and effective safeguards measures are essential for the public acceptance of nuclear activities.JRC.E.7-Nuclear Safeguards and Forensic

In-field Timely and Accurate Measurements - Fundamental to Minimising Safeguards Issues in Reprocessing Facilities

The two large reprocessing plants in Europe, located in Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (F) have a throughput of 800 t and 1600 t of spent fuel per year. In order to meet the safeguards criteria of quantity, timeliness and probability (QTP), these facilities deserve particular attention and appropriate safeguards measures have to be implemented. At either plant Euratom installed an on-site laboratory where the verification measurements are performed with minimal time delays and at highest possible accuracy.JRC.E-Institute for Transuranium Elements (Karlsruhe

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract Background Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR. Methods Data were collected from the “Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International” (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the “International Collaboration on Endocarditis” (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR. Results A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P < .001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P < .001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P < .001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P = .033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P < .001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P = .697). Conclusions Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up