Managing Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Mining and Mineral Processing Guideline PDF

Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in
mining and mineral processing guideline

NORM1
Applying the system of radiation protection to mining operations

Reference
The recommended reference for this publication is:
Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2010. Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM1. Applying the System of Radiation Protection
to Mining Operations: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 34pp.
<http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/>
Published February 2010

Guideline NORM1 Applying the system of radiation protection to mining operations
Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1. General information 1
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4. Relationship to other NORM guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Guidance 5
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. History of radiation protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. ICRP recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1. Best practicable technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1.1. Radiation protection in design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Administrative processes for optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1. Classifying work conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.1. Classication of controlled areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.2. Classication of restricted areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.1.3. Classication of supervised areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.2. Classication of employees and dose constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2.1. Classication of designated employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2.2. Dose constraint for oce and support services sta . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4.3. Establishing triggers for action and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.3.1. Classifying an exposure result as a special exposure . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.3.2. Investigation levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.3.3. Auditing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.4. Developing procedures and awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.4.1. Safe work procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.4.2. Radiation safety training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. Appendix listing referenced organisations and documents 20

A.1. Australian radiation protection bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.1.1. Western Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.1.2. National . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.2. Western Australia specic Acts and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.3. Australian national documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.3.1. ARPANSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.3.2. National Health and Medical Research Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3.3. Standards Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3.4. International Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum iii

A.3.4.1. ICRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3.4.2. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.3.4.3. European Commission (EC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.3.4.4. UNSCEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.3.4.5. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.3.4.6. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.3.4.7. United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
B. Appendix on Radiation Safety Ocer requirements 29

B.1. Mining and mineral processing qualications and experience . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.1.1. Qualications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.1.2. Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
C. Appendix on uranium mining approval process 31

Bibliography 33
Index 34
iv Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mining and mineral processing
List of Figures
2.1. 1903 Nobel PrizeMarie Curie, Pierre Currie and Henri Becquerel . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Application of the System of Radiation Protection in Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. An example of a controlled area warning sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4. An example of a restricted area warning sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. An example of a supervised area warning sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Radiation protection knowledge and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
C.1. Simple owchart showing mining approvals process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum v

List of Tables
2.1. Principles of radiation protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
vi Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mining and mineral processing
1. General information
1.1. Purpose
To:
1. Summarise the system of radiation protection as recommended by the International Commis-

sion on Radiological Protection (ICRP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA); and
2. Illustrate how the system of radiation protection may be practically applied in the mining and
mineral processing industry and in particular:
implementing best practicable technology to reduce exposure and contamination levels.

For example, ensuring suitable engineering controls are used to the extent feasible;
classifying employees, work conditions and workplaces on the basis of measured or pre-
dicted radiation levels. For example the classication of designated employees, restricted
areas, controlled areas and supervised areas; and
the establishment of contamination levels that trigger radiation protection responses. For
example, dening special exposures and setting investigation and reporting levels.
1.2. Scope
This guideline applies to all exploration, mining and mineral processing operations in Western Aus-
tralia that use or handle naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and come within the
scope of Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 [1].
The following branches of mining and mineral processing industry have been identied [3][4]as either
requiring attention from the radiation protection point of view or where an additional radiological
assessments may be necessary. They include:
1. Mining and processing of uranium.
2. Mining and processing of heavy mineral sands.
3. Mining and processing of rare earth elements.
4. Mining ores other than uranium and heavy mineral sands, particularly underground.
5. Production of oil and gas.
6. Manufacture of titanium dioxide pigment.
7. The phosphate industry.
8. The zircon and zirconia industry.
9. Production of tin, tantalum, copper, aluminium, iron and steel.
10. Geothermal energy generation.
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum 1

1.3. Denitions
Best practicable technology [7] as per Regulation 16.33 [1] means the technology, from time to
time relevant to a specic project, which enables radioactive waste or exposure to radiation to be
managed so as to minimise radiological risks and detriment to people and the environment, having
regard to:
1. The achievable levels of euent control and the extent to which pollution and degradation
of the environment is minimised or prevented in comparable exploration, mining and mineral
processing operations elsewhere.
2. The cost of the application or adoption of that technology relative to the degree of radiological
and environmental protection expected to be achieved by its application or adoption.
3. Evidence of detriment or lack of detriment to the environment after the commencement of

exploration, mining and mineral processing operations.
4. The physical location of the mine and/or the processing plant.
5. The age of the equipment and facilities in use for mining and mineral processing purposes and
their relative eectiveness in achieving radiological and environmental protection.
6. The potential long term hazards from the wastes.
Contamination level as per Regulation 16.1 [1] means an amount of radioactivity in either air,
water or on a surface, the presence of which is undesirable to the extent that it could be harmful if
uncontrolled or not guarded against.
Controlled area as per Regulation 16.12 [1] means an area where:
1. Access is limited to those persons who are required to work, or perform any duty in the area.
2. The boundaries of the area are clearly delineated and are made known to employees.
3. Any person entering the area has received appropriate instructions about the nature of the
radiation hazards in the area.
Designated employee as per Regulation 16.14 [1] means an employee who works, or may work,
under conditions such that the employee's annual eective dose equivalent might exceed 5 millisieverts
(0.005 Sv).
Dose constraint means a level of dose, in relation to an employee, as determined by Regulation

16.5 [1], used to prompt investigation and (if appropriate) action if achieved or exceeded.
NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) means material containing no signicant

amounts of radionuclides other than naturally occurring radionuclides, disturbed or altered from
natural settings, or present in technologically enhanced concentrations above background radiation
levels due to human activities that may result in a relative increase in radiation exposures and risks
to the public and the environment.
2 Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mining and mineral processing
Practicable means reasonably practicable having regard, where the context permits, to:
1. The severity of any potential injury or harm to health or the environment that may be involved
and the degree of risk of such injury or harm occurring.
2. The state of knowledge about:
a) the injury or harm to health or the environment referred to in paragraph (1).
b) the risk of that injury or harm to health or the environment occurring.
c) the means of removing or mitigating the potential injury or harm to health or the envi-
ronment.
3. The availability, suitability, and cost of the means referred to in paragraph 2.(c).
Special exposure means an exposure complying with one of the following conditions:
1. An exposure to an individual or a known sub-group of individuals which arises from an un-

planned non-routine or an unusual task which is unlikely to have occurred previously in the
reporting period or is unlikely to occur again in the remainder of the reporting year; or
2. An exposure or exposures which arises from a planned program (e.g. maintenance operation
during a shut down, non-routine housekeeping) where the exposure is abnormally high in com-
parison to routine operations.
Restricted area means a part of a controlled area where access is stringently controlled by virtue of
the potential for signicant radiation doses to be received following protracted exposure in the area.
Supervised area as per Regulation 16.12 [1] means an area where access by members of the public
is supervised; and the boundaries of the area are clearly delineated and are made known to employees
at the mine.
Surface contamination as per Regulation 16.1 [1] means the presence of a radioactive substance
on a surface in quantities in excess of prescribed quantities.
Fixed (surface) contamination means (surface) contamination other than non-xed (surface)
contamination.
Non-xed (surface) contamination means (surface) contamination that can be removed from a
surface during normal handling.

1.4. Relationship to other NORM guidelines

The owchart in Figure 1.1 shows the arrangement of the Radiation Safety Guidelines.
Figure 1.1.: Relationship to other NORM guidelines
System of radiation protection in mines (NORM-1)
Preparation of a
radiation management plan (NORM-2)
Exploration (NORM-2.1) Mining and processing (NORM-2.2)
Monitoring Controlling Assessing Reporting and

NORM NORM doses notifying
(NORM-3) (NORM-4) (NORM-5) (NORM-6)
Pre-operational Dust control Dose Reporting

monitoring strategies assessment requirements
(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)
Operational monitoring Management of

(NORM-3.2) radioactive waste
(NORM-4.2)
Air monitoring BOSWELL
strategies Transport of NORM Assessment and reporting database
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
Airborne radioactivity
sampling Electronic data management system
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)
2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
The protection of the public and workers from the harmful eects of ionising radiation has been a
concern of radiation protection professionals since the early part of the 20th century when harmful
eects were rst observed.
Since that time, the detrimental eects of ionising radiation have been extensively studied: from the
fundamental nature of radiation's eects on cells, organs and organisms, to the epidemiological study
of large populations who have been exposed to various levels of ionising radiation. Based on these
studies, over time an international system of radiation protection has been built largely through the
work of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Radiation is currently viewed as one of the most studied of all known carcinogens. The system of
radiation protection that has been built to protect the public and workers from its harmful eects is
seen as extensive and robust, but is less well developed for the protection of the environment and
non-human species. The system is also viewed by some as being overly demanding of resources.
Of relevance to the system of radiation protection is the increasing social desire/need to understand
decisions made by governments, regulatory bodies and industry, and to participate more actively in
decision-making processes involving environmental and health issues.
Nuclear Energy Agency[6]
2.1.1. History of radiation protection
Figure 2.1.: 1903 Nobel PrizeMarie Curie, Pierre Currie and Henri Becquerel

1895 Wilhelm Roentgen discovers ionizing radiation. X-rays quickly came into widespread
medical use following their discovery. Although it was not immediately clear that large
or repeated exposures might be harmful, mounting evidence during the rst few years
showed unequivocally that they could be.
1896 Frenchman Henri Becquerel discovered that uranium salts emitted rays similar to X-rays.
He was able to demonstrate that this radiation was not phosphorescence, that it came
spontaneously from uranium itself and it was what we know as `radioactive'.
1896 Polish Physicist Marie Curie takes an interest in Bequerel's discovery and decides to look
into uranium rays as a possible eld of research for her physics thesis. She nds that
the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present
and the radiation came from the atom itself. This was her most important single piece
of work. She studied two uranium minerals, pitchblende and torbernite and showed that
these two minerals must contain small amounts of some other substance far more active
than uranium itself.
1898 Marie Curie and Pierre Curie announce the existence of an element they name `polonium',
in honour of Poland.
1900 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) founded.
1902 Marie Curie and Pierre Curie manage to separate one-tenth of a gram of radium chloride
from a tonne of pitchblende.
1903 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences award Pierre Curie, Marie Curie, and Henri
Becquerel the Nobel Prize in Physics, in recognition of their services rendered by their
joint research into the radiation phenomena discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel.
1904 The damaging eects of ionizing radiation are unknown, and Marie Curie works in a shed
without any safety measures. She carries test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in
her pocket and stores them in her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light
that the substances gave o in the dark.
1906 Pierre Curies dies in trac accident.
1910 Marie Curie, working on without her husband, isolates pure radium metal. Radium is
over one million times more radioactive than the same mass of uranium.
1911 Marie Curie is awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, ìn recognition of her services to
the advancement of chemistry by the discovery of the elements radium and polonium, by
the isolation of radium and the study of the nature and compounds of this remarkable
element.'
1919 One gram of radium is valued at $100,000 and one gram of gold is valued at $586.00
(United States dollars).
1925 First International Congress of Radiology, London, establishes ICRU.
1928 ICRP established under auspices of the Second International Congress of Radiology,
Stockholm.
1928 ICRU adopts the roentgen as unit of exposure.
1934 ICRP recommends daily tolerance dose.
1934 Marie Curie dies from aplastic anaemia, most certainly contracted from exposure to
radiation.
1941 ACXRP recommends rst permissible body burden, for radium.
1947 U.S. National Academy of Sciences establishes Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
(ABCC) to initiate long-term studies of A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1949 NCRP publishes recommendations and introduces risk/benet concept.
1952 British nuclear weapon tests commence at Monte Bello Islands, Western Australia.
1955 Western Australia is the rst Australian State to regulate the use of radiation through
the Radioactive Substances Act.
1955 United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
established.
1956 International Atomic Energy Agency organized under United Nations.
1958 United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation publishes study
of exposure sources and biological hazards.
1964 International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) formed.
1977 ICRP Publication 26, Recommendations of the ICRP.
1978 ICRP Publication 30, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers.
1991 International Atomic Energy Agency report on health eects from the April 1986 Cher-
nobyl accident.
1991 ICRP Publication 60, 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Ra-
diological Protection.
1994 ICRP Publication 66, Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection.
2000 UNSCEAR 2000 Report on sources of radiation exposure, radiation associated cancer,
and the Chernobyl accident.
2005 ICRP proposes system of radiological protection consisting of dose constraints and dose
limits, complimented by optimization.
2009 Marie Curie's papers including her cookbook from the 1890s are considered too dangerous
to handle due to their levels of radioactivity. They are kept in lead-lined boxes and those
who wish to consult them must wear protective clothing.
2.1.2. ICRP recommendations

The ICRP clearly states that the system of radiological protection applies in principle to all sources
of radiation regardless of size and origin. However, it is recognised that it is inappropriate to treat all
sources and exposures in the same way and with the same level of resources. The ICRP has dened
two concepts to delineate the extent of radiological protection control for regulatory purposes:
1. Exclusion of certain exposure situations from legislation because they cannot be controlled by
any reasonable means (for example, potassium40 in the body or exposure to cosmic radiation
at sea level).
2. Exemption from some or all radiological protection legislation for situations where such controls
are felt to be unwarranted (for example, very low levels of radioactivity in building materials).
There are three categories of radiation exposure in the ICRP system:
1. Occupational
2. Public
3. Medical
An important ICRP recommendation is that `no attempt be made to add the exposures to the same
individual from the dierent categories of exposure for regulatory purposes'. The NORM guidelines
primarily deal with the control of occupational exposures.
The basic principles of radiological protection are:

Justication Àny decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than
harm'. This principle applies to all exposure situations.
Optimisation of protection `The likelihood of incurring exposures, the number of people exposed,
and the magnitude of their individual doses should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking
into account economic and societal factors'. This principle applies to all exposure situations.
Dose limitation `The total dose to any individual from regulated sources in planned exposure situa-
tions other than medical exposure of patients should not exceed the appropriate limits recommended
by the Commission'. This principle is individual related and applies in planned exposure situations
only.
The appropriate upper bound for optimising protection with regard to a particular activity or plan
will vary according to a number of factors, including the overall benet to society conferred by that
activity, the cost and practicability of protection options, and the benet received by those incurring
the exposure. The ICRP recommends that the national authorities set appropriate reference levels
for specic activities.
2.2. Summary
The diagram in Figure 2.2 illustrates the overall approach that is recommended to ensure that
radiation doses at mines are as low as practicable.
Figure 2.2.: Application of the System of Radiation Protection in Mines
Engineering Administrative Processes
Classifying Radiation Developing

Best Practicable Classifying Work
Employees & Protection in Procedures &
Technology Conditions
Dose Constraints Design Awareness
Radiation Classification Classification Special Safe Work

Protection in of Controlled of Designated Exposures Procedures
Design Areas Employees
Engineering Classification Radiation

Dose Investigation
Control of of Restricted Safety
Constraints Levels
Sources Areas Training
Classification
Auditing
of Supervised
Areas
The principle of optimisation of radiation protection is a cornerstone of the international system for
radiation protection and is the key driver for ensuring that radiation doses are not just maintained
below standards, but are kept to the lowest feasible level throughout the life cycle of a practice
involving radioactive materials. This principle is also referred to as the ALARA principle: As Low
As Reasonably Achievable economic and social factors being taken into account.
Note: in the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 ([2]), the term "as low as practicable"
(ALARP)(refer Regulation 16.15 [1]) is used and for all practical intents and purposes this is the
same as ALARA.
The use of risk management to develop a suitably detailed plan for the identication, control and
monitoring of radiation exposure and the management of radioactive wastes is necessary to coordinate
the system of radiation protection. This is documented in the Radiation Management Plan for an
exploration, mining and/or processing operation. Details on the requirements for these are contained
in the guidelines on the preparation of a Radiation Management Plan (NORM2.1 Exploration,
NORM2.2 Mining and processing).
One of the most eective ways to control radiation risks is to engineer out radiation hazards to the
extent feasible. This guideline provides a brief overview of radiation protection in design, but does
not discuss engineering controls in any detail as these are covered in the other Guidelines (NORM4.1
Dust control strategies and NORM4.2 Management of radioactive waste).
The main focus of this guideline is on the administrative processes that are used to ensure optimisa-
tion.
2.3. Engineering
2.3.1. Best practicable technology
The responsible person at a mining operation needs to be able to demonstrate to the State Mining
Engineer that the operation is employing the best practicable technology (Regulation 16.7(5) [1])
and that radiation doses to employees received as a result of that operation, are as low as practicable
(Regulation 16.15 [1]).
The preparation of a formal radiation management plan (as per Regulation 16.7 [1]) is intended to
document how best practicable technology has been incorporated into the design and operation of
the mine and/or processing plant, and also the procedures that have been adopted to ensure the
radiation exposure of persons employed at, or aected by, the mine are not just below the relevant
dose limit, but are as low as practicable (refer to Guideline NORM2.2 Preparation of a radiation
management plan Mining and processing for further information).
It is considered that if a company is able to demonstrate that they are complying with their approved
radiation management plan then that should suce as an indication that the doses received are at
an acceptable level. Note that all radiation management plans are required to be reviewed within
two years of commencement of each operation and subsequently at intervals designated by the State
Mining Engineer (Regulation 16.7(4) [1]), typically every two years. This review interval will be
more frequent if circumstances change.
2.3.1.1. Radiation protection in design

Optimisation commences in the design stage of an exploration, mining or processing operation. At
the design stage, cost-benet analysis is required to achieve a balanced design, which is not only
optimised for radiation protection, but all other health, safety and environmental requirements.
Once the detailed engineering design of a process has been nalised it is often quite expensive to
retrot radiation control equipment, such as ventilation ducting for dust control and the associated

infrastructure. For this reason, specication of radiation protection standards to be achieved in

operations is important at the initial design stages.
In design, optimisation can be facilitated by:
1. specifying radiation protection design criteria, usually in terms of contamination levels or dose
rates at some fraction of derived limits;
2. specifying engineering control features, such as dust extraction or suppression equipment, shiel-
ding, layout of plant, automation of processes;
3. undertaking formal hazard assessments, such as hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies at
various stages of design;
4. ensuring design engineers are aware of relevant radiation protection measures through appro-
priate training and instruction; and
5. applying the hierarchy of risk control principles (i.e. preference to elimination and control of
hazards rather than use of operational procedures and PPE to achieve exposure control).
Although it may be possible to carry out minor modications to plant and equipment following
completion of the detailed design phase, post-design stage optimisation may be restricted to the
implementation of operational procedures, including the adherence to any dose constraints that may
be imposed on an operation.
The underlying principles of radiation protection have been summarised in the Table 2.1 on the facing
page and should be considered in the design of new facilities.
2.4. Administrative processes for optimisation

The administrative processes used for optimisation involve:
1. Classication of working conditions and workplaces.
2. Application of dose constraints to certain work categories.
3. Implementation of investigation and reporting levels.
4. Formulation, distribution and implementation of safe work procedures for identied critical
tasks and provision of awareness training to all employees.
The classication of working conditions and workplaces and the implementation of investigation and
reporting levels where contamination of the workplace cannot be èngineered out' of the operations
are discussed in detail in the following sections.
2.4.1. Classifying work conditions

2.4.1.1. Classication of controlled areas
One administrative method of achieving optimisation involves identifying and delineating areas of
higher contamination levels or dose rates in the workplace. There are two such areas that the ICRP
and ARPANSA recommend should be invoked in premises that use or handle radioactive materials
namely, controlled and supervised areas (see denitions in Section 1.3 on page 2). Such designated
areas are accompanied by suitable radiation safety rules or procedures specied by management.
Table 2.1.: Principles of radiation protection
Principle Intent
Source barrier (shielding) Maximise containment, minimise release
Distance Maximise distance
Time Minimise exposure and intake time
Source reduction Minimise production and use of radioactive materials
Optimal technology Choose best practicable technology
Housekeeping Minimise spillages and surface contamination
Dilution and blending

† Minimise concentration, maximise dilution
Personal barrier Minimise entry into the body by providing appropriate

PPE and washing facilities
Education Maximise knowledge through training
Limit other exposures Minimise exposures to other agents
†
Applicable only for mineral sands mining and separation.
The Regulations [1] require that, if there is an area in a mine in which exposure conditions are such
that an employee could receive in excess of 5 mSv in a year, then that area is to be declared a
controlled area and the provisions of Regulation 16.12 [1] should be applied to those areas.
This dose of 5 mSv may be received from one or a combination of radioactive sources; for example,
either internal exposure or external exposure or both. Note that even if no employees are anticipated
to work in the particular controlled area for a full twelve month period, control is still required to be
established for that area if the potential for exposure exists.
Controlled area work procedures Regulation 16.12 [1] requires that each responsible person at
the mine must ensure that each employee working in a controlled area has received appropriate
instructions about the nature of the radiation hazard in the area. These instructions should be in
the form of clearly dened written procedures which explain what is necessary for any employee
working in the area to reduce, as much as practicable, any identied hazard associated with a set
task.
The dened tasks would be for routine operations, as well as for tasks that are only performed
at infrequent times during a year (e.g. major maintenance overhauls). It is important to describe
procedures for infrequently performed tasks, as personnel may change during the period (e.g. use of
contractors) and people, over time, may forget the manner in which tasks were performed to result
in the lowest exposure.
Detailed work practices and procedures need to be developed to ensure that the eective control
over radioactive material is established and lowest practicable exposure levels are being maintained.

Figure 2.3.: An example of a controlled area warning sign
These procedures should be reviewed periodically for their eectiveness as well as audited for their
actual application in practice.
Requirements should be established for activities such as the movement, storage, processing and
packaging of radioactive materials, and waste management. Work practices and, particularly, good
housekeeping measures are required to prevent unnecessary exposure to, and dispersion, of radioactive
materials. Procedures should be provided in relation to spillage clean up, including the control
measures to be used (e.g. water, vacuuming), and the preventative maintenance of control equipment
such as lters and dust collector. The procedures should also specify any personal protective clothing
or apparatus that may be necessary to perform the task in a safe manner.
All written procedures for controlled areas should also be part of the radiation management plan and
must be readily available to, and understood by, all personnel involved.
Controlled area work practices The practices that are adopted in controlled areas would be specic
to each operation but should involve good hygiene practices as follows:
1. Areas where it is possible for designated employees to eat, drink and smoke should be clearly
delineated and these areas should not ordinarily be part of a controlled area.
2. Facilities to wash personnel's hands and faces before leaving a controlled area should be provi-
ded. In certain circumstances, showering facilities may be necessary.
3. Similarly, contaminated clothing should not be allowed to leave controlled areas. It may be
necessary to provide laundering facilities associated with these areas if contaminated clothing is
routinely encountered. Disposable clothing, or easily cleaned clothing like waterproof garments,
would be required for those tasks where clothing may become contaminated if the potential for
personal contamination cannot be engineered out of a task.
2.4.1.2. Classication of restricted areas

There may be work areas in some mining and/or processing operations where the potential for
exposure of employees may be a signicant fraction of the annual dose limit, say, in excess of 15 mSv
in a year. In these cases it may be benecial to further categorise these areas as restricted areas. A
restricted area would then be a part of a controlled area where access is stringently controlled; time
spent in the area is minimised; and all work practices and procedures are carried out by experienced
personnel possibly under supervision, either remotely or directly.
Figure 2.4.: An example of a restricted area warning sign
In the mining and processing of naturally occurring radioactive materials, restricted areas would only
be anticipated where there is substantial concentration of thorium and uranium bearing materials;
typically when thorium exceeds 0.3% (3,000 ppm) and uranium concentrations exceed 0.13% (1,300
ppm.).
2.4.1.3. Classication of supervised areas

In accordance with the ARPANSA denition: a Supervised Area is
an area in which working conditions are kept under review but in which special procedures
to control exposure to radiation are not normally necessary.
In accordance with this recommendation, Regulation 16.12(2) [1] requires members of the public in
such areas to be supervised and the dose constraint, as discussed in Subsection 2.4.1.2 on the facing
page, restricts certain occupations to the same limit as members of the public.
Thus, in practice, supervised areas are all of those areas on an exploration, mining or mineral
processing site where it is possible for exposure conditions, either by internal or external exposure or
both, to exceed member of the public limits based on an occupancy factor of 25%, or for approximately
40 hours per week exposure.
Supervised areas should be clearly delineated so that any member of the public (e.g. a visitor) or an
employee in a restricted occupation (e.g. oce and administration sta ), is aware that the supervised
area exists and that they are required to obey a supervisors instructions whilst in these areas. The
minimum constraint on these areas would require the responsible person to ensure that members of
the public and relevant employees are restricted in the amount of time spent in supervised areas,
assuming that access is indeed necessary.
The use of supervised areas on an exploration/mining/processing site can be used to highlight areas
of marginally elevated exposure levels (e.g. stockpiles of radioactive minerals in a store producing
elevated radiation levels on the other side of the store wall). As exposures to all personnel are to be
kept as low as practicable then knowledge of any elevated exposure levels can eliminate unnecessary
exposure.

Figure 2.5.: An example of a supervised area warning sign
Areas outside supervised areas The boundaries of supervised areas should not be confused with
the site boundary, where it is required that exposure levels are such that, as a result of exploration,
mining and/or processing operations, the member of the public limit should not be exceeded when
based on 100% occupancy or exposure for 168 hours per week. In other words, a hypothetical person
residing adjacent to the site lease will not receive in excess of 1 mSv per annum.
As all areas of potential radiation exposure should be known and classied according to the exposure
conditions, there should not be any surprise exposure conditions such that persons may receive doses
in excess of the member of the public limit outside of supervised or controlled areas.
Monitoring of areas outside of supervised or controlled areas could, therefore, be limited to area
monitoring to determine levels of airborne radioactivity and to area gamma measurement utilising
either thermoluminescent dosimeter or survey meter; it should not be necessary to conduct personal
monitoring in these areas.
Note: In the assessment of the internal exposure from airborne radioactivity outside of supervised or
controlled areas, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the relevant dose conversion factor for the
member of the public default aerial median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD) of 1 µm should be used.
2.4.2. Classication of employees and dose constraints

2.4.2.1. Classication of designated employees
One useful operational technique used to cost-eectively target radiation protection resources is the
classication of employees. This is in recognition of the fact that radiation monitoring and protective
eorts need to be directed to those groups of workers who have the potential to receive a relatively
higher radiation exposure in comparison to other groups of workers.
In accordance with the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations [1], an individual is to be classied
as a designated employee if there is potential for the individual to receive an occupational dose
in excess of 5 mSv per year. It is required that the number of designated employees be kept to
the minimum necessary for the proper conduct of the mining and/or processing operation (refer
Regulation 16.14 (3) [1] ).
The Regulations [1] also require that employees to be classied à priori' (i.e. before operations
commences) as either designated or non-designated employees. Depending on the concentra-
tions of radionuclides and processing conditions some workers directly involved in the operation and
maintenance of metallurgical plants processing radioactive materials may be classied as designated

employees. Employees involved in work categories like: surface mining, concentration, transport, ad-
ministration, general workshop duties and technical services are typically classied as non-designated
employees, some of which have a dose constraint placed on them (see Section 2.4.2.2).
Criteria for prediction of designated employees Practical experience has indicated that the à
priori' assignment of an employee as a designated employee based on the previous year's work
category assessments has become increasingly dicult. Complicating factors include the:
consistent reduction, through optimisation measures, of the annual eective dose received by
employees; and
increased used of `multi-skilling' in the mining and mineral processing industry, which means
that employees spend times in several work categories throughout the reporting year.
The following criteria can be utilised for classifying designated employees for subsequent reporting
years:
1. If an employee received an eective dose approaching 5 mSv in the previous year, and is likely
to undertake the same work patterns in the coming year.
2. If an existing employee or a new employee is to work, in the coming year, in conditions where
other employees received a dose approaching 5 mSv in the previous year.
3. Where an employee is required to work for a considerable proportion of their annual working
hours in an area where the absorbed dose rate arising from gamma radiation is 2.5 microsievert
per hour (µSv/h) or more.
4. Where an employee is required to work for a considerable proportion of their annual working
hours in a work category that was assessed from the previous year's monitoring program, as
being exposed to a mean airborne alpha activity concentration equivalent to or in excess of one
quarter of the derived airborne concentration (DAC) (for more information please refer to the
Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment).
5. Any combination of the above criteria which may result in the annual eective dose approaching
5 mSv.
Note: The à priori' assignment of an employee as a designated employee is necessary as this group
of employees requires personal monitoring which will necessitate the planning of adequate resources
and possibly work activities.
2.4.2.2. Dose constraint for oce and support services sta

The MSIA [2] denition of a mine includes areas where radioactive materials would not normally be
encountered or handled, such as oces, warehouses and service buildings.
Under the MSIR [1], the occupational dose limit (20 mSv per year averaged over 5 years) is theoreti-
cally applicable to all employees, including contractors. However, such workers should be constrained
to receive radiation doses much less than the occupational dose limit.
A dose constraint of 1 milliSievert (mSv) per year averaged over 5 years, could be applied to indivi-
duals employed in work categories where work practices do not involve the direct handling, or use,
of radioactive materials. This includes employees and contractors in work categories involved in the:
operation of any support facilities on an exploration, mining and/or processing site, including
administration oces, workshops and services buildings;

operation of residential and recreational facilities such as exploration/mining camp and the
ground used for that purpose, where such facilities are located on the mine tenement and are
used in connection with exploration and/or mining operations;
operations undertaken for the environmental rehabilitation of an exploration, mining and/or

processing site during production operations and after their completion; and
operations for the care, security and maintenance of a mine and plant at the site undertaken
during any period when production or development operations at the site are suspended.
2.4.3. Establishing triggers for action and control

The approved radiation management plan for the mine should contain a radiation monitoring program
that requires, amongst other matters, the monitoring of personal contamination levels and external
gamma doses. Due to the use of work category averages in dose assessment, any unusually high or
low monitoring result may impact on the exposure estimates for all workers in the particular work
category. Thus, some guidance is necessary on the treatment of non-routine measurement results.
The site radiation safety ocer (RSO) is expected to have a detailed knowledge of the mean conta-
mination levels and gamma exposures that each work category is normally exposed to. Thus, the
RSO should be able to provide professional judgement to make an assessment as to whether any mo-
nitoring result appears unusual. Typically, an investigation should commence if the result is outside
some pre-determined statistical bounds of the work category mean. The following sections contain
guidance on this matter.
2.4.3.1. Classifying an exposure result as a special exposure

If an investigation into an unusually or unexpectedly high monitoring result reveals that an exposure
to an individual resulted from a task which is non-routine, an assessment will need to be made on
whether that task will be repeated frequently in the remainder of the monitoring year. This requires
careful consideration as it is possible that similar circumstances or work activities may occur during
the year, but, due to the nature of the sampling regime, the task may not have been monitored
previously.
If it is considered that it is highly unlikely that the circumstances will occur again, then the elevated
exposure should not be included in the work category average, and should be declared as a separate
`special exposure' and assigned solely to those individual(s) who incurred the exposure.
Similarly, if a known or planned task involving an unusual exposure within a work category, or across
several work categories, may occur once or even several times in a monitoring period, the exposure
received by those persons involved in the task could also be assigned as a personal special exposure.
In this case each individual involved will be monitored each time that task is performed.
Where an exploration, mining and/or processing operation is implementing a specic campaign,

where the exposure conditions are anticipated to be signicantly dierent than usual (e.g. obtaining
exploration samples with relatively high concentrations of radionuclides, re-processing radioactive
tailings, cleaning of large processing vessels or pipe-work from radioactive scale and sludge), alter-
native arrangements for handling the monitoring data may be made. For example, a special work
category sub-group may be established for the period of the campaign, rather than declaring a series
of special exposures.
Consideration will also need to be given to variations in dose assessment parameters, such as particle
size or dierent ratio of radionuclide decay series, as a result of the campaign.
Note: this method of dose assessment by declaration of special work category sub-groups is more
suitable if exposures are going to occur for a large group of persons over an extended period, rather
than a small group. The technique of assessment by special exposures is more useful for small groups
of individuals involved in short term exposures.
Handling of special exposures If a routine monitoring program result appears unusual or, following
statistical analysis, the result is signicantly dierent from what is normally expected, then the
circumstances of the particular exposure should be investigated. If the investigation conrms that
the exposure circumstances comply with the conditions for a special exposure (as outlined above)
then:
1. The result can be recorded in the site's radiation exposure register as a special exposure for the
individual(s) concerned, along with the details of its occurrence. Note: The dose arising from
this exposure is calculated separately from the individual's routine work category assessment,
and is added to the dose assessment at the end of the reporting period.
2. The State Mining Engineer must be notied in writing of any special exposures including the
resultant dose or exposure and the conditions under which it was received (Regulation 16.11(c)
[1]). The State Mining Engineer may or may not agree that the conditions warranted a special
exposure. Potential disagreement over classication may be avoided through prior discussion
and agreement with a Special Inspector of Mines who deals in radiation protection matters.
3. All special exposures should be specically highlighted in the Company's Annual Occupational
Radiation Monitoring Report.
2.4.3.2. Investigation levels

The numerical value of a monitoring result determines whether an investigation into the exposure is
necessary. Investigation and reporting levels have been identied for such radiation parameters as:
1. Area Gamma Dose Rate
2. Personal External Dose
3. Personal Internal Dose
4. Airborne Radioactivity
5. Airborne Dust
6. Radon/Thoron in Air
7. Radionuclides in Water
8. Stack Emissions
9. Surface Contamination
These are outlined in further detail in NORM6 Reporting requirements.
2.4.3.3. Auditing
Regulation 16.38 [1] requires that an audit of all sealed radiation sources and of their location within
the operation should be carried out on an annual basis. Further information can be obtained from
the guidelines issued by the Radiological Council of Western Australia.

2.4.4. Developing procedures and awareness

2.4.4.1. Safe work procedures
Safe work procedures should be written work procedures and reviewed periodically for their eec-
tiveness as well as audited for their actual application in practice. These written work procedures
should be referenced in the radiation management plan (see NORM2.1 and NORM2.2), and must
be readily available to, and understood by, all personnel involved.
Requirements should be established for activities such as the movement, storage, processing and
packaging of radioactive materials, and waste management. Work practices and particularly good
housekeeping measures are necessary to prevent unnecessary exposure to, and dispersion, of radioac-
tive materials. Procedures should be provided in relation to spillage clean up, including the control
measures to be used (e.g. water, vacuuming), and the preventative maintenance of control equipment
such as lters and dust collectors.
2.4.4.2. Radiation safety training

All employees who may be exposed to radiation should be provided with information on the risks as-
sociated with radiation exposure, detailed description of sources and pathways of radiation exposure,
and safe working methods. The detailed information for a particular mining/processing site should
be included in the education and training program.
One of the outcomes of the Uranium Industry Framework (UIF)[5] was the need for the development
of a course on mining-related radiation safety and protection to meet the needs of mining operators
and regulators, including accreditation of course work and related industrial experience. These units
are part of a national certication process for radiation safety ocers.
Recently, the Federal Government funded Government Skills Australia to develop units of competency
for those working in elds which involve Radiation Protection and Safety. Several units of competency
are available from the Government Skills Australia web site www.governmentskills.com.au that can
be used to create training programs for radiation workers. The units available at time of writing
were:
1. Work safely in a radiation environment
2. Work safely with radioactive ores and minerals
3. Consign radioactive material
4. Handle and transport radioactive material
5. Work safely with radiation sealed source equipment
6. Monitor radiation
7. Coordinate radiation safety
8. Select, commission and maintain radiation measuring instruments
9. Lead a quality audit
10. Participate as a member of a workplace emergency initial response team
11. Lead a workplace emergency initial response team
12. Apply a specialised knowledge of radiation protection and safety to develop and implement an
ionising
13. radiation management plan
14. Work safely with radioactive ores and minerals
15. Consign radioactive material
16. Handle and transport radioactive material
17. Work safely with radiation sealed source equipment
18. Monitor radiation
19. Coordinate radiation safety
20. Select, commission and maintain radiation measuring instruments
21. Lead a quality audit
22. Participate as a member of a workplace emergency initial response team
23. Lead a workplace emergency initial response team
24. Apply a specialised knowledge of radiation protection and safety to develop and implement an
ionising radiation management plan.
Further guidance on the nature and extent of employee training is provided in NORM2.2.

A. Appendix listing referenced organisations

and documents
A.1. Australian radiation protection bodies
Figure A.1 shows the interaction of world radiation protection practice with the WA Mining Industry.
Figure A.1.: Radiation protection knowledge and control
Radiation protection in Western Australia is based on International and National standards.
A.1.1. Western Australia

Radiological Council Radiation Safety Act, Radioactive Transport Regulations Re-
gistration and Licencing.
www.radiologicalcouncil.wa.gov.au
Department of Mines and Petroleum, Resources Safety Division Mines Safety and Ins-
pection Regulations Approvals.
www.dmp.wa.gov.au
Department of Mines and Petroleum, Environment Division Mining Act, Program of

Work (POW) Exploration, abandonment of sites.
www.dmp.wa.gov.au
Department of Environment and Conservation, Contaminated Sites Section Contami-

nated Sites Act 2003 (Act) Control of radioactive wastes.
www.environment.wa.gov.au
A.1.2. National
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts - under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) control matters of
national environmental signicance including nuclear actions. Regulation of uranium
exploration, mining, milling, and uranium mine rehabilitation. www.environment.gov.au
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources Uranium Industry Section - Customs

(Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 Export of Uranium and Thorium.
www.industry.gov.au
Australian Nuclear Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Oce - Nuclear Non-Proliferation

(Safeguards) Act Application to Transfer Uranium Ore Concentrates (UOC) Interna-
tionally. www.asno.dfat.gov.au
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science Agency (ARPANSA).

www.arpansa.gov.au
Australian Customswww.customs.gov.au Export / Import of radioactive material. Ex-

port/Import
A.2. Western Australia specic Acts and Regulations

Copies of the WA Acts and Regulations are available for download free from the State
Law Publisher. www.slp.wa.gov.au
Radiation Safety Ac t, 1975. link
Radiation Safety (General) Regulations, 1983. link
Radiation Safety (Qualications) Regulations, 1980. link
Radiation Safety (Transport Radioactive Substances) Regulations, 2002. link
Mines Safety & Inspection Act, 1994. link
Mines Safety & Inspection Regulations, 1995. link
Contaminated Sites Act, 2003. link

Contaminated Sites Regulations, 2006. link
Guideline Classication of Radiologically Contaminated Sites, Radiological Council of

Western Australia, 2009.
Copies of the Federal Acts and Regulations are available for download free from ComLaw
(Commonwealth Law).
www.comlaw.gov.au/
Australian National Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 Statutory Rules
1958 No. 5 as amended made under the Customs Act, 1901. link
Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 Revised 14 March 2003 Version 2
Application to Transfer Uranium Ore Concentrates (UOC) Internationally, 2003. link
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999. link
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations, 2000. link
A.3. Australian national documents

A.3.1. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
www.arpansa.gov.au
Recommendations for limiting exposure to ionising radiation (1995) (Guidance note

[NOHSC:3022 (1995)]) and National standard for limiting occupational exposure to io-
nising radiation [NOHSC:1013 (1995)], Radiation Protection Series Publication No. 1,
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2002.
Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Radiation Protection
Series Publication No.2, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA), 2008.
Safety Guide for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Radiation Protection Series
Publication No.2.1, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (AR-
PANSA), 2008.
National Directory for Radiation Protection Edition 1.0, Radiation Protection Series
Publication No. 6, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (AR-
PANSA), 2004.
Code of Practice and Safety Guide: Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Ma-
nagement in Mining and Minerals Processing, Radiation Protection Series Publication
No.9, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2005.
Code of Practice for the Security of Radioactive Sources, Radiation Protection Series
Publication No.11, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (AR-
PANSA), 2007.
Code of Practice and Safety Guide for the Safe Use of Fixed Radiation Gauges, Radiation
Protection Series Publication No.13, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency (ARPANSA), 2007.
Safety Guide: Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), Ra-

diation Protection Series Publication No.15, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2008.
Safety Guide: Pre-disposal Management of Radioactive Waste, Radiation Protection se-

ries Publication No.16, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (AR-
PANSA), 2008.
A.3.2. National Health and Medical Research Council

www.nhmrc.gov.au
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) EH19 National Health and Medical Re-
search Council (NHMRC), 2004.
A.3.3. Standards Australia

www.saiglobal.com/shop/ these documents may be purchased from Australian Stan-
dards.
AS 36402004 Workplace Atmospheres Method for sampling and gravimetric determi-

nation of inhalable dust, 2004.
AS 3580.9.3:2003. Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air Method 9.3:
Determination of suspended particulate matterTotal suspended particulate matter
(TSP)High volume sampler gravimetric method, 2003.
AS 1715: 1994. Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices, 1994.
AS 1716: 2003. Respiratory protective devices, 2003.
AS/NZS 4801:2001 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Specications

with guidance for use, 2001.
AS/NZS 4804:2001 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems General gui-
delines on principles, systems and supporting techniques, 2001.
AS 4360: 2004 Risk Management, 2004.
HB 1582006 Delivering assurance based on AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk Management, 2006.
HB 2052004 OHS Risk Management Handbook, 2004.
HB 436:2004 Risk Management Guidelines, 2004.
AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems Requirements with gui-

dance for use, 2004.
AS/NZS ISO 14031:2000 Environmental Management Environmental performance eva-

luation Guidelines, 2000.
AS/NZS 3931: 1998 Risk analysis of technological systems Application guide, 1998.
A.3.4. International Documents

A.3.4.1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
www.icrp.org

Protection Against Radon222 at Home and at Work. Oxford: Pergamon Press: ICRP
Publication 65; Ann. Vol. 23 No. 2, 1993.
General Principles for the Radiation Protection of Workers, ICRP Publication 75, Annals
of the ICRP, Vol.27, No.1, 1997.
Radiological Protection Policy for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, ICRP Publication
77, Annals of the ICRP, Vol.27, Supplement 1997.
Radiation Protection Recommendations as Applied to the Disposal of Long-lived Solid

Radioactive Waste, ICRP Publication 81, Annals of the ICRP, Vol.28, No.4, 1998.
Protection of the Public in Situations of Prolonged Radiation Exposure, ICRP Publica-

tion 82, Annals of the ICRP, Vol.29, No.12, 1999.
A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Ionising Radiation on Non-human Species,

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 91, Annals of
the ICRP, Vol.33, Issue, pp.201270, 2003.
2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,

ICRP Publication 103, Annals of the ICRP, Vol.37, No.24, 2007.
Scope of Radiological Protection Control Measures, ICRP Publication 104, Annals of the
ICRP, Vol.37, No.5, 2007.
A.3.4.2. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

www.iaea.org
Safety requirements:
International Basic safety Standards for Protection against Ionising Radiation and for the
Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No.115, International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Vienna, 1996.
Fundamental Safety Principles, Safety Standards Series No.SF-1, International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2006.
Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material: 2009 Edition, Safety Requi-
rements No.TS-R-1, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2009.
Near Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Safety Requirements No.WS-R-1, Interna-

tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 1999.
Pre-disposal Management of Radioactive Waste, Including Decommissioning, Safety Re-

quirements No.WS-R-2, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2000.
Remediation of Areas Contaminated by Past Activities and Accidents, Safety Require-

ments No. WS-R-3, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2003.
Safety guides:
Regulatory Control of Radiation Sources, Safety Guide No.GS-G-1.5, International Ato-
mic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2004
Occupational Radiation Protection, Safety Guide No.RS-G-1.1, International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 1999.
Assessment of Occupational Exposure due to Intakes of Radionuclides, Safety Guide

No.RS-G-1.2, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 1999.
Assessment of Occupational Exposure due to External Sources of Radiation, Safety Guide

No.RS-G-1.3, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 1999.
Building Competence in Radiation Protections and the Safe Use of Radiation Sources,
Safety Guide No.RS-G-1.4, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2001.
Occupational Radiation Protection in the Mining and Processing of Raw Materials, Safety
Guide No.RS-G-1.6, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2004.
Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance, Safety Guide No.RS-
G-1.7, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2004.
Environmental and Source Monitoring for Purposes of Radiation Protection, Safety Guide
No.RS-G-1.8, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2005
Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Ma-
terial, Safety Guide No.TS-G-1.1 (Rev.1), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 2008.
Planning and Preparing for Emergency Response to Transport Accidents Involving Radio-
active Material, Safety Guide No.TS-G-1.2, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 2002.
Radiation Protection Programs for the Transport of Radioactive Material, Safety Guide
No.TS-G-1.3, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2007.
The Management System for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Safety Guide
No.TS-G-1.4, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2008.
Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores, Safety Guide
No.WS-G-1.2, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2002.
Regulatory Control of the Radioactive Discharges to the Environment, Safety Guide

Remediation Process for Areas Aected by Past Activities and Accidents, Safety Guide
Release of Sites from Regulatory Control on Termination of Practices, Safety Guide

Safety reports:
Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances
to the Environment, Safety Report No.19, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 2001.
Optimisation of Radiation protection in the Control of Occupational Exposure, Safety

Report No.21, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2002.
Monitoring and Surveillance of Residues from the Mining and Milling of Uranium and
Thorium, Safety Report No.27, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna,
2002.
Radiation Protection and the management of Radioactive Waste in the Oil and Gas
Industry, Safety Report No.34, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna,
2003.
Methods for Assessing Occupational Radiation Doses Due to Intakes of Radionuclides,

Safety Report No.37, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2004.

Derivation of Activity Concentration Values for Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance,

Safety Report No.44, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2005.
Standard Format and Content for Safety Related Decommissioning Documents, Safety
Report No.45, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2005.
Assessing the Need for Radiation Protection Measures in Work Involving Minerals and
Raw Materials, Safety Report No.49, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 2005.
Decommissioning Strategies for Facilities Using Radioactive Materials, Safety Report

No.50, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2007.
Radiation Protection and NORM Residue Management in the Zircon and Zirconia In-
dustries, Safety Report No.51, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna,
2007.
Technical reports:
Current Practices for the Management and Connement of Uranium Mill Tailings, Tech-
nical Report No.335, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 1992.
Decommissioning of Facilities for Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores ans Closeout of
Residues, Technical Report No.362, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 1994.
Scientic and Technical Basis for the Near Surface Disposal of Low and Intermediate
Level Waste, Technical Report No.412, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
2002.
Considerations in the Development of Near Surface Repositories for Radioactive Waste,

Technical Report No.417, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2003.
Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

(NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation, Technical Report No.419, Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2003.
Remediation of Sites with Dispersed Radioactive Contamination, Technical Report

No.424, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2004.
Remediation of Sites with Mixed Contamination of Radioactive and Other Hazardous

Substances, Technical Report No.442, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 2006.
Applicability of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Radioactively Contaminated Sites,

Technical Report No.445, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2006.
Nuclear Energy Series:

Establishment of Uranium Mining and Processing Operations in the Context of Sus-
tainable Development, Nuclear Energy Series NF-T-1.1, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2009.
A.3.4.3. European Commission (EC)

www.ec.europa.eu
Radiation Protection No.88, Recommendations for the Implementation of Title VII of

the European Basic Safety Standards Directive Concerning Signicant Increase in Ex-
posure due to Natural Radiation Sources, European Commission, DirectorateGeneral
Environment, 1997.
Radiation Protection No.112, Radiological Protection Principles concerning the Natural

Radioactivity of Building Materials, European Commission, DirectorateGeneral Envi-
ronment, 1999.
Radiation Protection 122, Practical Use of the Concepts of Clearance and Exemption
Part I: Guidance on General Clearance Levels for Practices, European Commission,
DirectorateGeneral Environment, 2000.
Radiation Protection 122, Practical Use of the Concepts of Clearance and Exemption
Part II: Application of the Concepts of Exemption and Clearance to Natural Radiation
Sources, European Commission, DirectorateGeneral Environment, 2001.
Radiation Protection 124, Radiological Considerations with regards to the Remediation

of Areas Aected by Lasting Radiation Exposure as a result of a past or Old Practice or
Work Activity, European Commission, DirectorateGeneral Environment, 2001.
Radiation Protection 135, Euent and Dose Control from European Union NORM In-
dustries: Assessment of Current Situation and Proposal for a Harmonised Community
Approach, European Commission, DirectorateGeneral for Energy and Transport, Unit
H.4 Radiation protection, 2003.
A.3.4.4. United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
www.unscear.org
Sources and Eects of Ionising Radiation; 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with
Scientic Annexes, United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radia-
tion (UNSCEAR), 2000.
Sources, Eects and Risks of Ionising Radiation; 2002 Report to the General Assembly,
with Annexes. United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR), 2002.
Eects of Ionising Radiation; 2006 Report to the General Assembly, with Annexes. United
Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2006.
A.3.4.5. Canada
Canadian Guidelines for the Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(NORM), Health Canada, 2000.
www.hc-sc.gc.ca
Measuring Airborne Radon Progeny at Uranium Mines and Mills G-4, Regulatory Guide,
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2003.
www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca
A.3.4.6. United Kingdom

NRPB Radiation at Work Broadsheets - Minerals Containing Natural Radioactivity,
Health Protection Agency, UK, 2003.
www.hpa.org.uk

A.3.4.7. United States of America

Radiation Protection in the Mineral Extraction Industry, National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP), USA, Report No.118, 1993.
www.ncrponline.org
Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and By-product Materials,

NUREG-1717, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1999.
www.nrc.gov
Evaluation of Guidelines for Exposures to technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring

Radioactive materials, National Research Council, National Academy press, Washington,
USA, 1999.
B. Appendix on Radiation Safety Ocer

requirements
B.1. Mining and mineral processing qualications and experience
B.1.1. Qualications
A pre-requisite to formal approval as a Radiation Safety Ocer for an exploration, mining and/or
minerals processing operation in Western Australia that use or handle NORM (naturally occurring
radioactive material (Regulation 16.9 [1]), must be that the individual as a minimum has success-
fully completed a Bachelor of Science degree preferably in a technical discipline (physics, chemistry
or engineering). The main reason is that it is essential for the Radiation Safety Ocer (RSO) to
have a rm grasp of advanced mathematical principles.
Where the monitoring of radioactivity concentrations in air is expected to be required, it is necessary

that the individual successfully completes the course of `Surface Ventilation Ocer' to be eligible
for the appointment as a Ventilation Ocer for an exploration, mining and/or minerals processing
operation (Regulation 9.4.(2) [1]).
It is advisable that the individual attends and successfully completes the `Radiation Ocer for Static
Gauges' course and become `RSO for Static Gauges' initially. Subsequently, a more advanced course
should be completed, as advised by the appropriate authority.
Ideally, qualications and experience of the individual should be sucient for the full membership in
the Australasian Radiation Protection Society, which are as follows:
Every applicant shall:
Have graduated from a minimum three year, full time equivalent, degree or diploma course
(preferably in radiation protection eld), which is recognised by the Australian Council on Ter-
tiary Awards, or in exceptional circumstances present such evidence of equivalent study and/or
experience as shall satisfy the Committee, and
Have been regularly and substantially engaged in one or more appropriate aspects of radiation
protection for at least one year at a level of competence and responsibility which will satisfy the
Committee, and
Be so engaged at the time of such application.
B.1.2. Experience
There are two principal aspects of experience, which an RSO must possess. These are technical
experience and relevant background:
1. Technical experience: An RSO must be thoroughly conversant with the various radiation mo-
nitoring and recording techniques approved by the appropriate authority, as well as the appro-
priate reporting protocols. It is unlikely that the required level of prociency will be acquired
by an individual with less than 12 months practical experience in these activities under the

general direction of an approved RSO as a Radiation Safety `Technician' or `Specialist'. In

accordance with the `gradual approach' principle, the period of 12 months may be modied (to
618 months) for the specic situation depending on the qualications and the experience
of the individual and on the levels of radiation exposure that are likely to be encountered at
the particular operation.
2. Relevant background: Protection of workers, public and the environment from potentially
harmful eects of ionising radiation requires an understanding of many disciplines, such as:
physics, mathematics, biology, biophysics, engineering (mechanical, chemical, and electrical),
chemistry, genetics, ecology and other environmental sciences, metallurgy, medicine, and toxi-
cology. Also, as the RSO operates in a mining and/or processing environment, the individual
should have an employment history in this industry and a clear understanding of mining and
processing principles, particularly those that are applied at the particular operation.
C. Appendix on uranium mining approval

process
The State Government will ensure the highest standards for environmental, occupational health and
safety and transportation to mine and export uranium in this state. It will be a requirement for any
proposal.
Protection of the environment is of paramount importance. Any proposed uranium mining project
will be subject to detailed mining proposals and environmental scrutiny, including referral under
the State Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The State Government does not support the export of uranium through any ports surrounded by
residential development. Legislation is already in place to prevent nuclear waste being brought into
WA and the State Government will not support the construction or operation of a nuclear power
facility in the State.

Figure C.1.: Simple owchart showing mining approvals process
URANIUM EXPLORATION AND MINING APPROVALS PROCESS

WESTERN AUSTRALIA
(Proposal on Crown Land and not within the boundary of a local planning scheme)
Mining Act 1978

Warden’s Court
Tenure Approval
Native Title Exploration Licence

E
X
P
L Radiological Protection Legislation
O Mine Safety & Inspection Act 1994
R Other Legislation / Regulation Radiation Safety Act 1975
A EP Act 1986 (Part IV) Exploration Radiation
T Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 Management Plan
Mining Act 1978
I Rights in Water & Irrigation Act 1914 Licence for Radiological
O Application for Native Vegetation Substance Transport Carrier
Programme of Work
N Clearing Radiation Safety (Transport of
Banded Ironstone Formation Radioactive Substances) Regulations
clearance 2002
Transport Carrier Radiological
Protection Programme
Warden’s Court Mining Act 1978

Tenure Approval
Native Title Mining Lease
D Other Leases Environmental Protection & Biodiversity
E Mineralisation Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth)
V Report
E Mining or milling uranium ores classified as
L nuclear action requiring referral to Aust
O Govt Minister for Environment
P Other Legislation / Regulation Radiological Protection Legislation
M EP Act 1986 (Part IV) – (s.38 referral) Mine Safety & Inspection Act 1994
E Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 Radiation Safety Act 1975
N Rights in Water & Irrigation Act 1914 Mining Radiation Management
T Application for Native Vegetation Plan
Clearing Radiation Waste Management
Banded Ironstone Formation Plan
P clearance Premises owner Radiological
R Mining Act 1978
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Registration
O Local Government building licences Mining Proposal Radiation Safety (Transport of
P
Radioactive Substances) Regulations
O
2002
S
Transport Carrier Radiological
A
Protection Programme
L
Mines Safety & Inspection EP Act 1986 (Part V)

Act 1994
Works Approvals
O Project Management Plan Operating Licences
P
E
R
A
T Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards)
I Act 1987 (Cwth)
O Permit to possess nuclear material
N Regulation 9 of Customes (Prohibited
Exports) Regulations under Customs
Act 1901 (Cwth)
Permit to export nuclear material
Mining Act 1978

EP Act 1986 (Part IV & V)
C EPBC Act 1999 Radiation Safety Act 1975
L Mine Safety & Inspection Act 1994 Final Radioactive Waste Management
O Contaminated Sites Act 2003 Plan for Mine Closure
S Final Closure Plans
U Final Mine Abandonment Plan
R
E
Radiation Safety Act 1975
Release of Registered Owner from
Radiological Responsibility
Bibliography
[1] Part 16 Radiation Safety, Mines Safety & Inspection Regulations, 1995.
[2] Mines Safety & Inspection Act, 1994.
[3] Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Minerals Processing,
ARPANSA, 2005
[4] Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), ARPANSA, 2008.
[5] Uranium Industry Framework - Report of the uranium industry framework steering group, Re-
sources Division of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2006.
[6] A Critical Review of the System of Radiation Protection First Reections of the OECD Nu-
clear Energy Agency's Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) Nuclear
Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2000.
[7] Appendix 1 Ranger environmental requirements explanatory material relating to section 19.2
best practicable technology, Supervising Scientist Annual Report 2000-01, Environment Australia,
2001.

Index
absorbed dose, 15 Mines Safety & Inspection Regulations, 21
acts, 21 Mining Act, 21
administrative processes, 10 MSIA, 9
ALARA principle, 9 multi-skilling, 15
ALARP, 9
NCRP, 28
AMAD, 14
non-designated, 14
ARPANSA, 1, 21, 22
non-xed (surface) contamination, 3
ASNO, 21
NORM, 2
auditing, 17
NRPB, 27
best practicable technology, 2, 9

occupational dose limit, 15
Canadian Guidelines, 27
personal contamination, 16
classication of designated employees, 14
PPE, 10
classication of restricted areas, 12
practicable, 3
classication of supervised areas, 13
prediction of designated employees, 15
classifying work conditions, 10
Program of Work, 21
Contaminated Sites Act, 21
Prohibited Exports Regulations, 22
Contaminated Sites Regulations, 22
public limits, 13
contamination level, 2, 10
controlled area, 2, 11 radiation management plan, 16
cost-benet analysis, 9 radiation protection in design, 9
Radiation Regulators, 20
DAC, 15
Radiation Safety (General) Regulations, 21
DEC, 21
Radiation Safety Act, 21
designated employee, 2, 14
radiation safety training, 18
dose constraint, 2, 15
radioactive tailings, 16
Radiological Council, 17, 20
eective dose, 15
radionuclide decay, 16
Environment Division, 21
regulations, 21
EPBC Act, 21, 22
Resources Safety Division, 21
establishing triggers, 16
restricted area, 3
European Commission, 26
risk management, 9
xed (surface) contamination, 3

safe work procedures, 18
gamma radiation, 15 Safeguards Act, 22

special exposure, 3, 16
HAZOP, 10 Standards Australia, 23
Health Protection Agency, 27 State Mining Engineer, 9, 17
supervised area, 3
IAEA, 1, 24
support services sta, 15
ICRP, 1, 23
surface contamination, 3
investigation levels, 17
UNSCEAR, 27
Mines Safety & Inspection Act, 21 uranium mining approval process, 31
34
NORM2.1
Preparation of a Radiation Management Plan exploration

Reference
in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM2.1. Preparation of a radiation management
plan exploration: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 42pp.
<www.dmp.wa.gov.au>

Guideline NORM2.1 Preparation of a radiation management plan exploration
Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Government regulation and codes of practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. Exploration for radioactive minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.1. Radiation safety basic principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2. Radiation exposure limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.3. Radiation exposures in perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.4. Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.5. Reducing the risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.6. Dust Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.7. CONTAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.8. Registered sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.9. MINEHEALTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.10. Radiation exposure control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.11. Dose assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.12. Long term core storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.13. Natural and induced disequilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.14. Radioactive mineral samples and rock chips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.15. Contaminated equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.16. Radioactive waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.17. Denition of a radioactive material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Elements to be included in a Radiation Management Plan 18

3.1. Document format and cover sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2. Scope of the Radiation Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4. Workforce information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5. Critical group information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6. Sources and pathways of radiation exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7. Equipment and facilities for controlling radiation sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.8. Institutional controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.9. Employee training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.10. Radiation monitoring program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.11. Records management and reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.12. Dose assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.13. Waste management system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.14. Transport of radioactive material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.14.1. Transport arrangements for Excepted Packages[16] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.14.2. Transport arrangements for LSA material[16] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.15. Radiation safety resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.16. List of commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.17. Examples of gures and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.17.1. Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.17.2. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A. Appendix showing a Radiation Management Plan checklist 31
B. Appendix showing the Radionuclide decay series 39

B.1. Thorium232 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.2. Uranium238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Bibliography 41
Index 42
List of Figures
2.1. Radiation types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2. RC drilling without dust controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. RC drilling with dust controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Cleaning equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. A typical TLD badge storage board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. A typical radiation monitoring kit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7. Radiation Alert Inspector αβγ monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. Radiation worker's handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2. Category II - Yellow package label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3. Vehicle placard for radioactive material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

List of Tables
2.1. Radiation limits and acceptable dose rates to reach each limit working 2000 hours/year 6
2.2. A guide to potential external and internal exposures from uranium exploration sites 7
3.1. General monitoring guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2. Multiplication factors for tanks, freight containers, and unpackaged LSA1 and SCO1 26
1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on the development of a suitably detailed radiation management plan (RMP)
for the control and monitoring of radiation exposure and the management of radioactive wastes when
exploring for radioactive minerals.
1.2. Scope
This guideline applies to all exploration operations in Western Australia exploring for naturally
occurring radioactive material (NORM) and come within the scope of Part 16 of the Mines Safety
and Inspection Regulations 1995 ([1]).

Preparation of a
Radiation management plan (NORM-2)


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle Size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Summary
Where exploration companies in Western Australia are exploring for naturally occurring radioactive
materials (NORM), this activity may come within the scope of Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Ins-
pection Regulations 1995[1]. The drilling and handling of samples that contain uranium or thorium
mineralization has the potential to expose workers to a radiation hazard. Therefore, each responsible
person at an exploration site (i.e. principal employer, any other employer and the exploration mana-
ger) must ensure that adequate measures are taken to control the exposure of employees/contractors
and members of the public to radiation from the exploration activities involving NORM. Each res-
ponsible person must, therefore, consider the protection of the health and safety of workers and the
protection of the environment at all stages of exploration activity. Before commencing exploration,
a plan for the safe management of radiation should be submitted to the appropriate authority for
approval.
The regulations [1] also require the control of spilt material and releases that could cause contami-
nation in the environment and the decontamination of equipment removed from exploration sites.
It is important to understand that the level of detail to be included in a RMP largely depends on
the degree of potential radiation exposure which has been estimated or identied, and the expected
diculty of controlling it. A RMP for an initial greeneld exploration project would not be expected
to contain as much detail as one for an advanced project where advanced exploration activities are
occurring such as inll drilling campaigns, core storage, JORC Code compliance, trial mining, heap
leach trials or costeans.
To ensure ongoing relevance, the Radiation Management Plan should be reviewed as the exploration
activities change.
2.2. Government regulation and codes of practice

There are several Acts, Regulations and Codes which may be applicable when radioactive minerals
from exploration are handled and transported:-
1. Mines Safety & Inspection Regulations [1] (DMP).
2. Radiation Safety Act [3] (Radiological Council of WA).
3. Radiation Safety (Qualications) Regulations [5] (Radiological Council of WA).
4. Radiation Safety (Transport Radioactive Substances) Regulations [6] (Radiological Council of

WA) which adopt the:
a) Code of Practice Safe Transport of Radioactive Material [9] (Australian National Code)
which in turn adopts the;
b) IAEA Safety Standards Series Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material
[10] (International Code).
5. Code of Practice And Safety Guide Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Manage-
ment in Mining and Mineral Processing (Australian National Code) [11].
6. Mining Act [12] and Regulations [13](DMP)
Under the Mines Safety & Inspection Regulations, all exploratory excavations including drilling
activities fall under the denition of Mining.
2.3. Exploration for radioactive minerals

Radiation monitoring is required during drilling and sample preparation as this is where the workers
could have the greatest radiation exposure. The results of the monitoring must be reported to the
workers.
There are four main radiation exposure pathways that require some form of control:
1. Direct gamma irradiation from radiation-emitting materials (core samples, sludges and drill
cuttings). This is signicant where long periods of time are spent close to large deposits of high
grade ore.
2. Inhalation of airborne radionuclides (airborne dust containing uranium and/or thorium)
3. Radon decay products (inhalation of radon/thoron decay progeny or daughters)
4. Ingestion of radionuclides in the dust on hands. This can be transferred to mouth while eating
or smoking.
Thorium232 and uranium238 are the `parents' of a series of radioactive elements called `daughters'
which emit alpha (α), beta (β ), and gamma (γ ) radiation.
Figure 2.1.: Radiation types
The decay series are shown in Appendix B on page 39.
To actively control exposure to these radioactive elements requires:

dust minimisation, dust suppression through the application of water and, if necessary, use of
respiratory protection;
good housekeeping and personal hygiene practices; and
ensuring that there are no major quantities of gamma-emitting materials stored in work areas.
Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 on the next page demostrate the dierence between drilling dry with no
dust suppression and drilling with water injection dust suppression. Both of these photos were taken
in 2009. Relying purely on masks for dust protection and having no dust suppression as shown in
Figure 2.2 is in breach of the Regulations and a Prohibition Notice would be issued.
Figure 2.2.: RC drilling without dust controls
RC drilling with no dust controls in place
Dust is typically the greatest source of exposure, so dust control is the main area that must be
addressed. Potential dust sources on a drilling rig when drilling dry or above the water-table include
the: T-piece, Splitter, Cyclone (top vent), drill rods, drilling equipment, clothing and collar cutting.
Water should be applied accordingly to prevent any form of contamination which may result from
the dust being produced.
MSIR Reg 9.17. Suppression of dust drilling operations
(2) If it is necessary for dry drilling to be carried out in a mine (whether underground or
on the surface), each responsible person at the mine must ensure that the drilling machine
used is tted with an eective device that
(a) collects and contains the dust produced by drilling; or
Figure 2.3.: RC drilling with dust controls
RC drilling with water injection and dust controls in place
(b) discharges that dust through ducting to a position where it will not be breathed by any
person or where it will be eectively suppressed or contained.
2.3.1. Radiation safety basic principles

The basic principles of radiation protection are as follows:
1. ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable. All radiation exposure should be minimised

wherever possible.
2. Maintain a safe distance from the source.
3. Limit the time spent within this distance.
4. Provide shielding when neither point (1) nor (2) can be applied.
5. Allow for waste produced from exploration activities (i.e. drilling) to be suitably encapsulated
on site or removed to an appropriate repository.
2.3.2. Radiation exposure limits

Table 2.1 on the following page shows the kind of dose rates required to reach the dose limits for the
three types of exposure groups.

Table 2.1.: Radiation limits and acceptable dose rates to reach each limit working 2000 hours/year
Member of the general Non-designated worker Designated worker

public
Radiation 1 mSv per year above 5 mSv per year above 20 mSv per year above
exposure limit background background background
†
Gamma dose rate 0.11 µSv/hr above 2.5 µSv/hr above 10 µSv/hr above
background background background
DAC for uranium N/A 0.60 Bq/m

3 2.38 Bq/m
3
‡
ore
DAC for thorium N/A 0.26 Bq/m

3 1.04 Bq/m
3
‡
ore
50 mSv in any 1 year and 100 mSv summed over 5 years.

†
‡
DAC Derived Air Concentration for 5 and 20 mSv over 2000 hours of exposure. Workers are typically exposed to
both external gamma radiation and the dust from the ore. For for the DAC values relevant for ores containing
uranium and thorium in dierent ratios, please refer to the guideline NORM5 Dose assessment. Note: in this table
Bq/m3 means the same as αdps/m3 and does not imply anything about the actual activity of any one radionuclide.
2.3.3. Radiation exposures in perspective

As a guide, the dose rate above an innite at slab of outcrop of 1% Uranium ore is roughly 35
µSv/h. Table 2.2 on the next page shows the potential radiation exposures from various activity
uranium ores.
The following points are designed to provide guidance as to the type of radiation monitoring and
exposure control methods which an operator would be expected to implement as a minimum:
1. At least one person on site should be a trained radiation safety ocer. All employees and
contractors should receive general training in radiation safety and be aware of the risks of
working with radioactive materials and steps which can be taken to minimise their exposure.
2. A portable radiation monitoring device should be available on site at all times to monitor not
only radiation levels in drill core/cuttings, but also in the workplace and in the environment.
3. Dust monitoring should be conducted as inhalation is a major exposure pathway. A personal

dust pump should be worn by a worker on the rig to allow the collection of dust for analysis.
Both the monitoring and the analysis of collected samples should be carried out in accordance
with NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling.
4. Regular area monitoring should be conducted and data recorded in a log.
5. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) should be provided to ensure radioactive

dust is not able to be ingested.
6. Other than short greenelds campaigns, employees potentially exposed to radiation should
wear a personal radiation monitoring badge or electronic dosemeter. Approved suppliers of
monitoring badges are listed in Section 2.3.11 on page 12. For short duration greenelds
campaigns the doses are assessed based on survey meter readings.
7. Any material identied as a radiation hazard must be clearly labelled and stored separately in
a secure area.
Table 2.2.: A guide to potential external and internal exposures from uranium exploration sites
Potential external gamma dose (mSv) Potential internal dose from 5µm dust (mSv)
based on a 2,000 hour year based on a 2,000 hour year
Uranium Avg. ppm Bq µSv/h @ @ @ @ @ 1 @ 5 @ 10 @ 15 @ 20
deposit Grade
238 U/g @ 1 m 0.5 m 1.0 m 1.5 m 2.0 m mg/m
3 mg/m
3 mg/m
3 mg/m
3 mg/m
3
U3 O8
Cigar Lake, 20.00% 200,000 2439.0 12.0 97.60 24.40 10.84 6.10 + 40.4 202.0 403.9 605.9 807.8
Canada
†
10.00% 100,000 1219.5 6.0 48.80 12.20 5.42 3.05 + 20.2 101.0 202.0 302.9 403.9
5.00% 50,000 609.8 3.0 24.40 6.10 2.71 1.53 + 10.1 50.5 101.0 151.5 202.0
1.00% 10,000 122.0 0.6 4.88 1.22 0.54 0.31 + 2.0 10.1 20.2 30.3 40.4
Jabiluka, NT
† 0.52% 5,200 63.4 0.3 2.54 0.63 0.28 0.16 + 1.1 5.3 10.5 15.8 21.0
Kintyre, WA
† 0.40% 4,000 48.8 0.3 1.95 0.49 0.22 0.12 + 0.8 4.0 8.1 12.1 16.2
0.20% 2,000 24.4 0.1 0.98 0.24 0.11 0.06 + 0.4 2.0 4.0 6.1 8.1
Yeelirrie, WA
† 0.15% 1,500 18.3 0.1 0.73 0.18 0.08 0.05 + 0.3 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.1
Mulga Rock, 0.14% 1,400 17.1 0.1 0.68 0.17 0.08 0.04 + 0.3 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.7
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum

WA
†
Lake Way, 0.10% 1,000 12.2 0.1 0.49 0.12 0.05 0.03 + 0.2 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
WA
†
Manyingee, 0.09% 900 11.0 0.1 0.44 0.11 0.05 0.03 + 0.2 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6
WA
†
0.08% 820 10.0 0.1 0.40 0.10 0.04 0.03 + 0.2 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3
Centipede, 0.06% 630 7.7 0.1 0.31 0.08 0.03 0.02 + 0.1 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.5
WA
†
Lake 0.05% 520 6.3 0.1 0.25 0.06 0.03 0.02 + 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.1
Maitland,
WA
†
Thatcher's 0.03% 300 3.7 0.1 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.01 + 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Soak, WA
†
Considered 0.01% 82 1.0 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 + 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
radioactive[15]
† U O average grade information obtained from the now defunct Uranium Information Centre web site.
3 8
Note that this is only a guide of potential dose and `real' measurements must be undertaken.
7
8. Equipment should be cleaned and assessed for surface contamination prior to leaving site to
ensure radioactive material is not being transported o site as shown in Figure 2.4. The
resultant washings should report to a sump and be buried by at least 1 metre of clean ll at
end of campaign.
9. Dose calculation should be undertaken at the completion of the program with the results
supplied to aected personnel and the State Mining Engineer.
Figure 2.4.: Cleaning equipment
High pressure cleaning of equipment after use. Note large sump to right of picture.
Possible radiation exposures in mineral exploration are not expected to be signicant. For example,
in 2005 at a major WA exploration site where hundreds of thousands of tonnes of uranium ore were
moved involving 44 workers, the doses ranged from 0 to 0.33 mSv. The highest dose of 0.33 mSv
was received over 786 hours, which is a very low level when compared with both the public exposure
limit (1 mSv/y) and the occupational exposure limit (20 mSv/y). With a well designed RMP and
acceptable work practices doses on exploration sites should be well below the public limits.
2.3.4. Risk assessment

MSIR 7.27. Risk assessment
Each responsible person at a mine must ensure that
(a) a suitable assessment is made of the consequences to the health of any person if exposed
to hazardous substances at the mine; and
(b) if the assessment indicates a signicant risk of exposure to a hazardous substance, a

written report is prepared outlining means by which that risk may be reduced.
Resources Safety promotes the application of vigorous risk management and encourages all mining
companies to perform regular risk assessment of all mining hazards, including exposure to airborne
contaminants (MSIR 7.27 Risk assessment). More information on managing occupational health and
safety using a risk management approach can be found in Australian Standards AS/NZS 4360:2004
and AS/NZS 4804:2001. Regular risk assessments of exposure to airborne contaminants are re-
commended during each phase of all mining operations, including exploration, construction, mining
(surface and underground), processing, shutdowns, care and maintenance and rehabilitation activi-
ties. This is a requirement of Part 9 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995, and is not
specic to the CONTAM system. However, Resources Safety inspectors may request representative
sampling results that will be entered into the CONTAM database.
2.3.5. Reducing the risks

7.28. Means of reducing risk of exposure to hazardous substances
(1) Each responsible person at a mine must, as far as practicable, reduce the risk of a
person being exposed to a hazardous
substance at the mine by means of preventing exposure to the substance.
(2) To the extent that it is not practicable to employ the means referred to in subregulation
(1), a responsible person must reduce, so far as is practicable, the risk to a person of
exposure to hazards by any, or a combination of, the following
(a) limiting the opportunity for potential exposure of the person to a hazardous substance;
(b) using appropriate engineering and ventilation controls;
2.3.6. Dust Sampling

MSIR 7.29. Workplace atmospheric contaminant monitoring to be provided
If a report under regulation 7.27 indicates the need for atmospheric contaminant monito-
ring at a workplace at a mine,
each responsible person at the mine must ensure that
(a) samples of atmospheric contaminants at the workplace are taken in accordance with
Part 9; and
(b) the results of the samples are recorded and reported in accordance with Part 9.
2.3.7. CONTAM
The CONTAM[17] system uses a database to retrieve and record representative, personal exposure
monitoring results randomly collected from mining and exploration activities in Western Australia.
It is used to assess the eciency of management programs aimed to control dust and other airborne
contaminants, with the main objectives to:
collect comparative exposure data for dierent occupation groups, locations, and industry sec-
tors for analysis of emerging trends within the industry;
identify exposure groups that contribute to long-term health eects in mining employees; and
monitor statutory compliance in the maintenance of acceptable working environments.
Sampling quotas are not issued for exploration companies as it is recognised that the nature of their
activities make this impracticable. Problems include:

exploration companies tend to operate with small workgroups;
work is done at remote and isolated locations without any established occupational health and
safety infrastructure or technical support;
work is seasonal;
target areas may be campaigned for only short periods; and
changes to work programs are frequent.
Instead, exploration companies are requested to take a reasonable number of representative personal
monitoring samples of exposures to airborne contaminants of all exploration personnel. Important
considerations when determining who and how often to sample should include:
size and nature of the workforce;
amount of work performed; and
level of risk associated with the hazardous substances that are encountered during exploration
activities.
As a minimum, it is recommended that every employee is sampled at least annually. Where a

signicant risk is attributed to atmospheric contaminants, additional sampling will be necessary. For
example, the sampling frequency must be increased when asbestos is present or suspected. It is
expected that representative personal exposure monitoring will be undertaken when exploring on or
near existing mining operations, and the results sent to the CONTAM Manager.
2.3.8. Registered sampler

Only CONTAM[17] registered samplers may submit results to the CONTAM system.
The minimum qualication to become a CONTAM registered sampler is the Certicate III (Techni-
cian) or IV (Ocer) in Surface Ventilation, or completion of a similar course that has been approved
by the State Mining Engineer. Subject to proof of qualications and experience, qualied occupa-
tional hygienists, or people with similar qualications and experience, may be exempted from this
certication. Written applications for exemption from the certication requirement must be forwar-
ded to the CONTAM Manager, with the registered sampler form, a curriculum vitae and an example
of an occupational hygiene report.
Sampler registration lasts for ve years. Samplers whose registration has expired must complete
a one-day CONTAM refresher course and send in a new registered sampler form with proof of
competency. The CONTAM refresher course updates skills and knowledge about common problems in
contaminant monitoring, and introduces new policies and technologies that aect how the CONTAM
system functions. Note that similar courses undertaken for professional development to maintain
competency and currency of air monitoring skills may satisfy the re-registration requirements
submit a course outline and certicate of competency with the registered sampler form.
2.3.9. MINEHEALTH
MSIR 7.30. Health surveillance
If a report under regulation MSIR 7.27 indicates the need for surveillance of the health
of employees at a mine, each responsible person at the mine must ensure that health
surveillance (including biological monitoring) is provided in accordance with Division 4 of
Part 3.
The health surveillance system for mining employees in Western Australia[18] is administered by
Resources Safety. Condential information is recorded on an approved health assessment form and
transferred to Resources Safety's MINEHEALTH database.
The objectives of the health surveillance system for mining employees are to:
assess the health status of all mining industry employees on a regular basis;
analyse collected data to detect adverse health eects at the earliest opportunity;
enable appropriate and timely corrective action to be taken in order to safeguard the health
and well-being of mining industry employees; and
provide data for future epidemiological studies.
2.3.10. Radiation exposure control

Gamma radiation does not generally require any active control measures as it can be monitored with
a survey meter and individual radiation exposures are measured using personal dosimeters/badges.
Important points to remember:
1. An appropriately calibrated portable gamma survey meter should be used to identify any active
samples.
2. A personal dosemeter (e.g. TLD badge) should be supplied for those workers with routine
exposure to potentially radioactive ores. Dose results should be regularly provided to the
wearer and a record should be kept of all worker doses. Figure 2.5 on the following page shows
TLD badges being stored between use. A hook is allocated to each employee and each control
badge. Alternatively, an electronic personal dosemeter may be used instead of issuing TLD
badges for a short term.
3. Figure 2.6 on page 13 shows a range of equipment to undertake monitoring.
Radon decay products (daughters) in air does not require active control other than in enclosed
spaces where active ventilation maybe required. Radon gas will emanate from the uranium in core
samples and drill cuttings. Radon gas and radon progeny are not considered to be a signicant source
of worker radiation exposure because it is assumed that the drill core/cuttings is being handled in a
well-ventilated area. Wooden or steel core stores containing signicant amounts of mineralised core
should be ventilated when workers are inside. Tents are likely to be suciently leaky so as not to
require ventilation. If large quantities of radioactive material are being stored in an enclosed area,
periodic measurements of the radon progeny levels would be required. If in doubt, check.
Airborne alpha emitters in dust (internal dose) can be controlled with:
1. Dust minimisation equipment such as dust extraction systems and using wet rather than dry
methods for cleaning work areas and whilst drilling. Figures ?? on page ?? and 2.2 on page 4
show the dierence between good dust control and no dust control.
2. Respiratory protection when determined by dust monitoring results, or when evident from the
observation of exploration activities.

Figure 2.5.: A typical TLD badge storage board
3. Monitoring results also give the information necessary to decide on the application of the
appropriate control measures.
4. Ingestion of radioactive material can be prevented by maintaining proper levels of workplace

and personal hygiene and by requiring washing of hands before meal breaks or smoking.
5. Contamination monitoring must be carried out to check work surfaces, desks, tables, and
skin contamination levels. Figure 2.7 on page 14 shows the Ìnspector' which has an open
window used to detect αradiation on contaminated surfaces. While G-M instruments such as
the Ìnspector' are not as capable as specic alpha surface contamination area probes, they
are acceptable for use in small greenelds operations when specically calibrated to measure
surface contamination.
6. Radiation monitoring must be carried out to provide data for radiation control and for personal
dose estimation which is reported to workers, management, and the regulatory agencies.
2.3.11. Dose assessment

Personal monitoring badges may be sourced from four organisations in Australia:
1. ARPANSA www.arpansa.gov.au
2. Landauer Australasia www.landaueraustralasia.com
3. Australian Radiation Services www.australian-radiation-services.com.au
4. Global Medical Solutions www.gms-aus.com
Figure 2.6.: A typical radiation monitoring kit
Information on how to undertake dose assessments can be found in Guideline NORM5 Dose assess-
ment.
There are a number of consulting occupational health companies in WA who could undertake dust
monitoring, radiation surveys and radon monitoring, if required, on your behalf. The Regulations [1]
require the submission of an annual occupational radiation report to the State Mining Engineer.
2.3.12. Long term core storage

1. Core should ideally be placed on a concrete oor which has been sealed and where practicable
painted in a dierent colour to the core.
2. The core should be covered with a roof leaving the sides open.
3. The area should be secured.
4. There should be a supply of water to hose down the oor and keep dust to a minimum.
5. Run o water should pour into a sump, which can be caught, and the sediment stored for future
disposal.
6. Signs should be placed around the area advising no entry without authorisation. For the
appropriate use of the `radiation trefoil', refer to guideline NORM6 Reporting requirements.
7. The area should be located away from other work places.
8. The general external dose rate should be measured in the area and used to calculate doses in
order to keep personal doses as low as practicable.
9. Contributions from dust and radon progeny can be assumed to be negligible if the storage area
is well ventilated.

Figure 2.7.: Radiation Alert Inspector αβγ monitor
Multipurpose instruments with αβγ detectors, such as the Radiation Alert Ìnspector' are suitable for mea-
suring dose rates and contamination on small greenelds exploration sites . However, they may not be robust
enough for large, busy sites. Note the large detector window for detection of α particles.
10. Core cutting should be undertaken using wet methods.
A useful reference on the storage of radioactive cores is available from the South Australian Depart-
ment of Primary Industries and Resources [14].
It should be noted that a Core Store containing a signicant amount of radioactive material must be
registered with the Radiological Council under the Radiation Safety Act.
2.3.13. Natural and induced disequilibrium

The radiation safety ocer and the geologist should be aware of three main possible sources of
disequilibrium that may lead to serious errors in the estimation of the grade of the ore:
Natural disequilibrium: Uranium and thorium in ores may be mobile as a result of periodic
uctuations in the elevation of the groundwater table caused by changes in the climatic conditions.
Radium may be leached or mobilized and hence removed from uranium mineralization, reducing the
amount of gamma emitting
214 Bi and aecting gamma-radiation surveys.
Induced disequilibrium: This may occur during percussion drilling and is caused by the `degassing'
of radon.
The natural disequilibrium in an ore deposit can take place in a number of ways:
1. Uranium and/or thorium may be freshly deposited from the groundwater so that insucient
time has lapsed for the in-growth of radium226 and/or radium228 and their daughter gamma-
emitting isotopes (bismuth214 and/or thallium208).
2. Uranium and/or thorium may have been leached from the original ore material, leaving behind
unsupported radium226 and/or radium228.
In the rst case, if a eld `scintillometer' is used for core logging and/or grade control the measu-
red uranium/thorium concentration will be low, whereas in the second case the uranium/thorium
concentration will be high. These factors may have serious implications for the estimation of the ore
resource and, subsequently, for grade control during mining (for example, in bulk grade determination
of ore on trucks and the use of radiometric sorting methods).
The induced disequilibrium in the process of exploration for uranium minerals is brought about by
the loss of radon222 during percussion drilling. This causes an apparent lowering of the uranium
concentration due to a decrease in gamma-ray activity. By the nature of the drilling operation,
compressed air is forced into the hole and blows out the pulp with the simultaneous loss of radon222.
This causes severe disequilibrium between the gamma-emitting isotopes lead214 and bismuth214
and their longer-lived parent radium226.
The degree of radon loss will depend on many factors, for example, the pressure of air from the
compressor, the friability and porosity of the ore, the mineralogy and radon exhalation rate from
a particular mineral. Therefore, each geological environment will have its own radon escape cha-
racteristics. The measurements are required in each case but it could be assumed that during the
percussion drilling operation 70% of radon gas is blown away and that the remaining 30% is retained
in the sample.
2.3.14. Radioactive mineral samples and rock chips

Radioactive minerals emit various forms of radiation. If proper safeguards and precautions are
followed, any hazards due to the radiation are minimised.
Some guidelines for radioactive mineral samples:
1. Wash hands with soap and water after handling samples.
2. Never store specimens, even the smallest of size, in an inhabited room.
3. Where samples are stored in bags, these should be sealed and in good condition.
4. Store specimens in a well ventilated area.
5. Never eat, drink, smoke, or sleep near radioactive material.
6. Clearly label all radioactive samples as such.
7. Don't carry radioactive minerals in your pocket.
8. Try to keep radioactive mineral samples in a container with a lid. This helps to control small
pieces that may break o during handling. A boxed radioactive mineral keeps you from directly
touching the specimen, which helps to minimise radiation exposure to your skin.
9. Clean up small particles that may break o of radioactive specimens with soap and water.
2.3.15. Contaminated equipment

It is possible that some equipment items may become contaminated with radioactive material and
operators should ensure all equipment has been thoroughly cleaned to remove loose material before
leaving the site.
1. Surface contamination means the presence of a radioactive substance on a surface in quantities

in excess of 0.4 Bq/cm
2 for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters, or 0.04
Bq/cm
2 for all other alpha emitters. Low toxicity alpha emitters are natural uranium, natural
thorium,
235 U, 238 U, 232 Th, 228 Th and 230 Th when contained in ores, physical or chemical
concentrates; or alpha emitters with a half-life of less than 10 days.
2. The levels should be as close to the background as possible.
3. It is necessary to ensure that material is dry before surface contamination readings are taken.

2.3.16. Radioactive waste management

A separate radioactive waste management plan (RWMP), as required by ARPANSA [11] is not
typically required for an exploration operation, and the management of radioactive waste forms a
part of an overall radiation management plan for the site.
Two types of waste are generated in the process of exploration: liquid and solid.
Liquid waste typically includes drilling mud, slurry from core cutting, and in some cases accidental
release of groundwater containing elevated natural levels of radionuclides (such as uranium and
radium). A good practice is to collect all of the above in mud pits, which then should be allowed to
dry prior to being covered by at least one metre of compacted soil.
Please note that if the material in the mud pit is not classied as radioactive, the surface soil will
not need to be compacted and there will be no impediment for vegetation growth.
Solid waste typically includes surplus radioactive samples, contaminated PPE, equipment and contai-
ners, and, in some cases, samples returned from analytical laboratories.
Among other requirements, good radiation protection practices for the disposal of the solid waste
are:
1. Drill cuttings and other collected materials that are classied as `radioactive' should be disposed
down drill holes. The holes should then be capped in accordance with the DMP standard
either temporarily or permanently.
2. Where this is a not possible, bulk cuttings or samples (i.e. from multiple drill holes) should
be mixed with soil to reduce any articial concentration of the material, and buried in mud
pit/sumps with one metre of compacted soil cover. Please note that all samples should be
removed from the sample bags prior to the mixing with soil and subsequent disposal.
3. In situations when all samples (including those received from analytical laboratories) cannot
be lled down drill holes and mud pits are not available disposal of waste should be carried out
in a purposefully constructed waste disposal pit.
4. Drilling uids should be controlled to prevent radiological contamination of surface soils. Where
this contamination has taken place due to an accidental release the soil may also need to be
removed and buried together with other solid waste.
5. In situations where thorough radiation monitoring shows that empty sample bags, PPE and
other materials have negligible contaminated they can be disposed of in landll, after the
consultation with the appropriate authority. Where such materials are found to be contamina-
ted, they typically cannot be disposed of without an approval from the appropriate authority
and in these cases the preparation and approval of a specic Radioactive Waste Management
Plan (RWMP) may be necessary.
6. On nal closure each site should be assessed to determine that radiation levels are not si-
gnicantly elevated above background. Note: to do this background monitoring needs to be
undertaken prior to any drilling being undertaken. Ideally, drill sites must be returned to the
original pre-exploration radiation levels.
2.3.17. Denition of a radioactive material

The classication of what is a `radioactive material' varies depending on the the legislation used. The
IAEA Standards [15], the Transport Regulations [10], the Contaminated Sites legislation [8], and the
Radiation Safety Act 1975 [3], all have dierent denitions. The Mining Code [11]accepts the same
1Bq/g as the IAEA for head-of-chain uranium or thorium ores or mineral concentrates.
For example, in the IAEA Basic Safety Standards 115 it is a material containing greater than 1
Bq/g
238 U and 232 Th while under the Radiation Safety Act 1975 [3] it is material containing greater
than 30 Bq/g whole

238 U and 232 Th Decay Series. Under the contaminated sites legislation, it is
considered any material above the natural background for the site. Please seek professional advice
from the the relevant regulator when determining which denition applies.

3. Elements to be included in a Radiation

Management Plan
3.1. Document format and cover sheet
The RMP should be a `controlled' document, with each page dated and clearly identied. The cover
sheet should include:
1. The title of the document.
2. Document identier (unique reference number relevant to the operation).
3. Date of submission to the appropriate authority.
4. The name of the company and a particular operation.
5. Signed endorsement by the site Registered Manager.
3.2. Scope of the Radiation Management Plan

The RMP should detail the specic operations/facilities described in the document, including the
name and location of sites, the number of the lease, tenement or other interest and the name and
address of the principal employer at the exploration company.
3.3. Introduction
The introduction should detail the history of the site and ownership (where necessary) and the reason
a RMP is required.
List the exploration activities to be undertaken on the site, including a description of the type of
drilling, the type of sampling to take place at the site, the expected duration of exploration operations
and the critical project dates of the project, should be summarised. The site operations summary
could be enhanced by the inclusion of a block diagram of broad functional activities, showing inter-
relationships.
3.4. Workforce information

The number of persons who will be employed at the site should be detailed. This requires workforce
stratication as a function of the work category and type of employer (company or contractor).
It is also necessary to include the proposed shift roster system used on the site and the likely average
annual working hours for employees.
3.5. Critical group information

Critical group is a group of members of the public comprising individuals who are relatively ho-
mogeneous with regard to age, diet and those behavioural characteristics that may aect the doses
received and who are likely to receive the highest radiation doses from a particular operation. The
likely critical groups of the public should be identied and the location of these groups shown on a
suitable location plan.
The size and demographics of the critical groups should also be briey described. In some cases
identication of the critical group may not be possible due to the distance from the proposed site
being too far for a group to receive any measurable radiation dose. However, even in such situations,
there still exits a need for the operator to demonstrate that the impact of the operation on the local
environment is minimal or negligible; and, in these cases a reference plant/animal may be selected
for the study after the consultation with an appropriate authority. The ora/fauna selected should,
in these cases, described in the RMP.
3.6. Sources and pathways of radiation exposure

The RMP should contain sucient information to allow all signicant exposure sources and pathways
to be identied. This should include a map of the lease, descriptions of the equipment to be used
and processes involved, and estimates of the radionuclides' concentrations.
Estimates of the radiation levels to which various categories of employees and critical group(s) could
be exposed should be provided, using appropriate exposure pathway models and/or contemporary
experience. Suitable and sucient scientic justication, including references where appropriate,
should be provided for any models, assumptions or data used in the estimation process.
3.7. Equipment and facilities for controlling radiation sources

The RMP should identify the measures that will be implemented to control radiation exposures
including:
1. The generation of dust should be minimised by the use of appropriate techniques such as the
use of water and other means of suppressing dust and the use of appropriate equipment.
2. Where dust is generated, it should be suppressed at the source.
3. Care should be taken to avoid the re-suspension of dust as a result of equipment vibration and
high air velocities.
4. During maintenance operations, special care should be taken to control the occupational expo-
sures that may arise from the buildup of dust on internal and external surfaces of the equipment.
5. Only when engineering methods of dust control do not achieve acceptable air quality in working
areas, personal respiratory protection should be provided to employees.
It is also important to ensure that dust control is an integral part of an overall system of occupational
hygiene. For example, some elements of the dust extraction/collection system may be a signicant
source of exposure of employees to unacceptable levels of noise.
3.8. Institutional controls

The RMP should clearly show the assignment of responsibilities in regards to radiation protection and
accountability for radioactive sources, the commitment of the organisation to maintain high levels

of occupational health and safety should also be described. Where necessary, a specic radiation
protection policy should also be developed.
The primary responsibility for the implementation of an RMP is usually delegated to the appropria-
tely trained and qualied radiation safety ocer (RSO). The requirements may change depending on
the scale of operations and the levels of potential radiation exposure but, typically, an exploration
RSO is expected to have attended a radiation protection course relevant to the mineral industry, and
to have had some experience in sampling of air contaminants and gamma-radiation measurements in
the mining environment.
Please note that in order to take dust samples on an exploration site, the person is expected to have
the minimum qualication of a surface ventilation technician/ocer and be a `CONTAM registered
sampler'.
Information on the CONTAM system is available on the DMP web site in the Resources Safety area
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/6749.aspx.
The main duties of the RSO are advising the management on the implementation of the RMP and
on all matters in relation to radiation protection of employees, public and the environment; and the
RMP should clearly describe these duties.
A description of the operational procedures and practices should be provided in the plan, including,
among other issues:
1. Designation and control of supervised or controlled areas (e.g. physical barriers, signs, special
work permits).
2. Designation of employees according to the levels of radiation exposure.
3. General housekeeping measures.
4. Correct operation of control equipment, including preventative maintenance measures and sche-
dules.
5. Standard operating procedures for critical operations from a radiation protection perspective.
6. Use of personal protective equipment.
7. Inspection and auditing programs to ensure that correct work practices and procedures are
being followed.
Although it may be appropriate in many cases for the boundaries of supervised areas to be marked
with signs, this may not always be necessary or productive. It may be necessary to designate a
supervised area within an exploration site to which members of the public may have access, but signs
at the entrance to the site may cause unwarranted concern.
The primary reliance for radiation safety and control should be placed on properly designed facilities
and engineered controls rather than on personal protective equipment. Dust (and radon/thoron)
should usually be controlled in a such a way that protective equipment is not necessary for routine
tasks. However, there may be situations where engineered controls cannot reasonably be provided
and the use of such equipment is necessary. Respiratory protection equipment may also be needed
in emergencies, for repair and maintenance, and in special short term circumstances.
The situations when personal protective equipment is required should be summarised, with details
being provided of the location, task, reason for the need of protective equipment, its type, and
expected frequency and duration of task. The procedures for proper tting, training, cleaning,
maintenance and inspection of personal protective equipment should also be summarised.
For additional guidance please refer to Appendix B of the guideline NORM4.1 Dust control strate-
gies.
Personal hygiene rules should also be established and compliance with them should be continuously
monitored. In the rst aid procedures special precautions in cleaning of wounds potentially conta-
minated with radioactive material must be clearly described.
3.9. Employee training

All employees who may be exposed to radiation and all persons responsible for the implementation
of the RMP should receive appropriate training.
Senior management and employees in other departments (such as public relations, human resources,
administration, etc.) should also be provided with information on radiation-related risks and detailed
description of sources and pathways of radiation exposure at relevant exploration sites.
Employees whose work may impact on the levels of radiation exposure (designers, planners, etc.)
should also be provided with basic information.
Training programs should include relevant information and the following information should be pro-
vided in the RMP:
1. Details of the induction program (i.e. training for new employees), including summary of topics
covered, duration and context in relation to overall induction.
2. Details of periodic re-training, including format, duration and frequency.
3. Details of any additional training given to the management personnel.
The qualication and experience of the person conducting the training (if not done by the RSO)
should also be provided.
The nature and extent of employee training is expected to vary with job requirements and responsi-
bilities.
Figure 3.1.: Radiation worker's handbook
An informative radiation safety guide for mining and minerals processing workers in the uranium,
mineral sands and rare earths sectors is now available from Australian Uranium Association web
site.
www.aua.org.au

3.10. Radiation monitoring program

The main aims of monitoring radiation levels in the workplace and in the environment are:
to determine compliance with regulatory limits;
to determine radiation exposure of employees and members of general public;
to assess the impact of operations on the local environment;
to provide information on the eectiveness of control measures; and
to assess whether doses are as low as practicable (e.g. checking the eectiveness of control
measures, studying specic tasks, identifying poor work practices, investigating incidents).
A detailed description of the radiation monitoring program should be provided in the RMP. In
general, more frequent monitoring is required where levels are higher and variable; less frequent
monitoring is required where levels are low and relatively constant.
Surface contamination measurements are the main method of assessing housekeeping standards, and
are useful in the inspection of equipment prior to maintenance. Surface contamination monitoring
is important in the control over the release of potentially contaminated equipment from site and,
therefore, will usually be an integral component of the monitoring program.
The need for monitoring of radon/thoron concentrations is dependent on a particular site conditions.
The general monitoring guidance is suggested in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1.: General monitoring guidance
Radiation radionuclide level Monitoring
Average levels < 25% of occupational limits. Initial assessment and periodic conrmatory
surveys; repeat as conditions change.
Signicant number of individual measurements Commence routine monitoring of the

> 25% of derived occupational exposure limits.
‡ workplace.
Dose, average concentration, ≥ 25% of Individual exposure assessment:

occupational limits. External personal dosimeters/badges.
Internal personal samplers (dust), area
sampling and exposure time (radon).
Individual measurements approach or exceed Repeat the measurement.

derived occupational exposure limits.
‡
Conrmed level approaches or exceeds Intensive monitoring in conjunction with

occupational exposure limits. re-evaluation of dose-reduction planning (with
an advice from the appropriate authority).
‡ Derived limit = radiation level that would result in the annual exposure equal to the statutory limit.
The RMP should include details of the quality assurance program for the radiation monitoring pro-
gram, including the various actions, which are taken to assess the adequacy of equipment, instruments
and procedures against established requirements such as:
1. Quality and specications of equipment and instruments.
2. Training and experience of personnel using equipment and instruments.
3. Verication of measurement procedures by the analysis of control samples and the use of stan-
dard methods for analysis (where applicable).
4. Frequency of calibration and maintenance of equipment and instruments.
5. Details and frequency of independent audits (where applicable).
6. The need for traceability of the results of monitoring programs to a National Standard.
7. The degree of documentation needed to demonstrate that the required standard of quality has
been achieved and is maintained.
The samples such as lters from dust monitoring need to be kept for two years for the purpose of
comparative analyses, if necessary.
3.11. Records management and reporting

The RMP should list the type of records to be kept, their format and method of storage. Records of
monitoring results, dose assessments (including calculation methods), and related information should
be retained in an easily retrievable form and kept for a period of at least 30 years.
The amount of records to be kept and their type will depend on the magnitude of potential radiation
exposure on a particular site.
Typically the RMP should require the records that are kept include the following:
1. Information on radiological conditions at the particular site (external gamma-radiation surveys;

airborne and waterborne radioactivity surveys, surface contamination surveys, inventory of
radioactive materials, methods and locations for the disposal of radioactive wastes).
2. All documentation relevant to the implementation of the system of radiation protection on the
site (safety assessments of whole operations and designs of relevant equipment; descriptions
of unusual operational events, standard operating procedures and relevant company policies,
descriptions of training programs, quality assurance data and reports of all external audits
conducted on the site).
It is recommended that RMP contains a requirement that the individual annual occupational expo-
sure record includes the following:
1. Unique identication of the individual (e.g. MineHealth surveillance number).
2. The exposure for the current year and, where available, for the relevant ve-year period.
3. Results of the measurements for the estimation of the external dose, and methods of assessment.
4. Results of the measurements for the estimation of internal dose (result of personal dust and
radon/thoron monitoring), and methods of assessment.
5. The allocated dose for lost or damaged monitors or samples.
6. Any special radiation exposure assigned to the employee.
7. Record of the formal declaration of pregnancy, any revocations of such declaration, and mea-
sures taken to ensure that dose to this employee is kept under 1 mSv over the remainder of the
pregnancy.

The RMP needs to include a commitment for reporting the results of monitoring programs (both
occupational and environmental), and all related information. Reports will be required to the re-
gulatory authority, management, and for the employees, at least on an annual basis. Operational
requirements may require more frequent reporting and analysis to management and to an appropriate
authority.
For additional guidance in regards to the format of statutory reports and for the levels that, when
detected, would typically require investigation please refer to NORM6 Reporting requirements.
3.12. Dose assessment

The RMP should specify how the results of the monitoring program, detailed in Section 3.10 on
page 22, would be used in the assessment of doses of employees.
It should include an estimate of the likely doses to be received by the various categories of employees,
together with documentation of all assumptions used.
For any single component of occupational exposure (external and internal) these assessments could be
considered if monitoring indicates that annual exposure may exceed 1 mSv, and must be conducted
if the estimated dose is likely to exceed 5 mSv per year.
For additional guidance please refer to the NORM5 Dose assessment.
3.13. Waste management system

It is unlikely that a separate Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RWMP) will be required for
an exploration site. The prevention of contamination to the environment and the management of
waste from the drilling and moving of radioactive material is an integral part of the RMP. It is the
responsibility of the exploration company to be able to demonstrate that environmental radionuclide
levels have not been altered due to exploration activities.
The RMP should include a detailed description of procedures for environment contamination controls,
including:
1. Pre and post exploration monitoring programs.
2. Water monitoring, where necessary.
3. Record keeping.
4. Reporting.
5. Disposal techniques.
6. Rehabilitation techniques.
For additional guidance please refer to the NORM3.1 Pre-operational monitoring.
3.14. Transport of radioactive material

The RMP should include a detailed description of procedures for transport of radioactive materials
that includes:
1. Types of packaging (where applicable) and signposting.
2. Details of mode of transport and containers.
3. Number of employees involved in transport and their estimated exposure times and doses.
4. Amounts and radioactivity content of transported materials, frequency of transport movements.
5. Transport routes, where relevant, estimates of potential exposure of members of the general
public and the environment in the course of normal operations and in case of transport accidents
(specic emergency response procedures should also be developed).
6. Summary of operational procedures, particularly illustrating measures taken to ensure strict

compliance with transport safety regulations.
3.14.1. Transport arrangements for Excepted Packages[16]

Package (container) The package must be such that it will retain its contents under routine trans-
port conditions.
The design should provide for strength of lifting attachments, ease of handling and securing, and
ease of decontamination.
2
The package should not have external surface alpha contamination above 0.4 Bq/cm . In practice
this condition is met if there is no visible contamination or dust on the surface.
Documentation The shipment must be accompanied by documentation, which includes (in the
following order):
1. `Radioactive Material, Excepted Package Limited Quantity of Material'.
2. ÙN Class Number 7, UN2910'.
3. Ùranium ore samples solid'.
4. The maximum activity of the shipment. For material of 1000ppm U, this is 12 KBq/kg. As the
activity (grade) will generally not be known, make a generous estimate based on this gure.
5. A declaration in the form Ì hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully
and accurately described above by the proper shipping name and are classied, packed, marked
and labelled, and are in all respects in proper condition for transport by road according to the
applicable international and national governmental regulations.' signed and dated.
6. Sender and receiver details.
Labels
1. Each Excepted Package should be labelled `Radioactive' on an internal surface such that upon
opening, the warning is clearly visible.
2. The package is marked ÙN2910' on the outside surface.
3. Sender and receiver details should be marked on the outside surface.
4. Packages exceeding 50kg the mass to be marked on the outside.
3.14.2. Transport arrangements for LSA material[16]

LSA 1 package Higher activity samples where the dose-rate > 5 µSv/h, must be transported
as Low Specic Activity Material (LSA). The transport arrangements are described below assuming
samples are packaged within a single vehicle.

Package (container) Package requirements for transporting solid LSA material are similar to those
for Excepted Packages, with the additional requirement that the smallest external dimension of the
package must not be less than 10 cm. Contact the Radiological Council for advice if there is a need
to transport liquid LSA1 material.
Transport Index package

1. A Transport Index (TI) must be determined for the package. The TI reects the external
radiation hazard associated with the handling of the package.
2. The TI is determined by rst measuring the dose rate (in mSv/hr) at 1 metre from the package
surface. For core samples, the dose rate is typically less than 1 mSv/hr.
3. The TI is the measured dose rate multiplied by 100 (if dose rate has been measured in µSv/hr,
divide by 10 to determine the TI).
4. The determined TI is to be rounded up to the rst decimal place. However, a TI of 0.05 or less
can be rounded to zero (0).
Transport Index vehicle

1. A TI needs to be determined if shipping multiple packages together in a container or on a single
vehicle. In this case the TI is either the sum of the TIs of all the contained packages or it can
be determined by direct measurement of radiation level for the vehicle of container (as above).
2. For tanks, freight containers and unpackaged LSA1 material the TI is modied by a multipli-
cation factor based on the size of the load as shown in 3.2.
Table 3.2.: Multiplication factors for tanks, freight containers, and unpackaged LSA1 and SCO1
Size of load
a Multiplication factor
size of load ≤1 m
2 1
1 m
2 < size of load ≤5 m
2 2
2
5 m < size of load ≤ 20 m
2 3
20 m
2 < size of load 10
a
Largest cross-sectional area of the load being measured.
Documentation and labels

1. If the TI is less than 1 and the surface dose rate is less than 0.5 mSv/h the package is a II
Yellow category. The label shown in Figure 3.2 on the facing page must be attached to the
package on two opposite sides.
2. The contents of LSA1 and the maximum activity of the package contents must be marked
on the label. The TI of the package is to be included on the label.
Figure 3.2.: Category II - Yellow package label
3. Sender and receiver details should be marked on the outside surface.
4. The package is marked UN2912 and Radioactive material, low specic activity (LSA1) on
the outside surface.
5. Packages exceeding 50kg the mass to be marked on the outside.
6. If the surface dose rate of any package exceeds 0.5 mSv/hr contact the Radiological Council
for further advice.
Placards The vehicle transporting the LSA packages must have placards attached as shown in the
Figures 3.2 and 3.3 on the following page.
For additional guidance please refer to the NORM4.3 Transport of NORM.

Figure 3.3.: Vehicle placard for radioactive material
3.15. Radiation safety resources

The RMP should describe the management and reporting structure for the particular site, and
the duties and qualications of relevant personal and, in particular, the radiation safety ocer.
Where applicable, qualications and experience of personnel undertaking the monitoring will also
be necessary. The RMP should also include a clear commitment to provide adequate sta with
appropriate qualications and experience, to advise the management on all aspects of radiation
protection on the site.
The RMP should also list the monitoring equipment and support facilities, including:
1. The make and model of the equipment.
2. The purpose of the particular instrument and its suitability for the particular purpose.
3. Calibration methods and frequency, and traceability to a National Standard.
4. Maintenance and replacement schedule.
3.16. List of commitments

The nal section of the RMP should summarise all the commitments made throughout the document,
with references to their location within the RMP.
3.17. Examples of gures and tables to be included in the Radiation

Management Plan
The following examples are provided to illustrate the type of gures and tables that could be included
in the RMP to enhance the presentation of specic information.
3.17.1. Figures
1. General location diagram of operations/facilities.
2. Map/plan of the site, showing layout of infrastructure in relation to the tenement boundaries
and the national grid.
3. Location of critical groups of the public.
4. Diagrams of waste disposal facilities, showing relevant engineering details.
3.17.2. Tables
1. Summary of site history.
2. Workforce stratication information, including shift patterns.
3. Summary of sources/pathways of radiation exposure.
4. Radiation monitoring program.
5. List of radiation monitoring equipment.
6. Summary of dose estimation calculations, by work category and exposure pathway.
7. Outline of employee induction programs.

It is recommended that typical results obtained during routine monitoring be included in the form of
tables and charts. Where special forms associated with the RMP have been developed (such as, for
example, a `clearance form' for the removal of potentially contaminated equipment from the site), it
is recommended to provide an example of a completed document instead of the blank form.
A. Appendix showing a Radiation

Management Plan checklist
Standard Intent MSIR Regulation Mining X

[1] Code [11]
1 Front cover
Controlled document To verify that proper control Reg. 16.7(3) Sec. 3.8.3
of documentation is in place.
Each page dated and To verify changes to the Reg. 16.7(6) Sec. 2.9.6
identied RMP are controlled.
Title of document To verify the purpose of the Reg. 16.7(1) Sec. 2.7.1.
document.
Reference number of To verify the RMP is stored Reg. 16.25 Sec.
document in a records management 2.7.2(e)
system.
Date of issue To verify the RMP is current Reg 16.7(4) Sec. 2.9.6
and reviewed every 2 years.
Date of submission To verify the RMP has been Reg. 16.7(3) Sec. 2.9.6
provided to the State Mining
Engineer.
Name of Company To verify owner of the RMP. Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.10.1
Name of Operation To verify site where RMP Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.10.1
applies.
Endorsed by To verify that the responsible Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.10.1
Exploration Manager person has complied.
2 Scope
Details of operations To verify the the size and Reg. 16.8(2) Sec. 2.7.2
and facilities scope of the operations.
Details of location To verify the exact location Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.7.2
of the site.
Details of Lease or To verify the site location Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.7.2
Tenement under the Mining Act.
3 Introduction
History of site or To verify current RMP Reg. 16.25 Sec.
ownership includes previous records or 3.8.1(f )
plans.
Reason for Radiation To verify a RMP is required. Reg. 16.2 Sec. 2.7.1
Management Plan
Exploration activities To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.3.2
on site equipment, facilities and
operational procedures.


[1] Code [11]
Expected duration of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.1
exploration equipment, facilities and
Critical project dates To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.1
equipment, facilities and
4 Workforce
Number of persons To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
employed equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(b)
Stratication To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
company/contractor equipment, facilities and 2.10.1(m)
operational procedures. (p)
Work categories To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.6.7
Roster system To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(b)
Average working hours To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
Radiation exposures To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
5 Critical groups
Identication To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
the public are not exposed to 2.8.2(c)
radiation from the operation.
Location To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
the public are not exposed to 2.8.2(e)
Size To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Demographics To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Land-use maps To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Location plan or map To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Radiation exposures To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.

[1] Code [11]
6 Sources & pathways of

radiation exposure
Identied Sources & To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
Pathways monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.1(a)
place.
Plans of exploration To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
activities monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.1(a)
place.
Descriptions of To verify that adequate Reg. Sec. 2.8.2
equipment monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii)
place.
Processes involved To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.2(a)
place.
Risk assessments To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.2(d)
place.
7 Control of radiation
exposure
Measures implemented To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.15 Sec.
employee doses as low as 3.8.1(b)
practicable.
Engineering controls, To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(5) Sec.
methods and practicable technology is 3.8.1(b)
specications incorporated on site. Sec. 3.9.1
Dust controls To verify dust suppression is Reg. 9.17(2) Sec. 2.6.2
being used. Sec.
3.8.1(b)
Shielding To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
equipment, facilities and Sec.
operational procedures. 3.8.1(b)
Exposure minimisation To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
techniques equipment, facilities and Sec.
operational procedures. 3.8.1(b)
Housekeeping measures To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
Contamination control To verify use restricted Reg. 16.7(2)(c)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
release zones.
8 Institutional controls
Responsibilities of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.10.1
personnel equipment, facilities and


[1] Code [11]
Accountability To verify that the manger is Reg. 16.9(3) Sec. 3.10.1
advised on matters to do
with implementing RMP.
Commitment To verify manager is Reg. 16.8(1) Sec.
committed to implementing 2.8.2(a)
the RMP.
Radiation Safety To verify that a appropriate Reg. 16.8 Sec.
Ocer RSO has been appointed. 2.10.1(d)
Designation of To verify doses are being Reg.16.16 Sec.
supervised areas controlled. 2.10.1(m)
Operating procedures To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
equipment, facilities and 2.10.1(a)
Personal protective To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
equipment equipment, facilities and 2.6.2(c)
Inspection and auditing To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.8(2) Sec.
programs resources. 2.8.3(b)
Signage To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.10.2
appropriate equipment,
facilities and operational
procedures.
Personal hygiene rules To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.10.2
procedures.
Job rotation To verify doses are kept as Reg. 16.15 Sec.
low as practicable. 3.8.1(b)
9 Employee training
Induction program To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
training program. 16.7(2)(a)(v) 2.7.2(d)
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Periodic re-training To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Radiation safety To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
training of personnel training program. 16.7(2)(a)(v) 2.7.2(d)
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Details of person giving To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
training training program. 16.7(2)(a)(v) 2.7.2(a)
Sec.
3.8.1(e)

[1] Code [11]
Syllabus To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
10 Radiation monitoring
program
Compliance with limits To verify radiation dose is Reg 16.15 Sec.
kept as low as practicable. 3.8.1(c)
Exposure to employees To verify radiation dose is Reg. 16.15 Sec.
and public kept as low as practicable. 3.8.1(c)
Impact of operations on To verify environmental Reg. 16.6 Sec. 2.8.2
environment radiation monitoring
program.
Eectiveness of controls To verify radiation dose is Reg 16.15 Sec.
Employees monitored To verify radiation dose is as Reg. 16.15 Sec.3.8.1(c)
kept low as practicable.
Type of monitoring and To verify adequacy of Reg 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
sampling monitoring program. 3.8.1(c)
Duration To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
monitoring program. 3.8.1(c)
Frequency To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Sampling equipment To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.8(2) Sec.
equipment. 2.7.2(c)
Calibration records for To verify monitoring Reg 16.8(3) Sec.
all equipment equipment is being 3.8.3(a)
maintained.
Radiation types To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
monitored monitoring program. 3.8.1(c)
Radionuclides To verify adequacy of Reg 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Surface contamination To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Radon/Thoron dose To verify procedures for the Reg. 16.7(2)(iii) Sec.
estima- assessment of dose. 3.8.1(c)
tions/measurements
Equipment To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(5) Sec.
specications practicable technology is 2.7.2(c)
available.
Training and To verify adequacy of sta . Reg 16.8(2) Sec.
experience of personnel 3.10.1(l)
Calibration and To verify monitoring Reg. 16.8(3) Sec.
traceability of equipment is being 3.8.3(a)
results/schedules maintained.
Audits To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
monitoring program. 2.7.2(g)
Sec.
3.8.3(b)


[1] Code [11]
Quality Assurance To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Program monitoring program. 2.7.2(g)
Sec.
3.8.3(b)
11 Records management &

reporting
Information on To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
radiological conditions records are being kept under 2.7.2(e)
the RMP.
Assessments of To verify that records are Reg. 16.25(1)(a) Sec.
exposures being kept of dose 2.10.1(n)
assessments. Sec.
2.10.1(o)
Impact on local To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
environment records are being kept under 2.10.1(n)
the RMP.
Relevant To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
documentation records are being kept under 2.7.2(e)
the RMP.
Identication of To verify that monitoring Reg. 16.25(1)(b) Sec.
individuals records are being kept. 3.8.1(f )
Easy, secure long term To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(5) Sec.
access to data records are being kept under 3.8.1(f )
the RMP.
Reporting to the State To verify that results from Reg. 16.26 Sec.
Mining Engineer the monitoring program and 2.10.1(g)(i)
waste management plan are (j)(h)
reported to SME.
12 Dose assessment
Methodology for To verify the use of Reg. Sec.
exposure calculations appropriate procedures for 16.7(2)(a)(iii) 2.7.2(b)
the assessment of dose. Sec.
2.8.1(d)
13 Waste management
controls
Pre/post exploration To verify environmental Reg. 16.6 Sec.
monitoring program radiation monitoring 2.8.2(b)
program.
Water monitoring To verify environmental Reg. 16.6 Sec.
radiation monitoring 2.8.2(d)
program.
Record keeping To verify records are being Reg. 16.25 Sec. 3.9.4
kept and maintained.
Reporting To verify reporting on waste Reg 16.26(b) Sec.
management system. 2.8.2(g)

[1] Code [11]
Disposal techniques To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec.
system. 2.8.2(c)
Sec.
2.10.2(b)
Rehabilitation To verify rehabilitation of Reg. Sec.
site. 16.7(2)(c)(iii) 2.8.2(h)
14 Transport
Types of packaging To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
procedures.
Signposting To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Details of transport To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
mode and containers appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
procedures.
Numbers of employees To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
involved appropriate equipment, 3.8.2(a)
procedures.
Estimates of exposures To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
and doses monitoring program. 3.8.1(b)
Amounts of To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
radioactivity (per appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
package & annual) facilities and operational
procedures.
Frequency and To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
transport movements appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
procedures.
Transport routes To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Operational procedures To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Emergency procedures To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2
appropriate equipment, (f )
procedures.
15 Radiation safety
resources


[1] Code [11]
Lists of equipment and To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
facilities equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(c)
The name and To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
qualications of the equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(a)
RSO and list of people operational procedures.
involved in monitoring
16 List of commitments
Commitments clearly To verify that the responsible Reg. 16.8(1) Sec. 2.7.1
laid out person will ensure the RMP
is complied with.
17 Glossary
Lists of word meanings To verify the meanings of the Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.3.4
terms used in RMP
B. Appendix showing the Radionuclide decay

series
B.1. Thorium232
Figure B.1: Thorium232 decay series
Thorium-232 Thorium-228
β γ 6.1 hours α 1.9 years

α 14 billion years
Actinium-228
Thorium-232
β 5.8 years
Decay Series
Radium-228 Radium-224
α 3.7 days α - Alpha Radiation

β - Beta Radiation
γ - Gamma Radiation
Radon-220
α 56 seconds
Polonium-216 Polonium-212
α 0.15 seconds 64% β 61 minutes α 300 nanoseconds
Bismuth-212
β 11 hours
36% α 61 minutes
Lead-212 Lead-208 (stable)
β γ 3.1 minutes
Extracted from
GE Nuclear Energy Thallium-208
Nuclides and Isotopes 1989

B.2. Uranium238
Figure B.2: Uranium238 decay series
Uranium-238 Uranium-234
α 4.5 billion years α 240,000 years

β 1.2 minutes
Protactinium-234m
Uranium-238
β γ 24 days Decay Series
Thorium-234 Thorium-230
α - Alpha Radiation
α 77,000 years β - Beta Radiation
γ - Gamma Radiation
Radium-226
αγ 1,600 years
Radon-222
α 3.8 days
Polonium-218 Polonium-214 Polonium-210
α 3.1 minutes α 0.000164 seconds α 140 days

βγ 20 minutes β 5 days
Bismuth-214 Bismuth-210
βγ 22 years
βγ 27 minutes
Extracted from Lead-214 Lead-210 Lead-206 (stable)

GE Nuclear Energy
Nuclides and Isotopes 1989
Bibliography
[1] Part 16 Radiation Safety, Mines Safety & Inspection Regulations, 1995. link
[2] Mines Safety & Inspection Act, 1994. link
[3] Radiation Safety Act, 1975. link
[4] Radiation Safety (General) Regulations, 1983. link
[5] Radiation Safety (Qualications) Regulations, 1980. link
[6] Radiation Safety (Transport Radioactive Substances) Regulations, 2002. link
[7] Contaminated Sites Act, 2003. link
[8] Contaminated Sites Regulations, 2006. link
[9] Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Radiation Protection Series
Publication No.2, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA),
2008. www.arpansa.gov.au
[10] Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material: 2009 Edition, Safety Requirements
No.TS-R-1, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2009. www.iaea.org
[11] Code of Practice and Safety Guide: Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management
in Mining and Minerals Processing, Radiation Protection Series Publication No.9, Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2005. www.arpansa.gov.au
[12] Mining Act, 1978. link
[13] Mining Regulations, 1981. link
[14] Radioactive Core Storage and Handling Standard Operating Procedure, Department
of Primary Industries and Resources, South Australian Government, Version 2.0, 2007.
www.minerals.pir.sa.gov.au
[15] International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionising Radiation and for the Sa-
fety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No.115, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 1996. www.iaea.org
[16] Guideline for Radiation Protection in Mineral Exploration, Radiation Protection Division, En-
vironment Protection Authority, South Australia, 2009.
[17] CONTAM system procedures, Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, 5
th Edi-
tion, 2008. PDF
[18] Guide to health surveillance system for mining employees, Resources Safety, Department of
Mines and Petroleum, 2008. PDF

Index
ALARA, 5 MineHealth, 23
alpha emitters, 11 mineral samples, 15
annual working hours, 18 minimisation methods, 6
ARPANSA, 12 monitoring equipment, 29
auditing programme, 20 Monitoring program, 29
Australian Radiation Services, 12 monitoring program, 22, 23
Australian Uranium Association, 21
new employees, 21
calibration, 23, 29
commitments, 29 pathways, 21
CONTAM registered sampler, 20 personal dosemeter, 11
contamination, 5, 12 personal dust pump, 6
control measures, 22 personal hygiene, 12
core store, 11 personal protective equipment, 20
cover sheet, 18 PPE, 6
critical group, 19 precautions, 15

principal employer, 2
disequilibrium, 14
document format, 18 radiation exposure, 21
dose assessment, 24 radiation management plan, 18
drill cuttings, 16 radiation monitoring, 6
drilling uids, 16 radon, 11
drilling rig, 4 re-training, 21
dust, 19 records management, 23

regulatory limits, 22
electronic dosemeter, 6 reporting, 23
engineering methods, 19 repository, 5
environment, 22 responsible person, 2
excepted packages, 25 rock chips, 15
exploration manager, 2 RSO, 20, 21
exposure group, 5
exposure sources, 19 shielding, 5
shift roster system, 18
gamma-radiation surveys, 23 State Mining Engineer, 13
Global Medical Solutions, 12 supervised areas, 20
surface contamination, 15, 22
housekeeping, 20, 22 surface ventilation ocer, 20
IAEA Basic Safety Standards 115, 17 TLD, 11

induction program, 21 training, 21, 23
Institutional Controls, 19 transport of radioactive material, 24
Landauer Australasia, 12 ventilation, 11

LSA material, 25
workforce, 18
maintenance, 19, 20, 29
42
NORM2.2
Preparation of a radiation management plan mining and processing

Reference
Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2010. Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in
mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM2.2 Preparation of a radiation management plan
mining and processing: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 29pp.
<http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au>

Guideline NORM2.2 Preparation of a radiation management plan mining and processing
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Elements to be included in a Radiation Management Plan 4
3.1. Document format and cover sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.2. Scope of the Radiation Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Workforce information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Critical group information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Sources and pathways of radiation exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7. Equipment and facilities for controlling radiation sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8. Institutional controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.9. Employee training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.10. Radiation monitoring program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.11. Records management and reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.12. Dose assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.13. Waste management system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.14. Transport of radioactive materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.15. Radiation safety resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.16. List of commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.17. Examples of gures and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.17.1. Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.17.2. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. Appendix showing a Radiation Management Plan checklist 17
Bibliography 27
Index 28

List of Figures
List of Tables
3.1. General monitoring guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on the development of a suitably detailed radiation management plan (RMP)
for the control and monitoring of radiation exposure and the management of radioactive wastes.
1.2. Scope
This guideline applies to all mining and mineral processing operations in Western Australia that use
or handle naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and come within the scope of Part 16 of
the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 [1].

System of Radiation Protection in Mines (NORM-1)
Preparation of a
Radiation Management Plan (NORM-2)
Exploration (NORM-2.1) Mining & Processing (NORM-2.2)
Monitoring Controlling Assessing Reporting &

NORM NORM Doses Notifying
Pre-Operational Dust Control Dose Reporting

Monitoring Strategies Assessment Requirements
(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)
Operational Monitoring Management of

(NORM-3.2) Radioactive Waste
(NORM-4.2)
Air Monitoring BOSWELL
Strategies Transport of NORM Assessment & Reporting Database
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
Airborne Radioactivity
Sampling Electronic Data Management System
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
Particle Size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Summary
The mines and processing plants in Western Australia that use or handle naturally occurring ra-
dioactive materials (NORM) come within the scope of Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Inspection
Regulations 1995 [1]. Some processing plants are not classied as mining sites and are regulated by
dierent legislation (Radiation Safety Act and Regulations). However, the Mines Safety and Inspec-
tion Regulations cover the disposal of waste material from these plants if this disposal occurs at a
mining site.
Each responsible person at a mining and/or processing operation (i.e. principal employer, any other
employer and the registered manager) must ensure that adequate measures are taken to control the
exposure of employees and members of the public to radiation at or from the mining/processing
operation that handles and/or uses NORM. Each responsible person must, therefore, consider the
protection of the health and safety of workers and the protection of the environment at all stages
in the design, planning, construction and operation of the facility. Before commencing operations
a plan for the safe management of radiation should be submitted to the appropriate authority for
approval. Where a mine currently exists, the radiation management plan must be prepared as soon
as is practicable after the commencement date.
It is important that best practicable technology is incorporated into the design of facilities at a
mining/processing site. For example, the location of radioactive mineral stockpiles, tailing's storage
facilities and exhaust stacks in relation to regularly occupied workplaces and critical groups of the
members of the public have a signicant eect on the radiation exposure of the dierent groups of
people and on the most eective manner in which operational procedures are carried out.
Regulation 16.7(2) [1] species general measures that must be considered in the development of a
Radiation Management Plan (RMP) and the purpose of this guideline is to outline in more detail
various elements that need to be included in the RMP.
The level of detail included in the RMP depends on the degree of potential radiation exposure, which
has been estimated or identied, and the expected diculty of controlling it. RMPs for uranium
milling and monazite treatment would be more comprehensive than those prepared for a mineral
sands processing, which in turn would be more comprehensive than those prepared for other mineral
processing operations, such as zircon milling or titanium dioxide production, or management of radon
in non-uranium underground mines. Please note that for the purposes of Mines Safety and Inspection
Regulations 16.7 and 16.8 [1] the `NORM Management Plan' suggested by ARPANSA Safety Guide
[4] is considered to be a Radiation Management Plan and all regulatory requirements are applicable.
In order to ensure that the RMPs developed by the operator are consistent with the requirements of
the legislation, and to allow prompt and ecient evaluation of these RMPs, the continuing consul-
tation between the operator and regulator is required. Separate approvals from the State Mining
Engineer for the various stages of operations are usually necessary, such as:
authorisation to explore;
authorisation to construct;
authorisation to operate;
authorisation to cease operations (temporarily or permanently);

authorisation to rehabilitate; and
authorisation to make signicant changes in operations and/or in the system of radiation pro-
tection.
It may also practicable in some cases to describe radiation management at the operation in two
documents:
1. Radiation Management Plan (RMP)
2. Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RWMP)
as suggested by the Australian code of practice for radiation protection and radioactive waste ma-
nagement in mining and mineral processing [3].
To ensure ongoing relevance, the Radiation Management Plan must be reviewed within 2 years of
the start of mining operations, and at subsequent specied intervals.

3. Elements to be included in a Radiation

Management Plan
3.1. Document format and cover sheet
The RMP should be a `controlled' document, with each page dated and clearly identied. The cover
sheet should include:
1. The title of the document
2. Document identier (unique reference number relevant to the operation)
3. Date of submission to the appropriate authority
4. The name of the company and a particular operation
5. Signed endorsement by Registered Manager
3.2. Scope of the Radiation Management Plan

The RMP should detail the specic operations/facilities described in the document, including the
name and location of the mine/plant, the number of the lease, tenement or other interest and the
name and address of the principal employer at the mine.
The specic operations may include surface mining, underground mining, mineral processing, smel-
ting, rening or waste disposal. Usually a separate RMP (and, where applicable, RWMP) are required
for each separate site to which Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations apply.
3.3. Introduction
The introduction should detail the history of the site and ownership (where necessary) and the reason
a RMP is required. Whilst this reason is clear in cases of uranium and mineral sands operations, for
other facilities such as tin and tantalum processing, or for some underground mines the source of the
radioactivity needs to be described.
The mining and/or mineral processing activities to be undertaken on the site, including a description
of the type of mine, the treatment of minerals that is to take place at the site, the expected duration of
mining and/or processing operations and the critical project dates for construction and commissioning
of facilities, should be summarised. The site operations summary could be enhanced by the inclusion
of a block diagram of broad functional activities, showing inter-relationships.
3.4. Workforce information

The number of persons who will be employed at the facility should be detailed. This requires
workforce stratication as a function of the work category, gender and type of employer (company
or contractor).
The proposed shift roster system to be used, the likely average annual working hours and those
employees or categories of employees who will be designated should also be described.
3.5. Critical group information

Critical group is a group of members of the public comprising individuals who are relatively ho-
mogeneous with regard to age, diet and those behavioural characteristics that may aect the doses
received and who are likely to receive the highest radiation doses from a particular operation. The
likely critical groups of the public should be identied and the location of these groups shown on a
suitable location plan.
The size and demographics of the critical groups should also be briey described. In some cases
identication of the critical group may not be possible due to the distance from the proposed site
being too far for a group to receive any measurable radiation dose. However, even in such situations,
there still exits a need for the operator to demonstrate that the impact of the operation on the local
environment is minimal or negligible; and, in these cases a reference plant/animal may be selected
for the study, after the consultation with an appropriate authority. The ora/fauna selected should,
in these cases, described in the RMP.
3.6. Sources and pathways of radiation exposure

The RMP should contain sucient information to allow all signicant exposure sources and pathways
to be identied. This should include plans of the mine and/or processing plant, descriptions of the
equipment to be used and processes involved, and estimates of the radionuclides' concentrations in
process and tailing streams.
A radionuclide mass balance is typically required, with all inputs, outputs and wastes clearly identi-
ed and characterised from a radiological perspective. Consideration should be given to the potential
for the accumulation of radioactive scales and/or sludges inside the processing vessels and in asso-
ciated pipe work. All process inputs, outputs and wastes that require specic consideration from a
radiological perspective should be clearly identied.
Estimates of the radiation levels to which various categories of employees and critical group(s) could
be exposed should be provided, using appropriate exposure pathway models and/or contemporary
experience. Suitable and sucient scientic justication, including references where appropriate,
should be provided for any models, assumptions or data used in the estimation process.
3.7. Equipment and facilities for controlling radiation sources

The RMP should identify the measures that will be implemented to control radiation exposures. This
should include provision of such engineering controls as ventilation, dust and fume control measures,
and shielding.
The specic mining and/or mineral processing equipment to which engineering control methods will
apply should be listed and the measures that will assure adequate control of radiation exposure
should be outlined.
Elements of plant and equipment design which assist in minimising radiation exposure must also
be detailed, such as layout of plant and equipment, housekeeping measures, and contamination and
spillage control. Diagrams that show the location of regularly occupied workplaces, such as oces,
control and crib rooms, in relation to radioactive process streams, stockpiles and tailings piles should

also be included. Measures limiting access to controlled and restricted areas should also be described,
including physical barriers and administrative controls.
Summary details of engineering control technology, such as the specications of the equipment, should
be provided together with location details of process exhaust stacks, where applicable.
The features that should be considered during design of a plant processing radioactive minerals
include:
1. Ecient movement of radioactive materials and process streams and the safe movement of
workers.
2. Location of dust-generating activities, such as crushing in relation to other activities.
3. Physical separation of processes containing elevated concentrations of NORM from frequently
occupied areas.
4. Ventilation of, and provision of services such as washing facilities to, control and crib rooms.
5. Method of movement of dry materials by conveyors or through pipes and chutes.
6. Eciency of various ventilation control techniques (the fact that high ventilation rates used to
reduce radon accumulation may result in excessive dust re-suspension from surfaces should be
taken into account, where applicable).
7. Accessibility of equipment for the purposes of maintenance, removal and replacement.
8. Materials used in the construction of plant and equipment (e.g. the use of hard materials would
prevent particles of mineral embedding rmly onto surfaces and will therefore, reduce the
potential for non-removable contamination of surfaces).
9. Need for containment bunds and the manner in which spilt process material will be returned
to the process.
10. The degree of automation for identied critical processes, such as handling and packaging of
radioactive material.
11. Use of high reliability equipment with minimal maintenance requirements in circuits where
materials with signicantly elevated concentrations of radionuclides are treated.
12. The most important consideration in the design of facilities for the processing of NORM is
the containment of radioactive materials. The materials that cannot be eectively contained
within the process should be controlled by means of ventilation and dust suppression to prevent
the release of the material into the environment and to minimise the potential occupational
exposure.
13. Adequately designed and balanced ventilation and dust control systems are typically the most
eective methods of minimising radiation exposure in both underground and surface mines,
and in the plants processing dry minerals.
14. The generation of dust should be minimised by the use of appropriate techniques such as the
use of water and other means of suppressing dust and the use of appropriate equipment.
15. Where dust is generated, it should be suppressed at the source. If practicable, the source should
be enclosed under negative air pressure.
16. Care should be taken to avoid the re-suspension of dust as a result of equipment vibration and
high air velocities.
17. During maintenance operations, special care should be taken to control the occupational expo-
sures that may arise from the buildup of dust on internal and external surfaces of the equipment,
accumulation of radioactive material in pipes and vessels due to the formation of sediments and
the buildup of scale, and build-up of radon/thoron in enclosed areas such as mineral storage
tanks.
18. Only when engineering methods of dust control do not achieve acceptable air quality in working
areas, personal respiratory protection should be provided to employees.
19. It is also important to ensure that dust control is an integral part of an overall system of
occupational hygiene. For example, some elements of dust extraction/collection system may
be a signicant source of exposure of employees to unacceptable levels of noise.
3.8. Institutional controls

The RMP should clearly show the assignment of responsibilities in regards to radiation protection
and accountability for radioactive sources, and the commitment of the organisation to maintain high
levels of occupational health and safety. Where necessary, a specic radiation protection policy
should also be developed.
The primary responsibility for the implementation of the RMP is usually delegated to the appropria-
tely qualied radiation safety ocer (RSO). The requirements may change depending on the scale of
operations and the levels of potential radiation exposure but, typically, an RSO is expected to have a
degree in physical science or equivalent and several years of experience in radiation protection, prefe-
rably in the mining and mineral processing industry. Where RSO is also undertaking air monitoring
it is important to note that the person is expected to have the minimum qualication of a surface
ventilation technician/ocer and be a `CONTAM registered sampler'. The main duties of the RSO
are advising the management on the implementation of the RMP and on all matters in relation to
radiation protection of employees, public and the environment; and the RMP should clearly describe
these duties.
A description of the operational procedures and practices should be provided in the RMP, including,
among other issues:
1. Designation of supervised, controlled and restricted areas and procedures for access control
(e.g. physical barriers, signs, special work permits).
2. Designation of employees according to the levels of radiation exposure.
3. General housekeeping measures.
4. Correct operation of control equipment, including preventative maintenance measures and sche-
dules.
5. Standard operating procedures for critical operations from a radiation protection perspective,
including special procedures to be followed during certain identied maintenance tasks (it is
sometimes practical to compile these procedures in a separate document that may be submitted
to the appropriate authority as a supplement to RMP).
6. Emergency planning and response for accidents involving radiation.
7. Use of personal protective equipment.
8. Inspection and auditing program to ensure that correct work practices and procedures are being
followed.
9. Controlled area work rules.
The location of controlled and supervised areas should be marked on an appropriate plan together
with the location of caution signs. Details of the wording of signs, notices and special work permits
used for access control should also be provided.
Although it may be appropriate in many cases for the boundaries of supervised areas to be marked
with signs, this may not always be necessary or productive. It may be necessary to designate a

supervised area within a mining/processing site to which members of the public may have access,
but signs at the entrance to the site may cause unwarranted concern.
The areas in which gamma dose rates or airborne concentration limits may be approached or exceeded
should be designated as requiring special precautions for entry and classied as restricted areas. The
additional requirements for personnel performing operations, maintenance and repair work in such
areas should be specied, together with any specic instructions and training to be provided to
workers. Procedures for visitors should also be provided.
The primary reliance for radiation safety and control should be placed on properly designed facilities
and engineered controls rather than on personal protective equipment. Dust (and radon/thoron)
should usually be controlled in a such a way that protective equipment is not necessary for routine
tasks. However, there may be situations where engineered controls cannot reasonably be provided
and the use of such equipment is necessary. Respiratory protection equipment may also be needed
in emergencies, for repair and maintenance, and in special short term circumstances.
The situations when personal protective equipment is required should be summarised, with details
being provided of the location, task, reason for the need of protective equipment, its type, and
expected frequency and duration of task. The procedures for proper tting, training, cleaning,
maintenance and inspection of personal protective equipment should also be summarised.
For additional guidance please refer to the respiratory protection section in Appendix B of NORM4.1
Dust control strategies.
Personal hygiene rules should also be established and compliance with them should be continuously
monitored. In the rst aid procedures special precautions in cleaning of wounds potentially conta-
minated with radioactive material must be clearly described.
When employees are required to work in areas with relatively high levels of radiation exposure and
when no other practicable means of control are available (for example in underground workings with
unusually high uranium concentrations and radon levels), job rotation could be used in order to
restrict the radiation exposure of individual workers. Job rotation, however, should not be used as a
substitute for the development of an appropriate radiation protection system.
3.9. Employee training

All employees who may be exposed to radiation and all persons responsible for the implementation
of the RMP should receive appropriate training.
Senior management and employees in other departments (such as public relations, human resources,
administration, marketing, etc) should also be provided with information on risks associated with
radiation exposure and detailed description of sources and pathways of radiation exposure at relevant
mining and processing sites.
Employees whose work may impact on the levels of radiation exposure (designers, planners, etc)
should also be provided with basic information.
Training programs should include relevant information and the following information should be pro-
vided in the RMP:
1. Details of the induction program (i.e. training for new employees), including summary of topics
covered, duration and context in relation to overall induction.
2. Details of periodic re-training, including format, duration and frequency.
3. Details of any additional training given to the management personnel.
4. Details of any emergency response and preparedness training.
The qualication and experience of the person conducting the training (if not done by the RSO)
should also be provided.
The nature and extent of employee training is expected to vary with job requirements and respon-
sibilities. For a person whose duties do not include work in a controlled area, a simple description
of the working environment, protective measures and average levels of exposure may be sucient.
However, for a person who is typically required to perform tasks in controlled areas on a regular
basis, much more detailed and extensive training program is necessary, particularly in relation to the
compliance with safe work procedures and the use and maintenance of protection equipment.
3.10. Radiation monitoring program

The main aims of monitoring radiation levels in the workplace and in the environment are to:
determine compliance with regulatory limits;
determine radiation exposure of employees and members of general public;
assess the impact of operations on the local environment;
provide information on the eectiveness of control measures; and
access whether doses are as low as practicable (e.g. checking the eectiveness of control mea-
sures, studying specic tasks, identifying poor work practices, investigating incidents).
A detailed description of the radiation monitoring program should be provided in the RMP. The
program should list for each radiationrelated parameter (external radiation, airborne radioactivity,
waterborne radioactivity, radon/thoron, and surface contamination) the following:
1. Location, task or category or employees monitored.
2. Environmental media (air, water) monitored.
3. Type of sampling (personal, positional, ground water, surface water, etc.).
4. Duration of sampling.
5. Frequency of measurement.
6. Sampling equipment and calibration records.
7. Analysis method, the type of radiation or radionuclides measured.
8. Any other information, as applicable.
The parameters to be measured should include all those identied in Section 3.6 on page 5.
For additional guidance please refer to NORM3.1 Pre-operational radiation monitoring requirements
and NORM3.2 Operational radiation monitoring requirements.
In the case of a new operation, an initial monitoring program should be exhaustive in order to tho-
roughly characterise the radiological environment and to identify any locations and/or work practices
requiring special attention. When the radiation levels stabilise and it is established that a facility
operates under normal conditions, monitoring frequencies and locations should be adjusted to reect
the level and variability of dierent radiation parameters. In general, more frequent monitoring is
required where levels are higher and variable; less frequent monitoring is required where levels are
low and relatively constant.
Surface contamination measurements are the main method of assessing housekeeping standards, and
are useful in the inspection of equipment prior to maintenance. Surface contamination monitoring
is very important in the control over release of potentially contaminated equipment from site and,
therefore, will usually be an integral component of the monitoring program.

The need for monitoring of radon/thoron concentrations is dependent on a particular site conditions.
In mineral sands operations it is not usually necessary to assess radon/thoron concentrations in
open pits; however in situations where large amounts of mineral are present in enclosed buildings,
this monitoring is typically a part of a program. These measurements are also usually necessary in
underground mines and in situation when a material contains elevated concentrations of uranium.
The general monitoring guidance is suggested in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1.: General monitoring guidance

Radiation radionuclide level Monitoring
Average levels <25% of occupational limits. Initial assessment and periodic conrmatory
surveys; repeat as conditions change.
Signicant number of individual measurements Commence routine monitoring of the
>25% of derived occupational exposure limits.‡ workplace.
Dose, average concentration, reaches or exceeds Individual exposure assessment:
25% of occupational limits. External personal dosimeters/badges.
Internal personal samplers (dust), area
sampling and exposure time (radon).
Individual measurements approach or exceed Repeat the measurement.
derived occupational exposure limits.‡
Conrmed level approaches or exceeds Intensive monitoring in conjunction with
occupational exposure limits. re-evaluation of dose-reduction planning (with
an advice from the appropriate authority).
‡ Derived limit = radiation level that would result in the annual exposure equal to the statutory limit.
The RMP should include details of the quality assurance program for the radiation monitoring pro-
gram, including the various actions, which are taken to assess the adequacy of equipment, instruments
and procedures against established requirements such as the:
quality and specications of equipment and instruments;
training and experience of personnel using equipment and instruments;
verication of measurement procedures by the analysis of control samples and the use of stan-
dard methods for analysis (where applicable);
frequency of calibration and maintenance of equipment and instruments;
details and frequency of independent audits (where applicable);
need for traceability of the results of monitoring programs to the National Standard; and
degree of documentation needed to demonstrate that the required quality has been achieved
and is maintained.
The samples such as lters from dust monitoring need to be kept for two years for the purpose of
comparative analyses, if necessary.
3.11. Records management and reporting

The RMP should list the type of records to be kept, their format and method of storage. Records of
monitoring results, dose assessments (including calculation methods), and related information should
be retained in an easily retrievable form and kept for a period of at least 30 years.
The amount of records to be kept and their type will depend on the magnitude of potential radiation
exposure on a particular site.
Typically the RMP should require the records that are kept include the following:
1. Information on radiological conditions at the particular site (external gamma-radiation sur-
veys; airborne and waterborne radioactivity surveys, particle size characterisation assessments,
surface contamination surveys, inventory of radioactive materials, methods and locations for
the disposal of radioactive wastes).
2. Assessments of radiation exposure of employees and members of the public (external and inter-
nal radiation doses, and methods for their determination, bio-assay data where applicable).
3. Assessments of impact on the local environment (measurements of all potential pathways of
radioactive material discharges, environmental exposures modelling and assumptions used
in assessments).
4. All documentation relevant to the implementation of the system of radiation protection on
the site (safety assessments of whole operations and designs of relevant processing equipment;
descriptions of unusual operational events, standard operating procedures and relevant company
policies, descriptions of training programs, quality assurance data and reports of all external
audits conducted on the site).
It is recommended that RMP contains a requirement that the individual annual occupational expo-
sure record includes the following:
1. Unique identication of the individual (e.g. MineHealth surveillance number).
2. The exposure for the current year and, where available, for the relevant ve-year period.
3. Results of the measurements for the estimation of the external dose, and methods of assessment.
4. Results of the measurements for the estimation of internal dose (result of personal dust and
radon/thoron monitoring), and methods of assessment.
5. The allocated dose for lost or damaged monitors or samples.
6. Any special radiation exposure assigned to the employee.
7. Record of the formal declaration of pregnancy, any revocations of such declaration, and mea-
sures taken to ensure that dose to this employee is kept under 1 mSv over the remainder of the
pregnancy.
The RMP needs to include a commitment for reporting the results of monitoring programs (both oc-
cupational and environmental), and all related information. Reports will be required to the regulatory
authority, management, and for the employees, at least on an annual basis. Operational requirements
may require more frequent reporting and analysis to management and to the appropriate authority.
For additional guidance in regards to the format of statutory reports and for the levels that, when
detected, would typically require investigation please refer to NORM6 Reporting requirements.
3.12. Dose assessment

The RMP should specify how the results of the monitoring program, detailed in Section 3.10 on
page 9, would be used in the assessment of doses of employees.

For new operations, the RMP should include an estimate of the likely doses to be received by the
various categories of employees, together with documentation of all assumptions used.
An individual dose assessment should be required for any worker who is normally employed in a
controlled area. For any single component of occupational exposure (external and internal) these
assessments could be considered if monitoring indicates that annual exposure may exceed 1 mSv,
and must be conducted if the estimated dose is likely to exceed 5 mSv per year.
For additional guidance please refer to the NORM5 Dose assessment.
3.13. Waste management system

The radioactive waste management is an integral part of the RMP and, in some circumstances, a
separate document titled Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RWMP) should be developed for
the operation.
The nature and extent of information provided in the RMP/RWMP in relation to waste management
will depend upon the nature, volume and radioactivity of the wastes and other site-specic factors.
For example, if the highest concentration of radionuclides in the waste material at a particular site
is in order of several Bq/g and no chemical treatment of mineral takes place, the waste management
strategy will be very simple. However, if numerous waste streams are generated at a site using
chemical and/or thermal treatment of minerals and concentrations of radionuclides are in order of
several tens of Bq/g or above, the separate Radioactive Waste Management Plan will need to be
prepared.
The RMP/RWMP should include a summary of the chemical, physical and radiological characte-
ristics and quantity of each of the solid materials and liquid and airborne euents that may be
classied as radioactive waste and will, therefore, require management from a `radiation perspective'.
Examples of such materials include uranium processing tailings, some tailings from processing of dif-
ferent NORM, certain slimes from settling ponds, material collected by the dust extraction systems,
scrubber euents, stack emissions, liquids in discharge pipes and storm sewers, contaminated parts
of plant and equipment, scales and sludges from process vessels and pipes, etc.
Most waste generated during mining and processing of NORM contains non-radiological hazardous
components similar to those present in waste from other mining and processing activities. In certain
cases, chemical toxicity of some of the contaminants in the waste may cause signicant environmental
impacts when the concentrations of radionuclides are considerably below those that require a special
program for the management of this waste from the radiological perspective. It is, therefore, impor-
tant to ensure that radioactive waste management is an integral part of an overall environmental
management program for the particular site.
Waste management system should utilise the best practicable technology and be designed to mi-
nimise the release of radioactivity into the environment. All possible pathways for dispersion of
radionuclides in the environment should be considered. Initial assessment should include handling,
treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste, and it is recommended that following elements
are described in detail:
1. Outline of the operation and the processes generating waste.
2. Characterisation of wastes including nature of materials (chemical, physical and radiological),
contaminants, and quantities and rates of generation.
3. Detailed characterisation of the environment: climate, terrain, soils, vegetation, hydrology.
4. Heritage (social and cultural), and land use (present, potential and future).
5. Waste management facilities and practices, waste conditioning (where applicable) and contain-
ment.
6. Possible discharges: form (gas, liquid or solid), discharge and release criteria.
7. Contingency measures for natural events, incidents, equipment and operational failures, tem-
porary cessation of operations.
8. Monitoring programs, assessments of results and reporting.
9. The need for restricted release zones.
10. Outline of the proposed closure plan for the site, including decommissioning, decontamination
and rehabilitation concepts, proposals for long-term surveillance and reporting, records mana-
gement, institutional controls (where required), and the description of possible future caveats
to land use (please refer to Section 2.3.5. Contaminated Sites of the guideline NORM4.2
Management of radioactive waste for more information).
When all characteristics of each potentially radioactive waste stream are known, the specic mana-
gement strategy should be described for each material, including (in addition to the list above):
1. The facilities and procedures, including control technologies used in handling and treatment of
the waste.
2. Monitoring program, including the specic radiation parameters to be measured and any inde-
pendent audits undertaken.
3. In the case of nal disposal in a specically designed facility (such as for the disposal of tailings
from a uranium or rare earth processing plant) include:
a) information on the design, operation and expected performance capability of the disposal
facility and its exact location;
b) techniques to be used for the disposal, such as method of deposition, tails conditioning,
dam lining, depth of cover, cover material;
c) the possibility for leaching of radionuclides, potential for their o-site migration and pro-
cedures to prevent this process;
d) institutional controls to be implemented, such as long-term monitoring and record-keeping;
and
e) an exact amount of material disposed in the facility, its radiological characteristics and
description of other hazards associated with the particular waste.
The RMP/RWMP should include suitable diagrams and maps/plans to describe the design and
location of storage or disposal facilities and the location of restricted release zones.
In order to ensure that in the long term the use of the disposal site is not restricted, Mines Safety and
Inspection Regulation 16.35 (2) requires that, so far as is practicable, radioactive waste is diluted
with other mined material before it is disposed of.
It is important that the blending of materials is carried out with caution, particularly in cases when
the material to be diluted was a subject to a chemical and/or thermal processing and mobility of
some radionuclides may have increased in comparison with the material's original state. A formal
approval by the appropriate authority is required before any blending of materials commences, and
systems must be in place to ensure that dilution process is carried out in accordance with any special
conditions that may be imposed by the appropriate authority.
The blending of radioactive waste with other mined material is typically practical only in cases
where no chemical and/or thermal treatment of mineral has taken place and radionuclides in both
uranium and thorium decay chains are in the state of secular equilibrium. Limited blending options

are available for all other waste material and typical conditions are that if the blended waste is
not disposed of, its re-use is limited to the applications where public exposures will be negligible,
for example as a construction material for sea walls and articial reefs around industrial ports.
In these cases it will still be necessary that all radionuclides are stabilised within concrete and no
measurable leaching of elements like uranium and radium into the sea water occurs.
Some aspects of waste management would have already been addressed during the formal environ-
mental approval process and in many cases it would be sucient to simply reference the appropriate
sections of the environmental impact assessment and other relevant documents. Similarly, facilities
for tailings storage and/or disposal are, as a rule, licensed in accordance with relevant legislation and
are subject to periodic engineering performance assessments.
In some cases when, several years after the closure of a disposal facility, it is known that radioactivity
levels in waste materials are low and radionuclides are very unlikely to leach into the ground water
(for example, in mineral sands mining), a long-term radiation monitoring program for a particular
disposal site can be signicantly reduced and consist mainly of erosion monitoring.
3.14. Transport of radioactive materials

The RMP should include a detailed description of procedures for transport of radioactive materials,
including the:
types of packaging (where applicable) and signposting;
details of mode of transport and containers;
number of employees involved in transport and their estimated exposure times and doses;
amounts and radioactivity content of transported materials, frequency of transport movements;
transport routes, estimates of potential exposure of members of the general public and the
environment in the course of normal operations and in case of transport accidents (specic
emergency response procedures should also be developed); and
summary of operational procedures, particularly illustrating measures taken to ensure strict
compliance with transport safety regulations.
For additional guidance please refer to the guideline NORM4.3 Transport of NORM.
3.15. Radiation safety resources

The RMP should describe the management and reporting structure for the particular site, and the
duties and qualications of relevant personal and, in particular, the radiation safety ocer. The RMP
should also include a clear commitment to provide adequate sta with appropriate qualications and
experience, to advise the management on all aspects of radiation protection on the site.
The RMP should also list the monitoring equipment and support facilities, including the:
make and model of the equipment;
purpose of the particular instrument and its applicability for the particular purpose;
calibration methods and frequency, and traceability to the National Standard; and
maintenance and replacement schedule.
3.16. List of commitments

The nal section of the RMP should summarise all the commitments made throughout the document,
with references to their location within the RMP.
3.17. Examples of gures and tables to be included in the Radiation

Management Plan
The following examples are provided to illustrate the type of gures and tables that could be included
in the RMP to enhance the presentation of specic information.
3.17.1. Figures
The gures should include:

1. General location diagram of operations/facilities.
2. Map/plan of the site, showing layout of infrastructure in relation to the tenement boundaries
and the national grid.
3. Location of critical groups of the public.
4. Diagrams of waste disposal facilities, showing relevant engineering details.
5. Diagrams showing location and details of engineering control equipment used during various
stages of operations.
6. Maps/plans showing locations of supervised, controlled and restricted areas.
7. Diagram showing process ows with particular attention paid to potentially radioactive streams.
8. Examples of warning signs used on site and their locations.
3.17.2. Tables
The tables should include:

1. A summary of site history.
2. The workforce stratication information, including shift patterns.
3. A summary of sources/pathways of radiation exposure.
4. The radionuclide mass balance.
5. The radiation monitoring program.
6. A list of radiation monitoring equipment.
7. A list of radiation gauges (density, in-stream analysers, etc.) and their locations.
8. A summary of dose estimation calculations, by work category and exposure pathway.
9. The outline of employee induction programs.
It is recommended that typical results obtained during routine monitoring be included in the form of
tables and charts. Where special forms associated with the RMP have been developed (such as, for
example, a `clearance form' for the removal of potentially contaminated equipment from the site, or

a `controlled area entry permit'), it is recommended to provide an example of a completed document

instead of the blank form.
It is also useful to compile a special radiation protection standard job procedures manual (so all
relevant work instructions are available in one document) and submit it to the appropriate authority
as an appendix or a supplement to the RMP.
A. Appendix showing a Radiation

Management Plan checklist

[1] Code [3]
1 Front cover
Controlled document To verify that proper control Reg. 16.7(3) Sec. 3.8.3
of documentation is in place.
Each page dated and To verify unauthorised Reg. 16.7(6) Sec. 2.9.6
identied changes cannot be made to
the RMP.
Title of document To verify that the document Reg. 16.7(1) Sec. 2.7.1.
submitted is the RMP.
Reference number of To verify the RMP is stored Reg. 16.25 Sec.
document in a records management 2.7.2(e)
system.
Date of issue To verify the RMP is current Reg. 16.7(4) Sec. 2.9.6
and reviewed every 2 years.
Date of submission To verify the RMP has been Reg. 16.7(3) Sec. 2.9.6
provided to the State Mining
Engineer.
Name of Company To verify owner of the RMP. Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.10.1
Name of Operation To verify site where RMP is Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.10.1
implemented.
Endorsed by Registered To verify that the responsible Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.10.1
Manager person has complied.
2 Scope
Details of operations To verify the the size and Reg. 16.8(2) Sec. 2.7.2
and facilities scope of the operations.
Details of location To verify the exact location Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.7.2
of the site.
Details of Lease or To verify the site location Reg. 16.7 Sec. 2.7.2
Tenement under the Mining Act.
3 Introduction
History of site or To verify current RMP Reg. 16.25 Sec.
ownership includes previous records or 3.8.1(f)
plans.
Reason for Radiation To verify a RMP is required. Reg. 16.2 Sec. 2.7.1
Management Plan
Mining/processing To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.3.2
activities on site equipment, facilities and


[1] Code [3]
Type of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.1
mine/processing plant equipment, facilities and
Expected duration of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.1
operations equipment, facilities and
Critical project dates To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.1
Block diagrams of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2
functional activities equipment, facilities and
Process ow-sheets To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2
4 Workforce
Number of persons To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
employed equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(b)
Stratication - To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
employees/contractors equipment, facilities and 2.10.1(m)
& gender operational procedures. (p)
Work categories To verify use of appropriate Reg.16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.6.7
Roster system To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2(b
Average working hours To verify use of appropriate Reg.16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2(b
Designated employees To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2(b
Radiation exposures To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2(b
5 Critical groups
Identication To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
the public are not exposed to 2.8.2(c)
Location To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Size To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.

[1] Code [3]
Demographics To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Land-use maps To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Location plan or map To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
Radiation exposures To verify that members of Reg. 16.9 Sec.
6 Sources & pathways of

radiation exposure
Identied sources & To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
pathways monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 3.8.1(a)
place.
Plans of To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
mines/processing plant monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.1(a)
place.
Descriptions of To verify that adequate Reg. Sec. 2.8.2
equipment monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii)
place.
Processes involved To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.2(a)
place.
Risk assessments To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.2(d)
place.
Process streams To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec.
system. 2.8.2(d)
Radionuclide To verify that adequate Reg. Sec.
concentrations monitoring programs are in 16.7(2)(a)(ii) 2.8.2(d)
place.
Radionuclide balances To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec.
system. 2.8.2(d)
Inputs/outputs To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec.
system. 2.8.2(d)
Accumulation of To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec.
radioactive system. 2.8.2(d)
scales/sludges
Scientic justication, To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(5) Sec.
models, data practicable technology is 2.8.2(d)
incorporated on site.
List of radiation To verify sealed radiation Reg. 16.38 Sec.
gauges/x-ray sources and irradiating 2.7.2(e)
equipment apparatus.


[1] Code [3]
7 Control of radiation
exposure
Measures implemented To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.15 Sec.
employee doses as low as 3.8.1(b)
practicable.
Engineering controls, To verify that the best Reg. 16.15 Sec.
methods and practicable technology is 3.8.1(b)
specications incorporated on site. Sec. 3.9.1
Ventilation controls To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(5) Sec. 2.6.2
practicable technology is Sec.
incorporated on site. 3.8.1(b)
Dust controls To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.15 Sec. 2.6.2
employee doses as low as Sec.
practicable. 3.8.1(b)
Fume controls To verify dust suppression is Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
being used. Sec.
3.8.1(b)
Shielding To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
Processing equipment To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
controls practicable technology is Sec.
incorporated on site. 3.8.1(b)
Exposure minimisation To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
techniques employee doses as low as Sec.
Plans of plant layout Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
3.7.2(a)
Housekeeping measures To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
practicable. 3.7.2(a)
Contamination control To verify use restricted Reg. 16.7(2)(c)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
release zones.
Spillage control To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(5) Sec. 2.6.2
practicable technology is
incorporated on site.
Diagrams of occupied To verify measures to keep Reg. 16.15 Sec.
workplaces in relation employee doses as low as 3.7.2(a)
to radiation levels or practicable.
radioactive mineral
streams
Controlled areas To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
system.
Exhaust stacks, bag To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
house dust collectors system.
Storm-water discharge To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
system.
8 Institutional controls

[1] Code [3]
Responsibilities of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.10.1
personnel equipment, facilities and
Accountability To verify that the manger is Reg. 16.9(3) Sec. 3.10.1
advised on matters to do
with implementing RMP.
Commitment To verify manager is Reg. 16.8(1) Sec.
committed to implementing 2.8.2(a)
the RMP.
Radiation Safety To verify that a appropriate Reg. 16.8 Sec.
Ocer/Licence RSO has been appointed. 2.10.1(d)
Designation of To verify doses are being Reg.16.16 Sec.
supervised, controlled controlled. 2.10.1(m)
and restricted areas
Preventative To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.6.2
maintenance, measures, equipment, facilities and
schedules operational procedures.
Operating procedures To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
equipment, facilities and 2.10.1(a)
Emergency planning To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(f)
Personal protective To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
equipment equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(c)
Inspection and auditing To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
programs equipment, facilities and 2.8.3(b)
Controlled area work To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
rules equipment, facilities and 3.8.1(b)
Signage To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.10.2
procedures.
Personal hygiene rules To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.10.2
procedures.
Job rotation To verify doses are kept as Reg. 16.15 Sec.
low as practicable. 3.8.1(b)
9 Employee training


[1] Code [3]
Induction program To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Periodic re-training To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Radiation safety To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
training of personnel training program. 16.7(2)(a)(v) 2.7.2(d)
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Details of person giving To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
training training program. 16.7(2)(a)(v) 2.7.2(a)
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
Syllabus To verify the instruction and Reg. Sec.
training program. 16.7(2)(a)(v) 2.7.2(a)
Sec.
3.8.1(e)
10 Radiation monitoring
program
Compliance with limits To verify radiation dose is Reg. 16.15 Sec.
Exposure to employees To verify radiation dose is Reg. 16.15 Sec.
and public kept as low as practicable. 3.8.1(c)
Impact of operations on To verify environmental Reg. 16.6 Sec.
environment radiation monitoring 3.8.1(c)
program.
Eectiveness of controls To verify radiation dose is Reg. 16.15 Sec.
Employees monitored To verify radiation dose is Reg. 16.15 Sec.
Type of monitoring and To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
sampling monitoring program. 3.8.1(c)
Duration To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Frequency To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Sampling equipment To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.8(2) Sec.
equipment. 2.7.2(c)
Calibration records of To verify monitoring Reg. 16.8(3) Sec.
all equipment equipment is being 3.8.3(a)
maintained.
Analysis methods To verify procedures for the Reg. 16.7(2)iii Sec.
assessment of dose. 3.8.1(c)
Radiation types To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
monitored monitoring program. 3.8.1(c)

[1] Code [3]
Radionuclides To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Surface contamination To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
Radon/Thoron dose To verify procedures for the Reg. 16.7(2)iii Sec.
estima- assessment of dose. 3.8.1(c)
tions/measurements
Equipment To verify that the best Reg. 16.7(5) Sec.
specications practicable technology is 2.7.2(c)
available.
Training and To verify adequacy of sta . Reg. 16.8(2) Sec.
experience of personnel 2.7.2(a)
Calibration and To verify monitoring Reg. 16.8(3) Sec.
traceability of equipment is being 3.8.3(a)
results/schedules maintained.
including Australian
Standards
Audits internal and To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
external monitoring program. 3.8.3(b)
Quality assurance To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec. 3.8.3
program which is monitoring program.
compliant with
Australian Standards.
11 Records management &

reporting
Information on To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
radiological conditions records are being kept under 2.7.2(e)
the RMP.
Assessments of To verify that records are Reg. 16.25(1)(a) Sec.
exposures being kept of dose 2.10.1(n)
assessments. Sec.
2.10.1(o)
Impact on local To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
environment records are being kept under 2.10.1(n)
the RMP.
Relevant To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(1)(d) Sec.
documentation records are being kept under 2.7.2(e)
the RMP .
Identication of To verify that monitoring Reg. 16.25(1)(b) Sec.
individuals records are being kept . 3.8.1(f)
Easy, secure long term To verify that appropriate Reg. 16.25(5) Sec.
access to data records are being kept under 3.8.1(f)
the RMP .
Reporting to the State To verify that results from Reg. 16.26 Sec.
Mining Engineer the monitoring program and 2.10.1(g)(i)
waste management plan are (j)(h)
reported to SME.


[1] Code [3]
12 Dose assessment
Methodology for To verify the use of Reg. Sec.
exposure calculations appropriate procedures for 16.7(2)(a)(iii) 2.7.2(b)
the assessment of dose. Sec.
2.8.1(d)
13 Waste management
Pre-operational To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.6 Sec.
monitoring program equipment, facilities and 2.8.2(b)
operational procedures. Sec. 3.9.1
Nature of waste To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Volume of waste To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Radioactivity of waste To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Outline of processes To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
generating waste equipment, facilities and
Characterisation of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
wastes equipment, facilities and
Characterisation of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
environment equipment, facilities and
Heritage and land use To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Waste management To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
facilities equipment, facilities and
Waste management To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
practices equipment, facilities and
Waste conditioning To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Contingency measures To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Monitoring program To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
Assessment of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
monitoring results equipment, facilities and

[1] Code [3]
Reporting To verify reporting on waste Reg 16.26(b) Sec. 3.9.1
management system.
Restricted release zones To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c)(i) Sec. 3.9.1
Decommissioning plan To verify use of appropriate 16.35(1)(a) Sec. 3.9.1
Rehabilitation and To verify use of appropriate 16.35(1)(a) Sec. 3.9.1
closure criteria equipment, facilities and
Long-term surveillance To verify use of appropriate 16.35(1)(a) Sec. 3.9.1
and reporting equipment, facilities and
Control technologies To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.9.1
Handling and To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.9.1
treatment of waste equipment, facilities and
Independent audits To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 3.9.1
Disposal techniques To verify waste management Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
system.
Leachability of To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
radionuclides equipment, facilities and
Hazards of wastes To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(c) Sec. 3.9.1
14 Transport
Types of packaging To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Signposting To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Details of transport To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
mode and containers appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
procedures.
Numbers of employees To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
involved appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
procedures.


[1] Code [3]
Estimates of exposures To verify adequacy of Reg. 16.7(2)(ii) Sec.
and doses need to be monitoring program . 3.8.1(b)
provided in order to
judge the adequacy of
control measures.
Amounts of To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
radioactivity (per appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
package & annual) facilities and operational
procedures.
Frequency and To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
transport movements appropriate equipment, 3.8.1(b)
procedures.
Transport routes To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Operational procedures To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
procedures.
Emergency procedures To verify the use of Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.7.2
appropriate equipment, (f)
procedures.
15 Radiation safety
resources
Lists of equipment and To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
facilities equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(c)
The name and To verify use of appropriate Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec.
qualications of the equipment, facilities and 2.7.2(a)
RSO and list of people operational procedures .
involved in monitoring
16 List of commitments
Commitments clearly To verify that the responsible Reg. 16.8(1) Sec. 2.7.1
laid out person will ensure the RMP
is complied with.
17 Glossary
Lists of word meanings To verify the meanings of the Reg. 16.7(2)(a)(i) Sec. 2.3.4
terms used in RMP
Bibliography
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2005.
[4] Safety Guide: Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), Radiation
Protection Series Publication No.15, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA), 2008.

Index
accidents, 7 mineral processing, 2, 4
airborne concentration limits, 8 monazite, 2
annual working hours, 5 monitoring equipment, 14
auditing program, 7 monitoring program, 9, 10, 13, 15
calibration, 10, 14 new employees, 8

commitments, 15
occupied workplaces, 2
contaminated, 12
control measures, 9 pathways, 8
control rooms, 6 personal protective equipment, 7
Controlled area, 7 principal employer, 2
controlled area, 6
controlled document, 4 radiation exposure, 8
crib rooms, 6 radiation gauges, 15
critical group, 2, 5 radiation management plan, 2, 4
critical processes, 6 radioactive mineral stockpile, 2
radioactive process stream, 5
decommissioning, 13 radionuclides, 6, 9
decontamination, 13 re-training, 8
dose assessment, 11 records management, 11, 13
dust, 5, 6 rening, 4
dust extraction, 12 registered manager, 2
emergency planning, 7
reporting, 11, 13
engineering controls, 5
responsible person, 2
engineering methods, 7
restricted areas, 7
environment, 9
RSO, 7, 9
exhaust stacks, 2
RWMP, 12
exposure sources, 5
sampling, 9
fume control, 5 scales, 5, 12
gamma dose rates, 8 scrubber, 12
gamma-radiation surveys, 11 shielding, 5
ground water, 14 shift roster system, 5
sludges, 5, 12
housekeeping, 7, 9 smelting, 4
stack emissions, 12
induction program, 8 State Mining Engineer, 2
institutional controls, 7 stockpiles, 5
storage facilities, 2
job rotation, 8
supervised areas, 7, 15
maintenance, 6, 7, 14 surface contamination, 9
mass balance, 5, 15 surface mining, 4
MineHealth, 11 tailings, 5
28
tantalum processing, 4
titanium dioxide, 2
training, 8, 10
transport of radioactive materials, 14
underground mines, 4, 10
uranium, 10
uranium milling, 2
ventilation, 5
washing facilities, 6
waste disposal, 4
waste management, 12, 14
waterborne radioactivity, 9
workforce, 4
zircon milling, 2

NORM3.1
Monitoring NORM pre-operational monitoring requirements

Reference
mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM3.1. Monitoring NORM pre-operational monitoring
requirements guideline: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 19pp.
<www.dmp.wa.gov.au>

Guideline NORM3.1 Monitoring NORM preoperational monitoring requirements
Contents
List of Figures iv
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Elements to be considered in the program design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.1. Radioactivity content and characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.2. Pathway analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.3. Identication of a critical group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.4. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Monitoring methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Gamma radiation surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2. Airborne radioactivity surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2.1. Atmospheric dusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2.2. Radon and thoron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.3. Water quality surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.4. Other monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4.1. Soil sampling and assessment of secular equilibrium . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4.2. Surface contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4.3. Biota samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Data presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Appendix with a suggested pre-operational radiation monitoring program 13
B. Appendix about survey instruments and their data interpretation 14

B.1. General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B.2. Data interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bibliography 18
Index 19

List of Figures
2.1. Gamma survey recommended grid sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2. Mini-Instruments 680 environmental radiation survey meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Electronic sampling of radon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Weather station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. Stygofauna trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. The Ludlum 12S meter reads in µR/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

B.2. The Mini-Instruments environmental radiation survey meter reads in µGy/h . . . . . 16
B.3. The Bicron `micro rem' meter reads in µSv/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on the practical ways of pre-operational monitoring in relevant exploration,

mining and mineral processing operations and on the assessment of obtained data.
1.2. Scope
The owchart in Figure 1.1 shows the shows the arrangement of the Radiation Safety Guidelines.
Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
Pre-operational monitoring is conducted to obtain (establish) baseline data on background radionu-

clide concentrations and dose rates in the environment, at locations where exploration, mining and
mineral processing operations are proposed to take place. This data then allows for:
an assessment of the impact of proposed operations to the local environment; and
an appropriate baseline reference for the subsequent rehabilitation.
It is important to identify and characterise the parameters that the proposed operations are likely to
aect. Any parts of the existing environment with higher than local average levels of radioactivity
must be identied and described.
As with any monitoring program, the extent to which program elements are considered is dependent
on site specic considerations such as the mineral mined/processed, present and proposed future land
use, potential exposure pathways, variability of radiation parameters. The purpose of pre-operational
monitoring is mainly to address baseline meaurements for a new mine or processing plant and not
just for the exploration. Depending on the level of radiation hazard, some of the elements discussed
below may not be required. A suggested pre-operational radiation monitoring program is outlined
in Appendix A on page 13. For a relatively limited uranium exploration campaign, the appropriate
authorities should be consulted on what pre-operational monitoring is required. The aim of recording
this information in exploration is to be able to bring the environment (radiation levels included) back
to the state that existed prior to exploration activities taking place.
2.2. Elements to be considered in the program design
There are three important stages in the design of a pre-operational radiation monitoring program,
involving the identication of:
radionuclides in the material to be mined/processed, their concentrations and distribution in

the local environment;
possible pathways of the exposure of members of the public and local environment; and
critical group of members of the public and, where applicable, critical reference plant/animal.
2.2.1. Radioactivity content and characteristics

The generic data on radionuclides and their concentrations in the material to be mined and/or
processed is typically available from geological or other data. The data on the contents of these
radionuclides at the proposed exploration or mining/mineral processing site should be obtained for
local soil, ground and surface water, and biota. Any potential eects that exploration, mining
and/or processing operations may have on both the concentrations and physical/chemical states of
these radionuclides must be considered.
All development proposals (exploration, mining, concentration/separation, chemical/thermal proces-

sing, waste disposal, etc.) must be evaluated and their potential eect assessed. One of the most
important items to determine may be is to establish if naturally occurring uranium and thorium are
in secular equilibrium with their decay products and if the proposed operation is likely to inuence
this secular equilibrium and the mobility of radionuclides in the environment. It should be noted that
some minerals, despite being in their `natural state', may already be depleted of certain radioisotopes
from thorium and/or uranium decay chains prior to exploration/mining/processing, and it is very
important to establish if this is the case prior to the commencement of operations.
At the end of this stage a list of `radionuclides of interest' is compiled.
2.2.2. Pathway analysis

After it has been determined which radionuclides will need to be included into the monitoring pro-
gram, the assessment of potential pathways of exposure should be undertaken. In general, radio-
nuclides from an exploration or mining/processing site could reach humans and the surrounding
environment via atmospheric release, aquatic release, or both.
Two main pathways of exposure for humans are internal exposure (inhalation and ingestion) and
external exposure. External exposure to gamma-radiation will need to be assessed in almost all
cases; the potential pathway of exposure via surface contamination may also be applicable.
A detailed assessment of potential internal exposure must be conducted on a case-by-case basis and
the following pathways of exposure considered:
Inhalation:
1. Re-suspended dust.
2. Radon (
222 Rn) and its progeny.
3. Thoron (
220 Rn) and its progeny.
Ingestion:
1. Drinking water.
2. Incidental dust and soil.
3. Home-grown produce, milk, meat, and locally caught aquatic organisms (e.g. sh, mussels,
shellsh).
It is very important to remember that when exploration, mining and/or processing is proposed to
be carried out in remote areas of Western Australia, a particular regard will need to be given to the
lifestyle and practices of local population. Indigenous people may be at a higher risk of radiation
exposure at and around exploration and mining sites due to, for example:
travelling on dusty roads in open vehicles;
sitting on the ground, living and sleeping in temporary structures with earth oors;
absence of adequate washing facilities, consuming local biota and cooking in the ground; and
recreational activities (particularly by children).
In these cases the exposure to radiation may be a result of not only direct pathways of radiation
exposure such as external gamma-radiation, inhalation of dust/radon, and ingestion of drinking
water, but also several indirect ones, which may also need to be assessed including:

ingestion of contaminated ora (both surface and aquatic);
ingestion of contaminated fauna (both surface, air and aquatic); and
incidental ingestion of dust and soil (particularly for children).
At the end of this stage the list of `radionuclides of interest' is coupled with the pathways of potential
exposure and the identication of monitoring that will be required is carried out.
2.2.3. Identication of a critical group

The last stage in the design of pre-operational monitoring program is to identify the `critical group'.
According to the Australian Code of Practice for Mining and Mineral Processing [4], the critical
group is a group of members of the public comprising individuals who are relatively homogeneous with
regard to age, diet and those behavioural characteristics that aect the doses received and who receive
the highest radiation doses from a particular practice.
In Western Australia, mining and mineral processing operations can be located relatively far from
populated areas and serviced by y-in y-out personnel. After the completion of a particular project
it is not uncommon that people may only stay in the area once every several years and then, only
for very short periods of time. Therefore, their potential exposure to radiation cannot be adequately
quantied..
In some other cases, identication of the critical group may not be possible due to the distance
from the proposed site being too far for a group to receive any measurable radiation dose. However,
even in such situations, there still exits a need for the operator to demonstrate that the impact
of the operation on the local environment is minimal or negligible; and, in these cases a reference
plant/animal may be selected for the study.
It may be dicult for a local community to grasp the dierence between occupational and envi-
ronmental impact people are part of an ecosystem and this should be addressed; either by the
study of a plant/animal or a critical group. While it may be very dicult to explain your baseline
measurements in terms of milliSieverts and Becquerels to a community, being able to to say that
a particular water hole, the animals and plants around it are no dierent from before will have a
better reception. This is an example when some part of a radiation monitoring program may not
be required from a purely technical point of view, but social considerations have been taken into
account.
On conclusion of the pre-operational radiation monitoring program design, the following information
should be available:
1. Radionuclides to be monitored.
2. Media to be monitored.
3. Critical group whose radiation exposure will be assessed.
This information is sucient for the design of a comprehensive monitoring program. At this point
a consultation with the DMP (and, in some cases, with other government departments) is highly
advisable to ensure that an assessment of the proposed monitoring program can be carried out and
any amendments required are made prior to the commencement of monitoring.
2.2.4. Other considerations

After the initial design of the pre-operational monitoring program some elements may seem unne-
cessary. It is important to maintain a program that is as broad as practicable. This is due to the
fact that if an anomaly in radionuclides concentrations and/or distribution is not identied during
the pre-operational stage, it may be attributed to the exploration, mining and/or processing opera-
tions and a costly remediation program may subsequently be required. Examples of such anomalies
include:
naturally elevated radon concentrations in homes of the members of the critical group of the
members of the public;
disequilibrium between radionuclides from uranium and thorium decay chains in local soil and
in the minerals to be mined, and elevated concentrations of
226 Ra and/or 228 Ra in local ground
water; and
elevated radium, polonium or lead concentrations in native vegetation.
2.3. Monitoring methods
2.3.1. Gamma radiation surveys

A gamma radiation survey is required over all proposed mining/processing areas before mining com-
mences and prior to the removal of topsoil. The purpose of this amount of monitoring is for compa-
rison with post-mining levels to classify the site appropriately in accordance with the Contaminated
Sites Act and Regulations [8, 9]. This data would also be incorporated into the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Grid intervals required are dependent on the variability of radiation levels however, grid intervals
of 100 metres×100 metres are generally acceptable. If gamma radiation levels are substantially
above typical background levels in the area (i.e. above 0.3 µSv/h), increased grid resolution (to 50
metres×50 metres) may be warranted. Additionally, a survey should also be carried out in areas
where processing plants that may be a source of emissions are proposed, and where the increase in
concentration of radionuclides may take place. This survey should utilise a 50 metres×50 metres
grid. In some cases a 25 metres×25 metres grid may also be useful. Figure 2.1 on the following page
demonstrates the dierences in grid sizes.
For exploration operations the gamma monitoring grid will be identical with the drill spacing
grid.Readings will be taken at drill collar locations where there will be any contamination and hence
the best place for checking eectiveness of cleanup. Other areas to consider for surveys include sample
storage, access roads, vehicle cleaning, and even possibly the camp site.
When carrying out environmental gamma surveys it should be done at a height of one metre from
the ground. Keeping the monitor and audio indicator in the òn' position is also recommended as
this will allow for the identication of smaller areas with elevated gamma radiation levels, which may
be missed if the monitor is only switched on at selected locations. Figure 2.2 on page 7 shows an
environmental meter setup for measurement.
All monitoring locations should be accurately recorded (i.e. using the Global Positioning System
(GPS) receiver) so that, after rehabilitation, background radiation levels can be correctly compared
with pre-exploration and/or pre-mining ones.
In some cases, when a gamma survey needs to be carried out for the area larger than 2530 km
2
and the gamma radiation level is relatively constant, it may be acceptable to separate the area into
several smaller blocks and carry out the delineation by recording the coordinates of these blocks with
the GPS receiver, instead of coordinates of individual survey points. Additional consultation with

Figure 2.1.: Gamma survey recommended grid sizes
100 metres
low levels < 0.3 µG/h
50 metres
100 metres
background levels
> 0.3 µG/h
25 metres
50 metres
highly
variable
background 25 metres
levels
DMP is required in regards to not only the requirements for the recording of survey coordinates for
a particular project, but also about the grid size.
In cases where transportation of material containing elevated concentrations of natural radionuclides

between sites on public roads may occur, a survey on the proposed transport route is also recom-
mended. This is to ensure that all possible spillages arising after the completion of the project are
identied and areas rehabilitated. Depending on the length of the route the readings may be taken
at intervals of between 2001000 metres.
Monitors specically designed for the monitoring of environmental radiation levels produce the most
accurate gamma radiation measurements. The most appropriate monitor is one that allows aggre-
gating of the environmental data for a period of time (typically 30, 60 or 120 seconds). The use of
older style monitors (those with analog àrrow' display and scaled in non-S.I. units milliRöentgen
per hour (mR/h), etc.) is not recommended in environmental monitoring as some of them have a
tendency to over-read in low ranges.
Additionally, survey instruments must be appropriately calibrated by a calibration service approved

for use in Western Australia. The survey meters must be suitable for radiation requiring measurement
at a particular exploration, mining and/or mineral processing site. A very clear interpretation of the
registered results must be available. An additional technical note on data interpretation and survey
instruments in Appendix B on page 14.
Ideally, the instrument used for gamma survey should also used for any monitoring carried out in
the same area after exploration/mining and rehabilitation.
Figure 2.2.: Mini-Instruments 680 environmental radiation survey meter
An important point to note when using the MiniInstruments 680 :

`The GM tube in this instrument is energy compensated for radiation entering radially.
While the response is not ideal, it is acceptable for most measurements. With the tube
held vertically the contribution from ground contamination is treated symmetrically and
direct radiation from a distant source would arrive nearly normal to the axis of the tube.
For determination of ground contamination immediately below the tube, it is sensible to
hold the tube horizontal but the cosmic contribution may be higher. Most surveys have
been done with the tube vertical so for inter comparison of results this is the preferred
method.' [7]

2.3.2. Airborne radioactivity surveys

2.3.2.1. Atmospheric dusts
Samples of atmospheric dust should be taken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3580.3
2003. High-volume samplers are used to collect the samples for a minimum of 24 hours at selected
locations. (This has been the standard in the WA mining and mineral processing for about 15
yearsSamples are later analysed for gross alpha activity and, depending on the identication of
radionuclides carried out during the program design stage, an additional analysis of lters may be
carried out (for example, for
226 Ra or 228 Ra). Typically, it is not necessary to measure the size of
dust particles (Guideline NORM3.5 Measurement of particle size) in the pre-operational monitoring
program.
The suggested locations for monitoring are:
1. At or near the site boundaries.
2. In the sector predicted to have the highest dust concentration during operations.
3. At location remote (or ùpwind') from the site to obtain a background concentrations.
4. Depending on the proximity of residential areas, sampling may also need to be conduc-
ted in these locations. Samples should be collected to take account of seasonal variations
(e.g. quarterly).
In certain circumstances, two background positions can be selected upwind one at a distance of
about 23 kilometres from the proposed exploration/mining/mineral processing site and another
approximately 100200 metres from the site boundary. This is particularly useful in situations where
soil in the area is known to contain elevated concentrations of identied radionuclides and a block
of land with little vegetation or a block of arable land is located in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed site. The dust carried onto the site by wind from the adjacent agricultural property will,
therefore, not be mistakenly attributed to the exploration, mining and/or processing operation.
Another method for monitoring of atmospheric dust is the use of dust deposition gauges, particularly
in locations where the use of high-volume monitor may be impractical. This should be done in
accordance with Australian Standard AS3580.10.12003.
2.3.2.2. Radon and thoron
222 Rn) and thoron (220 Rn220) in air prior

It may be important to quantify the levels of radon (
2
to commencement of operations. Typically, soil radon ux (in Bq/m /sec) is measured using the
charcoal cup method. This method involves using the inverted sealed container (typically for 24
hours) to collect radon from the soil surface, where radon is absorbed onto an activated charcoal trap
and the subsequent analysis is undertaken in a laboratory.
Other passive samplers for the monitoring of radon and thoron are available and are very useful in
area measurements as they integrate the data over a period of several months and provide average
concentration in Bq/m .
3
The monitoring of radon/thoron concentrations can also be carried out by taking grab samples of
air onto a standard 25 mm lter and later analysing this lter for gross alpha activity.
There are also several types of electronic equipment that may be used to determine radon and thoron
concentrations such as the shown in gure on the next page. Due to the variability of this equipment
and to the fact that some of it is not suitable for the industrial/mining use, advice should be sought
from an appropriate authority prior to the use of a particular instrument on an exploration, mining
and/or processing site.
Figure 2.3.: Electronic sampling of radon
Solar/battery powered radon sampler
Sampling should be carried out at the same locations where the monitoring of atmospheric dust
is conducted. Additional information can be found in the Guidelines NORM3.3 Air monitoring
strategies and NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling.
The concentrations of radon and thoron and their daughters in the atmosphere vary by more than
an order of magnitude over the diurnal cycle, and driven also by the weather pattern and pumped by
rainfall events. It may be necessary to install a weather station at an advanced exploration site, such
as the one shown in Figure on the following page to gain a better understanding of the characteristics
of the site.
2.3.3. Water quality surveys

In order to determine the correct locations for water monitoring the groundwater ow direction and
penetration rate in soil (gradient) need to be established. The groundwater ow direction will allow
for the correct location of monitoring bores, the rate of water penetration in soil (in meters per year)
is needed to estimate a potential eect of any aqueous release of radioactivity on the critical group
of members of the public and on local aquifers (including biota).
Typically, the following samples are required to characterise water quality:
1. Several groundwater samples from bores hydrologically down-gradient from a point of a possible
aqueous release of radionuclides (tailings disposal areas, processing plant site).

Figure 2.4.: Weather station
Solar/battery powered weather station collecting site meteorological data
2. One groundwater sample from each well within 1 or 2 km of a possible aqueous release of
radionuclides which are or could be used for potable water supplies, watering of livestock, or
crop irrigation (the distance will signicantly depend on the rate of water penetration in soil).
3. One or two samples from each surface water body (dams or wetlands) within the vicinity of
the proposed operations.
4. Several groundwater samples from bores hydrologically up-gradient from a point of a possible
aqueous release of radionuclides (tailings disposal areas, processing plant site) for the esta-
blishment of the local background values.
The amount of bores to be monitored down-gradient and up-gradient should be determined based
on the size of the proposed site, the gradient of groundwater ow, proximity to the critical groups
of the members of the public, and on the solubility and mobility of identied radionuclides in the
ground water.
The amount of samples to be taken from each surface water body depends on the size of this body.
For example, one sample from a running creek will be sucient, but two samples will need to be
taken from a relatively large (more than 0.5 hectares in size) stagnant wetland or pond.
While analysis of samples for gross alpha and gross beta activities can be useful, analysis of all samples
for all radioisotopes identied earlier is also recommended (in case of most NORM, an analysis for
226 Ra and 228 Ra concentrations is required).
2.3.4. Other monitoring

2.3.4.1. Soil sampling and assessment of secular equilibrium
In many cases, analysis of soil and collected dust samples in order to establish if both uranium and
thorium decay chains are in the equilibrium in the local environment will be required.
To evaluate the degree of secular equilibrium in the uranium decay chain it would be necessary to
238 U, 230 Th, 226 Ra and 210 Pb. To evaluate the degree of equilibrium
measure the relative activities of
in the thorium decay chain it would be necessary to measure the specic activities of
232 Th, 228 Ra,
228 Th and 212 Pb.
Thorium and uranium decay series are described in Appendix A of the guideline NORM1 Applying
the system of radiation protection to mining operations. The amount of samples will vary signicantly
depending on the characteristics of the particular site, mineral to be mined/processed and its intended
treatment.
2.3.4.2. Surface contamination
In the cases where measurable amounts of radionuclides are detected in the airborne dust prior to
the commencement of exploration, mining and/or processing operations surface contamination levels
in the local environment may need to be assessed. For critical group members of the public this
can be done by taking wipe samples from the surfaces around and inside premises used for human
habitation. Alternatively, a monitor calibrated for the measurement of surface contamination can be
used in this assessment.
In situations where a critical group cannot be adequately established, swipe samples can be taken in
the areas where dust has been accumulating for some period of time. A monitor such as alpha probe
is likely to be inadequate in these situations.
The amount of measurements will vary signicantly depending on the characteristics of the particular
site, mineral to be mined/processed and its intended treatment.
2.3.4.3. Biota samples
In situations such as those described in Section 2.2.3 on page 4 (where a reference plant/animal is
selected for the study), additional consultation with the appropriate authority will be necessary to
ensure that appropriate species are selected for this assessment.
Local biota can be separated into ora and fauna. Typically, entry by radionuclides into ora is
through uptake of radionuclides (from water, soil and dust deposition). Typical pathways of radiation
exposure of fauna are ingestion (water, soil, ora containing elevated concentrations of radionuclides)
and inhalation (dust, radon, thoron).
Pre-operational samples of native vegetation (and crops, where applicable) and local fauna may need
to be collected and analysed for content of radionuclides of interest as identied earlier. The amount
of samples/measurements will vary signicantly depending on the characteristics of the particular
site, mineral to be mined/processed and its intended treatment.
Biological surveys are essential for sustainable resource management, especially in areas with poorly
known biological communities or for ecological communities that have, until recently, escaped the
attention of researchers. For example, stygofauna are a group of mostly crustacean invertebrates
that live in the groundwater of many calcrete uranium deposits. Their distribution, biological di-
versity, and ecology is poorly known outside of Western Australia [10]. Stygofauna have been used

as environmental bargaining chips, as reasons to delay or prevent mining operations by various en-
vironmental groups and proponents of stygofauna research and taxonomy, arguing that stygofauna
are, by dint of their habitat in restricted aquifers, extremely biologically important [11]. Figure 2.5
shows a Stygofauna trap.
Figure 2.5.: Stygofauna trap
2.4. Data presentation
Data should be presented for the assessment to the appropriate authority in a form described in
NORM6 Reporting requirements.
A. Appendix with a suggested pre-operational

radiation monitoring program
Measured parameter Site/item monitored Frequency/amount of Measurement technique

measurements
1. Gamma radiation Proposed mine site Once-o survey: →100 m Properly calibrated gamma
×100 m grid all site
radiation monitor
→50 m x 50 m grid areas
with elevated levels and
proposed plant site
Proposed route for the Once-o survey, readings
transport of material every 200 1000 meters
2. Atmospheric dust → At or near site Four samples per year, High-volume sampler [5]
boundaries taking seasonal variations Dust deposition gauge [6]
→Where the highest dust
concentrations are predicted into account with subsequent analysis of
during operations samples for gross alpha
→One or two remote
(upwind) locations activity concentrations and,
→Residential areas (where if needed, for specic
applicable) radionuclides
3. Radon ux At all locations specied in Once-o for 24 hours Charcoal cup method
(2) above.
4. Radon and thoron in At all locations specied in →Radon four quarterly Track etch detectors
air (2) above. samples (three months
each)
→Thoron grab samples Rock method (NORM3.4,
Appendix A3)
Approved electronic
instruments
5. Water quality →Down gradient from One sample from each Grab sampling, laboratory
potential release point identied bore every six analysis for identied
→Up-gradient from
months radionuclides and, where
potential release point warranted, for gross alpha
and gross beta activity
→Wells within 12 km from One sample from each well
potential release point every six months
→Surface waters in the Onetwo samples from each
vicinity of operations water body every six
months
6. Soil sampling Determined after consultation with DMP
7. Surface contamination Determined after consultation with Swipe samples, properly
DMP calibrated alpha/beta probe
8. Biota samples Determined after consultation with DMP Laboratory analysis for
identied radionuclides

B. Appendix about survey instruments and

their data interpretation
B.1. General considerations
The survey instruments designed to measure gamma radiation in the environment at a particular
exploration, mining and/or minerals processing site must have certain characteristics such as:
ability to respond to the radiation being measured;
sucient sensitivity to measure radiation at the desired level;
suitable response time;
appropriate energy dependence; and
be calibrated for the gamma ray energies of interest.
These characteristics should be conrmed with the calibration service.
The most accurate gamma radiation measurements can be obtained with a monitor that is specically
designed for the monitoring of environmental radiation levels.
So-called `scintillometers' that are typically used by geologists at exploration sites for the determina-
tion of the uranium ore grade and for core logging are, as a rule, unacceptable for use in measurements
of gamma-radiation in the workplace and in the environment.
B.2. Data interpretation
A very important consideration is to ensure that data obtained can actually be accurately interpreted.
A typical survey monitor may have dierent scales such as:
microRöentgen per hour (µR/hr);
microgray per hour (µGy/h); and
microSievert per hour (µSv/hr).
→ Röentgen related to the degree of ionization in air
→ gray/Rad absorbed dose in air
→ rem/Sv dose equivalent
It is very important to ensure that the data are not misinterpreted, as on many occasions the following
approximate interpretation is used:
100 Roentgen = 100 rem = 1 gray = 1 Sievert
This is generally NOT correct and the following interpretations of data may be used, but only after
the consultation with an appropriate authority:
The correction factors described below can be used only with an approval from an appropriate
authority, due to the variety of the instruments used in surveys and the fact that these instruments
are calibrated by dierent laboratories.
Instrument measuring in Röentgen

1. A certicate of calibration from an authorised laboratory should clearly state that the monitor
is, indeed, calibrated to read values in mR/hour (or in µR/hour).
2. The actual relationship between Röentgen and rem is that one Röentgen produces 0.96 rem in
tissue (however, this may typically be ignored as an insignicant dierence).
3. One Röentgen produces 0.87 Rad in air [1].
4. The coecient of 0.7 Sv/Gy is the most appropriate average value of the quotient of eective
dose rate to absorbed dose rate in air for males and females for environmental exposures to
gamma rays [2].
Figure B.1.: The Ludlum 12S meter reads in µR/h
Therefore, a potential error of interpretation could be quite signicant, as described in the calculation
example below:
Results of a post-mining survey The results indicate that the level of gamma radiation on a site
is 27 µR/h in comparison with 15 µR/hour registered during the pre-mining survey.
If the `direct' relationship is used, the calculation of a dose to a member of the general public that
would be living in the area will be as follows:
the èxcess' dose rate is 27 15 = 12 µR/h;

the result will be:
(12 µR/h × 8760 hours)

= 105.1 mRem = 1.05 mSv
1000
that is above the limit of exposure for the members of the general public (1 mSv/year).
If, however, the use of appropriate coecients is made, the situation is completely dierent and the
calculation of a dose to a member of the general public that would be residing or working in the area
will be as follows:

the èxcess' dose rate is 27 15 = 12 µR/h;

assuming that one Röentgen produces 0.87 Rad in air:
(12 µR/h × 8760 hours)

× 0.87 = 91.5 mRad = 0.92 mGy
1000
(absorbed dose in air);
If the factor of 0.7 Sv/Gy [2] is also applied, the annual dose for the member of the public will
be 0.92 × 0.7 = 0.64 mSv, that may be acceptable in some situations.
It is, therefore, clear that the overestimation of radiation dose from external gamma radiation can
be as high as 4045%.
Instruments measuring in gray

A certicate of calibration from an authorised laboratory should clearly state that the monitor is,
indeed, calibrated to read values in µGy/h
Then the dose could be estimated as follows: If an èxcess' dose rate for a member of the general
public is measured at 0.06 µGy/h, an annual dose estimation would be:
(0.06 µGy/h × 8760 hours)

× 0.7 Sv/Gy = 0.37 mSv
1000
Figure B.2.: The Mini-Instruments environmental radiation survey meter reads in µGy/h
Instruments measuring in Sievert

A certicate of calibration from an authorised laboratory should clearly state that the monitor is,
indeed, calibrated to read values in µSv/h.
Then the dose could be estimated as follows: If an èxcess' dose rate for a member of the general
public is measured at 0.05 µSv/h, an annual dose estimation would be:
(0.05 µSv/h × 8760 hours)

= 0.44 mSv
1000
Figure B.3.: The Bicron `micro rem' meter reads in µSv/h
Instruments measuring in multiple units

Several types of monitors (particularly newer, electronic models) have scales in both mR/h and
µGy/h (or, sometimes, in µSv/h); and a change between dierent units is achieved by simply moving
one of the instrument's controls into the appropriate position. A certicate of calibration from an
authorised laboratory should clearly state that the monitor is, indeed, calibrated to read values in the
specied units. Alternatively, the calibration may be provided only for one parameter (for example,
for µGy/h) and both calibration certicate and a calibration sticker on the instrument should clearly
state which scale should be used during monitoring, and which should not.
Another important consideration

An additional complication arises when a specic correction factor that should be applied to the
obtained readings is also provided during the calibration of the instrument (like, for example, for the
mineral sands industry when a correction factor for monazite was sometimes provided during the
calibration of monitors by the Radiation Health Section of the Health Department of WA may be
between 0.7 and 1.3 for dierent scales of dierent instruments).
If any supplementary, material-specic factors are introduced during calibration additional infor-
mation from the laboratory carrying out this service will be required to ensure that the data can be
adequately interpreted.
It is also essential that the `raw data' obtained during gamma radiation surveys is kept to ensure
that any possible mistakes in data interpretation may be corrected at a later stage, if required.

Bibliography
[1] L. Toussaint, Ènvironmental Gamma Survey and Meter Calibration', Radiation Protection in
Australia , Vol.12, No.2, p.75, 1994.
[2] United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) Report
to the General Assembly, Sources and Eects of Ionising Radiation, Volume I Sources, Annex
A Dose Assessment Methodologies, paragraph 72, p.31, 2000.
[3] Part 16 Radiation Safety, Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations, 1995.
[5] AS 3580.9.3:2003. Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air Method 9.3: Determination
of suspended particulate matter Total suspended particulate matter (TSP) High volume
sampler gravimetric method, 2003.
[6] AS/NZS 3580.10.1:2003 : Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air Determination of
particulate matter Deposited matter Gravimetric method.
[7] Environmental Radiation Meter Type 680 User Manual, Mini-Instruments Ltd, page 23,
March 1998.
[9] Contaminated Sites Regulations, 2006. link
[10] Monitoring stygofauna diversity link
[11] Stygofauna, Wikipedia Stygofauna
Index
absorbed dose, 14, 16 monitoring bores, 9
atmospheric dust, 8 monitoring program, 3, 4, 8, 13
Australian Standard, 8 MSIR, 1
baseline reference, 2 post-mining survey, 15

biota, 11 pre-mining survey, 15
processing site, 2
calibration service, 6, 14
certicate of calibration, 15 Röentgen, 15
Contaminated Sites Act, 18 Rad, 14
Contaminated Sites Regulations, 18 Radiation Health Section, 17
correction factor, 17 radioactivity, 2
critical group, 2, 4, 10, 11 radionuclides, 2, 4
radium (
226 Ra), 5, 8, 10
decay products, 3 radium (
228 Ra), 5, 8, 10
DMP, 4 radon (
222 Rn), 3, 5, 8
dose equivalent, 14 rem, 15
drinking water, 3 response time, 14
dust deposition gauges, 8
dust samples, 11 secular equilibrium, 3
sensitivity, 14
ora, 11 Sievert, 16
y-in y-out, 4 soil sampling, 11
stygofauna, 11
gamma radiation, 1417
gamma survey, 5
survey instruments, 14
general public, 15, 16
Global Positioning System (GPS), 5 tailings disposal, 9
grab samples, 8 thorium (
232 Th), 3, 5, 11
gray, 16 thoron (
220 Rn), 3, 8
grid intervals, 5
groundwater, 10 uranium (
238 U), 3, 5, 11
high-volume samplers, 8 wetlands, 10

human habitation, 11 wipe samples, 11
ionization in air, 14
local average, 2
members of the public, 2

microgray per hour, 14, 16, 17
microRöentgen per hour, 14, 15
microSievert per hour, 14, 16, 17
milliRöentgen per hour, 6
mineral sands industry, 17
19
NORM3.2
Monitoring NORM operational monitoring requirements

Reference
in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM3.2 Monitoring NORM operational moni-
toring requirements: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 16pp.
<www.dmp.wa.gov.au>

Guideline NORM3.2 Monitoring NORM operational monitoring requirements
Contents
List of Figures iv
1 General information 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Relationship to other NORM guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Guidance 2
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Elements to be considered in the program design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.1 Radioactivity content and characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.2 Pathway analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3 Identication of supervised/controlled areas and employees to be monitored . 4
2.2.4 Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Monitoring methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1 External gamma radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1.1 Individual (personal) monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1.2 Area (positional) monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 Airborne radioactivity surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2.1 Atmospheric dusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2.2 Radon and thoron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3 Water quality surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.4 Other monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.4.1 Assessment of secular equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.4.2 Surface contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.4.3 Biota samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4.4 Task related monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4.5 Quality assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Data presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Bibliography 14
Index 15

List of Figures
1.1 Relationship to other NORM guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 General information
1.1 Purpose
To provide guidance on the practical ways to conduct operational monitoring in relevant exploration,
mining and mineral processing operations and on the assessment of obtained data.
1.2 Scope
scope of Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 ([1]).
1.3 Relationship to other NORM guidelines
Figure 1.1: Relationship to other NORM guidelines
Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2 Guidance
2.1 Introduction
Operational radiation monitoring of an exploration, mining and/or mineral processing site aims to:
demonstrate compliance with regulatory limits;
determine radiation exposure of individuals, groups and members of the general public; and
provide information on the eectiveness of engineering and administrative control measures.
Workplace conditions, individual exposures, and assessment of the potential impact an operation may
have on the environment must be assessed. It is therefore necessary to clearly distinguish between
monitoring carried out for the purpose of assessing occupational exposure of workers and monitoring
conducted to quantify both the potential for environmental impact of the operation and the possible
level of radiation exposure to members of the general public.
The main purpose of an occupational radiation monitoring program is to ensure workforce exposure
to radiation remains below the regulatory annual limit and are As Low As Reasonably Achievable
(ALARA). This is usually achieved by personal monitoring or by area surveys coupled with employee
time and motion studies.
The purpose of the environmental radiation monitoring program is to ensure that radiological impact
on the local environment and potential exposures of members of the general public are kept ALARA
and, where applicable, below regulatory limits. This program is closely related to site specic pre-
operational monitoring, and its overall aim is provide data for the restoration of the environment
to the same conditions that existed prior to commencement of exploration, mining and mineral
processing operations. This is usually achieved by area monitoring, water and air sampling, and
biological monitoring, if necessary.
As with any monitoring program, the extent to which certain program elements are considered
is dependent on site specic considerations such as mineral being mined/processed, radionuclides'
concentrations in operational and other site areas, number of employees involved in dierent stages
of the exploration/mining/processing operation, present and proposed future land use, potential
exposure pathways both for employees and members of the public, variability of radiation parameters,
etc.
2.2 Elements to be considered in the program design
There are three important stages in the design of an operational radiation monitoring program,
involving the identication of:
the potential for radionuclides in the material mined/processed to change their physical and
chemical characteristics due to the treatment of the material at the operation and potential
changes in their concentrations and distribution in the local environment;
possible pathways of exposure of workers, and possible changes in the pathways' characteristics
for members of the public and local environment; and
all areas on site to be classied as a supervised or controlled area.
The purpose of the design phase is to establish which sites and what personnel need to be monitored,
the frequency of measurement required, and the monitoring method to be used, including monitoring
instrumentation and radiation parameters to be measured.
2.2.1 Radioactivity content and characteristics

A variety of dierent methods for the treatment of minerals are used. The detailed assessment of
the behaviour of radionuclides is necessary to establish potential pathways of radiation exposure to
workers and to the environment, and to evaluate any changes to these pathways.
In situations where only physical processing of ore takes place (e.g. gravimetric or electrostatic sepa-
ration, crushing, etc,) a change in radionuclides' behaviour is unlikely. Therefore, the only issue to
be considered would be a possible increase in radionuclides concentrations in processed material or
in workplace dust. Where ne grinding of the mineral takes place, the possibility of dust inhalation
increases signicantly and radon/thoron levels in air may also be elevated.
In a situation where the processing of minerals is complex or mineral concentration is undertaken

(involving either chemical or thermal processing or both), a detailed study is required to determine if
changes in radionuclides' behaviour and changes in secular equilibrium of both uranium and thorium
decay chains occur.
For example:
1. Polonium and lead from some minerals may be volatilised at comparatively low temperatures
(above 250300) and be attached to dust particles. These elements may collect on the lters
in exhaust stacks.
2. During some stages of chemical processing, radium atoms may become mobile and then be
carried by dierent process streams through the processing plant. Then at a later stage, for
example after treatment with sulphuric acid, the radium may be deposited as scale inside pipes
or as sediment inside processing vessels.
The radiation safety ocer at a processing plant should have the training that will allow him/her
to assess chemical, physical and thermodynamic factors that may inuence the behaviour of all
radionuclides in the mineral process. Alternatively, the involvement of a specialist team familiar
with the plant chemistry/engineering or an external radiation protection expert would be required
to ensure that the assessment of radiological situation in the processing environment is accurate.
It also is important to include into the monitoring program any articial sources of radiation that
are being used on site. This would include such devices as:
1. XRF (X-ray uorescence) machines in the laboratory and portable X-ray instruments that may
be used in mineral exploration.
2. Radiation gauges that are used for ow control and typically contain either
137 Cs or 60 Co,
which emit gamma radiation.
3. Product quality devices such as ìn-stream analysers' that may contain

55 Fe, 238 Pu, 241 Am or
244 Cm, which emit alpha particles.
4. Portable gauges for the purpose of monitoring soil moisture content containing
241 Am/Beryllium9), where beryllium is combined with 241 Am to produce neutrons from
the alpha bombardment of the beryllium nucleus.
At the end of this stage a list of `radionuclides of interest' can be compiled.

2.2.2 Pathway analysis

After determining which radionuclides need to be included in the monitoring program, an assessment
of potential exposure pathways should be assessed.
If the list of identied radionuclides is the same for both the pre-operational monitoring stage and
the operational monitoring stage, an assessment of potential radiation exposure to members of the
general public and the local environment should be carried out in a similar method to the one
undertaken prior to the commencement of operations. However, it may be necessary to carry out
this assessment at a greater frequency.
If the list of `radionuclides of interest' has changed signicantly, the monitoring program must be
modied to accommodate the change.
In occupational environments, the two main exposure pathways are internal exposure (inhalation
and ingestion) and external exposure. External radiation exposure will need to be assessed in almost
all cases. This includes exposure to radiation from surface contamination, in particular where it has
been established that radionuclides emitting relative high energy beta particles are present in the
working environment. These radionuclides may accumulate on plant surfaces and protective clothing
worn by workers.
A detailed assessment of potential internal exposure must be conducted on a case-by-case basis and
the following pathways of exposure considered:
Inhalation:
1. Re-suspended dust; and
2. Radon (
222 Rn), Thoron (220 Rn) and their progeny.
Ingestion:
1. Drinking water should only be considered in cases where on-site drinking water is supplied
from a local source (e.g. a bore).
2. Dust (incidental) only when the potential exists due to employees not following the working
rules for controlled areas.
At the end of this stage:
the list of `radionuclides of interest' is coupled with pathways of potential exposure;
the monitoring required is known; and
the media to be monitored is identied.
2.2.3 Identication of supervised/controlled areas and employees to be monitored

Guideline NORM6 Reporting requirements provides information on threshold levels used in identi-
fying supervised and controlled radiation areas. These are based on potential employee exposure of
1 mSv/year and 5 mSv/year, respectively.
The detailed assessment of radionuclides in the process and the potential radiation exposure pathways
will allow for the accurate estimation of the site areas that will most likely be classied as supervised
or controlled. After the predictions have been made, an assessment of the worker's involvement in
the relevant processes should be carried out.
On exploration sites, the radionuclides' concentrations are typically not known, at least at the time
of the commencement of exploration activities. It is, therefore, very important that the monitoring
program is structured in a way that will allow the determination of supervised (and, where applicable,
controlled) areas as soon as possible after the exploration commences.
On mine sites, an assessment of radionuclides' concentrations in the ore prior to mining together
with the site's mine plan will allow for the timely prediction of pits or underground areas that may
need radiological classication.
In processing environments where the process is fully automated the worker's involvement is expected
to be minimal and only personal radiation exposure that may need to be assessed will be the one that
may be received during routine or non-routine maintenance. In other cases, where plant equipment
requires regular cleaning and maintenance, potential exposure of all employees involved in routine
operation and maintenance of processing plants will need to be assessed.
Typically, employees in working groups expected to receive a radiation dose in order of 1 mSv/year
will not be monitored on a personal basis. Rather, their doses will be estimated on a group ba-
sis. Employees that are expected to receive doses in excess of 4 mSv/year need to be monitored
individually.
For employees who are expected to receive doses between 1 and 4 mSv per year, a combination of
group and individual monitoring can be used. For example, ve employees out of group of 15 can
be issued with personal dosimeters thus a `cross-section' of employees is monitored to conrm the
data of the group dose assessment carried out on the basis of area measurements.
At the end of the nal stage of the operational radiation monitoring program design the following
information should be available:
1. Radionuclides to be monitored.
2. Media to be monitored.
3. An updated environmental radiation monitoring program which is basically an amended version

of the pre-operational program.
4. Working groups of employees for which area monitoring data will be used for the dose assess-
ments.
5. Working groups of employees for which individual radiation monitoring will be necessary to
ensure that the assessment of radiation exposure is as accurate as possible.
This information should be sucient for the design of a comprehensive monitoring program. At this
point a consultation with DMP (and, in some cases, with other government departments) will be
necessary. This will ensure that:
1. An independent assessment of the proposed monitoring program is undertaken.
2. Any amendments can be made.
3. The program can receive statutory approval.
2.2.4 Other considerations

After the initial design of the operational monitoring program some elements may seem excessive.
However, it is important to maintain the program as broad as practicable. Monitoring provides
important supplementary benets to industrial and public relations, reassurance and motivation to
the workforce and the general public. It also provides information useful in the determination of
liability in the event of the expression of adverse health eects in individual workers or claims of land
contamination.
It is also important to keep in mind that radiation protection is only one (and, frequently, relatively
minor) element in ensuring the overall occupational health and safety of workers in mining and
minerals processing industry.

The radiation monitoring program should be established and managed in close cooperation with
those responsible for other areas of occupational hygiene, health and safety as radiation protection
measures can sometimes signicantly inuence the exposure of workers to other agents. For example:
1. Dust control/extraction units may be required inside processing plants with expected high
concentrations of airborne dust. It is, however, known that if these are installed without having
due regard to other factors, they may become a serious source of the exposure of workers to
the unacceptable noise levels.
2. Protective clothing provided to employees for the protection from surface contamination can
cause heat stress, particularly in the summer months. The examples of such workplaces are
remote exploration sites where temperatures in excess of 40are common and the vicinity of
heat sources (kilns, driers, etc.) in relatively enclosed workplaces such as processing plants.
Whilst being protected from surface contamination, workers will be only be able to perform
duties in certain areas for very short periods due to the protective clothing interfering with
body's capacity to lose heat.
2.3 Monitoring methods
Measurement of the identied radiation parameters at the particular exploration, mining or mine-
ral processing operation provides a method for detecting anomalous operating conditions and for
the indication that corrective action should be taken. Apart from the monitoring of radioactivity
concentrations, the typical program should also contain monitoring of the performance of the control
equipment such as dust control systems and measures for identifying deciencies in the initial design
of routine operations.
Typically, during rst year of operation, comprehensive surveys of external gamma radiation, air-
borne radioactive dust, radon/thoron and their progeny, and surface contamination levels should be
conducted.
The monitoring program may be adjusted after the rst year of operations (after the consultation
with DMP and other Government departments, if applicable) to ensure that only those radionuclides
and exposure pathways that contribute a measurable radiation exposure of employees, members of
the general public and the local environment are being monitored. The pathways that contribute
only 510% to the overall exposure level may not need to be monitored frequently and the monitoring
program can be adjusted accordingly.
2.3.1 External gamma radiation

2.3.1.1 Individual (personal) monitoring
In most circumstances, exposure to the external gamma radiation is assessed by the systematic
monitoring of individual workers. In some cases it is suitable to estimate the exposure from the
results of workplace monitoring. For example, when the:
method based on workplace monitoring has been shown to be acceptable;
exposure levels are relatively constant and can be reliably assessed by carrying out an area
survey; or
workers concerned are regularly employed in either unclassied or in a supervised area, and
enter controlled areas only occasionally.
Individual monitoring is normally required for workers who routinely work in areas that are designated
as `controlled' because of the external radiation hazard. The individual monitoring program for
external exposure to gamma radiation is intended to demonstrate that the worker's exposure has not
exceeded a dose limit and to verify the adequacy of workplace monitoring.
For workers in `supervised areas', it may be simpler to use a limited number of individual dosemeters
rather than to adopt a comprehensive program of monitoring of the workplace. In many cases
individual monitoring for the purposes of dose records and re-assurance of employee's is a good
practice for all workers in a supervised area.
Individual monitoring is typically carried out using thermo-luminescent (TLD) badges. There are
many providers of this service and it is important to ensure that:
1. TLD badges designed for exploration, mining and mineral processing environment are available
(the badges should be suitable for the operational conditions dust, heat, humidity).
2. A particular TLD service is approved for use in Western Australia.
There are two types of TLD badges personal and `control'. A `control' badge is supplied with each
TLD issue and it must be stored in an area where it is not exposed to sources of ionising radiation or
excessive heat (inside the storage box for the duration of the monitoring period). If a new employee
is requested to wear the TLD badge for the rst time, it must be ensured that this person is notied
of his/her responsibilities and rules for the wearing of the badge.
If a TLD badge is lost or damaged, the data obtained in other periods during the monitoring year
must be averaged and used as a substitution for the period in which data could not be obtained
through direct measurement (and a specic note inserted into the `Boswell' database clarifying that
the result is an estimate). Please refer to Norm7 Boswell assessment and reporting database for
more information.
Example: Data: The results reported by the monitoring services for `J Smith' for the monitoring
year are: 1st quarter: 250 µSv; 2nd quarter: 310 µSv; 3rd quarter: The badge is lost; 4th quarter:
430 µSv. Therefore, the annual exposure to the external radiation of `J Smith' will be:
250 + 310 + 430

= 250 + 310 + + 430 = 1320 µSv
3
Another useful instrument that can be used for individual monitoring is a personal integrating elec-
tronic dosimeter. These are very useful in surveys of particular work practices but not for the dose
assessments, as typically their batteries must be regularly recharged or replaced and an appropriate
background reading must be subtracted.
2.3.1.2 Area (positional) monitoring
Area monitoring is used extensively for surveying purposes when there is a need to monitor trends.
It is also essential in environmental radiation monitoring. The advantage of a survey meter over a
TLD badge is that an instantaneous dose rate is obtained, thereby permitting fast implementation
of corrective action where required. Locations that are specically used for trend analysis should be
clearly marked, either in the environment or on a map/plan. Such surveys should form an integral
part of the overall radiation protection program as the success, or otherwise, of control measures
used to minimise employee radiation exposures can then be readily assessed.
The choice of an appropriate surveying instrument for a specic application depends on numerous
factors, such as:

portability;
mechanical ruggedness;
ease of use and reading;
ease of servicing; and
reliability.
In addition to these general requirements, survey instruments must be appropriately calibrated by the
calibration service approved for use in Western Australia. The survey meters must be suitable for the
radiation that needs to be measured at a particular exploration, mining and/or mineral processing
site. A very clear interpretation of the registered results and their use in dose estimates must be
available. An additional technical note on data interpretation and survey instruments in general is
provided in Appendix B of the Guideline NORM3.1 Pre-operational monitoring requirements.
Limits for gamma dose rates are described in Table 1 of the Guideline NORM6 Reporting require-
ments.
2.3.2 Airborne radioactivity surveys

2.3.2.1 Atmospheric dusts
In many circumstances involving exposure due to airborne radionuclides from NORM, workplace dust
monitoring is required. Monitoring procedures are introduced to demonstrate satisfactory working
conditions, compliance with statutory limits, or in cases where individual monitoring is unable to
provide sucient data (e.g. when radioactivity content in the workplace air is expected to be relatively
low, but an estimate of a potential exposure is required).
For new operations, individual monitoring is likely to be needed and should be considered. As data
on individual radiation exposure at a particular exploration/mining/processing site accumulates, the
need for routine individual monitoring should be reviewed.
In existing situations it may be dicult to determine whether individual monitoring of workers is

necessary. Such monitoring should be used routinely only for workers who are employed in designated
`controlled areas', specically in relation to the radioactivity in the air. If initial monitoring has shown
that it is unlikely that annual radiation doses from dust inhalation will exceed 1 mSv (including both
dust and radon/thoron and their progeny), then individual monitoring may be unnecessary, but
workplace monitoring should be undertaken.
Workplace monitoring usually consists of sampling dust in selected locations and collecting air-
borne radioactivity on the lter. The lter can then be analysed for gross alpha activity for the
determination of either radon/thoron and their progeny concentrations, and/or gross alpha activity
concentrations.
The frequency of individual monitoring will be signicantly dependent on the expected exposure
levels. Typically, the following schedule can be used:
1. Expected annual dose < 1 mSv workplace monitoring, occasional conrmatory individual
monitoring.
2. 1 mSv < Expected annual dose < 4 mSv workplace monitoring complemented by individual
monitoring of 25% of the work group every quarter every employee wears an individual
monitor (dust cassette, radon monitor) at least once a year (minimum of 12 personal samples
for the work group).
3. 4 mSv < Expected annual dose < 10 mSv, regular individual monitoring program, either 6
samples from every employee every year or 24 samples per year from a work group (whichever
the greatest); to ensure that sucient data is available for personal dose assessments, comple-
mented by workplace monitoring.
4. Expected annual dose > 10 mSv, a comprehensive individual monitoring program, 2 individual
samples are required from every employee every month to ensure that sucient data (at least
24 samples) is available for personal dose assessments, complemented by workplace monitoring.
Additional investigations that will need to be undertaken may include determinations of dust
Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD), dust solubility, uraniumthorium content
ratio, secular equilibrium of both uranium and thorium decay chains, etc.
Please refer to NORM3.3 Air monitoring strategies and to NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sam-
pling for more information on the program design and the analysis of samples; and to NORM5 Dose
assessment for airborne radioactivity levels derived for dierent concentrations of radionuclides.
From the environmental perspective it is important to continue high-volume dust sampling at all
locations identied during the pre-operational stage. Several other locations should also be added
to the monitoring program, depending on the character of operations, the radionuclides present in
the mineral that is mined/processed, on concentrations of these radionuclides in the process, and the
proximity of the critical group of members of the public. Initially, it is recommended to continue
taking samples of environmental dust quarterly, with the subsequent assessment after rst year of
operation when the monitoring frequency should be reviewed. Typically, at an operational site the
sampling is undertaken every six months.
It is also important to sample all stacks and exhaust vents to ensure that any radionuclides emitted
from them are accounted for in the estimation of exposures for members of the critical group of
members of the public. Typically, daily emissions of uranium and thorium are assessed. In many
circumstances it is also appropriate to determine the levels of lead and polonium as well. For practical
purposes an annual assessment of concentrations of
210 Po and 210 Pb (from the uranium decay chain)
and
212 Pb (from the thorium decay chain) is recommended.
Individual and workplace samples should be taken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3640
2004, environmental samples in accordance with Australian Standards AS 3580.32003 and/or AS
3580.10.12003. Additional information is provided in the following Guidelines:
NORM3.1 Pre-operational monitoring requirements;
NORM3.3 Air monitoring strategies;
NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling; and
NORM3.5 Measurement of particle size.
2.3.2.2 Radon and thoron
Where the levels of radon (

222 Rn) and thoron (220 Rn) in air have been identied during the pre-
operational monitoring as requiring additional assessment, the monitoring should be undertaken.

Typically, passive samplers for the monitoring of radon and thoron are used throughout the workplace
as they integrate the data over a period of several months and provide average concentration in
Bq/m .
3
The monitoring of radon and thoron concentration can also be carried out by taking grab samples
of air onto a standard 25 mm lter and later analysing this lter for gross alpha activity.
There are also several types of electronic equipment that may be used to determine radon and thoron
concentrations. Due to the variability of this equipment and to the fact that some of it is not suitable

for the industrial/mining use an advice should be sought from an appropriate authority, prior to the
use of a particular instrument on an exploration, mining and/or processing site.
Sampling should be carried out at the same locations where the monitoring of atmospheric dust
is conducted. Additional information can be found in the Guidelines NORM3.3 Air monitoring
strategies and NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling.
2.3.3 Water quality surveys

From an occupational exposure perspective, water monitoring should be undertaken for potable
water supply, where this is drawn from nearby underground aquifers. Water samples are typically
taken every six months to evaluate the ingestion of radionuclides by employees and to determine if
contamination of potable ground water is occurring by seepage pathways.
From an environmental perspective, it is important to continue water monitoring at all bores, wells
and surface water bodies identied during the pre-operational stage. Several other locations should
also be added to the monitoring program depending on the character of operations, the radionuclides
present in the mineral that is mined/processed, on concentrations of these radionuclides in the process
and their solubility in water, and the proximity of the critical group of members of the public. Initially,
it is recommended that samples of water continue to be taken every six months with subsequent
assessment after the rst two years of operation, when the monitoring frequency should be reviewed.
Typically, sampling at an operational site is undertaken once a year.
As with all other radiation parameters, the sampling frequency is dependent on the magnitude of
observed waterborne radionuclide concentrations.
While the analysis of samples for gross alpha and gross beta activities can be useful, it is also
recommended to analyse all samples for all radioisotopes identied earlier (in case of most NORM,
an analysis for
226 Ra and 228 Ra concentrations is required).
Information and procedures can be found in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines [8].
2.3.4 Other monitoring

2.3.4.1 Assessment of secular equilibrium
If material containing natural radionuclides is either treated with chemicals and/or heated to more
than 250300, it will be necessary to sample all generated waste to establish if both thorium
and uranium decay chains are still in secular equilibrium. This will allow for the estimation of
environmental mobility of dierent radionuclides in the long term and it is required to ensure that
the waste is deposited in appropriately designed facilities, where necessary.
To evaluate the degree of equilibrium in the thorium decay chain it is necessary to measure the specic
activities of
232 Th, 228 Ra, 228 Th and 212 Pb/212 Po. To evaluate the degree of secular equilibrium in
the uranium decay chain it would be necessary to measure the relative activities of
238 U, 230 Th, 226 Ra
and
210 Po/210 Pb.
Thorium and uranium decay series are described in Appendix B of the guideline NORM2.1 Prepa-
ration of a radiation management plan exploration. The amount of samples will vary signicantly
depending on the characteristics of the particular site, mineral processed and its treatment.
2.3.4.2 Surface contamination
Surface Contamination means the presence of a radioactive substance on a surface in quantities in

excess of 0.4 Bq/cm
2 for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters, or 0.04 Bq/cm2
for all other alpha emitters. Low toxicity alpha emitters are natural uranium, natural thorium,
235 U,
238 U, 232 Th, 228 Th and 230 Th when contained in ores, physical or chemical concentrates; or alpha
emitters with a half-life of less than ten days.
Occupational monitoring is usually undertaken in crib and change rooms, control rooms and in all
supervised and controlled areas. Auditing of personal hygiene practices of workers should also be
undertaken.
The measurement of easily removable radionuclides on plant surfaces can be useful for assessing
operating conditions, but it gives only a very indirect measure of potential exposure. Therefore, it
is recommended that the monitoring emphasis in the occupational environment should be placed on
inspection and housekeeping audits.
A program of surface contamination monitoring can be used to:
assist in preventing possible spread of contamination;
detect failures of containment or departures from good operating practices; and
restrict surface contamination to levels at which the general standards of good housekeeping
are adequate to maintain exposures as low as practicable.
It is also important to ensure that all items leaving a particular site classied as supervised or
controlled area have surface contamination at very low levels. These items may include vehicles,
parts of plant and dierent machinery that is sent from the site, either for repairs or for the disposal.
Particular attention must be paid to situations when potentially contaminated equipment is planned
to be re-used in another industry (e.g. the use of elevators from a mineral separation plant in a grain
handling and/or storage facility). In some operational plants where dust on surfaces can be clearly
seen, the radiation hazard is related to the amount of this dust that can be readily re-suspended. It
is therefore important that regular cleanup programs are in place to ensure this hazard is minimised.
Surface contamination is usually monitored by direct measurement (e.g. alpha scintillation probe)
or indirectly, by wiping a surface with a lter paper and subsequent alpha counting of this paper.
The rst technique yields total (xed plus removable) contamination, while the second will indicate
the percentage of removable contamination. A wipe test eciency factor must be incorporated to
relate the removable contamination to the total surface contamination. For example, in the case of
treatment plant dusts and in the absence of relevant experimental data, a wipe test eciency factor
of 60% can be used. An appropriate survey monitor should be available and should be calibrated in a
way that allows easy interpretation of results and their comparison with the levels given in NORM6
Reporting requirements.
2.3.4.3 Biota samples
In cases where a reference plant or animal is selected for the study instead of the critical group of
the members of the public, it is necessary to continue this monitoring on the annual basis to ensure
than any changes can be identied as early as possible.
2.3.4.4 Task related monitoring
Task related monitoring is conducted to provide information about a particular operation and to
give, where necessary, a basis for decisions on the conduct of the operation (e.g. if a particular work
practice results in exposures that are signicantly higher than other similar ones).
It is particularly useful when short-term work is carried out under conditions that will be unsatis-
factory for permanent use. Task related monitoring is usually conducted in the same way as routine
monitoring, unless the circumstances of the operation change signicantly (e.g. if radionuclides invol-
ved may be dierent or the potential magnitude of internal exposure may be signicantly greater).

2.3.4.5 Quality assurance
Quality assurance comprises planned and systematic actions that are necessary to provide adequate
condence in the results of a monitoring program. Quality assurance includes quality control, which
involves all those actions by which the adequacy of equipment, instruments and procedures are
assessed against established requirements.
It is important that any monitoring program should include, as an integral part, a quality assurance
part, which will ensure that:
equipment and instruments function correctly;
procedures are correctly established and implemented;
analyses are correctly performed with limited errors;
records are correctly and promptly maintained;
the required accuracy of measurements is maintained; and
systematic errors are minimised to the extent possible.
In the design of a quality assurance program the following factors are usually taken into account:
1. Quality of equipment and instruments.
2. Training and experience of personnel.
3. Verication of procedures by the routine analysis of control samples and the use of standard
methods for analysis.
4. Frequency of calibration and maintenance of equipment and instruments.
5. The need for traceability of the results of monitoring program to the National Standard.
6. The degree of documentation needed to demonstrate that the required quality has been achieved
and is maintained.
The level of accuracy required for all types of undertaken measurements depends on the type of the
measurement made and its importance from the point of view of the protection of the workers and the
environment. Please note that even the best method currently available for making a measurement
may be subject to large errors, which may simply have to be accepted (e.g. the variability of gamma
measurements with a portable instrument, where the accuracy may be as low as ±20%, in some
circumstances).
The scope and extent of a quality assurance program will also depend on the importance of the
measurements from the point of view of protection of the workers and the environment. On the
other hand, quality control actions may vary from a simple functional test of an instrument by way
of a built-in check source to the thorough and frequent calibration of an alpha-counting assembly to
determine if the equipment complies with established requirements concerning low level of background
counts, eciency, accuracy (statistical analysis such as chi-square test is required).
In the Australian Mining and Mineral Processing Code, ARPANSA [3] requires that the quality
assurance program which is compliant with Australian Standards should be implemented, including
traceability of all radiation measurements to Australian metrological standards where possible.
Metrology is dened by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) as `the science of
measurement, embracing both experimental and theoretical determinations at any level of uncertainty
in any eld of science and technology.'
The Australian Standards referred to above are:
Environmental Management Systems [4];
Quality Management Systems [5];
Occupational Health and Safety Systems [6]; and
Occupational Health and Safety Systems [7].
2.4 Data presentation
Data should be presented for assessment to the appropriate authority (and, if required to other
Government Departments) in a form as described in Guideline NORM6 Reporting requirements.

Bibliography

[4] AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems Requirements with guidance for
use, 2004.
[5] AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000 : Quality management systems Requirements, 2001.
[6] AS/NZS 4801:2001 Occupational health and safety management systems Specication with
guidance for use, 2001.
[7] AS/NZS 4804:2001 Occupational health and safety management systems General guidelines on
principles, systems and supporting techniques, 2001.
[8] Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2004. PDF
Index
administrative controls, 2 grab sample, 9
air sampling, 2 gravimetric, 3
ALARA, 2 group dose assessment, 5
alpha counting, 11
alpha emitters, 11 heat stress, 6
alpha particles, 3 high-volume sampling, 9
alpha scintillation probe, 11 hygiene practices, 11
americium (
241 Am), 3
incidental dust, 4
americium/beryllium, 3
individual exposure, 2
area monitoring, 2
internal exposure, 11
area survey, 6
ARPANSA, 12 land contamination, 5
articial sources of radiation, 3 lead (
210 Pb), 10
atmospheric dusts, 8 lead (
212 Pb), 10
Australian Standards, 9, 12 local environment, 2
beta particles, 4
members of the public, 2
biological monitoring, 2
mineral processing, 2, 5
biota samples, 11
monitoring instrumentation, 3
137 Cs), 3 monitoring methods, 6

caesium (
monitoring procedures, 8
calibration, 12
monitoring program, 27, 9, 10, 12
chemical processing, 3
60
cobalt ( Co), 3
natural thorium, 11
controlled area, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11
natural uranium, 11
crushing, 3
neutrons, 3
noise levels, 6
design phase, 3
DMP, 5
occupational exposure, 2
dose assessment, 5
occupational health, 5
drinking water, 4
occupational monitoring, 11
dust control, 6
dust inhalation, 3 pathway analysis, 4
dust particles, 3 polonium (
210 Po), 10
polonium (
212 Po), 10
electrostatic separation, 3
portable gauge, 3
processing plant, 3
environmental impact, 2
progeny, 8
environmental monitoring, 7
protective clothing, 4, 6
exhaust stack, 3
exposure pathways, 2 quality assurance, 12
quality assurance program, 12
lter paper, 11
future land use, 2
radiation dose, 5
radiation exposure, 2, 3
gamma radiation, 3, 6, 7
15
radiation gauge, 3
radiation monitoring, 2
radiation monitoring program, 2
radiation parameters, 3, 6
radiation protection expert, 3
radiological impact, 2
radionuclides, 24
radionuclides of interest, 4
radium (
226 Ra), 3, 10
radium (
228 Ra), 10
radon (
222 Rn), 3, 4, 9
radon/thoron, 8
secular equilibrium, 10
statutory approval, 5
sulphuric acid, 3
supervised area, 3, 4
surface contamination, 6, 11
survey monitor, 11
task related monitoring, 11

thermal processing, 3
thermodynamic factors, 3
thorium (
228 Th), 10, 11
thorium (
230 Th), 10, 11
thorium (
232 Th), 11
thorium232, 10
thoron (
220 Rn), 3
thoron (
220 Rn), 4, 9
TLD, 7
training, 3
uranium (
235 U), 11
uranium (
238 U), 10, 11
water quality surveys, 10

water sampling, 2
wipe test, 11
workplace conditions, 2
workplace monitoring, 6
XRF, 3
NORM3.3
Monitoring NORM air monitoring strategies

Reference
in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM3.3 Monitoring NORM air monito-
ring strategies: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 13pp.

Guideline NORM3.3 Monitoring NORM air monitoring strategies
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. A suggested ow chart for airborne radioactivity sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Positional airborne radioactivity sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.2. Gross alpha determination and dose assessments and exemptions . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Conrmatory personal airborne radioactivity sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Regular personal airborne radioactivity sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Increased regular personal airborne radioactivity sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.6.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7. Additional investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Appendix showing the estimation of the optimum sample size 9
A.1. Work category sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bibliography 12
Index 13

List of Figures
2.1. Airborne radioactivity sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
List of Tables
A.1. Sample size for work groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.2. Dependency between the exposure and airborne radioactivity concentrations . . . . . 10

1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on the measurement of the airborne radioactivity that may be encountered in
exploration, mining and mineral processing operations.
1.2. Scope

The owchart in Figure 1.1 shows how the Radiation Safety Guidelines are arranged.
Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
NORM-3.3 deals primarily with the monitoring of radioactivity in air and assumes that readers
are familiar with the practice of dust monitoring. One pre-requisite for appointment as RSO is
successfully completing the Certicate III in Surface Ventilation Technician (Mining Industry) and/or
Certicate IV in Surface Ventilation Ocer (Mining Industry) courses (Current course provider:
Industrial Foundation for Accident Prevention (IFAP) www.ifap.asn.au). For further guidance on
dust sampling strategies, frequency of sampling, repeat sampling and the statistics of occupational
hygiene distributions, publications such as Simplied Monitoring Strategies [4] and A Strategy for
Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures [5] are recommended.
Regular monitoring for airborne radioactivity (dust, radon/thoron and their progeny) should be
performed in exploration, mining and mineral processing operations where there is a possibility of
radiation exposure via the inhalation pathway.
A personal air sampler placed in the worker's breathing zone can collect a sample that is representative
of the activity concentration in air, which the worker has inhaled. Air concentration measurements,
combined with assumptions of breathing rates and measured exposure times, can be used to estimate
the intake of radioactivity.
When establishing the frequency of measurements for radon/thoron and their progeny, historical
results, expected variations in measurements and the degree of hazard should be taken into account.
The frequency should be increased if:
measured concentrations exceed the usual range in the individual workplace or specied refe-
rence levels are exceeded; and
major changes are made to the ventilation system, the layout of the exploration site or
mine/plant or the method of exploration, mining and/or processing.
In setting up the frequency of dust monitoring, the concentrations of radioactive dust, its size distri-
bution and the potential for its inhalation or ingestion should be taken into account. The levels of
exposures that are predicted due to the concentrations of radioactive dust are a key factor in deciding
the nature and extent of any individual monitoring program that may be necessary.
The main purposes of an airborne radioactivity monitoring program are to:
1. Assess committed eective dose equivalent and committed dose to individual organs, due to
internal exposure.
2. Enable informed decisions to be made regarding protection of the workers from internal radia-
tion exposures.
3. Facilitate the achievement of air contamination concentrations that are As Low As Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA).
4. Identify long term trends and to detect short term excessive levels.
5. Test procedures and plant including the eectiveness of engineering and institutional controls.
2.2. A suggested ow chart for airborne radioactivity sampling

It is important not to embark on a full-scale personal monitoring program without detailed knowledge
of the seriousness of radiation issues at a particular operation. This may include consideration of
the range of actual exposures of employees performing dierent tasks at dierent locations under the
normal variation of working conditions.
In the rst instance, workplace (positional) monitoring should be undertaken. Monitoring frequency
of personal sampling (and more rened dose assessments) that will be required in accordance with
the level of potential personal radiation exposure is suggested in Figure 2.1 on the next page.
Methods dierent from the one above may also be acceptable to the appropriate authority. For
example, it may be useful to modify the ow chart to suit a specic exploration/mining/processing
operation by re-dening the limits given from eective dose (in mSv) to Annual Limits on Intake
(ALI, in Bq) or Derived Air Concentrations (DAC, in Bq/m ).
3 When making such conversions,
please refer to Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment. Other parameters, such as dust particle size
and its solubility may need to be considered in this modication and suitable conservative values
should be chosen.
Details of the monitoring requirements each level of airborne activity can be found by referring to
sections of this Guideline, as indicated by Figure 2.1 on the next page.
2.3. Positional airborne radioactivity sampling

2.3.1. Sampling
Established xed positions that will provide samples representative of conditions in each area of
the workplace should be used. Samples should always be collected in the same position. A simple
qualitative visual survey (e.g. using a beam of light) can be invaluable in identifying dust sources,
patterns and movement within the workplacethus helping direct the subsequent monitoring eorts.
Alternatively, if greater accuracy is required, personal sampling may be substituted for positional
sampling.
Samples should be collected in accordance with the Australian Standard [3]. An alternate sampling
technique may be by using grab sampling. A high volume sampler can be used to collect dust from
at least 500 litres of air. The sampling should be designed to give representative samples over a
working shift and some variation analysis may be required.
The frequency of sampling will depend on the level of dust concentration and its variability. In order
to conrm that annual doses are below the 1 mSv limit, samples should be collected at a minimum of
three monthly intervals. Values consistently exceeding the 1 mSv limit should be investigated, and
this may require further sampling.
In the case of radon/thoron and their progeny, a certain number of samples will need to be taken either
by time integrated measurements or grab samples, as described in Guideline NORM3.4 Airborne
radioactivity sampling. Appropriate electronic instruments may also be used. Consultation with
DMP is required to determine the frequency and method of this monitoring, and the resultant value
should be accounted for in the assessment of the internal dose.
The location of xed position samplers to provide representative samples needs to be done with
care and with reference to the actual working conditions of employees in the areas. Improperly
located positional samplers may under or over estimate personal dust exposure by a large factor and
invalidate subsequent dose assessment. The sampling strategy employed will need to be site and area
specic.

Figure 2.1.: Airborne radioactivity sampling
A
NOT
Positional airborne APPLY FOR EXEMPTION EXEMPTED
EXEMPTED
radioactivity sampling
NO
B
Dose above NO Above
Confirmatory personal
public limit public limit
airborne radioactivity
(1 mSv/year) (1mSv/year)
sampling & a simple
dose assessment
YES YES
C
Regular personal
NO
Dose above airborne radioactivity
~ 4 mSv/year sampling and a dose
assessment for a work
category
YES
NO
Dose above
~ 10 mSv/year
ACTION AS
NO YES REQUIRED BY
Dose above
THE
~ 5 mSv/quarter
APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY
YES
D E
Increased personal Determine exact particle
airborne radioactivity size, Th and U content,
sampling and an confirm secular equilibrium
individual dose and re-assess dose
assessment for each assessment criteria as
employee neccessary
Key:
A Section 2.3 on the preceding page
B Section 2.4 on the next page
C Section 2.5 on page 6
D Section 2.6 on page 7
E Section 2.7 on page 7
2.3.2. Gross alpha determination and dose assessments and exemptions
Gross alpha determination refer to the Guideline NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling.
Eective dose equivalent assessments refer to the Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment.
The result should be compared with the annual public exposure limit of 1 mSv/year. If the result is
below this value, conrmatory personal monitoring is recommended. If, however, the result is above
1 mSv/year a regular personal airborne radioactivity sampling program should be established.
2.4. Conrmatory personal airborne radioactivity sampling

2.4.1. Sampling
Personal total dust sampling should consist of regular sampling of selected members of the workforce
for a set period (typically six months). Monitoring of these representatives should be conducted
monthly with dierent members selected for each monitoring period. Monitoring should be conducted
for greater than 4 hours and preferably for a full shift and care should be taken that the work of the
monitored employee is representative of the work normally conducted by the work group members.
Samples should be collected in accordance with the Australian Standard [3]. Additional grab samples
may be taken to assess variability of dust levels. These samples should be of at least 100 litres in
volume and sampling should be designed to give a variety of working conditions; some variation
analyses would be required.
Sampling frequency will depend on the level of dust concentration and its variability. It will also
depend on the size of the work group and the variability of their activities. Sampling should be
conducted so as to ensure that there are at least 12 representative samples taken per set period on
members of the work group.
In the case of radon/thoron and their progeny, a certain number of samples will need to be taken either
radioactivity sampling. Appropriate electronic equipment may also be used. Consultation with DMP
is required to determine the need and, if necessary, frequency and methods, for personal monitoring
for radon/thoron and their progeny.
If personal sampling conrms that the internal exposure of employees is less than the 1 mSv limit,
an estimate of the total dose should be carried out.
The result should include all possible pathways of radiation exposure (ingestion and exposure to
external sources of radiation refer to the Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment) and must again
be compared with the annual public exposure limit of 1 mSv/year. If the result is below this value,
an application for an exemption [1] can be lodged with DMP.
1. The applications for exemption should be made on the basis of at least one year's sampling
results. Results should be presented separately for each specic area for which exemption is
sought.

2. The data supplied to support an application for exemption should be of high quality i.e. full
account must be taken of counting statistics and the number of samples should be sucient
to support the claim that levels are below the 1 mSv limit. A minimum of ten sample results
would be required for each area.
3. It is expected that some conrmatory monitoring may be required to provide assurance that
exemption from regular monitoring is appropriate. DMP will recommend the frequency and
nature of conrmatory monitoring on a case-by-case basis.
If the result of dose assessment is between 1 and 4 mSv/year, regular personal monitoring is recom-
mended.
2.5. Regular personal airborne radioactivity sampling

2.5.1. Sampling
Regular personal dust sampling can be carried out for work group representatives or for individual
workers, as appropriate.
In case of sampling of work group representatives, monitoring should be conducted monthly with
dierent members selected for each monitoring period. Sampling should be done in accordance with
the sampling regime as described in Appendix A on page 9.
In case of sampling of individual workers, the sampling should consist of regular sampling of all
members of the work group. Sampling should be conducted so as to ensure that each employee in
the work group is sampled at least six times per year.
In both cases, monitoring should be carried out for greater than four hours and preferably for a full
shift and care should be taken that the work of the monitored employee is representative of the work
normally conducted by the work group members.
Samples should be collected in accordance with Australian Standard [3]. Additional grab samples
depend on the size of the work group and the variability of their activities.
In case of radon/thoron and their progeny a certain number of samples will need to be taken either
radioactivity sampling. Appropriate electronic equipment may also be used. A consultation with
DMP is required to determine the need (and, if necessary, frequency and methods) for personal
monitoring for radon/thoron and their progeny.
The result should be compared with the value of 4 mSv/year (20% of the annual exposure limit of 20
mSv/year for designated employees). If the result of dose assessment is between 4 and 10 mSv/year,
continuation of a regular personal monitoring as described in Section 2.5.1, is recommended. If the
result is above 10 mSv/year, the establishment of a more comprehensive personal monitoring program
is recommended.
2.6. Increased regular personal airborne radioactivity sampling

2.6.1. Sampling
The increase in personal monitoring may result in a comprehensive individual sampling of all mem-
bers of the relevant work groups. Monitoring should be conducted for greater than four hours and
preferably for a full shift and care should be taken that the work of the monitored employee is
representative of the work normally conducted. Any non-routine occurrences should be noted.
Samples should be collected in accordance with Australian Standard [3]. Additional grab samples
depend on the level of radioactivity concentration to which the individual is exposed and to variability
in that exposure.
Sampling should be conducted so as to ensure that each employee is sampled at least 12 times per
year.
In the case of radon/thoron and their progeny a certain number of samples will need to be taken either
radioactivity sampling. Appropriate electronic equipment may also be used. Consultation with DMP
is required to determine the need (and, if necessary, frequency and methods) for personal monitoring
for radon/thoron and their progeny.
Some analysis of the variability of alpha concentration in air will be required to determine the
appropriate mean air concentration for the employee.
Eective dose equivalent assessments refer to the Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment. The
annual intake of radionuclides is determined on an individual group basis and estimate the eective
dose equivalent is based on known or approved values of Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter
(AMAD Guideline NORM3.5 Measurement of particle size) and using individual occupancy
factors.
The results should be compared with the value of 10 mSv/year (50% of the annual exposure limit
of 20 mSv/year for designated employees). If the result of dose assessment is between 4 and 10
mSv/year, continuation of a regular personal monitoring as described in Section 2.5 on the facing
page, is recommended. If the result is above 10 mSv/year (and approaching 5 mSv/year in a 3-month
period), additional investigations should be carried out.
2.7. Additional investigations

In consultation with DMP, the following should be carried out:
1. The AMAD of the dust (Guideline NORM3.5 Measurement of particle size) should be deter-
mined by an approved method. This AMAD will be used in dose calculations in areas where
that AMAD is applicable and for specic work groups.

2. The solubility of the dust should be determined so as to indicate the ratio between soluble and
insoluble parts. For this determination a high volume sample will be needed and a laboratory
analysis performed.
3. The ratio between thorium content and uranium content should be determined. Again a large
volume sample will be required for laboratory analysis.
4. Secular equilibrium should be evaluated by measurement on a large volume air sample. The
thorium and uranium decay series are described in Appendix B of the guideline NORM2.1
Preparation of a radiation management plan exploration.
5. To evaluate the degree of equilibrium in the thorium decay chain it would be necessary to
measure the specic activities of
232 Th, 228 Ra, 228 Th and 212 Pb. If not accessed previously, a
determination of the loss of thoron (

220 Rn) through emanation from the dust should be made.
6. To evaluate the degree of secular equilibrium in the uranium decay chain it would be necessary
to measure the relative activities of
238 U, 230 Th, 226 Ra, and 210 Pb. If not assessed previously,
a measurement of radon (
222 Rn) emanation from the dust should also be performed.
If investigations reveal the levels of radioactivity collected on personal samples to be measurably

higher than that detected by positional monitoring in the same operational area, a special task mo-
nitoring program can be initiated. The program involves taking short-term (2030 minutes in length)
samples from individual employees performing the task that is known (or suspected) to cause elevated
exposure. The values obtained from individual employees are assessed and a particular standard job
procedure may be modied to ensure that radiation exposure is kept as low as practicable.
A. Appendix showing the estimation of the

optimum sample size
A.1. Work category sampling
If a maximum risk worker cannot be selected for a particular work category with reasonable certainty,
then it is necessary to resort to random sampling of the group of workers.
The procedure is to randomly sample the group whose members have a similar expected exposure
risk. The objective is to select a sub-group of adequate size to ensure that there is a high probability
that the random sample will contain at least one worker with high exposure (if one exists).
According to Simplied Monitoring Strategies [4] , the number of samples to take remains the most
dicult issue in any monitoring strategy . The number of samples will inuence the precision of the
exposure estimate and the attached condence levels.
Table A.1 details the sample size required for various work group sizes:
Table A.1.: Sample size for work groups
Group Size Employees to be sampled

< 8 All
8 7
9 8
10 9
11 12 10
13 14 11
15 17 12
18 20 13
21 24 14
24 29 15
30 37 16
38 49 17
50 18
∞ 22
The key aspect of this strategy is the selection of a `maximum risk worker' from a group of workers
of similar exposure risk. If the group is not homogeneous, in terms of exposure risk, then workers
should be reclassied into additional groups to ensure homogeneity.
Additional guidance for the sampling of work categories has been developed in order to align airborne
radioactivity monitoring programs carried out at dierent mining and processing sites in Western
Australia. It is suggested that the frequency of monitoring is dependent on:
the potential annual radiation exposure of an employee in a particular work category (based
on the measured level of airborne radioactivity); and

the number of employees in a particular work category.
Firstly, the reasonable levels of airborne radioactivity concentrations in the dust are used to estimate
potential annual internal radiation exposure levels, using the default particle size value (AMAD) of
5 µm and 2000 working hours per year:
Table A.2.: Dependency between the exposure and airborne radioactivity concentrations
Internal dose (mSv/y) Activity (Bq/m³) uranium dust Activity (Bq/m³) thorium dust
0.5 0.059 0.026
1.0 0.119 0.052
2.0 0.238 0.104
3.0 0.357 0.156
4.0 0.476 0.208
5.0 0.595 0.260
6.0 0.714 0.312
7.0 0.833 0.364
8.0 0.952 0.417
9.0 1.071 0.469
10.0 1.190 0.521
12.0 1.429 0.625
15.0 1.786 0.781
The values in Table A.2 can be modied to reect the circumstances of a particular site, for example
where both thorium and uranium is expected to be present in the airborne dust and/or radon and
thoron exposure may need to be taken into account.
The following steps are taken in the development of the monitoring program where:
an average airborne radioactivity concentrations would result in internal radiation exposure of

less than 1 mSv/year (≤ 0.119 Bq/m³ for uranium dust and ≤0.052 Bq/m³ for thorium dust)
it is suggested that personal monitoring of employees in this work category is not required;
an average airborne radioactivity concentrations indicate that internal radiation exposures in

excess of 1 mSv/year are possible, the measured values are averaged to the closest value in
Table A.2; and
the number of employees in a particular work category is multiplied by the expected annual
internal dose value and the result is the number of samples required from the employees in this
work category per year.
Please note that due to the fact that monitoring levels for each work category will need to be carried
out annually and that statistical analysis of monitoring data needs to be performed the number of
samples cannot be less than 12 per year (one sample per month).
An example: There are ve work categories at a site processing mineral containing thorium.
The levels of airborne dust radioactivity for these categories have been measured and are as follows:
1. `Laboratory' 0.031 Bq/m³;
2. `Metallurgist' 0.069 Bq/m³;
3. `Supervisor' 0.147 Bq/m³;
4. `Maintenance' 0.189 Bq/m³; and
5. Òperator' 0.297 Bq/m³.
There are 8 employees in the laboratory:
2 metallurgists;
3 supervisors;
9 maintenance personnel; and
15 operators.
The design of the monitoring program is carried out as follows in each work category:
1. `Laboratory': the level is suciently low to carry out positional monitoring only. The location of
the monitoring positions and the frequency of monitoring should be determined in consultation
with laboratory personnel.
2. `Metallurgist': the measured airborne radioactivity level corresponds to the value of 0.052
Bq/m³ (potential exposure of 1 mSv/year, Table A.2). The value of 1 is multiplied by the
number of employees in the work category (2). The result is that only two samples per year
need to be taken, which will not be sucient for the statistical analysis and the assessment of
the requirement for the monitoring of this category in a subsequent year. Therefore, there will
be a need to take 12 samples for employees in this work category.
3. `Supervisor': the measured airborne radioactivity level corresponds to the value of 0.156 Bq/m³
(potential exposure of 3 mSv/year, Table A.2). The value of 3 is multiplied by the number of
employees in the work category (3). The result is that only six samples per year need to be taken,
which (as for the work category `metallurgist') will not be sucient for the statistical analysis
and the assessment of the requirement for the monitoring of this category in a subsequent year.
Therefore, there will be a need to take 12 samples for employees in this work category. Due
to the relatively low airborne radioactivity levels for both `metallurgist' and `supervisor' work
categories the merger of these categories into one may be considered.
4. `Maintenance': the measured airborne radioactivity level corresponds to the value of 0.208
Bq/m³ (potential exposure of 4 mSv/year, Table A.2). The value of 4 is multiplied by the
number of employees in the work category (9). The result is that 36 samples per year need to
be taken for employees in this work category.
5. Òperator': the measured airborne radioactivity level corresponds to the value of 0.312 Bq/m³
(potential exposure of 6 mSv/year, Table A.2). The value of 6 is multiplied by the number of
employees in the work category (15). The result is that 90 samples per year need to be taken
for employees in this work category.

Bibliography
[2] Mines Safety & Inspection Act, 1994 .
[3] AS 3640, 2004. Workplace atmospheres Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of
inhalable dust, 2004.
[4] Grantham, David. Simplied Monitoring Strategies. Australian Institute of Occupational Hygie-
nists Inc, 2001.
[5] Bullock, William H. and Ignacio, Joselito S., A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational
Exposures, American Industrial Hygiene Association Exposure Assessment Strategies Committee,
3
rd Edition, 2006.
Index
activity concentration, 2 positional sampling, 3
airborne radioactivity, 1, 2
ALARA, 2 radiation exposure, 8
ALI, 3 radioactive dust, 2

radon (
222 Rn), 8
AMAD, 7
annual public exposure limit, 5 radon/thoron, 2, 5, 7
application for exemption, 5 representative sample, 5
Australian Standard, 3, 5, 6
sampling regime, 6
breathing rates, 2 standard job procedure, 8
breathing zone, 2
thorium decay chain, 8
thoron (
220 Rn), 8
committed dose, 2
time integrated measurement, 5
DAC, 3 total dust sampling, 6
DMP, 57
dose assessment, 7 uranium decay chain, 8
dust concentration, 5, 7
variation analyses, 5, 6
dust monitoring, 2
dust solubility, 8
work group, 6
eective dose equivalent, 2, 57

elevated exposure, 8
equilibrium, 8
grab samples, 3, 5
gross alpha determination, 57
high volume sample, 8

high volume sampler, 3
IFAP, 2
inhalation pathway, 2
internal dose, 3
laboratory analysis, 8
long term trends, 2
mineral processing, 1
monitoring period, 6
monitoring program, 2, 3, 6, 8
pathways of radiation exposure, 5

personal monitoring, 5
positional monitoring, 3
13
NORM3.4
Monitoring NORM airborne radioactivity sampling

Reference
in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM3.4 Monitoring NORM airborne radio-
activity sampling: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 24pp.

Guideline NORM3.4 Monitoring NORM airborne radioactivity sampling
Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Radioactive dust sampling considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1. Selection of counting equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.2. Sample preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.3. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Analysis considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.1. Filter handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.2. Calibration and use of alpha counting equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2.1. Background count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2.2. Chi-square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2.3. Eciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2.4. Excel spreadsheet for data processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3. Gross alpha activity calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. Alpha self-absorption eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.2. Partial sample loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. Measurement of radon/thoron and their progeny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6. Environmental dust monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7. Passive air samplers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.8. Stack emissions monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Appendix showing methods for the measurement of radon/thoron progeny 14

A.1. Rolle method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Kusnetz method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. Rock method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4. Cote method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.5. Borak method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.6. Modied Tsivoglou method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.7. Useful conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B. Appendix showing the Excel spreadsheet 19

C. Appendix showing dierent sampling cassettes 20
C.1. Conguration dierences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
C.2. Dierences in the sample surface area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Bibliography 23
Index 24
List of Figures
2.1. Alpha counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2. Detection Limit LD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Eberline sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Example of a passive dust sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. The user interface of the Excel spreadsheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C.1. SKC 7-hole and IOM open face cassettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C.2. Comparison between diameters of Am-241 calibration source and lters from SKC
7hole and IOM open face cassettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

List of Tables
A.1. The Rolle method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Exhibit 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. Rock method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.1. Purpose
To provide practical guidance on airborne radioactivity sampling and assessment of obtained data in
relevant exploration, mining and mineral processing operations.
1.2. Scope

Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
Measurements of airborne radioactivity are undertaken to assess the performance of engineering
control systems and to assess exposures of both employees and members of the general public. The
most common technique involves portable or stationary air pumps/samplers. Passive air samplers,
however, are also used where appropriate.
The major risk associated with airborne radioactivity arises from internal irradiation following in-
halation. To evaluate the signicance of the measured activity, information is required on Annual
Limits of Intake (ALI) through inhalation and derived airborne concentration (DAC) limits of re-
levant radionuclides. A discussion of these parameters is outside the scope of this guideline and is
available in another document (Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment).
The method for determining gross (or total) alpha activity involves the collection of airborne dust
onto a high-eciency lter paper. The collected dust is usually analysed by counting directly with
an alpha counter. The sensitivity of this technique is strongly dependent on sampling volume and
can be adjusted to almost any desired value by manipulation of the appropriate sampling parameters
(time and ow rate). In addition, the counting time can also be increased to further improve the
sensitivity of this monitoring method.
Several dierent methods are used to determine concentrations of radon/thoron and their progeny.
These may vary from short-term air samples that are analysed within several hours or minutes of the
sample being taken to passive monitors that are used to collect the data from a particular location for
several months before being analysed. Additionally, electronic monitoring equipment is also available
for the estimation of radon and thoron concentrations.
In radiation protection, it is common practice to sample total dust by drawing air through a lter
and to then compare the measured radioactivity with an operational limit. Total dust is dened as
the dust which is collected on the lter of a non-size selective gravimetric sampler.
There are a number of commercially available personal air samplers (PAS), however, the dierences
in sampling head design and operating ow rate may result in signicant variations in particle intake
or collection eciency characteristics. To ensure the consistency of measurements, the sampling and
the analysis of data should be undertaken:
in accordance with the Australian Standard [8]; and
most importantly, by a person qualied to perform such measurements.
It is expected that, as a minimum, a person undertaking the measurements should be a qualied

ventilation ocer, as required in accordance with Part 9 of the Regulations [9] and be a `registered
CONTAM sampler'. As such, the person is expected to have detailed knowledge of:
human respiratory tract system;
classication of dusts (including inspirability criteria);
sampling `congurations' (including dierent sampling heads and their collection eciencies);
and
selection of sampling equipment (pumps and lter paper).
Information on the CONTAM system is available on the DMP web site in the Resources Safety area
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/6749.aspx.
This guideline, therefore, addresses only issues that are directly relevant to airborne radioactivity
sampling.
2.2. Radioactive dust sampling considerations

2.2.1. Selection of counting equipment
Great care should be taken when selecting or purchasing alpha counting equipment to ensure that
it is suitable for the purpose intended. Some computer/software controlled alpha counters available
are designed for Àmerican Homeland Security' market where a rapid determination of potential
atmospheric contaminants is required and are typically unable to be used for the procedures described
on the following pages. Counters using PIPS detectors such as the Canberra Model 7401 (Figure 2.1)
and Tennelec TC-257 have been used by the WA mining and mineral processing industry for over a
decade with excellent reliability and accurate results.
Figure 2.1.: Alpha counters
Three Canberra Model 7401 NIM modules in a Model 1000 power supply bin.
2.2.2. Sample preparation

1. For the purpose of airborne radioactivity sampling, it is recommended that the lters have as
low resistance to airow as possible (to avoid excessive pump power), a low clogging rate, and
collect the aerosol particles close to the surface (to avoid alpha self-absorption issues).

2. Two dierent types of lter paper are typically used for collection of radioactive dust PVC
(with pore size of 0.8 microns) and glass-bre (with pore size of 5 microns). The PVC lters
are more appropriate in situations where dust concentrations are relatively low (in order of 12
3
mg/m ) whereas glass-bre lters are recommended for use when the dust levels are compara-
tively high so as to minimise the possibility of partial sample loss due to dust particles falling
o the lter in the process of sample handling between weighing and counting.
3. Filters must be handled using the tweezers only.
4. To account for the atmospheric humidity, it is recommended that lters are placed in clean
containers and left with lids slightly ajar in the laboratory/oce overnight to come to equili-
brium with the atmosphere.
5. The lter should be pre-weighed to an accuracy ±0.01 mg. The number of the sample and its
weight should be recorded and the lter then placed into the sampling cassette.
There are two dierent cassettes approved for the use in dust sampling by the relevant Australian
Standard[8]. The dierences between those tow cassettes are described in Appendix C.
2.2.3. Sampling
Dust sampling cassette should be attached to a suitably calibrated constant airow sampler and worn
as close as possible to the employee's breathing zone. Sampling time should be a minimum of four
hours but must be as close to the length of the shift as possible. In some cases a `full shift' sampling
may not be possible. In such circumstances, monitoring can be carried out in two dierent parts
of the shift (usually for six hours at the beginning and at the end of the shift) to ensure that the
monitoring data is representative.
Dierent methods of recording sample information may be implemented. As detailed information is

required for the data entry into the DMP `Boswell' database (refer to the guideline NORM7 Boswell
Assessment and reporting database), it is recommended that the following information is recorded
for each sample:
1. The date and start and stop times of sampling.
2. Sample type (personal or positional) and number.
3. The name/occupation of the person wearing the sampler (or a position number).
4. Respiratory protection data.
5. Any other remarks, if required.
After sampling, lters should come to equilibrium with the atmosphere as is done before sampling.
The lter should be weighed to an accuracy of ±0.01 mg, the mass of the sample should be recorded
and the lter placed in the clean container for the subsequent radiometric analysis.
2.3. Analysis considerations

2.3.1. Filter handling
After air sampling and gravimetric determination the lters should be individually stored in suitably
marked containers or protective envelopes (e.g. petri dishes) in readiness for alpha counting. When
handling lters, particular care must be taken to avoid damage to them. Filter handling including
transportation, and vibration should be kept to a minimum to avoid loss of material before radiolo-
gical evaluation. Tweezers should be used during all handling to hold the unexposed lter edge. The
anti-static guns should be used if necessary.
2.3.2. Calibration and use of alpha counting equipment

A background count, chi-square test and eciency calculation should be undertaken at least weekly
when counting is in progress. These parameters should be monitored regularly to ensure that any
deterioration in performance of the system is detected as soon as possible.
2.3.2.1. Background count

This is typically performed over a relatively long period of time 12 to 15 hours, with a clean
unused lter in the drawer assembly or counting chamber, and the value is used in the assessment of
the Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) [11] of a particular counter as follows:
s !
Ct Ct

M DL = 4.65 × Bc × + Bc ×
Bt Bt
where:
MDL minimum detection limit of the equipment in use for the counting time Ct;
4.65 the detection limit LD shown in Figure 2.2;
Bc number of counts from background for the background counting time Bt;
Bt background count time (usually 720 or 900 minutes);
Ct counting time (typically 60 or 100 minutes).
Figure 2.2.: Detection Limit LD
Background Sample
Count Rate L D
LD is the true net signal level that may be expected a priori to lead to detection [10].
Calculation example: Data: Background counting results are: in 900 minutes 33 counts were
obtained. The actual sample counting will be carried out during 60 minutes.
Solution: Bc = 33 counts; Bt = 900 min; Ct = 60 min;
s
60
!
60
√
M DL = 4.65 × 33 × + 33 × = 4.65 × 2.2 + 2.2 = 9.097 ≈ 9 counts
900 900
Therefore, the minimum detection limit of alpha spectrometer is currently 9 counts in 60 minutes. If
the sample count does not exceed the MDL then the MDL must be substituted for the sample count
in the calculation. In other words, if the sample count will be 5 counts per 60 minutes the value of
9 counts per 60 minutes should be used in the calculation of the dust activity concentration.

2.3.2.2. Chi-square
This test is carried [4] out after obtaining background counts for each counter. If only the standard
(25 mm in diameter) samples will be analysed during the following week, 25 mm americium (
241 Am)
calibration source (re-calibrated annually by the Radiation Health Section of WA) must be used.
If personal impactor or environmental samples (37 mm in diameter) are also to be analysed, calibra-
tion should also be carried out with the 37 mm calibration source.
Note when purchasing calibration sources, the Eberline Services

241 Am model DNS-5SP sources with
diameters of 25mm, 36mm and 44.5mm are currently the only sources approved for use in Western
Australia as shown in Figure 2.3 www.eberlineservices.com.
Figure 2.3.: Eberline sources
Several companies have standardised on these three sources.
This is because the geometry of

241 Am on the calibration source must be similar to the dust collected
on the lter; therefore, `point' sources where a small amount of the isotope is placed in the middle
of the disc are not acceptable. The
241 Am should be present on the surface of the disc in the form
of a thin lm, closely resembling the dust accumulated on the lter.
Ten counts (typically of 30 or 60 seconds) using a calibration source must be carried out and the
data and the calculations carried out using the following equation:
n
(χi − χ̄)2
X
i=1
χ2 =
χ̄
where:
χi is the ith experimental data value;
χ̄ is the mean of the experimental data values.
The chi-square value should be 3.33 ≤ χ2 ≤ 16.9. In cases where the value is either lower than 3.33
or above 16.92, the test should be repeated until an acceptable value is obtained. If the results are
repeatedly outside the bounds, the counter must be removed from service.
2.3.2.3. Eciency
The Eciency for each counter is calculated as follows:
CST D
Ef f % = 100 ×
(TST D × N × 2)
where:
CST D total number of counts from the calibration source (average of ten results);
TST D counting time for the calibration source in seconds;
N number of alpha particles emerging from the front surface of the calibration source
per second (this number is obtained from the calibration certicate of the source).
2.3.2.4. Excel spreadsheet for data processing

An Excel spreadsheet has been developed in order to the simplify calculations and minimise errors.
Data should be entered into the appropriate elds to calculate the values. The program user interface
is shown in Figure B.1 on page 19.
The sample Excel Spreadsheet is embedded in the electronic version of this document and may be
run from here or saved onto your computer. This spreadsheet is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it. The software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Click here if you accept these conditions →
Calculation example: `Mean' number of counts is 40807;
Counts were obtained during the 30 seconds interval;
Number of alpha particles from the Certicate is 113,300 per minute;
Calculate number of alpha particles per second;
113300
N= = 1888.3 counts per second
60
Calculate the eciency;
40807
Ef f % = 100 × = 36.0%
(30 × 1888.3 × 2)
Six or seven days are allowed to elapse before alpha counting to allow for the decay of short-lived
thoron (
220 Rn) and radon (222 Rn) daughter products trapped on the lter. This decay time also
provides for the build-up of thoron daughters from

224 Ra in the event of thoron emanation from the
airborne dust particles. The assumption employed when determining gross alpha activity is that
all alpha particles emitted from the
232 Th and 238 U radioactive decay chains are registered by the
counter.
The counting of the lters is typically performed for a minimum of 60 minutes, but this time may
be extended to 100 or 200 minutes to increase the accuracy of measurement when it is expected that
concentrations of radioactivity would be relatively low (environmental high volume samples, lower
stages of personal impactor, or conrmatory samples collected outside supervised and controlled
radiation areas).

2.3.3. Gross alpha activity calculation

The activity of the sample (in Becquerels) is calculated as follows:
100 Cc Bc

A= × −
60 × Ef f % Ct Bt
where:
A activity of the sample (in Becquerels);
Cc number of counts from the sample for the counting time Ct;
Ct counting time (typically 60 or 100 minutes);
Bc number of counts from background for the background counting time Bt;
Bt background count time (usually 900 minutes);
E% percent eciency of the alpha spectrometer.
Dust activity concentration This is then determined as follows:
A (Bq)
Ac Bq/m3 =
V (m3 )
The value obtained in accordance with this procedure should be compared with the derived air
concentration (DAC) calculated for a particular industry/operation in accordance with the Guideline
NORM5 Dose Assessment.
Calculation example: Data:
Counting results are: sample was counted for 60 minutes; 71 counts were obtained.
Background counting result is: in 900 minutes 33 counts were obtained.
The sample was worn for 370 minutes.
Flow rate of the sampler was 2 litres per minute.
The eciency of the alpha spectrometer is 31.7%.
Solution:
Bc = 33 counts;
Bt = 900 min;
Cc = 71 counts;
Ct = 60 min;
E% = 31.7 %;
V = 370 min ×2 litres /min = 740 litres = 0.74 m .

3
The activity of the sample is:
100 71 33

A= × − = 0.060 Bq
60 × 31.7 60 900
The dust activity concentration is:
0.060 Bq
= 0.081 Bq/m3
0.74 m3
The calculations described above are performed when all relevant data is entered into the DMP
`Boswell' database (please refer to guideline NORM7 Boswell Assessment and reporting database).
2.4. Other considerations

2.4.1. Alpha self-absorption eects
Self-absorption can seriously aect the nal alpha activity concentrations when collected samples have
relatively large dust loadings. With knowledge of layer inuence, these eects can be minimised.
Alpha particles have a very short range in air (40 mm for alpha particles with the energy of 5.3 MeV)
and an even shorter range in more dense substances. The assessment of alpha self-absorption eects
may be very complicated as radioactive atoms are distributed throughout the dust matrix, ranging
from the surface of the deposit to the deposit/lter paper interface. In some instances penetration
of the dust into the lter paper matrix will also intensify this eect.
Although alpha particles will lose considerable energy as they pass through the dust matrix the alpha
counter will still register them as long as the distance to the detector is less than their range in the
dust matrix. Particle size also becomes important, as alpha particles originating from atoms within
a large grain will not pass completely through the grain. Additionally, the lter paper itself may
trap dust particles at depth within its matrix and the degree of self-absorption for this situation is
estimated as follows:
(C2 − C3)

%SA = × 100
C1 + C2 + C3
where:
%SA is the % self absorption;
C1 is the sample count (above background);
C2 is the count obtained by turning the sample lter upside down;
C3 is the count obtained by covering the sample lter (sample side up) with an unused
lter paper.
To limit self-absorption the simple solution is to choose a lter paper with a pore size that will ensure
the deposit is collected on the surface. In practice, the thickness of the dust deposit on the lter paper
determines the degree of self-absorption. Any visible deposit is likely to suer from self-absorption
making an absolute activity determination impossible. It is therefor advisable to carry out periodic
checks of lters collected at a particular operation to quantify the degree of self-absorption.
As the ow rate is xed in accordance with Australian Standard [8] at 2 litres per minute, to limit
self-absorption due to layer inuence the sampling time must be chosen to ensure that no excessive
dust loadings are captured on the lter.
Where appropriate, the statistical analysis of obtained results should be carried out in accordance
with Section 3.2 Basic Principles for the reporting of data detailed in the Guideline NORM6 Re-
porting requirements.
2.4.2. Partial sample loss

It is possible that in the process of weighing and counting during sample handling, loss of dust may
occur (particularly where dust concentrations in excess of 5 mg/m
3 are being registered). In this
case, the result of sample count should be deemed invalid. If the circumstances warrant further
investigation the following calculation may be carried out:
1. Determine the average dust specic activity (Bq/mg) for the particular work category (exclu-
ding the result for the sample in question).
3
2. Multiply the weight of the sample in question (mg/m ) by the average dust specic activity
(Bq/mg) to obtain expected dust activity concentration for the sample in question (Bq/m ).
3
3. The obtained result may be used for ad hoc reporting purposes.

Calculation example: Results of dust monitoring for the sample in question are 14.62 mg/m
3
3
and 0.077 Bq/m . The dust from the sample was partially lost prior to counting. The average dust
specic activity for this particular work category in this particular month is 0.081 Bq/mg (data
averaged for all other samples in this work category).
The expected dust activity concentration is estimated as follows:
14.62 mg/m
3 × 0.081 Bq/mg = 1.184 Bq/m
3
The value 1.184 Bq/m

3 should be used for reporting purposes instead of questionable 0.077 Bq/m3 .
2.5. Measurement of radon/thoron and their progeny

The radioactive decay chains of
238 U and 232 Th contain a gaseous member: radon (
222 Rn) and
thoron (
220 Rn). These gaseous elements can diuse from dierent materials and accumulate in the
surrounding atmosphere. The radon will continue to decay and the newly formed radon progeny will
be attracted to dust particles and will become àttached' to them.
The measurement of radon progeny concentrations is based on the detection of the alpha particles
emitted in the decay process. Most sampling methods require the drawing of a known volume of air
through a lter paper. The amount of alpha activity on the lter paper and the decay characteristics
exhibited are a function of the radionuclides present and their quantity. Determination of individual
progeny activities can be made by performing a sequence of counts at various intervals after sampling,
and solving the relevant radioactive in-growth and decay equations.
There are many dierent methods for the determination of radon progeny concentrations. The
220 Rn progeny is considered to be much lower than that of 222 Rn progeny
radiological signicance of
because of the comparatively short half-life of
220 Rn (55 seconds) and its limited opportunity for
release.
Many dierent monitors are available for both positional and personal assessment of the exposure to
radon and its progeny, several monitors capable of detecting thoron are also available. In situations
where only a simple assessment is necessary, some of these monitors can be used.
In situations where airborne dust radioactivity measurements are routinely undertaken and an al-
pha counter is readily available, several methods that utilise gross alpha counts (performed after a
suitable interval after the completion of sampling) can be used to determine radon/ thoron progeny
concentrations. The measurements are generally simple to perform and detailed description of these
methods is provided in Appendix A on page 14.
2.6. Environmental dust monitoring

To ensure the consistency of measurements, sampling and the analysis of data should be undertaken
in accordance with the Australian Standard [7]. The sampling is carried out using high volume
3
samplers with the airow rate of 70 to 80 m /hour, for a minimum of 24 hours to ensure that
sucient amount of dust is collected for radioactivity analysis. In some cases it may be necessary to
operate the high volume sampler continuously for 57 days, while in other cases the 24 hour interval
may be sucient; an additional consultation with DMP is recommended to ensure that the samplers
are not overloaded and sucient amount of dust particulate is collected on the lter.
Five, 37 mm diameter circular representative sub-samples are removed from the active area of the
high-volume lter. The sub-samples are stored for a period of six to seven days to allow short lived
radioactive products to decay, and are then presented to the alpha spectrometer for the determination
of the long-lived alpha radioactivity.
The mean alpha activity from the sub-samples is integrated over the total active area of the sample
to determine total collected alpha activity.
The mean activity is multiplied by the correction factor f:
total active surf ace of the sample

f=
surf ace of the 37 mm diameter sample
Calculation example: The eective sampling area is usually 382.5 cm

2 (22.5 x 17.0 cm).
The surface of the 37 mm diameter sub-sample is:
2
3.7

πR2 = 3.142 × = 10.75 cm2
2
Then the factor is:
382.5
f= = 35.6
10.75
3
If the mean alpha activity for ve 37 mm diameter sub-samples is 0.017 mBq/m , then the total
alpha-activity will be:
0.017 mBq/m3 × 35.6 = 0.62 mBq/m3
2.7. Passive air samplers

The use of passive (non-mechanical) samplers may be advantageous in certain situations. For
example, passive samplers for measuring radon progeny exposures are very useful in area measu-
rements as they integrate over a period of several months and give much better measurements than
any of the grab sampling techniques.
Passive samplers are also useful in environmental dust monitoring as shown in Figure 2.4 on the
next page. Deposition collectors, sticky plates and tacky cloths are typically used. The sticky plate
deposition collector is a horizontal or vertical plate covered with a sticky material that traps any fall
out that hits it. The tacky cloth sampler consists of a cloth stretched over dierent forms of wire
frames.
These samplers can be placed in reasonable numbers around a particular site. The cloth can then
be changed at monthly or quarterly intervals and assessed for trapped radioactive material.
Despite the fact that the results from passive samplers are qualitative rather than quantitative,
results from a series of passive samplers around the potential source of radioactive dust can reveal
the direction and location of higher concentrations of this dust, and thus indicate the best locations
for high volume environmental dust samplers.

Figure 2.4.: Example of a passive dust sampler
A passive dust sampler located next to a ore stockpile at the former WMC Yeelirrie exploration site.
2.8. Stack emissions monitoring

In order to correctly estimate potential exposures for members of the general public, it is necessary
to know the content of radioactivity in air discharged from any stacks (ventilation, dust extraction,
drying, kilns, etc.). Typically, as air will have been through the exhaust lter, most of the radioactive
dust particles are likely to be trapped.
It is, however, important to ensure that all stacks are monitored at regular intervals or as required
by licence conditions due to the fact that any radioactive dust emitted from them can travel much
further from the point of origin than dust carried by the wind from a stockpile. In cases where
chemical and thermal processing of material takes place, it is recommended that the state of secular
equilibrium of both uranium and thorium chains is assessed. This will help in determination if any
other radionuclides (except thorium and uranium) should be monitored in stack air. Where possible,
radionuclides' activity balance calculations should be performed to ensure maintenance personnel are
not exposed to signicant levels of radiation during the change of exhaust lters, which may have
accumulated signicant amounts of ne radioactive dust containing radioactive isotopes of polonium
and lead from both thorium and uranium decay chains (refer to Appendix B of the guideline NORM
2.1 Preparation of a radiation management plan - exploration). For practical purposes an annual
assessment of concentrations of
210 Po and 210 Pb (from the uranium decay chain) and 212 Pb (from
the thorium decay chain) is recommended.
Also as part of the operating licence conditions, some processing plants are required to undertake an
emissions testing program on their stacks involving isokinetic testing. Isokinetic testing is a technique
in which a representative sample from the stack is obtained by removing a sample at the same rate as
the stack gas. Once the sampling event is complete, the particulate mass collected on the lter can
be determined by weight, or gravimetrically. Several standard sampling `Methods' developed by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency are used to determine stack sample site suitability,
velocity and volumetric owrate, gas stream density, moisture content, and total particulates using
isokinetic sampling trains. Uranium and Thorium emissions collected on the lter are measured at a
laboratory using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICPMS). The isokinetic variation
during a sampling run should be between 90% and 110%.

A. Appendix showing methods for the

measurement of radon/thoron progeny
There are several methods that utilise a single or multiple gross alpha count (performed after a
suitable interval after the completion of sampling) to determine radon (
222 Rn) and thoron (220 Rn)
progeny concentrations.
A.1. Rolle method

This method [3] is used for the determination of
222 Rn progeny concentration:
Table A.1.: The Rolle method
Sampling time (min) Delay time (min) Counting time (min) Conversion factor Error (±%)
4 6.46 5 213 12
5 6.06 5 213 11
10 4.35 5 213 11
15 1.36 10 212 10
20 2.12 5 210 10
The
222 Rn progeny concentration, in mJ/m3 , is then calculated as follows:
(CS − CB ) × 2.1 × 10−2

XRn =
(E × F × V × T )
where:
XRn Rn-222 progeny concentration in mJ/m3 ;
CS gross count in interval T;
CB background count in interval T;
E eciency of detection equipment expressed as a fraction;
F Average factor to convert from counts/minute to WL (working level);
V volume of air sampled in L;
T counting time in minutes;
2.1×10
−2 factor to convert from WL to mJ/m3 .
For example, for a 10 minute sampling period, followed by a 5 minute counting period, a delay time
of 4 minutes and 20 seconds will apply. The conversion factor F for this sampling will be 213, with
an error of ±11%.
Due to the short delay times this method is more suitable in situations where the detection equipment
is located in close proximity to the sampling point.
A.2. Kusnetz method

This method [5] is similar to the one described in the A.1 on the facing page however:
the delay period between completion of sampling and beginning of counting is longer;
the sample is collected for 510 minutes and then stored in a petri dish for 4090 minutes prior
to counting;
the lter is transferred carefully from the lter holder assembly to the detector with the collec-
tion side of the lter oriented toward the face of the detector; and
the total counts for the sample and the time (in minutes after sampling) at the midpoint of the
10-minute time interval are recorded.
The
222 Rn progeny concentration is calculated using the equation presented in the A.1 on the prece-
ding page but the conversion factor is taken from the Table Exhibit 3-1 (PHS 1957)A.2:
Table A.2.: Exhibit 3-1
Kusnetz Factors
(Public Health Service, 1957)
Time Conversion factor Time Conversion factor
40 150 66 98
42 146 68 94
44 142 70 90
46 138 72 87
48 134 74 84
50 130 76 82
52 126 78 78
54 122 80 75
56 118 82 73
58 114 84 69
60 110 86 66
62 106 88 63
64 102 90 60
Note: the conversion factor is for the time from end of collection to midpoint of counting
The extended duration of the delay period enables the collection of samples at dierent site locations
and returning them to the laboratory for analysis.
The Kusnetz method is not suitable for atmospheres containing both

222 Rn and 220 Rn progeny, as
the extended delay time allows the in-growth of

220 Rn progeny, which will contribute to the gross
alpha count.

A.3. Rock method

This method [6] is primarily used for the determination of
220 Rn progeny concentration. The method
is similar to that of Kusnetz ( A.2 on the preceding page), the sampling time is limited to less than
60 minutes, and the delay period between end of sampling and beginning of counting is much longer
between 5 and 17 hours. A preliminary count of the lter conducted between 40 and 90 minutes
after sampling (Kusnetz method, 3.2.2) can be used to indicate the presence and concentration of
222 Rn progeny.
The
220 Rn progeny concentration is then calculated using the equation presented in the A.1 on
page 14 but the conversion factor is taken from the Table A.3:
Table A.3.: Rock method
Time after sampling (hours) Conversion factor
5 13.2
7 11.3
9 9.8
11 8.6
13 7.5
15 6.7
16 6.3
The extended duration of the delay period enables the collection of samples in remote locations and
returning them to the laboratory for analysis.
A.4. Cote method

This method [12] uses a 10 minute sampling time followed by several 15 minute gross alpha counts.
222 Rn and 220 Rn progeny contributions are discriminated by selecting an appropriate delay interval.
The rst gross alpha count is conducted 1.2 minutes after the completion of sampling, followed by a
second count 155 minutes after sampling, with a nal count carried out 225 minutes after sampling.
The contribution of
220 Rn progeny during the rst counting period is negligible; therefore the sample
reects the value of

222 Rn progeny concentrations. The conversion factor for this count is 218, which
should be used in calculations using the equation presented in A.1 on page 14.
The second count is used to produce a combined

222 Rn and 220 Rn progeny potential alpha energy
3
concentration (PAEC, in J/m ) with a conversion factor of 14.1. The nal count is used to derive
the
220 Rn progeny PAEC with a conversion factor of 14.2. These conversion factors are used in
calculations using the equation presented in A.1 on page 14.
The counting instrument has to be very close to the sampling location for the completion of the rst
count. Samples may then be returned to the laboratory for two subsequent counts and it is very
important to conduct the counting precisely at the specied delay intervals.
A.5. Borak method

Prompt determinations of potential alpha energy for
222 Rn daughters in mJ/m3 or working level
are required for radiation protection purposes in underground mines. A single measurement of gross
alpha activity collected on a lter can be optimised by selecting appropriate timing sequences for
sampling and counting. The process of optimisation includes inherent uncertainty associated with
measuring an unknown mixture of
222 Rn daughters as well as the precision of each measurement due
to counting statistics. The Borak method allows timing sequences less than 10 min total duration
that can yield an estimate of potential alpha energy with uncertainties less than 20% at 0.1 working
level.
This method involves taking a 3 minute air sample onto a 25mm 0.8 micron glass bre lter at 3.5
litres per minute. Waiting 3 minutes for the decay of some of the progeny before counting the sample
in a portable detector for a 3 minute count, hence the `333 method'.
The
222 Rn progeny concentration (RPC), in microJ/m3 , is then calculated as follows:
3
RPC (microJ/m ) = (Counts × 0.2237)÷(Eciency)
3
and a conversion of 1 microJ/m /h at standard breathing rates gives 1.41 µSv/h.
A.6. Modied Tsivoglou method

The modied Tsivoglou method is more complicated than the Kusnetz, but it yields additional
information: the concentration of individual radon progeny [15].
In this method, the sampling procedure is identical to that used for the modied Kusnetz method.
After the end of sampling, remove the lter containing radon progeny from the lter holder and
transfer it to the counting system for analysis. The standard counting intervals are 25, 620, and
2130 min after the end of sampling. These intervals allow adequate time to transfer the lter into
the counting system and record the counts from the dierent counting intervals. The technician or
the person who performs the test is required to stand by for 30 minutes unless he uses automated
counting equipment operated by a computer.
Calculation The equations needed to calculate the air concentrations from a 5 min sample and for
the standard counting intervals are:
[6.247Nt (2 − 5) − 3.028Nt (6 − 20) + 2.857Nt (21 − 30)]

C1 =
EQ
[0.056Nt (2 − 5) − 0.776Nt (6 − 20) + 1.836Nt (21 − 30)]

C1 =
EQ
[−0.8327Nt (2 − 5) + 1.224Nt (6 − 20) − 1.389Nt (21 − 30)]

C1 =
EQ
[2.011Nt (2 − 5) − 1.372Nt (6 − 20) + 3.954Nt (21 − 30)]

Cp =
EQ

where:
C1 , C 2 , C3 = the concentrations of 218 Po, 214 Pb, and 214 Bi, respectively (Bq/m3 );
Cp =the PAEC (nJ/m3 );
Nt (...) =the net counts in the intervals 25, 620, and 2130;
E =fractional counter eciency[(counts/min) ÷ (disintegrations/min)];
Q =sampling air ow rate, L/min.
These coecients were derived using 3.05 min for the half life of
218 Po [18]. The half lives used for
214 Pb and 214 Bi were 26.8 and 19.9 min, respectively[17].
The standard deviation equations which calculate the precision for each radionuclide are:
1
[39.0Nt (2 − 5) + 9.17Nt (6 − 20) + 8.16N (21 − 30)] /2
1
C1 =
EQ
1
[0.003Nt (2 − 5) +).062N (6 − 20) + 3.37N (21 − 30)] /2
1
C2 =
EQ
1
[0.69Nt (2 − 5) + 1.50Nt (6 − 20) + 1.93N (21 − 30)] /2
1
C3 =
EQ
1
[4.04Nt (2 − 5) + 1.88N (6 − 20) + 15.6N (21 − 30)] /2
1
Cp =
EQ
where:
S1 , S 2 , S3 = standard deviation of 218 Po, 214 Pb, and
214 Bi, respectively (Bq/m3 );
Sp =standard deviation of the PAEC (nJ/m3 );

Nt (...) ,E and Q where dened earlier.
A.7. Useful conversion factors

To convert:
picoCuries to Becquerels, divide by 27 (27.027);
d.p.m. (disintegrations per minute) to Becquerels, divide by 60;
Becquerels to picoCuries, multiply the number of Becquerels by 27 (27.027);
picoCuries per cubic meter to Becquerels per cubic metre, multiply pCi/m
3 times 0.037;
Becquerels per cubic metre to microBecquerels per cubic meter, multiply the Bq/m
3 times 1 x
10
−6 .
B. Appendix showing the Excel spreadsheet
Figure B.1.: The user interface of the Excel spreadsheet.

C. Appendix showing dierent sampling

cassettes
C.1. Conguration dierences
There are two dierent cassettes approved for the use in dust sampling by the relevant Australian
Standard[8] one is SKC 7hole, another is IOM open face. SKC is a leading manufacturer and
supplier of air sampling products www.skcinc.com.
Figure C.1.: SKC 7-hole and IOM open face cassettes
The SKC 7hole cassette is predominately used in Western Australian mining and mineral processing
industries, but IOM open face ones may also be used, provided that the following considerations are
taken into account.
The general disadvantage of adopting the IOM open face cassette for dust sampling in exploration,
mining and mineral processing is that for any analyses other than gravimetric, the dust that may
adhere to the walls of the cassette must be washed o and added to the material collected on the
lter. Where the dust concentrations are relatively low (around 1 2 mg/m³) and the sampling is
undertaken for a period of 4 to 6 hours it is unlikely that this will be the case.
However, in circumstances when dust concentrations are comparatively high (above 3 mg/m³) and
the sampling is undertaken for a period of 8 hours or more the dust inside the IOM cassette (but not
on the lter) may require special consideration.
Please note that minimum sampling time in accordance with Australian Standard[8] is 4 hours and
samples collected over 3.5 hours or less are considered to be invalid.
To allow for such possibility the IOM open face cassettes are typically weighted together with the
lter both prior and after the sampling. When using the SKC 7hole cassette the lter is weighted
separately, prior to loading into the cassette and after the sampling.
Where dust samples require analysis for gross alpha activity concentrations, as described in this
guideline, the lters from SKC 7hole cassettes can be easily analysed.
However, in cases where IOM open face cassettes are used and relatively high dust levels are measured
the accurate analysis of the dust for gross alpha activity concentrations may, in some cases, become
impossible.
It is unlikely that additional analysis steps (such as washing the material from the walls of a cassette,
drying it and adding the dust that is already on the lter) will be possible for the implementation on
an exploration, mining or mineral processing site, and performing this analysis in an o-site certied
laboratory may be cost-prohibitive. In addition, in most cases it is impossible to determine if the
dust is present on cassette walls until the cassette is opened.
C.2. Dierences in the sample surface area

Further dierences between these cassettes are associated with the diameter of the collected sample
on the lter and its compatibility with the standard 25 mm
241 Am calibration source, as illustrated
on Figure C.2.
Figure C.2.: Comparison between diameters of Am-241 calibration source and lters from SKC 7hole
and IOM open face cassettes
It is expected that the number of counts registered would not normally be signicantly dierent
between sources of 18, 21 and 25 mm in diameter, when the smaller size detectors are used for
counting, such as ones with an active surface of 450 mm². However, as the diameter of the source
decreases and larger size detectors are used (such as ones with an active surface of 1200 mm²), the
the source (dust on the lter) is behaving more and more like a point source resulting in better
resolution and increased counts.
In this regard it is clear that the lter from an SKC 7hole cassette (surface of 1390 mm²) is more
closely resembling the calibration source (surface of 1960 mm²) then the lter from an IOM open
face cassette (surface of 1020 mm²).
The relationships are relatively complex as the number of detected counts is dependent on factors
such as active surface of the detector, active surface of the calibration source, active surface of dust
on the lter, and the distance between the source and detector.
The same detector will have dierent geometrical eciencies for both dierent size sources and
dierent distances between the source and the detector, and it is not the purpose of this guideline to

provide detailed mathematical analysis, particularly as various sizes of detectors are used in mining
and mineral processing industry.
It can, however, be concluded that when sampling of the same dust is undertaken using the SKC
7hole and IOM open face cassettes the gross alpha counting of IOM lters is more likely to result
in an over-estimation of activity concentrations than counting of SKC lters.
An overall recommendation is that both SKC 7hole and IOM open face cassettes can be used in
exploration, mining and mineral processing in Western Australia with a preference given to an SKC
7hole cassette when comparatively high levels of dust and/or airborne radioactivity are expected or
measured.
Bibliography

[3] Rolle, R. Rapid Working Level Monitoring Health Physics 22 : 233, 1972.
[4] Measuring Airborne Radon Progeny at Uranium Mines and Mills G4, Regulatory Guide, Ca-
nadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2003. PDF
[5] Kusnetz, H.L. Radon Daughters in Mine Atmospheres A Field Method for Determining
Concentrations. Industrial Hygiene Quarterly (March 1956). Alexandria, VA:p.85, 1956.
[6] Rock, R.L., R.W. Dalzell and E.J. Harris. Controlling Employee Exposure to Alpha Radiation
in Underground Uranium Mines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines: Pergamon Press, p.629, 1970.
[7] AS 3580.9.3:2003. Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air Method 9.3: Determination
of suspended particulate matter Total suspended particulate matter (TSP)High volume
sampler gravimetric method, 2003.
[8] AS 3640: 2004. Workplace atmospheres Method for sampling and gravimetric determination
of inhalable dust, 2004.
[9] Part 9 Ventilation and control of dust and atmospheric contaminants, page 176, Mines Safety
& Inspection Regulations, 1995.
[10] Currie, L.A. Limits for Qualitative Determination and Quantitive Determination Anal. Chem.
Vol. 40, No. 3, 586593, 1986.
[11] Strom, D., Stansbury, P. Minimum detectable activity when background is counted longer than
the sample. Health Physics Vol. 63, pp.360-361, 1992.
[12] Cote, P., Townsend M.G. Mixtures of Radon and Thoron Daughters in Underground Atmos-
pheres. Health Physics, Vol.40, No.1, pp.517 1981.
[13] Borak, T.B., A method for prompt determination of working level using a single measurement
of gross alpha activity. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol.19, No.2, pp.97102, 1987.
[14] Tsivoglou, E.C., Ayer, H.E., and Holaday, D.A. Occurrence of Nonequilibrium Atmospheric
Mixtures of Radon and Its Daughters. Nucleonics, Vol. 1, p. 40, 1953.
[15] Thomas, J.W., Measurement of Radon Daughters in Air, Health Physics, Vol. 23, p.783, 1972.
[16] EPA 402R92004. Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product Measurement Device Protocols.
U.S. EPA, Oce of Air and Radiation, July 1992. www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprot1.html
[17] ICRP Radionuclide Transformations: Energy and Intensity of Emissions. Annals of the Inter-
national Commission Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 38, Vol. 1113, 1983.
[18] Martz, D. E., R. T. Harris, and G. H. Langner The Half-Life of

218 Po Report UNCJ00288,
UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, 1988.

Index
air pumps, 2 PAEC, 16
airborne radioactivity, 2 partial sample loss, 9
ALI, 2 PAS, 2
alpha counter, 2, 9 passive air samplers, 2, 11
alpha particles, 9
americium (
241 Am), 6 Radiation Health Section, 6
radium (
224 Ra), 7
Australian Standard, 2, 9, 10
radon (
222 Rn), 7, 10, 1416
average dust specic activity, 9
radon/thoron, 2
background count, 5 respiratory protection, 4
Borak method, 17 respiratory tract, 2
Rock method, 16
chi-square test, 5, 6 Rolle method, 14
correction factor, 11
Cote method, 16 sample preparation, 3
sampling, 4
DAC, 2, 8 sampling cassette, 4
decay chains, 10 sampling head, 2
decay time, 7 sampling trains, 13
dust activity concentration, 8 sampling volume, 2
dust matrix, 9 self-absorption, 9
SKC 7hole cassette, 21
Eberline Services, 6
stack emissions monitoring, 12
eciency, 5, 7, 8
engineering control, 2 thorium (
232 Th), 7, 10
environmental dust monitoring, 10 thoron (
220 Rn), 7, 10, 14, 16
thoron (
222 Rn), 15
lter handling, 4
Tsivoglou method, 17
lter paper, 2, 4, 9
ow rate, 2 uranium (
238 U), 7, 10
glass-bre, 4
gross alpha activity, 2, 8
humidity, 4
ICPMS, 13
impactor, 7
internal irradiation, 2
isokinetic variation, 13
Kusnetz method, 15
maintenance personnel, 12
MDL, 5
mean alpha activity, 11
24
NORM3.5
Monitoring NORM measurement of particle size

Reference
in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM3.5. Monitoring NORM measurement
of particle size: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 31pp.

Guideline NORM3.5 Monitoring NORM measurement of particle size
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 3
2.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. The monitoring method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Determining the AMAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Data processing 8
3.1. Manual data processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. MMAD and associated calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1.1. Calculation example MMAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.2. AMAD and associated calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2.1. Calculation example minimum detection limits . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2.2. Calculation example activity concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.2.3. Calculation example AMAD and GSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2. Excel spreadsheet for data processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. DMP AMAD approval policy 23

4.1. Evaluation of impactor program results by the Regulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A. Appendix with a typical procedure for setting up a seven-stage impactor 24
B. Appendix with Excel spreadsheet views 25
Bibliography 30
Index 31

List of Figures
1.1. Relationship to other NORM Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Dust removal by the human respiratory system [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2. The assembled Marple cascade impactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. An illustration of the Marple cascade impactor operating principle [3]. . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. The several stages that make up the Marple cascade impactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B.1. The user interface of the Excel spreadsheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B.2. Spreadsheet calculations for Stage: 1 & 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B.5. Spreadsheet calculations for Stage: F & Sum of all stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
List of Tables
3.1. Marple Impactor Dust Size Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Minimum Detection Limits (mBq) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Counting results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4. Comparison with MDL for each stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on the measurement of the particle size of radioactive dust that may be encoun-
tered in exploration, mining and mineral processing operations.
1.2. Scope
1.3. Denitions
Aerodynamic Diameter The Aerodynamic Diameter of a particle is dened as the diameter of a
sphere of unit density (1 g/cm3 ) that has the same aerodynamic behaviour (e.g. settling velocity) as
the particle itself. Particles of the same physical diameter but dierent densities will have dierent
terminal velocities and, therefore, dierent aerodynamic diameters.
Equivalent Aerodynamic Diameter (EAD) Two particles of dierent densities are said to have
Equivalent Aerodynamic Diameter (EAD) if their densities and diameters are such that their terminal
settling velocities are equal.
Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD) Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter

(AMAD) is the EAD value of radioactive dust such that 50% of the activity in the dust is asso-
ciated with smaller particles. The accurate determination of this value is critical in the process of
the assessment of internal exposure of employees (NORM5 Dose assessment).
Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter (MMAD) Similarly, the Mass Median Aerodynamic Dia-
meter (MMAD) of airborne dust is the EAD value such that 50% of the mass of the dust is associated
with smaller particles.


Figure 1.1.: Relationship to other NORM Guidelines
Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)
2. Guidance
2.1. Summary
The biological eects of inhaled dust depend on the size of dust particles and it is, therefore, necessary
to determine this value and the associated radioactivity in the workplace atmosphere. Basically, the
smaller particles of radioactive dust are easier inhaled and their depth of penetration in lungs is
higher than for the larger particles. Figure 2.1 on the next page demonstrates how the size of dust
particles aects their deposition in the human respiratory system.
Particles encountered in practice are rarely regular in shape, and size parameters can be assigned to
them in dierent ways. There is a wide variety of instruments for the determination of the particle
size, based on dierent physical principles. For example, a cascade impactor is based on particle
inertia, a laser aerosol spectrometer is based on light scattering, and an electron microscope uses a
projected area image. It is, therefore, important to specify the method of measurement whenever
particle size data is discussed.
Appendix A in NORM 5 describes the ICRP 66 [5] lung model for the respiratory tract regions.
Deposition of dust particles is governed by either the activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD)
or the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of the inhaled aerosol. The percentage of activity
or mass of an aerosol which is deposited in the dierent regions is given as a function of the AMAD
of the aerosol distribution.
2.2. The monitoring method

AMAD is commonly determined using an inertial separation technique, which provides a direct
determination of aerodynamic diameter. The inertial separation device separates the aerosol into
particle size groups with a known range of aerodynamic diameter. The activity associated with each
of the particle groups is easily determined by either radiological or chemical analysis, and statistical
handling of data yields the activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD).
A personal lightweight cascade impactor is the preferred instrument for determining AMAD. The
Marple cascade impactor shown in Figure 2.2 on the following page is an example of this type of
equipment. Cascade impactor collection is based on the relative inertial properties of particles in
an air stream changing its ow direction from perpendicular to parallel on the impaction surface.
Particles with sucient inertia due to their size and density will not follow the direction of airow,
but will impact upon and be retained by the collector surface. This principle is illustrated in a
drawing in Figure 2.3 on page 5.

Figure 2.1.: Dust removal by the human respiratory system [3]
7 Microns & above
4.7 - 7 Microns
3.3 - 4.7 Microns
2.1 - 3.3 Microns
1.1 - 2.1 Microns
0.65 - 1.1 Microns
Figure 2.2.: The assembled Marple cascade impactor
Figure 2.3.: An illustration of the Marple cascade impactor operating principle [3].
Air flow
Trajectory of Jet exit

the particle
Trajectory of the
that is too
impacted particle
small to impact
Figure 2.4.: The several stages that make up the Marple cascade impactor
STAGE: f 6 5 4 3 2 1

As several impaction stages of decreasing jet widths (therefore ⇒ higher ow rates) are arranged
in series, successive stages collect progressively smaller particles. A disassembled Marple cascade
impactor showing the several impaction stages is shown in Figure 2.4 on the preceding page.
A mesh to hold the ne lter to collect all the particles passing the impaction stages usually follows
the last stage which can also be seen in Figure 2.4. Many dierent models of personal impactor
are currently available and a consultation with DMP is necessary prior to acquiring the equipment
to ensure that it will be suitable for the industry sector in which it will be used. For example,
several models were designed exclusively for the measurement of wood dust and, whilst marginally
acceptable for phosphate and bauxite industry, may not be suitable in other industry sectors.
The main sources of error in the use of a personal impactor are wall loss, particle bounce and the
incorrect choice of a collection surface. The errors due to the wall loss can be minimised by choosing
an appropriate impactor model. To ensure that the possibility of other errors is also minimised the
following precautions should be taken:
1. The use of bare metal, glass or other hard surface as an impaction surface should be avoided
when sampling solid aerosols.
2. The use of glass bre substrates may introduce signicant errors, but for an àpproximate'
measure of the size distribution AMAD they may be useful.
3. Oils and solvent/grease coatings used on collection substrates should be of suitable stability
to prevent the coating òwing' under the jet, especially for the lower stages. If the coating
ows under the jet, the exposed substrate surface will accommodate bounce and blow-o and
consequently give incorrect results. Silicone grease or Vaseline in a suitable solvent are typically
used.
4. Care should be exercised so that the loading capacity of the impactor is not exceeded. This
can be accomplished by limiting the sampling time based on the expected dust concentration.
Over-sampling manifests itself as trails of particles leading from the sample deposits towards
the edge of the plate, rather than as well dened, discrete piles of particulates.
5. The incorporation of a deector plate (inlet cowl) above the impactor inlet to prevent direct
fall of large particles into the impactor (refer to Figures 2.2 on page 4 and 2.3 on the preceding
page.
The defaultsize of AMAD is 5 microns (µm) and in the absence of sucient data the dose conversion
factor associated with this particle value is used in dose assessments (Guideline NORM5 Dose
assessment). If, however, the AMAD of dust particles in a particular operation is signicantly
dierent from this value, a special particle size characterisation program can be used to obtain data
for the quantication of AMAD. The typical requirements of the annual program:
1. At least two valid personal impactor samples are required for each month (several conrmatory
positional samples are also recommended).
2. At least ve personal impactor samples per year are required for each of the `major' work
categories.
3. A nal report on the AMAD monitoring program should be presented to DMP as soon as
possible after the rst of April each year and before the Annual Occupational Radiation Mo-
nitoring Report. The data is assessed and, if warranted, an alternative dose conversion factor
is provided to the company (please refer to guideline NORM6 Reporting requirements for
additional information).
2.3. Determining the AMAD

Once the dust particles have been sized by the impactor, an analysis of the activity associated with
each particle size (aerodynamic diameter) fraction is required to determine the AMAD. Recommen-
ded analysis techniques include gross alpha counting and, in rare cases, x-ray uorescence (XRF)
spectrometry.
For glass bre lter papers and oil-coated substrates of diameters less than 47 mm, the substrates can
be analysed directly for alpha activity, similarly to the standard dust samples. However, practical
limitations of this method include the possibility of alpha self-absorption due to large particles on top
stage and, also, deposit build-up eects. Some impactors deposit the aerosol onto very small areas
(usually rectangular or circular) and, given the small range of alpha particles, signicant build-up
can inuence the registered activity.
Where the collection substrates are too large for the direct assay, or when too little sample is collected,
other analysis techniques are required. With samples collected with high volume samplers and on
large lter papers XRF method can be used. This involves grinding the lters with boric acid,
pressing the mixture into a briquette and analysing by XRF for the element sought (thorium and/or
uranium). For lters with a smaller dust loading, XRF of a fusion disc sample will increase the
sensitivity.
Large samples can be removed from oil or solvent/grease coated substrates by appropriate chemical
treatment (e.g. solvent washing). The collected material may then be re-deposited onto small lter
papers for alpha counting or assayed using XRF, gamma spectroscopy, liquid scintillation counting
or another appropriate technique. Such sample preparation will, however, increase the determination
time and complicate the activity measurement.
Practical considerations, involving the choice of equipment include:
1. The collection media should preferably be in such a form that it can be placed directly into an
alpha counter or be amenable to simple sample preparation.
2. The deposition pattern on collection substrates should be such that signicant deposit build-ups
do not occur to minimise alpha self-absorption eects.
3. The ow-rate through the impactor should be adjusted so that a range of particle size cut-os
can be collected to suit the dust distributions encountered in a particular operation. In general,
ow rates between 2 and 5 litres per minute may be utilised in sampling.
4. The device must have a dust loading capability of greater than 0.5 mg per stage so that the
substrates can be analysed directly by gross alpha counting.
5. The impactor should have the optimum number of collection stages (typically between 5 and
7 stages), which would allow size separation to be made with adequate resolution.
An example of the procedure for setting up of a seven-stage personal impactor and associated issues
is presented in Appendix A on page 24.

3. Data processing
3.1. Manual data processing
3.1.1. MMAD and associated calculations
For the calculation of the total dust concentration three parameters are required:
1. `pre-weight' of the each impactor stage i;
2. `post-weight' of the each impactor stage i; and
3. sampling time.
Since the ow rate of the constant ow sampler is known (usually 2 litres per
minute), the volume
(V) of the sample is calculated as follows:
TSAM P × F R
V (m3 ) =
1000
where:
TSAM P = sampling time in minutes; and
F R = sampler ow rate in litres per minute.
The total weight of each stage
(TWi) is calculated as follows:
T W i(mg) = W T iP OST − W T iP RE
where:
W T iP OST = weight of the stage i after sampling; and
W T iP RE = weight of the stage i before sampling.
a) The total weight of the sample (T W S ) is calculated as follows:

7
X
TWS = (W T iP OST − W T iP RE )
i=1
7
X
= T W i, i = 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th (f − f inal)stages
i=1
b) The total dust concentration (Dc) of the sample is calculated as follows:

T W S(mg)
Dc (mg/m3 ) =
V (m3 )
Table 3.1 on the facing page shows the dust size range for each impactor stage.
Table 3.1.: Marple Impactor Dust Size Range

Stage No Size range (µm) Median (mm)
1 50 21.3 32.6
2 21.3 14.8 17.75
3 14.8 9.8 12.04
4 9.8 6.0 7.67
5 6.0 3.5 4.58
6 3.5 1.55 2.33
F 1.55 0.1 0.39
In order to determine M M AD the following calculations should be carried out:

1. Determine a cumulative % `less than' for each stage:
Stage 1:  
7
X
 (W T iP OST − W T iP RE ) 
 
Cum.% < size =  i=2  × 100
 
 TWS 
 
Stage 2:  
7
X
 
Cum.% < size =  i=3  × 100
 
 TWS 
 
Stage 3:  
7
X
 
 i=4
Cum.% < size =   × 100

 TWS 
 
Stage 4:  
7
X
 
 i=5
Cum.% < size =   × 100

 TWS 
 
Stage 5:  
7
X
 
 i=6
Cum.% < size =   × 100

 TWS 
 

Stage 6:
(W T fP OST − W T fP RE )
Cum.% < size = × 100
TWS
Stage F:
Cum.% < size = 0
2. Since all median values are known, calculate the natural logarithm of M for each stage:
Stage 1: ln(M 1) = ln 32.6 = 3.484
Stage 2: ln(M 2) = ln 17.75 = 2.876
Stage 3: ln(M 3) = ln 12.04 = 2.488
Stage 4: ln(M 4) = ln 7.67 = 2.037
Stage 5: ln(M 5) = ln 4.58 = 1.522
Stage 6: ln(M 6) = ln 2.33 = 0.846
Stage F: ln(M f ) = ln 0.39 = −0.942
3. Calculate values T W i × ln(M i) for each stage and summarise them:
7
X
T W i × ln(M i)
i=1
4. Then the M M AD value could be calculated as follows:

 !
X 7
 (T W i × ln(M i)) 
 
 i=1
M M AD = exp 

TWS

 
 
5. Geometric standard deviation (GSD) for the M M AD value should also be calculated:
v ( )
u 7
u X 2
Mi
u
u T W i × ln M M AD


t i=1 
GSD = exp  

 TWS 

 
3.1.1.1. Calculation example MMAD
Data The sample was worn for 8 hours (480 minutes) and the `pre-weights' and `post-weights' are:
Stage 1: W T 1P RE = 28.58 mg, W T 1P OST = 44.05 mg
Stage F: W T fP RE = 10.31 mg, W T fP OST = 10.47 mg
Solution
1. The volume of the sample is
480 minutes × 2 litres per minute
= 0.96 m3
1000
2. The total weight of each stage is:

Stage 1: T W 1 = W T 1P OST − W T 1P RE = 44.05 − 28.58 = 15.47 mg
Stage F: T W f = W T fP OST − W T fP RE = 10.47 − 10.31 = 0.16 mg
Total weight of the sample (TWS) is:
7
X
TWS = (W T iP OST − W T iP RE )
i=1
7
X
= T W i, i = 15.47 + 16.67 + 4.87 + 0.44 + 0.26 + 0.14 + 0.16 = 38.01 mg
i=1
3. The total dust concentration is

38.01mg
= 39.59mg/m3
0.96m3
4. Determine a cumulative % less than for each stage:

Stage 1:

(T W 2 + T W 3 + T W 4 + T W 5 + T W 6 + T W f )
Cum.% < size = × 100
TWS

22.54
= × 100 = 59.30%
38.01
Stage 2:

(T W 3 + T W 4 + T W 5 + T W 6 + T W f ) 5.87
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100
TWS 38.01
= 15.44%
Stage 3:

(T W 4 + T W 5 + T W 6 + T W f ) 1.00
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 2.63%
TWS 38.01

Stage 4:

(T W 5 + T W 6 + T W f ) 0.56
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 2.63%
TWS 38.01
Stage 5:

(T W 6 + T W f ) 0.30
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 0.79%
TWS 38.01
Stage 6:
(T W f ) 0.16
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 0.42%
TWS 38.01
Stage F:
Cum.% < size = 0.00%
5. Natural logarithms for median values were calculated previously:

Stage 1: ln(M 1) = ln 32.6 = 3.484
Stage 2: ln(M 2) = ln 17.75 = 2.876
Stage 3: ln(M 3) = ln 12.04 = 2.488
Stage 4: ln(M 4) = ln 7.67 = 2.037
Stage 5: ln(M 5) = ln 4.58 = 1.522
Stage 6: ln(M 6) = ln 2.33 = 0.846
Stage F: ln(M f ) = ln 0.39 = −0.942
6. Calculate values T W i × ln(M i) for each stage and summarise them:
Stage 1: T W 1 × ln(M 1) = 15.47 × 3.484 = 53.902
Stage 2: T W 2 × ln(M 2) = 16.67 × 2.876 = 47.949
Stage 3: T W 3 × ln(M 3) = 4.87 × 2.488 = 12.118
Stage 4: T W 4 × ln(M 4) = 0.44 × 2.037 = 0.896
Stage 5: T W 5 × ln(M 5) = 0.26 × 1.522 = 0.396
Stage 6: T W 6 × ln(M 6) = 0.14 × 0.846 = 0.118
Stage F: T W f × ln(M f ) = 0.16 × (−0.942) = −0.151
7
X
T W i × ln(M i) = 53.902 + 47.949 + 12.118 + 0.896 + 0.396 + 0.118 − 0.151 = 115.229
i=1
7. Calculate the MMAD value:

 !
7
X
 (T W i × ln(M i)) 
 
i=1
M M AD = exp 
 
TWS

 
 

115.229
= exp
38.01
= exp (3.03) = 20.7
8. Calculate the standard deviation for the MMAD value:

2
Calculate values for T W 1 × ln M MM1
AD and summarise them:
Stage 1:
2 2
M1 32.6
T W 1 × ln = 15.47 × ln = 15.47 × 0.206 = 3.187;
M M AD 20.7
Stage 2:
2 2
M2 17.75
T W 2 × ln = 16.67 × ln = 16.67 × 0.024 = 0.400;
M M AD 20.7
Stage 3:
2 2
M3 12.04
T W 3 × ln = 4.87 × ln = 4.87 × 0.294 = 1.432;
M M AD 20.7
Stage 4:
2 2
M4 7.67
T W 4 × ln = 0.44 × ln = 0.44 × 0.986 = 0.434;
M M AD 20.7
Stage 5:
2 2
M5 4.58
T W 5 × ln = 0.26 × ln = 0.26 × 2.275 = 0.591;
M M AD 20.7
Stage 6:
2 2
M6 2.33
T W 6 × ln = 0.14 × ln = 0.14 × 4.771 = 0.668;
M M AD 20.7
Stage F:
2 2
Mf 0.39
T W f × ln = 0.16 × ln = 0.16 × 15.775 = 2.524;
M M AD 20.7
Sum for all stages:

7 2
X Mi
T W i × ln ...
M M AD
i=1
= 3.187 + 0.400 + 1.432 + 0.434 + 0.591 + 0.668 + 2.524 = 9.236
Then the standard deviation will be:

v ( )
u 7
u X 2

Mi

u
u T W i × ln M M AD


t i=1 
GSD = exp  

 TWS 

 
r !
9.236
GSD = exp
TWS
Therefore the Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter (MMAD) is 20.7 ± 1.6.

3.1.2. AMAD and associated calculations
Before the calculation the minimum detection limit

(MDL) of the equipment in use must be establi-
shed. MDL value is expressed in milliBecquerel (mBq).
The MDL for each impactor stage is calculated as follows:
 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 
where:
M DLi = minimum detection limit of the equipment in use for the stage i for the
counting time Ct;
Bc = number of counts from background for the background counting time Bt;
Bt = background count time (usually 900 minutes);
Ct = counting time (e.g. 60 minutes for stages 14, 100 minutes for stages 5 and 6 and
200 minutes for the stage F);
Ef f = eciency of the alpha-spectrometer.
3.1.2.1. Calculation example minimum detection limits
Data Impactor stages will be counted in two dierent alpha-spectrometer chambers.

Background counting results are:
Chamber À': 42 counts in 900 minutes
Chamber `B': 37 counts in 900 minutes
Eciency was determined:
Chamber À' E = 35.9%
Chamber `B' E = 31.5%
Stages will be counted for 60, 100 and 200 minutes.
Solution MDL should be determined for each chamber for three dierent counting periods:
Chamber À', 60 minutes count:
 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 
 q 
42
 3 + 3.29 × (900×60) 60
× (60 × 60) × (1 + 900

= × 1000
 0.359 × 60 × 60 
( √ )
3 + 3.29 × 2.986
= × 1000 ≈ 7 mBq
1292.4

 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 
 q 
42
 3 + 3.29 × (900×60) 100
× (100 × 60) × (1 + 900

= × 1000
 0.359 × 100 × 60 
( √ )
3 + 3.29 × 5.185
= × 1000 ≈ 5 mBq
2154

 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 
 q 
42
 3 + 3.29 × (900×60) 200
× (200 × 60) × (1 + 900

= × 1000
 0.359 × 200 × 60 
( √ )
3 + 3.29 × 11.407
= × 1000 ≈ 3 mBq
4308
Chamber `B', 60 minutes count:

 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 
 q 
37
 3 + 3.29 × (900×60) 60
× (60 × 60) × (1 + 900

= × 1000
 0.315 × 60 × 60 
( √ )
3 + 3.29 × 2.631
= × 1000 ≈ 7 mBq
1134

 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 
 q 
37
 3 + 3.29 × (900×60) 100
× (100 × 60) × (1 + 900

= × 1000
 0.315 × 100 × 60 
( √ )
3 + 3.29 × 4.568
= × 1000 ≈ 5 mBq
1890

 q 
Bc
 3 + 3.29 × (Bt×60) Ct
× (Ct × 60) × (1 + Bt

M DLi = × 1000
 Ef f × Ct × 60 

 q 
37
 3 + 3.29 × (900×60) 200
× (200 × 60) × (1 + 900

= × 1000
 0.315 × 200 × 60 
( √ )
3 + 3.29 × 10.049
= × 1000 ≈ 4 mBq
1134
Therefore, minimum detection limits are shown in Table 3.2 :
Table 3.2.: Minimum Detection Limits (mBq)

60 minutes count 100 minutes count 200 minutes count
Chamber À' 7 5 3
Chamber `B' 7 5 4
The following parameters are required for further calculations:

Background counts for the each impactor stage i;
Eciency for the each impactor stage i;
Number of counts for the each impactor stage i; and
Sampling time.
1. The volume (V) in cubic metres (m3) of the sample was calculated previously.
The `net counted' activity (in mBq) is calculated for each stage as follows:
 
Cc Bc
Ct×60 − Bt×60
Ai =   × 1000
Ef f
where:
Ai = activity of the stage i (in milliBecquerels);
Cc = number of counts from the stage i for the counting time Ct;
Ct = counting time for the stage i;
Bc = number of counts from background for the background counting time
Bt;
Bt = background count time (usually 900 minutes);
Ef f =eciency of the alpha-spectrometer.
1. The value obtained must be then compared with the respective `Minimum Detection Limit'.
If the sample count does not exceed the MDL then the MDL must be substituted for the
sample count in the calculation. In other words, if the stage `net counted' activity will be 5
milliBecquerel (with the MDL = 7 mBq), the value of 7 mBq should be used in all following
calculations. If the `net counted' activity on three or more stages is less than MDL, the sample
is invalid.
2. The activity of the sample is calculated as follows:
3. Then the dust activity concentration is determined as follows:
A (mBq)
Ac (mBq/m3 ) =
V (m3 )
3.1.2.2. Calculation example activity concentration
Data The sample was worn for 480 minutes and the ow rate of the sampler was 2 litres per minute.
A set of counting results are listed in Table 3.3:
Table 3.3.: Counting results

Backgrd. Backgrd. time Count time
Stage No Eciency (E) Counts (Cc)
counts (Bc) (Bt) (Ct)
1 42 900 0.359 775 60
2 37 900 0.315 291 60
3 42 900 0.359 162 60
4 42 900 0.359 57 60
5 42 900 0.359 45 100
6 42 900 0.359 19 100
f 37 900 0.315 43 200
Solution
1. The volume of the sample is: 480 min×2 litres per min = 960 litres = 0.96 m3 .
2. `Net counted' activity for each stage is:
   
Cc Bc 775 42
Ct×60 − Bt×60 −
A1 =   × 1000 =  60×60 900×60
 × 1000 = 597 mBq
Ef f 0.359
   
Cc Bc 291 37
Ct×60 − Bt×60 60×60 − 900×60
A2 =   × 1000 =   × 1000 = 254 mBq
Ef f 0.315
   
Cc Bc 162 42
Ct×60 − Bt×60 −
A3 =   × 1000 =  60×60 900×60
 × 1000 = 123 mBq
Ef f 0.359
   
Cc Bc 57 42
Ct×60 − Bt×60 −
A4 =   × 1000 =  60×60 900×60
 × 1000 = 42 mBq
Ef f 0.359
   
Cc Bc 45 42
Ct×60 − Bt×60 −
A5 =   × 1000 =  100×60 900×60
 × 1000 = 19 mBq
Ef f 0.359
   
Cc Bc 19 42
Ct×60 − Bt×60 −
A6 =   × 1000 =  100×60 900×60
 × 1000 = 7 mBq
Ef f 0.359
   
Cc Bc 43 37
Ct×60 − Bt×60 −
Af =   × 1000 =  200×60 900×60
 × 1000 = 9 mBq
Ef f 0.315

Table 3.4 shows the comparison with MDL for each stage (MDL values were calculated pre-
viously for both chambers and all counting times):
Table 3.4.: Comparison with MDL for each stage.

Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 f
`Net counted' activity (mBq)Ai 597 254 123 42 19 7 9
MDL (mBq) 7 7 7 7 5 5 4
Comparison Ai > MDL Ai > MDL Ai > MDL Ai > MDL Ai > MDL Ai > MDL Ai > MDL
Therefore, this sample is valid for the AMAD calculation.

3. The activity of the sample is:
7
X
Ai = 597 + 254 + 123 + 42 + 19 + 7 + 9 = 1051 mBq
i−1
4. The dust activity concentration is determined as follows:

A (mBq) 1051mBq
Ac (mBq/m3 ) = 3
= = 1095mBq/m3 = 1.095Bq/m3
V (m ) 0.96m3
In order to determine AMAD the following calculations should be carried out:
1. Determine a cumulative % `less than' for each stage:
Stage 1:  
7
X
 Ai 
 
 i=2 
Cum.% < size =   × 100
 A 
 
Stage 2:  
7
X
 Ai 
 
 i=3 
Cum.% < size =   × 100
 A 
 
Stage 3:  
7
X
 Ai 
 
 i=4 
Cum.% < size =   × 100
 A 
 
Stage 4:  
7
X
 Ai 
 
 i=5 
Cum.% < size =   × 100
 A 
 
Stage 5:  
X7
 Ai 
 
 i=6 
Cum.% < size =   × 100
 A 
 
Stage 6:
Af
Cum.% < size = × 100
A
Stage F:
Cum.% < size = 0
2. Since all median values are known, calculate the natural logarithm of M for each stage:
Stage 1: ln(M1) = ln32.6 = 3.484
Stage 2: ln(M2) = ln17.75 = 2.876
Stage 3: ln(M3) = ln12.04 = 2.488
Stage 4: ln(M4) = ln7.67 = 2.037
Stage 5: ln(M5) = ln4.58 = 1.522
Stage 6: ln(M6) = ln2.33 = 0.846
Stage F: ln(Mf) = ln0.39 = − 0.942
3. Calculate values Ai× ln(Mi) for each stage and summarise them:
7
X
Ai × ln (M i)
i=1
4. Then the AMAD value could be calculated as follows:

 !
X7
 Ai × ln(M i) 
 
 i=1
AM AD = exp 

A

 
 
5. Geometric standard deviation (GSD) for the AMAD value should also be calculated:
v ( )
u 7
u X 2

Mi

u
u Ai × ln AM AD


t i=1 
GSD = exp  
 A 

 

3.1.2.3. Calculation example AMAD and GSD
Data The following activities were calculated for each stage:

A1 = 597 mBq
A2 = 254 mBq
A3 = 123 mBq
A4 = 42 mBq
A5 = 19 mBq
A6 = 7 mBq
Af = 9 mBq
Therefore the total activity of the sample equals 1052 mBq.
Solution
1. Determine a cumulative % less than for each stage:
Stage 1:

(A2 + A3 + A4 + A5 + A6 + Af ) 454
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 43.16%
A 1052
Stage 2:

(A3 + A4 + A5 + A6 + Af ) 200
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 19.01%
A 1052
Stage 3:

(A4 + A5 + A6 + Af ) 77
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 7.32%
A 1052
Stage 4:

(A5 + A6 + Af ) 35
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 3.33%
A 1052
Stage 5:
(A6 + Af ) 16
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 1.52%
A 1052
Stage 6:
Af 9
Cum.% < size = × 100 = × 100 = 0.86%
A 1052
Stage F:
Cum.% < size = 0.00%
2. Natural logarithms for median values were calculated previously:

Stage 1: ln(M1) = ln32.6 = 3.484
Stage 2: ln(M2) = ln17.75 = 2.876
Stage 3: ln(M3) = ln12.04 = 2.488
Stage 4: ln(M4) = ln7.67 = 2.037
Stage 5: ln(M5) = ln4.58 = 1.522
Stage 6: ln(M6) = ln2.33 = 0.846
Stage F: ln(Mf) = ln0.39 = −0.942
3. Calculate values Ai × ln(Mi) for each stage and summarise them:
Stage 1: A1 × ln(M1) = 597 × 3.484 = 2079.948
Stage 2: A2 × ln(M2) = 254 × 2.876 = 730.504
Stage 3: A3 × ln(M3) = 123× 2.488 = 306.024
Stage 4: A4 × ln(M4) = 42 × 2.037 = 85.554
Stage 5: A5 × ln(M5) = 19 × 1.522 = 28.918
Stage 6: A6 × ln(M6) = 7 × 0.846 = 5.922
Stage F: Af × ln(Mf) = 9 × (−0.942) = −8.478
= Ai×ln (M i) = 2079.948 + 703.504 + 306.024 + 85.554 + 28.918 + 5.922 − 8.478 = 3228.392
4. Calculate the AMAD value:

 !
7
X
 Ai × ln(M i) 
 
i=1
AM AD = exp 
 
A

 
 

3228.392
= exp = 21.5
1052
5. Calculate the standard deviation for the AMAD value:

Calculate values for:
7 2
X Mi
Ai × ln
AM AD
i=1
and then summarise them:
Stage 1:
2 2
M1 32.6
A1 × ln = 597 × ln = 597 × 0.173 = 103.281
AM AD 21.5
Stage 2:
2 2
M2 17.75
A2 × ln = 254 × ln = 254 × 0.037 = 9.398
AM AD 21.5

Stage 3:
2 2
M3 12.04
A3 × ln = 123 × ln = 123 × 0.336 = 41.328
AM AD 21.5
Stage 4:
2 2
M4 7.67
A4 × ln = 42 × ln = 42 × 1.062 = 44.604
AM AD 21.5
Stage 5:
2 2
M5 4.58
A5 × ln = 19 × ln = 19 × 2.391 = 45.429
AM AD 21.5
Stage 6:
2 2
M6 2.33
A6 × ln = 7 × ln = 7 × 4.938 = 34.566
AM AD 21.5
Stage F:
2 2
Mf 0.39
Af × ln = 9 × ln = 9 × 16.077 = 144.693
AM AD 21.5
Sum for all stages :
7 2
X Mi
Ai × ln
AM AD
i=1
= 103.281 + 9.398 + 41.328 + 44.604 + 45.429 + 34.566 + 144.693 = 423.299
Then the standard deviation will be:
v ( )
u 7
u X 2
Mi
u
u Ai × ln AM AD


t i=1 
GSD = exp  

 A 

 
r ! r !
423.299 423.299
= exp = exp = 1.9
A 1052
Therefore the Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD) is 21.5±1.9
3.2. Excel spreadsheet for data processing

An Excel spreadsheet has been developed in order to the simplify calculations and minimise errors.
Data should be entered into the appropriate elds to calculate the values. The program user interface
and formulae are shown in Figures B.2 on page 26, B.3 on page 27, B.4 on page 28, and B.5 on page 29.
The sample Excel Spreadsheet is embedded in the electronic version of this document and may be
run from here or saved onto your computer. This spreadsheet is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it. The software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Click here if you accept these conditions →
4. DMP AMAD approval policy

4.1. Evaluation of impactor program results by the Regulator
Data generated from the impactor program must be submitted to DMP for approval. The data is
compared with data generated by the personal air sampling (PAS) data in the Boswell Database
to gain an indication of whether the impactor data is representative of the dust being encountered
by workers. Often the dust levels collected by impactors in a plant measure higher concentrations
than what is reported in Boswell. It is well known that impactors sample more dust that personal
samplers. This is more evident in the gravimetric analysis data where the impactor data indicates
that workers would be exposed to dust close to or above the recommended limit for nuisance dust,
10mg/m3 . This higher loading of dust would aect the detection of alpha particles in the evaluation
of radiometric impactor data. Better results can be achieved by specically instructing employees
on the method of wearing an impactor and how to avoid coarse particles (mineral spillage entering
the sampler. Where care is taken by employees wearing an impactor, mass concentrations of dust
measured with a personal impactor can be compatible with the levels obtained by the PAS program.
For the impactor data to be used as a means for determining the AMAD of the dust for converting
the results of the dust for converting the results of the PAS to an internal dose, the two sampling
methods should be representative of the same dust distributions. It is also important to be aware
that impactors are not approved by the Australian Standard [4].
However, the policy is that when it is apparent that the dust in a work area has an AMAD in excess
of 10 µm, a default particle size AMAD value of 10 µm is approved for use in the assessment of the
committed eective dose for a period of 12 months. Otherwise, the default AMAD is set at 5 µm as
recommended by ICRP 66 [5].

A. Appendix with a typical procedure for

setting up a seven-stage impactor
1. All parts for the impactor assembly should be present seven stages, the impactor unit, the
metal lter holder, inlet cowl and two screws.
2. All internal surfaces of the impactor and impactor stages should be free of dirt:
a) Each stage and impactor should be thoroughly wiped with detergent or alcohol, then
brushed, wiped clean and completely dried;
b) The stages should be held onto a light to make sure that all slots are free of dirt and dust.
3. Plastic substrates should be put in the template and sprayed with silicone grease several hours
before setting up to allow solvent to evaporate completely.
4. The lter used for the last stage should be placed in a clean container and left with lid slightly
ajar overnight to come to equilibrium with the atmosphere.
5. The metal lter holder should be placed onto the bottom of the impactor unit.
6. The lter must be weighed to an accuracy of ±0.01mg and placed on the top of the metal lter
holder. The bottom impactor stage (typically `F') should be placed on the top of this.
7. The plastic substrate, previously sprayed with silicon grease, should be weighed to an accuracy
of ±0.01mg and placed on the bottom stage (`F') so the holes match up. Then the stage No.6
should be placed on the top of this.
8. This process should continue for each stage, until the stage No.1, where, instead of the substrate,
the inlet cowl is placed on the top.
9. The impactor should be tightened with two screws and assembled with the dust pump. The
impactor is then worn in the same manner as ordinary dust sampling heads.
10. After the sampling impactor must be disassembled, each stage should be weighed to an accuracy
of ±0.01mg and placed in the plastic petri dish for the radiometric analysis.
11. The following data should be recorded: number of the sample, date and time of sampling,
wearer's name and occupation, and weight of each stage before and after sampling.
12. Each stage should be analysed in the same manner as òrdinary' dust samples for alpha activity
concentrations. Usually each stage is counted for 100 minutes. Counting times may increase
to 300 minutes with decrease in dust concentrations.
B. Appendix with Excel spreadsheet views
Figure B.1.: The user interface of the Excel spreadsheet.

Figure B.2.: Spreadsheet calculations for Stage: 1 & 2.

Figure B.5.: Spreadsheet calculations for Stage: F & Sum of all stages .

Bibliography
[3] Series 290 Marple Personal Cascade Impactors Instruction Manual P/N 10006500 Thermo Elec-
tron Corporation Environmental Instruments 27 Forge Parkway Franklin Massachusetts 02038,
1 Dec 2003.
www.thermo.com
[4] AS 3640: 2004. Workplace atmospheres Method for sampling and gravimetric determination
of inhalable dust, 2004.
[5] ICRP Publication 66: Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection Annals of the
ICRP Volume 24/1-3A International Commission on Radiological Protection, January 1995.
Index
aerodynamic diameter, 1, 3 monitoring program, 6
aerosols, 6
alpha counter, 7 natural logarithm, 10, 21
alpha particles, 7
particle bounce, 6
alpha self-absorption, 7
AMAD, 1, 3, 6, 18, 19, 21 Radiation Monitoring Report, 6
respiratory system, 3
biological eects, 3
sampling time, 8
collection media, 7
silicone grease, 6, 24
collection stages, 7
solvent/grease coating, 6
cumulative percent, 9, 11, 18, 20
standard deviation, 13, 22
default size, 6
Total Dust Concentration, 8
deector plate, 6
total weight, 11
deposition, 3
total weight of each stage, 8
dose conversion factor, 6
total weight of the sample, 8
dust activity concentration, 18
TWS, 11
EAD, 1
Vaseline, 6
electron microscope, 3
Equivalent Aerodynamic Diameter, 1 wood dust, 6
ow rate, 8, 17 XRF, 7
gamma spectroscopy, 7
glass bre lter papers, 7
gross alpha counting, 7
GSD, 19
impaction stages, 6
impaction surface, 6
impactor assembly, 24
inertial separation device, 3
laser aerosol spectrometer, 3

light scattering, 3
liquid scintillation, 7
lungs, 3
Marple cascade impactor, 3

mBq, 16
MDL, 14, 16
median, 10, 12, 19, 21
MMAD, 1, 9, 10, 12
31
NORM4.1
Controlling NORM Dust control strategies

Reference
Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2010. Managing naturally occurring radioactive material
(NORM) in mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM4.1 Controlling NORM Dust
control strategies: Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 37pp.

Guideline NORM4.1 Controlling NORM Dust control strategies
Contents
List of Figures v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. General principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.1. Mineral exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.2. Surface mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.3. Underground mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.4. Processing (uranium minerals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.5. Processing (thorium minerals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Overview of engineering controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2. Local exhaust ventilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.3. Enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.4. Dilution and rapid removal (general mechanical ventilation) . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.5. Isolation and process modication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Secondary control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.1. Personal protective equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2. Procedural changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.3. Housekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.4. Training and supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.5. Job rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Engineering guidelines for minimising dust emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.1. New plants and modications to existing plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.2. Implementation of control strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.3. General suggestions for dust control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.4. Specic suggestions for engineering design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.4.1. Mineral handling and conveyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.4.2. Electrostatic and magnetic separating equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.4.3. Screening equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.4.4. Air tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.4.5. Sample cutters and containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.5. Pre-treatment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Appendix showing design illustrations 15
B. Appendix showing photographs 22
C. Appendix showing respiratory protection 29

C.1. Respiratory protection program (RPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

C.1.1. Site application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C.1.2. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C.1.3. Fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C.1.4. Maintenance and storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C.1.5. Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C.1.6. Auditing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.1.7. Records management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.2. Protection factors (PF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.2.1. Administrative requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.2.2. Determination of personal protection factor (PPF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Bibliography 35
Index 36
List of Figures
2.1. Schematic arrangement for a vented hood over air table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2. Schematic arrangement for ventilation of feeds to bins and hoppers. . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Schematic arrangement of centralised vacuuming system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Schematic arrangement of dust collection chutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5. Schematic arrangement for venting feed boxes into main bins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6. Schematic arrangement for a typical machine enclosure/spillage chute arrangement. . 13
2.7. Schematic arrangement for a typical machine enclosure/spillage chute arrangement. . 14
A.1. Schematic arrangement for ventilation in bag lling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A.2. Schematic arrangement for ventilation in barrel lling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.3. Schematic arrangement for ventilation in bins and hoppers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.4. Schematic arrangement for ventilation in a bucket elevator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. Schematic arrangement for ventilation with conveyor belts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.6. Schematic arrangement of dust collection chutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B.1. Interior of a plant with no dust control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

B.2. Interior of a plant with dust control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.3. Enclosed conveyor belt system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.4. Enclosed drop-points on conveyor systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.5. Enclosure around a HTR Separator, showing inspection door . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.6. Ventilated enclosures around an airtable and a kason screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.7. Feed distribution arrangement to HTRs note enclosed feed hoppers, spillage collec-
tion hoppers and inspection doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B.8. Test rig for determining optimum ventilation parameters enclosed, ventilated drop
box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B.9. Enclosures around bucket elevator feed points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B.10.Open mesh cable trays minimises dust accumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B.11.Extraction ventilation connection to bucket elevator heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B.12.Insulation around gravity discharge pipes assists in minimising thermal convections 27
B.13.Vacuum cleaning machine prior to maintenance work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on a variety of strategies that may assist in minimisation of radiation exposure
arising from dust inhalation.
1.2. Scope
Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
In most exploration, mining and mineral processing operations, measures are taken for dust control
to protect workers against hazards associated with non-radioactive dust. These measures usually
limit the airborne concentrations of radioactive dust suciently to meet the radiation protection
requirements.
To ensure that methods for controlling dust at mining and processing facilities are in place and
suciently adequate, programs for the sampling and control of dust should be formalised. The
following measures are suggested:
1. The generation of dust in operations should be minimised by the use of appropriate mining
techniques such as proper blasting patterns and timing, the use of water and other means of
suppressing dust and the use of appropriate equipment.
2. Where dust is generated, it should be suppressed at the source. Where necessary and practi-
cable, the source should be enclosed under negative air pressure. Air may have to be ltered
before being discharged to the environment.
3. Dust that has not been suppressed at the source may be diluted to acceptable levels by means
of frequent changes of air in the working area. Again, the exhaust air may have to be ltered
before being discharged to the environment.
4. Care should be taken to avoid the re-suspension of dust as a result of high air velocities.
5. Where methods of dust control do not achieve acceptable air quality in working areas or where
such controls are not practicable, appropriate respiratory protection should be provided to
employees.
The main emphasis of this guideline is on dust control issues in the mineral sands industry; but
the main principles of dust control suggested in this document can be applied in any other industry
where dust containing naturally occurring radionuclides may present an occupational hazard.
2.2. General principles
Typically, the following measures are put in place to minimise exposure of employees to airborne
dust:
2.2.1. Mineral exploration

Measures include:
`wet' drilling methods;
dust collection systems utilised wherever possible;
the re-suspension of dust, particularly during the maintenance of drilling rigs, is minimised by
cleaning the equipment prior to any repairs/maintenance being undertaken;
cutting of drilling core is carried out by `wet' methods wherever possible; and
the use of a dust `boot'/`skirt' to seals the area around the drill hole to prevent the escape of
dust into the working environment.
2.2.2. Surface mining

Generally, NORMbearing dust at mine sites does not represent signicant occupational radiation
exposure hazard. Typically, the concentrations of radionuclides in ores and mineral concentrates are
relatively low, and only on rare occasions the areas where the ore and/or concentrate is stored are
classied as `controlled'. In some branches of industry such as mining of heavy mineral sands, the
processed concentrates typically contain relatively high levels of moisture and consist predominantly
of mineral grains that are not susceptible to being wind-swept for long distances.
Other measures that need to be considered include:
the amount and surface of òpen' areas at a mine site should be minimised;
only those areas that are absolutely necessary to be cleared of vegetation and topsoil are cleared,
and these, wherever possible, cleared just prior to the required period of use;
after the completion of mining, areas are rehabilitated and re-vegetated as soon as possible;
the cabins of mining machinery should be enclosed;
the surface of the stockpiles of ore, concentrate and waste materials should be either stabilised
by using appropriate surface suppression agents or kept wet by using a specically designed
sprinkler system and, where required, installation of shade cloth fencing;
the levels of dust that could be generated from the roads on a mine site can be minimised
by applying appropriate vehicle speed limits, regular grading and maintenance of these roads
(including watering); and
dust control is essential at the initial stages of ore processing such as crushing, particularly in
cases where the ore contains signicant amount of naturally occurring radionuclides (such as
at uranium mining sites) and dust collection/extraction may need to be implemented.
2.2.3. Underground mining

In cases where the dust in underground workings needs to be controlled, particularly in situations
where naturally occurring radioactive material (such as uranium) is mined an appropriate advice is
required from a qualied ventilation engineer and a radiation protection specialist (as potential levels
of radon/thoron may need to be controlled simultaneously). The following dust control measures
may be considered:
1. Dilution ventilation (reduces concentrations of airborne dust).
2. Displacement ventilation (connes the dust source and keeps it away from workers by putting
the dust away from them).
3. Water sprays / wetting using water or foam using dierent wetting agents depending on the
dust particle size and the density of the mined ore.
4. Dust collection/extraction systems.
5. Enclosing the cabins of mining equipment.
6. Special dust control measures would be required for other areas such as continuous miners,
longwall mining, roof bolters.

It should be borne in mind that the primary objection is the identication of all possible sources
of the generation of dust in a particular underground mine and reducing the amount of dust at the
source in the processes of ore extraction, drilling, conveying and handling, blasting and crushing
(where applicable).
2.2.4. Processing (uranium minerals)

As the processing of uranium is typically carried out using solvent extraction there is a little potential
for dust generation except in the process of ore crushing (addressed above) and the drying and packing
of the nal product.
The processing equipment used for the drying and packing of uranium product typically operates
under negative pressure to restrict the release of dust into the working environment. The levels
of the generated dust are not expected to be signicant under the normal operational conditions;
however it is usual for employees in these areas to wear respiratory protection equipment (please see
Appendix C) in cases of unforeseen spillages of the product and/or during the process of cleaning
up the dust collected on the surface of the equipment.
2.2.5. Processing (thorium minerals)

Dust control in processing of ores and concentrates containing thorium is very important as the
inhalation of dust contain thorium results in an internal dose which is typically 100% higher in com-
parison with the inhalation of uranium-bearing dust with the same gross alpha activity concentration
(please refer to the guideline NORM5. Dose assessment for more information).
The most common thorium-bearing dusts are generated in the processing and separation of heavy
mineral sands.
The most signicant radioactive mineral, monazite, is often the last mineral to be separated in the
typical process. Monazite therefore exists as a contaminant in all the processing sections, becoming
progressively concentrated as each of the other valuable heavy minerals are removed.
Monazite is softer and ner than the other `heavy' minerals, and this typically results in the concen-
tration of this mineral in airborne dust being up to 30 times higher than in the bulk concentrate that
is being processed. This is particularly evident in the nal stages of the separation process.
Many design features of the dry separation building, as well as the nature of process equipment and
techniques, exacerbate the generation of dust when:
1. Material is continually moving and because some equipment is not enclosed, it is readily sus-
pended.
2. The process involves the extensive piped or conveyor transport of dry sand between oors and
separation equipment.
3. One force involved in the separation process is gravity and so material is again likely to become
suspended through air displacement.
4. The existence of numerous exposed beams, pipes, cable trays and other surfaces provide settling
points for airborne dust.
5. Most ecient separation requires hot and dry conditions therefore ne particles can be
carried by local thermal air currents.
6. Abrasion and attrition generate small particles which are more likely to become suspended.
7. Separation techniques such as vibrating screens and air agitation (e.g. air tables) are specic
generators of dust.
8. The buildings are multi-storey with open grid-mesh ooring which hinders eective spillage
identication and control.
9. Separation equipment is often designed `to spill' mineral in the case of overload (for reasons of
metallurgical convenience).
In addition to the physical concentration process and plant design, operation of the plant is reliant on
frequent visual inspections and manual adjustments of equipment settings (i.e. close operator-plant
contact is required). There are also a number of operating practices that aggravate dust generation
such as:
the use of compressed air and dry sweeping methods for housekeeping tasks;
manual cleaning (pulling) of machine screens and feed slips;
paddling air table decks to clean cloth substrates; and
overlling of surge bins.
The primary emphasis in this guideline is on engineering controls for dose reduction. However, be-
cause of the nature and complexity of dust control in mineral processing plants, other exposure miti-
gation strategies are also suggested. These other control strategies are briey described in Section 2.4
on page 7 and include metallurgical controls and administrative controls such as work procedures,
job rotation and the use of personal protective equipment.
2.3. Overview of engineering controls
The reliance should primarily be placed on measures to make plant and process intrinsically safe,
and that managerial procedures or personal protection should be regarded as secondary and supple-
mentary measures.
Some general engineering principles of atmospheric dust control are:
suppression (or prevention) at the source;
enclosure or containment;
provision of local exhaust;
dilution and rapid removal; and
isolation and process modication.
2.3.1. Suppression
Prevention of dust formation is usually carried out by wetting (application of ne water mist spray)
or electrostatic attraction, in the mineral sands industry. The process reliance on magnetic, elec-
trostatic and gravitational separation of dry mineral renders this control option impractical with
conventional separation technology. However, dust suppression should be practical in other indus-
tries and, overall,around processing buildings and product and tailing stockpile areas as appropriate.
Alternative mineral sands separation technology using wet magnets results in a signicant decrease
of dust concentration in a particular operation.
2.3.2. Local exhaust ventilation

Local exhaust ventilation involves controlling dust at the source by collecting and removing all air-
borne material. Dust extraction hoods on all dust generating equipment, apart from presenting a

complex engineering problem, involve signicant capital outlay. However, where other methods are
not practicable or fully eective, this may be the only option available. Priority areas would be poten-
tially high dust generating sources such as screens, mineral discharge and feed points, conveyors and
elevator discharge points and, in mineral sands industry air tables. The air tables and large screen
decks would require canopy type hoods, with an extraction system capable of providing sucient
capture velocity to remove dust particles. Appendix B on page 22 contains photographs showing a
number of these dust control systems.
The local exhaust ventilation systems require high standards of design, installation, operation and
maintenance to ensure that their performance remains optimal. It is also important when designing
dust control equipment to include in the design evaluation the ultimate fate of any dust collected or
diverted from the workplace environment and any additional procedures involved. Attention must
be given to the nal ltration and discharge of the ventilation air and to procedures for disposing of
used lters and collected dust.
2.3.3. Enclosure
In the short term, satisfactory results may be obtained by simply enclosing machines. However, if
dust is generated and not removed, it will ultimately be released into the workplace atmosphere. The
use of enclosures to contain the dust may limit the number of points requiring exhaust ventilation.
The placement of a covering on the grid-mesh oors around separation equipment will reduce dust
concentrations by eectively limiting dust migration to lower oors. However, when other occupa-
tional hygiene issues are considered (such as protecting employees from noise and heat stress), this
measure may be impractical.
2.3.4. Dilution and rapid removal (general mechanical ventilation)

Dilution ventilation involves the provision of general exhaust or mechanical ventilation to remove
dust-laden air from the working environment. It is also important in underground workplaces where,
in addition to dust, relatively high radon/thoron concentrations are expected or measured. The clean
air dilutes the dusty air in the workplace, lowering the overall dust concentration.
With dilution ventilation, it is important not to use such a high velocity that the situation at an
occupied workplace worsens because dustier air is being delivered to it.
The introduction of dilution ventilation in a plant processing dry mineral, with the resultant increased
ventilation rate, may also liberate ner particles from surface deposits into the air. This would be
particularly relevant if neglect of housekeeping had resulted in signicant build-up of dust and ne
mineral grains inside the plant. In addition, a higher air velocity, particularly if it is upward, may
keep larger particles in the air for longer. Therefore, dilution ventilation must be introduced with
care if it is to be a viable control option.
In the control of airborne dust, attention should be focused, in the rst instance, on proposals that
utilise containment and extraction principles and improved housekeeping standards. General and
specic recommendations on these particular engineering controls are suggested in Sections 2.5.4 on
page 11 and 2.5.5 on page 14.
2.3.5. Isolation and process modication

Isolation of the hazardous process stream may be achieved by suitable metallurgical or process stream
modications.
The provision of rooms or cubicles in controlled areas with ltered air supplies in both surface
and underground workplaces is a form of personal protection. Self-closing doors should be tted,
preferably in a simple airlock with two doors. Air-conditioned cabs on mining, loading and transport
machinery might also be considered in certain circumstances. Stores where products are held prior
to dispatch should be well ventilated to prevent the accumulation of radon and thoron daughters,
although good natural ventilation is likely to be sucient.
2.4. Secondary control methods
2.4.1. Personal protective equipment

In certain circumstances, personal protection of the individual employee is necessary. However, perso-
nal protection does not eliminate or rectify the conditions causing the hazard, and devices can become
ineective without the knowledge of the wearer. The use of personal protective equipment such as
respirators, is considered acceptable while engineering controls are being developed and implemented,
or where such controls are not practicable. In general however, personal protective devices should
be regarded as being supplementary to process/procedural modications and engineering control
measures, and not to be used in preference of such modications and measures. To be eective, the
use of personal protection must be supported by a comprehensive personal protection program that
details use, tting, cleaning and maintenance. Information concerning the essential elements of a site
respiratory protection program can be found in the Appendix C on page 29.
2.4.2. Procedural changes

Sometimes a less hazardous method of performing a task can be substituted for the original method
(e.g. vacuuming instead of dry sweeping).
The most cost-eective way of minimising exposure is for workers to withdraw from the source of
dust for as long as the process allows. For example, occupancy of the section of the plant where
the radioactivity concentration in mineral dust is the highest should be limited only to that which is
absolutely necessary for the operating and maintenance of the equipment.
2.4.3. Housekeeping
Spillage may contribute signicantly to dust re-suspension. When examining solutions to a dust
problem, due attention must be paid to housekeeping and operating practices that can reduce spillage.
A positive attitude towards cleanliness at places of work in the plant should be encouraged, as the
re-suspension of dust deposited on surfaces can exacerbate the problem of airborne contamination.
Regular campaigns to minimise spillage, accumulation and disturbance of dust should be conduc-
ted; and routine actions to recover and return spilt material to the process should be devised and
implemented. In many cases, a continuous plant clean-up program will be very useful.
An eective and integrated plant vacuum cleaning system would greatly facilitate the implementation
of a housekeeping program.
2.4.4. Training and supervision

All employees working in controlled areas, as designated by the level of airborne radioactivity, must
be informed of the hazards from exposure to radioactive dust and the precautions necessary to prevent
damage to their health. They should be made aware of the need to carry out their work so that as

little airborne dust as possible is produced, and of the importance of the proper use of all safeguards
against radiation exposure. Adequate training, both in the proper execution of the task and in the
use of all associated engineering controls, as well as of any personal protective equipment, is essential.
Competent supervision is also essential in the overall strategy to reduce or eliminate employee expo-
sure to radioactive dust. Supervisors need to ensure that in addition to the provision and maintenance
of all equipment necessary for the task, such equipment is used and work procedures are carried out
in a safe and ecient manner.
Supervisors must have a good knowledge of the operation and must also be able to recognise potential
radioactive dust exposure pathways or the implications of unusual occurrences.
2.4.5. Job rotation

Where no practical means of control is available in process areas with high levels of airborne conta-
mination, job rotation may be considered in order to reduce the exposure of individual workers. Job
rotation should only be used in exceptional circumstances and should not be used as a substitute for
the development and use of appropriate radiation control methods.
2.5. Engineering guidelines for minimising dust emissions
The guidance in this part is mostly relevant to the mineral sands industry handling and proces-
sing thorium-bearing minerals, where the potential for the internal radiation exposure due to the
inhalation of the airborne dust is the highest. However, most of these suggestions could also be
implemented in any other industry where NORM is handled and processed in the dry form and there
is a relatively signicant potential for the generation of dust.
2.5.1. New plants and modications to existing plants

Isolation of the monazite and ilmenite separation circuits should be considered for new plant design;
the monazite circuit being a primary radiation source and ilmenite circuit being a primary dust
source throughout the dry plants where isolation is not provided.
Early separation and isolation of the monazite stream should be considered by the application of
appropriate metallurgical design in all new plants and in any major modications to existing plants. If
most of monazite could be removed in the rst separation stage, airborne radioactivity concentrations
in the other stages would be signicantly reduced.
Additional illustration on the eectiveness of the dust control inside the mineral sands dry separation
plant:
In Appendix B, Figure B.1 on page 22 shows the interior of a plant with no dust control while Figure
B.2 shows a plant with dust control. The plant with dust control has enclosures and dust extraction
systems.
2.5.2. Implementation of control strategies

If radioactive dust levels are relatively high over a signicant period of time (i.e. six months or more),
then the formulation of appropriate control strategies or action plans, within a time-frame that is
acceptable to the appropriate authority is required.
The control strategy selection process should not only look at a single method in isolation, but at
a combination of methods to achieve ecient workplace control. Technical feasibility and practi-
cal considerations such as strategy acceptance by employees, regulatory considerations, operational
practicality will limit the number of available strategies.
The implementation of control strategies should be performed in such a manner so that the eecti-
veness of successive stages can be readily evaluated and subsequent priorities reassessed.
It is recommended that adopted measures form a part of site's radiation management plan and, as
such, submitted to the appropriate authority for its information and approval, where required. These
documents would typically contain:
1. The location and nature of the particular measures it is proposed to be implemented in the
period.
2. The relationship of the particular program to the overall radiation exposure reduction strategy
for the particular workplace, and the priorities in implementation that apply to that strategy.
2.5.3. General suggestions for dust control

The proposed suggestions are designed to reduce the uncontrolled passage of airborne dust between
oors (where applicable), to facilitate disposal and collection of dust and to provide discrete areas
for dust clean up.
As a rst step in the engineering design of any modication, a check on the structural capacity of
the building frame either as existing or as necessarily strengthened to accept added loads, will be
required.
The following general suggestions are proposed where practical:
1. Open grid-mesh oors should be altered to solid steel, continuous steel plate ooring, sealed
against dust losses. These should be installed progressively outwards from equipment and
principal access routes. This suggestion must be balanced against possible increase in exposure
of employees to noise and heat, and should be only implemented after the advice from a qualied
occupational hygienist.
2. Dust proof chutes, which connect discrete solid oor areas at each level with dust collection
bins at oor level, should be incorporated into plant design. Each system should be vented to
minimise dust emissions caused by batch discharges of dust (see Figure 2.4 on page 12). They
may also be linked to machine enclosures (see Figure 2.5 on page 13, Figure 2.6 on page 13,
Figure 2.1 on the following page and Figure 2.2 on the next page).
3. Integrated vacuuming system should serve strategic points at each section and operating level
to facilitate equipment cleanup and housekeeping (see Figure 2.3 on page 11).
4. Discrete operating sections should be isolated to reduce dust migration by convection currents.
5. Thermal convection currents should be reduced by enclosing and insulating equipment that
handles hot mineral (e.g. feed elevators, driers). This should allow better ventilation without
causing increased dust circulation.
6. Operational areas should be designed such that they can be seen by operators to respond to
regular cleaning and careful product control and therefore encourage a positive response to
routine hygiene and process control procedures.

Figure 2.1.: Schematic arrangement for a vented hood over air table.
VENT
REMOVABLE HOOD
FEED PIPE
RUBBER FLAP
CLEAN AIR SUPPLY AIR TABLE
OUTLETS
Figure 2.2.: Schematic arrangement for ventilation of feeds to bins and hoppers.
FEED PIPE
TO DUST COLLECTOR
OR VENT
SLIDE PLATE
Figure 2.3.: Schematic arrangement of centralised vacuuming system.
SNAP ON CONNECTION
FOR VACUUMING HOSES
(TYPICAL)
NOTES: Design shall allow for simultaneous

operation of one point per floor.
Horizontal runs to be avoided or minimised.
Minimum air speed to be 30m/s.
BAG COLLECTOR
PIPING TO SLOPE
DOWN AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE
CYCLONE
ROOTS BLOWER
REMOVABLE CONTAINERS
2.5.4. Specic suggestions for engineering design

For success in implementation, the following suggestions must be preceded by a high level of com-
petence, professional design, manufacture and installation. Illustrations of hood design for specic
operations are shown in Figure A.1 on page 16 and Figure A.2 on page 17.
2.5.4.1. Mineral handling and conveyance
Where:
1. Mineral is discharged into feed boxes or onto conveyors, screens or other machinery, the transfer
point should be enclosed and vented. Free falls of materials should be eliminated in detail
design. Examples are given in Figure A.4 on page 19, Figure A.5 on page 20, and Figure A.6
on page 21.
2. Where possible, multiple feed points onto conveyors should be concentrated into a single, vented
enclosure. Where process requirements demand the spread of the feed points along the conveyor,
this entire section of the conveyor should be enclosed and vented.
3. Conveyor belts should be of generous width to allow running at low speeds which are less likely
to generate airborne dust. Flat belts should be avoided and likely dust spillage points should
be enclosed and vented. Where possible, conveyors should be fully enclosed and vented. An
example is given in Figure 2.7 on page 14.
2.5.4.2. Electrostatic and magnetic separating equipment
The space and operational considerations of existing plants are recognised as substantial constraints
on the practical implementation of recommendations for equipment enclosure. Nevertheless, enclosure
of part or the whole of existing machines should be examined for implementation as follows:

Figure 2.4.: Schematic arrangement of dust collection chutes.
VENT
MACHINE
ENCLOSURE
SPILLAGE
CHUTE
PLATED FLOORS
SPECIAL PURPOSE
CONTAINERS
1. Visual inspection should be via viewing ports to eliminate the need to open doors.
2. Maintenance doors should be designed such that they are light, simple to open and whenever
possible self-closing and dust tight.
3. The enclosure should be light, dust-proof and easily demountable for major maintenance.
4. The enclosure should be ventilated via an appropriate collection device.
5. The enclosure should be provided with bottom gravity drains connected to the collection or
other convenient points to avoid internal accumulation of spilt material.
6. Where possible a vacuum connection point should be tted to each enclosure.
7. Where operating practice requires the exchange or cleaning of components such as distribution
feed slips or plates, an adequate area (e.g. fume cupboard) should be provided for the cleaning
of such components.
2.5.4.3. Screening equipment
Several types of vibrating screens are used in industry; some of the screens are open and are sources
of dust emissions. Where applicable, replacement of the open screens with fully enclosed units with
connections for dust collection systems should be considered.
2.5.4.4. Air tables
The following is suggested for reducing the specic problems associated with air tables (see Figure 2.7
on page 14):
1. Where possible, clean outside air should be used.
Figure 2.5.: Schematic arrangement for venting feed boxes into main bins.
FEED PIPE
VENT
SLIDE
PLATE
VENT FEED BIN VENT
SEALED FEED
BOX SLIDE PLATE
DESTINATION
EQUIPMENT
Figure 2.6.: Schematic arrangement for a typical machine enclosure/spillage chute arrangement.
ENCLOSURE
VENT FEED PIPES
DUST AND SPILLAGE

PROOF ENCLOSURE
MACHINE
FLOOR RUBBISH
SPILLAGE CHUTE
CHUTE
NOTE: Enclosure size exaggerated for clarity.
CONTAINER

Figure 2.7.: Schematic arrangement for a typical machine enclosure/spillage chute arrangement.
INCLINED FEED TO DUST COLLECTOR
OR VENT
SKIRTS
BURDEN BELOW SKIRTS
2. A light hood with clear (transparent) side panels should be tted over each table.
3. The hood should be tted with self-closing openings.
2.5.4.5. Sample cutters and containers
The whole apparatus could be fully enclosed with provision for the discharge of spillage into the main
ow stream. The sample container should be vented into the enclosure above.
2.5.5. Pre-treatment considerations

Coating of the coarser grains of mineral sands by slimes can provide a substantial source of dust in
the dry plant. The degree to which this occurs is a function of both the geological nature of the
deposit and the type of pre-treatment received during the primary separation process. The additional
dry weight of residual slime expressed as a proportion of the total feed dry weight, which has the
potential to be removed prior to dry processing, should be assessed and the decision on pre-treatment
measures taken based on this determination.
Two types of pretreatment should be considered to reduce the slimes coating:
1. Scrubbing of mineral grains in wet attritioning circuits, with released coatings being removed
in de-sliming circuits.
2. Wet classication (e.g. hydro-sizing) directed towards nes removal.
A. Appendix showing design illustrations

The following illustrations have been reprinted with permission from the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists publication, Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice, 21st Edition, 1992 [6]. The illustrations are intended as guides for design purposes and apply
to usual or typical operations. In most cases they are taken from designs used in actual installations
of successful local exhaust ventilation systems.
A design engineer is referred to this publication for further details. The manual provides information
on the general principles of ventilation, hood design, specic operations, design procedure, testing of
ventilation systems and air cleaning (dust collection) devices.

Figure A.1.: Schematic arrangement for ventilation in bag lling.
Bin
Hood attached to bin
o
45
Principle dust source

500 fpm maximum
Scale support
Bag
Q = 400 - 500 cfm - non-toxic dust

1000 - 1500 cfm - toxic dust
Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm

he = 0 . 2 5 V Pd
Note: Care must be taken such that too much air
is not used, as valuable product will be
pulled into the exhaust system.
Reference : 10.15.2
AMERICAN CONFERENCE
BAG FILLING
OF GOVERNMENTAL
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS
DATE 1 91 FIGURE VS 15 02
From ACGIH® , Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 21st Edition. Copyright
1992. Reprinted with permission. [6]
Figure A.2.: Schematic arrangement for ventilation in barrel lling.
Close clearance
o
45
1" slot
4" min.
2 2
Q = 100 cfm/ ft barrel top (minimum) Q = 150 cfm/ ft of open face area
Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm
he = 1 . 7 8 V Ps + 0 . 2 5 V P d h e = 0.25 VP (45 o taper)
d
o
45
Feed spout
4" min. dia. Exhaust duct
o
45
Flex duct
Q = 50 cfm x drum diam. ( ft ) Q = 300 400 cfm

Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm
h e = 0.25 VP h e = 0.25 VP
d d
Note 1: Air displaced by material feed rate may require higher exhaust flow rates.
Note 2: Excessive air flow can cause loss of product.
Reference : 10.15.1
AMERICAN CONFERENCE
BARREL FILLING
OF GOVERNMENTAL

Figure A.3.: Schematic arrangement for ventilation in bins and hoppers.
Q
Enclosed loading point
o
Q
45
Closed top
Belt Belt
Bin
or
Locate remote from

loading point

2
Q = 200 cfm / ft of all open area
h e = 0 . 2 5 V Pd
MECHANICAL LOADING
Belt speed Flow rate

Less than 200 fpm ---- 350 cfm/ft of belt width.
Not less than 150 cfm/ft 2 of opening.
Over 200 fpm ---- 500 cfm/ft of belt width.

2
Not less than 200 cfm/ft of opening.
Booth to accomadate barrel, bag, etc.
Booth to cover as much

of hopper as possible
o
45
Grate bars Q
Hopper Hopper

2
Q = 150 cfm / ft face
h e = 0 . 2 5 V Pd
MANUAL LOADING
AMERICAN CONFERENCE
BIN & HOPPER VENTILATION
OF GOVERNMENTAL
Figure A.4.: Schematic arrangement for ventilation in a bucket elevator.
Alternate exhaust point
Preferred exhaust
point
Additional ventilation for

hopper, bin, or screen
o o
see VS- 50 -10 and 45 60
VS-99-01
Take - off detail
Tight casing
For casing only

2
Q = 100 cfm / ft casing cross section Additional ventilation
Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm for conveyor
h e = 1 . 0 V Pd o r c a l c u l a t e f r o m discharge. See below.
individual losses
Belt
o
45
Take - off at top for hot materials,

at top and bottom if elevator is over o o
45 60
30 ft high, otherwise optional.
CONVEYOR BELT DISCHARGE VENTILATION
BELT SPEED FLOW RATE
2
Less than 200 fpm 350 cfm / ft of belt width. Not less than 150 cfm / ft of opening.
2
Over 200 fpm 500 cfm / ft of belt width. Not less than 200 cfm / ft of opening.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE BUCKET ELEVATOR

OF GOVERNMENTAL VENTILATION

Figure A.5.: Schematic arrangement for ventilation with conveyor belts.
o
45
o
45
24" min.
Elevator
24" min.
exhaust
(See VS - 50 - 01)
Close face to
bottom of belt
1. Conveyor transfer less As close as Tote box

than 3" fall. For greater practical
fall, provide additional
exhaust at lower belt.
2. Conveyor to elevator with
See 3 below.
magnetic separator.
he = 0.25 VPd
he = 0 . 2 5 V P d
DESIGN DATA
Transfer points:
2 x belt width
Enclose to provide 150 - 200 fpm indraft
at all openings. (Underground mining
1 /3
tunnel ventilation will interfere with
belt
width
conveyor exhaust systems.)
o
45
Chute
A 2" clearance for load
on belt
24" min
Rubber skirt
DETAIL OF BELT OPENING
Q = 350 cfm / ft belt width for belt
3. Chute to belt transfer and conveyor speeds under 200 fpm. (minimum)
transfer, greater than 3’ fall. = 500 cfm / ft belt width for belt
Use additional exhaust at A speeds over 200 fpm and for
for dusty material as follows: magnetic separators. (minimum)
Belt width 12" - 36" , Q= 1000 cfm
h = 0.25 VP
d
e h e = 0 . 2 5 V Pd
Conveyor belts:
Note : Dry, very dusty materials may Cover belt between transfer points
require exhaust flow rates 1.5 Exhaust all transfer points
to 2.0 times stated values. Exhaust additional 350 cfm/ft of belt
width at 30’ intervals. Use 45o
tapered connections.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE
CONVEYOR BELT VENTILATION
OF GOVERNMENTAL
Figure A.6.: Schematic arrangement of dust collection chutes
o
45 min. slope
Feed Flexible connection if desired
Top take-off preffered
Complete enclosure
Screen
Oversize
Hopper
FLAT DECK SCREEN
Q = 200 cfm /ft 2 through hood openings, but not less than
50 cfm/ft2 screen area. No increase for multiple decks
h e = 0.50 VP d
Complete
enclosure o
45 min. slope
Screen CYLINDRICAL SCREEN
Q = 100 cfm/ft 2 circular cross section of

screen ; at least 400 cfm/ft of
enclosure opening
Feed Minimum duct velocity = 3500 fpm
h e = 0.50 VP d
Hopper
Oversize
AMERICAN CONFERENCE
SCREENS
OF GOVERNMENTAL

B. Appendix showing photographs
Figure B.1.: Interior of a plant with no dust control
Figure B.2.: Interior of a plant with dust control
Figure B.3.: Enclosed conveyor belt system
Figure B.4.: Enclosed drop-points on conveyor systems

Figure B.5.: Enclosure around a HTR Separator, showing inspection door
Figure B.6.: Ventilated enclosures around an airtable and a kason screen
Figure B.7.: Feed distribution arrangement to HTRs note enclosed feed hoppers, spillage collection
hoppers and inspection doors
Figure B.8.: Test rig for determining optimum ventilation parameters enclosed, ventilated drop box

Figure B.9.: Enclosures around bucket elevator feed points
Figure B.10.: Open mesh cable trays minimises dust accumulation
Figure B.11.: Extraction ventilation connection to bucket elevator heads
Figure B.12.: Insulation around gravity discharge pipes assists in minimising thermal convections

Figure B.13.: Vacuum cleaning machine prior to maintenance work
C. Appendix showing respiratory protection

The information in this appendix outlines the requirements on the development of a formal respiratory
protection program. Providing that all of the essential elements below are followed, it should be
possible for a particular operation to seek approval to use a protection factor in determining a more
realistic estimate of employee exposure to airborne radioactivity.
Compliance with exposure or dose limits via routine use of respiratory protection equipment (RPE)
is not considered acceptable and a requirement for routine use of RPE is a clear indication of the
inadequacy of existing engineering controls. There are, however, some circumstances in which the
use of RPE may be regarded as a valid protection option:
1. During certain cleaning and maintenance operations (e.g. entering closed vessels).
2. During unplanned events or emergencies (e.g. when there is a failure of ventilation or dust
control systems).
3. If airborne concentrations exceed specied action levels as determined by the appropriate au-
thority, particularly in underground workplaces.
Respiratory protection use at exploration, mining and/or processing plants is generally conned to
specic work tasks known to create or aggravate dust generation or to specic locations with elevated
dust concentrations. With appropriate scheduling of work the time spent in mandatory respiratory
protection use situations should be no more than a few hours per work shift.
C.1. Respiratory protection program (RPP)
When implementing a site RPP the following important considerations should always be considered:
1. Respiratory protection does not eliminate or rectify the conditions causing the hazard, and
RPE can become ineective without the knowledge of the wearer.
2. RPE can create a possibility of accidents and of stress by virtue of their interference with an
employee's freedom of motion, communication and vision.
3. The full eectiveness of RPE is strongly dependent upon the active co-operation of the user.
Reliance on RPE for exposure control demands that strict attention be paid to auditing, training and
written procedures to assure the correct selection, use and maintenance of RPE. Written standard
operating procedures should be prepared for the site and these procedures should be readily available
to managers, supervisors and employees. A site RPP should include documentation on the following
key elements:
1. Site application
2. Selection
3. Fitting
4. Maintenance and storage
5. Training
6. Auditing

Specic details relating to these key RPP elements are outlined in the following sections. The
selection, use and maintenance of RPE should always be in accordance with the requirements of
Australian Standard [5]. The specication for the design, performance and testing of RPE is set out
in Australian Standard [5].
C.1.1. Site application

A summary of work tasks and/or locations where employees must wear RPE and under what condi-
tions (normal or emergency) should be prepared for each site. Particular work activities, processes
or environments should be designated as requiring the use of RPE based on measured air contami-
nation levels. In certain situations, where the air contamination level may not be precisely known,
the site Radiation Safety Ocer (RSO) will need to use his/her professional judgement. Manda-
tory respiratory protection use situations must be clearly identied and separated from optional use
situations.
C.1.2. Selection
The selection of respiratory protection requires a thorough knowledge of all factors involved, including
the nature and concentrations of contaminants, the types of duties to be performed by the worker, and
an understanding of the design, scope and performance of the various types of respirators available.
There are four broad categories of respirators:
1. Filtered or puried air respirators (PAR) (e.g. common dust mask).
2. Hose-type supplied air (airline) respirators (SAR).
3. Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
4. Helmettype respirators with ltered air supplied to the breathing zone through the helmet
and between the face shield and the face (e.g. Àirstream' helmet).
The PAR is the most common type of personal RPE used in mining and minerals processing. With the
proper selection of the lter medium, these respirators provide eective protection against commonly
encountered mineral dusts containing NORM. PARs are available in both half-face and full-face
models, the former providing less protection than the latter but being more acceptable to workers
because of greater comfort. A good t between face and respirator is vital in achieving adequate
protection.
Only approved certied RPE (as per [5]) should be used and the selection should be based on the
potential exposure hazards. The types of lters, canisters and cartridges to be used in each mandatory
RPE situation should be well documented. Where practical, individual respirator assignment should
be undertaken. With regard to supply of RPE, it is essential that an operation has an adequate
number of respirators and, where relevant, unexpired cartridges and canisters.
C.1.3. Fitting
Respirators should be selected with regard to the individual worker. Where practicable, respirators
should be assigned to individual workers for their exclusive use. Correct tting of the respirator to
the worker is essential; in exceptional circumstances, special actions may be necessary to ensure that
workers are adequately protected by RPE. For example, a worker with spectacles, a beard, dentures,
or an unusually bony facial structure may not be able to obtain adequate protection from certain
designs of RPE and special arrangements may need to be made. Such workers should be issued with
RPE on a personal basis. Workers with bronchial problems may not be able to wear those respirators
that present a resistance to breathing.
Qualitative t-testing using either saccharine or isoamyl acetate is recommended and such testing
conrms that a good t is obtained between the respirator face-piece and the face. A comprehensive
training program and detailed procedures for performing qualitative t tests are available in Appendix
D of the Australian Standard [5]. Methods for t-testing respirators should form part of the written
standard operating procedures.
Respirator t testing records must be kept until replaced by a more recent record. Records must
include name, an identifying number, model(s) of respirators for which successfully tted, appropriate
remarks, and dates.
Type and extent of training should be indicated for each respirator user. Repeat t-testing should
be conducted at least annually, whenever the type/size of respirator is changed, and whenever there
is a signicant change in any facial characteristics, e.g. dentures, facial hair, etc, that might eect the
respirator t. The worker should be given a record of the respirator size or brand that ts him/her,
unless the respirator is issued personally.
C.1.4. Maintenance and storage

Each employee individually assigned a respirator should maintain it in a clean and sanitary condition.
In some cases, periodically wiping the interior surface with a sanitising tissue or solution may be
sucient. At least monthly (more often where conditions warrant), individually assigned masks
that have been used during this month should be disassembled, inspected, repaired (if necessary),
thoroughly washed and disinfected by a trained individual. Where more than a few masks are
involved, it is advisable to have personnel at a centralised facility perform this function to limit the
training program.
Respirators used by more than one worker should be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after each use.
A suitably equipped station (preferably centralised for a plant or an area) should be provided. The use
of an alcohol-base sanitiser is not recommended as it may cause premature deterioration of respirator
rubber components. If an alcohol-based sanitiser is used, saturating the respirator, i.e. dipping or
spraying, should be avoided. Procedures for cleaning, sanitising, inspecting and repairing respirators
should also be documented. Such procedures should generally be in accordance with Australian
Standard [5].
When respirators are not in use, they should be stored so they are kept clean and protected from
heat, direct sunlight, dust, chemicals and other agents that may cause deformation. Respirators
should not be left in the work zone where they might become contaminated with dust and other
substances. Preferably, they should be stored so they can be readily inspected in a clear, plastic
dedicated container, rather than stored loose in the worker's personal locker. Respirator storage
locations should be clearly identied and brought to the attention of employees.
C.1.5. Training
A qualied person should give all employees expected to wear RPE initial training in its correct use.
This training should cover the following points:
1. Mandatory site respiratory protection tasks/locations.
2. Description of the equipment, its mode of operation, function and limitations.
3. Proper care, cleaning, sanitising and storage.
4. Instruction on how to put on the equipment and adjust the face piece.

5. Explanation of when and how to replace lters, cartridges, canisters and cylinders.
6. Details on location of RPE and RPE requisition procedures.
The training program and the training and retraining schedules for new and experienced employees
should be documented. Refresher training on at least an annual basis is recommended. People
with responsibility for auditing the site RPP may need additional detailed instructions on individual
program elements.
C.1.6. Auditing
There should be regular (at least annual) inspections and evaluations to determine the continued
eectiveness of the site RPP. Auditing should be directed at all program elements (application,
selection, tting, maintenance and storage, and training). An important aspect of auditing is to
verify the adequacy of employee job training policies and procedures by observing work practices.
Regular monitoring of work areas for airborne radioactivity levels should be routinely carried out
to ensure correct respirator selection. Program reviews should indicate if the application of the site
RPP needs to be maintained, reduced or increased.
C.1.7. Records management

In order to maintain surveillance over, and control of the site RPP, the following sets of records are
recommended:
1. Radiation and airborne contaminant monitoring data (contained in the `Boswell' database).
2. Justication for selection of particular RPE.
3. Details of t testing of RPE for each relevant employee.
4. Job assignment and medical surveillance data.
5. Training records.
6. RPE care and maintenance records.
C.2. Protection factors (PF)
The protection factors (PF) should not be applied to exposure measurement results without the
written consent of the appropriate authority. Any proposal to invoke PF should be rst put forward
to the appropriate authority for consideration and approval if found acceptable.
C.2.1. Administrative requirements

Any proposal to use PF in the internal dose assessment should include appropriate administrative
records that indicate the schemes of work, exposure periods and RPE usage for which exposure
modication is sought. The proposal should also outline the site RPP and provide sucient informa-
tion so that the eciency of this program can be satisfactorily demonstrated (e.g. strict supervision,
proper t testing procedures, adequate respirator maintenance and audit programs, etc). If these
administrative requirements are met and the site RPP follows requirements of this guideline, the use
of program protection factors may be acceptable to the appropriate authority.
The recorded intake for the worker(s) would then be lower than that calculated on the basis of
the ambient airborne contamination assuming no use of RPE. However, because of the diculties in
ensuring that the correct RPE is used eectively for the requisite time, it should not be automatically
assumed that the nominal PF specied in a particular respirator technical data can be applied in
exposure assessment and reporting of such assessments.
The concept of Personal Protection Factor (PPF) is introduced to take into account intermittent
respirator usage by incorporating the time a respirator is worn during the work cycle compared to
the time it is not worn. The PPF is a function of exposure conditions, worker activities and RPE
use regimes and, therefore, is a measure of the eectiveness of the complete respiratory protection
program. It is prudent to use the lower limit of the nominal PF specied for the particular RPE,
with an additional safety factor, as advised by the appropriate authority. Ideally, the PPF should be
determined for a particular operation, as described below.
C.2.2. Determination of personal protection factor (PPF)

Surveys to determine PPF require the quantication of dust or activity concentrations under two
conditions while the worker is:
wearing a respirator; and
not wearing a respirator.
The following protocol may be used:
1. The worker is issued with two dust sampling heads (lter cassettes) and instructed to use one
only during respirator use periods and to the other one only during respirator non-use periods.
2. The PPF is calculated as follows:
Assuming no protection
((T 1 × D1) + (T 2 × D2))

A=
(T 1 + T 2)
Assuming protection
 h i 
D2
(T 1 × D1) + T 2 × PF
B= 
(T 1 + T 2)
A
PPF =
B
where:
T 1 Time respirator not worn
T 2 Time respirator worn
Dl Dust or activity concentration during respirator non-use periods
D2 Dust or activity concentration during respirator use periods
P F Protection factor of respirator
In the absence of quantitative t testing data to provide PF on an individual basis, the PF chosen
would usually correspond to the lower limit of the nominal PF specied for the particular RPE used.
It is important that any survey used to determine the PF is documented in detail and repeated at
the intervals specied by an appropriate authority.

C.3. Conclusion
Without a clearly dened chain of supervision, there is no assurance that the procedures and require-
ments of respiratory protection program (RPP) will be followed. The responsibility for the entire site
RPP should be assigned to one person. The person selected to head the respiratory protection pro-
gram for the exploration/mining/mineral processing site should be adequately trained in all aspects
of respiratory protection, and have the ability to administer the program in its entirety.
Bibliography
[3] AS 3640: 2004. Workplace atmospheres Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of
inhalable dust, 2004.
[4] AS 1715: 1994. Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices, 1994.
[5] AS 1716: 2003. Respiratory protective devices, 2003.
[6] Industrial Ventilation A Manual of Recommended Practice, 21st Edition, American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1992.

Index
acceptable air quality, 2 engineering controls, 58
administrative requirements, 32 exhaust air, 2
air agitation, 4 extraction system, 8
air cleaning, 15
air displacement, 4 feed points, 11
air table, 46, 12 t-testing, 31
air tables, 12
gravity, 4, 12
air-conditioned cab, 7
grid-mesh oor, 5, 6
airborne dust, 2, 9
airborne radioactivity, 7 heavy mineral, 4
airlock, 7 high air velocities, 2
appropriate authority, 8 hood design, 15
atmospheric dust control, 5 housekeeping, 6, 7
auditing, 32 hydro-sizing, 14
Australian Standard, 30, 31
ilmenite, 8
blasting, 2 isolation, 5
Boswell dose recording database, 32
breathing zone, 30 job rotation, 8
bulk concentrate, 4
local exhaust, 5, 6
canopy type hoods, 6
magnetic separation, 11
containment, 5
maintenance, 8
contaminant, 4
manual adjustments, 5
contaminants, 30
medical surveillance, 32
control procedures, 9
mineral handling, 11
control strategy, 9
mineral processing operations, 2
controlled area, 3, 7
mineral sand, 8
conveyor, 11
monazite, 4, 8
conveyor transport, 4, 11
natural ventilation, 7
de-sliming circuits, 14 negative air pressure, 2
dilution, 5 non-radioactive dust, 2
dilution ventilation, 6
dry separation, 4 occupational hazard, 2
dry sweeping, 7 occupational hygiene, 6
dust collection systems, 12 operational areas, 9
dust control, 2, 5, 8
dust inhalation, 1 personal protection, 7
dust level, 8 personal protection factor, 33
dust re-suspension, 7 plant clean-up, 7
dust suppression, 2, 5 plant design, 8
pretreatment, 14
electrostatic separation, 11 principles of dust control, 2
enclosure, 5 process modication, 5
36
process stream, 6
protection factors, 32
puried air respirator, 30
radiation exposure, 1
Radiation Safety Ocer, 30
radon ( 222 Rn), 7
rapid removal, 5
record keeping, 32
respirator, 30, 33
respiratory protection, 2, 7, 29, 31, 33
respiratory protection program, 29, 32, 34
screen decks, 6
screens, 5, 6, 11, 12
self-contained breathing apparatus, 30
spilage, 12
spillage, 5, 7
supplied air (airline) respirator, 30
surge bin, 5
thoron ( 220 Rn), 7

training, 7, 31, 32
vacuuming, 7, 9
vented enclosure, 11
ventilation systems, 15
viable control, 6
vibrating screens, 4, 12
viewing ports, 12
visual inspections, 5
water mist spray, 5

wet attritioning circuits, 14
wet magnets, 5
working area, 2

NORM4.2
Controlling NORM management of radioactive waste

Reference
mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM4.2. Management of radioactive waste: Resources Safety,
Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 21pp. <www.dmp.wa.gov.au>

Guideline NORM4.2 Controlling NORM management of radioactive waste
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Radioactive waste management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Waste management practices and radiological protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.1. Mining and concentrating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.2. Separation and downstream processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.3. Uranium processing tailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.4. Tailings storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.5. Operating manual for tailings storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.6. Radiation protection of employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.7. Radiation protection of the public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.8. Contaminated Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Decommissioning and rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. Forward planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.1. Baseline Environmental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.2. Operational Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2. Regulatory requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.3. Technical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3.1. Buildings and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3.2. Mine and Waste Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3.3. Neighbouring Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.4. Decommissioning radiation monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.5. Post close-out radiation monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.5.1. Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.5.2. Biological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.5.3. Rehabilitation Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.6. Decommissioning documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.7. Quality assurance (QA) program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4.8. Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. Appendix with guidance on NORM blending 17
Bibliography 19
Index 20

List of Figures
List of Tables
2.1. Contaminated sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.1. Purpose
To provide recommendations on the safe management of radioactive waste that results from the
mining and processing of minerals.
1.2. Scope
Preparation of a

NORM NORM doses Notifying

(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
The radioactive waste generated in mining and minerals processing operations, especially those in-
volving naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), typically contains low concentrations of
radioactive material but is generated in very large volumes. The management methods usually in-
volve waste disposal near the surface and in the vicinity of the mining and processing sites. In
addition, the waste typically contains long-lived radionuclides, and this has important implications
for its management because of the long time periods for which control will be necessary.
The preferred option for the disposal of the radioactive waste is that, where safe and practicable,
radioactive waste is diluted with other mined material before it is nally disposed of in order to
ensure that in the long term the use of the disposal site is not restricted.
This method, however, is only applicable in the situations where the secular equilibrium of both
uranium and thorium decay chains is not disrupted (for example for tailings from heavy mineral
sands physical separation). This method cannot be used for the disposal of uranium processing
tailings and for any other waste generated in the process of chemical and/or thermal treatment of
NORM.
Radioactive waste is typically generated at most stages of mining and mineral processing and typically
includes mineral processing tailings, waste rock (or òversize'), scales, sludges, scrap material and
process water, including leaching solutions. Rainfall runo and seepage from stockpiles and areas of
processing plants should also be managed.
Tailings storage facility typically receive the bulk of processing water, which is normally recycled, but
some of it may be released into the environment through seeping or due to unusually high rainfall.
The tailings storage facility (TSF), when dry, usually represent the main source of radon/thoron and
dust emissions to the environment. Special containment arrangements are required for the disposal
of tailings generated during chemical and/or thermal processing of uranium and thorium-bearing
minerals to ensure that environmentally mobile radionuclides are not released into the surrounding
environment.
The disposal of contaminated equipment and materials also needs to be controlled. Where required,
decontamination methods used are typically steam and high pressure water cleaning, mechanical
cleaning, etc.
The waste from mining and minerals processing operations is often re-used in other industries.
Examples include use of dierent slags in road construction, sands and ash in building materials
such as cement, and gypsum in agricultural use as a soil conditioner. It is important to ensure that
no material that is considered as radioactive waste is released from mining and mineral processing
operations without sucient dilution with non-radioactive constituents and only after the approval
by the appropriate authority.
Certain types of waste material can be re-utilised for other applications after appropriate blending
and a general guidance on the possibilities of the blending of radioactive waste for the re-use is
provided in Appendix A on page 17.
The hazards posed by mining and mineral processing waste are often not limited to its radioactivity.
The presence of other potentially toxic chemicals must be taken into account and often measures
taken to protect the environment from other contaminants are sucient for radiation protection as
well.
Where appropriate, an institutional control over the waste disposal sites should be established to
maintain control and/or knowledge of the site after closure. This may be achieved via the registration
of the site in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Ac t [5].
2.2. Radioactive waste management plan
The Code of Practice [3] requires that in conjunction with the Radiation Management Plan (Gui-
deline NORM2.2 Preparation of a radiation management plan Mining and processing), a specic
Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RWMP) should be developed.
In developing the RWMP, all relevant pathways for dispersion of radionuclides and for radiation
exposure of both employees and members of the general public should be considered.
The essential elements of the RWMP are:
1. An outline of the processes generating waste.
2. A description of waste including nature of material (chemical, physical and radiological), conta-
minants, and quantities and rate of production.
3. A description of the environment into which the waste will be discharged or disposed (climate,
terrain, soils, vegetation, hydrology), including the baseline radiological characteristics.
4. Heritage (social and cultural) and land use (present and potential).
5. A description of the proposed system for waste management including the facilities and proce-
dures involved in the handling, treatment, storage and disposal of radioactive waste.
6. Predictions of environmental concentrations of radionuclides and radiation doses to the public
from the proposed waste management practice, including demonstration that the statutory
radiation protection requirements will be met both now and in the future.
7. A program for monitoring the concentration of radionuclides in the environment and assessment
of radiation doses to members of the public arising from the waste management practices.
8. Contingency plans for dealing with accidental releases and the circumstances which might lead
to uncontrolled releases of radioactive waste in the environment.
9. Contingency plan to cover cases of early shutdown or temporary suspension of operations.
10. A schedule for reporting on the waste disposal operation and results of monitoring and assess-
ments.
11. A plan for the decommissioning of the operation and associated waste management facilities,
and for the rehabilitation of the site.
12. A system of periodic assessment and review of the adequacy and eectiveness of the RWMP
to take account of potential improvements consistent with best practicable technology.
The RWMP should be further developed throughout the operational stage and should be reviewed
whenever there is a signicant change in the operation or of the waste management system, and at
intervals similar to the Radiation Management Plan.
The following factors should be considered in the development of the RWMP:
1. The level of euent control achieved and the extent to which environmental pollution and
degradation are prevented in similar mining and mineral processing operations elsewhere in the
world.

2. The total cost of the application or adoption of the technology relative to the environmental
protection to be achieved by its application or adoption.
3. Evidence of detriment, or lack of detriment, to the environment after the commencement of
the waste management/disposal operation.
4. The physical location of the operation.
5. The age of equipment and facilities and their relative eectiveness in reducing environmental
pollution and degradation.
During the operational stage, the appropriate authority must be notied of:
any changes to the operation which may alter the nature or quantity of waste generated;
any proposal to change the waste containment system; and
any unanticipated circumstances that may lead to a variation in performance of the approved
RWMP.
These changes would not normally be put into eect until a required statutory approval has been
issued.
2.3. Waste management practices and radiological protection
2.3.1. Mining and concentrating
Typically, the tailings from the mining and initial separation phase of the operation are of no radiolo-
gical concern as most of the mineral would have been removed for downstream separation/processing.
In most cases, the tailings can be returned to the mined out areas and the sites rehabilitated in ac-
cordance with the requirements of the appropriate authority.
Some waste rock (oversize) may, however, contain elevated concentrations of radionuclides and may
need to be disposed of appropriately, typically by lling out the mining pit and/or underground
workings.
The mineral is sometimes stockpiled on mine sites prior to transport to the processing sites, and
these stockpiles may contain radioactive minerals in concentrations sucient to produce elevated
radiation levels. The stockpiles therefore need to be protected against unauthorised access and also
against the possibility of the material spreading through wind saltation.
Since the mineral in the stockpile is usually dense, the saltation process will normally occur only at
a high wind velocity. Where wind drift occurs, mineral grains and particles commonly accumulate in
places where vegetation or other obstruction is located or where the wind velocity drops. Therefore,
re-deposition usually takes place at fence lines or in grassed or vegetated areas. Where the wind
velocity is high enough wind blown particles can destroy grass cover and denude lightly vegetated
areas and appropriate precautions will be needed at stockpiles. Typically, simple shade-cloth fencing
is sucient to restrict the spread of the material. Ideally, stockpiles containing radionuclides in
concentrations that require signposting of areas as `supervised' and/or `controlled' should be located
on a concrete slab to simplify the clean-up operations.
For the disposal of underground tailings, provided that the probabilities of geological disturbance to
the site and of human intrusion into the site are suciently low, no further controls may be necessary
beyond recording details of the location and characteristics of the waste and monitoring the site for
a limited period.
2.3.2. Separation and downstream processing
The tailings from the separation and downstream processing of minerals require appropriate ma-
nagement as they may contain radionuclides in concentrations that could give rise to unacceptable
radiation levels. The disposal of such waste will depend on the method used to process the mineral
and on the respective levels of radiation.
If the tailings are categorised as radioactive waste, disposal may be undertaken by returning the
tailings to the mine pit (dispersed in the initial mine tailings, if possible, or stored with appropriate
safeguards where future economic use is foreseen).
If no chemical/thermal treatment of the mineral takes place (e.g. in the case of separating the heavy
mineral sands), the radionuclides in the tailings could be considered as remaining bound in the
individual mineral grains, and the possibility of the contamination of groundwater by radionuclides
from tailings is therefore not considered to be signicant. In some cases however, small amounts of
radium may be present in water and their removal may therefore be required.
Where any grinding, chemical and/or thermal treatment of minerals containing radionuclides takes
place, additional safeguards must be implemented due to the fact that secular equilibrium in both
uranium and thorium decay chains may be disrupted, resulting in an increased environmental mobility
of radionuclides such as radium.
Cleaning of certain minerals prior to processing (such as, for example, cleaning of the heavy mineral
sand grains) may produce nely powdered waste (slimes). The disposal of these slimes may require
consideration from the radiation protection point of view, as they may have a signicant uranium or
thorium content. Collection in a specically designated slimes pit and disposal with other tailings
is usually suitable for those materials that are found to contain elevated uranium and thorium
concentrations.
The equipment used in downstream processing of minerals may become contaminated by NORM
(particularly with scales and sludge on the inside surfaces of pipes and vessels used in chemical and
thermal processing) and will need to be either disposed of with the approval from an appropriate
authority (typically at a mine site), or thoroughly decontaminated prior to any re-use.
2.3.3. Uranium processing tailings
Special considerations are required for the tailings generated in the processing of uranium ores.
The main characteristics of tailings from uranium processing are residual radioactivity and radon
exhalation rates. Non-radiological issues that need to be taken into account include the geochemistry
of the ore, any chemical contaminants added as part of the uranium extraction process and the acid
generation potential of the material (which is related to the content of pyrites in the ore). Typically,
the most important contaminants of concern are not the radionuclides but the chemical elements
such as arsenic, nickel and other heavy metals, as well as organic residues from uranium extraction.
Presence of non-radiological contaminants in uranium processing tailings may require much more
comprehensive management than the control of the release of radionuclides. Another important
factor is the particle size of tailings, as the lower grade ores require grinding to a very ne (510 µm)
material prior to processing.
The most important radiological issue of uranium processing tailings is associated with the fact that
they typically contain about 85% of the radioactivity contained in the original ore, as the long-lived
decay products of uranium, thorium230 and radium226 are not removed during the extraction
process. Also, all uranium is not recovered during processing and the tailings may also contain from
1 to 10% of uranium238 initially present in the ore.

The solubility of thorium is very sensitive to a pH around 4 and neutralising acidic tailings to pH
4.5 will result in a very substantial reduction in the concentration of thorium in water. Unless the
tailings are neutralised to above pH 4 prior to the disposal, the bulk of the thorium will remain in
solution, and will contribute substantially to the total radioactivity of the process residue liquor.
Radium226 is considered to be the most important contaminant of concern in the uranium decay
chain, as it is the most serious potential health hazard resulting from uranium tailings, particularly
if the tailings are misused as building material or construction ll.
Radium226 present in tailings decays to the radioactive gas radon222 and a fraction of this radon
escapes from the tailings deposit into the atmosphere. Despite the fact that radon222 has a com-
paratively short half-life of 3.8 days, it presents a long-term hazard, since the decay of radium226
(half-life of 1,600 years) constantly produces new radon. In addition, the tailings also contain the
predecessors of radium226 in the decay chain including thorium230, which decays with a half-life
of 75,400 years, again constantly producing radium226. The health hazard is associated with the
fact that radon and its decay products can accumulate to substantial levels inside structures built
on a radium-containing ll or built from material with relatively high radium226 concentrations.
The level of radon exhalation from tailings depends on many factors, such as the method of waste
management, the amount of waste, the concentration of radium226, the rate of diusion of the
radon through the bulk solids, moisture content, temperature and atmospheric pressure. Therefore,
a comprehensive assessment of each individual tailings storage facility is required in order to develop
an appropriate management strategy.
For the purposes of dose assessments it is important to determine radium226 and thorium230
concentrations in the airborne dust and water; with thorium230 concentrations being of more im-
portance in dust due to the fact that the inhalation dose conversion factor for thorium230 is over
three times higher than the same factor for radium226; and radium226 concentrations being of
more importance in water as the ingestion dose coecient for radium226 is over two times higher
than the same factor for thorium230 (please refer to the guideline NORM5 Dose assessment for
additional information).
An important non-radiological issue in the management of uranium processing tailings is the potential
generation of acid. This process occurs when sulphide-containing minerals that are susceptible to
oxidation in the presence of moisture and oxygen (such as pyrite) are present in the ore, waste rock
and tailings. The oxidation and hydrolysis results in the formation of sulphuric acid, which then
attacks the rock matrix and liberate metals and radionuclides. Once acidic seepage has commenced,
the process can continue for decades, and even centuries, as the oxidation `front' progresses through
the tailings mass.
There are several ways of preventing and controlling acid generation, with the most common technique
being the inhibition of oxidation by the use of saturated clay or wet covers as oxygen barriers. A
very detailed and complicated modelling is required to design a cover which will be eective for each
particular location, as the eectiveness of a particular cover depends on climate regime and net water
balance in the area, and on the reactivity of the tailings material.
2.3.4. Tailings storage
The prime functions of a tailings storage facility (TSF) are the safe, long term storage of tailings
with minimal environmental impact. Tailoring the design of a TSF to the site conditions, to ensure
safety and minimise the environmental impacts, can lead to a reduction in total project costs.
`Guidelines on the Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage' [9] have been prepared
by the Department of Minerals and Petroleum to assist in the design, construction, management
and decommissioning of TSFs in Western Australia so as to achieve ecient, cost eective, safe and
environmentally acceptable outcomes. The guidelines are intended to provide a common approach
to the safe design, construction, operation and rehabilitation of TSFs, and to provide a systematic
method of classifying their adequacy under normal and worst case operating conditions.
The approach adopted in these Guidelines recognises the desire of the mining industry to move
towards self management by the use of a certicate of compliance for TSF design and a certicate
of compliance for TSF construction.
The following Acts of Parliament currently govern safety and environmental issues of TSFs in Western
Australia:
1. Mines Safety and Inspection Act.
2. Mining Act.
3. Environmental Protection Act :
a) Part IV, Environmental Impact Assessment.
b) Part V, Approval and License for prescribed premises.
4. Rights in Water and Irrigation Act.

a) Part III, Control of Waters.
In some circumstances, TSFs may also be subject to additional legislation under the following:
1. Aboriginal Heritage Act.
2. Soil and Land Conservation Act.
3. Conservation and Land Management Act.
4. Wildlife Conservation Act.
5. Land Administration Act.
6. Native Title Act.
7. Local Government Act.
Among the aims of these guidelines is encouragement of the mining industry to take a longer term
approach to the planning of TSFs. One of the factors critical to the nal rehabilitation of a TSF is
the management of the tailings deposition during the TSF operation. Without systematic tailings
deposition and careful water management, the nal rehabilitation could be very costly, and be re-
quired at a time when cash ow is limited or non-existent. Much of this challenge can be overcome
by adequate planning, associated with good tailings management and the use of sound technical
approaches early in the life of the facility.
It is recognised that not all of these guidelines may necessarily be applicable to all forms of tailings
storage. A notable example is below ground storage of mineral sands tailings within mined out
dredge ponds. In such circumstances the management of the operation should recognise and address
the issues that are applicable to a particular tailings storage system.
2.3.5. Operating manual for tailings storage
Tailings management plans are an essential prerequisite for sound storage practice as most failures of
tailings storage around the world result from inadequate management of the storage. The eective
implementation of a management plan will not only result in a safer tailings storage facility (TSF),
but will frequently reduce the overall costs associated with operation and closure of the facility.

`Guidelines on the Development of an Operation Manual for Tailings Storage' [10] have been prepared
by the Department of Minerals and Petroleum to provide a consistent basis for the preparation
of Operating Manuals for TSF in Western Australia. They provide both the technical basis for
site-specic Operating Manuals and an administrative framework which meets the requirements of
regulations currently covering the mining industry in Western Australia.
These Guidelines assume that a design has been carried out for the TSF in accordance with the
`Guidelines on the Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage' [9]. For pre-existing
facilities where a formal design has not been carried out, it may be necessary to conduct additional
investigation work to provide the necessary information for inclusion in the Operating Manual. The
preparation of an Operating Manual should take into account the provisions that relate to TSF in
the Acts of Parliament listed in Section 2.3.4 on page 6.
The Operating Manual should identify all areas of TSF management requiring consideration during
the operating phase of the facility and outline a course of action if performance is inadequate. One
of the aims of the Guidelines is to encourage the mining industry to take a longer term view of the
storage of tailings, so each Operating Manual should also address the rehabilitation, closure and
post-closure monitoring requirements of the TSF. A carefully prepared Operating Manual will form
part of an overall management plan that encompasses all of these aspects while ensuring that TSF
are rehabilitated and closed cost eectively so meeting public expectations relating to environmental
performance.
2.3.6. Radiation protection of employees
A comprehensive radiation protection program should be in place to address all sources of occu-
pational radiation exposure at the exploration, mining and/or mineral processing site, including
radioactive waste management.
The following exposure pathways should be taken into account for the protection of employees:
1. External gamma and beta irradiation, including skin contamination.
2. Inhalation of dust and gases such as radon and/or thoron.
3. Ingestion.
2.3.7. Radiation protection of the public
Releases of radionuclides from radioactive waste to the environment during mining and processing
operations and subsequent waste management activities may result in the radiation exposure of
members of the public (airborne waste discharges such as stack emissions or fugitive dust should
not be forgotten). However, since mining and processing NORM tailings will continue to present a
potential hazard to human health after closure, additional analyses and measures may be needed to
provide for the protection of future generations. Such measures should not be left until closure but
should be considered and implemented throughout the design, construction, and operation stages of
the mining and processing facilities.
Typically, processing (and on some occasions, mining) waste contains only naturally occurring radio-
nuclides, but these radionuclides cannot be considered to be in their original states or concentrations,
since their physical and chemical forms may have been altered substantially, and exposures may be
inuenced by the operation of the waste management facilities.
After the closure of operations, a combination of engineering and institutional controls may be used
to achieve a level of radiation protection that meets the requirements of the appropriate authority.
Institutional control consists of actions implemented to maintain control and/or knowledge of a waste
site after closure. This control may be active (for example, by means of monitoring, surveillance,
remedial work, fences) or passive (for example, by means of land use control, markers, records).
2.3.8. Contaminated Sites
As a measure of institutional control, the registration of the NORM waste disposal site in accordance
with the Contaminated Sites Act [5] will be required. Sites are to be assessed in accordance with
the requirements of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). Summary guidance
on the classication of sites is provided below, and is based on the mean dose to the member of the
critical group of the members of the general public.
Table 2.1.: Contaminated sites.

UNRESTRICTED USE:
0.0 mSv/y < DOSE < 0.3 mSv/year
RESTRICTED USE:
REMEDIATION NECESSARY IN MOST CASES:

REMEDIATION NECESSARY IN ALL CASES:

DOSE > 3.0 mSv/y
When the classication of a particular site is considered, it is essential that the DEC and Radiological
Council are consulted for further information and advice.
2.4. Decommissioning and rehabilitation
On the completion of their operation mining and mineral processing sites are required to be decom-
missioned to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority. The decommissioning plan will require
approval prior to implementation.
Ideally, the occupied site and surrounding area should be returned to a state that existed prior to the
commencement of mining and/or processing operations such that unrestricted future use is possible.
Where the contamination of equipment or materials is such that achievement of a pre-operational
state may not be possible, engineering solutions will be required.
Where future use of the land is restricted, rigidly enforced covenants on land use via the Contaminated
Sites Act [5] and exclusion zones (where appropriate) should be put in place for the period required
by the appropriate authority.
During the decommissioning phase, a number of activities and considerations should be in eect
including:
decontamination of equipment;
disposal of reusable or recyclable materials;

transport requirements;
consideration of exposure pathways for employees, public and the environment;
rehabilitation and re-vegetation of mining and/or processing sites and adjacent land; and
future monitoring to demonstrate the adequacy of decommissioning procedures.
2.4.1. Forward planning
The planning for the decommissioning phase should commence during the design and construction
phase and continue (with the progressive renement of the plans) during the operational phase.
2.4.1.1. Baseline Environmental Data
Baseline data should include topographical surveys, an assessment of soil types on the surface and at
depth, ora and fauna diversity and distribution, radiation surveys above the land surface, air and
groundwater radionuclide surveys.
All potentially impacted land should be assessed including that is to be occupied by mine site,
processing plant and oce buildings, transport corridors, tailings facilities and adjacent land that is
potentially a subject to wind blown contamination by mined and/or processed materials.
Further details on the range of baseline environmental data that may be required and on the methods
of its collection are available in the guideline NORM3.1 Pre-operational monitoring requirements.
2.4.1.2. Operational Planning
Criteria to be eventually met should be borne in mind during the operational phase to ensure that
decommissioning stage is managed more easily. Consideration needs to be given to the ongoing
disposal of tailings and waste, dispersal of radioactive materials during processing and transport,
storage of concentrates, disposal of processing and decontamination waste, location of wastes used
as landll.
Adequate and secure documentation of every activity that impacts on decommissioning should be
kept. Considering the lifetime of mining and processing operations electronic documentation by itself
is unlikely to have adequate archival properties.
2.4.2. Regulatory requirements
Before abandoning a mining or processing operation, a nal version of the Radioactive Waste Mana-
gement Plan must be submitted to the relevant statutory authority for approval.
Ideally the surface gamma dose rate of the abandoned site should be no greater than background
natural levels existing prior to the start of the mining or processing operation. This may be achieved
in part by distributing the returned material in such a way that the radioactive content is as near as
practical to that of the material originally mined in the area.
Documentation should include the locations in which radioactive waste is buried, dose rates above
the nal surface and a commitment to inspect and maintain the abandoned site for a certain period
of time, to be determined by the appropriate authority.
2.4.3. Technical considerations
2.4.3.1. Buildings and Facilities
The following should be considered:

1. Detailed surveys of buildings and facilities will identify the need to decontaminate.
2. In some processes, surface contamination may adhere tenaciously to the substrate and may
only be removed by chemical or physical means.
3. Suitable decontamination techniques include vacuuming, scrubbing, high-pressure water or
steam jetting and sandblasting.
4. Sandblasting of relatively soft surfaces (wood, plastic, metal covered with a thick layer of
paints, etc.) must be used with caution because of the possibility that `micro-hammering' by
sand particles can make surface contamination embedded in the surface of the equipment. In
addition sandblasting may disperse radioactive material.
5. Slightly contaminated equipment (such as some tools and valuable materials) could be relocated
to another site, if possible. These items will require removal of loose contamination before
transport. The levels of surface contamination should be checked to ensure that adequate
signage for vehicles is provided and statutory approval sought and obtained before the transport
of contaminated objects from the site.
6. If the equipment cannot be decontaminated to the level below statutory limits (surface contami-
nation monitoring should not be overlooked), it could be disposed of in the specially engineered
pit either on-site or o-site. Further consultations with the appropriate authority will be re-
quired if this option will be considered.
7. As far as possible contamination should be removed from plant surfaces, equipment and pipe-
work prior to demolition.
8. Interior structures, machinery and equipment that do not compromise the structural integrity
of the building should be decontaminated as required and taken out from the processing plant.
9. As pipes, elevators, beams are likely to be cut into convenient sizes, cutting and demolition
methods should be chosen carefully to control the release of dust into the atmosphere. Personal
respiratory protection may be required for most activities.
10. During the decommissioning all radiation monitoring is to be conducted by a person competent
in radiation monitoring and in the interpretation of results. This competent person must sign
all radiation clearance documentation for material release. Detailed procedure for monitoring
of both external gamma-radiation levels and alpha- and beta-surface contamination should be
developed and submitted for approval to the appropriate authority.
11. Particular attention needs to be paid to the health and safety of employees involved in the
decommissioning process. This includes adherence to prescribed exposure limits and protection
from intake of radioactive substances.
2.4.3.2. Mine and Waste Disposal Site
The options for the decommissioning of the open pit mine depend on the stability of the walls of
the mined out pits in the long term, safety considerations, possible future land uses and existing
drainage patterns. For most tailings facilities, the physical stability represents the greatest hazard
to the safety of employees, not the concentrations of radionuclides in a particular waste.
Options to be considered include:

1. The pit may be left as excavated but reworked to achieve atter slopes for possible future use.
2. If the water table is close to the pre-mining surface or if the surface drainage ows to or through
the pit, it may be dicult to keep the pit dry. Provided that the hydrological characteristics
are suitable and approval is received from the appropriate authority, it may be benecial to
allow the pit to simply ll with water. An analysis should be carried out to assess the potential
for transporting contaminants from the ooded pit to the environment.
3. Appropriate engineering controls should be provided so that radioactive material will not diuse
into the environment.
4. Where possible and appropriate, all tailings should be diluted with non-radioactive material to
ensure that the radioactivity of the nal blend does not exceed the radioactivity of the mined
material.
5. Some consideration may need to be given to the pre-disposal management of the waste, such
as, for example, `xing' of mobile radioactive components to inhibit release to the environment
or to ensure that any release, if it does occur, is at a controlled, acceptably low rate.
6. Reliance on long-term active institutional controls should be minimised.
7. Requirements for the continuing maintenance of dams should be minimised.
8. Some controls should be in place to prevent the unauthorised removal of tailings, for example,
signposting of areas and registration under the Contaminated Sites Act [5].
9. Facilities and procedures need to be in place for the monitoring and control of groundwater
contamination and release of radioactive dust and radon into the atmosphere.
10. Surface proling should be such as to avoid undesirable hydro-geological eects such as erosion.
11. It is desirable that vegetation does not have root systems that could penetrate through the
topsoil and reach the tailings. This may result in the uptake of radionuclides by particular
plants that would be unacceptable from the radiation protection point of view due to the
possible consumption of this plants by fauna, including humans. This could also destabilise the
waste in the event of climate changes.
12. It is recommended to carry out the study of local fauna to ensure that the tailings form the
disposal facility are not brought back to the surface by burrowing animals and insects.
13. Typically, a half-metre layer of roller compacted clay-soil mixture will be eective in attenua-
ting radon/thoron release to the atmosphere. Such a layer optimally proled may also direct
rainwater away from the tailings reducing the rate of dissolution of soluble components; and
14. It is recommended that the storage of tailings, which are already kept in tailings storage faci-
lities, be re-assessed. If the current storage site is unsatisfactory due to the long-term physical
stability, radionuclide concentrations or the mobility of radionuclides (including radon/thoron
diusion), or due to social considerations such as encroaching industrial or residential develop-
ments, then several options may be considered:
a) Physical structure of disposal site may be reinforced.

b) Tailings may be reprocessed.
c) Tailings may be mixed with other material for permanent disposal.
15. When all other options are found to be unsatisfactory and there is a possibility of radiation
exposure to members of the public (either directly or via intrusion in the future), it will be
necessary to relocate the tailings to a more appropriate structure or location.
2.4.3.3. Neighbouring Properties
Neighbouring properties and transport corridors may have become contaminated by wind blown or
water borne radioactive materials, or spillage. Low-grade material may have been also intentionally
removed in the past from the mining and/or processing sites and used for ll or construction. During
the decommissioning phase all neighbouring properties should be surveyed for radioactive contami-
nation to ensure that they are restored to their pre-operational state or to the levels approved by the
appropriate authority if pre-operational levels are not known.
A plan for the restoration should include:
a legally binding agreement between the owner of the neighbouring property and the site ope-
rator, outlining the responsibilities, the timetable for actual work and nancial arrangements;
detailed results of radiometric surveys, including the description of radionuclides, their activity
levels, the depth of contamination and resulting volume of contaminated material;
a program for radiation protection of workers and members of the general public during the
clean-up operation; and
the means of controlling future unauthorised removal of material and the spreading of wind
blown or water borne contamination from site to vicinity properties.
After remediation, the property should be re-surveyed thoroughly to verify that radiation exposure
levels were reduced to acceptable levels.
2.4.4. Decommissioning radiation monitoring
To reduce the risk to employees, members of the public and the environment, dust control, air and
water monitoring, site and/or personal radiation monitoring should be continued until the decom-
missioning process has been completed. The goals and requirements of these programs will be similar
to those carried out during the operational phase.
These include:
1. Dust control programs and use of respiratory protective equipment may be required to reduce
the risks associated with the generation of airborne dust. Performing as much dismantling as
possible inside the buildings will minimise the release of dust into the environment.
2. The environmental radiation monitoring programs that were in place during the operational
phase should be retained and, possibly, increased.
3. Occupational radiation monitoring program scope should depend on the number of employees
on site.
4. A trac control system should be established to control the movements of waste and potentially
contaminated equipment and materials. All vehicles and equipment leaving controlled areas
should be monitored and, if necessary, decontaminated to the statutory limits in order to
prevent the spread of contamination o-site and to protect the public and the environment.
2.4.5. Post close-out radiation monitoring
The mining and/or mineral processing company will, for a number of years after completion of
decommissioning, have to demonstrate to the appropriate authority that the closed out facilities are
performing as designed and releases of radioactivity from the site are below the specied limits.

2.4.5.1. Environmental Monitoring
The following information should be included:

1. Possible release rates of radioactive contaminants such as tailings particles, leachates and ra-
don/thoron gas to the environment should to be established.
2. A program for surface water sampling should depend on the proximity of the critical group of
members of the public and possible exposure scenarios.
3. Groundwater monitoring bores should be placed with knowledge of the hydraulic gradient. At
least two monitoring bores, up-gradient and down-gradient from the potential contamination
source will be required.
4. Atmospheric monitoring points should be determined taking into account the proximity of
the critical group of members of the public and meteorological data such as wind speed and
direction. Locations should surround the potential contamination source and be located along
the dominant annual wind vector downwind of the site.
2.4.5.2. Biological Monitoring
Biological monitoring should be required to determine if concentrations of contaminants are increasing

in the environment as a result of atmospheric or water pathways, particularly in cases of decommis-
sioning of the facilities where chemical/thermal processing of minerals took place (for example, at
the sites where uranium ores were processed).
Samples of vegetation and, where applicable, aquatic organisms (e.g. mussels) and other fauna will
need to be collected and radionuclides' concentrations determined.
2.4.5.3. Rehabilitation Monitoring
Surveillance monitoring should be carried out to determine if waste containment erosion control,
re-vegetation and other remedial measures are eective.
2.4.6. Decommissioning documentation
At the completion of the decommissioning program, a nal report should be submitted to the appro-
priate authority. This report should contain, as a minimum:
1. The exact location of radioactive waste disposal facilities (maps with recorded coordinates),
depth of waste deposition, and the quantity and activity of material located at each facility.
2. Detailed description of waste containment facilities and expected levels of performance for both
the liner material (clay, plastic, concrete) and the top cover (including its thickness).
3. A record of dose exposure of employees and dose estimates for members of the general public
and the environment.
4. A summary of results obtained by all monitoring activities.
5. A record of measurements that conrm compliance with clean-up criteria.
6. A record of quality assurance audits and inspections.
7. A record of all relevant correspondence between operator and the appropriate authority.
8. Suggested improvements that could be incorporated into future similar activities.
9. A record of correspondence with the landowner and owners of neighbouring properties (where
applicable).
2.4.7. Quality assurance (QA) program
The purpose of the QA program is to ensure that appropriate controls are in place so that performance
objectives and technical requirements of the decommissioning are achieved. This program should be
established before the decommissioning activities commence and must be used for all activities.
In general, a QA program should include the following considerations:
1. The authority and duties of those people and external organisations responsible for performing
activities covered by a QA program should be clearly established. Such persons and organi-
sations should have sucient authority to be able to identify problems, initiate solutions and
verify the implementation of solutions.
2. A documented design control system for waste disposal facilities should include the following :
a) The measures to verify the adequacy of the design of the facility.
b) The controls to ensure that the data used in the design work was collected in a dened
and veriable manner.
c) The measures to verify and validate the computer software used in the design activities.
d) The measures to ensure that verication is performed by individuals dierent from those
who developed the original design.
e) The positions and external organisations responsible for design verication should be lis-
ted.
3. Procedures must be established in order to clearly explain the sequence of actions to be per-
formed in the preparation, review, approval and control of instructions and procedures.
4. Documents that contain site characterisation, planning, design, monitoring, maintenance and
other requirements should be controlled to ensure that the directions are understandable and
that the documents reach those responsible for the activities.
5. Measures should be established for identifying and controlling materials, equipment and eld
and laboratory samples.
6. A program should be established to ensure that all monitoring is performed in accordance with
approved procedures.
7. Measures should be established to ensure that events such as monitoring results in excess of
statutory limits, defects and malfunctions are promptly identied, reported and corrected.
8. Inspection results should be recorded.
2.4.8. Rehabilitation
The operator should not commence operations for decommissioning or rehabilitating of any waste
management facility except in accordance with provisions of the approved waste management system
as detailed in the Radioactive Waste Management Plan. The appropriate authority would deter-
mine when the decommissioning phase has been completed and the rehabilitation of the site may
commence.
In accordance with the Code [3] a specic àuthorisation to rehabilitate' should be sought by operator
from the appropriate authority.
The Code [3] species that inappropriate attempts at rehabilitation may inuence the ability to
achieve an acceptable nal state. For this reason, rehabilitation operations should not be attempted
without authorisation.
An application for authorisation to rehabilitate should include the following information:

1. The condition of the site to be rehabilitated, including the facilities and waste to be rehabili-
tated, levels of contamination, and quantities of waste.
2. Details of rehabilitation measures to be undertaken.
3. Management of waste generated during rehabilitation.
4. The anticipated nal state of the site after rehabilitation, including estimates of the levels of
residual contamination.
5. Details on ongoing monitoring and surveillance that will be required after rehabilitation.
6. Contingency plans, and plans for remediation of any defects in the rehabilitation that may
become apparent.
Prior to rehabilitation, it is often useful to estimate the potential surface gamma radiation dose rate
from a particular waste material prior to the disposal. The following equation [4] may be applied:
Dose rate in µGy/hr = 0.042 × A(40 K) + 0.462 × A(238 U ) + 0.604 × A(232 T h)
where:
A(40 K) , A(238 U ) and A(232 T h)
are the specic activities in Bq/g for potassium40, uranium238 and thorium232.
The result is an approximate estimation and can only be used during the planning stages of waste
disposal (such as in an estimation of the depth of the disposal of the specic NORM waste), actual
measurements should always be carried out to conrm the calculated value.
For most materials in the mining and mineral processing industry, the value for potassium40 can
be ignored, with the exception of the phosphate industry. In some cases where material contains
predominantly radium226 from the uranium238 decay chain and almost no uranium (as in some
scales and sludges), the value of radium226 specic activity can be substituted for the uranium238
in the calculation.
A. Appendix with guidance on NORM

blending
This guidance falls under the scope of the Radiation Safety Act rather than the Mines Safety
and Inspection Act as it deals with the blending of NORM prior to the disposal (contaminated
sites) and also for the possible re-use of material. The Radiological Council must be contacted
in every case by any proponent that seeks approval for the use of NORM in building products.
This guidance has been based on other international guidance material on waste management
and is provided on the basis that it has merit and may be useful to proponents in preparing a
submission to the Radiological Council.
Typically, mining and mineral processing waste not containing environmentally mobile radionuclides
can be blended with other materials to ensure that in the long term the use of the disposal site is
not restricted [1]. The concentrations of radionuclides must be such that the nal material is not
classied as radioactive.
Ideally, the concentrations of uranium and thorium in the `nal waste' material should be the same
as they were prior to mining and/or processing. The maximum acceptable concentrations that
radionuclides could be diluted to and then dispersed in the ground without institutional control
being considered are detailed in the Code of Practice [3] and are 1 Bq/g of thorium and/or uranium.
Some types of tailings generated by mining and mineral processing industry and containing naturally
occurring radionuclides can be re-utilised for dierent applications, including those in the building
and construction industry, in accordance with the following recommendations.
Several international documents provide guidance on the allowable levels of naturally occurring ra-
dionuclides in building materials. It is recommended that the values suggested in the EU publication
RadPro112 [6] are used as a basis for the guidance on levels of NORM in dierent materials, with
additions from the documents from Poland [7] and China [8].
Two indexes are established:
1. External exposure index: f1 = CRa
300 + CT h
200 + CK
3000
2. Internal exposure index: f2 = CRa
200
Where: CRa , CT h and CK are the concentrations of radium226, thorium232 and potassium-40,
respectively, expressed in Bq/kg. If both uranium and thorium decay chains in the material are in a
secular equilibrium, the value for the concentration of radium226 can be replaced by uranium238,
and the value for thorium232 can be replaced by radium228.
The index f1 describes the content of NORM in a particular material and is calculated on the basis
of concentrations of radium226, thorium232 and potassium40.
The index f2 limits the concentration of radium226 due to the potential internal radiation exposure
to radon222 and its decay products.
Index f1 is used in all cases, index f2 only in situations when it is known that radon exhalation
rate from a particular material cannot be disregarded from the radiation protection point of view.
These indexes should be used only as screening tools for identifying of the likely use for particular
materials. Additional approvals from an appropriate authority will be required in each case based
on a separate dose assessment carried out for scenarios where the material is used in a typical way.

Potential use of NORM has been classied in ve groups and the limiting factors are as follows:
1. Material for buildings for human habitation. Application of the material is not restricted:
f1 ≤1, f2 ≤1.
2. Decorative material (tiles, boards, etc.) for buildings for human habitation. Application of the
decorative material is not restricted: f1 ≤1, f2 ≤2.
3. Decorative material (tiles, boards, etc.) for buildings for human habitation. Application of the
decorative material is restricted to the external walls of a building: f1 ≤3, f2 ≤5.
4. Material is not recommended for buildings for human habitation. Application of the material is
restricted to the underground parts of a building, including road and rail tunnels: f1 ≤5, f2 ≤7,
and a thorough assessment of potential exposures will be required. The material can also be
used as a base in road construction.
5. Material with values of f1 >5 and f2 >7 can only be used after a comprehensive dose assessment
and a detailed environmental impact study and only in situations where both the exposure
of the members of the general public and the release of radionuclides into the environment are
extremely unlikely. Examples of such situations are the construction of central parts of large
bridge piers and sea shore erosion control applications (such as the construction of sea walls
and/or articial reefs preferably in and around industrial ports).
Bibliography
[4] Sources and Eects of Ionising Radiation; 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientic
Annexes, United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),
2000.

[6] Radiological Protection Principles concerning the Natural Radioactivity of Building Materials,
European Commission, Radiation Protection 112, 1999 (This document will be superseded in
the near future, with the issue of new EU Basic Safety Standards; the suggested values remain
the same).
[7] Decree of the Council of Ministers of 3 December 2002 on requirements regarding the content of
naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in materials used in buildings designed for people and
livestock and also in waste materials used in the building industry and monitoring of the content
of such isotopes, Dziennik Ustaw No. 220, Item 1850 (in Polish), 2002.
[8] Limits of Radionuclides in Building Materials, National Standard of People's Republic of China
GB 65662001, 10 December 2001 (in Chinese)
[9] Guidelines on the Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage, Department of
Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 1999.
[10] Guidelines on the Development of an Operating Manual for Tailings Storage, Department of
Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 1998.

Index
abandonment, 10 ingestion, 8
accidental release, 3 inhalation, 8
airborne dust, 13 institutional controls, 3, 8, 9, 12
audit, 14
land use, 3
beta radiation, 8 landll, 10
biological monitoring, 14 leachates, 14
leaching solution, 2
clean-up, 4, 14 long-lived radionuclide, 2
cleaning, 2
contaminants, 3, 12, 14 meteorological data, 14
contaminated equipment, 2, 11 mineral processing, 3
contaminated sites, 9 monitoring program, 3, 13
contamination, 5, 9, 10, 1214
contingency plan, 3 occupational radiation exposure, 8
controlled area, 4 operating manuals for TSF, 8
critical group, 14 operational planning, 10
dams, 12 periodic assessment, 3

decay chain, 5 pit, 12
decommissioning, 3, 9, 11, 14 potassium (40 K), 16
decontamination, 2, 10 processing plant, 2
Department of Environment and Conservation, 9 processing water, 2
downstream processing, 5 public, 3
dust control, 13 QA program, 15
dust emission, 2
radiation dose, 3
euent control, 3 radiation monitoring, 13
engineering controls, 12 radioactive waste, 2
environment, 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13 radioactive waste management plan, 3
environmental mobility, 5 radionuclide, 3, 5, 8
environmental monitoring, 13 radium (226 Ra), 5, 16
environmental pollution, 3, 4 radon/thoron, 2, 8, 12, 14
exposure levels, 13 rainfall, 2
fauna, 10 rehabilitation, 15, 16
ora, 10 reporting, 3
residual contamination, 16
gamma radiation, 8 respiratory protective equipment, 13
geological disturbance, 4 RWMP, 4
groundwater, 5, 10, 12
sandblasting, 11
heritage, 3 scales, 2, 5, 16
hydraulic gradient, 14 scrap material, 2
hydro-geological, 12 shade-cloth fencing, 4
signposting, 12
20
skin contamination, 8
slimes, 5
sludge, 2, 5, 16
soil type, 10
stockpile, 2, 4
supervised area, 4
surface water, 14
surveys, 11
tailings, 5, 8, 12, 14
tailings storage facility, 2, 6
thermal treatment, 5
thorium (232 Th), 5
topographical survey, 10
topsoil, 12
trac control, 13
transport, 13
uranium (238 U), 5, 16
vacuuming, 11
WA Contaminated Sites Act, 3, 9

waste containment, 4
waste disposal, 16
waste management, 3
water monitoring, 13
water table, 12
wind saltation, 4

NORM4.3
Controlling NORM transport of NORM

Reference
Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2010. Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mi-
ning and mineral processing guideline. NORM4.3 Controlling NORM Transport of NORM: Resources
Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 30pp. <http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/>

Guideline NORM4.3 Controlling NORM Transport of NORM
Contents
List of Figures v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Determination of the applicability of the Code of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. Determination of activity concentration and exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.1. Material that has not been a subject of chemical or thermal processing . . . . 3
2.3.2. Material that has been subject to chemical or thermal processing . . . . . . . 4
2.3.2.1. If the complete analysis of the material has been carried out . . . . 4
2.3.2.2. If the complete analysis of the material has not been carried out . . 5
2.3.3. Procedure to follow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Determination if the shipment can be transported as èxcepted package' . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Determination of the classication of the material and package categories . . . . . . 7
2.5.1. Transport index (paragraph 526) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5.2. Category (paragraph 533, Table 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.3. Specic activity (paragraph 226) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6. Signposting requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6.1. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6.2. Denition of the vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7. Conveyances under the èxclusive use' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8. Load covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.9. Blending of dierent minerals in one conveyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.10. Surface contamination issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.10.1. Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.10.2. Practical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.11. Transport of exploration samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A. Appendix with the Consignor's Declaration 19
B. Appendix on transport of uranium oxide concentrate 22
B.0.1. Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.0.2. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.0.3. Transport plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.0.4. Permit to transport nuclear material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.0.5. Radiation protection, rst aid and safety measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.0.6. What are the risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.0.7. Typical UOC logistics chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Bibliography 28

Index 29
List of Figures
2.1. Vehicle and package labels for transporting radioactive materials . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2. Transport of monazite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Consignor's Declaration for Dangerous Goods front page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A.2. Consignor's Declaration for Dangerous Goods back page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B.1. Transport of UOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

B.2. Risks from a sealed container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B.3. Risks from a sealed container. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B.4. Typical UOC logistics chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on the practical ways of transporting minerals and mineral concentrates contai-
ning elevated concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM).
1.2. Scope
scope of Part 16 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 [1] and of the Radiation Safety
(Transport of Radioactive Substances) Regulations 2002 [2], which adopts the Australian Code of
Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material [7].

Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
This Guideline establishes uniform standards of safety that provide an acceptable level of control of
the radiation and potential hazards to people and the environment that are associated with the trans-
port of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). The Guideline must be read in conjunction
with the Australian Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material [7] and relevant
documents issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) [815]. The latest edition of
the International Transport Safety Regulations [14] contains the same limits and safety principles as
the previous edition [9] and, therefore, the adoption of these regulations into the Australian legisla-
tive framework in the future is not expected to result in major changes to the current requirements
and acceptable practices.
The guideline provides a step-by-step guide for the establishment of transport safety program and
consists of:
1. Determination of the applicability of the Code of Practice.
2. Determination of activity concentration and exemptions.
3. Determination of the classication of the material.
4. Determination if the shipment can be transported as èxcepted package'.
5. Signposting requirements.
6. Conveyances under the èxclusive use'.
7. Load covering.
8. Blending of dierent minerals in one conveyance.
9. Surface contamination issue.
10. Transport of exploration samples.
2.2. Determination of the applicability of the Code of Practice

The rst step is to establish if the Code applies to the movement of potentially radioactive material. If
the transport is within the boundaries of a mining/processing site, the Regulations are not applicable,
in accordance with paragraph 107(b):
107. The Regulations do not apply to:
...
(b) radioactive material moved within an establishment which is subject to appropriate

safety regulations in force in the establishment and where the movement does not involve
public roads or railways;
If, however, there is a need to use a public road, railway or waterway the requirements of the
Code must be complied with.
2.3. Determination of activity concentration and exemptions

If it is established that compliance with the Code is necessary, the next step is to determine the
activity concentration of the material to be transported and compare it with appropriate limits.
Table 1 in Section IV Activity Limits and Material Restrictions gives the values for
nat Th and
nat U at 1.0 Bq/g each (paras 401406). The value of 1 Bq/g refers to the sum of concentrations of
parents of each decay series, i.e.

232 Th and 238 U.
Paragraph 107 of the Code provides an exclusion for most materials handled and transported by the
mining and mineral processing industry:
107. The Regulations do not apply to:
...
(e) natural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides that are either
in their natural state, or have been processed only for purposes other than for the ex-
traction of the radionuclides, and that are not intended to be processed for use of these
radionuclides, provided that the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10
times the values specied in para. 401(b), or calculated in accordance with paras 402406;
...
The actual limits for the minerals and associated products are raised to 10 Bq/g for
nat Th and nat U.
(The value of 10 Bq/g refers to the aggregate activity concentration of

232 Th and 238 U). Please note
that this exemption is not applicable to uranium mining and milling operations.
In the calculation of specic activity it is important to know if mineral processing may have disrupted
the secular equilibrium of thorium and/or uranium decay chains.
2.3.1. Material that has not been a subject of chemical or thermal processing
It is very unlikely that secular equilibrium for both thorium and uranium chains is disrupted during
simple physical concentration/separation of mineral concentrates (e.g. gravimetric separation of heavy
mineral sands).
The following equation is used to estimate activity of the material (in Bq/g), based on parts per
million (microgram per gram) gures typically obtained by laboratory analysis and assumes that
thorium and uranium are 100% of
232 Th and 238 U respectively:
T h(µg/g) × 4.09 × 10−3 Bq/µg T h−232 + U (µg/g) × 1.25 × 10−2 Bq/µg U −238

Practical example 1:
If the material contains 980 ppm Th and 250 ppm U, the calculation will be:
980 × 4.09 × 10−3 + 250 × 1.25 × 10−2 = 7.1Bq/g

In cases where:
It is known that both uranium and thorium decay chains are in the state of secular equilibrium
in the transported material; and
The transported material will not be processed for the use of radionuclides contained in it

The exemption values given in the Annex B of the Code [7]can be used: 800 ppm (parts per mil-
lion) for ores or concentrates containing uranium, and 2400 ppm for ores or concentrates containing
thorium. Please note that, as conrmed in the Code, these are quite signicant concentrations and
would lead to external gamma radiation levels that will typically require additional management.
2.3.2. Material that has been subject to chemical or thermal processing

The complete data on the disruption of the secular equilibrium during processing of mineral concen-
trates is typically not available, but it is prudent to assume that this may occur in case of:
1. Any chemical processing of the material, such as leaching or adding otation agents to the
process.
2. Any thermal processing of the material. Due to the variety of dierent materials in the indus-
try it is impossible to establish a universal cut-o point for the temperature at which some
radionuclides can volatilise and disrupt the equilibrium; however, the value of 250300 is
suggested as a general guide at which additional analysis of the material may be required.
2.3.2.1. If the complete analysis of the material has been carried out
Typically, analysis of the material for some isotopes in both thorium and uranium chains is carried
out. In some cases, the results for each and every radionuclide in each chain are also obtained. As
this may be a very long, costly (and, typically, unnecessary) exercise, the simplied method, based
on half-lives of dierent isotopes (reected in para 406 and in the footnote (b) to the Table 1 of the
Code) is oered:
For thorium chain, the data is required for

232 Th,228 Ra, 228 Th, and 212 Pb; and
For uranium chain, the data is required for

238 U, 230 Th, 226 Ra, and 210 Pb.
Taking into account the 10-times exemption factor described above, exemption values for these
eight radionuclides will be as follows:
232 Th = 100 Bq/g, 228 Ra = 100 Bq/g, 228 Th = 10 Bq/g, 212 Pb = 100 Bq/g.
238 U = 100 Bq/g, 230 Th = 10 Bq/g, 226 Ra = 100 Bq/g, 210 Pb = 100 Bq/g.
There are several ways of specic activity calculation; out of which the `Ratio method' is the easiest.

Ci
Step 1: For each radionuclide present, calculate the ratio:
Xi , where Ci is the concentration of
radionuclide i and is Xi is the appropriate limit from the Table 1 of the Regulations (taking into
account the material is `natural').
X Ci
Step 2: Sum these ratios over all nuclides: , where j is the number of radionuclides.
Xi
j
X Ci
Step 3: Compare the sum with 1 to make a decision on the exemption: ≤1
Xi
j
If the above is correct, the material is exempt from the requirements of the Code.
A mineral has been both chemically and thermally processed , impurities have been removed and
it is ready for shipment. The results of the radionuclides' analysis are as follows (radionuclides in
brackets assumed to be in equilibrium see footnote (b) to the Table 1 of the Code):
Th chain:
232 Th = 1.2 Bq/g, 228 Ra = 1.0 Bq/g (∼228 Ac = 1.0), 228 Th = 1.2 Bq/g (∼224 Ra, 220 Rn,
216 Po = 1.2 Bq/g), 212 Pb = 1.0 Bq/g ( ~ 212 Bi = 1.0 Bq/g, ~208 Tl = 0.36 Bq/g, 212 Po = 0.64 Bq/g);
U chain:
238 U = 0.4 Bq/g (∼234 Th, 234 Pa, 234 U = 0.4 Bq/g), 230 Th = 0.5 Bq/g, 226 Ra = 0.6 Bq/g
(∼
222 Rn, 218 Po, 214 Pb, 214 Bi, 214 Po = 0.6 Bq/g), 210 Pb = 0.5 Bq/g, (∼210 Bi, 210 Po = 0.5 Bq/g).
Calculations:
1.2 232 Th) + [ 1.0 ] (228 Ra) + [ 1.0 ] (228 Ac) + 1.2
228 Th)
1. The ratios for thorium chain: ( (
100 100 100 10
1.2 224 Ra) + 1.2
210 Rn) + 1.2
216 Po) + 1.0
212 Pb + 1.0
212 Bi + 0.36
208 Tl)
+ ( ( ( (
100 100 10000 100 100 100
0.64 212 Po) = 0.206
+ (
100
0.4 238 U) + 0.4
234 Th) + 0.4
234 Pa) + 0.4
234 U)
2. The ratios for uranium chain: ( ( ( (
100 10000 10000 100
0.5 230 Th) + 0.6
226 Ra) + 0.6
222 Rn) + 0.6
218 Po) + 0.6
214 Pb) + 0.6
214 Bi)
+ ( ( ( ( ( (
10 100 100 100 100 100
0.6 214 Po) + 0.5
210 Pb) +
0.5 210 Bi) + 0.5
210 Po) = 0.109
+ ( ( ( (
100 100 100 100
3. The sum is = 0.109
4. The value of 0.315 is less than one; therefore the material is exempt from the regulations.
In the example above, the individual radionuclide activity concentrations in each chain are not
especially out of equilibrium. Therefore, a simple comparison of
232 Th and 238 U with 10 Bq/g may
be all that is required subject to approval by the appropriate authority.
2.3.2.2. If the complete analysis of the material has not been carried out
This method can be used when detailed information about radionuclides' concentrations in the ma-
terial is not available and it is also unknown if both thorium and uranium chains are in secular
equilibrium.
Table 2 in para 406 of the Code suggests the values that should be used in these circumstances.
As the limit for `total activity' in Bq will always be exceeded in case of a bulk shipment of the
mineral, the attention must be paid to the third column of Table 2 (Activity concentration for
exempt material ), which has three categories (associated activity concentration limits multiplied by
the factor of 10 for `natural material' are presented in the brackets):
1. Only beta or gamma emitting radionuclides are known to be present (100 Bq/g).
2. Alpha emitting radionuclides, but no neutron emitters, are known to be present (1 Bq/g).
3. Neutron emitting radionuclides are known to be present or no relevant data are available (1
Bq/g).
As it would be very rare for a transported mineral to contain only beta and gamma emitting radio-
nuclides, the value of 100 Bq/g should only be used when the absence of alpha emitting radionuclides
has been conclusively proven. For all other practical purposes, the value of 1 Bq/g will be applicable.

Practical example No.3:
The same material as in the practical example 2 on page 4 is ready for shipment. The results of the
radionuclides' analysis are not available, the only known value is the concentration of
232 Th = 1.2
Bq/g. In accordance with value specied in Table 2 in para 406, the material will not be exempt
from the Code.
A note on practical examples 2 and 3: The costs and the length of time associated with obtaining
full radionuclide-specic information for a material should be weighed against the disadvantages of
the potentially incorrect classication of this material as `radioactive'. The suggested approach is
to use the partial data in Section 2.3.2.2 and, if it appears that a material is not exempt, carry
out the detailed analysis and use the method described in Section 2.3.2.1). If the laboratory analysis
shows that activity of the material to be transported is very close to the limit (above 9 Bq/g for
a physically separated mineral concentrate, or the sum of activity concentrations calculated by the
method described in Section 2.3.2.2 is above 0.9) it would be prudent to take additional samples
to ensure that at no time the limits are exceeded.
2.3.3. Procedure to follow

If it has been established that transport regulations apply, the following will be required:
1. The carrier must possess an appropriate licence to deal with radioactive material.
2. Three copies of the appropriate transport declaration must be prepared by a responsible person
(typically a Radiation Safety Ocer). Two copies must be given to the driver (one stays with
the transporting company, another is given to the receiver of the material), the third copy
is kept by the responsible person. In the case of multiple transport of the same material a
`standing declaration' could be acceptable provided that prior agreement has been reached
with an appropriate regulatory authority.
3. Appropriate training must be provided to all workers involved in the transport, loading and
unloading the material (paras 311314 of the Code).
4. Appropriate placards should be placed on the vehicle (paras 534548 of the Code).
2.4. Determination if the shipment can be transported as èxcepted

package'
If the determined activity level of the material to be transported exceeds the limit of 10 Bq/g only
by a low margin, there is a possibility that the load can be classied as excepted package (please note
the dierence with exempted package [activity less than 10 Bq/g], when Code does not apply at all).
The main criterion for the determination of the excepted package is in para 516:
516: The radiation level at any point on the external surface of an excepted package shall
not exceed 5 µSv/h.
Please note that the measurement is taken on the surface, not at a distance of one metre.
If the material contains about 20 Bq/g of

232 Th, radiation level from its surface will be approximately
12 µSv/hour and the value can be measured or estimated using relevant dose coecients.
If however, (a) the thickness of the wall of the trailer used for the transport of this material is
increased, or (b) bags or drums used for the transport of the material are placed inside a container
relatively far from all external surfaces (including top and bottom), the surface radiation level from
the package would be lowered to approximately 34 µSv/hour, and the materials can be classied as
excepted package.
All requirements of Code specied in 2.3.3 on the facing page above must be complied with (licensing,
training, declarations), except the last (placarding).
Para 518 gives details of markings required for an excepted package:
Packages shall bear the marking RADIOACTIVE on an internal surface in such a man-
ner that a warning of the presence of radioactive material is visible on opening the package.
Para 536 further describes required markings:
In the case of excepted packages, other than those accepted for international movement
by post, only the United Nations number, preceded by the letters UN, shall be required.
Using the data provided in Table 8 of the Code, the conclusion can be made that in the case of
minerals' transport as an excepted package, the load/container will be marked only with ÙN2910'
instead of the radioactive sign. This sign however, will be required to be visible when, for example,
the tarp is taken from the top of the truck or when a container is opened (the word RADIOACTIVE
must be visible upon opening the package). There are dierent technical ways to address this.
2.5. Determination of the classication of the material and package

categories
If the activity of the material exceeds appropriate limits there is a need for a classication of the
material to ensure that proper placards are displayed during the transport. Firstly, there is a need
to determine the transport index and the category of the consignment.
2.5.1. Transport index (paragraph 526)

1. Determine the maximum radiation level in units of millisieverts per hour (mSv/h) at
a distance of 1 m from the external surfaces of the package, overpack, freight container,
or unpackaged LSAI and SCOI. The value determined shall be multiplied by 100 and
the resulting number is the transport index.
2. For tanks, freight containers and unpackaged LSAI and SCOI, the value determined
in step (a) above shall be multiplied by the appropriate factor from Table 6.
Measured radiation level is 3 µSv/hour (0.003 millisieverts per hour) gives the transport index as
0.3. The values in Table 6 of the International Transport Safety Regulations [14] are given in m
2 for
the largest cross sectional area of the load being measured.
For large road trains it is prudent to assume that the value associated with the size of the load > 20
m
2 will be applicable and the multiplication factor will be 10.
2
For a single truck a dierent value will apply (associated with the size of the load > 5 m , but less
2
than 20 m ), and the multiplication factor will be 3. Therefore, if material is transported in a single
truck, the transport index will be 0.9, if a large road train is used the transport index will be 3.

2.5.2. Category (paragraph 533, Table 7)

The load category is determined by the transport index and the radiation level on external surface.
Please note the dierence transport index is determined by measuring radiation levels at a distance
of 1 metre from the truck, for categorisation of the load the measurement on the surface is required:
If the transport index is 0 and the surface radiation level is < 5 µSv/hour, the Category will
be IWHITE;
If the transport index is more than 0 but less than 1, and the surface radiation level is more
than 5 µSv/hour but less that 500 µSv/hour, the Category will be IIYELLOW;
If the transport index is more than 1 but less than 10, and the surface radiation level is more
than 500 µSv/hour but less that 2000 µSv/hour, the Category will be IIIYELLOW; and
IIIYELLOW category is also used if material is transported under `special arrangement'

(please refer to para 238 of the Code).
In the minerals industry, the typical categories will be IWHITE, IIYELLOW and, occasionally
IIIYELLOW. These labels are illustrated in Figure 2.1 on the next page.
2.5.3. Specic activity (paragraph 226)

Para 226(a) of the Code `Low Specic Activity Material' gives the following denition of LSAI:
LSA material shall be in one of three groups:
(a) LSAI
(i) Uranium and thorium ores and concentrates of such ores, and other ores containing
naturally occurring radionuclides which are intended to be processed for the use of these
radionuclides;
...
(iv) Other radioactive material in which the activity is distributed throughout and the
estimated average specic activity does not exceed 30 times the values for activity concen-
tration specied in paras 401406, excluding ssile material in quantities not excepted
under para 672.
If the activity of the material to be transported is less than 300 Bq/g, the marking LSAI should
be used on the transport label/placard. If, however, the value exceeds 300 Bq/g (which would be
quite rare) the marking LSAII should be used.
2.6. Signposting requirements

Detailed data on marking, labelling and placarding of loads are provided in paras 534548 of the
Code. There are two important points on the placement of placards associated with location of signs
and the denition of a vehicle:
Figure 2.1.: Vehicle and package labels for transporting radioactive materials

2.6.1. Location
Para 571 of the Code species that:
Rail and road vehicles. . . shall display the placard shown in Fig. 6 on each of:
1. The two external lateral walls in the case of a rail vehicle;
2. The two external lateral walls and the external rear wall in the case of a road vehicle.
Para 546.1 of the Advisory Material to the International Transport Regulations [10] provides an
additional comment:
546.1. Placards, which are used on large freight containers and tanks (and also on road
and rail vehicles; see para 570) are designed in a way similar to the package labels. . . in
order to clearly identify the hazards of the dangerous goods. Displaying the placards on all
four sides of the freight containers and tanks ensures ready recognition from all directions.
The size of the placard is intended to make it easy to read, even at a distance. To prevent
the need for an excessive number of placards and labels, an enlarged label only may be used
on large freight containers and tanks, where the enlarged label also serves the function of
a placard.
2.6.2. Denition of the vehicle

The denition of the vehicle, provided in para 247 of the Code should be taken into account prior to
arranging the bulk transport of minerals by road and rail:
Vehicle shall mean a road vehicle (including an articulated vehicle, i.e. a tractor and semi-
trailer combination) or railroad car or railway waggon. Each trailer shall be considered
as a separate vehicle.
A road train (a truck with a semi-trailer) will need to have four signs: one each at the front and
at the back, and two on each side. A longer road train, however, (for example, a truck with two
trailers) will require six signs (two more on the second trailer). In the case of transporting radioactive
material by rail in several carriages an additional advice from an appropriate regulatory authority
on the quantity and location of placards should be sought prior to transport.
2.7. Conveyances under the èxclusive use'

Most NORM in mining and mineral processing industry is transported unpackaged. In this case,
material is typically transported in the conveyance under exclusive use, in accordance with para 523
of the Code. The denition is provided in para 221:
Exclusive use shall mean the sole use, by a single consignor, of a conveyance or of a
large freight container, in respect of which all initial, intermediate and nal loading and
unloading is carried out in accordance with the directions of the consignor or consignee.
Further information is provided in para 221.1. of the Advisory Material to the International Transport
Regulations [10]:
The special features of an èxclusive use' shipment are, by denition, rst, that a single
consignor must make the shipment and must have, through arrangements with the car-
rier, sole use of the conveyance or large freight container; and, second, that all initial,
intermediate and nal loading and unloading of the consignment is carried out only in
strict accordance with directions from the consignor or consignee.
As it is quite uncommon for a truck transporting mineral to deviate for a delivery of a dierent
product for another company, most of the material that is transported by the minerals industry
would be classied as èxclusive use',
Therefore, if a truck transports mineral concentrate from a mine site to a processing plant and then
is used by the same company to transport processing tailings back to a mine site it is under the
èxclusive use' classication.
The main benet of having a vehicle under the èxclusive use' is the fact that internal surfaces will
not need to undergo decontamination between journeys.
Paras 513 and 514 of the Code state:
513. Except as provided in para. 514, any conveyance, or equipment or part thereof which
has become contaminated above the limits specied in para. 508 [surface contamination
limits please see part 9 of the paper below] in the course of the transport of radioactive
material, or which shows a radiation level in excess of 5 µSv/h at the surface, shall be
decontaminated as soon as possible by a qualied person and shall not be re-used unless
the non-xed contamination does not exceed the limits specied in para. 508, and the
radiation level resulting from the xed contamination on surfaces after decontamination
is less than 5 µSv/h at the surface.
514. A freight container, tank, intermediate bulk container or conveyance dedicated to the
transport of unpackaged radioactive material under exclusive use shall be excepted from
the requirements of paras 509 and 513 solely with regard to its internal surfaces and only
for as long as it remains under that specic exclusive use.
Further information is provided in para 513.1. and 514.1 of the Advisory Material [10]:
513.1. Conveyances may become contaminated during the carriage of radioactive material
by the non-xed contamination on the packages. If the conveyance has become contamina-
ted above this level, it should be decontaminated to at least the appropriate limit. This pro-
vision does not apply to the internal surfaces of a conveyance provided that the conveyance
remains dedicated to the transport of radioactive material or surface contaminated objects
under exclusive use (see para. 514.1).
514.1. . . . Decontamination of the internal surfaces after every use could lead to unneces-
sary exposure of workers. . . .
2.8. Load covering

The 2000 edition of the Transport Safety Regulations contained a provision, allowing for loads of
minerals to be transported without a cover; Schedule V, 2 (a) (i) of [8] stated that,
LSA-I material may be transported unpackaged if: All material other than ores contai-
ning only naturally occurring radionuclides are transported in such a manner that under
routine conditions of transport there will be no escape of the radioactive contents from the
conveyance nor will there be any loss of shielding.
This provision has been deleted from the 2005 version of the International Regulations [9], which
conrms the common industry practice that in order to ensure that there is no escape of radioactive
contents mineral that is being transported needs to be covered.

Figure 2.2.: Transport of monazite
Semitrailer placarded for transporting radioactive monazite material.

Note the simple ergonomic system for load covering using a crank handle.
2.9. Blending of dierent minerals in one conveyance

There are two ways of blending of minerals prior to transport:
1. Several dierent streams are simultaneously collected in one storage bin prior to transport and
then loaded into a vehicle.
2. The same several streams are loaded separately into a vehicle.
While there are no specic notes in the Regulations explicitly prohibiting the practice, the second
method is not recommended unless activity concentrations of blended materials do not dier by more
than a factor of 10. There are three main reasons for this recommendation:
1. Impossibility of determining the specic activity of the material in accordance with para 240
of the Code:
Specic activity of a radionuclide shall mean the activity per unit mass of that radio-
nuclide. The specic activity of a material shall mean the activity per unit mass of
the material in which the radionuclides are essentially uniformly distributed.
2. Impossibility of the correct classication of the material, in accordance with the denition of
LSAI (para 226 of the Code):
226. Low specic activity (LSA) material shall mean radioactive material which by
its nature has a limited specic activity, or radioactive material for which limits of
estimated average specic activity apply. External shielding materials surrounding the
LSA material shall not be considered in determining the estimated average specic
activity.
Para 226.4 of the Advisory Material [10] provides an additional clarication:
226.4. The preamble also does not include wording relative to the essentially uniform
distribution of the radionuclides throughout the LSA material. However, it states
clearly that the material should be in such a form that an average specic activity
can be meaningfully assigned to it. In considering actual materials shipped as LSA,
it was decided that the degree of uniformity of the distribution should vary depending
upon the LSA category.
Paras 226.14 and 226.15 of the Advisory Material [10] oer an indication of what may be
acceptable:
226.14. A simple method for assessing the average activity is to divide the volume
occupied by the LSA material into dened portions and then to assess and compare
the specic activity of each of these portions. It is suggested that the dierences in
specic activity between portions of a factor of less than 10 would cause no concern.
226.15. Judgement needs to be exercised in selecting the size of the portions to be

assessed. The method described in para. 226.14 should not be used for volumes of
3 3 3
material of less than 0.2 m . For a volume between 0.2 m and 1.0 m , the volume
3
should be divided into ve, and for a volume greater than 1.0 m into ten parts of
approximately equivalent size.
Therefore, it is theoretically possible to dilute the `radioactive' material with `less radioactive'
one provided that their specic activities do not dier more than by a factor of 10.
3. The transport index of the load is determined by measuring of the maximum radiation level
at 1 metre from the truck and categorisation is carried out by measuring of the maximum
surface radiation level, which would be signicantly dierent on the surfaces of a particular
conveyance/container.
If two tonnes of monazite concentrate (specic activity of 90 Bq/g) are placed on the bottom of the
trailer and then covered with 23 tonnes of the material with much lesser activity for example sand
processing tailings with specic activity of 1 or 2 Bq/g:
the specic activity and class of the material cannot be determined by simple averaging, as
radionuclides are not uniformly distributed; and
the measured maximum radiation levels at both one metre and on the surface will still be high
enough at some locations to require appropriate placarding of the truck.
If, however, a material with a specic activity of 15 Bq/g is mixed with the same sand tailings
containing 2 Bq/g, the specic activity of the load can be calculated and it is also likely that the
surface radiation level from a vehicle/container will be less than 5 µSv/hour. In this case, transporting
of the mixed material as an èxcepted package' is possible.
In the absence advice to the contrary, measurements of surface radiation level should be done not
only on the side surfaces, but also on the bottom and top of the load. Therefore, any options to
transport material with >10 Bq/g as èxcepted package' after some kind of blending in the truck are
considered to be impractical.
Discussion about the possibility of blending of dierent materials directly inside the truck/trailer
in regards to heavy minerals sands (considering that by prior arrangement with an appropriate
regulatory authority the measurement on the bottom of the trailer would not be required):

In the case of blending of monazite concentrate (90 Bq/g) with plant tails (2 Bq/g), the outcome will
depend on the amount of monazite concentrate that was placed in the truck prior to covering it with
òther' tailings. If it is only at about 2 m
3 pile in the centre and does not touch the walls from the
inside, there is a possibility that this load would be an èxcepted package' (measurements will have
to be carried out in any case). That is, unless these 23 m
3 are positioned directly in the middle
of the load and separated from the walls from all sides, the Code will apply. In practice, a slight
inaccuracy in positioning of the radioactive material in the middle of the trailer or minor overloading
will require for the trailer to be emptied and the operation repeated.
Additionally, no matter how accurate the positioning and amount of the material in the middle of
the trailer may be, the sand will undoubtedly move to at least one side of the trailer during the travel
to another storage bin with `less radioactive' material.
2.10. Surface contamination issue

A dierent issue is associated with the fact that there are no special provisions for natural material
in the Code in regards to surface contamination. However, it should be noted that the surface
contamination limits described below do not apply to èxempted' material. In the case of heavy
mineral sands, for example, if even a 0.5 mm thick layer of a sand concentrate is present on the
surface of an item to be transported, it is likely to be classied as a `Surface Contaminated Object'.
2.10.1. Denitions
Para. 214 of the Code and the associated part of the Advisory Material specify what `surface
contamination' is:
Code: 214. Contamination shall mean the presence of a radioactive substance on a surface
2
in quantities in excess of 0.4 Bq/cm for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha
2
emitters, or 0.04 Bq/cm for all other alpha emitters.
Advisory Material: 214.3. Any surface with levels of contamination lower than 0.4
2
Bq/cm for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters or 0.04 Bq/cm
2
for all other alpha emitters is considered a non-contaminated surface in applying the Re-
gulations. For instance, a non-radioactive solid object with levels of surface contamination
lower than the above levels is out of the scope of the Regulations, and no requirement is
applicable to its transport.
The denition of `Low toxicity alpha emitters' is given in para. 227 of the Regulations:
227. Low toxicity alpha emitters are: natural uranium; depleted uranium; natural tho-
rium; uranium235 or uranium238; thorium232; thorium228 and thorium230 when
contained in ores or physical and chemical concentrates; or alpha emitters with a half-life
of less than 10 days.
There are two types of surface contaminated objects, which are dened in para. 241 of the Code:
Surface contaminated object
241. Surface contaminated object (SCO) shall mean a solid object which is not itself
radioactive but which has radioactive material distributed on its surfaces. SCO shall be
in one of two groups:
(a) SCOI: A solid object on which:

2
(i) the non-xed contamination on the accessible surface averaged over 300 cm (or the
2 2
area of the surface if less than 300 cm ) does not exceed 4 Bq/cm for beta and gamma
2
emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters, or 0.4 Bq/cm for all other alpha emitters; and
...
(b) SCOII: A solid object on which either the xed or non-xed contamination on the
surface exceeds the applicable limits specied for SCOI in (a) above and on which:
2
(i) the non-xed contamination on the accessible surface averaged over 300 cm (or the
2 2
area of the surface if less than 300 cm ) does not exceed 400 Bq/cm for beta and gamma
2
emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters, or 40 Bq/cm for all other alpha emitters;
Para. 523 of the Code details when surface contamination objects can be transported unpackaged:
523. LSA material and SCO in groups LSAI and SCOI may be transported unpackaged
under the following conditions:
(a) All unpackaged material other than ores containing only naturally occurring radionu-
clides shall be transported in such a manner that under routine conditions of transport
there will be no escape of the radioactive contents from the conveyance nor will there be
any loss of shielding;
(b) Each conveyance shall be under exclusive use, except when only transporting SCOI
on which the contamination on the accessible and the inaccessible surfaces is not greater
than ten times the applicable level specied in para.. 214; and
(c) For SCOI where it is suspected that non-xed contamination exists on inaccessible
surfaces in excess of the values specied in para.. 241(a)(i), measures shall be taken to
ensure that the radioactive material is not released into the conveyance.
It is highly unlikely that materials processed by minerals industry will contain alpha emitters that
will not be classied as `low toxicity' ones. The following limits are therefore applicable to any item
transported from a mineral mining/processing site on a public road:
2
1. Surface contamination is less than 0.4 Bq/cm an object is not classied as `contaminated'.
2. Surface contamination is above 0.4 Bq/cm

2 but less than 4.0 Bq/cm2 an object will fall into
an SCOI category.
3. Surface contamination is above 4 Bq/cm

2 (but not more than 400 Bq/cm2 ) an object will
fall into an SCOII category.
Therefore, it appears that if any object is found to have surface contamination in excess of 0.4
Bq/cm
2 it will need to be transported in accordance with the requirements of the Code, as described
in Section 2.3.3 on page 6 above. After the transport, a vehicle used for this purpose will need to be
decontaminated in accordance with para. 504 of the Code:
504. Tanks and intermediate bulk containers used for the transport of radioactive material
shall not be used for the storage or transport of other goods unless decontaminated below
2
the level of 0.4 Bq/cm for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters and
2
0.04 Bq/cm for all other alpha emitters.
Please note that IAEA 2005 Regulations require that not only potentially contaminated objects but
also the conveyance that is used to transport them should be checked for the presence of surface
contamination in excess of specied limits.
However, as detailed in the Section 2.3, the Code does not apply to the transported NORM that
will not be processed to extract radioactive elements and where radioactivity concentrations are
below those specied above. The advice received from ARPANSA in 2008 [16] in regards to the
implementation of the new Code [7] was that: as the Code is not applicable to certain materials
the requirements for surface contamination control are also not applicable. ARPANSA noted
however, that decontamination of vehicles may be required under separate environmental and/or

radiation protection legislation, but not the Transport Code. An example of a restriction which
would require the implementation of all appropriate surface contamination control measures on an
exploration, mining and/or minerals processing site is the level to which the radiation monitoring
equipment is set on entrances to some landlls and scrap metal yards.
2.10.2. Practical considerations

Potentially all equipment and buildings used in the processing of minerals containing naturally oc-
curring radioactive material may become surface contaminated objects and it is therefore important
to ensure that no contaminated equipment and scrap metal is re-used in other industries and/or
melted.
In mining and minerals processing industry it would be impractical to carry out wipe tests and send
them to be analysed in a laboratory. Therefore, a simple surface contamination test can be carried
out. In the case of a single object, only one or two measurements will be required; but in the case of
a truck already lled with numerous potentially contaminated items, many separate tests will need
to be performed. Therefore, it is advisable to survey the items prior to loading of the vehicle.
A simple check of gamma radiation levels in the vicinity of a potentially contaminated item may reveal
the presence of radioactive material on internal and/or external surfaces. When gamma radiation
levels at a distance of 1 metre of an item are measurably higher than the background level in the
area, it is highly likely that an item will be classied as surface contaminated object. If, for example,
it is desired that no objects will be classied as surface contaminated in a load of scrap metal, this
particular item will need to undergo additional cleaning prior to any tests for surface contamination.
Surface contamination measurements that typically follow the measurement of gamma radiation
levels are quite easy to perform:
1. A monitor capable of measuring surface contamination should be available.
2. A monitor should be appropriately calibrated i.e. the certicate should state a conversion
factor between obtained cpm (counts per minute) and the value in Bq/cm .
2
3. A monitor should have a window that can be opened and closed shielding the probe from
alpha and beta radiation.
4. Measurements are typically carried out over a one-minute interval in a close proximity to the
surface (less than 5 mm).
5. It is necessary to ensure that material is dry before surface contamination readings are carried
out. Two measurements are taken rst with the window closed (that will be a `background'
reading), second with the window open, and two values in `counts per minute' obtained.
6. The `background' value should then be subtracted from the second reading and the result
compared with the limits specied in the Code (using the conversion factor for a particular
monitor).
As specied in Section 2.4 on page 6, there is a possibility that surface contaminated items can be
transported as èxcepted package' (denition from para. 516 of the Code):
The radiation level at any point on the external surface of an excepted package shall not
exceed 5 µSv/h.
Additional requirements (described in the practical example 10 below) will need to be satised before
the load can be transported as èxcepted package' that is, without a `radioactive' sign on the outside
of the conveyance (all other requirements of transport regulations specied in Section 2.3.3 on page 6
must be complied with - licensing, training, transport declarations).
Surface contaminated items need to be transported by road from a processing site to a mining site for
the nal disposal in a mined out pit. An average gamma-radiation level from items is 2.0 µGy/hour
and surface contamination level is, on average, 0.8 Bq/cm .
2
1. It is suggested that all material is to be wrapped in ne mesh shade cloth or covered to ensure
that:
a) There will be no escape of radioactive contents from the conveyance nor will there be any
loss of shielding (para. 523(a)).
b) As contamination on the accessible and the inaccessible surfaces will not be greater than
ten times the applicable level specied in para. 214, there will be no need to have each
conveyance under exclusive use (para. 523(b)).
c) If it will be suspected that non-xed contamination exists on inaccessible surfaces, mea-

sures will be taken to ensure that the radioactive material is not released into the
conveyance (para. 523(c)).
2. There will be no requirement for trucks to bear the signs `Radioactive SCOI', as the pa-
ckage will be classied as èxcepted' (para. 516); and no contamination will be present of any
accessible surface of the load.
3. All drivers involved must undergo a specic radiation safety induction.
4. Transport declarations must be prepared and truck will not be allowed to leave site until it has
been established that all documentation is in order.
5. Each truck should be surveyed to ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with.
A summary for dierent levels of surface contamination:
1. < 0.4 Bq/cm

2 exempted.
2. > 0.4 but < 4.0 Bq/cm

2 (covered/wrapped) excepted: all documents, no signposting.
3. > 0.4 but < 4.0 Bq/cm

2 (open vehicle) not excepted: all documents, `SCOI' placard.
4. > 4.0 Bq/cm

2 all documents, `SCO- II' placard.
Further information on issues associated with surface contamination and a detailed technical advice
can be found in the technical document issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
[11]; and on the setting up of the radiation protection program for transport activities and emergency
response in the relevant IAEA Safety Guides [12, 13].
2.11. Transport of exploration samples

The transport of exploration samples from a site to a laboratory should be also carried out in
accordance with the Code [7]. As the exact concentrations of radionuclides in the transported material
are typically unknown, the following simplied method is suggested:
1. Determine if the package can be classied as excepted the main requirement is that the
gamma dose rate on all surfaces of the package does not exceed 5 µSv/h. In this case the
process described in Section 2.4 on page 6 needs to be followed.
2. If the level anywhere on the surface of the package exceeds 5 µSv/h, the requirements outlined
in Sections 2.5 on page 7 and 2.6 on page 8 (and, in some cases Sections 2.7 on page 10
and 2.10 on page 14) need to be followed.

The exploration samples must be transported in such a way as to ensure that the material is contained
within the conveyance under the normal conditions of transport. There should also not be any
contamination on the internal surface of the vehicle (unless it is under the èxclusive use' then refer
to Section 2.7 on page 10).
Acknowledgement: The guideline is based on a technical paper by N. Tsurikov, P.J. Hinrichsen. M.

Omar, H.R.S.M. Fernandes [6].
A. Appendix with the Consignor's Declaration

Road/Rail/Inland Waterways Consignor's Declaration for Dangerous Goods Class 7 Radioactive
Material.
Click here to open electronic version of Consignor's Declaration →

Figure A.1.: Consignor's Declaration for Dangerous Goods front page
ROAD/RAIL/INLAND WATERWAYS CONSIGNOR’S DECLARATION FOR DANGEROUS GOODS
CLASS 7 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

TWO COMPLETED AND SIGNED COPIES OF THIS DECLARATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE CARRIER
CONSIGNOR (SENDER'S NAME AND ADDRESS): NAME OF TRANSPORTING COMPANY AND
CONSIGNMENT No.
CONSIGNOR'S REFERENCE No.

CONSIGNEE (RECEIVER'S NAME AND ADDRESS): INLAND WATERWAYS USE ONLY
PORT OF LOADING ............................................................
DATE OF LOADING.............................................................
PORT OF DISCHARGE ........................................................
VESSEL............................................................................
CONTAINER No..................................................................
NATURE AND QUANTITY OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

See applicable Codes: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — Safety Requirements No. TS-R-1 (2005) and the Code of Practice for Safe
Transport of Radioactive Material 2008 (“The Transport Code”)
MAX ACTIVITY OF
PHYSICAL AND RADIOACTIVE
RADIONUCLIDE CHEMICAL FORM CONTENTS
PROPER UNITED SUBSIDIARY RISK
UNITED
SHIPPING NAME NATIONS Name or symbol of “special form” or “low in Becquerel units (Bq)
NATIONS
DANGEROUS (if applicable) each radionuclide dispersible radioactive with appropriate SI prefix
NUMBER e.g. Iridium-192,
Refer overleaf GOODS CLASS Classes 1 to 8 material” is
Ir-192 or 192Ir acceptable, if or
applicable Mass in grams (g) for
fissile material
7 UN
COMPETENT
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
INDEX APPROVAL
Definition: CRITICALITY NUMBER OF TOTAL ACTIVITY OF
CATEGORY OF CERTIFICATE EXCLUSIVE USE THE CONSIGNMENT
100 times the SAFETY PACKAGES
PACKAGE maximum radiation NUMBER(S) SHIPMENT
INDEX
dose in millisievert (for LSA-II, LSA-III, SCO-
per hour (mSv/h) at required for special Information to be I or SCO-II only)
Delete category not Delete category not
1 metre For fissile form r/a material, low repeated for each
applicable applicable
material only dispersible r/a material, package Multiple of A2
For Yellow hazard special arrangement,
categories only package design or
shipment
I-WHITE
YES
OR
II-YELLOW or
OR NO
III-YELLOW
WARNING
FAILURE TO COMPLY IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE APPLICABLE RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS TRANSPORT REGULATIONS
MAY BE IN BREACH OF THE APPLICABLE LAW, SUBJECT TO LEGAL PENALTIES. THIS DECLARATION MUST NOT, IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, BE COMPLETED AND/OR SIGNED BY A CONSOLIDATOR, A FORWARDER OR CARGO AGENT.
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS CONSIGNMENT ARE NAME OF CONSIGNOR: (PLEASE PRINT)
FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED ABOVE BY THE PROPER SHIPPING
NAME AND ARE CLASSIFIED, PACKED, MARKED AND LABELLED, AND
ARE IN ALL RESPECTS IN PROPER CONDITION FOR TRANSPORT BY
ROAD/RAIL/INLAND WATERWAYS (check transport mode/s below)
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS.
SIGNATURE
ROAD RAIL INLAND WATERWAYS
(SEE ABOVE WARNING)
DATE
ADDITIONAL HANDLING INFORMATION (e.g. Schedule Number, Special arrangements, Exclusive use, other information)
SEE REVERSE FOR INFORMATION FOR CARRIERS AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
Version Date: June 2009
Figure A.2.: Consignor's Declaration for Dangerous Goods back page
INFORMATION FOR CARRIERS

HANDLING RULES IN CASE OF ACCIDENT
Radioactive materials presented for transportation are packaged in accordance with the IAEA If a radioactive material package has been damaged, and you suspect that the damage may
Regulations which ensure that they are safe to handle under normal conditions. Nevertheless, to allow leakage of radiation or spillage of radioactive material:
prevent unnecessary exposure to radiation there are certain basic rules which should followed as Stay away from the package and do not touch it.
the radiation exposure received will depend on how long and how close a person remains near the Keep other people away from it.
packages containing radioactive materials. To minimise radiation exposures: Notify your supervisor or manager, also inform them of any person who might have been
Keep contact time with the package short. contaminated — they will call for expert technical help if necessary.
Radioactive material package should be handled a without delay — keep it moving. Tell anybody who might have touched the damaged package to report to the supervisor or
Do not stand around, sit near or sit on a radioactive material package. manager — they will arrange the necessary action.
Do not carry out time-consuming tasks, such as paperwork, near a package. Wash your hands thoroughly if you have touched the damaged package or objects near it
Keep yourself and other persons as far away as practicable from packages containing and tell the supervisor or manager of your possible contamination by radioactive material.
radioactive material. Have yourself checked for possible contamination before you leave work.
Store packages well away from offices, rest rooms and occupied work areas Note any vehicles involved in the accident — the vehicles should remain at the accident site
When transporting packages containing radioactive material any long distance, use a vehicle until cleared by the police or a competent person.
that will allow you to keep a metre or more between you and the packages. Do not eat or smoke or drink or leave until checked for possible contamination.
Secure packages so that they will not move during transport — small, light packages should be Advise the competent authority of details of the accident as soon as possible and follow any
stored in a basket while larger, heavy packages should be properly blocked and braced. instructions subsequently issued.
Do not store in the one location packages with transport indexes that add up to more than 50.
You will find the transport index written on the Yellow Category II or Category III label.
DANGEROUS GOODS CLASS LOADING RESTRICTIONS FOR ROAD AND RAIL

(Australian Dangerous Goods Code Sixth Edition 1998 – Clause 9.2.7)
(1) The requirements of this clause are additional to those of the Australian Code of Practice
for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material.
(2) Dangerous goods of Class 7 must be separated from other placard loads of dangerous
goods and rolling stock listed below by at least:
(a) 24 metres from:
– dangerous goods of Class 1 or 2.1
– locomotive in power
– guard's brake van
– wagon loaded with logs, rails, beams, pipes etc. without bulkhead EMERGENCIES:
– vehicle carrying passengers;
(b) 12 metres from:
AFTER HOURS CONTACT POLICE OR FIRE BRIGADE
– dangerous goods of Class 3, 4, 5, or 8
– operating refrigerated container. AUSTRALIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE TRANSPORT OF
UN PROPER SHIPPING NAME Subsidiary RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL BY ROAD/RAIL/INLAND WATERWAYS
NUMBER and description risks COMMONWEALTH CONTACT COMPETENT
2910 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, EXCEPTED PACKAGE STATE / TERRITORY AUTHORITY
– LIMITED QUANTITY OF MATERIAL Commonwealth Chief Executive Officer Australian Radiation
2911 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, EXCEPTED PACKAGE ARPANSA Protection and
– INSTRUMENTS or ARTICLES PO Box 655 Tel: (02) 9541 8333 Nuclear Safety
2909 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, EXCEPTED PACKAGE Miranda NSW 1490 Fax: (02) 9541 8348 Agency (ARPANSA)
– ARTICLES MANUFACTURED FROM NATURAL URANIUM or Email: info@arpansa.gov.au
DEPLETED URANIUM or NATURAL THORIUM Australian Capital Director Australian Capital
2908 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, EXCEPTED PACKAGE Territory Health Protection Service Territory Radiation
– EMPTY PACKAGING Locked Bag 5 Tel: (02) 6205 1700 Council
2912 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, LOW SPECIFIC ACTIVITY (LSA-I) Weston Creek ACT 2611 Fax: (02) 6205 1705
non fissile or fissile-excepted * Email: hps@act.gov.au
3321 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, LOW SPECIFIC ACTIVITY (LSA-II) New South Wales Manager Hazardous Materials and Radiation Department of
non fissile or fissile-excepted * PO Box A290 Tel: (02) 9995 5000 Environment and
3322 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, LOW SPECIFIC ACTIVITY (LSA-III) Sydney South NSW 1232 Fax: (02) 9995 6603 Climate Change
non fissile or fissile-excepted * Email: radiation@environment.nsw.gov.au
2913 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, SURFACE CONTAMI-NATED Northern Territory Chief Inspector – Radioactive Ores and Concentrates Work Health
OBJECTS (SCO-I or SCO-II) non fissile or fissile-excepted * (i) for radioactive ores (Packaging and Transport) Authority
2915 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE A PACKAGE, non-special form, and concentrates NT WorkSafe
non fissile or fissile-excepted * Department of Justice
3332 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE A PACKAGE, SPECIAL FORM,
GPO Box 1722 Tel: (08) 8999 5010
non fissile or fissile-excepted * Darwin NT 0801 Fax:(08) 8999 5141
Email: neil.watson@nt.gov.au
2916 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE B(U) PACKAGE, non fissile or
fissile-excepted * (ii) for all other Manager Radiation Protection Department of
2917 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE B(M) PACKAGE, non fissile or radioactive substances Department of Health & Families Health and Families
fissile-excepted * GPO Box 40596 Tel: (08) 8922 7489
3323 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE C PACKAGE, non fissile or Casuarina NT 0811 Fax: (08) 8922 7334
fissile-excepted * Email: envirohealth@nt.gov.au
2919 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TRANSPORTED UNDER SPECIAL Queensland Director, Radiation Health Unit Queensland
ARRANGEMENT, non fissile or fissile-excepted * Department of Health Department of
2978 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE non corrosive PO Box 2368 Tel: (07) 3328 9200 Health
fissile or fissile-excepted * (UN Class 8) Fortitude Valley BC QLD 4006 Fax: (07) 3328 9622
3324 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, LOW SPECIFIC ACTIVITY (LSA-II),
Email: radiation_health@health.qld.gov.au
FISSILE South Australia Director, Radiation Protection Division Minister for
3325 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, LOW SPECIFIC ACTIVITY (LSA-III), Environment Protection Authority Environment &
FISSILE PO Box 2607 Tel: (08) 8463 7814 Conservation
3326 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, SURFACE CONTA-MINATED
Adelaide SA 5001 Fax: (08) 8124 4671
OBJECTS (SCO-I or SCO-II), FISSILE Email: radiationprotection@epa.sa.gov.au
3327 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE A PACKAGE, FISSILE
Tasmania Senior Health Physicist, Health Physics Branch Director of Public
non-special form Department of Health & Human Services Health
GPO Box 125B Tel: (03) 6222 7256
3333 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE A PACKAGE, SPECIAL FORM,
FISSILE Hobart TAS 7001 Fax: (03) 6222 7257
Email: health.physics@dhhs.tas.gov.au
3328 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE B(U) PACKAGE, FISSILE
Victoria Team Leader, Radiation Safety Secretary,
3329 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE B(M) PACKAGE, FISSILE
Department of Human Services Department of
3330 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TYPE C PACKAGE, FISSILE GPO Box 4057 Tel: 1300 767 469 Human Services
3331 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, TRANSPORTED UNDER SPECIAL Melbourne VIC 3001 Fax: 1300 769 274
ARRANGEMENT, FISSILE Email: radiation.safety@dhs.vic.gov.au
2977 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE, FISSILE corrosive Western Australia The Secretary, Radiological Council Radiological Council
(UN Class 8) Locked Bag 2006 PO Tel: (08) 9346 2260
Nedlands WA 6009 Fax: (08) 9381 1423
* “Fissile-excepted” applies only to those packages complying with para. 672 of The Transport Code.
Email: radiation.health@health.wa.gov.au

B. Appendix on transport of uranium oxide

concentrate
During processing of uranium ore, the daughter products are separated out and a weakly radioactive
uranium oxide concentrate (UOC or U3 O8 ) is produced. Uranium is exported in the form of UOC
which is both chemically and physically stable. It cannot undergo a chain reaction as in weapons
grade uranium.
B.0.1. Packaging
UOC is packaged in sealed 205 litre steel drums. Each drum has a tight tting lid which is secured to
the drum by means of a steel locking ring that is clamped by a locking ring bolt. Drums lled with
UOC are stowed securely to international standards, within 6.05 metre International Organisation for
Standardization (ISO) sea freight containers by means of a webbed Kevlar based strapping system,
commercially known as `CORDSTRAP'as shown in Figure B.1 on the next page.
This is the preferred packing method and complies with the requirements of the International Ma-
ritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) code and relevant United Nations guidelines for Packing of Cargo
Transport Units. This packing method has been formally approved by the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA).
The packed containers are placarded, inspected and sealed with consecutively numbered bolt-type
seals axed to the door of each container at the mine site. Containers remain sealed throughout the
journey from mine to nal overseas point of delivery. Container seals are checked for integrity at all
transhipment and discharge points.
The Transport Index (TI) is an indicative measure of the potential gamma radiation level at 1 metre
from a shipping container. Table B.1 provides a guide to the length of time a person would need to
spend continually standing at a distance of 1 metre from a shipping container of UOC in order to
exceed the international worker annual limit of 20 millisieverts (mSv).
Table B.1.: Transport Index
Transport Index Equivalent hours Equivalent days
[TI] at 1 metre at 1 metre
2.0 1000 40
4.5 444 19
6.0 333 14
Source: Values derived using TI as dened in the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of
Radioactive Material [7].
Figure B.1.: Transport of UOC
B.0.2. Transport
UOC is transported worldwide by road, rail and sea. It is classed as a dangerous good under the
Australian Dangerous Goods Code (Class 7) and UN number UN2912. The proper shipping name
is `Radioactive Material, Low Specic Activity (LSA1) Non-Fissile or Fissile Excepted'. Within
Australia, the transportation of UOC by road or rail from mine site to intermodal export facilities
is regulated in accordance with Australian Government, state and territory legislation as well as
international standards. Sea transport of UOC is regulated according to international standards.
International standards require that each container packed with UOC bear a UN2912 Radioactive
Class 7 placard and a Radioactive Category II Yellow placard axed in a vertical orientation to each
side wall and each end wall of the container. Specic documentation, manifesting the load details, is
carried in the driver's cabin of each vehicle.
B.0.3. Transport plan

Each producer/shipper of UOC based in Australia has prepared an individual Transport Plan that
specically focuses on the numerous activities and responsibilities that need to be addressed and
covered by all parties and individuals involved in the transportation of UOC containers from their
mine site to the applicable export shipping port or terminal.
B.0.4. Permit to transport nuclear material

In Australia, all parties involved in production, transport, handling or storage of UOC are required
to obtain either a `Permit to Possess Nuclear Material' or a `Permit to Transport Nuclear Mate-
rial' from the Australian Safeguards and NonProliferation Oce (ASNO). These permits detail the

responsibilities of the Permit Holder, including security and control of the UOC, maintaining do-
cumentation and records for UOC shipments, and notifying ASNO of any changes in conditions or
incidents relating to the storage or carriage of UOC.
B.0.5. Radiation protection, rst aid and safety measures

UOC is harmful only if inhaled or ingested. Provided sensible precautions are taken to avoid inha-
lation or ingestion, it will not present a health hazard to people handling it. Skin contact should be
avoided and personal hygiene is important: wash hands, do not smoke, and minimise exposure to
dust.
1. Occupational radiation received during the transportation of low level UOC is a factor of the
time spent working around the material and the intensity of radiation emitted by the material.
2. The total time involved handling or transporting the UOC containers combined with the very
low levels of radiation emitted by the UOC itself therefore severely reduces the probability of
receiving any hazardous exposure from the material in the normal course of events. Indeed,
exposure from this source is well below the regulatory limit for transport workers.
3. If appropriate precautions are taken to minimise exposure when handling, transporting or

storing UOC materials there will be no risk to health. As UOC has slight chemical toxicity
and is weakly radioactive, inhalation and ingestion should be avoided.
4. If a spillage of UOC does occur, the main health consideration will be to prevent yourself
and others from breathing in any UOC dust. The likelihood of this occurring is low due to
the density of the material and the drum packing and stowage methods employed within the
packed container. However it makes good practical sense, irrespective of the size of any spillage,
to always remember you must wear a dust mask and gloves.
5. These safety precautions are similar to the expectations and standards required by handlers of
other dangerous goods and hazardous materials.
B.0.6. What are the risks?

Figure B.2 on the next page shows the ideal working distance from a container of UOC.
B.0.7. Typical UOC logistics chain

Figure B.4 on page 27 shows the typical transport logistics chain to ensure that the UOC shipping
container is safely delivered to its purchaser at the destination.
Acknowledgement: The section in this Guideline about the transport of UOC is based on a leaet
produced by the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources [17].
Figure B.2.: Risks from a sealed container
Expect normal background radiation from a sealed container.
Precautions
A B C
Reduce and limit time spent Expect normal background Expect normal background
in close proximity. radiation levels. radiation levels.

Figure B.3.: Risks from a sealed container.
Expect normal background radiation from a sealed container.
UOC SPILT
FROM DRUM
C W
IN A B
D
s
etre
10 m
LIMIT THE TIME YOU SPEND

WORKING AROUND
SEALED CONTAINERS OF WEAR DUST
UOC
MASK LIMIT THE TIME YOU SPEND
WORKING AROUND
SEALED CONTAINERS OF
UOC
Precautions
A B C
Reduce and limit time spent Reduce and limit time spent. No dust.
in close proximity. Wear a Person downwind of spill
dust mask. Wash hands and should wear a dust mask.
clothes. Wash hands and clothes.
Figure B.4.: Typical UOC logistics chain
UOC packed UOC

UOC produced and
securely in 20 foot documentation
packed in drums
shipping produced for
at mine site
containers transport from
mine site to
wharf or rail
terminal
UOC containers
are placarded,
inspected and
loaded onto trucks
UOC transported to rail
UOC loaded on rail
UOC arrives at
destination and
unloaded onto trucks Shipper produces
UOC produced and
and transported to documentation for
packed in drums
container storage shipping line,
at mine site
facility AMSA and ASNO
UOC transported
to wharf
Shipper completes
UOC loaded on vessel,
remaining
shipping line provides
documentation for
bills of lading to
ASNO and
shipper
conversion facility
UOC discharged at
final overseas
port
UOC collected at
port and loaded on
trucks or rail
Shipper completes
UOC delivered to
remaining
conversion
documentation for
facility
ASNO

Bibliography
[2] Radiation Safety (Transport Radioactive Substances) Regulations, 2002.
[4] Sources and Eects of Ionising Radiation; 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientic
Annexes, United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),
2000.
[6] Application of the Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material to Bulk Shipments
of Materials in Minerals Industry, N. Tsurikov, P.J. Hinrichsen. M. Omar, H.R.S.M. Fernandes
Radiation Protection in Australasia, 2007
[7] Code of Practice Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Radiation Protection Series No.2,
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2008.
[8] Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Safety Requirements No. TSR1,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 1996 Edition (Revised in 2000).
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2005 Edition.
[10] Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material,
Safety Guide No. TSG1.1, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2002.
[11] IAEA TECDOC1449, Radiological Aspects of Non-xed Contamination of Packages and

Conveyances, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2005.
[12] Radiation Protection Programs for the Transport of Radioactive Material, Safety Guide No.
TS-G-1.3, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2007.
[13] Planning and Preparing for Emergency Response to Transport Accidents Involving Radioactive
Material, Safety Guide No. TS-G-1.2, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna,
2002.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2009 Edition.
[15] Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material,
Safety Guide No. TSG1.1 (Rev.1), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna,
2008.
[16] Summary of submissions and responses Draft Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of
Radioactive Material, ARPANSA, 2008.
[17] Safe and eective transport of uranium Uranium Industry Framework Implementation Trans-
port Working Group, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007.
Index
10-times exemption factor, 4 low specic activity, 12
Low Specic Activity Material, 8
activity concentration, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 low toxicity alpha emitters, 14, 15
activity equation, 3 LSA, 12
activity limits, 3 LSA1, 23
activity per unit mass, 12 LSAI, 7, 8
advisory material, 13 LSAII, 8
aggregate activity concentration, 3
alpha emitters, 14 material restrictions, 3
AMSA, 22 minerals industry, 3
ASNO, 23 monazite concentrate, 13, 14
multiplication factor, 7
background, 16
beta emitters, 5, 14, 15 neutron emitters, 5
beta gamma emitters, 15 non-xed contamination, 15
blending, 2, 12, 13 NORM, 2
bulk transport, 10
placards, 68
Category IWHITE, 8 public road, 2
Category IIYELLOW, 8
Category IIIYELLOW, 8 radiation safety ocer, 6
chemical processing, 4 radioactive material, 12

radium (
226 Ra), 4
classication, 2
radium (
228 Ra), 4
consignment, 7
consignor, 10 railway, 2
cordstrap, 22 Ratio method, 4
counts per minute, 16 road train, 10

routine conditions, 11
excepted package, 2, 16
exclusive use, 2, 10 SCO, 14
exempted package, 6 SCOI, 7, 14
exemption, 2 SCOII, 15
scrap metal, 16
otation agents, 4 secular equilibrium, 35
shielding, 11
gamma emitters, 5, 14, 15 signposting, 2
gravimetric separation, 3 special arrangement, 8
specic activity, 4, 12
IAEA, 2
standing declaration, 6
IMDG, 22
surface contaminated, 16
laboratory analysis, 6 Surface Contaminated Object, 14
leaching, 4 surface contaminated object, 14
lead (
210 Pb), 4 surface contamination, 2, 14, 16, 17
lead (
212 Pb), 4
thermal processing, 4
load covering, 11
29
thorium (
228 Th), 4
thorium (
230 Th), 4
thorium (
232 Th), 3, 4, 6
thorium (natural), 3
total activity, 5
training, 6
transport driver, 6
transport index, 7, 8, 13
transport licence, 6
transport of radioactive material, 2
UN2910, 7
UN2912, 23
UOC, 22
uranium (
238 U), 3, 4
uranium (natural), 3
waterway, 2
NORM5
Dose assessment
Reference
mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM5 Dose assessment: Resources Safety, Department of
Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 71pp. <http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/>

Guideline NORM5 Dose assessment
Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 6
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. External radiation exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Designated employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Non-designated employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.3. Other employees and members of the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4. Data interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Internal radiation exposure (dust inhalation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Dose assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. Correction factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Internal radiation exposure (inhalation of radon/thoron and decay products) . . . . . 12
2.5. Internal radiation exposure (ingestion of drinking water) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6. Internal radiation exposure (ingestion of food, dust and soil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7. Complex dose assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. Appendix dening the ICRP lung model 19

A.1. Lung absorption types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Appendix listing the radiation weighting factors 22

C. Appendix listing the thorium/uranium radionuclide activities and committed eective
dose 24
D. Appendix listing the thorium/uranium dose conversion factors 34
E. Appendix listing air sampling alpha activities and their correction factors 49
F. Appendix listing radon/thoron intakes 51
G. Appendix listing ingestion radionuclide activities and committed eective dose 52
H. Appendix listing drinking water dose conversion factors 56
I. Appendix with dose conversion factor charts 59

Bibliography 69
Index 71
List of Figures
A.1. Human respiratory tract model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A.2. Inuence of particle size on deposition in the various regions of the respiratory tract 21
I.1. Chart 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
I.2. Chart 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
I.3. Chart 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
I.4. Chart 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
I.5. Chart 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
I.6. Chart 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
I.7. Chart 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
I.8. Chart 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
I.9. Chart 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

List of Tables
B.1. Radiation weighting factors (IAEA Basic Safety Standards) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.2. Tissue and organ weighting factors (IAEA Basic Safety Standards) . . . . . . . . . . 23
C.1. Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the inhalation of thorium ore
dust (AMAD = 1 µm) by members of the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
dust (AMAD = 1 µm) by workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
dust (AMAD = 10 µm) by workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C.6. Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the inhalation of uranium ore
dust (AMAD = 1 µm) by members of the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
C.10.Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the inhalation of uranium ore
dust (AMAD = 10 µm) by workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D.1. Dose conversion factors (DCF mSv/Bqα ), annual limits of intake (ALI Bq/year)
and derived air concentrations (DAC Bq/m3 ) for the dust with AMAD = 1 µm
containing both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for members of the general
public (dose constraint = 0.3 mSv/year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
containing both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for members of the general
public (exposure limit = 1 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
containing both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (dose constraint
= 1 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
= 5 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
containing both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (exposure limit
= 20 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
= 1 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
and derived air concentrations (DAC Bq/mµ) for the dust with AMAD = 3 µm
= 5 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
= 20 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
= 1 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
D.10.Dose conversion factors (DCF mSv/Bqα ), annual limits of intake (ALI Bq/year)
= 5 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
= 20 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
= 1 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
= 5 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
= 20 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
E.1. Alpha activities and correction factors for thorium ore dust residing on an air sampling
lter (reproduced from IAEA RSG1.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
E.2. Alpha activities and correction factors for uranium ore dust residing on an air sampling
lter (reproduced from IAEA RSG1.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
F.1. Dose conversion factors for inhaled radon decay products for workers (reproduced from
ARPANSA `Mining Code', 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
F.2. Annual limits of intake and derived air concentrations for radon and thoron progeny
for workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
G.1. Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the ingestion of radionuclides
from thorium decay chain by members of the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
from thorium decay chain by workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum vii

from uranium decay chain by members of the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
from uranium decay chain by workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
H.1. Dose conversion factors (DCF mSv/Bq), theoretical annual limits of intake (ALI
Bq/year) and derived water concentrations (DWC Bq/m3 ) for the radionuclides of
radiological signicance in drinking water, for members of the general public (exposure
limit = 1 mSv/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
radiological signicance in drinking water, for workers (dose constraint = 5 mSv/year) 57
radiological signicance in drinking water, for workers (exposure limit = 20 mSv/year) 57
viii Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mining and mineral processing
1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance on methods of the assessment of radiation exposure of employees and members
of the general public.
1.2. Scope
1.3. Denitions
Activity The activity of a radionuclide A is the number of spontaneous nuclear transformations dN
taking place in the relevant number of radionuclides N in a time interval dt, divided by this time
interval:
dN
A=
dt
The SI unit for the activity is the Becquerel (Bq).
Activity Concentration / Specic Activity The activity concentration C is the activity A of a

radioactive substance in a liquid or air, divided by the volume V of the liquid or air:
A
C=
V
The specic activity of the solid material is determined in a similar way, by the division of the activity
of the radionuclide by the measure of weight.
The units for the activity concentration and specic activity vary, most commonly used are Becquerel
per cubic metre (Bq/m3 ), Becquerel per litre (Bq/L), and Becquerel per gram (Bq/g).
Absorbed Dose The absorbed dose D is the mean energy dε̄ imparted by ionising radiation to a
mass element dm in the matter, divided by this mass element:
dε̄
D=
dm
The absorbed dose means the average dose over a tissue or organ.
Unit: gray (symbol Gy), 1 Gy = 1 joule per kilogram.

Equivalent Dose The equivalent dose HT,R of a tissue or organ T is the average absorbed dose
DT,R in the tissue or organ, multiplied by the radiation weighting factor wR :
HT,R = wR DT,R
where:
wR is the radiation weighting factor for the radiation quality R; and
DT,R is the average absorbed dose in the tissue T caused by the radiation quality R.
If the radiation is composed of several radiation qualities with dierent wR values, the equivalent
dose HT is:
X
HT = wR DT,R
R
Unit: Sievert (symbol Sv)
Radiation Weighting Factor Radiation weighting factor (wR ) is a factor, which modies absorbed
dose in an organ or tissue to yield equivalent dose and which is determined by the type and energy
of the radiation to which the organ or tissue is exposed. Radiation weighting factors are listed in
Table B.1 on page 22 .
Eective Dose The eective dose E is the sum of the equivalent doses HT , multiplied by tissue
weighting factors wT :
X X X
E= wT HT = wT wR DT,R
T T R
Tissue Weighting Factor Tissue weighting factor is a factor, which modies equivalent dose in
an organ or tissue to yield tissue eective dose. Tissue weighting factors are listed in Table B.2 on
page 23.
Committed Equivalent Dose The committed equivalent dose HT (τ ) of a tissue T is the equivalent
dose caused to this tissue as a result of an intake:
tZ
0 +τ
HT (τ ) = HT (t) dt
t0
where:
HT (t) is the equivalent dose rate in a tissue T at time t; and
t0 is the time of the intake.
The integration time τ starting from the time of the intake is expressed in years. If no integration
time is given, it should be assumed that it is 50 years for adults and the number of years remaining
until the age of 70 for children.
Committed Eective Dose The committed eective dose E (τ ) is the sum of the committed equi-
valent doses HT (τ ), multiplied by the tissue weighting factors wT : Unit:
X
E (τ ) = wT HT (τ )
T
Sievert (symbol Sv)
Collective Eective Dose Collective eective dose is the sum, over all subgroups i in a population,
of the product of the average eective dose, Ei , received by the members of each subgroup and the
number of people in the subgroup Ni :
X
S= Ei Ni
i
Unit: man-Sievert (symbol man-Sv)
Intake Intake is, according to the context, either the process of a radioactive substance entering
the body or the activity of the radioactive substance, which has entered the body.
When a radioactive substance enters the body through inhalation, the intake means the inhaled
activity, irrespective of the activity that is exhaled. When a substance enters the body through
ingestion, the intake means the swallowed activity.
Unit: Becquerel (Bq)
Annual Limit of Intake The Annual Limit of Intake (ALI ) is the intake, which will cause a com-
mitted eective dose equal to the annual dose limit. The ALI value of a radionuclide j is calculated
as follows:
DAL
ALI =
hj
where:
DAL is the annual dose limit; and
hj is the dose conversion factor of the radionuclide in question (the committed eective
dose per unit activity).
The unit for the Annual Limit on Intake is the Becquerel.
The values of the dose conversion factors hj and ALI are given in the Tables in Appendices C, D,
F, G and H.
Derived Air Concentration The Derived Air Concentration of a radionuclide (DAC ) is the average
activity concentration of the radionuclide in air in which it is possible to work for 2000 hours per
year without exceeding the dose limit. When only internal radiation is considered, the Derived Air
Concentration DAC is calculated from the ALI value as follows:
ALI
DAC =
V
where:

V is the volume of the inhaled air during working hours.

The unit for the Derived Air Concentration is Bq/m3 .
When the inhalation rate of a person engaged in light work is about 1.2 m3 /hour, the value obtained
for V is approximately 2400 m3 . In the case of the members of the general public, the assumptions
of 8760 hours in a year and 0.96 m3 /hour breathing rate result in the value of V = 8410 m3 .
The values of the dose conversion factors hj and DAC are given in the Tables 1326 in the Appendix.
Potential alpha energy The potential alpha energy of radon progeny and thoron progeny is the
total alpha energy ultimately emitted in the decay of radon progeny and thoron progeny through the
decay chain, up to but not including 210 Pb for progeny of 222 Rn and up to stable 208 Pb for progeny
of 220 Rn.
Potential alpha energy exposures to radon progeny and thoron progeny may be determined from the
concentrations of radon and thoron gas in the air by using the following formula's derived from Table
A.1 of ICRP47 [6] and paragraph 15 of ICRP65 [7]:
PRnP = 5.56 × 10−6 × t × FRnP × CRn
PT nP = 7.57 × 10−5 × t × FT nP × CT n
where:
PRnP , PT nP are the potential alpha energy exposures to radon progeny and thoron pro-
geny, respectively (mJh/m3 );
t is the exposure time (hours);
FRnP is the equilibrium factor for radon progeny (typically taken as 0.4 for indoor areas
and 0.2 for the outdoors);
FT nP is the equilibrium factor for thoron progeny (typically taken as 0.1 for indoor areas
and 0.02 for the outdoors);
CRn is the radon gas concentration (Bq/m3 ); and
CT n is the thoron gas concentration (Bq/m3 ).
The SI unit of potential alpha energy is the joule (J).
Owing to the short half-life of thoron (55.6 s), the equilibrium between thoron and its progeny can be
extremely variable. It is therefore preferable to measure the thoron progeny concentration rather than
the thoron gas concentration. Where the measurements of radon and thoron progeny are carried out,
a calculation of exposure from the inhalation of radon and thoron progeny is carried out as follows:
ERn = EECRn × fRn × T,
ET n = EECT n × fT n × T,
where:
the conversion factors fRn and fT n were adopted as 9 and 40 [nSv/(Bq·h·m−3 )] for radon
and thoron, respectively[17, 18].

Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
The objectives of radiation protection are:
to prevent acute radiation eects; and
to limit the risk of chronic eects to an acceptable level.
To achieve the objectives listed above it is essential for the mining and mineral processing industry
to observe accepted radiation protection standards and practices.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has been studying radiological
data and formulating appropriate recommendations on radiation dose standards since 1928. In
general, their recommendations are universally accepted by the regulators of radiation protection and
adopted into relevant legislation. The ICRP's latest radiation exposure standard recommendations
were published in ICRP103 [3] in 2007. In this publication the eects of ionising radiation on tissue
have been divided into stochastic and deterministic eects.
Deterministic harmful eects of radiation are radiation sickness, burns, grey cataract and foetal
abnormalities.
Stochastic harmful eects include cancer and damage, which takes place in human cells and is passed
on to descendants (genetic damage).
The relationship between the probability of stochastic eects and absorbed dose depends on:
1. the type of radiation; and
2. the organ or tissue irradiated.
The factors by which the radiation type and tissues or organs are weighted are called the radiation
weighting factor wR (Appendix B.1 on page 22) and the tissue weighting factor wT (Table B.2 on
page 23), respectively.
Many other ICRP publications, which have an aect on dose assessment procedures, have also been
published. Of greatest interest are publications dealing with radon, new biokinetic models for ura-
nium and thorium and a new respiratory tract model. Numerous guidance documents were also
issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
This Guideline sets out the mathematical denitions and principles involved in the calculation of the
eective dose based on the dose assessment procedures are based on the ICRP and IAEA documents.
The applicability of the following pathways of radiation exposure should be considered for a particular
operation:
1. External radiation exposure gamma radiation (γ ).
2. Inhalation of resuspended dust alpha radiation (α).
3. Inhalation of radon and decay products alpha radiation (α).
4. Ingestion of drinking water alpha and beta radiation (α, β ).
5. Incidental ingestion of food, dust and soil alpha and beta radiation (α, β ).
2.2. External radiation exposure

2.2.1. Designated employees
The external dose component is obtained directly from the results of a radiation badge (TLD)
monitoring program. The doses for an employee for each monitoring period are added together
to give an annual dose for that employee and no further calculations on this component are required.
Example 1: The employee was monitored for the external radiation exposure by the use of TLD
badges.
The quarterly results were:
1. 0.32 mSv;
2. 0.21 mSv;
3. 0.43 mSv; and
4. 0.25 mSv.
The external dose is calculated as a sum of TLD badges results:
0.32 + 0.21 + 0.23 + 0.25 = 1.01 mSv
Additional information is available in Guideline NORM3.2 Operational monitoring requirements.
2.2.2. Non-designated employees
Typically, only a cross-section of non-designated employees is monitored individually with TLD

badges. The exposure of these employees to the external gamma-radiation is estimated on the basis
of assigning of the average of individual results for a particular work category to all members of this
work category.
Example 2: The employee was not monitored for the external radiation exposure by the use of TLD
badges. He is a part of the work category consisting of 12 people out of which ve were monitored
with TLD badges. The annual average for an employee in this work category is 0.27 mSv. The
annual external exposure of this employee is estimated at 0.27 mSv.
2.2.3. Other employees and members of the general public
The exposure of these employees and the members of the general public to the external gamma-
radiation is estimated on the basis of regular radiation surveys carried out in a particular area as
follows:
1. `Default' number of hours is assumed as 2000 for employees and 8760 for members of the general
public.
2. Average dose rate from the last survey (µGy/hour or µSv/hour) is multiplied by the number
of hours to calculate the total external radiation exposure.
3. Average `background' dose rate (µGy/hour or µSv/hour) for the particular site is multiplied
by the same number of hours to calculate the external exposure due to the natural background
in the area.
4. The actual exposure is calculated by subtracting the exposure from natural sources from the
total radiation exposure.

Example 3: An employee working in the oce but occasionally visits the production area. The
average dose rates are: in the oce of an employee 0.23 µGy/hour, in the production area 1.12
µGy/hour. `Background' dose rate for the site is 0.15 µGy/hour.
Exposure is estimated on the basis of a `time and motion' study:
1. 1800 hours at 0.23 µGy/hour = 414 µGy = 0.41 mSv
∴ the sum of external exposure is: 0.41 mSv + 0.22 mSv = 0.63 mSv
The `background' exposure is: 2000 hours at 0.15 µGy/hour = 300 µGy = 0.30 mSv
∴ total external exposure is: 0.63 mSv 0.30 mSv = 0.33 mSv.
Example 4: A parcel of land has been rehabilitated and it is expected that it will be used for
residential development. The average result of the post-mining radiation survey is 0.19 µGy/hour;
`background' dose rate for the site prior to operations taking place was 0.15 µGy/hour.
Potential exposure of the member of the general public to the external γ -radiation is estimated as
follows:
2. The `background' exposure is 8760 hours at 0.15 µGy/hour = 1314 µGy = 1.31 mSv
∴ total external exposure is: 1.66 mSv 1.31 mSv = 0.35 mSv.
In examples 3 and 4 above, 1 mSv is assumed to be equal to 1 mGy for simplicity. As this may not be
always the case, please refer to Appendix B2 of NORM3.1 Pre-operational monitoring requirements
for additional information.
2.2.4. Data interpretation
As detailed in Appendix B Note on survey instruments and data interpretation in the Appendix of
Guideline NORM3.1 Pre-operational monitoring requirements, there is a vast variety of radiation
monitoring instruments that are calibrated for the dose rate, which can be expressed dierently on
dierent monitors: in µSv/hour, µGy/hour and µR/hour.
In many cases the following approximate interpretation is used:
100 Roentgens = 100 Rem = 1 Gray = 1 Sievert, as in examples 3 and 4 above.
There are several coecients that can be used for the conversion between dierent units, such as
0.7 Sv/Gy. However, due to the potential complexity involved in the interpretation of data obtained
with a particular instrument and calibration uncertainties the use of any conversion factors should
be avoided without prior approval from the appropriate authority.
2.3. Internal radiation exposure (dust inhalation)

2.3.1. Inhalation
When radioactive aerosols are inhaled, parts of the respiratory system are irradiated both by radiation
originating from the material in lungs and as a result of trans-location of inhaled material to body
tissue from the respiratory system.
It is recognised that after inhalation of radioactive aerosols the doses received by various regions of
the respiratory system will dier widely, depending on the size distribution of the inhaled material.
ICRP66 [4] describes a revision of the respiratory tract model used in ICRP30 [5]. The revision
was necessary, as increased knowledge had become available of the anatomy and physiology of the
respiratory tract as well as of the deposition, clearance and biological eects of inhaled radioactive
particles.
The new model has been extended to apply explicitly to all members of the population, giving
reference values for 3 month old infants, 1, 5, 10 and 15 year old children and adults. The main
dierence between the two models is that the ICRP30 [5] model calculates the average dose to the
lungs, whilst the new model calculates doses to specic tissues. A diagram of the respiratory tract
is given in Figure A.1 on page 20.
The ICRP30 [5] publication model gave dose conversion factors for a 1 µm AMAD but provided
a formula to generate dose conversion factors for dierent AMAD's. The ICRP66 [4] model is
more complex and therefore a computer program is required to generate dose conversion factors for
AMAD's, which have not been listed.
Dose conversion factors (DCF in mSv/Bqα ), annual limits of intake (ALI in Bq) and derived air
concentrations (DAC in Bq/m3 ) were calculated using the computer program (ICRP68 [8] and
ICRP72 [9]), for:
radionuclides in the thorium and uranium decay chains;
thorium and uranium decay series; and
the materials containing thorium and uranium in dierent weight ratios.
Calculation results are presented in the Tables in Appendix C on page 24 and Appendix D on page 34,
and are also plotted on Charts in Appendix I on page 59.
Activity Mean Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD) The AMAD of airborne dusts is the equivalent
aerodynamic diameter (EAD) such that 50% of the mass of the dust is associated with smaller
particles. Two particles of dierent densities are said to have equivalent aerodynamic diameters if
their densities and diameters are such that their terminal settling velocities are equal.
The AMAD is an important parameter in dose assessment as dierent particle sizes result in dierent
depositions within the lung. Dierent areas of the lung have dierent clearance mechanisms, which
will therefore impact on dose assessment. Figure A.2 on page 21 illustrates the inuence of particle
size on deposition in the various regions of the respiratory tract.
ICRP66 [4] recommends that a default AMAD of 5 µm is used for occupational exposures whilst
for environmental exposures the default AMAD is taken to be 1 µm.
Approval may be granted for the use of other values of AMAD in dose assessments. The State Mining
Engineer may give approval for a site-specic AMAD value after the review and assessment of data
from the particle size characterisation program for the particular site. More detailed information is
available in the Guideline NORM3.5 Measurement of particle size.
2.3.2. Dose assessment
To determine the dose to any organ or tissue or to the whole body it is necessary to determine the
amount of radioactive material inhaled or ingested. To assess the amount of radioactive material
inhaled an appropriate monitoring program is necessary detailed information is provided in Gui-
delines NORM3.1 through to NORM3.5 dealing with the dierent aspects of radiation monitoring.

An annual intake (in Bq) is multiplied by the appropriate dose conversion factor to calculate the
annual dose (mSv).
The rst step in the assessment of the internal dose is to calculate the arithmetic mean of α-activity
concentration for each identied work category during the specied monitoring period.
Next, the internal dose assessment using an arithmetic mean is then calculated as follows:
Individual Internal Dose = i [AMi × HWi × BR] DCFi
P
where:
AMi arithmetic mean of gross α-activity concentration for the work category i (Bq/m3 );
HWi hours worked by an employee for the period of assessment in the work category i;
BR assumed breathing rate of an employee (1.2 m3 /hour);
[AMi × HWi × BR] personal intake for the period of assessment for the work category
i (Bq); and
DCFi dose conversion factor in mSv/Bqα for dierent AMAD sizes and dierent ura-
nium and thorium weight ratios (Tables in Appendix C and D).
Example 5: The employee was working in the plant processing mineral containing thorium for a
period of three months. Time spent in dierent work categories was:
`Shift coordinator' 200 hours;
`Plant operator' 100 hours; and
`Wet concentrator operator' 200 hours.
Mean α-activity concentrations in the period were:
`Shift coordinator' 0.039 Bq/m3 ;
`Plant operator' 0.213 Bq/m3 ; and
`Wet concentrator operator' 0.021 Bq/m3 .
A `Special exposure' was declared for the employee during work in the `Plant operator' work category:
8 hours exposure to the α-activity concentration of 1.435 Bq/m3 ;
Assuming a default particle size value of 5 µm (using a dose conversion factor of 0.0080 mSv/Bqα
taken from Table C.4 on page 27), the internal dose from dust inhalation is calculated by calculating
the intake for each work category:
1. `Shift coordinator': 200 hours × 0.039 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour = 9.36 Bq
2. `Plant operator': (100 8) hours × 0.213 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour = 19.61 Bq
3. `Wet concentrator operator': 200 hours × 0.021 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour = 5.04 Bq
4. `Special exposure': 8 hours × 1.435 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour = 13.78 Bq
5. All intakes associated are summarised: 9.36 + 19.61 + 5.04 + 13.78 = 47.8 Bq
∴ internal dose due to dust inhalation is: 47.8 Bq × 0.0080 mSv/Bqα = 0.38 mSv
Example 6: The scale from the internal surface of the processing vessel is being removed by grinding.
Monitoring results indicate that dust contains 27 Bq/m3 of predominantly 226 Ra and the size of dust
particles is 5 µm. The duration of the task is 10 hours. The internal dose from dust inhalation is
calculated as follows:
1. The intake of 226 Ra is: 10 hours × 27 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour = 324 Bq
2. Dose conversion factor for 5 µm dust containing 226 Ra is: 0.0022 mSv/Bqα (Table C.9 on
page 32)
∴ internal dose due to dust inhalation is: 324 × 0.0022 = 0.71 mSv
Example 7: An operator of a zircon mill is exposed to 3 µm dust containing 0.069 Bq/m3 for 800
hours in a year. Zircon contains 200 ppm thorium and 250 ppm uranium (weight ratio of Th:U =
1:1.25). The internal dose from dust inhalation is calculated as follows:
1. The intake is: 800 hours × 0.069 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour = 66.2 Bq
2. Dose conversion factor for 3 µm dust containing thorium and uranium in the weight ratio of
1:1.25 is: 0.0054 mSv/Bqα (Table D.6 on page 40, Table D.7 on page 41 and Table D.8 on
page 42)
∴ internal dose due to dust inhalation is: 66.2 × 0.0054 = 0.36 mSv
Example 8: Members of the critical group of the members of the public can be potentially exposed
to the dust from a rehabilitated uranium mining and processing operation.
Results of the monitoring indicate that dust contains, on average, 400 ppm uranium and 20 ppm
thorium and an average alpha-activity level in the dust is 0.0045Bq/m3 .
The `background' concentration of radioactivity in the dust is 0.0004 Bq/m3 .
The exposure for members of the public is estimated using the default 8760 hours/year, breathing
rate of 0.96 m3 /hour, and dose conversion factor for 1 µm dust containing uranium and thorium in
the weight ratio of 20:1 is 0.0070 mSv/Bqα (Table D.1 on page 35).
Potential intake is:
8760 hours × 0.0045 Bq/m3 × 0.96 m3 /hour = 37.8 Bq
`Background' intake is:
8760 hours × 0.0004 Bq/m3 × 0.96 m3 /hour = 3.4 Bq
∴ potential annual internal dose due to dust inhalation is:
(37.8 3.4) × 0.0070 = 0.24 mSv
If dust inhalation is the only pathway of radiation exposure, measures should be taken to ensure
that the dose continue to be below the constraint of 0.3 mSv/year. Derived air concentration for the
exposure of 0.3 mSv/year to this particular type of dust is 0.005 Bq/m3 and the level of radioactivity
in the dust should be kept below this value.
2.3.3. Correction factors
During the monitoring of workplace atmosphere for airborne radionuclides a sample of airborne dust
representative of that inhaled by a worker is collected on a lter and, after a delay of some days
(during which some radon or thoron escapes), is analysed by gross alpha counting; the loss of radon

or thoron from the dust particles on the lter is accompanied by a corresponding loss of short lived
progeny of radon or thoron, due to the rapid decay of these progeny.
In the calculation of the dose conversion factors in Table 1 of the ARPANSA Code [10] this is not
taken into account and it is assumed that no loss of radon occurs . As specied in the Guideline
NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling, six or seven days are allowed to elapse before alpha
counting to allow for the decay of short-lived radon (222 Rn) and thoron (220 Rn) daughter products
trapped on the lter. This decay time also provides for the build-up of radon/thoron daughters
from 226 Ra/224 Ra in the event of radon/thoron emanation from the airborne dust particles. The
assumption used when determining gross alpha activity is that all alpha particles emitted from the
238 U and 232 Th radioactive decay chains are registered by the counter.
However, in the situation when samples are analysed some weeks or months after the date of sampling
(for example, in the course of a quality control procedure when several dust lters are analysed using
another alpha-counter), correction factors may need to be used. As it is shown in Table E.1 on
page 49 and Table E.2 on page 50, correction factors for thorium ore dust would be in range between
1.14 and 1.33 and for uranium ore dust in the range between 1.10 and 1.23.
2.4. Internal radiation exposure (inhalation of radon/thoron and

decay products)
The two signicant isotopes of radon are radon222 (222 Rn), the immediate decay product of radium
226, deriving from the uranium series of natural radionuclides; and radon220, the immediate decay
product of radium224, deriving from the thorium series. The relevant radon progeny are 218 Po,
214 Pb, 214 Bi and 214 Po and the relevant thoron progeny are 216 Po, 212 Pb, 212 Bi, 212 Po and 208 Tl.
Because of their origins, the two isotopes are commonly known as radon and thoron. Radon is a noble
gas and both isotopes decay to isotopes of solid elements, the atoms of which attach themselves to the
dust particles present in air. The problems posed by radon220 (thoron) are much less widespread
than those posed by radon222.
The inhalation limits of intake for short-lived progeny of radon and thoron may be expressed in terms
of potential alpha energy. The potential alpha energy intake can be determined from measurements of
the potential alpha energy concentration in the air (PAEC) and the volume of air inhaled. Potential
alpha energy exposures to radon progeny and thoron progeny may be determined by integrating the
PAEC over the exposure time; they may also be determined from the concentrations of radon and
thoron in the air by using the formula's presented in Section 1.3 on page 1.
Variations in concentrations of radon or thoron over a period of time may be taken into account by
expressing such concentrations as time weighted averages.
The potential alpha energy exposure of workers is often expressed in the historical unit Working
Level Month (WLM). The equivalent SI unit is the mJh/m3 . The conversion is as follows:
1 WLM = 3.54 mJh/m3 ; and
1 mJh/m3 = 0.282 WLM.
The factors used in assessing internal dose from inhalation of radon222 are given in Table F.1 on
page 51; derived air concentrations and annual limits of intake in Table F.2 on page 51.
Example 9: An employee works in an underground mine where radon (222 Rn) measurements have
been taken on a quarterly basis using radon caps. The monitoring results were as follows:
1st quarter = 580 Bq/m3

2nd quarter = 750 Bq/m3
3rd quarter = 690 Bq/m3
4th quarter = 520 Bq/m3
∴annual average = 635 Bq/m3
From Table F.2 on page 51: conversion factor:
4.45x10−3 mJh/m3 per 1 Bq/m3 (assuming 2000 working hours per year and an equili-
brium factor of 0.4)
∴ 635 Bq/m3 = 2.83 mJh/m3
Using the dose conversion factor from Table F.1 on page 51 (1.4 mSv per 1 mJh/m3 ):
2.83 mJh/m3 × 1.4 (mSv / [mJh/m3 ] ) = 3.95 mSv
2.5. Internal radiation exposure (ingestion of drinking water)

In accordance with Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (www.nhmrc.gov.au) [11], drinking water
should be analysed for gross α and gross β -activity concentrations (in Bq per litre). The naturally
occurring radioisotope potassium40 (40 K) is present in all drinking water, and its contribution for
gross β activity value should be subtracted from the total value in accordance with the Guidelines.
DMP recommends limit values slightly dierent from the drinking water guidelines:
Gross αactivity = 0.2 Bq/l
Gross β activity = 0.5 Bq/l, after subtracting the contribution from 40 K
The reason for this variation is to make allowance for all other pathways of exposure that may
not have been considered during the development of the 2004 drinking water guideline. If either of
these activity concentrations is exceeded, specic radionuclides should be identied and their activity
concentrations determined.
At many mining and processing sites all drinking and washing water is provided from an outside
source (for example, town water supplies, etc.). In these cases any radiation exposure of employees
from the ingestion of drinking water could not be attributed to mining and processing activities, and
radiation exposure from this pathway is assumed to be negligible. If, however, the drinking water is
provided from on-site bores and Guideline values are exceeded, the dose assessment should be carried
out. Also, the potential radiation exposure of the members of the critical group of the members of
the public via the ingestion of drinking water should be assessed, particularly in cases where chemical
and/or thermal processing of a mineral takes place.
The ingestion model used in the development of the IAEA Basic Safety Standards [12] to describe the
behaviour of radionuclides ingested by workers is that given in ICRP30 [5]. It has four compartments,
representing the stomach, the small intestine, the upper large intestine and the lower large intestine.
The mean residence times in the gastrointestinal tract compartments are 1, 4, 13, and 24 hours
respectively. The uptake to blood takes place from the small intestine and is specied by fractional
uptake (f1 ) values. Dose conversion factors and other relevant data are presented in Tables (G.1)
(G.4) beginning on page 52.
When the exact concentrations of radionuclides are unknown, the highest potential exposure is as-
sociated with the following radionuclides:
Thorium decay chain: 232 Th, 228 Ra, 228 Th and 224 Ra; and
Uranium decay chain: 230 Th, 226 Ra, 210 Pb and 210 Po.

Additional consultation with the appropriate authority is required prior to undertaking the dose
assessment in complex situations, where radionuclides present in water are suspected not to be in a
secular equilibrium, or where only data for gross alpha and gross beta concentrations in water are
available.
Typically, the dose assessment for employees is carried out as follows:
1. The level of water consumption is generally assumed to be 2 litres per day (500 litres per year
for 250 `default' working days).
2. The `background' concentrations of radionuclides in local drinking water are typically deter-
mined during the site `baseline' survey (prior to the commencement of operations) for the
radionuclides listed above (at least for 226 Ra and 228 Ra for the cases where it is expected that
both thorium and uranium decay chains are in secular equilibrium).
3. Intake of radioactivity (in Bq) is calculated separately for dierent radionuclides by multiplying
the concentration in drinking water (in Bq/L) by the water consumption level (in litres/year).
4. The dose (in mSv) is calculated separately for each radionuclide using dose conversion factors
(Tables (G.1)(G.4) beginning on page 52). The total dose due to ingestion is calculated as a
sum of values for each radionuclide.
5. The internal dose from the intake of radioactivity based on `background' concentrations for
dierent radionuclides is calculated in the same manner, resulting in the total `background'
dose.
6. Actual radiation exposure is calculated by subtracting the exposure from natural background
sources from the total radiation exposure.
Example 10: Radionuclides concentrations in the drinking water are:

226 Ra=0.267 Bq/L; and
228 Ra=0.764 Bq/L.
Radionuclide concentrations in the `background' drinking water were:
226 Ra=0.107 Bq/L; and
228 Ra=0.096 Bq/L.
Detailed analysis of drinking water indicates that only isotopes of radium are present in relatively
signicant quantities. The internal dose from drinking water ingestion is calculated as follows:
Intake of radioactivity is calculated separately for dierent radionuclides:
for 226 Ra = 0.267 Bq/l × 500 l = 133.5 Bq; and
for 228 Ra = 0.764 Bq/l × 500 l = 382.0 Bq.
Dose is calculated separately for each radionuclide (Table G.2 on page 53 and Table G.4 on page 55):
for 226 Ra = 133. 5 Bq × 0.00024 mSv/Bq = 0.032 mSv; and
for 228 Ra = 382.0 Bq × 0.00067 mSv/Bq = 0.256 mSv.
Total dose from water ingestion is:
0.032 mSv + 0.256 mSv = 0.288 mSv.
Intake of radioactivity based on `background' concentrations is calculated for dierent radionuclides:
for 226 Ra = 0.107 Bq/l × 500 l = 53.5 Bq; and
for 228 Ra = 0.096 Bq/l × 500 l = 48.0 Bq.
Dose is calculated separately for each radionuclide similarly to (3.2.):

for 226 Ra = 53.5 Bq × 0.00024 mSv/Bq = 0.013 mSv; and
for 228 Ra = 48.0 Bq × 0.00066 mSv/Bq = 0.032 mSv.
Total `background' dose is:
0.013 mSv + 0.032 mSv = 0.045 mSv.
Total dose form drinking water ingestion is 0.288 mSv 0.045 mSv = 0.24 mSv.
2.6. Internal radiation exposure (ingestion of food, dust and soil)

This pathway of exposure is considered to be of a much less importance, particularly for workers. The
assessment of potential radiation exposure via this pathway may sometimes be necessary in complex
studies of the exposure of members of the general public, particularly in remote areas of Western
Australia, and should be carried out in accordance with the advice from the appropriate authority.
For more information please refer to the following Safety Reports issued by the International Atomic
Energy Agency:
No.27 Monitoring and surveillance of residues from the mining and milling of uranium
and thorium (2002) [13];
No.37 Methods for assessing occupational radiation doses due to intakes of radionuclides
(2004) [14];
No.44 Derivation of activity concentration values for exclusion, exemption and clearance
(2005) [15] appendices in particular; and
No.49 Assessing the need for radiation protection measures in work involving minerals
and raw materials (2006) [16].
These reports contain most information necessary for the assessment of doses via this pathway, but
an adjustment for Australian conditions is almost always necessary particularly for the reference
data in regards to the annual consumption of meat, milk and vegetables.
2.7. Complex dose assessments

It is very important to ensure that the rst step in any dose assessment is always the analysis of all
possible pathways of radiation exposure and their applicability for the particular situation.
Example 11: Conditions:
An employee was working in a mineral processing plant (Site A) for ve months:
1. 520 hours as dry plant operator (average dust activity concentration = 0.305 Bq/m3 );
2. 300 hours as control room operator (average dust activity concentration = 0.027 Bq/m3 ); and
3. 140 hours as wet plant operator (average dust activity concentration = 0.066 Bq/m3 ).
Particle size characterisation program is not carried out, mineral contains both thorium and uranium
in an approximate ratio of Th:U = 25:1.
TLD badges results for two monitoring periods are 0.19 and 0.28 mSv.
Two months in a year (∼380 hours) the employee spent at a remote uranium exploration site (Site
B), in the area with gamma-radiation level of 0.49 µGy/hour (background radiation level for this site

is 0.14 µGy/hour), the drinking water was supplied from an on-site bore and 226 Ra concentration in
the water was on average 0.72 Bq/L (background level is 0.15 Bq/L).
Average dust activity concentration of uranium dust was 0.117 Bq/m3 and on one occasion the
employee was exposed to the dust with activity concentration of 3.692 Bq/m3 for 10 hours (this was
treated as a special exposure). The average Radon (222 Rn) concentrations are 63 Bq/m3 above the
natural background levels observed at the site prior to exploration activities taking place.
Four months in a year (∼700 hours) employee spent working in a mineral storage area at the wharf
(Site C). 500 hours were spent working in the oce. 200 hours were spent inside the product storage
shed (dust activity concentration = 0.089 Bq/m3 , material contains both thorium and uranium in
an approximate ration of Th:U = 1:1.25), thoron concentrations above background were measured
at 105 Bq/m3 in the product storage shed and 25 Bq/m3 inside the oce. Gamma-radiation level in
the oce was 0.32 µGy/hour, in the storage shed 0.53 µGy/hour, background in the surrounding
area 0.16 µGy/hour.
Dose assessment:
External dose 1 (Site A):

0.19 mSv + 0.28 mSv = 0.47 mSv
External dose 2 (Site B):
(0.49 µGy/hour × 380 hours) (0.14 µGy/hour × 380 hours) = 133 µGy = 0.13 mSv
External dose 3 (Site C):
(0.32 µ Gy/hour × 500 hours) (0.16 µGy/hour × 500 hours) = 80 µGy = 0.08 mSv
(0.53 µGy/hour × 200 hours) (0.16 µGy/hour × 200 hours) = 74 µGy = 0.07 mSv;
Sum of external doses:
0.47 + 0.13 + 0.08 + 0.07 = 0.75 mSv
Internal dose 1 (Site A inhalation dust):
[0.305 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour × 520 hours] × 0.0075 mSv/Bqα = 1.43 mSv
Internal dose 2 (Site B inhalation dust):
Internal dose 3 (Site B inhalation radon):
5.56 × 10−6 × 380 hours × 0.4× 63 Bq/m3 = 0.05 mJh/m3 ;

∴0.05 mJh/m3 × 1.4 (mSv [mJh/m3 ]) = 0.07 mSv
Internal dose 4 (Site B ingestion):

[0.72 Bq/L × 125 L 0.15 Bq/L × 125 L] × 0.00024 mSv/Bq = 0.02 mSv
Internal dose 5 (Site C inhalation dust):
[0.089 Bq/m3 × 1.2 m3 /hour × 200 hours] × 0.0044 mSv/Bq = 0.09 mSv
Internal dose 6 (Site C inhalation thoron):
7.57 × 10−5 × 200 hours × 0.1× 105 Bq/m3 = 0.16 mJh/m3 ;

∴0.16 mJh/m3 × 0.48 (mSv / [mJh/m3 ] ) = 0.08 mSv
7.57 × 10−5 × 500 hours × 0.1× 25 Bq/m3 = 0.09 mJh/m3 ;
∴0.09 mJh/m3 × 0.48 (mSv / [mJh/m3 ] ) = 0.04 mSv
Sum of internal doses:
1.43 + 0.07 + 0.19 + 0.08 + 0.07 + 0.02 + 0.09 + 0.31 + 0.18 = 2.07 mSv
The annual radiation exposure of the employee is estimated to be:
0.75 + 2.07 = 2.82 mSv
Example 12: Conditions:
A processing site has been rehabilitated and there is a possibility of an industrial or residential
development:
Gamma-dose rate is 0.19 ± 0.02 µSv/hour; and
Background in the area was 0.13 ± 0.02 µSv/hour.
The dust activity concentration is the same as it was prior to the construction of a plant. Some tailings
have been buried on site and concentrations of 226 Ra in the ground water are slightly elevated (0.45
Bq/L in comparison with background value of 0.22 Bq/L). The modelling indicates that if tailings
are brought to the surface, concentration of radon in the air is expected to be around 18 Bq/m3 .
Note on the estimation of the external dose Background gamma-radiation levels may vary signi-
cantly; statistical (random and systematic) errors (Appendix A of the Guideline NORM6 Reporting
requirements) could also be signicant, particularly when relatively low levels of exposure are being
measured (below 0.40 µGy/hour). Therefore, it is recommended that the background value be consi-
dered to be an average value plus one or two standard deviations. Otherwise, some parts of the site
where background levels were marginally higher than in other parts may be erroneously classied as
having being unsuccessfully rehabilitated, whilst the gamma-radiation levels are, in fact, not dierent
from the pre-mining ones. An additional consultation with the appropriate authority is required prior
to the calculation of the potential external dose in these cases.
Potential external dose (Case 1 exact background value):
[0.19 µGy/hour 0.13 µGy/hour] × 8760 hours = 0.53 mSv
Potential external dose (Case 2 background value plus two standard deviations):
[0.19 µGy/hour 0.17 µGy/hour] × 8760 hours = 0.17 mSv
Potential internal dose ingestion:
[0.45 Bq/L 0.22 Bq/L] × 500 L × 0.00024 mSv/Bq = 0.03 mSv
Potential internal dose inhalation:
18 Bq/m3 = 0.08 mJh/m3
∴ 0.08 mJh/m3 × 1.4 (mSv / [mJh/m3 ] ) = 0.11 mSv
If the appropriate authority approved the use of the background level plus two standard deviations
(Case 2), the exposure of a member of the public will be 0.31 mSv/year which is signicantly below
the exposure limit of 1 mSv/year and is comparable with the dose constraint of 0.3 mSv/year, at which

a classication of a site as `contaminated' may be considered (please see NORM4.2. Management

of radioactive waste for more information).
If such approval has not been obtained, the estimated exposure is 0.67 mSv/year which is above
the dose constraint of 0.3 mSv/year, site will need to be registered as contaminated and it is possible
that certain restrictions will be placed on the land use.
A. Appendix dening the ICRP lung model

Respiratory tract regions dened in the ICRP model shown in A.1 on the next page (reproduced with
permission from ICRP66 [4]). The ET airways are divided into ET1 , the anterior nasal passage,
and ET2 , which consists of the posterior nasal and oral passages, the pharynx and the larynx. The
thoracic regions are bronchial (BB: trachea and main bronchi), bronchiolar (bb: bronchioles) and
alveolarinterstitial (AI: the gas exchange region). Lymphatic tissue is associated with the ET and
thoracic airways (LNET and LNT H , respectively).
A.1. Lung absorption types

Type F 100% absorbed with a biological half-life of ten minutes. There is rapid absorption of
almost all material deposited in BB, bb and AI. Half of the material deposited in ET2 is cleared to
the gastrointestinal tract by particle transport and half is absorbed.
Type M 10% absorbed with a biological half-life of ten minutes and 90% with a biological half-life
of 140 days. There is rapid absorption of about 10% of the deposit in BB and bb; and 5% of material
deposited in ET2 . About 70% of the deposit in AI eventually reaches body uids by absorption.
Type S 0.1% absorbed with a biological half-life of ten minutes and 99.9% with a biological half-life
of 7000 days. There is little absorption from ET, BB or bb, and about 10% of the deposit in AI
eventually reaches body uids by absorption.
The slowest lung class Type S has been used in the calculations. This is appropriate for the vast
majority of minerals but not necessarily for some of the materials subsequently produced. Contact
an appropriate authority for clarication.
On the basis of the new respiratory tract model A.1 on the following page, deposition in the thorax
of aerosols of occupational concern is highest in the AI region, but progressively decreases with
increasing particle size as shown in A.2 on page 21 (reproduced with permission from ICRP66 [4]).

Figure A.1.: Human respiratory tract model
Anterior nasal passage
ET
1
Posterior nasal passage
Nasal part
Pharynx Extrathoracic
Oral part
ET
2
Larynx
BB
Thoracic
Trachea
Bronchial
Main bronchi
Bronchi
Bronchioles
bb Bronchiolar
Al Alveolar-
interstitial
bb
Bronchioles
Terminal bronchioles
Respiratory bronchioles
Al
Alveolar duct + alveoli
Reproduced with permission from ICRP66 [4]
Figure A.2.: Inuence of particle size on deposition in the various regions of the respiratory tract
100
ET2
ET1
10 Al
bb
BB
0.1
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
AMAD (µm)
Fractional deposition in each region of respiratory tract for reference worker (normal nose breather)
shown as the activity median aerodynamic diameter, AMAD. Deposition is expressed as a fraction
of activity present in the volume of ambient air that is inspired, and activity is assumed to be log-
normally distributed as a function of particle size (for particles of density 3.0 g cm−3 and shape factor
1.5). Reproduced with permission from ICRP66 [4]

B. Appendix listing the radiation weighting

factors
Table B.1.: Radiation weighting factors (IAEA Basic Safety Standards)

Type and Energy Range Radiation
weighting
factor wR
Photons, all energies 1
Electrons and muons, all energies 1
Neutrons, energy <10 keV 5
10 keV to 100 keV 10
>100 keV to 2 MeV 20
>2 MeV to 20 MeV 10
>20 MeV 5
Protons, other than recoil protons, energy >2 MeV 5
Alpha particles, ssion fragments, heavy nuclei 20
Table B.2.: Tissue and organ weighting factors (IAEA Basic Safety Standards)
Tissue or organ Tissue
weighting
factor wR
Gonads 0.20
Bone Marrow (red) 0.12
Colon1 0.12
Lung 0.12
Stomach 0.12
Bladder 0.05
Breast 0.05
Liver 0.05
Oesophagus 0.05
Thyroid 0.05
Skin 0.01
Bone Surface 0.01
Remainder2 0.05
1 The weighting factor for the colon is applied to the mass average of the equivalent dose in the walls
of the upper and lower large intestine.
2 For the purposes of calculation, the remainder is composed of adrenal glands, brain, extrathoracic
region, small intestine, kidney, muscle, pancreas, spleen, thymus and uterus. In those exceptional
cases in which the most exposed remainder tissue receives the highest committed equivalent dose of
all organs, a weighting factor of 0.025 shall be applied to that tissue or organ and a weighting factor
of 0.025 to the average dose in the rest of the remainder as dened here.

C. Appendix listing the thorium/uranium

radionuclide activities and committed
eective dose
Table C.1.: Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the inhalation of thorium ore
dust (AMAD = 1 µm) by members of the general public
Quantity inhaled (Bq)
Slowest
Dose
lung
Radionuclide Decay coecient Alpha Beta Dose (Sv)
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
232 Th α S 2.5 × 10−5 1 2.5 ×10−5
228 Ra β M 1.6 × 10−5 1 1.6 × 10−5
228 Ac β S 1.6 × 10−8 1 1.6 × 10−8
228 Th α S 4.0 × 10−5 1 4.0 × 10−5
224 Ra α M 3.4 × 10−6 1 3.4 × 10−6
220 Rna α 1
216 Poa α 1
212 Pba β F 1.9 × 10−7 1 1.9 × 10−7
64.1% β
212 Bia M 3.1 × 10−8 0.359 0.641 3.1 × 10−8
35.9% α
212 Poa α 0.61
208 Tla β 0.359
Total 6 4 8.46 × 10−5
a
Rn220 and short lived progeny.
Committed eective dose per unit intake of alpha activity (dose conversion factor):
8.46 × 10−5 Sv
DCF1µm,T h,public = = 1.41 × 10−5 Sv/Bqα = 0.0141 mSv/Bqα
6Bqα
dust (AMAD = 1 µm) by workers
Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
232 Th α S 2.3 × 10−5 1 2.3 ×10 −5
228 Ra β M 2.6 × 10−6 1 2.6 × 10−6
228 Ac β S 1.4 × 10−8 1 1.4 × 10−8
228 Th α S 3.9 × 10−5 1 3.9 × 10−5
224 Ra α M 2.9 × 10−6 1 2.9 × 10−6
220 Rna α 1
216 Poa α 1
212 Pba β F 1.9 × 10−8 1 1.9 × 10−7
64.1% β
212 Bia M 3.0 × 10−8 0.359 0.641 3.0 × 10−8
35.9% α
212 Poa α 0.641
208 Tla β 0.359
Total 6 4 6.76 × 10−5
a
220
Rn and short lived progeny.
6.76 × 10−5 Sv
DCF1µm,T h,worker = = 1.13 × 10−5 Sv/Bqα = 0.0113 mSv/Bqα
6Bqα

Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
232 Th α S 1.7 × 10−5 1 1.7 ×10 −5
228 Ra β M 2.2 × 10−6 1 2.2 × 10−6
228 Ac β S 1.3 × 10−8 1 1.3 × 10−8
228 Th α S 3.3 × 10−5 1 3.3 × 10−5
224 Ra α M 3.1 × 10−6 1 3.1 × 10−6
220 Rna α 1
216 Poa α 1
212 Pba β F 3.1 × 10−8 1 3.1 × 10−8
64.1% β
212 Bia M 4.1 × 10−8 0.359 0.641 4.1 × 10−8
35.9% α
212 Poa α 0.641
208 Tla β 0.359
Total 6 4 5.54 × 10−5
Rn220 and short lived progeny.
a
5.54 × 10−5 Sv
6Bqα
Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
232 Th α S 1.2 × 10−5 1 1.2 ×10 −5
228 Ra β M 1.7 × 10−6 1 1.7 × 10−6
228 Ac β S 1.2 × 10−8 1 1.2 × 10−8
228 Th α S 3.2 × 10−5 1 3.2 × 10−5
224 Ra α M 2.4 × 10−6 1 2.4 × 10−6
220 Rna α 1
216 Poa α 1
212 Pba β F 3.3 × 10−8 1 3.3 × 10−8
64.1% β
212 Bia M 3.9 × 10−8 0.359 0.641 3.9 × 10−8
35.9% α
212 Poa α 0.641
208 Tla β 0.359
Total 6 4 4.82 × 10−5
a
220
4.82 × 10−5 Sv
6Bqα

Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
232 Th α S 8.1 × 10−6 1 8.1 ×10 −6
228 Ra β M 9.8 × 10−7 1 9.8 × 10−7
228 Ac β S 7.2 × 10−9 1 7.2 × 10−9
228 Th α S 1.8 × 10−5 1 1.8 × 10−5
224 Ra α M 1.3 × 10−6 1 1.3 × 10−6
220 Rna α 1
216 Poa α 1
212 Pba β F 3.2 × 10−8 1 3.2 × 10−8
64.1% β
212 Bia M 3.1 × 10−8 0.359 0.641 3.1 × 10−8
35.9% α
212 Poa α 0.641
208 Tla β 0.359
Total 6 4 2.85 × 10−5
a
220
2.85 × 10−5 Sv
6Bqα
Table C.6.: Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the inhalation of uranium ore
dust (AMAD = 1 µm) by members of the general public
Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
238 U α S 8.0 × 10−6 1 8.0 ×10 −6
234 Th β S 7.7 × 10−9 1 7.7 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β 1
234 U α S 9.4 × 10−6 1 9.4 × 10−6
230 Th α S 1.4 × 10−5 1 1.4 × 10−5
226 Ra α M 9.5 × 10−6 1 9.5 × 10−6
222 Rna α 1
218 Poa α 1
214 Pba β F 8.0 × 10−6 1 1.5 × 10−8
214 Bia β M 1.4 × 10−8 1 1.4 × 10−8
214 Poa α 1
210 Pb β F 5.6 × 10−6 1 5.6 × 10−6
210 Bi β M 9.3 × 10−8 1 9.3 × 10−8
210 Po α M 4.3 × 10−6 1 4.3 × 10−6
235 U α S 8.5 × 10−6 0.046 3.9 × 10−7
231 Th β S 3.3 × 10−10 0.046 1.5 × 10−11
231 Pa α S 3.4 × 10−5 0.046 1.6 × 10−6
227 Ac β S 7.2 × 10−5 0.046 3.3 × 10−6
227 Th α S 1.0 × 10−5 0.046 4.6 × 10−7
223 Ra α M 8.7 × 10−6 0.046 4.0 × 10−7
219 Rna α 0.046
215 Poa α 0.046
211 Pba β F 1.2 × 10−8 0.046 5.5× 10−10
211 Bia α 0.046
207 Tla β 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 5.71 × 10−5
a
220
Rn, 219
5.71 × 10−5 Sv
DCF1µm,U,public = = 6.86 × 10−6 Sv/Bqα = 0.0069 mSv/Bqα
8.322Bqα

Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
238 U α S 7.6 × 10−6 1 7.3 ×10 −6
234 Th β S 7.3 × 10−9 1 7.3 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β 1
234 U α S 8.5 × 10−6 1 8.5× 10−6
230 Th α S 1.3 × 10−5 1 1.3 × 10−5
226 Ra α M 3.2 × 10−6 1 3.2 × 10−6
222 Rna α 1
218 Poa α 1
214 Pba β F 2.9 × 10−9 1 2.9 × 10−9
214 Bia β M 1.4 × 10−8 1 1.4 × 10−8
214 Poa α 1
210 Pb β F 8.9 × 10−7 1 8.9 × 10−7
210 Bi β M 8.4 × 10−8 1 8.4 × 10−8
210 Po α M 3.0 × 10−6 1 3.0 × 10−6
235 U α S 7.7 × 10−6 0.046 3.5 × 10−7
231 Th β S 3.2 × 10−10 0.046 1.5 × 10−11
231 Pa α S 3.2 × 10−5 0.046 1.5 × 10−6
227 Ac β S 6.6 × 10−5 0.046 3.0 × 10−6
227 Th α S 9.6 × 10−6 0.046 4.4 × 10−7
223 Ra α M 6.9 × 10−6 0.046 3.2 × 10−7
219 Rna α 0.046
215 Poa α 0.046
211 Pba β F 3.9 × 10−9 0.046 1.8× 10−10
211 Bia α 0.046
207 Tla β 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 4.16 × 10−5
a
220
Rn, 219
4.16 × 10−5 Sv
DCF1µm,U,worker = = 5.00 × 10−6 Sv/Bqα = 0.0050 mSv/Bqα
8.322Bqα
Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
238 U α S 7.1 × 10−6 1 7.1 ×10 −6
234 Th β S 7.2 × 10−9 1 7.2 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β 1
234 U α S 8.5 × 10−6 1 8.5× 10−6
230 Th α S 1.0 × 10−5 1 1.0 × 10−5
226 Ra α M 2.8 × 10−6 1 2.8 × 10−6
222 Rna α 1
218 Poa α 1
214 Pba β F 4.6 × 10−9 1 4.6 × 10−9
214 Bia β M 2.1 × 10−8 1 2.1 × 10−8
214 Poa α 1
210 Pb β F 1.1 × 10−6 1 1.1 × 10−6
210 Bi β M 8.4 × 10−8 1 8.4 × 10−8
210 Po α M 2.8 × 10−6 1 2.8 × 10−6
235 U α S 7.6 × 10−6 0.046 3.5 × 10−7
231 Th β S 3.8 × 10−10 0.046 1.8 × 10−11
231 Pa α S 2.4 × 10−5 0.046 1.1 × 10−6
227 Ac β S 5.2 × 10−5 0.046 2.4 × 10−6
227 Th α S 9.7 × 10−6 0.046 4.5 × 10−7
223 Ra α M 7.1 × 10−6 0.046 3.3 × 10−7
219 Rna α 0.046
215 Poa α 0.046
211 Pba β F 5.6 × 10−9 0.046 2.6× 10−10
211 Bia α 0.046
207 Tla β 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 3.70 × 10−5
a
220
Rn, 219
3.70 × 10−5 Sv
8.322Bqα

Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
238 U α S 5.7 × 10−6 1 5.7 ×10 −6
234 Th β S 5.8 × 10−9 1 5.8 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β 1
234 U α S 6.8 × 10−6 1 6.8× 10−6
230 Th α S 7.2 × 10−6 1 7.2 × 10−5
226 Ra α M 2.2 × 10−6 1 2.2 × 10−6
222 Rna α 1
218 Poa α 1
214 Pba β F 4.8 × 10−9 1 4.8 × 10−9
214 Bia β M 2.1 × 10−8 1 2.1 × 10−8
214 Poa α 1
210 Pb β F 1.1 × 10−6 1 1.1 × 10−6
210 Bi β M 6.0 × 10−8 1 6.0 × 10−8
210 Po α M 2.2 × 10−6 1 2.2 × 10−6
235 U α S 6.1 × 10−6 0.046 2.8 × 10−7
231 Th β S 4.0 × 10−10 0.046 1.8 × 10−11
231 Pa α S 1.7 × 10−5 0.046 7.8 × 10−6
227 Ac β S 4.7 × 10−5 0.046 2.2 × 10−6
227 Th α S 7.6 × 10−6 0.046 3.5 × 10−7
223 Ra α M 5.7 × 10−6 0.046 2.6 × 10−7
219 Rna α 0.046
215 Poa α 0.046
211 Pba β F 5.6 × 10−9 0.046 2.6 × 10−10
211 Bia α 0.046
207 Tla β 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 2.91 × 10−5
a
220
Rn, 219
2.91 × 10−5 Sv
8.322Bqα
Slowest
Dose
lung
absorption
(Sv/Bq)
class
238 U α S 3.5 × 10−6 1 3.5 ×10 −6
234 Th β S 3.5 × 10−9 1 3.5 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β 1
234 U α S 4.1 × 10−6 1 4.1 × 10−6
230 Th α S 5.2 × 10−6 1 5.2 × 10−6
226 Ra α M 1.5 × 10−6 1 1.5 × 10−6
222 Rna α 1
218 Poa α 1
214 Pba β F 4.4 × 10−9 1 4.4 × 10−9
214 Bia β M 1.8 × 10−8 1 1.8 × 10−8
214 Poa α 1
210 Pb β F 9.4 × 10−7 1 9.4 × 10−7
210 Bi β M 3.0 × 10−8 1 3.0 × 10−8
210 Po α M 1.1 × 10−6 1 1.1 × 10−6
235 U α S 3.7 × 10−6 0.046 1.7 × 10−7
231 Th β S 3.0 × 10−10 0.046 1.4 × 10−11
231 Pa α S 8.3 × 10−6 0.046 3.8 × 10−7
227 Ac β S 2.7 × 10−5 0.046 1.2 × 10−6
227 Th α S 3.9 × 10−6 0.046 1.8 × 10−7
223 Ra α M 3.0 × 10−6 0.046 1.4 × 10−7
219 Rna α 0.046
215 Poa α 0.046
211 Pba β F 4.8 × 10−9 0.046 2.2 × 10−10
211 Bia α 0.046
207 Tla β 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 2.15 × 10−5
a
220
Rn, 219
2.15 × 10−5 Sv
8.322Bqα

D. Appendix listing the thorium/uranium dose

conversion factors
Table D.1.: Dose conversion factors (DCF mSv/Bqα ), annual limits of intake (ALI Bq/year) and
derived air concentrations (DAC Bq/m3 ) for the dust with AMAD = 1 µm containing
both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for members of the general public (dose
constraint = 0.3 mSv/year
Derived air
Th:U weight Dose conversion Annual limit of
concentration
ratio factor (mSv/Bqα ) intake (Bq/year)
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0141 21 0.003
50:1 0.0137 22 0.003
40:1 0.0136 22 0.003
30:1 0.0134 22 0.003
25:1 0.0133 23 0.003
20:1 0.0131 23 0.003
15:1 0.0129 23 0.003
10:1 0.0124 24 0.003
9:1 0.0123 24 0.003
8:1 0.0121 25 0.003
7:1 0.0119 25 0.003
6:1 0.0117 26 0.003
5:1 0.0114 26 0.003
4:1 0.0110 27 0.003
3:1 0.0105 29 0.003
2:1 0.0097 31 0.004
1.75:1 0.0095 32 0.004
1.5:1 0.0092 32 0.004
1.25:1 0.0090 33 0.004
1:1 0.0086 35 0.004
1:1.25 0.0084 36 0.004
1:1.5 0.0082 37 0.004
1:1.75 0.0080 37 0.004
1:2 0.0079 38 0.005
1:3 0.0076 40 0.005
1:4 0.0074 41 0.005
1:5 0.0073 41 0.005
1:6 0.0072 41 0.005
1:7 0.0072 42 0.005
1:8 0.0071 42 0.005
1:9 0.0071 42 0.005
1:10 0.0071 42 0.005
1:15 0.0070 43 0.005
1:20 0.0070 43 0.005
1:25 0.0069 43 0.005
1:30 0.0069 43 0.005
1:40 0.0069 43 0.005
1:50 0.0069 43 0.005
All uranium 0.0069 44 0.005

both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for members of the general public (exposure
limit = 1 mSv/year)
Derived air
Dose conversion Annual limit of
Th:U weight ratio concentration
factor (mSv/Bqα ) intake (Bq/year)
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0141 71 0.008
50:1 0.0137 73 0.009
40:1 0.0136 74 0.009
30:1 0.0134 74 0.009
25:1 0.0133 75 0.009
20:1 0.0131 76 0.009
15:1 0.0129 78 0.009
10:1 0.0124 81 0.010
9:1 0.0123 81 0.010
8:1 0.0121 83 0.010
7:1 0.0119 84 0.010
6:1 0.0117 86 0.010
5:1 0.0114 88 0.010
4:1 0.0110 91 0.011
3:1 0.0105 96 0.011
2:1 0.0097 103 0.012
1.75:1 0.0095 105 0.013
1.5:1 0.0092 108 0.013
1.25:1 0.0090 112 0.013
1:1 0.0086 116 0.014
1:1.25 0.0084 120 0.014
1:1.5 0.0082 123 0.015
1:1.75 0.0080 125 0.015
1:2 0.0079 127 0.015
1:3 0.0076 132 0.016
1:4 0.0074 135 0.016
1:5 0.0073 137 0.016
1:6 0.0072 138 0.016
1:7 0.0072 139 0.017
1:8 0.0071 140 0.017
1:9 0.0071 141 0.017
1:10 0.0071 141) 0.017
1:15 0.0070 143 0.017
1:20 0.0070 143 0.017
1:25 0.0069 144 0.017
1:30 0.0069 144 0.017
1:40 0.0069 145 0.017
1:50 0.0069 145 0.017
All uranium 0.0069 146 0.017
both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (dose constraint = 1 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0113 89 0.037
50:1 0.0109 92 0.038
40:1 0.0108 92 0.039
30:1 0.0107 94 0.039
25:1 0.0106 95 0.039
20:1 0.0104 96 0.040
15:1 0.0102 98 0.041
10:1 0.0098 102 0.043
9:1 0.0097 103 0.043
8:1 0.0095 105 0.044
7:1 0.0094 107 0.045
6:1 0.0092 109 0.046
5:1 0.0089 112 0.047
4:1 0.0086 117 0.049
3:1 0.0081 123 0.051
2:1 0.0075 134 0.056
1.75:1 0.0073 137 0.057
1.5:1 0.0071 142 0.059
1.25:1 0.0068 147 0.061
1:1 0.0065 153 0.064
1:1.25 0.0063 159 0.066
1:1.5 0.0061 163 0.068
1:1.75 0.0060 167 0.070
1:2 0.0059 170 0.071
1:3 0.0056 178 0.074
1:4 0.0055 183 0.076
1:5 0.0054 186 0.077
1:6 0.0053 188 0.078
1:7 0.0053 189 0.079
1:8 0.0052 191 0.079
1:9 0.0052 192 0.080
1:10 0.0052 192 0.080
1:15 0.0051 195 0.081
1:20 0.0051 196 0.082
1:25 0.0051 197 0.082
1:30 0.0051 197 0.082
1:40 0.0051 198 0.082
1:50 0.0050 198 0.083
All uranium 0.0050 200 0.083

Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0113 444 0.185
50:1 0.0109 459 0.191
40:1 0.0108 462 0.193
30:1 0.0107 468 0.195
25:1 0.0106 473 0.197
20:1 0.0104 479 0.200
15:1 0.0102 490 0.204
10:1 0.0098 510 0.213
9:1 0.0097 517 0.215
8:1 0.0095 524 0.219
7:1 0.0094 534 0.223
6:1 0.0092 546 0.228
5:1 0.0089 562 0.234
4:1 0.0086 585 0.244
3:1 0.0081 617 0.257
2:1 0.0075 668 0.278
1.75:1 0.0073 686 0.286
1.5:1 0.0071 708 0.295
1.25:1 0.0068 733 0.305
1:1 0.0065 764 0.318
1:1.25 0.0063 793 0.331
1:1.5 0.0061 816 0.340
1:1.75 0.0060 835 0.348
1:2 0.0059 850 0.354
1:3 0.0056 890 0.371
1:4 0.0055 913 0.380
1:5 0.0054 928 0.387
1:6 0.0053 939 0.391
1:7 0.0053 947 0.394
1:8 0.0052 953 0.397
1:9 0.0052 958 0.399
1:10 0.0052 962 0.401
1:15 0.0051 974 0.406
1:20 0.0051 980 0.408
1:25 0.0051 984 0.410
1:30 0.0051 986 0.411
1:40 0.0051 990 0.412
1:50 0.0050 992 0.413
All uranium 0.0050 1000 0.417
both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (exposure limit = 20 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0113 1776 0.740
50:1 0.0109 1835 0.764
40:1 0.0108 1849 0.770
30:1 0.0107 1872 0.780
25:1 0.0106 1890 0.788
20:1 0.0104 1917 0.799
15:1 0.0102 1960 0.817
10:1 0.0098 2041 0.850
9:1 0.0097 2067 0.861
8:1 0.0095 2098 0.874
7:1 0.0094 2136 0.890
6:1 0.0092 2185 0.911
5:1 0.0089 2250 0.937
4:1 0.0086 2338 0.974
3:1 0.0081 2467 1.028
2:1 0.0075 2674 1.114
1.75:1 0.0073 2746 1.144
1.5:1 0.0071 2831 1.179
1.25:1 0.0068 2932 1.222
1:1 0.0065 3055 1.273
1:1.25 0.0063 3173 1.322
1:1.5 0.0061 3266 1.361
1:1.75 0.0060 3339 1.391
1:2 0.0059 3400 1.417
1:3 0.0056 3560 1.483
1:4 0.0055 3653 1.522
1:5 0.0054 3713 1.547
1:6 0.0053 3756 1.565
1:7 0.0053 3787 1.578
1:8 0.0052 3811 1.588
1:9 0.0052 3831 1.596
1:10 0.0052 3846 1.603
1:15 0.0051 3895 1.623
1:20 0.0051 3920 1.633
1:25 0.0051 3935 1.640
1:30 0.0051 3946 1.644
1:40 0.0051 3959 1.650
1:50 0.0050 3967 1.653
All uranium 0.0050 3999 1.666

Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0092 108 0.045
50:1 0.0090 112 0.047
40:1 0.0089 112 0.047
30:1 0.0088 114 0.047
25:1 0.0087 115 0.048
20:1 0.0086 116 0.048
15:1 0.0084 119 0.049
10:1 0.0081 123 0.051
9:1 0.0080 125 0.052
8:1 0.0079 126 0.053
7:1 0.0078 129 0.054
6:1 0.0076 131 0.055
5:1 0.0074 135 0.056
4:1 0.0072 140 0.058
3:1 0.0068 147 0.061
2:1 0.0063 158 0.066
1.75:1 0.0062 161 0.067
1.5:1 0.0060 166 0.069
1.25:1 0.0058 171 0.071
1:1 0.0056 178 0.074
1:1.25 0.0054 184 0.077
1:1.5 0.0053 188 0.079
1:1.75 0.0052 192 0.080
1:2 0.0051 195 0.081
1:3 0.0049 203 0.085
1:4 0.0048 208 0.087
1:5 0.0047 211 0.088
1:6 0.0047 213 0.089
1:7 0.0047 214 0.089
1:8 0.0046 216 0.090
1:9 0.0046 217 0.090
1:10 0.0046 217 0.091
1:15 0.0046 220 0.092
1:20 0.0045 221 0.092
1:25 0.0045 222 0.092
1:30 0.0045 222 0.093
1:40 0.0045 223 0.093
1:50 0.0045 223 0.093
All uranium 0.0044 225 0.094
derived air concentrations (DAC Bq/mµ) for the dust with AMAD = 3 µm containing
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0092 542 0.226
50:1 0.0090 558 0.233
40:1 0.0089 562 0.234
30:1 0.0088 569 0.237
25:1 0.0087 574 0.239
20:1 0.0086 581 0.242
15:1 0.0084 594 0.247
10:1 0.0081 616 0.257
9:1 0.0080 623 0.260
8:1 0.0079 632 0.263
7:1 0.0078 643 0.268
6:1 0.0076 656 0.273
5:1 0.0074 674 0.281
4:1 0.0072 698 0.291
3:1 0.0068 733 0.305
2:1 0.0063 788 0.328
1.75:1 0.0062 807 0.336
1.5:1 0.0060 830 0.346
1.25:1 0.0058 856 0.357
1:1 0.0056 888 0.370
1:1.25 0.0054 919 0.383
1:1.5 0.0053 942 0.393
1:1.75 0.0052 961 0.400
1:2 0.0051 976 0.407
1:3 0.0049 1016 0.423
1:4 0.0048 1039 0.433
1:5 0.0047 1054 0.439
1:6 0.0047 1065 0.444
1:7 0.0047 1072 0.447
1:8 0.0046 1078 0.449
1:9 0.0046 1083 0.451
1:10 0.0046 1087 0.453
1:15 0.0046 1099 0.458
1:20 0.0045 1105 0.460
1:25 0.0045 1108 0.462
1:30 0.0045 1111 0.463
1:40 0.0045 1114 0.464
1:50 0.0045 1116 0.465
All uranium 0.0044 1124 0.468

both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (exposure limit = 20 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0092 2167 0.903
50:1 0.0090 2233 0.930
40:1 0.0089 2249 0.937
30:1 0.0088 2275 0.948
25:1 0.0087 2296 0.957
20:1 0.0086 2326 0.969
15:1 0.0084 2374 0.989
10:1 0.0081 2465 1.027
9:1 0.0080 2493 1.039
8:1 0.0079 2528 1.053
7:1 0.0078 2571 1.071
6:1 0.0076 2625 1.094
5:1 0.0074 2696 1.123
4:1 0.0072 2792 1.163
3:1 0.0068 2932 1.222
2:1 0.0063 3153 1.314
1.75:1 0.0062 3230 1.346
1.5:1 0.0060 3319 1.383
1.25:1 0.0058 3425 1.427
1:1 0.0056 3552 1.480
1:1.25 0.0054 3674 1.531
1:1.5 0.0053 3769 1.570
1:1.75 0.0052 3843 1.601
1:2 0.0051 3904 1.627
1:3 0.0049 4065 1.694
1:4 0.0048 4157 1.732
1:5 0.0047 4216 1.757
1:6 0.0047 4258 1.774
1:7 0.0047 4289 1.787
1:8 0.0046 4313 1.797
1:9 0.0046 4332 1.805
1:10 0.0046 4347 1.811
1:15 0.0046 4394 1.831
1:20 0.0045 4419 1.841
1:25 0.0045 4434 1.847
1:30 0.0045 4444 1.852
1:40 0.0045 4456 1.857
1:50 0.0045 4464 1.860
All uranium 0.0044 4495 1.873
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0080 125 0.052
50:1 0.0078 129 0.054
40:1 0.0077 130 0.054
30:1 0.0076 131 0.055
25:1 0.0075 133 0.055
20:1 0.0074 135 0.056
15:1 0.0073 138 0.057
10:1 0.0070 143 0.060
9:1 0.0069 145 0.061
8:1 0.0068 147 0.061
7:1 0.0067 150 0.063
6:1 0.0065 154 0.064
5:1 0.0063 158 0.066
4:1 0.0061 165 0.069
3:1 0.0057 174 0.072
2:1 0.0053 189 0.079
1.75:1 0.0052 194 0.081
1.5:1 0.0050 200 0.083
1.25:1 0.0048 208 0.086
1:1 0.0046 216 0.090
1:1.25 0.0044 225 0.094
1:1.5 0.0043 232 0.097
1:1.75 0.0042 237 0.099
1:2 0.0041 242 0.101
1:3 0.0039 253 0.106
1:4 0.0038 260 0.108
1:5 0.0038 265 0.110
1:6 0.0037 268 0.112
1:7 0.0037 270 0.113
1:8 0.0037 272 0.113
1:9 0.0037 273 0.114
1:10 0.0036 274 0.114
1:15 0.0036 278 0.116
1:20 0.0036 280 0.117
1:25 0.0036 281 0.117
1:30 0.0035 282 0.117
1:40 0.0035 283 0.118
1:50 0.0035 283 0.118
All uranium 0.0035 286 0.119

Table D.10.: Dose conversion factors (DCF mSv/Bqα ), annual limits of intake (ALI Bq/year)
= 5 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0080 623 0.259
50:1 0.0078 643 0.268
40:1 0.0077 648 0.270
30:1 0.0076 657 0.274
25:1 0.0075 663 0.276
20:1 0.0074 673 0.280
15:1 0.0073 688 0.287
10:1 0.0070 717 0.299
9:1 0.0069 726 0.303
8:1 0.0068 737 0.307
7:1 0.0067 751 0.313
6:1 0.0065 769 0.320
5:1 0.0063 792 0.330
4:1 0.0061 824 0.343
3:1 0.0057 870 0.362
2:1 0.0053 944 0.393
1.75:1 0.0052 970 0.404
1.5:1 0.0050 1001 0.417
1.25:1 0.0048 1038 0.432
1:1 0.0046 1082 0.451
1:1.25 0.0044 1126 0.469
1:1.5 0.0043 1159 0.483
1:1.75 0.0042 1186 0.494
1:2 0.0041 1208 0.503
1:3 0.0039 1267 0.528
1:4 0.0038 1301 0.542
1:5 0.0038 1323 0.551
1:6 0.0037 1339 0.558
1:7 0.0037 1350 0.563
1:8 0.0037 1359 0.566
1:9 0.0037 1366 0.569
1:10 0.0036 1372 0.572
1:15 0.0036 1390 0.579
1:20 0.0036 1399 0.583
1:25 0.0036 1405 0.585
1:30 0.0035 1409 0.587
1:40 0.0035 1414 0.589
1:50 0.0035 1417 0.590
All uranium 0.0035 1429 0.595
containing both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (exposure limit =
20 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0080 2490 1.038
50:1 0.0078 2574 1.072
40:1 0.0077 2594 1.081
30:1 0.0076 2627 1.095
25:1 0.0075 2653 1.105
20:1 0.0074 2691 1.121
15:1 0.0073 2753 1.147
10:1 0.0070 2868 1.195
9:1 0.0069 2905 1.210
8:1 0.0068 2950 1.229
7:1 0.0067 3005 1.252
6:1 0.0065 3075 1.281
5:1 0.0063 3167 1.320
4:1 0.0061 3294 1.373
3:1 0.0057 3480 1.450
2:1 0.0053 3777 1.574
1.75:1 0.0052 3882 1.617
1.5:1 0.0050 4005 1.669
1.25:1 0.0048 4152 1.730
1:1 0.0046 4330 1.804
1:1.25 0.0044 4503 1.876
1:1.5 0.0043 4637 1.932
1:1.75 0.0042 4745 1.977
1:2 0.0041 4833 2.014
1:3 0.0039 5068 2.112
1:4 0.0038 5204 2.168
1:5 0.0038 5292 2.205
1:6 0.0037 5355 2.231
1:7 0.0037 5401 2.251
1:8 0.0037 5437 2.265
1:9 0.0037 5465 2.277
1:10 0.0036 5489 2.287
1:15 0.0036 5560 2.317
1:20 0.0036 5597 2.332
1:25 0.0036 5620 2.342
1:30 0.0035 5635 2.348
1:40 0.0035 5655 2.356
1:50 0.0035 5666 2.361
All uranium 0.0035 5714 2.381

= 1 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0047 211 0.088
50:1 0.0046 217 0.090
40:1 0.0046 218 0.091
30:1 0.0045 220 0.092
25:1 0.0045 222 0.092
20:1 0.0045 224 0.094
15:1 0.0044 228 0.095
10:1 0.0042 236 0.098
9:1 0.0042 238 0.099
8:1 0.0041 241 0.101
7:1 0.0041 245 0.102
6:1 0.0040 249 0.104
5:1 0.0039 255 0.106
4:1 0.0038 263 0.109
3:1 0.0037 274 0.114
2:1 0.0034 291 0.121
1.75:1 0.0034 297 0.124
1.5:1 0.0033 304 0.127
1.25:1 0.0032 312 0.130
1:1 0.0031 321 0.134
1:1.25 0.0030 330 0.138
1:1.5 0.0030 337 0.140
1:1.75 0.0029 342 0.143
1:2 0.0029 347 0.144
1:3 0.0028 358 0.149
1:4 0.0027 364 0.152
1:5 0.0027 368 0.154
1:6 0.0027 371 0.155
1:7 0.0027 373 0.156
1:8 0.0027 375 0.156
1:9 0.0027 376 0.157
1:10 0.0026 377 0.157
1:15 0.0026 381 0.159
1:20 0.0026 382 0.159
1:25 0.0026 383 0.160
1:30 0.0026 384 0.160
1:40 0.0026 385 0.160
1:50 0.0026 385 0.161
All uranium 0.0026 387 0.161
= 5 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0047 1054 0.439
50:1 0.0046 1083 0.451
40:1 0.0046 1090 0.454
30:1 0.0045 1101 0.459
25:1 0.0045 1109 0.462
20:1 0.0045 1122 0.468
15:1 0.0044 1142 0.476
10:1 0.0042 1180 0.492
9:1 0.0042 1192 0.497
8:1 0.0041 1206 0.503
7:1 0.0041 1224 0.510
6:1 0.0040 1246 0.519
5:1 0.0039 1274 0.531
4:1 0.0038 1313 0.547
3:1 0.0037 1369 0.570
2:1 0.0034 1455 0.606
1.75:1 0.0034 1484 0.618
1.5:1 0.0033 1518 0.633
1.25:1 0.0032 1558 0.649
1:1 0.0031 1605 0.669
1:1.25 0.0030 1650 0.688
1:1.5 0.0030 1684 0.702
1:1.75 0.0029 1711 0.713
1:2 0.0029 1733 0.722
1:3 0.0028 1790 0.746
1:4 0.0027 1822 0.759
1:5 0.0027 1842 0.768
1:6 0.0027 1857 0.774
1:7 0.0027 1867 0.778
1:8 0.0027 1875 0.781
1:9 0.0027 1882 0.784
1:10 0.0026 1887 0.786
1:15 0.0026 1903 0.793
1:20 0.0026 1911 0.796
1:25 0.0026 1916 0.799
1:30 0.0026 1920 0.800
1:40 0.0026 1924 0.802
1:50 0.0026 1927 0.803
All uranium 0.0026 1937 0.807

containing both thorium and uranium in dierent ratios, for workers (exposure limit =
20 mSv/year)
Derived air
(Bq/m3 )
All thorium 0.0047 4218 1.757
50:1 0.0046 4331 1.805
40:1 0.0046 4358 1.816
30:1 0.0045 4403 1.834
25:1 0.0045 4437 1.849
20:1 0.0045 4488 1.870
15:1 0.0044 4569 1.904
10:1 0.0042 4720 1.967
9:1 0.0042 4767 1.986
8:1 0.0041 4824 2.010
7:1 0.0041 4894 2.039
6:1 0.0040 4983 2.076
5:1 0.0039 5098 2.124
4:1 0.0038 5253 2.189
3:1 0.0037 5475 2.281
2:1 0.0034 5819 2.425
1.75:1 0.0034 5936 2.473
1.5:1 0.0033 6072 2.530
1.25:1 0.0032 6232 2.597
1:1 0.0031 6421 2.675
1:1.25 0.0030 6600 2.750
1:1.5 0.0030 6737 2.807
1:1.75 0.0029 6844 2.852
1:2 0.0029 6931 2.888
1:3 0.0028 7158 2.983
1:4 0.0027 7287 3.036
1:5 0.0027 7369 3.070
1:6 0.0027 7427 3.094
1:7 0.0027 7469 3.112
1:8 0.0027 7502 3.126
1:9 0.0027 7527 3.136
1:10 0.0026 7548 3.145
1:15 0.0026 7613 3.172
1:20 0.0026 7646 3.186
1:25 0.0026 7666 3.194
1:30 0.0026 7679 3.200
1:40 0.0026 7697 3.207
1:50 0.0026 7707 3.211
All uranium 0.0026 7749 3.229
E. Appendix listing air sampling alpha

activities and their correction factors
Table E.1.: Alpha activities and correction factors for thorium ore dust residing on an air sampling
lter (reproduced from IAEA RSG1.6)
Alpha activity residing on the lter for various retention fractions of 220 Rn (Bq)
Realistic range Hypothetical
extreme case
Alpha emitting radionuclide 100% 75% 50% 0%
232 Th 1 1 1 1
228 Th 1 1 1 1
224 Ra 1 1 1 1
220 Rna 1 0.75 0.5 -
216 Poa 1 0.75 0.5 -
214 Bia 0.359 0.269 0.1795 -
212 Poa 0.641 0.481 0.3205 -
Total (gross) alpha activity on the lter 6 5.25 4.5 3
Correction factor for determining intake of alpha activity 1 1.14 1.33 2
a
220
Rn and short lived progeny

Table E.2.: Alpha activities and correction factors for uranium ore dust residing on an air sampling
lter (reproduced from IAEA RSG1.6)
Alpha activity residing on the lter for various retention fractions of Rn220 (Bq)
Realistic range Hypothetical extreme case
Alpha emitting radionuclide 100% 75% 50% 0%

238 U 1 1 1 1
234 U 1 1 1 1
230 Th 1 1 1 1
226 Ra 1 1 1 -
222 Rna 1 0.75 0.5 -
218 Poa 1 0.75 0.5 -
214 Poa 1 0.75 0.5 -
210 Po 1 1 1 1
235 U 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
231 Pa 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
227 Th 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
223 Ra 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
219 Rna 0.046 0.035 0.023 -
215 Poa 0.046 0.035 0.023 -
211 Bia 0.046 0.035 0.023 -
Total (gross) alpha activity on 8.322 7.538 6.753 5.184
the lter
Correction factor for 1 1.10 1.23 1.61
determining intake of alpha
activity
a
220
Rn, 219
Alpha self-absorption eects should also be accounted for. Please refer to section 2.4.1 in guideline
NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity sampling.
F. Appendix listing radon/thoron intakes
Table F.1.: Dose conversion factors for inhaled radon decay products for workers (reproduced from
ARPANSA `Mining Code', 2005)
Radionuclides Factor (mSv/mJ) Factor (mSv/[mJh/m3 ])
Radon222 decay products 1.2 1.4
Radon220 decay products 0.39 0.48
Assuming breathing rate of 1.2 m /hour
3
Table F.2.: Annual limits of intake and derived air concentrations for radon and thoron progeny for
workers
Derived air concentration (mJh/m3 ) Annual limit of intake (mJ)
Annual exposure (mSv) Radon progeny Thoron progeny Radon progeny Thoron progeny
1 0.7 2.2 0.8 2.6
5 3.5 10.7 4.2 12.8
20 13.9 42.8 16.7 51.3
50 34.7 106.8 41.7 128.2
Derived air concentration (kBq/m3 ) Annual limit of intake (kBq)
Annual exposure (mSv) Radon progeny Thoron progeny Radon progeny Thoron progeny
1 0.16 0.49 380 1180
5 0.79 2.40 1900 5760
20 3.12 9.62 7490 23090
50 7.80 24.00 18720 57600
Conversion factor: 4.45x10−3 mJh/m3 per 1 Bq/m3
Assuming breathing rate of 1.2 m3 /hour and 2000 working hours in a year
Annual limit of intake (kBq) rounded to the nearest 10 kBq

G. Appendix listing ingestion radionuclide

activities and committed eective dose
Table G.1.: Radionuclide activities and committed eective dose for the ingestion of radionuclides
from thorium decay chain by members of the general public
Dose
Radionuclide Decay f1 value Quantity ingested Dose (Sv)
coecient
(Bq)
(Sv/Bq) Alpha Beta
232 Th α 0.0005 1.1 × 10−7 1 1.1 × 10−7
228 Ra β 0.2 6.7 × 10−7 1 6.7 ×10−7
228 Ac β 0.0005 4.3 × 10−10 1 4.3 ×10−10
228 Th α 0.0005 7.2 × 10−8 1 7.2 × 10−8
224 Ra α 0.2 6.5 × 10−8 1 6.5 ×10−8
220 Rna α - 1 -
216 Poa α - 1 -
212 Pba β 0.2 6.0 × 10−9 1 6.0 × 10−9
64.1% β
212 Bia 0.05 2.6× 10−10 0.359 0.641 2.6 × 10−10
35.9% α
212 Poa α - - 0.641 -
208 Tla β - - 0.359 -
Total 6 4 9.24 × 10−7
a
220
from thorium decay chain by workers
Dose
coecient
(Bq)
(Sv/Bq) Alpha Beta
0.0005 1.1 × 10 −7
232 Th α 1 1.1 × 10−7
0.0002 4.6 × 10−8
228 Ra β 0.2 6.7 × 10−7 1 6.7 ×10−7
228 Ac β 0.0005 4.3 × 10−10 1 4.3 ×10−10
0.0005 7.2 × 10−8
228 Th α 1 7.2 × 10−8
0.0002 3.5 × 10−8
224 Ra α 0.2 6.5 × 10−8 1 6.5 ×10−8
220 Rna α - - 1 -
216 Poa α - - 1 -
212 Pba β 0.2 5.9 × 10−9 1 5.9 × 10−9
64.1% β
212 Bia 0.05 2.6× 10−10 0.359 0.641 2.6 × 10−10
35.9% α
212 Poa α - - 0.641 -
208 Tla β - - 0.359 -
Total 6 4 9.24 × 10−7
Note: the lowest f1 value is used in the assessment of the dose (last column)
a
220

from uranium decay chain by members of the general public
Dose
coecient
(Bq)
(Sv/Bq) Alpha Beta
238 U α 0.02 2.9 × 10 −8 1 2.9 × 10−8
234 Th β 0.0005 3.4 × 10−9 1 3.4 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β - - 1 -
234 U α 0.02 3.2 × 10−8 1 3.2 × 10−8
230 Th α 0.0005 1.1 × 10−7 1 1.1 × 10−7
226 Ra α 0.2 2.4 × 10−7 1 2.4 × 10−7
222 Rna α - - 1 -
218 Poa α - - 1 -
214 Pba β 0.2 1.4 × 10−10 1 1.4 × 10−10
214 Bia β 0.05 1.1 × 10−10 1 1.1 × 10−10
214 Poa α - - 1 -
210 Pb β 0.2 6.4 × 10−7 1 6.4 × 10−7
210 Bi β 0.05 1.3 × 10−9 1 1.3 × 10−9
210 Po α 0.5 1.2 × 10−6 1 1.2 × 10−6
235 U α 0.02 3.1 × 10−8 0.046 1.4 × 10−9
231 Th β 0.0005 3.4 × 10−10 0.046 1.6 × 10−11
231 Pa α 0.0005 2.1 × 10−7 0.046 9.7 × 10−9
227 Ac β 0.0005 7.3 × 10−7 0.046 3.4 × 10−8
227 Th α 0.0005 8.8 × 10−9 0.046 4.0 × 10−10
223 Ra α 0.2 1.0 × 10−7 0.046 4.6 × 10−9
219 Rna α - - 0.046 -
215 Poa α - - 0.046 -
211 Pba β 0.2 1.8 × 10−10 0.046 8.3 × 10−12
211 Bia α - - 0.046
207 Tla β - - 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 2.31 × 10−6
a
220
Rn, 219
from uranium decay chain by workers
Dose
coecient
(Bq)
(Sv/Bq) Alpha Beta
0.02 2.9 × 10 −8
238 U α 1 2.9 × 10−8
0.002 6.1 × 10−9
0.0005 3.4 × 10−9
234 Th β 1 3.4 × 10−9
0.002 3.4 × 10−9
234 Pa
m β - - 1 -
0.02 3.2 × 10−8
234 U α 1 3.2 × 10−8
0.002 6.7 × 10−9
0.0005 1.1 × 10−7
230 Th α 1 1.1 × 10−7
0.0002 4.7 × 10−8
226 Ra α 0.2 2.4 × 10−7 1 2.4 × 10−7
222 Rna α - - 1 -
218 Poa α - - 1 -
214 Pba β 0.2 1.4 × 10−10 1 1.4 × 10−10
214 Bia β 0.05 1.1 × 10−10 1 1.1 × 10−10
214 Poa α - - 1 -
210 Pb β 0.2 6.3 × 10−7 1 6.3 × 10−7
210 Bi β 0.05 1.3 × 10−9 1 1.3 × 10−9
210 Po α 0.1 2.4 × 10−7 1 2.4 × 10−7
0.02 3.0 × 10−8
235 U α 0.046 1.4 × 10−9
0.002 6.8 × 10−9
0.0005 3.4 × 10−10
231 Th β 0.046 1.6 × 10−11
0.0002 3.4 × 10−10
231 Pa α 0.0005 2.1 × 10−7 0.046 9.7 × 10−9
227 Ac β 0.0005 7.2 × 10−7 0.046 3.3 × 10−8
0.0005 8.8 × 10−9
227 Th α 0.046 4.1 × 10−10
0.0002 8.4 × 10−9
223 Ra α 0.2 1.0 × 10−7 0.046 4.6 × 10−9
219 Rna α - - 0.046 -
215 Poa α - - 0.046 -
211 Pba β 0.2 1.8 × 10−10 0.046 8.3 × 10−12
211 Bia α - - 0.046
207 Tla β - - 0.046
Total 8.322 6.184 1.34 × 10−6
a
220
Rn, 219

H. Appendix listing drinking water dose

conversion factors
Table H.1.: Dose conversion factors (DCF mSv/Bq), theoretical annual limits of intake (ALI
radiological signicance in drinking water, for members of the general public (exposure
limit = 1 mSv/year)
Radionuclide Dose conversion factor Annual limit of intake Derived water
(mSv/Bq) (Bq/year) concentration (kBq/L)
232 Th 0.00011 9.09 0.013
228 Ra 0.00067 1.49 0.002
228 Th 0.00007 13.89 0.020
224 Ra 0.00007 15.38 0.022
238 U 0.00003 34.48 0.049

234 U 0.00003 31.25 0.045
230 Th 0.00011 9.09 0.013
226 Ra 0.00024 4.17 0.006
210 Pb
0.00063 1.59 0.002
0.00024 4.17 0.006
210 Po
Notes: Applicable only for individual radionuclides, decay should be taken into account par-
ticularly for values of annual limits of intake and derived water concentrations, Most important
radionuclides highlighted by bold font, Assumed water consumption per year: 700 L.
radiological signicance in drinking water, for workers (dose constraint = 5 mSv/year)
(mSv/Bq) (kBq/year) concentration (kBq/L)
232 Th 0.00011 45.45 0.091
228 Ra 0.00067 7.46 0.015
228 Th 0.00007 69.44 0.139
224 Ra 0.00007 76.92 0.154
238 U 0.00003 172.41 0.345

234 U 0.00003 156.25 0.313
230 Th 0.00011 45.45 0.091
226 Ra 0.00024 20.83 0.042
210 Pb 0.00063 7.94 0.016
210 Po 0.00024 20.83 0.042
Notes: Applicable only for individual radionuclides, decay should be taken into account particularly
for values of annual limits of intake and derived water concentrations, Most important radionuclides
highlighted by bold font, Assumed water consumption per year: 500 L.
radiological signicance in drinking water, for workers (exposure limit = 20 mSv/year)
(mSv/Bq) (Bq/year) concentration (kBq/L)
232 Th 0.00011 181.82 0.364
228 Ra 0.00067 29.85 0.060
228 Th 0.00007 277.78 0.556
224 Ra 0.00007 307.69 0.615
238 U 0.00003 689.66 1.379

234 U 0.00003 625.00 1.250
230 Th 0.00011 181.82 0.364
226 Ra 0.00024 83.33 0.167
210 Pb 0.00063 31.75 0.064
210 Po 0.00024 83.33 0.167
Notes: Applicable only for individual radionuclides, decay should be taken into account
particularly for values of annual limits of intake and derived water concentrations, Most important
radionuclides highlighted by bold font, Assumed water consumption per year: 500 L.

I. Appendix with dose conversion factor charts

Figure I.1.: Chart 1
Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mining and mineral processing
Dose Conversion Factors (DCF's) for different Th:U ratios
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.010
DCF (mSv/Bq)
0.008
0.006
0.004
DCF (1 micron AMAD - public)
DCF (1 micron AMAD - worker)
0.002 DCF (3 micron AMAD - worker)
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Th:U ratio by weight (%)
60
Dose conversion factors for dierent particle sizes and dierent Th:U ratios.
Annual Limits of Intake (ALI's) for different Th:U ratios - exposure of members of the public
160
140
ALI (1 micron AMAD - 1 mSv/year limit)

ALI (1 micron AMAD - 0.3 mSv/year constraint)
120
100

80
ALI (Bq)
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
61
Annual limits of intake for dierent exposure levels and dierent Th:U ratios, members of the general public.
Derived Air Concentrations (DAC's) for different Th:U ratios - exposure of members of the public
0.020
0.018
0.016 DAC (1 micron AMAD - 1 mSv/year limit)
DAC (1 micron AMAD - 0.3 mSv/year constraint)
0.014
0.012
DAC (Bq/m3)
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
62
Derived air concentrations of intake for dierent exposure levels and dierent Th:U ratios, members of the general public.
Annual Limits of Intake (ALI's) for different Th:U ratios - worker exposure constraint of 1 mSv/year
450
400
ALI (1 micron AMAD)

350 ALI (3 micron AMAD)
ALI (5 micron AMAD)
ALI (10 micron AMAD)
300
250

ALI (Bq)
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
63
Annual limits of intake for dierent particle sizes levels and dierent Th:U ratios, members of the general public, worker dose constraint of 1
mSv/year.
Annual Limits of Intake (ALI's) for different Th:U ratios - worker exposure constraint of 5 mSv/year
2500
ALI (1 micron AMAD)
2000 ALI (3 micron AMAD)
ALI (5 micron AMAD)
1500
ALI (Bq)
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
64
Annual limits of intake for dierent particle sizes levels and dierent Th:U ratios, members of the general public, worker dose constraint of 5
mSv/year.
Annual Limits of Intake (ALI's) for different Th:U ratios - worker exposure limit of 20 mSv/year
9000
8000
ALI (1 micron AMAD)
ALI (3 micron AMAD)
ALI (5 micron AMAD)
7000
6000
5000

ALI (Bq)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
65
Annual limits of intake for dierent particle sizes levels and dierent Th:U ratios, members of the general public, worker exposure limit of 20
mSv/year.
Derived Air Concentrations (DAC's) for different Th:U ratios - worker exposure constraint of 1 mSv/year
0.180
0.160
DAC (1 micron AMAD)
0.140 DAC (3 micron AMAD)
DAC (5 micron AMAD)
DAC (10 micron AMAD)
0.120
DAC (Bq/m3)
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
66
Derived air concentrations of intake for dierent particle sizes levels and dierent Th:U ratios, worker dose constraint of 1 mSv/year.
Derived Air Concentrations (DAC's) for different Th:U ratios - worker exposure constraint of 5 mSv/year
0.900
0.800
DAC (1 micron AMAD)

DAC (5 micron AMAD)
DAC (10 micron AMAD)
0.600
0.500

0.400
DAC (Bq/m3)
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
67
Derived air concentrations of intake for dierent particle sizes levels and dierent Th:U ratios, worker dose constraint of 5 mSv/year.
Derived Air Concentrations (DAC's) for different Th:U ratios - worker exposure limit of 20 mSv/year
3.500
3.000
DAC (1 micron AMAD)
DAC (3 micron AMAD)
DAC (5 micron AMAD)
2.000
DAC (Bq/m3)
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
68
Derived air concentrations of intake for dierent particle sizes levels and dierent Th:U ratios, worker exposure limit of 20 mSv/year.
Bibliography
[3] 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Pu-
blication 103, Annals of the ICRP, Vol.37, No.24, 2007.
[4] ICRP Publication 66: Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection Annals of
the ICRP Volume 24/1-3A International Commission on Radiological Protection, January 1995.
[5] ICRP Publication 30: Limits for Intake of Radionuclides by Workers, Supplement to Part 2 An-
nals of the ICRP Volume 5/1-6 International Commission on Radiological Protection December
1980.
[6] ICRP Publication 47: Radiation Protection of Workers in Mines Annals of the ICRP Volume
16/1 International Commission on Radiological Protection, January 1986
[7] ICRP Publication 65: Protection Against Radon-222 at Home and at Work Annals of the ICRP
Volume 23/2 International Commission on Radiological Protection, March 1994.
[8] ICRP Publication 68: Dose Coecients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers Annals of the
ICRP Volume 24/4, Replacement of ICRP Publication 61International Commission on Radio-
logical Protection July 1995.
[9] ICRP Publication 72: Age-dependent Doses to the Members of the Public from Intake of Ra-
dionuclides Part 5, Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Coecients Annals of the ICRP
Volume 26/1 International Commission on Radiological Protection, September 1996.
[11] Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) EH19 National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC), 2004.
[12] International Basic safety Standards for Protection against Ionising Radiation and for the Sa-
fety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No.115, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Vienna, 1996.
[13] Safety Reports Series No.27. Monitoring and surveillance of residues from the mining and milling
of uranium and thorium. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), Vienna, 2002.
[14] Safety Reports Series No.37. Methods for assessing occupational radiation doses due to intakes
of radionuclides. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), 2004.
[15] Safety Reports Series No.44. Derivation of Activity Concentration Values for Exclusion, Exemp-
tion and Clearance. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), 2005.
[16] Safety Reports Series No.49. Assessing the need for radiation protection measures in work in-
volving minerals and raw materials. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), 2006.
[17] Sources and Eects of Ionising Radiation, United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects
of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2000 Report to the General Assembly, Volume I: Sources,
Annex A: Dose Assessment Methodologies, paragraph 103, p.36, 2000.

[18] Sources and Eects of Ionising Radiation, United Nations Scientic Committee on the Eects
of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2000 Report to the General Assembly, Volume I: Sources,
Annex B: Exposures from Natural Radiation Sources, paragraph 154, pp.107108, 2000.
Index
absorbed dose, 1, 2 ICRP68, 9
activity concentration, 1 ICRP72, 9
AMAD, 9 ingestion of drinking water, 13
annual dose, 7 ingestion of food, dust and soil, 15
annual dose limit, 3 inhaled activity, 3
annual limit of intake, 3 intake, 3
ARPANSA, 12 internal radiation exposure, 12
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 13 ionising radiation, 1
average absorbed dose, 2
average activity concentration, 3 joule per kilogram, 1
Becquerel, 1, 3 lung absorption types, 19

Becquerel per cubic metre, 1
man-Sievert, 3
Becquerel per gram, 1
mJh/m3 , 12
Becquerel per litre, 1
biological half-life, 19 non-designated employees, 7
collective eective dose, 3 potential alpha energy, 4
committed eective dose, 3
committed equivalent dose, 2 radiation quality, 2
complex dose assessments, 15 radiation weighting factor, 2, 6
correction factors, 11 radioactive substance, 1
radionuclide activity, 1
derived air concentration, 3, 4 respiratory tract, 9
designated employees, 7 respiratory tract model, 6
deterministic, 6
dose assessment, 9 Sievert, 2
dose limit, 3 special exposure, 10
dust inhalation, 8 State Mining Engineer, 9
stochastic, 6
eective dose, 2 swallowed activity, 3
equivalent aerodynamic diameter, 9
equivalent dose, 2 tissue weighting factor, 2, 6
TLD badge, 7, 15
gastrointestinal tract, 19
general public, 7 WLM, 12
gray, 1 working level month, 12
IAEA, 6, 13, 15 zircon, 11

ICRP, 6, 19
ICRP103, 6
ICRP30, 9, 13
ICRP47, 4
ICRP65, 4
ICRP66, 9, 1921
71
NORM6
Reporting requirements
Reference
mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM6 Reporting requirements: Resources Safety, Department
of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 22pp. <http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/>

Guideline NORM6 Reporting requirements
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Report details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Typical report formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.1. Occupational radiation monitoring report suggested minimum contents . . . 4
2.3.2. Environmental radiation monitoring report suggested minimum contents . . 5
2.4. Records management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Investigation and reporting levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Notication requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7. Operational changes not requiring notications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Appendix 14
A.1. Basic Principles for the reporting of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1.1. Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1.2. Signicant gures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1.3. Uncertainty estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Lower limit of detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. Recommended conventions for radiation monitoring parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.4. Particle size characterisation report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.5. Annual occupational radiation monitoring report: `Boswell' requirements . . . . . . . 16
A.6. Annual environmental radiation monitoring report data presentation . . . . . . . . 17
A.6.1. Site master plan(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.6.2. Gamma radiation surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.6.2.1. Pre and post-mining surveys: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.6.2.2. Area surveys (temporary stockpiles, etc.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.6.2.3. Site boundary surveys: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.6.3. Air monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.6.4. Water monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.6.5. Stack emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.6.6. Tailings and stockpile management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bibliography 21
Index 22

List of Figures
A.1. Stack testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
2.1. Investigation and reporting levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Information required for specic notications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.1. Purpose
To outline the minimum acceptable reporting requirements for statutory radiation reports to the
Appropriate Authority.
1.2. Scope

Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Summary
The mineral exploration sites, mines and processing plants in Western Australia that use or handle
naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) come within the scope of Part 16 of the Mine
Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995. Some processing plants are not classied as mining sites and
are regulated by dierent legislation (e.g. Radiation Safety Act 1975 and its Regulations). However,
the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations cover the disposal of waste material from these plants
if this disposal occurs at a mining site.
MSIR Regulation 16.26 requires that the manager of a mine must report to the State Mining Engineer
at regular intervals the:
results of the monitoring program; and
details of the operation of the radioactive waste management system as approved in the radia-
tion management plan.
To address this requirement, two types of radiation monitoring programs are established:
1. occupational; and
2. environmental.
The occupational radiation monitoring program enables a company to determine the radiation doses
received by the members of the workforce at a particular site. The data collected in this program
typically includes:
gamma radiation levels in selected site areas;
personal exposure to external radiation (personal dosimeters/badges and area gamma radiation
surveys);
personal internal radiation exposure:
personal air sampling (and, if necessary, positional air sampling in selected areas), with
subsequent analysis of collected dust for particle size and radioactivity content;
positional radon and/or thoron monitoring (where applicable personal monitoring may
also be conducted); and
drinking water radioactivity content (where applicable).
An annual occupational radiation monitoring report is prepared for each exploration or mi-
ning/processing site for the period 1 April to 31 March.
The environmental radiation monitoring program enables a company to estimate the impact of mi-
ning, processing and radioactive waste disposal activities at a particular site on the local environment,
and to determine potential radiation exposures of members of the general public in the vicinity of a
site. The data collected in this program typically includes:
pre- and post-mining gamma radiation levels;
gamma radiation levels at site boundaries and in selected site areas;
assessment of airborne radioactivity (high volume dust sampling and levels of radon/thoron);
assessment of waterborne radioactivity (sampling of ground and surface waters);
assessment of radioactivity content in products and waste streams, their volume/amount and
destination and disposal sites (for waste streams MSIReg.16.32);
assessment of radioactivity content in emissions from stacks (where applicable); and
surface contamination assessments (where applicable).
An annual environmental radiation monitoring report is prepared for the period 1 October to 30
September.
Annual reports should be submitted within eight weeks after the end of each reporting period. In
exceptional circumstances, the appropriate authority may grant an extension.
2.2. Report details

Reports should be prepared by a suitably qualied professional, typically an approved radiation safety
ocer (RSO), signed by the RSO and counter-signed by the Registered Manager. The reports should
be in a manner that enables the assessment of all possible impacts arising from the use/handling
of a particular NORM on employees, members of the public and the environment. The document
should be clear to anyone with some background knowledge in radiation protection, as it could be
distributed to other government agencies or may be made available for a member of the general
public.
The statutory report should contain, for each radiation parameter listed in the radiation monitoring
program, the following information:
Individual sample:
equipment used, calibration records, the type, number, date and time of the measurement;
name or another suitable identier for a personal air sample; and
sampling location for an area gamma radiation measurement and for a positional air sample.
A group of data:
the range and the mean with estimates of accuracy and precision (such as, for example, a
standard deviation);
a suitably scaled map or plan with direction indicator;
indications of trends in data, preferably in a graphical form;
comparison of the obtained results with authorised limits and/or baseline values collected prior
to the commencement of operations; and
reference to the techniques or equipment used.
Each measurement must be undertaken using an agreed technique and appropriate monitoring equip-
ment. Once approved these techniques do not need to be detailed in the reports. However, any
changes in the techniques must be approved before being used as the basis of the reports.

2.3. Typical report formats

2.3.1. Occupational radiation monitoring report suggested minimum contents
1. Table of contents
2. Executive summary
3. Introduction
4. Radioactive materials production gures
5. Workforce
6. Instrument and measurement techniques
7. Occupational monitoring results:
a) external radiation exposure monitoring data
b) internal radiation exposure monitoring data, including radon/thoron, water and surface
contamination where applicable
c) work categories
d) annual dose assessments
e) designated employees
f ) drinking water monitoring where applicable
8. Area monitoring results
9. Radiation protection activities:
a) dust control engineering
b) respiratory protection
c) radiation safety education
d) supervised and controlled areas
e) particle size analysis
f ) job rotations
g) other changes
10. Conclusion
11. Monitoring program and list of designated employees for a subsequent year
12. `Boswell' reports with tables and charts
Typically, the majority of data required for an annual occupational radiation monitoring report
may be submitted electronically with the attached up-to-date `Boswell' database data le (boswell-
Data.mdb). For more information please refer to the Guideline NORM7 Boswell assessment and
reporting database.
2.3.2. Environmental radiation monitoring report suggested minimum contents

1. Table of contents
2. Executive summary
3. Introduction
4. Amounts/types of minerals mined, processed and transported
5. Radioactive waste generation statistics
6. Instrument and measurement techniques
7. Gamma radiation measurements:
a) pre- and post-mining
b) boundaries
c) other areas
i. Airborne radioactivity sampling (radon/thoron and high volume dust monitoring)
ii. Waterborne radioactivity sampling
A. ground and surface water
B. process water discharges where applicable
8. Stack monitoring
9. Waste management system detailed data and maps/plans
10. Statistical data for radioactive material sold within Western Australia
11. Conclusion
12. Monitoring program for a subsequent year
Annual environmental radiation monitoring report may be submitted electronically with the copies
of all certicates of analyses obtained from o-site laboratories.
Specic sections that may be required in the report are:
1. Summary: conclusions and comments on any unusual measurement, providing the reasons and
contributing factors for it and any remedial action, if necessary.
2. Compliance with monitoring program: reasons for failing to meet agreed monitoring require-
ments.
2.4. Records management

Complete and accurate records of measurements made within a monitoring program must be kept
up-to-date and be readily available (Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations, Regulation 16.25 [1]).
In particular, personal radiation exposure data for all monitored employees should be available at
any time and regularly updated. This should be facilitated by the use of a computer database
(e.g. `Boswell'). For more information please refer to the Guideline NORM7 Boswell assessment
and reporting database.
A schedule of the type, location and frequency of radiation monitoring measurements forms an
integral part of the approved site monitoring program. An annual report summarises the results
obtained from this program, and additional information may be requested at a later date by an
Appropriate Authority.
Therefore, accurate records or descriptions of the several parameters listed below must be maintained:

1. The method for the determination of employee exposure to external radiation (including the
procedure of the assessment of an external dose for a period when a particular monitoring
device was either lost of malfunctioned).
2. The type of gamma radiation surveys conducted, criteria for determining the location of the
survey, number of readings to be taken, frequency of surveys and action levels.
3. The number of and category descriptions for employees whose exposure will be routinely mo-
nitored (`designated employees' list, where applicable).
4. Monitoring devices used, their range and sensitivity.
5. The type and number of radiation survey instruments, their sensitivity, range, calibration
methods and latest calibration certicates.
6. The procedure followed in the determination of the intake of radioactive materials for designated
and other employees (including the procedure for assessment of intake from special exposures).
7. The methods used to control the spread of radioactive materials from work areas, controlled
and restricted area work rules, engineering controls, contents of training sessions and general
radiation protection activities.
8. The details of the environmental radiation monitoring program, particularly the maps with all
monitoring locations clearly marked.
9. Programs for the stabilisation of temporary stockpile areas and for the rehabilitation of tailings
disposal areas.
It is also important that basic worksheets, together with any collected samples are kept for at least
two years. Basic worksheets are the original eld measurement sheets, containing the record of the
raw data (as measured before any conversions or calculations including the unit of measurement),
date, time, instrument serial number, operator's name and other relevant information.
Record sheets that show the results of any necessary calculations carried out on the raw data are
typically stored on a computer in a format compatible for data submission to the appropriate autho-
rity. These records, together with copies of all statutory reports, should be maintained on at least
one computer storage system for at least the life of the exploration or mining/processing site and its
subsequent decommissioning and closure.
2.5. Investigation and reporting levels

Typically, the numerical value of a monitoring result determines whether an investigation into the
exposure is necessary. Investigation levels will vary with company and work category and should be
based on levels, which are unusual for the category. For example, an unusual result may be one that
is three standard deviations greater than the mean of the work category.
The investigation level for some gamma radiation surveys depends on a background radiation level
that was established for a particular site during a baseline survey prior to the commencement of
operations. In the absence of this value for historical reasons, an average background radiation levels
in a particular area can be used as a reference.
Company ìn-house' investigation levels should be much less than derived limits or concentrations
that are based on regulatory dose constraints or dose limits. It is suggested that these values are
established at the levels that are 5075% of the values in Table 2.1 on page 8.
Some mandatory investigation and reporting levels are detailed below. These investigation levels have
been set to provide a threshold for formal investigative action in order to keep radiation exposures
as low as practicable. They are not limits and exceeding them should not necessarily be interpreted
as a failure of protective measures.
However, when a radiometric or gravimetric result is found to exceed the relevant investigation level,
action is required to be undertaken to investigate the cause; to take corrective measures if necessary
and to record the ndings. The circumstances of the excursion and the results of the investigation are
to be reported as soon as reasonably practicable after the event is noted. Table 2.1 on the following
page shows the investigation and reporting levels.

Table 2.1.: Investigation and reporting levels
Radiation parameter Investigation level Comment

1. Area gamma dose rate
More than 0.11 µGy/hr > 1 mSv/year for a member

1.1 Site boundary
above background of the public (8760
hours/year)
1.2 Supervised area More than 0.50 µGy/hr > 1 mSv/year for an
above background employee (2000 hours/year)
1.2 Controlled Area More than 2.50 µGy/hr > 5 mSv/year for an
1.3 Restricted More than 7.50 µGy/hr > 15 mSv/year for an

2. Personal external dose
2.1 Designated worker > 2.5 mSv in a quarter > 10 mSv/year
2.2 Non-designated worker > 0.5 mSv in a quarter > 2 mSv/year
3. Personal internal dose
3.1 Designated worker >5 mSv in a quarter Assessed from air sampling
a
4. Airborne radioactivity
4.1 Total alpha activity on > 9.9 Bq/m

3 for 12-hour ∼ 0.5 mSv/shift
the personal air sample U shift sample
dust
4.2 Total alpha activity on > 4.3 Bq/m

3 for shift sample ∼ 0.5 mSv/shift
the personal air sample Th
dust
4.3 Total alpha activity on 4 consecutive samples > 2.4 Indicates potential for
the personal air sample U Bq/m
3 signicant exposure
dust
4.4 Total alpha activity on 4 consecutive samples >1.0 Indicates potential for
the personal air sample Th Bq/m
3 signicant exposure
dust
4.5 Total alpha activity > Mean + 3 std deviations Indicates potentially unusual
working conditions
4.6 Total alpha activity on > 2 mBq/m

3 on high volume > 100 µSv/year for a
environmental air sample - U air sampler member of public
dust continuously exposed. (>10%
of exposure limit)
Radiation parameter Investigation level Comment

4.7 Total alpha activity on > 1 mBq/m
3 on high volume > 100 µSv/year for a
environmental air sample air sampler member of public
Th dust continuously exposed. (>10%
of exposure limit)
b
5. Airborne dust
5.1 Inhalable dust on > 10 mg/m

3 Statutory limit for respirable
personal air sample dust concentration
5.2 Respirable dust on > 3 mg/m

3 Statutory limit for respirable
personal air sample dust concentration
c
6. Radon/Thoron in air
6.1 Radon (
222 Rn) in air > 3.5 mJh/m
3 > 5 mSv/year for an
workplaces employee (2000 hours/year)
6.2 Thoron (
220 Rn) in air > 10.7 mJh/m
3 > 5 mSv/year for an
workplaces employee (2000 hours/year)
d
7. Radionuclides in water
7.1
226 Ra in ground water or > 0.5 Bq/L
226 Ra or 2 × 100 µSv/year for ingestion of
surface water average pre-operational levels 2 L/day for year.
for waters containing
naturally high levels of
radium
7.1
228 Ra in ground water or > 0.2 Bq/L
228 Ra or 2 × 100 µSv/year for ingestion of
surface water average pre-operational levels 2 L/day for year.
for waters containing
naturally high levels of
radium
8. Stack emissions
8.1 Amount of thorium > 150 g/day An operational control limit

and/or emitted per day
e
9. Surface contamination
9.1 Low toxicity alpha >0.4 Bq/cm

2 Averaged over 300 cm .
2
emitters (
238 U, 232 Th, 228 Th, Non-xed can be removed
230 Th) on a surface from surface during handling
9.2 Other alpha emitters >0.04 Bq/cm

2 Averaged over 300 cm .
2
(
226 Ra, 224 Ra, 210 Po) on a Non-xed can be removed
surface
a from surface during handling
a
The values detailed above are for uranium and thorium dust only; for levels associated with the dust where both
thorium and uranium are present, please refer to the Guideline NORM-5 Dose assessment.
b
Adjustments for 10-hour or 12-hour shifts are applicable to these values. Most dust in workplaces where radioactive

material is handled has the potential to contain other contaminants. The analysis technique for alpha activity in air
requires that there be none or minimal self absorption of alpha particles in the sample. Depending on the volume of
the sample, dust concentrations in excess of 510 mg/m3 are likely to result in self-absorption problems.
c
The ICRP recommend that exposure to radon should be excluded from their system of protection and treated
separately, unless the relevant regulatory agency has ruled otherwise, either in a dened geographical area or for
dened practices . Where employees work directly with radioactive materials, radon must be included in the system of
radiation protection and as such, measurement of radon concentrations should be considered as a part of the approved
monitoring program for the particular site.
d
Some ground waters may have had elevated radium levels prior to the commencement of exploration, mining or
mineral processing activities.
e
Not all surface contamination is removable, some of the contamination is bonded to or embedded in the surface and
may only be removed using chemical or physical means. In cases like this, the determination of the end use of the
equipment as to what extent decontamination is required is carried out. If the equipment is leaving site (particularly
if it is intended for the use in other industries or is being sold as scrap metal) a thorough decontamination is required
to the limits specied in the table. If the equipment is being put in storage for future use on the same site, then only
easily removable contamination could be removed, but the fact that the equipment is contaminated should be evident
to any person needing to handle it; a tagging and log system should be invoked to warn individuals of contamination.
2.6. Notication requirements

Notications are required to both employees and the appropriate authority.
Notications to the appropriate authority can be classied into two broad categories:
1. Signicant process engineering, structural or developmental changes to mining and/or proces-

sing operations.
2. Variations to agreed operational and/or administrative procedures aecting radiation protec-

tion on a site.
Notications to employees are required when:
a change in the process may increase employees' radiation exposure (either due to the tech-
nological cause, such as temporary reduction in the dust collection system capacity due to
maintenance; or due to changes in the material processed at a plant, such as decrease in dust
particle size and/or increase in radionuclides' concentrations in the material);
signicant changes are made to the site's radiation management plan, such as re-aligning su-
pervised and controlled areas, or changes in monitoring programs directly aecting employees;
a result of individual monitoring for a particular employee is in excess of specied limits and
an investigation of causes of elevated result will need to be carried out; and
a change occurs in the designated status of an employee.
Table 2.2 on the next page summarises the examples of information that would be typically required
for specic notications at sites using and/or handling NORM. A listing of operational changes that
would not usually require a formal notication is provided in Section 2.7 on page 12.
Table 2.2.: Information required for specic notications
Notication Information required
1. New mine / plant development Location

Size and expected life of the mine
Expected radioactive material content
Pre-mining gamma radiation survey
Baseline data for airborne and waterborne ra-
dioactivity
2. Cessation of operations Location

Radioactive waste disposal details
Post-mining gamma radiation survey
Post-mining data for airborne and waterborne
radioactivity
Summary of rehabilitation activities
Notes to notications (1) and (2):
• A public environmental report and registration/licensing (with the Radiological Council) matters should also
be considered;
• The appropriate authority should be notied approximately three months in advance in case a site visit
and/or a comparison survey are required.
3. Signicant changes to the operations A description of plant or circuit including

3.1 Any major plant or circuit upgrade throughput; radioactivity content of the feed
3.2 Any major change to process routing material, products and waste generated includ-
involving radioactive streams ing liquid and gaseous euents
3.3 Changes to the ventilation system in Ventilation engineering report (if required)
underground mines that aects the
radon/thoron and/or dust concentrations
3.4 Any process equipment modications A plan or outline of signicance of the change
involving a change from wet to dry mining (process equipment locations, controlled areas,
and/or processing oces/crib/control rooms)
3.5 Change in boundaries of supervised, A description of the management controls to be

controlled and restricted areas instituted (work rules, occupancy times, person-
nel protective measures, etc.)
Engineering controls to be adopted to minimize
radiation exposure (dust suppression, shielding
barriers, automation of the process, etc.)
Assessment of expected dose rates, airborne ra-
dioactivity concentrations and radiation expo-
sure of employees
Number of employees aected by the change
Modications to the radiation monitoring pro-
gram as a result of the change

Notication Information required
4. Radioactive material storage and/or Structural changes

handling changes Location (if changed)
Changes to handling procedures and reasons for
change
Location details
5. New site buildings in a vicinity of
Survey of current dose rates and airborne radio-
supervised, controlled and restricted areas
activity levels
(oces, workshops)
Predicted radiation exposure
Modications to the radiation monitoring pro-
gram as a result of the change
Listing
6. Designated employees
Quantity, purchaser, proposed use (only if sold

7. Radioactive material including surface
within the State of Western Australia)
contaminated objects sales, burial/disposal
Disposal location details
Proposed remedial action (if necessary)
8. Radioactive materials transport (including Changes to the mode of transport, locations of

surface contaminated objects) temporary material storage areas or signicant
changes in the amount of the material or its ra-
dioactivity content
Note: Approval to be sought from the Radiolog-
ical Council of WA for any changes
9. Radiation protection safety instructions Summary of instructions and procedures and the
(signicant changes only) reason for change
10. Release of airborne or waterborne Details of release

radioactivity Measures to prevent recurrence
11. Unusual situations and incidents Causes

Measures to prevent recurrence
2.7. Operational changes not requiring notications

1. Day-to-day mine/plant operations.
2. Movement of process machinery that does not involve new construction or re-routing of radio-
active product/tail streams.
3. Minor changes to ventilation.
4. Changes of mining schedule when notication of that mining has already been given.
5. Changes to radioactivity content of the mined/processed material unless particularly radioac-

tive streams are encountered (short-term uctuations excepted).
6. Changes to existing wet separation plants including changes in location (Radiation gauges
excluded).

A. Appendix
A.1. Basic Principles for the reporting of data
There are three important points in reporting measurement data. The reported value of a measure-
ment result must always:
be unequivocal and properly dimensioned (i.e. the units must be clearly understood and suitable
for the value);
be expressed in an appropriate number of signicant gures; and
include an uncertainty statement (whose meaning is unambiguous).
A.1.1. Units
SI units must be used, with the most appropriate multiple or sub multiple (micro, kilo, mega,
etc.) and results should be expressed using exponential notation where necessary. Recommended
convention for radiation monitoring parameters is provided in Appendix A.3 on the next page.
A.1.2. Signicant gures

Results should not be reported with excessive signicant gures, such that they appear more precise
than they actually are. The appropriate number of signicant gures is determined by the magnitude
of the total uncertainty associated with the value. The reported estimate of uncertainty should
contain no more than two signicant gures. The reported result itself should contain the same
number of decimal places as the reported uncertainty.
For example if the result of water sampling is reported as 123.45 mBq/L for an activity concentration
with an estimated total uncertainty of ±12% (i.e. ± 14.8 mBq/L), the result should be reported as:
123±15 mBq/L or (1.23±0.15)×10
−5 Bq/L.
A.1.3. Uncertainty estimates

Results that are not reported as below the lower limit of detection should include uncertainty or
error estimates.
(a) Random errors are those that change each time a measurement is made. A typical random
error is counting uncertainty. The overall standard deviation due to random error SR is obtained by
adding in quadrature several separate standard deviations:
1
SR = [Sa2 + St2 + Ss2 + Sh2 + Sp2 + Sm
2 2
]
where the suxes denote:
R total, a space, t time, s sampling, h sample handling, p - sample processing,

m - measurement.
In practice several of these separate standard deviations will not be known and will have to be
estimated.
(b) Systematic errors stay the same from measurement to measurement, an eciency calibration
error can serve as an example. Since systematic errors are usually an estimate of the upper error
bound, they are taken to be 99% condence, or three standard deviations. This must be allowed for
when combining with random error standard deviations at 68% condence.
(c) Total uncertainty (UT) is obtained by combining the random and systematic errors in quadra-
ture:
1
1

2
UT (1σ) = SR2 + SS2
3
where:
Ss is the total systematic error obtained by combining the individual systematic errors in
quadrature.
Some uncertainty calculations (e.g. for an upper condence level) are also built into the `Boswell'
database and there is usually no need to assess it manually.
A.2. Lower limit of detection

For the purposes of this guideline, the lower limit of detection (LLD) is dened as the smallest amount
of the quantity being measured that has a 95% probability of being detected. For a measurement
system where a background is subtracted from the measured value this is given by:
√
LLD = 4.65σ = 2 2 × 1.64 σ
where:
σ is the standard deviation of the background of the detection system. Where possible
the value of σ should be based on actual observed variance of the measurement technique
rather than a theoretically predicted variance.
If an obtained result is less than the lower limit of the detection, the LLD value should be used in
all calculations. Any reported results where the LLD is used should be marked <LLD.
A.3. Recommended conventions for radiation monitoring parameters

Units for:
Activity concentration in solid samples Bq/g.
Activity concentration in airborne particulate or gas samples Bq/m

3 (or mBq/m3 ).
3
Radon/thoron daughter concentrations in air mJ/m (the `working level' unit WL equals
2.1x10
−5 mJ/m3 ).
Activity concentration in liquid samples Bq/L. (or mBq/L).
Absorbed gamma dose rate in air Gy/h (usually µGy/h).

Eective dose equivalent Sv (usually mSv).
Time second (s), minute (min), hour (hr), day, year.

A.4. Particle size characterisation report

If the particle size characterization monitoring is a part of the radiation monitoring program at a
site a separate report may need to be submitted to the appropriate authority.
The default size of ore dust particles is 5 µm. If it is likely that the actual particle size at a
particular size signicantly diers from that value, a separate report detailing the assessments of the
means of Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD) and Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter
(MMAD) during the reporting period is prepared. The purpose of this report is to establish the dose
conversion factor, which is dependent upon the particle size prior to individual dose assessments in
the annual occupational radiation monitoring report.
Suggested data presentation:
1. Introduction
2. Results, including table detailing calculated AMAD and MMAD values for each sample
3. Summary tables and charts comparing current and historical values
4. The copies of `raw data' data entry and calculation sheets for each sample
A.5. Annual occupational radiation monitoring report: `Boswell'

requirements
`Boswell' is a Microsoft Access database administered by the DMP that stores radiation monitoring
information from the mining and mineral processing industry, analyses it and creates reports.
Detailed information on data entry processing, reports and charts that can be generated is available
in electronic documentation accompanying the database les. For more information please refer to
the Guideline NORM7 Boswell assessment and reporting database.
The completed database forms a part of the annual occupational radiation monitoring report and
the minimum list of tables and charts that should be generated is presented below:
1. Personal Dust
a) Personal dust rad / grav - by employee number
b) Personal dust rad / grav - by month & work category
c) Personal dust rad / grav - 5 years & work category
d) Personal dust rad / grav - statistics
2. Work Area
a) Area dust - radiometric / gravimetric
b) Area dust - rad / grav - by month & area
c) Area dust - rad / grav - 5 years & area
d) Area dust - rad/ grav - statistics
3. Personal dosimeter
a) Personal dosimeter external exposure by employee number
b) Personal dosimeter external exposure by work category
c) Personal dosimeter external exposure 5 years & work category
d) Personal dosimeter external exposure statistics
4. Eective Dose Equivalent (EDE)
a) EDE by employee number
b) EDE by work category
c) EDE statistics by personnel dose
It is important that relevant information is entered into the database on a regular basis (at least
monthly), particularly if the `Boswell' database is used not only for reporting of the monitoring data
but also for:
calculations of dust and radioactivity concentrations;
personal dose assessments; and
observing trends or changes that may be promptly remedied.
Personal exposure to external gamma radiation (personal dosemeter) is entered directly from the
laboratory certicate (where applicable, minimum detectable level value should be entered instead
of zero). The working hours for each monitored employee are also directly entered from available
information.
Data entry sequence for personal and positional dust monitoring data:
1. Gravimetric data entry
a) Employee's name and date of birth (or an area/location) entered;
b) Appropriate work category (or area/location) for the sample selected from a `drop-list';
c) Monitoring equipment and cassette type are picked up from `drop-lists';
d) Start and nish date/time for the sample entered; and
e) Filter weight prior to sampling and after the sampling entered.
2. Radiometric data entry
a) Details of alpha-counting equipment relevant calibration entered;
b) The particular alpha-counting equipment is picked up from a `drop-list'; and
c) Date, number of obtained counts and time of counting entered.
3. Other data entry
If it is evident that the result of the monitoring is in excess of reportable values, an appropriate
note (for example, the reference to a particular incident investigation number) is entered into
the relevant section (`Notes').
If the value of dust specic activity (Bq/mg) is signicantly dierent from the one typically
obtained from a selected work category (location) an explanation would also be necessary.')
3
Trend analysis table and charts for radon and thoron concentrations in mJh//m should also
be included, where applicable.
A.6. Annual environmental radiation monitoring report data

presentation
The size and character of the annual environmental radiation monitoring program diers from site
to site and the following are the general suggestions on data presentation.

A.6.1. Site master plan(s)

These are essential in every report and give a general view of the site (in a form of an aerial photo
or a map/plan) containing:
1. Location of mining, processing and waste disposal locations in the reporting period.
2. Location of all air monitoring locations, all ground water bores monitored in the reporting
period and surface water monitoring points, and the location of all stacks on site.
A.6.2. Gamma radiation surveys

A.6.2.1. Pre and post-mining surveys:
1. A general plan highlighting all areas surveyed in the reporting period.
2. A separate map for each survey with numbers for each point.
3. The table with all results and a summary.
These surveys are typically carried out on a grid 50×50 or 100×100 metres with monitoring locations
determined with the help of portable global positioning system (GPS) receiver.
A.6.2.2. Area surveys (temporary stockpiles, etc.):
These surveys are carried out to monitor possible spread of radioactive material into the environment.
One of the ways in which the data can be clearly presented consists of:
1. A map of the area with monitoring points marked in even intervals as matrix.
2. A general table with all results and averages.
3. 3D charts or contour maps representing radiation levels.
A.6.2.3. Site boundary surveys:
1. A map of the site highlighting boundary and monitoring points (for example, 12. . . 50).
2. When number of readings exceeds 100: a table of results for each `monitoring line' (for example,
`line 1415' number of measurements, range, average and standard deviation), compared
with results in the last several monitoring periods (a comparative summary table for results in
the last 810 years may also be useful).
3. When number of readings is less than 100, the data may be placed directly on a map/plan.
A.6.3. Air monitoring

3
The monitoring is carried out using high volume (7080 m /hr) dust sampler and reported data is
typically as follows:
1. A table specifying results for each location in the reporting period and a comparison with the
results obtained in previous years, containing: sample location, number, date, duration (hours),
3
dust concentration (mg/m ), dust activity (Bq/m ).
3
2. Trend analysis table and charts for both mg/m

3 and Bq/m3 .
3
3. Trend analysis table and charts for radon and thoron concentrations in mJh/m , where appli-
cable.
A.6.4. Water monitoring

The monitoring of both ground and surface waters in the reporting year could be summarized as
follows:
1. A table specifying results for each location in the reporting period and a comparison with the
results obtained in previous years, containing: location, sample date, radionuclide concentra-
tions (
226 Ra, 228 Ra and, if necessary, 228 Th), in Bq/L. The analysis for `Gross α', `Gross β '
(including sampling for

40 K) is also sometimes carried out, but results obtained for individual
radionuclides are considered to be more reliable.
2. Copies of all laboratory certicates for samples taken during the reporting period. The ana-
lyses should be carried out by a NATA certied laboratory (National Association of Testing
Authorities www.nata.asn.au).
A.6.5. Stack emissions

Where applicable, stack testing is carried out on a quarterly basis and results may be summarized
in the report as follows:
1. A table specifying results for each location in the reporting period and a comparison with
the results obtained in previous years, containing: sample number, sample date, particulate
3
concentration (mg/m ), U emission (g/day), Th emission (g/day).
2. Copies of all laboratory certicates for samples taken during the reporting period. The analyses
should be carried out by a NATA certied laboratory.
Figure A.1.: Stack testing
A.6.6. Tailings and stockpile management

The record of the tailings disposal should be kept and results typically provided in the report are:
1. Detailed map (a supplement to site master plans) with all stockpiles and tailings locations
marked, the depth of deposited tailings should also be provided.
2. Volumes (tonnages) and radionuclides' concentrations for the material deposited in the repor-
ting period.

3. A table for each tails stream and product specifying radionuclides' concentrations on the
monthly basis and a comparison with results obtained for the same streams in previous years.
In some cases only physical separation of minerals takes place (such as gravimetric, magnetic separa-
tion) and it is typically sucient to analyse materials only for uranium and thorium concentrations.
Much more often thermal and/or chemical treatments are used in the processing of NORM and it is
expected that secular equilibrium of uranium and thorium decay chains will be disrupted. In these
cases the analysis of the material for additional radionuclides is needed. This is done in addition to
the typical analysis for uranium and thorium and concentrations of the following radionuclides need
to be determined:
228 Ra, 228 Th, 212 Pb from the thorium decay chain and 230 Th, 226 Ra, 210 Pb from
the uranium decay chain.
Bibliography

Index
action level, 6 personal air sample, 2, 3
Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter, 16 personal dosimeter, 2
airborne radioactivity, 3 positional air sample, 3
badges, 2 radiation management plan, 2

baseline survey, 6 radiation monitoring program, 3, 10, 16
Boswell, 4, 5, 15, 16 11
radiation safety ocer, 3
calibration record, 3 radiation survey, 6
controlled area, 4, 10 radiation survey instrument, 6
radiometric, 16
data presentation, 17
radon/thoron monitoring, 2
derived limits, 6
random error, 14
designated employee, 4
range, 3
disposal site, 3
records management, 5
drinking water, 2, 4
Registered Manager, 3
dust control, 4
rehabilitation, 6
eective dose equivalent, 17 report format, 4
engineering control, 6 reporting levels, 6
environmental radiation monitoring program, 2, 6 respiratory protection, 4
environmental radiation monitoring report, 3, 5

SI units, 14
external exposure, 6, 16
signicant gures, 14
gamma radiation level, 2 site boundaries, 2
gravimetric, 16 stack, 3
stack emission, 19
high volume dust sampling, 5 stack monitoring, 5
standard deviation, 3, 6, 15
internal radiation exposure, 2
stockpile area, 6
investigation level, 6
supervised area, 4, 10
job rotation, 4
tailings disposal, 19
lower limit of detection, 15
training, 4
mass median aerodynamic diameter, 16

waste management system, 2, 5
mean, 3
waste stream, 3
monitoring program, 2, 17
waterborne radioactivity, 3
notication requirements, 10 work category, 4

work rules, 6
occupational radiation monitoring program, 2 workforce, 4
occupational radiation monitoring report, 2, 4
particle size analysis, 4

particle size characterization, 16
22
NORM7
BOSWELL assessment and reporting database

Reference
mining and mineral processing guideline. NORM7 BOSWELL assessment and reporting database:
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, 107pp. <www.dmp.wa.gov.au>

Guideline NORM7 BOSWELL assessment and reporting database
Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Guidance 2
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Conceptual overview of the Boswell system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. What is a database? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. Computer system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.6. Microsoft Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7. Data storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.8. Boswell user licence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.9. Boswell les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.10. Boswell installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.11. Screen layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Data storage 8
3.1. Rules for entering data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Order for data entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Data entry forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Entity name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Conversion factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.3. Work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.4. Radiation counter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.5. Air sampler holder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.6. Air sampler pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.7. Area/location code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.7.1. Area code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.7.2. Location code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.8. Respiratory protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.9. Radiation calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.10. Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.10.1. MineHealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.11. Previous experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.12. Employee history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.13. Badge data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.14. Employee dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.15. Area dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4. Data reporting 25
4.1. Quality assurance reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2. Personal inspirable dust reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3. Work area dust reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4. Monitoring badge reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.5. Eective dose equivalent reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.6. Employee work history reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.7. Individual employee dose reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
A. Appendix Annual Occupational Radiation Report 88
B. Appendix User Instructions 89

B.1. Quick start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
B.2. Menus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
B.3. Toolbars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.3.1. Main Screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.3.2. Data Entry Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B.3.3. Report Screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B.4. Useful Shortcut Keys (All versions of Access) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
B.4.1. Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
B.4.2. Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
B.4.3. Window Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
B.4.4. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.4.5. Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.4.6. Exploding Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.5. Tip of the Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.6. Microsoft Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
B.6.1. Refreshing Links to boswellData.mdb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
B.6.2. Compacting the Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
B.6.3. Backup Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
B.6.4. Known issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
B.6.4.1. Windows time format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
C. Appendix DMP File Transfer Facility 100

C.1. How to use download.doir.wa.gov.au . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
C.1.1. Using a web browser outside the department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
C.1.1.1. Downloading Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
C.1.1.2. Uploading Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
C.1.2. Limits and Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
C.2. Data Condentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
C.3. How to setup a transfer facility between two users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
C.4. How to setup a transfer facility between groups of users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
C.5. Application Programming Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
C.5.1. Email Notication facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Bibliography 106
Index 107
List of Figures
2.1. The Boswell System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2. Boswell Screen Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. MINEHEALTH web site surveillance number search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. Boswell Reports Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2. Report 01. QA Report Employee Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3. Report 01. QA Report report showing badges missing Work History . . . . . . . . 28
4.4. Report 02. QA Report Work Category Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5. Report 02. QA Report report showing dust samples missing Work History . . . . . 31
4.6. Report 03. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.7. Report 05. Personal Dust rad/grav by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.8. Report 06. Personal Dust rad/grav by month & work category . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.9. Report 07. Personal Dust rad/grav 5 years & work category . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.10. Report 09. Personal Dust work category frequency histograms . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.11. Report 10. Personal Dust work category (log)normal probability plots . . . . . . . 46
4.12. Report 11. Area Dust rad/grav by area, page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.15. Report 12. Area Dust rad/grav by month & area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.16. Report 13. Area Dust rad/grav areas over 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.17. Report 14. Area Dust rad/grav statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.18. Report 15. Area Dust area frequency histograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.19. Report 16. Area Dust area (log)normal probability plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.20. Report 17. External Exposure by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.21. Report 19. External Exposure by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.22. Report 20. External Exposure work category over 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.23. Report 21. External Exposure statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.24. Report 22. EDE by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.25. Report 24. EDE by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.26. Report 25. EDE statistics by personnel dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.27. Report 26. EDE work category dose prediction summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.28. Report 26. EDE work category dose prediction summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.29. Report 27. EDE identify potential designated employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.30. Report 28. EDE identify potential designated employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.31. Report 29. Work History by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.32. Report 31. Work History by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.33. Report 32. Ad Hoc Employee Dose by date range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.34. Report 33. Ad Hoc Employee Dose over each year with company . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.35. Report 34. Employee Monitoring and Exposure Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

List of Tables
2.1. What is a database? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Boswell Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2. Entity Name elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Work Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Radiation Counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Air Sample Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Air Sample Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8. Area/location Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.9. Area Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.10. Location Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.11. Respiratory Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.12. Radiation Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.13. Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.14. Previous Radiation History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.15. Employee Work History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.16. Badge Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.17. Employee Dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.19. Employee Dust continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.20. Employee Dust continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.21. Area Dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.22. Area Dust continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1. Report 01. QA Report Employee Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2. Report 02. QA Report Work Category Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3. Report 03. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4. Report 04. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee number . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.5. Report 05. Personal Dust rad/grav by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6. Report 06. Personal Dust rad/grav by month & work category . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.7. Report 07. Personal Dust rad/grav 5 years & work category . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.8. Report 08. Personal Dust rad/grav statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.9. Report 09. Personal Dust work category frequency histograms . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.10. Report 10. Personal Dust work category (log)normal probability plots . . . . . . . 45
4.11. Report 11. Area Dust rad/grav by area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.12. Report 12. Area Dust rad/grav by month & area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.13. Report 13. Area Dust rad/grav areas over 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.14. Report 14. Area Dust rad/grav statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.15. Report 15. Area Dust area frequency histograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.16. Report 16. Area Dust area (log)normal probability plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.17. Report 17. External Exposure by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.18. Report 18. External Exposure by employee number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.19. Report 19. External Exposure by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.20. Report 20. External Exposure work category over 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.21. Report 21. External Exposure statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.22. Report 22. EDE by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.23. Report 23. EDE by employee number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.24. Report 24. EDE by work category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.25. Report 25. EDE statistics by personnel dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.26. Report 29. Work History by employee name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.27. Report 30. Work History by employee number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum vii

viii Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in mining and mineral processing
1.1. Purpose
To provide guidance in the use of the Boswell Microsoft Access assessment and reporting database.
1.2. Scope
This guideline applies to all mining and mineral processing operations in Western Australia that use
or handle naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and come within the scope of Part 16 of
the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 [1].

Preparation of a


(NORM-3.1) (NORM-4.1)

(NORM-4.2)
(NORM-3.3) (NORM-4.3)
(NORM-7)
(NORM-3.4)
Measurement of
particle size
(NORM-3.5)

2. Guidance
2.1. Introduction
This guide assumes that you are familiar with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Access. The purpose
for the Boswell database is to have an electronic solution that it is:
simple to use ability to compare mines sites and trends
secure, consistent, storage of data better auditing and error checking
uniform calculation methods data is easily moved to other applications
uniform reporting methods multi-user environment
uniform across the mining industry easy to maintain
Table 2.1.: What is a database?
Database File This is your main le that encompasses the entire
database and that is saved to your hard-drive,
e.g. BoswellFrontend.mdb and boswellData.mdb.
Table A table is a collection of data about a specic topic.

There can be multiple tables in a database.
Field Fields are the dierent categories within a Table.

Tables usually contain multiple elds
Datatype Data types are the properties of each eld. A eld

only has 1 data type.
Value The value of one piece of data.
2.2. Conceptual overview of the Boswell system

Figure 2.1 on the next page gives an overview of the concept of the Boswell database.
2.3. What is a database?

Here is the hierarchy that Microsoft Access uses in breaking down a database. Table 2.1 shows the
components of a database.
2.4. History
In 1988 under the auspices of the Mines' Radiation Safety Board, a DBase IV database system called
MIDAS (Mining Dose Assessment System) was developed to operate on a IBM PC using Microsoft
DOS. It was designed principally because of a lack of uniformity between reports and reporting
methods used by mining companies in WA.
It was very innovative and successful, with several versions released with improvements to the system.
However, by 2001 MIDAS had become obsolete as the computer world had switched to Windows
based interfaces and many users no longer had expedience with DOS.
In 2001, the Radiation Industry Group hired Mr Mike Brown, a programmer, to redesign MIDAS.
Boswell has been further developed by Mr Ivan Fetwadjie, Senior Scientic Ocer at DMP who is
the current Boswell software maintainer.
2.5. Computer system

The following computer system is the minimum required to run Boswell:
P4 or better, 500MB RAM, 12MB space on HDD.
Windows XP, Microsoft Access 2003 or better.

Figure 2.1.: The Boswell System
Site & Location Data

Employee Data
Equipment Data
DOCEP & CONTAM Codes
Dust Measurements
Badge Readings
Work History
Calibration Data
Work Category Data
Upload data to DOCEP

Backup Calculate and
Data Assess Data
Reports
Desirable options are:
Internet access
Colour printer
Cute PDF writer or Adobe installed (Cute PDF is Freeware and available from
www.cutepdf.com)
CD burner to backup data
Network for multi-user access
2.6. Microsoft Access

To run Boswell on a computer system, Microsoft Access must be installed on that computer. Microsoft
Access, is a relational database management system from Microsoft which combines the relational
Microsoft Jet Database Engine with a graphical user interface and software development tools.
Skilled software developers and data architects use it to develop application software. Relatively
unskilled programmers and non-programmer `power users' can use it to build simple applications.
Microsoft Access was used as the foundation of this database as:
Access is the most widely used desktop database system in the world;
Access has more support and consultants available than any other desktop database system;
Access integrates well with the other members of the Microsoft Oce suite of products (Excel,
Word, Outlook, etc.);
Access is available with the Microsoft Oce Professional suite of business products therefore no
additional database software is required if your company purchases computers with this suite
of products already installed; and
Access is likely to be available and supported for years to come because Microsoft is a leading
software company.
Boswell has been tested with Access 2000, Access XP, Access 2003, Access 2007 and found to operate
correctly in those versions.
2.7. Data storage

The data Boswell stores is mainly to do with:
Equipment holders, pumps, counters
Employees the people exposed
Employee Work Times times in dierent locations
Site Work Groups dierent occupation groups
Site Work Areas dierent monitoring points at a location
Measurement Locations dierent locations in the operation
Dust Monitoring Area and personal dust measurements
Exposure Badges external employee exposures
This data is all stored in boswellData.mdb. IMPORTANT Make sure that you regularly backup
the boswellData.mdb le and keep copies in a safe place in another location. Note: BOSWELL is
not designed to store data for the DMP CONTAM database although it has facilities to export the
dust monitoring data into a format that CONTAM will accept.

2.8. Boswell user licence

Boswell is supplied to users under the following conditions of use:
Copyright © 2001 2010 Department of Mines and Petroleum
All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modication, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of condi-
tions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the Department of Mines and Petroleum nor the names of its contri-
butors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specic prior written permission.
The software is provided by the copyright holders and contributors às is' and any express
or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchanta-
bility and tness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the copyright
owner or contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or
consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods
or services; loss of use, data, or prots; or business interruption) however caused and on
any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence
or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage.
2.9. Boswell les

In addition to Microsoft Access, Boswell consists of the following les:
1. boswellData.mdb Back-end data le containing tables of data;
2. BoswellFrontend2000.mdb Boswell Program Front-end;
3. BOSWELLHELP.HLP Boswell Help File;
4. BoswellImage.EMF Boswell Radiation Symbol on forms;
5. BoswellLogo.ico Radiation Icon for desktop;
6. FactorySunset.bmp Sunset Picture File that appears on menu;
7. TIPOFDAY.txt Text le containing tips on using Boswell for `Tip of the Day' feature;
8. Unzip32.dll Library le containing Unzip for decompressing compressed backup data les;
and
9. zip32.dll Library le containing Zip for compressing backup data les.
2.10. Boswell installation

The Boswell les listed above just need to be copied to a directory in the path of the computer it
will be used on. The boswellData.mdb le may placed be in a dierent directory or even another
machine or server while the other eight les must be located together in the same directory. If the
Boswell installation is to be multi-user, all les can be located on a fast server.
2.11. Screen layout

Figure 2.2 shows the screen layout. There is a Toolbar along the top and menus down the left-hand
side.
Figure 2.2.: Boswell Screen Layout
Toolbar
Your site name
Menu selection
buttons
Tip of the day

hints on Boswell
Exit button
Version number
Help button
or use F1
Location of boswellData.mdb
and size of file

3. Data storage
3.1. Rules for entering data
1. Data must not be deleted, especially employees.
2. `Work History' must be entered fresh each year.
3. You may enter more than one `Work Category' in the Employee History for the same work
time. However, the hours must be added manually.
4. To be classied as a `Monitored Person', a person must have had at least one radiation badge
or one dust sample for the time period (radiation year).
5. `Work Categories' Ànnual Reports' only include routine dust measurements.

6. For newly entered records, some elds will have data automatically entered from the previous
record. This can be typed over if the data is dierent. Note that records in most tables can be
entered in any order, however, it is best to enter data in order of left to right.
7. Take care not to duplicate data, e.g. there must be only one ÈmpId' number per worker.
8. Select the correct options from the drop down lists.
9. Make sure the data you enter makes sense.
3.2. Order for data entry

Table 3.1 on the facing page shows the order in which data must be entered into Boswell. Data
should be entered in this order as some data is used in subsequent tables and forms. e.g. The Èntity
Site Code' (code for company name) is used in most records.
3.3. Data entry forms

3.3.1. Entity name
Entity Name is used to associate all data with your mine site. The only elds that you should change
are possibly `Selected' and ÈntityName'. If your company or site has a change of name, this table
can only be accessed by opening boswellData.mdb in Access. Open Èntity Name' in the `Table
view' and only change the name in ÈntityName'. Do not change `Sitename' as this is from the DMP
CONTAM database. Table 3.2 on the next page lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
Table 3.1.: Boswell Forms
Order of Data entry form Initial and Frequently used

use occasional use
Listings Menu
1 Entity Name X
2 Conversion Factors X
3 Work Categories X
4 Radiation Counters X
5 Air Sampler Holders X
6 Air Sampler Pumps X
7 Area / Location Code X
8 Respiratory Protection X
9 Radiation Calibration X
Main Menu
10 Employees X
11 Previous Experience X
12 Employee History X
13 Badge Data X
14 Employee Dust X
15 Area Dust X
Reports Menu
16 X
CONTAM Download
17
Table 3.2.: Entity Name elds
Field Name Purpose
Selected Selects the company name record from the list do not change.
EntityName This is the company name used by Boswell to place on the screen and print
in reports you may change this.
CompanyCode CONTAM code do not change.
SiteCode CONTAM code do not change.
Sitename CONTAM code do not change.

3.3.2. Conversion factor

The form lists the `Dose Conversion Factor' used in the calculation of Ìnternal EDE' for your site.
The dose conversion factors can be found in the tables of NORM5 Radiation dose assessment.
The Ìnternal EDE' equation that Boswell uses is as follows:
(Total Hours*Dose Conversion Factor*1.2*(Average Of Alpha Activity/1000))+(Dose Conversion

Factor*1.2*(Sum of hours by Activity/1000)).
Table 3.3 on the facing page lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
3.3.3. Work category

This form lists all the work categories used on your site and whether they are active or not. A unique
value is used to represent each `Work Category', e.g `00' is always `Terminated'. Do not delete any
work categories as it will aect old records that have used it in the past. Table 3.4 on the next page
lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
3.3.4. Radiation counter

This form lists all the Radiation Counters used on your site and whether they are active or not. If a
counter is withdrawn from service for any reason, uncheck it's status. Do not delete a counter from
the database as this will aect old records. Table 3.5 on the facing page lists each eld on this form
and gives its purpose.
3.3.5. Air sampler holder

This form lists all the air sampler holders commonly used in industry and their CONTAM codes. Do
not delete any air sampler holders from the database as this will aect old records. This form should
never need to be changed unless a new holder is introduced to the industry. Table 3.6 on page 13
lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
3.3.6. Air sampler pump

This form lists all the air sampler pumps on your site. Do not delete any air sampler pumps from
the database as this will aect old records. This form should never need to be changed unless a new
holder is introduced to the industry. Table 3.7 on page 13 lists each eld on this form and gives its
purpose.
Table 3.3.: Conversion Factors
Field Name Purpose
DCFi Dose conversion factor from NORM5 Radiation dose assessment.
AMAD (µm) Particle size calculated from NORM3.5 Measurement of particle size,
typically 5 µm or 10 µm.
Entity Code from Èntity Name' table.
Table 3.4.: Work Categories
Field Name Purpose
Work Category Unique code for each Work category. Some sites use dierent codes.
Work Category Unique name for each Work category. Some sites use dierent names.
Description
Status Determines if this work category is listed.
Hours/Day Usually 8 or 12 hours worked per day.
DaysOn Default value 5 days on for working week.
Dayso Default value 2 days o for weekend.
Holidays/Year Default value 4 weeks per year.
Public Default value 10 days.

Holidays/Year
Nominal Hours Usually around 2,000 hours.

Worked
DCFi AMAD size and Radionuclides determine this. See `Conversion Factors'.
Annual Limit Default value is 20 mSv per year.

(mSv)
Occupation Code Information on the CONTAM Occupation Codes is available from COMTAM
documentation located on the DMP web site. To save space, the drop down
list has only the common codes. Others can be added on request.
Table 3.5.: Radiation Counters
Field Name Purpose
Equipment Code Unique code for each counter such as` Canb01', `Ten01'.
Counter Name of Counter such as `Canberra 7401', `Tennelec TC257'.

Description
Radiation Check box if counter is being used, uncheck if no longer being used.
Counter Status

3.3.7. Area/location code

Mines sites, treatment plants and oces are usually grouped in radiation monitoring program into
areas in which the likely radiation levels (dust and or gamma) are relatively constant. It would be
unusual, and probably wrong, to group an oce area together with the product handlers. If you
did this, people working in the oces would be assigned the same radiation measurements as people
working in handling products. Do not delete any area or location codes from the database as this will
aect old records. Uncheck their status.
Table 3.8 on the next page lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
The Area/Locations form links up to two other forms, Area Codes and Location Codes.
3.3.7.1. Area code
This is the code for the area that the sample is taken at. Table 3.9 on the facing page lists each eld
on this form and gives its purpose.
3.3.7.2. Location code
In some radiation monitoring programs, personal monitoring is supplemented by area monitoring.

Under these circumstances, it is often desirable to identify the exact location of the area sampler.
An area may contain many dierent location codes, but remember that Boswell treats any sample
taken at a location within a radiation area as part of a set of data relating to the area.
Table 3.10 on page 14 lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
3.3.8. Respiratory protection

This form lists the Respiratory Protection commonly used in industry and their CONTAM codes.
Do not delete any respiratory codes from the database as this will aect old records. This form should
never need to be changed unless there is a change in CONTAM. Table 3.11 on page 14 lists each eld
on this form and gives its purpose. The default value is always `No Protection'.
3.3.9. Radiation calibration

This form lists the `Radiation Calibrations' undertaken on the `Radiation Counters'. The informa-
tion of how to calibrate the counters can be found in Guideline NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity
sampling. Do not delete any calibrations from the database as this will aect old records. Table 3.12
on page 14 lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose. The default value is always `No
Protection'.
Table 3.6.: Air Sample Holders
Field Name Purpose
Holder Code Unique code for each holder such as 0,1,2,3,4...
Holder Name of Holder Type such as `Closed Face 7 hole 25mm'.

Description
Sampling CONTAM Code for Holder Type such as `7H'.

Equipment Code
Table 3.7.: Air Sample Pumps
Field Name Purpose
Pump Code Unique code for each pump such as P1, P2, P3, P4...
Pump Make/Model of pump

Description
Pump serial Serial numbers should be added to comply with Australian Standards
Number
Pump Flow Rate Default ow rate, typically 2.00 l/min

(l/min)
Pump Status Check box if pump is being used, uncheck if no longer being used.
Table 3.8.: Area/location Codes
Field Name Purpose
Area Code Unique code from Area Code form
Location Code Unique code from Location Code form
Location Description for Location Code from Location Code form

Description
Location Status Check box if location is being used, uncheck if no longer being used.
Table 3.9.: Area Codes
Field Name Purpose
Area Code Unique code for area such as `PL1'.
ACDescription Description of area such as `Dry Separation Plant 1'.
Area Code Active Check box if area is being used, uncheck if no longer being used.

Table 3.10.: Location Codes
Field Name Purpose
Location Code Unique code for each location such as `11A'.
Location Description of location such as `11A Zircon b/ween AT205 & 207'
Description
Table 3.11.: Respiratory Protection
Field Name Purpose
Respiratory Unique code for each code such as 0,1,2,3,4...

Protection Code
Respiratory Description from CONTAM such as `No Protection'.

Protection
Description
Table 3.12.: Radiation Calibration
Field Name Purpose
Equipment Code Unique code for each Radiation Counter used in the Radiation Counters
form. See Section 3.3.4 on page 10.
Calibration Date Date the calibration was made.
Eciency From Excel Spreadsheet in Guideline NORM3.4 Airborne radioactivity

sampling.
Background Counts from the Radiation Counter

Counts
Background Overnight or 900 minutes.

Count Time
(min)
Default Sample Usually 60 minutes.

Count Time
(min)
3.3.10. Employees
This form lists all the employees who are exposed to radiation on your site and whether they are
active or not. A unique value is used to represent each employee. Do not delete any employees as it
will aect old records. Table 3.13 on page 17 lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
There are several methods of utilising operational procedures to optimise radiation protection in the
mining industry. One of these methods is with the recognition of those work conditions in which
some individuals could be expected to receive a relatively higher radiation exposure than most other
work conditions within that operation. If as a result of those work conditions there is potential for
an individual to receive a dose in excess of 5 mSv per year, then that individual is to be classied as
a designated employee according to the MSIR [1]. The number of designated employees should be
kept to a minimum.
3.3.10.1. MineHealth
MINEHEALTH numbers are available from the DMP web site and can be located if you have a
person's details and birthdate.
www.dmp.wa.gov.au/minehealth/
Figure 3.1.: MINEHEALTH web site surveillance number search

The `Health Surveillance Program for Mine Employees' (MINEHEALTH) replaced the `Mines Wor-
kers Health Certicate System', with the introduction of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act (1994)
and Regulations (1995).
MINEHEALTH is focused primarily on monitoring respiratory symptoms. Audiometric testing is

also undertaken as mine employees are typically exposed to very high noise levels.
3.3.11. Previous experience

The `Previous Radiation History' holds information on the previous employment of individuals in
positions where they were subject to radiation exposure.
Previous employers are required by law to prepare a dose report for employees that can be forwarded
to their new employer. Table 3.14 on the facing page lists each eld on this form and gives its
purpose.
3.3.12. Employee history

This form shows the movements of employees between work categories and it is absolutely imperative
that this is maintained accurately if the dose calculations are to be correct. They should be updated
at the very minimum once every `Radiation Year'. These records are used to allocate work categories
to the radiation badges.
Important points to remember:
1. Any one employee can have numerous entries.
2. The dates must not overlap and, if required, you may manually split work times if an employee
works in two work categories at the one time. You must calculate and adjust the hours manually.
3. Any gaps outside date ranges are assumed to be time-o.
4. For the current work category for that employee, the record should show a start date and
no end date. If you add the end date, the system will automatically mark that employee as
`Terminated' in the employees screen.
5. Boswell will remove the `Terminated' once you open up a new record with an open ended `Date
Started'.
6. If this form contains erroneous data, you will get erroneous dose reports.
3.3.13. Badge data

The badge data form contains data on samples taken from individuals wearing radiation badges.
Table 3.13.: Employees
Field Name Purpose
EmpId Unique number for each Employee. Employees must not have duplicate
EmpId numbers.
Surname Surname can be changed if surname changes because EmpId is unchanged.
Firstname Determines if this work category is listed.
Initial To dierentiate between those people with the same Surnames.
DOB Date of Birth required for MINEHEALTH
Sex M/F
Payroll Number Number for company use sometimes useful for tracking hours worked
MWHSH MineHealth Surveillance number see below.
Designated Designated Status is manually placed by the RSO to indicate the employee
should be monitored more closely. Employees with their designated status
ticked will appear in reports specically written for designated employees.
Employment When an employee leaves the company, the date should be added here.
Ceased
Table 3.14.: Previous Radiation History
Field Name Purpose
Employee Drop down list from Employees form
Company Previous employer
Country Country
State State
Radiation Id Previous ID number
Inclusive Date Start date with previous employer

From
Inclusive date To End date with previous employer
Previous History Check box if exposure data is being used, unchecked if not being used.
Cited

Table 3.15.: Employee Work History
Field Name Purpose
Employee Name Names from the Employee form, Section 3.3.10 on page 15
WorkCategory Work Category drop down list from the Work Category form, Section 3.3.3
on page 10.
DateFrom Start date pop up calendar.
DateTo End date pop up calendar.
Hours
† Hours are calculated using work hours recorded in the Work Categories form.
Employee# EmpId from Employee form.

† The number of hours worked in a work category over the period indicated. The hours will be
calculated automatically once the two dates are entered, but this can then be overridden by the user.
The hours will be based on the nominal hours per year gure from the Work Categories table in the
listing section. This will be broken up pro rata for the number of days actually worked. This is an
important mandatory eld and there are traps in place so that you can't exit this eld until a valid
entry is made. To cancel an entire line you are working on or revert back to the values as they were
when you started editing the record, press the Èsc' key.
Data Filtering the data is ltered by default to show the only last two years of data. There is a
button on the toolbar to turn o ltering to show all data.
Table 3.16.: Badge Data
Field Name Purpose
Batch A batch number supplied by the badge supplier
BadgeNumber A badge number supplied by the badge supplier
EmpId EmpId from the Employee form, Section 3.3.10 on page 15
IssuedDate Start date of use pop up calendar.
ReurnedDate End date of use pop up calendar.
µSv Exposure recorded on badge.
Comments A place to note unusual events sometimes an estimate must be entered

into µSv if the badge was lost and it is noted here.
3.3.14. Employee dust

You should enter your `Radiation Calibration' data prior to entering the associated dust data!
Some elds are calculated by an ùpdate query' that looks up the radiation calibration table for the
last calibration date and uses that data.
`Data ltering' the data is ltered by default to show the last two years data. There is a button on
the toolbar to turn o ltering and show all data. Table 3.17 on the following page lists each eld
on this form and gives its purpose.
3.3.15. Area dust

You should enter your `Radiation Calibration' data prior to entering the associated area dust data!
Some elds are calculated by an Ùpdate Query' that looks up the radiation calibration table for the
last calibration date and uses that data.
`Data Filtering' the data is ltered by default to show the last two years data. There is a button
on the toolbar to turn o ltering and show all data. Table 3.21 on page 23 lists each eld on this
form and gives its purpose.

Table 3.17.: Employee Dust
Field Name Purpose
Id A text identier that goes with the lter number to

uniquely identify that sample.
Filter No. A number that goes with the lter id to uniquely identify a
sample.
Pre-wt (mg) Weight of clean lter paper when it is loaded.
Final wt (mg) The weight of lter after sample has been taken, i.e.
with the dust on the paper.
Sample wt (mg) Net weight of contaminants on the lter. This is

automatically calculated once the initial and nal weights
have been entered.
Employee EmpId from the Employee form, Section 3.3.10 on page 15
Work Category This refers to the Work Category the employee was
working in when the sampling took place.
Location Code Location Code as required in downloads for the DMP's

CONTAM database. This eld must be lled in if your
submissions to the CONTAM database are to be processed
successfully.
Conned Space Was the sample collected in a conned space? As required

in downloads for the DMP's CONTAM database. This eld
must be lled in if your submissions to the COMTAM
database are to be processed successfully.
Respiratory Protection The default value is `N' as there is no guarantee that

respiratory protected is correctly used or tted.
ASH Code Defaults to 2 Closed Face 7 hole 25mm which is used by

the mining industry.
Pump Code This identies the actual pump being used to take the
sample. The values in the list come from the Air Sampler
Pumps form.
Pump Flow Rate (l/min) The default value is automatically entered, however the
real value can be manually entered in its place.
Pump Start Date/Time Date and time pump was started.
Pump End Date/Time Date and time pump was stopped.
Pump Sampling Time (min) Net time in minutes the pump ran for. This is
automatically calculated once the Start Date and End Date
elds have been entered.
3
Pump Sample Vol (m ) Volume of air passing through the pump in cubic metres
3
(cm ). This is automatically calculated once the pump
code is selected and the start and end date are entered.
The pump code will have an associated ow rate that will
be multiplied by the sample time.
Table 3.19.: Employee Dust continued
Field Name Purpose
Analysis Date Date sample was counted. This will be dierent to the
sampling date as six or seven days are allowed for decay
products to decay o the lter paper. It is the date used in
returning the counting equipment calibration gures for a
particular sample.
RC Code Drop down list of unique codes for each Radiation Counter
used in the Radiation Counters form. See Section 3.3.4 on
page 10.
Eciency This is the counter eciency gure stored in the Radiation

Calibration table in the Listings section. This is
automatically returned once Count Date RC Code have
been selected.
Note: This is not entered as a % value.
Sample Counts The number of counts returned by the counting equipment

for that sample.
Sample Count Time (min) Time in minutes the sample was counted usually 60
minutes.
Background Counts The number of background sample counts present for that
counter for the calibration current at that time. This is
automatically returned once the RC Code and the Count
Date have been selected. The calibration values are stored
in the Radiation Calibration form in the Listing section.
Background Count Time (min) Usually over night or as long as possible.
Dust Conc (mg/m )

3 This eld is calculated automatically once the weights,
dates and pump have been selected. Values over the limit
are in `red'.
([FinalWeight]-
[InnitialWeight])/(DateDi('n',[InnitialDate],[FinalDate])
*([owrate]/1000))
3
Alpha Activity (mBq/m ) Alpha Activity is calculated using the following equation:
(Sample Counts/50-Background
Counts/50)*(1/60/Counter Eciency/Sample time*Pump
ow)
Minimum Detectable Level measured in mBq/m³ This

MDL (mBq/m )
3
value is substituted in the calculations if the counts are too

low.
This value is calculated using the following equation:
(3 + (3.29 x (SQR((BC x SCT) x (1+(SCT/BCT)))))) /
(E x SCT)
Square Root = SQR , Background Counts = BC , Sample
Count Time = SCT , Background Count Time = BCT ,
Counter eciency = E [1]

Table 3.20.: Employee Dust continued
Field Name Purpose
Specic Activity (Bq/g) This is calculated using the following equation:

((Sample counts/50-(Background
Counts)/50)*(1/60/(Counter Eciency)/((sample
time)*(Pump ow]/1000))))*1000/(Sample
Weight*1000/(Sample Time*Pump owrate))
Work Activity It is important to change the default `Routine Operations'

should an employee receive an unusual exposure.
Sample Purpose CONTAM Code `Q' for Quota is the default value
Comments A place to note unusual events.
Table 3.21.: Area Dust
Field Name Purpose
Id A text identier that goes with the lter number to uniquely identify that
sample.
Filter No. A number that goes with the lter id to uniquely identify a sample.
Pre-wt (mg) Weight of clean lter paper when it is loaded.
Final wt (mg) The weight of lter after sample has been taken, ie, with the dust on the
paper.
Sample wt (mg) Net weight of contaminants on the lter. This is automatically calculated
once the initial and nal weights have been entered.
Area This is the code for the area tha sample is taken. This list of area codes is
made up from the Area Codes form in the Listings section.
Location In some radiation monitoring programs, personal monitoring is supplemented

by area monitoring. Under these circumstances, it is often desirable to
identify the exact location of the area sampler. An area may contain many
dierent location codes, but remember that Boswell treats any sample taken
at a location within a radiation area as part of a set of data relating to the
area.
Pump Code This identies the actual pump being used to take the sample. The values in
the list come from the Air Sampler Pumps form.
Pump Flow Rate The default value is automatically entered, however the real value can be
(l/min) manually entered in its place.
Pump Start Date and time pump was started.

Date/Time
Pump End Date and time pump was stopped.

Date/Time
Pump Sampling Net time in minutes the pump ran for. This is automatically calculated once
Time (min) the Start Date and End Date elds have been entered.
Pump Sample
3
Volume of air passing through the pump in cubic metres (cm ). This is
3
Vol (m ) automatically calculated once the pump code is selected and the start and
end date are entered. The pump code will have an associated ow rate that
will be multiplied by the sample time.
Analysis Date Date sample was counted. This will be dierent to the sampling date as six
or seven days are allowed for decay products to decay o the lter paper. It
is the date used in returning the counting equipment calibration gures for a
particular sample.
RC Code Drop down list of unique codes for each Radiation Counter used in the
Radiation Counters form. See Section 3.3.4 on page 10.
Eciency This is the counter eciency gure stored in the Radiation Calibration table
in the Listings section. This is automatically returned once Count Date RC
Code have been selected.
Note: This is not entered as a % value.
Sample Counts The number of counts returned by the counting equipment for that sample.
Sample Count Time in minutes the sample was counted usually 60 minutes.
Time (min)

Table 3.22.: Area Dust continued
Field Name Purpose
Background The number of background sample counts present for that counter for the
Counts calibration current at that time. This is automatically returned once the RC
Code and the Count Date have been selected. The calibration values are
stored in the Radiation Calibration form in the Listing section.
Background Usually over night or as long as possible.

Count Time
(min)
Dust Conc This eld is calculated automatically once the weights, dates and pump have
3
(mg/m ) been selected. Values over the limit are in `red'.
([FinalWeight]-
[InnitialWeight])/(DateDi('n',[InnitialDate],[FinalDate])*([owrate]/1000))
Alpha Activity Alpha Activity is calculated using the following equation:

(mBq/m )
3 (Sample Counts/50-Background Counts/50)*(1/60/Counter
Eciency/Sample time*Pump ow)
Minimum Detectable Level measured in mBq/m³ This value is substituted in

3
MDL (mBq/m )
the calculations if the counts are too low.
This value is calculated using the following equation:
(3 + (3.29 x (SQR((BC x SCT) x (1+(SCT/BCT)))))) / (E x SCT)
Square Root = SQR , Background Counts = BC , Sample Count Time =
SCT , Background Count Time = BCT , Counter eciency = E [1]
Specic Activity This is calculated using the following equation:

(Bq/g) ((Sample counts/50-(Background Counts)/50)*(1/60/(Counter
Eciency)/((sample time)*(Pump ow]/1000))))*1000/(Sample
Weight*1000/(Sample Time*Pump owrate))
Comments A place to note unusual events.
4. Data reporting
Boswell uses the last radiation year as the default dates for the `Reporting Period'. Other time
periods may be used with care. There are pop-up calendars to select the required dates.
Figure 4.1.: Boswell Reports Menu

Table 4.1.: Report 01. QA Report Employee Monitoring
Items on Report Comment
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 01. QA Report Employee Monitoring
Reporting Period Is the period correct?
Number of Pages
Surname Is anyone missing?
Firstname Are the names correct?
No. of Dust Samples Are all dust samples listed?
No. of Badges The number badges must equal the number issued. If there
are 5 badges for an employee, check your records!
Designatesd Yes/No are these correct?
Work History Record Yes/No are these correct?
Totals Are the totals correct?
4.1. Quality assurance reports

Report 01. QA report employee monitoring
The purpose of this report is for RSOs to check that employee data is entered correctly over the
selected period. It should not be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
The report shows:
the surname and rst-name of every employee monitored over the selected dates who have had
at least one dust sample or one badge;
the number of dust samples taken;
which employees were designated;
which employees have a work history recorded; and
if the work history is missing, you must go back to the work history form and add the data
before you can create further reports.
Figure 4.2 on the next page shows the rst page of this report.
Figure 4.3 on page 28 shows a rear page reporting badges missing Work History
Table 4.1 lists each eld on the report and gives its purpose.
Figure 4.2.: Report 01. QA Report Employee Monitoring
Wednesday, 23 September 2009 Boswell Version 2M Page 1 of 4

Blue Sky Mining Pty Ltd
01. QA Report - Employee Monitoring

Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Surname Firstname No. Dust Samples No.of Badges Designated Work History Rec
Abbott Peter 8 4 Yes Yes
Adams Fred 3 4 Yes Yes
Allans Mary 3 No No
Anderson Tobby 4 Yes Yes
Ashcraft Ian 3 3 No Yes
Backshall Ford 2 2 No Yes
Backsnail Mort 3 3 No Yes
Baker Peter 12 4 Yes Yes
Balourd Ryan 1 No No
Banks Cody 3 4 No Yes
Barker Barry 7 4 Yes Yes
Barker Mervin 4 No Yes
Baron Red 1 No No
Bickill Barbie 1 No No
Bollard Tina 2 No Yes
Bood Dale 5 4 No Yes
Boucherd Frenchy 1 No No
Boysly Ian 8 4 No Yes
Brandy John 3 4 Yes Yes
Brandyhan Harry 1 4 Yes Yes
Brendan Nick 1 No No
Browne Russell 4 Yes Yes
Buggy Brian 2 4 No Yes
Bunter Billy 2 Yes Yes
Campbell Donald 4 4 No No
Carpent Jacob 3 Yes Yes
Castle King 3 4 Yes Yes
Chadnick Yirrie 3 4 Yes Yes
Chapel Robin 10 2 Yes Yes
Ciddle Peta 1 No No
Ciddle Steve 1 No No
Clinchy Kevin 8 4 Yes Yes
Collar Whitey 3 No No
Collett Tony 1 No No
Comb Ruth 2 No No
Cookie Mon 1 No No
Cooper Jason 3 Yes Yes
Copper Mike 4 No Yes
Craighorn Mickie 2 No No
Croswell Travis 4 4 Yes Yes
Cullens Craig 1 No No
Davis Peter 2 No No
Dewell Andrew 4 4 No Yes
Donstand Cameron 1 4 Yes Yes
Down Brendan 4 Yes Yes
Dunddie Mike 1 1 No Yes

Figure 4.3.: Report 01. QA Report report showing badges missing Work History
Surname Firstname No. Dust Samples No.of Badges Designated Work History Rec
Total 148 349 141 60 121
Employees who have badges without a Work History
Surname Firstname Badge serial No Date Issued Date Returned

Abbott Peter 40936813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Abbott Peter 79155826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Adams Frank 79156826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Anderson Tobby 79207826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Atmos Simon 40938813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Baker Peter 40940813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Baker Peter 79158826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Barker Barry 79159826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Barker Barry 40941813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Brandy John 40943813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Brandy John 79161826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Brandyhan Harry 40944813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Brandyhan Harry 79162826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Browne Russell 40945813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Browne Russell 79163826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Bunter Billy 79164826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Bunter Billy 40946813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Campbell Donald 79165826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Campbell Donald 40947813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Carpent Jacob 40948813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Carpent Jacob 79166826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Castle King 79167826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Castle King 40949813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Chadnick Yirrie 40950813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Chadnick Yirrie 79168826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Chapel Robin 79169826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Chapel Robin 40951813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Clinchy Kevin 79170826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Clinchy Kevin 40952813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Cooper Jason 40953813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Cooper Jason 79171826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Croswell Travis 40954813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Croswell Travis 79172826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Debeaux Megan 79230826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
Dewell Andrew 79173826 02-Jul-08 02-Aug-08
Dewell Andrew 40955813 02-Apr-08 01-Jul-08
Donstand Cameron 79176826 02-Jul-08 30-Sep-08
01. QA Report - Employee Monitoring Summary for period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009

Monday, 12 October 2009 Page 5 of 8
Table 4.2.: Report 02. QA Report Work Category Monitoring
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 02. QA Report Work Category Monitoring
Number of Pages
Work Category Are any Work Categories missing?
Code Work Category Code
Active Are any Work categories inactive that should be marked as

active?
No. of Employees Are the number of employees correct?
No. of Badges The number badges must equal the number issued.
No. of Dust Samples Are all dust samples listed?
Total Are the totals correct?
Report 02. QA report work category monitoring

The purpose of this report is for RSOs to check if the `Work Category' data is entered correctly over
the selected period. It should not be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
The report shows:
the `Work Category' of every employee monitored over the selected dates with at least one dust
sample or one radiation badge;
which work categories are Àctive'; and
the number of employees in each and the badges/dust samples taken.
This report is useful for checking if enough sampling has been undertaken in each active `Work
Category'.
Figure 4.4 on the following page shows the rst page of this report.
Figure 4.5 on page 31 shows a rear page reporting employee dust samples missing Work History.
4.2. Personal inspirable dust reports

Report 03. Personal Dust - rad/grav by employee name
The purpose of this report is to list all personal dust sampling undertaken on employees data over
the selected period. It shows the airborne radioactivity and dust concentrations that monitored

Figure 4.4.: Report 02. QA Report Work Category Monitoring
Work Category: Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant Code: 4 Active: Yes No. Dust Samples: No. of Badges:
Adams Frank 3 4
Anderson Tobby 0 4
Banks Cody 3 4
Baron Red 1 0
Buggy Brian 2 4
Bunter Billy 0 2
Carpent Jacob 0 3
Cooper Jason 0 3
Copper Mike 0 4
Dewell Andrew 4 4
Down Brendan 0 4
Edwards Brad 2 4
Flynn Ronald 0 4
Foster Adam 2 0
Gibson Ben 0 2
Greenlees Jim 2 4
Hankin Bruce (Gary) 2 4
Kerley Dennis 0 4
Kimptin Joel 1 4
Lloyd Damian 0 1
Matthews Howard 2 0
McKenzie R 0 1
Morrison Noel 2 4
Nears Mick 1 4
Newman Richard 0 3
Nuska Ibrahim 1 0
O'Neill B 3 0
Panaia Vince 3 3
Penny Mohommad 1 4
Perks G 1 4
Reynolds Nathan 2 4
Taylor Philip 1 4
Trotter Peter 1 3
Tuffley Rob 3 4
Watts Steve 2 4
Williams P 1 2
Williams peter 2 0
Wilson P 0 3
Windsor Peter 1 4
Yurisich Barry 0 4
Work Category Total 40 49 118
02. QA Report - Work Category Monitoring Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Figure 4.5.: Report 02. QA Report report showing dust samples missing Work History
Grand Total: No. of Work Categories No. of Employees: No. of Dust Samples: No. of Badges:
8 307 * 441 790 *
* note : if employees work in more than one Work Category at one time, their badges may be counted in
those categories.
Dust Samples without a Work History for this Work Category
Surname Firstname Work Category Sample Date Filter Number

Allans Mara 8A 20/12/06 NM 4917
Balourd Ryan 7A 21/02/07 NM 5123
Baron Red 4 12/07/06 NM 4816
Bickill Barbie 8A 15/03/07 NM 5226
Boucherd Frenchy 2 29/12/06 NM 4935
Boysly Ian 8A 16/01/07 NM 5004
Boysly Ian 8A 17/07/06 NM 4826
Brendans Nick 2 14/06/06 NM 4765
Campbell Donald 7D 30/11/06 NM 4849
Ciddle Steve 8A 12/12/06 NM 4890
Ciddle Peta 8A 13/03/07 NM 5206
Collar Whitey 2 09/08/06 NM 4827
Collett Tony 2 09/01/07 NM 4968
Comb Ruth 8A 03/01/07 NM 4947
Comb Ruth 8A 12/02/07 NM 5089
Cookie Mon 2 16/05/06 NM 4697
Craighorn Mickie 2 09/01/07 NM 4967
Craighorn Mickie 2 02/02/07 NM 5051
Cullens Craig 8A 10/01/07 NM 4977
Davis Peter 2 19/12/06 NM 4910
Davis Peter 2 06/02/07 NM 5063
Dutton Jason 2 09/05/06 NM 4683
Findlay Glyn 7C 01/03/07 NM 5146
Findlay Glyn 7C 09/03/07 NM 5180
02. QA Report - Work Category Monitoring Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007

Table 4.3.: Report 03. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee name
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 03. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee name
Number of Pages
Employee Surname, First-name, Initials
Designated Y/N
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each employee
Airborne Radioactivity (mBq/m )

3
Min Minimum value recorded for each employee
Max Maximum value recorded for each employee
Mean Mean value recorded for each employee
SDev Standard Deviation of values recorded for each employee
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for radioactivity for each

employee
Dust Concentration in Air (mg/m )

3
Min Minimum dust value recorded for each employee
Max Maximum dust value recorded for each employee
Mean Mean dust value recorded for each employee
SDev Standard Deviation of dust values recorded for each

employee
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for dust level of each employee
employees were exposed to. The report also lists the minimum, maximum mean standard deviation
and 95% upper condence statistics for the employee's measurements. For privacy reasons, it should
not be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
Figure 4.6 on the next page shows the rst page of this report.
Report 04. Personal Dust - rad/grav by employee number

The purpose of this report is to list all personal dust sampling undertaken on employees data over the
selected period. It shows the airborne radioactivity and dust concentrations that monitored employees
were exposed to. The report lists Èmployee Id Code', `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard
Deviation' and the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for each employee's measurements. For
employee privacy, this is the report to include in your Ànnual Occupational Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.6.: Report 03. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee name

03. Personal Dust - rad / grav - by employee name

No. of Airborne Radioactivity (mBq/m³) Dust Concentration in Air (mg/m³)

Employee Ds. Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
Abbott, Peter R D 8 27 1245 409 361 651 0.3 11.3 3.8 3.3 6.0
Adams, Fred D 3 42 459 218 216 583 0.5 4.4 2.1 2.0 5.5
Allans, Mary 3 12 15 14 2 16 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.4 1.6
Ashcraft, Ian 3 32 133 67 57 164 0.1 2.2 0.9 1.2 2.9
Backshall, Ford J 2 367 712 540 244 2.2 10.6 6.4 5.9
Backsnail, Mort R 3 29 384 167 190 488 0.6 4.4 2.1 2.1 5.5
Baker, Peter D 12 81 705 279 187 376 1.1 7.0 2.9 2.0 3.9
Balourd, Ryan 1 144 144 144 1.0 1.0 1.0
Banks, Cody 3 13 112 66 50 151 1.0 1.5 1.3 0.3 1.9
Barker, Barry C D 7 40 336 175 96 245 0.3 4.1 1.8 1.2 2.7
Baron, Red 1 763 763 763 6.0 6.0 6.0
Bickill, Barbie 1 13 13 13 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bood, Dale D 5 44 1216 299 514 789 0.9 12.2 4.2 4.8 8.7
Boucherd, Frenchy E 1 14 14 14 0.3 0.3 0.3
Boysly, Ian 8 12 755 319 325 536 0.2 9.3 3.7 3.6 6.1
Brandy, John D 3 13 486 174 270 629 0.3 8.2 3.0 4.6 10.6
Brandyhan, Harry W D 1 363 363 363 6.0 6.0 6.0
Brendan, Nick L 1 16 16 16 0.3 0.3 0.3
Buggy, Brian 2 140 1143 641 709 3.5 3.8 3.7 0.2
Campbell, Donald L D 4 12 60 25 23 53 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.5
Castle, King D 3 94 146 117 27 162 1.0 1.9 1.5 0.4 2.2
Chadnick, Yirrie A D 3 12 536 327 278 795 0.6 5.4 3.0 2.4 7.0
Chapel, Robin D 10 55 711 374 220 502 0.4 7.5 3.2 2.6 4.7
Ciddle, Steve F 1 11 11 11 0.3 0.3 0.3
Ciddle, Peta 1 13 13 13 0.3 0.3 0.3
Clinchy, Kevin D D 8 67 834 467 314 678 1.0 11.7 5.0 3.2 7.2
Collar, Whitey 3 13 16 14 2 17 5.2 7.5 6.4 1.1 8.3
Collett, Tony P 1 11 11 11 0.4 0.4 0.4
Comb, Ruth 2 29 40 34 8 0.4 2.6 1.5 1.6
Cookie, Mon B 1 15 15 15 1.3 1.3 1.3
Craighorn, Mickie 2 16 20 18 3 0.7 4.5 2.6 2.7
Croswell, Travis A D 4 12 232 69 108 197 0.1 2.0 0.8 0.8 1.7
Cullens, Craig 1 12 12 12 1.2 1.2 1.2
Davis, Peter M 2 13 19 16 4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.2
Dewell, Andrew J 4 13 134 53 55 118 0.3 2.5 0.9 1.0 2.1
Donstand, Cameron B D 1 318 318 318 4.0 4.0 4.0
Dunddie, Mike 1 434 434 434 4.3 4.3 4.3
Dutton, Jason 1 15 15 15 0.4 0.4 0.4
Edwards, Brad D 2 17 2058 1037 1443 0.7 3.8 2.2 2.2
Findlay, Glyn 2 49 182 115 94 1.5 2.0 1.8 0.4
Foster, Adam D 2 22 31 27 6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1
Freeman, Tony T 12 13 499 166 152 244 0.1 4.7 1.8 1.5 2.5
George, John 5 128 644 354 238 580 1.2 6.1 3.3 2.2 5.4
Gibson, Bernard K 2 231 403 317 122 4.1 6.4 5.2 1.6
Giles, Michael J 4 12 13 12 1 13 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.9

Table 4.4.: Report 04. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee number
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 04. Personal Dust rad/grav by employee number
Number of Pages
Employee Id Code Used for privacy purposes
Designated Y/N
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each employee

3
Min Minimum value recorded for each employee
Max Maximum value recorded for each employee
Mean Mean value recorded for each employee
SDev Standard Deviation of values recorded for each employee
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for radioactivity for each

employee

3
Min Minimum dust value recorded for each employee
Max Maximum dust value recorded for each employee
Mean Mean dust value recorded for each employee
SDev Standard Deviation of dust values recorded for each

employee
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for dust level of each employee
Report 05. Personal Dust - rad/grav by work category

The purpose of this report is to list total personal dust sampling undertaken in the dierent `Work
Categories' for the selected period. It shows the number of samples, the airborne radioactivity and
the dust concentrations that monitored employees were exposed to. The report lists the `Minimum',
`Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation' and the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for the
measurements. This report is useful for checking if enough sampling has been undertaken in each
active `Work Category' and this report is not required to be included in your annual occupational
radiation report.
Figure 4.7 on the facing page shows the rst page of this report.
Table 4.5 on page 36 lists each eld on the report and gives its purpose.
Figure 4.7.: Report 05. Personal Dust rad/grav by work category

05. Personal Dust - rad / grav - by work category

Airborne Radioactivity (mBq/m³) Dust Concentration in Air (mg/m³)

No. of
Work Category Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 68 10 80 16 9 18 0.1 17.8 1.5 2.6 2.1
4 Engineering Maintenance - 49 12 2058 272 482 387 0.1 6.0 1.8 1.8 2.2
Dry Plant
7A Dry Plant Operator 188 13 3084 389 333 429 0.1 23.2 4.1 3.4 4.5
7B Shift Coordinator 36 12 510 59 97 86 0.1 5.4 0.6 1.0 0.9
7C Shift Services Operator 28 14 384 104 80 130 0.1 7.0 1.8 1.6 2.3
7D Wet Plant Operator 25 12 834 90 182 152 0.1 2.9 0.7 0.8 1.0
8A Laboratory 47 11 40 15 5 16 0.1 9.4 1.6 2.3 2.2
Total 7 441
Work Category Airborne Radioactivity (m Bq/m ³)
2 Synthetic Rutile Plant
4 Engineering
Maintenance - Dry Plant
7A Dry Plant Operator
7B Shift Coordinator
7C Shift Services
Operator
7D Wet Plant Operator
8A Laboratory
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

mBq/m³
Minimum Maximum Average

Table 4.5.: Report 05. Personal Dust rad/grav by work category
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 05. Personal Dust rad/grav by work category
Number of Pages
Work Category Code Code
Work Category Description

Description
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each work category

3
Min Minimum value recorded for each work category
Max Maximum value recorded for each work category
Mean Mean value recorded for each work category
SDev Standard Deviation of values recorded for each work

category
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for radioactivity for each work
category

3
Min Minimum dust value recorded for each work category
Max Maximum dust value recorded for each work category
Mean Mean dust value recorded for each work category
SDev Standard Deviation of dust values recorded for each work

category
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for dust level of each work
category
Report 06. Personal Dust - rad/grav by month & work category

The purpose of this report is to list all personal dust sampling undertaken in the dierent `Work
Categories' for each month of the selected period. It shows the number of samples taken each month,
the airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations that monitored employees were exposed to.
The report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation' and the `95% Upper
Condence Level' statistics for each month's measurements. These statistics are also plotted on the
report. This report should be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
Figure 4.9 on page 40 shows the two types of plots associated with this report.
Report 07. Personal Dust - rad/grav 5 years & work category

The purpose of this report is to list all personal dust sampling undertaken in the dierent `Work
Categories' for the last ve years in relation to the selected period. It shows the number of samples
taken each year, the airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations that monitored employees
were exposed to. The report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation' and
the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for each year's measurements. These statistics are also
plotted on the report. This report should be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
Report 08. Personal Dust - rad/grav statistics

The purpose of this report is to list the total personal dust sampling undertaken over the selected
period. It shows the number of samples taken, the number of samples excluded such as `Special
Exposures', the airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations that monitored employees that
were exposed to. The report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation', the
`95% Upper Condence Level' statistics and average minimum detectable level. This report should
be included in your Ànnual Occupational Radiation Report'.

Figure 4.8.: Report 06. Personal Dust rad/grav by month & work category
Work Category 7A Dry Plant Operator

Month No. of Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
April 2006 15 13 787 292 227 396 0.1 6.9 3.1 2.0 4.0
May 2006 15 54 683 359 209 454 0.4 10.4 3.4 2.8 4.7
June 2006 15 124 886 377 224 479 1.3 12.1 4.6 3.4 6.2
July 2006 15 81 3084 541 733 874 1.1 14.4 5.4 3.9 7.2
November 2006 4 135 285 211 80 305 0.9 4.7 2.4 1.6 4.3
December 2006 27 43 1245 387 293 483 0.7 21.2 4.8 4.4 6.2
January 2007 34 44 1275 479 332 576 0.5 12.2 4.4 3.0 5.3
February 2007 32 69 711 363 178 416 0.9 9.3 3.4 1.9 4.0
March 2007 31 13 1701 335 328 435 0.1 23.2 3.8 4.4 5.1
Total 188
Airborne Radioactivity (mBq/m³)

mBq/m³
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Apr May Jun Jul Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Month
Mim im um Maxim um Average
Airborne Dust Concentration (mg/m³)

mg/m³
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Month
Minim um Maxim um Average
06. Personal Dust - rad / grav - by month & work category Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Friday, 11 September 2009 Page 3 of 8
Table 4.6.: Report 06. Personal Dust rad/grav by month & work category
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 06. Personal Dust rad/grav by month & work category
Number of Pages
Work Category One page per category
Month Month where samples were collected
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each employee during each
month

3

category
category

3

category
category

Figure 4.9.: Report 07. Personal Dust rad/grav 5 years & work category

Period Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
2002 / 2003 145 10 3391 580 503 649 0.1 35.7 3.7 3.9 4.3
2003 / 2004 178 12 2139 419 348 462 0.1 19.4 3.1 2.8 3.4
2004 / 2005 193 10 1368 324 245 353 0.2 19.6 3.3 2.8 3.6
2005 / 2006 190 10 2021 353 302 389 0.1 27.5 4.2 4.2 4.7
2006 / 2007 188 13 3084 389 333 429 0.1 23.2 4.1 3.4 4.5
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2002 / 2003 2003 / 2004 2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
Airborne Dust Concentration (mBq/m³)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2002 / 2003 2003 / 2004 2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
07. Personal Dust - rad / grav - work categories over 5 years Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Table 4.7.: Report 07. Personal Dust rad/grav 5 years & work category
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 07. Personal Dust rad/grav 5 years & work category
Number of Pages
Year Year where samples were collected
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each work category during
each year

3

category
category

3

category
category

Table 4.8.: Report 08. Personal Dust rad/grav statistics
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 08. Personal Dust rad/grav statistics
Number of Pages
Number of Special Number of exposures excluded from the statistics

Exposures
Number of other Number of other exposures excluded from the statistics

activity samples
No. of Samples Number of dust samples during selected period
3
Airborne Radioactivity (mBq/m ) and Dust Concentration in Air (mg/m )
3
Minimum concentration Minimum value recorded for each sample
Maximum Maximum value recorded for each sample

concentration
Mean concentration Mean value recorded for each sample
Standard deviation Standard Deviation of values recorded for each sample
Upper condence level 95% Upper Condence Level for radioactivity for each
sample
Average minimum
detectable level
Table 4.9.: Report 09. Personal Dust work category frequency histograms
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 09. Personal Dust work category frequency histograms
Number of Pages
Number of samples Sample size

analysed
3
3
Arithmetic mean Normal distribution
Arithmetic standard Normal distribution

deviation
Arithmetic 95% upper Normal distribution

condence level
Geometric mean Lognormal distribution
Geometric standard Lognormal distribution

deviation
Geometric 95% upper Lognormal distribution

condence level
Report 09. Personal Dust work category frequency histograms

The purpose of this report is to show the variation in airborne radioactivity and the dust concentra-
tions over each `Work Category' for the selected period as a histogram plot. It shows the number of
samples analysed, the arithmetic/geometric mean, the arithmetic/geometric standard deviation, and
the arithmetic/geometric 95% condence levels in airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations
over each `Work Category' for the selected period. This report should not be included in your annual
occupational radiation report.
Figure 4.10 on the next page shows the two types of plots associated with this report.
Report 10. Personal Dust work category (log)normal probability plots

tions over each Work Category for the selected period as `Normal' and `Lognormal' distribution plots.
It shows the number of samples analysed, the arithmetic/geometric mean, the arithmetic/geometric
standard deviation, and the arithmetic/geometric 95% condence levels in airborne radioactivity and
the dust concentrations over each `Work Category' for the selected period. The plots are designed to

Figure 4.10.: Report 09. Personal Dust work category frequency histograms
Work Category 7A Dry Plant Operator 188 Samples analysed

Mean Standard 95% Upper
Dust Activity in Air (mg/m³) Deviation Confidence Level
Arithmetic (normal distribution) 4.06 3.38 4.47
Geometric (lognormal distribution) 2.95 2.38 3.28
Histogram of Dust Concentration

45
40
35
Number of samples
30
25
20
15
10
0
<1 1- 2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 6 -7 7 -8 8 -9 9 - 10 10 +
Dust concentration (mg/m³)

Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³) Deviation Confidence Level
Histogram of Dust Activity

40
35
30
Number of samples
25
20
15
10
0
< 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500 500 - 600 600 - 700 700 - 800 800 - 900 900 - 1000 1000 +
Dust Activity (mBq/m³)
09. Personal Dust - work category frequency histograms Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Table 4.10.: Report 10. Personal Dust work category (log)normal probability plots
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 10. Personal Dust work category (log)normal probability

plots
Number of Pages

analysed
3
3

deviation

condence level

deviation

condence level
demonstrate whether statistically there has been enough sampling undertaken. This report should
not be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
4.3. Work area dust reports

Report 11. Area Dust - rad/grav by area
The purpose of this report is to list total positional dust sampling undertaken in the dierent areas
for the selected period. It shows the number of samples, the airborne radioactivity and the dust
concentrations. The report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation' and the
`95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for the measurements. These statistics are also plotted on
the report. This report is useful for checking if enough sampling has been undertaken in each Àrea'
and the report should be included in your annual occupational radiation report.

Figure 4.11.: Report 10. Personal Dust work category (log)normal probability plots
Work Category 7A Dry Plant Operator 188 Samples analysed

Dust in Air (mg/m³) Deviation Confidence Level
Linear Probability Plot and Least-Squares Best-Fit Logprobability Plot and Least-Squares Best-Fit Line
Line
99 99
98 98
Cumulative Frequency %
95 95
90 90
84 84
75 75
50 50
25 25
16 16
10 10
5 5
2 2
1
0 5 10 15 20 0 1 10 100
Dust in Air (mg/m³) Dust in Air (mBq/m³)
Mean Standard 95% Upper Number of MDL

Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³) Deviation Confidence Level Substitutes used
Arithmetic (normal distribution) 388.97 332.61 429.07 0
Line
99 99
98 98
95 95
90 90
84 84
75 75
50 50
25 25
16 16
10 10
5 5
2 2
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 1 10 100 1000 10000
Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³) Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³)
10. Personal Dust - work category (log)normal probability plots Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Figure 4.12.: Report 11. Area Dust rad/grav by area, page 1
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 Boswell Version 2M Page 1 of 3

11. Area Dust - radiometric / gravimetric


No. of
Area Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
Dry Separation plant 1 57 13 994 318 251 374 0.1 6.9 2.2 1.8 2.6
Dry separation plant 2 47 56 1065 209 167 250 0.6 10.2 3.5 2.2 4.0
Other locations 24 11 157 37 35 49 0.1 2.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Plant 1 - RDR Section 41 12 690 291 162 334 0.7 13.2 4.3 3.3 5.1
Synthetic Rutile Plant 27 10 17 13 2 14 0.1 13.9 1.2 2.6 2.0

Area Airborne Radioactivity (m Bq/m ³)
Synthetic Rutile Plant
Plant 1 - RDR Section
Other locations
Dry separation plant 2
Dry Separation plant 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
mBq/m³
11. Area Dust - radiometric / gravimetric Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 Page 2 of 3
Area Airborne Dust Concentration (m g/m ³)
Synthetic Rutile Plant
Plant 1 - RDR Section
Other locations
Dry separation plant 2
Dry Separation plant 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
mg/m³
11. Area Dust - radiometric / gravimetric Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 Page 3 of 3

Table 4.11.: Report 11. Area Dust rad/grav by area
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 11. Area Dust rad/grav by area
Number of Pages
Area Location of positional sample
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each area

3
Min Minimum value recorded for each area
Max Maximum value recorded for each area
Mean Mean value recorded for each area
SDev Standard Deviation of values recorded for each area
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for radioactivity for each area

3
Min Minimum dust value recorded for each area
Max Maximum dust value recorded for each area
Mean Mean dust value recorded for each area
SDev Standard Deviation of dust values recorded for each area
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for dust level of each area
This report plots bar graphs of the maximum, minimum and average values for the dust concentration
and dust activity of each area.
Report 12. Area Dust - rad/grav by month & area

The purpose of this report is to list all personal dust sampling undertaken in Areas for each month of
the selected period. It shows the number of samples taken each month, the airborne radioactivity and
the dust concentrations in the Àrea'. The report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard
Deviation' and the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for each month's measurements. These
statistics are also plotted on the report. This report should be included in your Ànnual Occupational
Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.15.: Report 12. Area Dust rad/grav by month & area
Area PL. Dry Separation plant 1

Month No. of Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
April 2006 7 101 875 369 274 570 1.0 5.5 2.3 1.6 3.5
May 2006 7 64 892 421 276 623 0.6 4.5 2.0 1.3 2.9
June 2006 7 243 908 431 227 597 1.7 4.9 3.3 1.1 4.1
July 2006 8 16 481 215 158 321 0.2 6.7 3.1 2.7 4.9
November 2006 5 73 294 200 89 285 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.9
December 2006 2 128 200 164 51 1.9 2.3 2.1 0.3
January 2007 7 161 994 462 357 725 0.1 6.9 2.9 2.6 4.8
February 2007 7 119 592 217 167 340 0.8 3.1 1.3 0.8 1.9
March 2007 7 13 906 259 297 477 0.2 3.1 1.6 1.0 2.3

mBq/m³
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Month
Mim im um Maxim um Average

mg/m³
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Month
12. Area Dust - rad / grav - by month & area Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007

Table 4.12.: Report 12. Area Dust rad/grav by month & area
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 12. Area Dust rad/grav by month & area
Number of Pages
Area One page per area
Month Month where samples were collected
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each area during each month

3

3
Table 4.13.: Report 13. Area Dust rad/grav areas over 5 years
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 13. Area Dust rad/grav areas over 5 years
Number of Pages
No. of Samples Numbers of dust samples for each area during each year

3

3
Report 13. Area Dust - rad/grav areas over 5 years

The purpose of this report is to list all positional sampling undertaken in the dierent Areas for the
last ve years in relation to the selected period. It shows the number of samples taken each year, the
airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations in each Àrea'. The report lists the `Minimum',
`Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation' and the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for each
year's measurements. These statistics are also plotted on the report. This report should be included
in your annual occupational radiation report. This report is useful to see the last ve year's trends
if exposures are static, varying or decreasing.
Report 14. Area Dust - rad/grav statistics

The purpose of this report is to list the total positional sampling undertaken over the selected period.
It shows the number of samples taken, the airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations. The

Figure 4.16.: Report 13. Area Dust rad/grav areas over 5 years
Area PL. Dry separation plant 2

Period Samples Min Max Mean SDev UCL Min Max Mean SDev UCL
2006 / 2007 47 56 1065 209 167 250 0.6 10.2 3.5 2.2 4.0
2005 / 2006 129 10 719 170 123 188 0.1 16.3 3.1 3.1 3.6
2004 / 2005 123 13 1247 235 194 264 0.5 19.9 3.4 3.4 4.0
2003 / 2004 56 40 421 176 97 198 0.5 4.0 1.5 0.7 1.6
2002 / 2003 24 174 628 351 145 401 0.5 5.4 2.3 1.4 2.8
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2002 / 2003 2003 / 2004 2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2002 / 2003 2003 / 2004 2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
13. Area Dust - rad / grav - areas over 5 years Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Table 4.14.: Report 14. Area Dust rad/grav statistics
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 14. Area Dust rad/grav statistics
Number of Pages
No. of Samples Number of dust samples during selected period

3
3
Minimum concentration Minimum value recorded for each sample
Maximum Maximum value recorded for each sample

concentration
Mean concentration Mean value recorded for each sample
Standard deviation Standard Deviation of values recorded for each sample
sample
Average minimum
detectable level
report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation', the `95% Upper Condence
Level' statistics and average minimum detectable level. This report should be included in your
Ànnual Occupational Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.17 on the next page shows a typical statistical report.
Report 15. Area Dust area frequency histograms

tions over each Area for the selected period as a histogram plot. It shows the number of samples ana-
lysed, the arithmetic/geometric mean, the arithmetic/geometric standard deviation, and the arith-
metic/geometric 95% condence levels in airborne radioactivity and the dust concentrations over
each Area for the selected period. This report should not be included in your annual occupational
radiation report.
This report plots histograms of the dust concentration and dust activity.

Figure 4.17.: Report 14. Area Dust rad/grav statistics
Monday, 12 October 2009 Boswell Version 2M Page 1 of 1

14. Area Dust - rad / grav - statistics

Airborne Dust
Radioactivity Concentration in
(mBq/m³) Air (mg/m³)
Number of Samples: 196 196
Minimum concentration: 10 0.1
Maximum concentration: 1065 13.9
Mean concentration: 210 2.6
Standard deviation: 210 2.6
Upper confidence level 235 2.9
Average minimum detectable level: 14 13.9
Figure 4.18.: Report 15. Area Dust area frequency histograms
Area PL.2 Dry separation plant 2 47 Samples analysed

Histogram of Dust Concentration

12
10
Number of samples
0
<1 1- 2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 6 -7 7 -8 8 -9 9 - 10 10 +
Dust concentration (mg/m³)

Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³) Deviation Confidence Level
Histogram of Dust Activity

25
20
Number of samples
15
10
0
< 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500 500 - 600 600 - 700 700 - 800 800 - 900 900 - 1000 1000 +
Dust Activity (mBq/m³)
15. Area Dust - area frequency histograms Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007

Table 4.15.: Report 15. Area Dust area frequency histograms
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 15. Area Dust area frequency histograms
Number of Pages

analysed
3
3

deviation

condence level

deviation

condence level
Table 4.16.: Report 16. Area Dust area (log)normal probability plots
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 16. Area Dust area (log)normal probability plots
Number of Pages

analysed
3
3

deviation

condence level

deviation

condence level
Report 16. Area Dust area (log)normal probability plots

tions over each Area for the selected period as Normal and Lognormal distribution plots. It shows
the number of samples analysed, the arithmetic/geometric mean, the arithmetic/geometric standard
deviation, and the arithmetic/geometric 95% condence levels in airborne radioactivity and the dust
concentrations over each Area for the selected period. The plots are designed to demonstrate whether
statistically there has been enough sampling undertaken. This report should not be included in your
annual occupational radiation report.
This report plots `Normal/LogNormal' distributions of the dust concentration and dust activity.

Figure 4.19.: Report 16. Area Dust area (log)normal probability plots
Area PL.2 Dry separation plant 2 47 Samples analysed

Line
99 99
98 98
95 95
90 90
84 84
75 75
50 50
25 25
16 16
10 10
5 5
2 2
1
0 5 10 15 20 0 1 10 100
Dust in Air (mg/m³) Dust in Air (mBq/m³)
Mean Standard 95% Upper Number of MDL

Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³) Deviation Confidence Level Substitutes used
Arithmetic (normal distribution) 208.96 166.60 249.75 0
Line
99 99
98 98
95 95
90 90
84 84
75 75
50 50
25 25
16 16
10 10
5 5
2 2
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 1 10 100 1000 10000
Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³) Dust Activity in Air (mBq/m³)
16. Area Dust - area (log)normal probability plots Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Table 4.17.: Report 17. External Exposure by employee name
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 17. External Exposure by employee name
Number of Pages
Employee Name Are there any incorrect spellings, duplicates or missing

names?
No. of Badges Number of badges
Min Minimum badge dose in µSv

Max Maximum badge dose in µSv
Mean Mean badge dose in µSv
SDev Standard Deviation of badge dose in µSv
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level of badge dose in µSv
Total Total badge dose for period in µSv
4.4. Monitoring badge reports

Report 17. External Exposure by employee name
The purpose of this report is to list all employee external radiation badge exposures undertaken
over the selected period. It shows the employee's name, number of badges, `Minimum', `Maximum',
`Mean', `Standard Deviation' and `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for the employee's radiation
badge. For privacy reasons, it should not be included in your Ànnual Occupational Radiation
Report'.
Figure 4.20 on the next page shows a summary of employee external exposures (badges).
Table 4.17 lists each eld on this form and gives its purpose.
Report 18. External Exposure by employee number

The purpose of this report is to list all employee external radiation badge exposures undertaken over
the selected period. It shows the employee's Id Code, number of badges, `Minimum', `Maximum',
`Mean', `Standard Deviation' and `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for the employee's radiation
badge. For employee privacy, this is the report to include in your Ànnual Occupational Radiation
Report'.

Figure 4.20.: Report 17. External Exposure by employee name
Thursday, 15 October 2009 Boswell Version 2M Page 1 of 3

17. External Exposure - by employee name

External Radiation (µSv)

Employee No. of Badges Min Max Mean SDev UCL Total
Abbott, Peter R 4 280 650 465 133 622 1860
Adams, Frank 4 40 760 463 267 776 1850
Anderson, Tobby 4 330 640 488 119 628 1950
Ashcraft, Ivan 3 30 690 403 284 883 1210
Backshall, Ford J 2 380 790 585 214 1170
Backsnail, Mort R 3 10 650 390 291 881 1170
Baker, Peter 4 370 730 573 135 732 2290
Banks, Cody 4 430 650 558 93 668 2230
Barker, Barry C 4 330 660 495 148 669 1980
Barker, Mervin L 4 430 650 558 93 668 2230
Bollard, Tina 2 800 880 840 43 1680
Bood, Dale D 4 500 790 680 110 810 2720
Boysly, Ian 4 350 800 563 203 801 2250
Brandy, John 4 440 650 535 85 635 2140
Brandyhan, Harry W 4 470 650 558 64 633 2230
Browne, Russell 4 210 820 485 228 753 1940
Buggy, Brian 4 10 350 130 142 297 520
Bunter, Billy D 2 10 1070 540 567 1080
Carpent, Jacob 3 460 810 683 163 958 2050
Castle, King 4 10 830 493 304 850 1970
Chadnick, Yirrie A 4 200 760 510 202 748 2040
Chapel, Robin 2 530 650 590 69 1180
Clinchy, Kevin D 4 310 1100 680 293 1025 2720
Cooper, Jason 3 10 510 317 226 697 950
Copper, Mike 4 430 650 558 93 668 2230
Croswell, Travis A 4 610 820 733 78 825 2930
Dewell, Andrew J 4 70 600 353 213 603 1410
Donstand, Cameron B 4 270 640 470 161 660 1880
Down, Brendan 4 510 780 610 113 743 2440
Dunddie, Mike 1 440 440 440 440
Edwards, Brad 4 430 650 558 93 668 2230
Flynn, Ronald 4 560 940 710 145 881 2840
Free, Ted T 4 530 840 720 123 864 2880
George, Boy 4 480 930 655 170 855 2620
Gibson, Ben 2 80 990 535 486 1070
Gibson, Mel K 4 290 1070 503 331 892 2010
Greenlees, Jim 4 10 520 328 209 574 1310
Hall, Ben A 4 510 1000 753 182 966 3010
Hankin, Brian 4 130 530 345 153 525 1380
Hay, Make 1 430 430 430 0 430
Hearne, Paul F 4 500 970 668 193 895 2670
Hellboy, Sam 4 480 770 623 104 745 2490
Hollinham, Daemon J 4 580 800 700 98 816 2800
Holtfritter, Adolf 1 430 430 430 0 430
Hudderson, Russell W 4 480 900 668 154 849 2670
Table 4.18.: Report 18. External Exposure by employee number
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 18. External Exposure by employee number
Number of Pages
No. of Badges Number of badges
Min Minimum badge dose in µSv

Max Maximum badge dose in µSv
Mean Mean badge dose in µSv
SDev Standard Deviation of badge dose in µSv
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level of badge dose in µSv
Total Total badge dose for period in µSv
Report 19. External Exposure by work category

The purpose of this report is to list total external exposure monitoring undertaken in the dierent
Work Categories for the selected period. It shows the number of badges, `Minimum', `Maximum',
`Mean', `Standard Deviation' and the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics for the dose results.
This report is useful for checking if enough monitoring has been undertaken in each active `Work
Category'. Report 19 is required to be included in your Ànnual Occupational Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.21 on the following page shows the two types of plots associated with this report.
Report 20. External Exposure work category over 5 years

The purpose of this report is to list all badge monitoring undertaken in the dierent Areas for the
last ve years in relation to the selected period. It shows the number of badges used each year and
the doses in µSv/month recorded in each Area. The report lists the `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean',
`Standard Deviation' and the `95% Upper Condence Level' statistics of the dose (in µSv/month)
for each year's measurements. These statistics are also plotted on the report. This report should be
included in your Ànnual Occupational Radiation Report'. This report is useful to see the last ve
year's trends if exposures are static, varying or decreasing.

Figure 4.21.: Report 19. External Exposure by work category

19. External Exposure - by work category

External Radiation (µSv/year)

Work Category No. of Badges Min Max Mean SDev UCL
2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 122 40 4245 1930 74 1941
3 Administrative Services 31 568 4212 2785 76 2808
4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 118 40 4245 1918 74 1930
7A Dry Plant Operator 167 40 4364 2346 68 2355
7B Shift Coordinator 157 40 4364 2423 73 2432
7C Shift Services Operator 59 40 4292 2389 69 2405
7D Wet Plant Operator 136 40 4364 2345 70 2355
Total 7 790 *
* note : if employees work in more than one Work Category at one time, their badges may be counted in those
categories.
Work Category Work Category External Exposure (µSv/year)
00 Terminated
3 Administrative Services
4 Engineering Maintenance -
Dry Plant
7C Shift Services Operator
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
µSv
Table 4.19.: Report 19. External Exposure by work category
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 19. External Exposure by work category
Number of Pages

Description
No. of Badges Number of badges used in work category for period
Min Minimum external exposure in work category for period
Max Maximum external exposure in work category for period
Mean Mean external exposure in work category for period
SDev Standard Deviation of external exposure for each work

category
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level for external exposure of each

work category
Table 4.20.: Report 20. External Exposure work category over 5 years
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 20. External Exposure work category over 5 years
Number of Pages
No. of Badges Numbers of Badges for each area during each year
Min Minimum external dose for each area
Max Maximum external dose for each area
Mean Mean external dose for each area
SDev Standard Deviation of external dose for each area
UCL 95% Upper Condence Level of external dose for each area

Figure 4.22.: Report 20. External Exposure work category over 5 years

External Radiation (µSv / month)
No. of Badges * Min Max Mean SDev UCL
2002 / 2003 129 3 297 113 61 122
2003 / 2004 146 3 504 117 92 130
2004 / 2005 143 3 551 138 75 149
2005 / 2006 154 3 313 130 65 139
2006 / 2007 167 3 359 193 68 202
those categories.
Average Monthly External Dose (µSv/m onth)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2002 / 2003 2003 / 2004 2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
Min Max Mean
20. External Exposure - by work categories over 5 years Summary for period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007
Table 4.21.: Report 21. External Exposure statistics
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 21. External Exposure statistics
Number of Pages
No. of Badges used Total number of badges during selected period

over period
Minimum dose Minimum value recorded for each badge

equivalent
Maximum dose Maximum value recorded for each badge

equivalent
Mean dose equivalent Mean value recorded for each badge
Standard deviation Standard Deviation of values recorded for each badge
badge
Report 21. External Exposure statistics

The purpose of this report is to list the total badge monitoring undertaken over the selected period.
It shows the number of badges used, `Minimum', `Maximum', `Mean', `Standard Deviation' and `95%
Upper Condence Level' statistics for each reading. This report should be included in your Ànnual
Occupational Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.23 on the following page shows a typical statistical report.
4.5. Eective dose equivalent reports

Report 22. EDE by employee name
The purpose of this report is to list all employee internal/external radiation exposures undertaken over
the selected period. It shows the employee's name, if they are `Designated', each `Work Category' they
worked in, hours worked, total radioactivity breathed in, and internal, external and total exposure in
millisieverts. For privacy reasons, this report should not be included in your Ànnual Occupational
Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.24 on page 69 shows a typical EDE report.

Figure 4.23.: Report 21. External Exposure statistics

21. External Exposure - statistics

Number of Badges used over period : 358
External Radiation (µSv)
Minimum dose equivalent: 10
Maximum dose equivalent: 1100
Mean dose equivalent: 558
Standard Deviation: 222
Upper Confidence Level: 577
Figure 4.24.: Report 22. EDE by employee name

22. EDE - by employee name

Hours Badge Tot Bq Assessed EDE (mSv)

Employee Designated Work Category Worked Days Intake Int. Ext. Total
Abbott, Peter R Yes 7D Wet Plant Operator 240 8 0.3
7A Dry Plant Operator 1,368 761 3.6
Total 1,608 365 769 3.9 1.9 5.8
Adams, Frank Yes 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 768 0 0.1

4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 1,152 301 2.1
Total 1,920 365 301 2.3 1.9 4.1
Anderson, Tobby Yes 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 768 0 0.1

4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 1,152 0 2.1
Total 1,920 365 0 2.3 2.0 4.2
Ashcraft, Ivan No 7A Dry Plant Operator 12 2 0.0

7B Shift Coordinator 420 17 0.3
Total 432 275 19 0.3 1.2 1.5
Backshall, Ford J No 7A Dry Plant Operator 300 194 0.8

7D Wet Plant Operator 204 0 0.2
Total 516 183 194 1.0 1.2 2.2
Backsnail, Mort R No 7C Shift Services Operator 1,900 381 2.3

Total 1,900 275 381 2.3 1.2 3.5
Baker, Peter Yes 7C Shift Services Operator 12 0 0.0

7A Dry Plant Operator 204 68 0.5
Total 216 365 68 0.6 2.3 2.8
Banks, Cody No 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 1,350 0 0.2

4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 570 45 1.1
Total 1,920 365 45 1.3 2.2 3.5
Barker, Mervin L No 7A Dry Plant Operator 876 0 2.3

7C Shift Services Operator 1,452 0 1.8
Total 2,328 365 0 4.1 2.2 6.3
Barker, Barry C Yes 7A Dry Plant Operator 672 159 1.8

7D Wet Plant Operator 974 47 1.0
Total 1,730 365 206 2.9 2.0 4.8
Bollard, Tina No 3 Administrative Services 700 0 0.0


Table 4.22.: Report 22. EDE by employee name
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 22. EDE by employee name
Number of Pages

names?
Designated Yes or No
Work Category Lists each Work Category the employee was assigned to
during period
Hours Worked ‡ Hours worked in each Work Category
Badge Days ‡ Not available for each Work Category
Tot Bq Intake ‡ Total calculated activity of dust breathed in for each Work
Category
Int Assessed EDE‡ Calculated internal dose for each Work Category
Ext Assessed EDE‡ Not available for each Work Category
Total Assessed EDE‡ Not available for each Work Category
Total Totals for all items marked ‡
Table 4.23.: Report 23. EDE by employee number
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 23. EDE by employee number
Number of Pages
Designated Yes or No
Work Category Lists each Work Category the employee was assigned to
during period
Hours Worked ‡ Hours worked in each Work Category
Badge Days ‡ Not available for each Work Category
Tot Bq Intake ‡ Total calculated activity of dust breathed in for each Work
Category
Int Assessed EDE‡ Calculated internal dose for each Work Category
Ext Assessed EDE‡ Not available for each Work Category
Total Assessed EDE‡ Not available for each Work Category
Total Totals for all items marked ‡
Report 23. EDE by employee number

The purpose of this report is to list all employee internal/external radiation exposures undertaken
over the selected period. It shows the employee's Ìd Code', if they are `Designated', each `Work
Category' they worked in, hours worked, total radioactivity breathed in, and internal, external and
total exposure in millisieverts. For privacy reasons, this report this is the report to include in your
Report 24. EDE by work category

The purpose of this report is to list all employee internal/external radiation exposures in the dierent
`Work Categories' for the selected period. It shows for the period, the work category details, the
average hours worked, number of dust samples, number of badges used, total radioactivity breathed
in, and internal, external and total exposure in millisieverts. This report is useful for comparing
doses received in each active `Work Category'. Report 24 is required to be included in your Ànnual

Figure 4.25.: Report 24. EDE by work category

24. EDE - by work category

Assessed EDE (mSv)

Work Category Avg Hours No of Dust No. of Avg Bq
Worked Samples Badges Intake Int. Ext. Total
2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 837 68 122 16 0.2 0.5 0.6
3 Administrative Services 994 0 31 0 0.0 0.6 0.6
4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 857 49 118 272 1.6 0.5 2.1
7A Dry Plant Operator 614 188 167 389 1.6 0.6 2.2
7B Shift Coordinator 655 36 157 59 0.4 0.6 1.0
7C Shift Services Operator 774 28 59 104 0.9 0.6 1.5
7D Wet Plant Operator 479 25 136 90 0.5 0.6 1.1
Total: 7 394 790 *
those categories.
Work Category Assessed EDE (mSv)
3 Administrative Services
4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant
7C Shift Services Operator
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

mSv
External Dose Internal Dose
Table 4.24.: Report 24. EDE by work category
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 24. EDE by work category
Number of Pages

Description
Avg hours Worked Number of badges used in work category for period
No of Dust Samples Minimum external exposure in work category for period
No of Badges Estimated number of badges used for each work category
Avg Bq Intake Estimated dust activity for an average person in each work
category
Int Assessed EDE Estimated internal dose for an average person in each work
category
Ext Assessed EDE Estimated external dose for an average person in each work
category
Total Assessed EDE Total estimated dose for an average person in each work
category

Table 4.25.: Report 25. EDE statistics by personnel dose
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 25. EDE statistics by personnel dose
Number of Pages
Total Number of Employees and Total Number of Designated Employees
0 to 50+ Number of employees within 12 dose ranges
Average Internal Dose Dose for all Employees/ Designated Employees
Maximum Internal Dose for all Employees/ Designated Employees

Dose
Average External Dose Dose for all Employees/ Designated Employees
Maximum External Dose for all Employees/ Designated Employees

Dose
Report 25. EDE statistics by personnel dose

The purpose of this report is to rank the combined internal/external radiation exposures for the
selected period and compare employees in general with the Designated employees. It shows for the
period, the total number of employees and designated employees. The doses between 0 and 50+
millisivert are grouped and the Àverage Internal/External' and `Maximum Internal/External' can
be compared between groups. Report 25 is required to be included in your Ànnual Occupational
Radiation Report'.
Figure 4.26 on the next page shows the summary and layout of this report.
Report 26. EDE work category dose prediction summary

The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to compare the average hours worked in each
`Work Category', the Àverage EDE', how close that is the the annual limit and the number of hours
it would take working to reach the annual limit. Report 26 is not required to be included in your
Figure 4.28 on page 77 shows the summary and layout of this report.
Figure 4.26.: Report 25. EDE statistics by personnel dose

25. EDE - employee dose statistics

Total Number of Employees: 104
Number of Employees in Dose Range:

(total effective dose)
0 to < 1 mSv: 4
1 to < 5 mSv: 81
5 to < 10 mSv: 19
10 to < 15 mSv: 0
15 to < 20 mSv: 0
20 to < 25 mSv: 0
25 to < 30 mSv: 0
30 to < 35 mSv: 0
35 to < 40 mSv: 0
40 to < 45 mSv: 0
45 to < 50 mSv: 0
50 + mSv: 0
Average Internal Dose: 0.9
Maximum Internal Dose: 5.2
Average External Dose: 2.0
Maximum External Dose: 3.5
Total Number of Designated Employees: 68
Number of Designated Employees in Dose Range:

(total effective dose)
0 to < 1 mSv: 1
1 to < 5 mSv: 45
5 to < 10 mSv: 11
10 to < 15 mSv: 0
15 to < 20 mSv: 0
20 to < 25 mSv: 0
25 to < 30 mSv: 0
30 to < 35 mSv: 0
35 to < 40 mSv: 0
40 to < 45 mSv: 0
45 to < 50 mSv: 0
50 + mSv: 0
Average Internal Dose: 0.8
Maximum Internal Dose: 5.2
Average External Dose: 2.1
Maximum External Dose: 3.2

Figure 4.27.: Report 26. EDE work category dose prediction summary

26. EDE - work category dose prediction summary

Work Category Avg Hours Assessed % Annual Required Hours to

Worked EDE (mSv) Limit reach annual Limit
3 Administrative Services 994 0.6 3 30,818
7A Dry Plant Operator 614 2.2 11 4,956
4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 857 2.1 10 7,357
7B Shift Coordinator 655 1.0 5 11,956
7C Shift Services Operator 774 1.5 8 9,464
2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 837 0.6 3 24,980
7D Wet Plant Operator 479 1.1 5 8,376
Figure 4.28.: Report 26. EDE work category dose prediction summary




Report 27. EDE identify potential designated employee

The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to identify employees who should be `Designated
Employees'. Report 27 is not required to be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
This report is the same as `22. EDE by employee name' except the data is sorted from the highest
to the lowest doses with a cut-o point of 1mSv. it shows currently designated and non-designated
employees.
Figure 4.29 on the next page shows the layout of this report.
Report 28. EDE designated employees

The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to compare doses of `Designated Employees'.
Report 28 is not required to be included in your annual occupational radiation report.
This report is the same as `22. EDE by employee name' except it only lists doses for currently
designated employees. It also shows additional work category information.
Figure 4.30 on page 80 shows the layout of this report.
4.6. Employee work history reports

Report 29. Work History by employee name
The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to check employee work histories/ work hours
are entered correctly. It lists Èmployee Name', `Work Category Code/Description', hours worked
in each category and total hours worked. Report 29 is not required to be included in your Ànnual
Report 30. Work History by employee number

The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to check employee work histories/ work hours
are entered correctly. It lists employee ID Code, Work Category Code/Description, hours worked
in each category and total hours worked. Report 30 is not required to be included in your annual
occupational radiation report. This report is used when employee names need to be kept private.
Report 31. Work History by work category

The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to check the number of employees Boswell has
placed in each Work Category and the average hours they work. Report 31 is not required to be
included in your annual occupational radiation report.
Figure 4.32 on page 83 shows the information listed in this report.
Figure 4.29.: Report 27. EDE identify potential designated employee

27. EDE - identify potential designated employees

Assessed EDE (mSv)

Currently Hours Badge Tot Bq
Employee Designated Work Category Worked Days Intake Int. Ext. Total
Nasher, Ivan K Yes 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,944 1,381 5.2
Yes 7C Shift Services Operator 204 0 0.2
Yes 7D Wet Plant Operator 36 0 0.0
Total 2,184 365 5.5 3.2 8.7
Hollinham, Daemon J No 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,836 753 4.9

No 7D Wet Plant Operator 48 0 0.1
Total 1,884 365 4.9 2.8 7.7
Free, Ted T No 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,572 368 4.2

No 7C Shift Services Operator 72 2 0.1
Total 2,040 365 4.7 2.9 7.6
Bood, Dale D No 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,428 513 3.8

Total 1,860 365 4.3 2.7 7.0
Woods, Steve W Yes 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,404 728 3.7

Total 1,884 365 4.2 2.6 6.8
Barker, Mervin L No 7A Dry Plant Operator 876 0 2.3

No 7C Shift Services Operator 1,452 0 1.8
Total 2,328 365 4.1 2.2 6.3
Thomas, Raymond P No 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,092 967 2.9

No 7C Shift Services Operator 1,080 147 1.3
Total 2,172 274 4.2 2.0 6.2
Tomlinson, Rodney G Yes 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,128 571 3.0

Yes 7B Shift Coordinator 96 0 0.1
Yes 7C Shift Services Operator 24 0 0.0
Total 1,788 365 3.7 2.6 6.2
Middler, Bett R Yes 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,212 514 3.2

Yes 7B Shift Coordinator 288 0 0.2
Total 1,764 365 3.7 2.4 6.1

Figure 4.30.: Report 28. EDE identify potential designated employee



Figure 4.31.: Report 29. Work History by employee name

29. Work History - by employee name

Employee Work Category Hours Total

Worked Hours
Abbott, Peter R 7A Dry Plant Operator 1,368
7D Wet Plant Operator 240
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7D Wet Plant Operator 1,608
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7A Dry Plant Operator
Adams, Frank 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 768

4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 1,152
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 1,920
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant
Anderson, Tobby 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 768

4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 1,152
Ashcraft, Ivan 7A Dry Plant Operator 12

7B Shift Coordinator 420
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7B Shift Coordinator 432
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 00 Terminated
Backshall, Ford J 7A Dry Plant Operator 300
7B Shift Coordinator 12
7D Wet Plant Operator 204
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7D Wet Plant Operator 516
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7B Shift Coordinator
Backsnail, Mort R 7C Shift Services Operator 1,900
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7C Shift Services Operator 1,900
Baker, Peter 7A Dry Plant Operator 204

7C Shift Services Operator 12
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7C Shift Services Operator 216
Banks, Cody 2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 1,350

4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 570
Barker, Mervin L 7A Dry Plant Operator 876

7C Shift Services Operator 1,452
01-Apr-06 31-Mar-07 7C Shift Services Operator 2,328

Table 4.26.: Report 29. Work History by employee name
Date Report Printed

Boswell Version
Company and Site
Name
Report Name 29. Work History by employee name
Number of Pages
names?
Work Category Code Code of Work Categories worked in
Work Category Description of Work Categories worked in
Hours Worked Hours worked in Work Categories
Total Hours total hours worked
Table 4.27.: Report 30. Work History by employee number
Date Report Printed
Boswell Version
Company and Site

Name
Report Name 30. Work History by employee number
Number of Pages
Work Category Code Code of Work Categories worked in
Work Category Description of Work Categories worked in
Hours Worked Hours worked in Work Categories
Total Hours total hours worked
Figure 4.32.: Report 31. Work History by work category

31. Employee Work History - by work category

Work Category Avg Hours No of Employees

Worked Work Category
2 Synthetic Rutile Plant 837 36
3 Administrative Services 994 11
4 Engineering Maintenance - Dry Plant 857 35
7A Dry Plant Operator 614 48
7B Shift Coordinator 655 44
7C Shift Services Operator 774 18
7D Wet Plant Operator 479 36
228

4.7. Individual employee dose reports

Report 32. Ad Hoc Employee Dose by date range
The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to give an employee on request his dust and
radiation exposures for the selected period. Report 32 is not required to be included in your annual
occupational radiation report.
Figure 4.33 on the next page shows the layout of this report.
Report 33. Ad Hoc Employee Dose over each year with company
The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to give an employee on request his dust and
radiation exposures for their term with the company. Report 33 is not required to be included in
your annual occupational radiation report.
Report 34. Employee Monitoring and Exposure Report

The purpose of this report is for the RSO to be able to print out as a batch, the annual exposure
reports for all employees detailing their dust and radiation exposures for the year. A copy of the
relevant page should be forwarded to employees annually.
Figure 4.33.: Report 32. Ad Hoc Employee Dose by date range

32. Ad Hoc Employee Dose - by date range

Employee Name: Abbott, Peter R
Work Category Hours Bq Intake Internal Dose (msv)

Dry Plant Operator 1368 639 3.6
Wet Plant Operator 240 26 0.3
External Exposure:
No. of Days Badges Worn: 365
Assessed EDE (mSv):
Internal: 3.9 ext EDE: 1.9 Total: 5.8

Figure 4.34.: Report 33. Ad Hoc Employee Dose over each year with company

33. Ad Hoc Employee Dose - over each year with company

Employee Name: Ashcraft, Ivan
Work Category Hours Bq Intake Internal Dose (msv)

Terminated 0 0 0.0
Dry Plant Operator 12 6 0.0
Shift Coordinator 420 30 0.3
Shift Services Operator 0 0 0.0
External Exposure:
No. of Days Badges Worn: 275
Assessed EDE (mSv):
Internal: 0.3 extEDE: 0.3 Total: 0.6
Previous Effective Dose Equivalent History

Assessed EDE (mSv)
YearEnd Hours Worked Bq Intake IntEDE extEDE Total
31-Mar-06 1,488 0 7.7 2.8 10.5
31-Mar-05 1,440 123 7.5 4.8 12.3
31-Mar-04 1,632 256 8.3 3.4 11.7
31-Mar-03 1,500 208 13.9 3.6 17.5
31-Mar-02 1,926 249 14.7 4.9 19.5
31-Mar-01 1,795 120 6.8 3.3 10.1
31-Mar-00 1,851 172 12.5 4.1 16.5
31-Mar-99 0 42 0.0 0.0 0.0
31-Mar-98 1,972 38 0.9 1.8 2.7
31-Mar-97 323 0 0.4 0.0 0.4
31-Mar-96 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
31-Mar-95 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
31-Mar-94 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
31-Mar-93 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
31-Mar-92 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Figure 4.35.: Report 34. Employee Monitoring and Exposure Report

34. Employee Monitoring and Exposure Report
Radiation Exposure Results for Peter Abbott
Dust Sampling Results

Filter Start Date End Date mg/m³ mBq/m³ MDL WC Comments
NM-4779 05-Jul-06 05-Jul-06 4.44 279.12 16.40 7A
NM-4888 12-Dec-06 12-Dec-06 11.33 1,245.31 12.65 7A investigated - Loss Control card
EMW77795
NM-4909 19-Dec-06 19-Dec-06 2.53 278.51 12.60 7A
NM-4920 27-Dec-06 27-Dec-06 1.96 274.25 13.79 7A
NM-5037 29-Jan-07 29-Jan-07 2.45 313.75 16.65 7A
NM-5056 05-Feb-07 05-Feb-07 3.40 370.20 16.77 7A
NM-5093 13-Feb-07 13-Feb-07 4.02 485.38 12.37 7A
NM-5142 01-Mar-07 01-Mar-07 0.28 26.84 16.93 7D
For comparison, over the same monitoring period, site employee's dust readings ranged from 0 mg/m³ to 23 mg/m³ and averaged 3 mg/m³. Dust
radioactivity ranged from 10 mBq/m³ to 3084 mBq/m³ and averaged 217 mBq/m³. Dust readings of 10 mg/m³ or more and dust radioactivity above
800 mBq/m³ are investigated and reported to DMP.
Radiation Badge Results
Badge Date Issued Date Returned µSv Comments

613-83505 01-Apr-06 30-Jun-06 280
626-30455 01-Jul-06 30-Sep-06 450
639-68840 01-Oct-06 31-Dec-06 650
652-9980 01-Jan-07 31-Mar-07 480
For comparison, over the same monitoring period, site employee's badge results ranged from 10 µSv to 1100 µSv and averaged 558 µSv. Any
unusually high results are investigated and reported to DMP.
Estimated Radiation Exposure

Assessed EDE (mSv)
Designated Hours Badge Tot Bq
Employee Work Category Worked Days Intake Int. Ext. Total
7A Dry Plant Operator 1,368 761 3.6
Total 1,608 365 769 3.9 1.9 5.8
For comparison, over the same monitoring period, site employee's internal radiation exposures reached a maximum of 5.2 mSv and averaged 0.9 mSv.
Site employee's external radiation exposures reached a maximum of 3.5 mSv and averaged 2.0 mSv. Any unusually high results are investigated and
reported to DMP and the Radiological Council.

A. Appendix Annual Occupational Radiation

Report
Printouts of the following Boswell Reports and a copy of boswellData.mdb on CD should be included
in the annual occupational radiation report:
04. Personal Dust - rad/grav by employee number

06. Personal Dust - rad/grav by month & work category
07. Personal Dust - rad/grav 5 years & work category
08. Personal Dust - rad/grav statistics
11. Area Dust - rad/grav by area
12. Area Dust - rad/grav by month & area
13. Area Dust - rad/grav areas over 5 years
14. Area Dust - rad/grav statistics
18. External Exposure by employee number
19. External Exposure by work category
20. External Exposure work category over 5 years
21. External Exposure statistics
23. EDE by employee number
24. EDE by work category
25. EDE statistics by personnel dose
For more information on annual occupational reporting, please refer to the Guideline NORM6
Reporting and notifying.
B. Appendix User Instructions

B.1. Quick start
If you are familiar with the old MIDAS program, then you should have a fair idea how to use Boswell.
Boswell is very user friendly and provided you have an understanding of your radiation monitoring
program, you should have no diculty using it.
The important part is to ensure you are entering the correct data and enter it is the correct sequence.
If you examine your old MIDAS data in Boswell, as you look through it you are bound to see the
odd data entry errors, wrong dates, duplicated records, misspelled names they are much easier to
spot.
To get started,
1. Enter the data in the correct order
2. Make sure the items in the Listings Menu are up to date
3. Complete the Area Dust
4. Complete the Employee Dust
5. Complete Exposure BadgeResults
6. Before running reports, ensure the Employee History is up to date
If the your Reports look strange, check the data. If you have any questions on forms or elds, press
F1 for help on the topic.
B.2. Menus
The menus are organised so that each form is listed in the order it should be used
Listings Menu
Entity Name
Air Sampler Holders
Sampling Equipment Codes
Air Sampler Pumps
Conversion Factors
Area Locations
Area Codes
Location Codes
Work Categories
Respiratory Protection

Radiation Counters
Radiation Calibration
Main Menu
Area Dust
Employee
Previous Experience
Badge Data
Employee Dust
Employee History
Reports
CONTAM Download
B.3. Toolbars
There are three main types of tool bars used in Boswell forms.
B.3.1. Main Screen

Allows access to tools located on the:
1. Data Tools menu
These tools are used to interact with the

backend data le boswellData.mdb
Refresh or connect to the data tables
Compact the data - remove any deleted

data and recover space
Zip or backup the mdb le to a safe

location or a CD
Unzip the backup data
Run the WinZip program (you must

install this yourself )
Upload Data to DMP with the web

upload facility
2. Windows menu
Allows viewing of other already opened windows
3. Help Menu
Tip of the day settings
B.3.2. Data Entry Screens

This tool bar contains the most number of tools which includes:

1. Use data
Close
File and Printing Tools
Edit, Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete, Select, Search
Freeze
Unfreeze columns
Filter on/o
Change lters
2. Move and paste data
Cut/Copy/Paste/Undo
3. Change the sorting order
Sorting A-Z, Z-A
4. Quick Filters
Create special lters to sort data
5. Search
Search for or replace specic data
6. Windows
Change to other opened window views
7. Help
Microsoft Access Help

Boswell Help
Tip of the Day
B.3.3. Report Screen

This menu bar contains the printing tools:-
Print
Pages
Magnify
Layout
Export
Export to Word
Email report
Help

B.4. Useful Shortcut Keys (All versions of Access)

Note: Plus signs indicate ànd', to press two keys together. You do not want to actually press the
+ sign on your keyboard. For example, CTRL+P indicates to press the CTRL key and with it still
held down, press the P.
B.4.1. Fields
CTRL+ ; Insert today's date
CTRL+ : Insert the current time
CTRL+ Enter Insert a carriage return in a memo or text eld
CTRL+ ' Insert the data from the same eld in the previous record
ESC Undo the changes you have made to the current eld
ESC ESC (press ESC twice) Undo the changes you have made to the current record
CTRL+F Find and replace
CTRL+C Copy
CTRL+P Paste
CTRL+Z Undo
CTRL+S Save
CTRL+P Print
B.4.2. Help
F1- To display the Oce Assistant and Microsoft Access Help
SHIFT+F1 To display ScreenTips;
Find and Replace
CTRL+H To open the Replace tab in the Find and Replace dialogue box
SHIFT+F4 To nd the next occurrence of the text specied in the Find and Replace dialogue box
B.4.3. Window Operations

F11 or ALT+F1 To bring the Database window to the front
CTRL+F6 To cycle between open windows
ENTER To restore the selected minimised window when all windows are minimised
CTRL+F8 To turn on Re-size mode for the active window when its not maximised; press the arrow
keys to re-size the window
ALT+SPACEBAR To display the Control menu
SHIFT+F10 To display the shortcut menu
CTRL+W or CTRL+F4 To close the active window
B.4.4. Miscellaneous
F7 To check spelling
SHIFT+F2 To open the Zoom box to conveniently enter expressions and other text in small input
areas
ALT+F4 To quit Microsoft Access, close a dialogue box, or close a property sheet
B.4.5. Records
With a record selected in the Datasheet view
Select an entire row by pressing Shift+Spacebar
Select the entire datasheet, press Ctrl+Shift+Spacebar.
Note: You must have a record selected (highlighted) before using these shortcuts.
B.4.6. Exploding Fields

When you're editing a data eld, you can get an exploded view of the eld by pressing Shift + F2.
B.5. Tip of the Day

The Tip of the Day provides hints about working in Boswell. By default, the Tip of the Day appears
each time you launch Boswell. Deselect Show tips at startup in the Tip of the Day dialogue box if
you do not want to see the Tip of the Day every time Boswell launches. You can also choose Tip of
the Day in the Help menu to see the Tip of the Day.

B.6. Microsoft Access

B.6.1. Refreshing Links to boswellData.mdb
If the tables are not linked automatically for some reason, you must perform this operation manually.
There is a button on the Tool Bar that you can

press to run the Link Macro.
Possible Problem Sometimes you may need to refresh each table individually due to something
going wrong with the process. There are twenty-one linked tables, so you need to patient and be
sure no tables are missed.
B.6.2. Compacting the Database
From time to time, the `Backend' (Boswell data

le) will need to be compacted when the le
gets very large, over 10 MB for example. This
is due to deleted les and the operations of
Access taking up and wasting space. The le
can be tidied and the size reduced.
The `Frontend' (Boswell program le) is
automatically compacted on closure.
A check of the backend le size before and after will conrm compaction has been accomplished.
Important!
Backup boswellData.mdb before proceeding with the backup facility in the Tools Menu.
B.6.3. Backup Facility

Boswell has inbuilt tools to compress or uncompress the boswellData.mdb le using Zip for backup
purposes or for e-mailing the le to DMP.
There is a choice for Zipping the le or not. Usually, it is best to compress the le to save storage
space.
The location for storing the le is selected,

It is just a matter of following the prompts and the le are named automatically using the date for
versioning
and the le is created in the location selected.
B.6.4. Known issues

B.6.4.1. Windows time format
Boswell stores the date and the time for the dust sampling pumps in date/time elds. If your
Windows time format setting in Control Panel is dierent from that shown below, it impossible
to enter the correct sampling time in Access. The date/time format cannot be remedied in Access,
rather the settings must be changed in Windows.

C. Appendix DMP File Transfer Facility

C.1. How to use download.doir.wa.gov.au
C.1.1. Using a web browser outside the department
1. Using a web browser, browse to: https://download.doir.wa.gov.au/thinclient.
2.
At the login panel, user either an internal user account, or an external user account.
After login, the web client should be presented as below.
3. Using the navigation and upload/download buttons, users can transfer les and out of their
MFT home folder. Note that users can only navigate downwards in the folder structure, into
shared folders and folders that they create they cannot navigate upwards from their home
folder, which actually appears as the folder root ( / ).
C.1.1.1. Downloading Files
Files visible for download are simply clicked to initiate the download one at a time
Alternately, multiple les can be selected for simultaneous download:
NOTE: This functionality isn't supported by default for Internet Explorer (a registry
change may allow it), but may work for other non-Microsoft browsers.
C.1.1.2. Uploading Files
Click the Upload Files button

Browse to and select one or more les to be uploaded
Once the upload has complete, a message will be displayed
Uploaded les will be virus-scanned as soon as they are uploaded. If they are detected as
harbouring malware or viruses, they will be immediately and silently removed from view
by the user.
C.1.2. Limits and Restrictions

The following limits and restrictions are in place for this facility:
Item Limit
Storage limit per user 2Gb per user but server storage limits will prevent all users
from simultaneously reaching this limit
Upload size limit 1000Mb per session
Download size limit No limit imposed by this system
Self-created folders per user No known limit
File types allowable No restriction (pending review)
Virus/malware scanning Performed after upload if a le is infected it will be
quarantined and will be silently removed from view from the
user(s)
Download/Upload protocols Only http and https are supported
File retention period Files will be purged after 40 days
C.2. Data Condentiality

Once a user is enabled for access to this facility, they can transfer les using their internal account
from within the department or from outside the department.
This facility should be used by users only in ways that align with departmental expectations of data
condentiality. This is covered through the IT induction process and the IT systems access policy.
The availability of this facility does not remove the obligation on sta to ensure that document
condentiality is maintained.
C.3. How to setup a transfer facility between two users

By default, a user has access to their home folder only. To allow transfer of les with another user,
a shared folder must be established between them.
The transfer should be between an internal user and an external user it would not be expected to
establish a transfer area for two external users or two internal users.
A shared folder appears as a sub-folder in each of the two users home folders
The process to establish a shared folder includes both Service Desk tasks and Systems Administrator
tasks and is outlined below:
Step Task Done by
1 Identify the internal user account (MIxxxyy) Service Desk

2 Identify the external user account (EXxxxx) Service Desk
This will likely be advised or identied by the internal user
since they would be the expected instigator of this
requirement
3 Create SR with the user details and assign to Service Desk
_ADMINISTRATORS, SYSTEM
4 Perform the procedure: System Admin
Inframation → Applications → MFT → Operational
Procedures → Create Two-User Shared area
5 Return the SR to _DESK, SERVICE advising the name System Admin
of the shared folder
6 Advise the internal user that the facility is in place and that Service Desk
the shared folder will be visible in each of the two users'
home folders when using the web client.
The internal user would be expected to liaise with the
external user accordingly on les to transfer.
Note that the above conguration will allow both the internal user and the external user
to both have update access to the shared folder, although other variations are possible
(e.g. internal user having update access and the external user having read-only access).
C.4. How to setup a transfer facility between groups of users

A common scenario would be to allow regular transfer of les from an internal user or users, to
multiple external users.
The process to establish a shared folder includes both Service Desk tasks and Systems Administrator
tasks:
Step Task Done by

1 Identify the purpose or function of this folder and Service Desk
propose a name for it, eg VGO (for les to be
transferred to the Valuer General's Oce)
Ensure that the name is appropriate for visibility to
external clients
2 Identify the internal user accounts Service Desk

(MIxxxy1, MIxxxy2, etc)
3 Create a new File Share security group in UMC Service Desk
named in the format below:
MFT_<name>
Where <name> is the negotiated folder name above
e.g. MFT_VGO
If more complex requirements are identied, such as
the external users being only able to download only
and not upload, then multiple groups may be
needed. Create these as necessary using the special
requirement as a sux on the group name:
e.g. MFT_VGO_Download
Populate these groups wiut
4 Identify the external user accounts Service Desk
(EXxxxx2, EXxxxx2, etc)
These will likely be advised or identied by an
internal user since they would be the expected
instigator of this requirement
Add the external users to the appropriate security
group(s) created in the previous step.
5 Create SR with the group details and assign to Service Desk
_ADMINISTRATORS, SYSTEM
6 Perform the procedure: System Admin
Inframation →Applications →MFT →Operational
Procedures →Create Group Shared area TBA
7 Return the SR to _DESK, SERVICE advising that System Admin
the group folder has been provisioned and secured.
8 Advise the internal user that the facility is in place Service Desk
and that the shared group folder will be visible in
each of the users' home folders when using the web
client.
The internal user would be expected to liaise with
the external users accordingly on les to transfer.
C.5. Application Programming Interfaces

The following programming interfaces are dened for the MFT for use by internally-developed ap-
plications leveraging the MFT.
C.5.1. Email Notication facility

Emails can be generated by placing a control le into the download folder. A scheduled task will
detect the control le and generate a notication email accordingly.
The control le has to be called notify.dat and contain content with the following format:
[MFTEMAIL]
Subject = DMP Managed File Transfer.
Owners = jason.parry@dmp.wa.gov.au
Recipients = someuser@iinet.com.au,user2@google.com
From = MFT@dmp.wa.gov.au
Key = vgokey
Property Comment
Subject Will appear as the email's subject .

Owners Internal users who'll be emailed the same messages as the
recipients and also any admin related messages. Comma
delimited
Recipients External users who the email will be sent to. Comma
delimited.
From Will appear in the email's from eld.
Key Eectively a password that will be used to provide some
very basic security to the process.
Any new folders set up will require a new key that will need to be requested from the system admin
team.
The detail for the email is a combination of:
Information provided in notify.dat
Information from the server based conguration le.
A listing of the les in the download folder.
Example. Extract from server based conguration le.
[BODY]
The following les are now ready to be downloaded:
[FOOTER]
Managed File Transfer
Department of Mines & Petroleum/Department of State Development
100 Plain Street, East Perth, WA 6004
Sample email:

Bibliography
[2] Mines Safety & Inspection Act, 1994

[3] STROM, D.J.; Stansbury, P. S. Minimum detectable activity when background is counted longer
than the sample. Health Physics. 63:360-361, 1992.
[4] Grantham, David. Simplied Monitoring Strategies. Australian Institute of Occupational Hygie-
nists Inc, 2001.
Index
Access, 2, 5 IBM PC, 3
Access 2000, 5 Ivan Fetwadjie, 3
Access 2003, 5
listings menu, 89
Access 2007, 5
location code, 12
Access XP, 5
air sampler holder, 10
main screen, 90
air sampler pump, 10
Microsoft DOS, 3
annual report, 8
Microsoft Windows, 2
area (log)normal probability plot, 59
MIDAS, 3, 89
area code, 12
MINEHEALTH, 15, 16
area dust, 19
monitored person, 8
area frequency histograms, 55
QA report, 26
backing up data, 91, 97
quick data lters, 92
Boswell help, 93
quick start, 89
Boswell user licence, 6
boswellData.mdb, 6, 91, 97 rad/grav statistics, 53
BoswellFrontend2000.mdb, 6 radiation badge, 8, 16
BOSWELLHELP.HLP, 6 radiation calibration, 19
BoswellImage.EMF, 6 radiation counter, 10, 12
BoswellLogo.ico, 6 radiation history, 16
Radiation Industry Group, 3
calibration, 12
radiation monitoring program, 12, 89
compacting data, 91, 97
radiation year, 8, 16
CONTAM, 5, 10, 12
refreshing data le links, 96
copyright notice, 6
respiratory protection, 12
Cute PDF, 5
searching data, 92
data rules, 8 shortcut keys, 94
database les, 3 software maintainer, 3
datatypes, 3
DBase IV, 3 tables, 3
designated employee, 15 Tip of the Day, 6, 93, 95
DMP, 3, 15, 91 toolbars, 90
dose conversion factor, 10

unfreezing columns, 92
dust concentration, 39, 52
Unzip32.dll, 6
dust monitoring, 5
using Unzip, 91
EntityName, 8 using Zip, 91
exposure badge, 5
values, 3
FactorySunset.bmp, 6
work category, 10
elds, 3
work history, 78
ltering data, 92
freezing columns, 92 zip32.dll, 6
107

Managing Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Mining and Mineral Processing Guideline PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Mining and Mineral Processing Guideline PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in

mining and mineral processing  guideline

Applying the system of radiation protection to mining operations

Published February 2010

A. Appendix listing referenced organisations and documents 20

Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum iii

B. Appendix on Radiation Safety Ocer requirements 29

C. Appendix on uranium mining approval process 31

A.1. Radiation protection knowledge and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C.1. Simple owchart showing mining approvals process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum v

1. Summarise the system of radiation protection as recommended by the International Commis-

 implementing best practicable technology to reduce exposure and contamination levels.

1. Mining and processing of uranium.

2. Mining and processing of heavy mineral sands.

3. Mining and processing of rare earth elements.

5. Production of oil and gas.

6. Manufacture of titanium dioxide pigment.

7. The phosphate industry.

8. The zircon and zirconia industry.

9. Production of tin, tantalum, copper, aluminium, iron and steel.

10. Geothermal energy generation.

Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum 1

3. Evidence of detriment or lack of detriment to the environment after the commencement of

4. The physical location of the mine and/or the processing plant.

6. The potential long term hazards from the wastes.

Controlled area as per Regulation 16.12 [1] means an area where:

Dose constraint means a level of dose, in relation to an employee, as determined by Regulation

NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) means material containing no signicant

2. The state of knowledge about:

a) the injury or harm to health or the environment referred to in paragraph (1).

b) the risk of that injury or harm to health or the environment occurring.

1. An exposure to an individual or a known sub-group of individuals which arises from an un-

Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum 3

1.4. Relationship to other NORM guidelines

Figure 1.1.: Relationship to other NORM guidelines

System of radiation protection in mines (NORM-1)

Exploration (NORM-2.1) Mining and processing (NORM-2.2)

Monitoring Controlling Assessing Reporting and

Pre-operational Dust control Dose Reporting

Operational monitoring Management of

Nuclear Energy Agency[6]

2.1.1. History of radiation protection

Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum 5

1900 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) founded.

1906 Pierre Curies dies in trac accident.

1925 First International Congress of Radiology, London, establishes ICRU.

1928 ICRU adopts the roentgen as unit of exposure.

1934 ICRP recommends daily tolerance dose.

1941 ACXRP recommends rst permissible body burden, for radium.

1949 NCRP publishes recommendations and introduces risk/benet concept.

1956 International Atomic Energy Agency organized under United Nations.

1964 International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) formed.

1977 ICRP Publication 26,  Recommendations of the ICRP.

1978 ICRP Publication 30,  Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers.

2.1.2. ICRP recommendations

There are three categories of radiation exposure in the ICRP system:

The basic principles of radiological protection are:

Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum 7

Figure 2.2.: Application of the System of Radiation Protection in Mines

Engineering Administrative Processes

Classifying Radiation Developing

Radiation Classification Classification Special Safe Work

mining and mineral processing guideline

B. Appendix on Radiation Safety Ocer requirements 29

C.1. Simple owchart showing mining approvals process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

implementing best practicable technology to reduce exposure and contamination levels.

NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) means material containing no signicant

1906 Pierre Curies dies in trac accident.

1941 ACXRP recommends rst permissible body burden, for radium.

1949 NCRP publishes recommendations and introduces risk/benet concept.

1977 ICRP Publication 26, Recommendations of the ICRP.

1978 ICRP Publication 30, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers.

infrastructure. For this reason, specication of radiation protection standards to be achieved in

1. Classication of working conditions and workplaces.

2.4.1.2. Classication of restricted areas

2.4.1.3. Classication of supervised areas

2.4.2. Classication of employees and dose constraints

maintenance of metallurgical plants processing radioactive materials may be classied as designated

2.4.2.2. Dose constraint for oce and support services sta

operations undertaken for the environmental rehabilitation of an exploration, mining and/or

Where an exploration, mining and/or processing operation is implementing a specic campaign,

These are outlined in further detail in NORM6 Reporting requirements.