Might be worth a look at the NORM guidelines and strategy
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strategy-for-the-management-of-naturally-occurring-radioactive-material-norm-waste-in-the-united-kingdom
Roy Wares
Vancouver, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Boyce
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Radioactive sample preparation
Apologies - the amendment to the legislation in my reply to Simon was not
added to first email….
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: The Mineral Deposits Studies Group listserver
<[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Adrian Boyce
<[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: The Mineral Deposits Studies Group listserver
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 12:03
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Radioactive sample preparation
>Hi Simon,
>
>My colleague Prof David Sanderson at SUERC offers the following advice:
>
>The query raises interesting and potentially complex issues.
>One relates to the difference between legally radioactive materials, and
>the radiation which they emit, and exempt materials. These are dealt with
>through the Radioactive Substances Acts, and their 2011 amendments (the
>Scottish part of which is attached). Another relates to control of
>occupational exposure to ionising radiation, which in Europe is defined by
>the EC Basic safety Directive, and in the UK by the Ionising Radiation
>Regulations (for which there is HSE guidance). Finally there are the
>overarching principles of radiation protection where regardless of
>statutary limitations it is expect6ed that work with radioactive or
>ionising material will be (i) justified, (ii) optimised and (iii) limited.
>A. Issues for these naturally occurring materials include whether the
>material is, from a legal (as opposed to practical) perspective considered
>to be radioactive. RSA 93 and its 2011 amendments are the key here, and do
>carry implicat6ions for the ways in which they need tobe handled and
>associated work such as preparation of thin sections) would need to be
>conducted. In Scotland SEPA would be the authority to consult, and in
>England the environment agency. Taking their advice on the material would
>be a starting point. If it¹s not formally radioactive, then the regulatory
>issues turn on radiation protection and occupational exposure. So my first
>advise would be to determine whether the material is to be treated as
>radioactive.
>B. In terms of ionising radiation exposure the IRR¹s require practices
>involving occupational exposure to be risk assessed, and for the
>organisation to have a radiation protection adviser in place (RPA). First
>step here would be to consider whether the thin section lab has an RPA,
>and seek their formal advice on how to manage such activities. There is a
>paradox in that natural radioactivity is not considered as part of the
>controlled radiation exposure. Radioactive minerals where the radiation
>arises from natural sources are arguably anomalous. Although common sense
>suggests that additional doses should be treated in the same way as if
>they came from an x-ray source or a synthetic radioactive material. In
>England there is case law against the Natural History Museum concerning
>public exposure to radioactive minerals on display. Whether this was a
>sensible verdict, and also whether it sets precedent in other parts of the
>UK is open to question. But in effect this could be taken to imply that it
>would be foolish to rely on exemption orders for natural materials in
>defining how to deal with such situations
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1173070.stm
>C. If therefore we put aside the question as to whether the material is
>legally radioactive, and also whether its radiation and radioactivity
>risks fall within IRR¹s, we are left with the overarching principles of
>radiation protection. Which start with the working assumption that all
>radiation exposure (above background) has potential harm associated with
>it. The first stage would be to justify the activity which might lead to
>exposure (ie balance the value of the thin sections against the detriment
>of the radiation dose received to produce them). This should be recorded
>in a risk assessment. The second stage would be to optimise the process.
>Which would involve consideration of what physical and procedural means
>could be used to minimise the radiation exposure (taking account in the UK
>of the 10-20 microSievert per year limit of optimisation, and the dose
>constraint concept of 300 microSieverts per year from a single
>activities). Taking precautions to avoid ingestion of radionuclides as
>well as minimising direct radiation exposure would also seem sensible. The
>final stage would be to demonstrate that statutory dose limits (which is
>where the 1 mSv per year comes in) are not being breached.
>I can imagine that thin section laboratories might prefer to avoid
>confronting this potentially confusing and onerous system. If it were
>Glasgow I would suggest that the correct approach is to start with the
>RPA, and if necessary consult SEPA. Are there any other hazards associated
>with preparation of thin sections or mineral samples containing
>radioactivity? For example toxicity? These presumably should also be risk
>assessment and appropriate measures put in place.
>Hoping this helps.
>David
>David C.W. Sanderson
>Professor of Environmental Physics,
>SUERC,
>Rankine Avenue,
>East Kilbride G75 OQF
>Tel 01355 270110
>Fax 01355 223332
>
>A further take on it would be to talk to BGS, as they will undoubtedly
>have worked with monazite a lot (especially in their isotope labs at
>NIGL). An initial contact would be Ian Millar ([log in to unmask]). Clearly
>talking to Exeter¹s RPA and the EA is also warranted.
>
>Hope this all helpsŠ.
>
>Adrian
>
>
>Adrian Boyce
>Professor of Applied Geology
>Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre
>East Kilbride
>Glasgow
>G75 0QF
>Tel direct: 44 (0)1355 270 143
>Mobile: 44 (0)791 252 1434
>
>http://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/suerc/ourstaff/boyceadrian/
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adrian_Boyce
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Mineral Deposits Studies Group listserver
><[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Sam Broom-Fendley
><[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Mineral Deposits Studies Group listserver
><[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 16:45
>To: "[log in to unmask]"
><[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Radioactive sample preparation
>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>We are having some hiccups preparing some naturally occurring radioactive
>>samples in our thin section lab, such as monazite-bearing carbonatites
>>and some alkaline granite samples (dose rate of 0.6--5 uSv/hr). I was
>>wondering if any members of the community could impart some advice?
>>
>>Firstly, when assessing samples for radioactivity, what 'cut-off' levels
>>do you have in your labs, and how are they calculated? We work from the
>>UK HSE 1999 guidelines where no member of the public can obtain 1 mSv of
>>radiation, above their normal background dose, over the course of a year.
>>To assess the potential impact of an individual sample, we therefore
>>measure the dose-rate in uSv/hr and multiply this by 1650 hours. From
>>this we obtain the equivalent dose if the sample was worked with every
>>working day in a year. If this value is above 1 mSv, currently, we do not
>>proceed with any sample preparation (thin sectioning, crushing, etc.).
>>This cut-off works out at around 0.65 uSv/hr for any sample.
>>
>>This cut-off has the advantage that a user of the thin-section lab will
>>never receive >1 mSv in a year. However, it has the downside that many
>>samples simply cannot be prepared in-house. Any advice on how you assess
>>the radioactivity of samples, and the levels above which these samples
>>cannot be worked on, would be helpful.
>>
>>Secondly, if you do prepare radioactive samples, what control measures do
>>you put in place? For example, do you have completely separate equipment
>>and dust filters for naturally-occurring radioactive samples? Do you
>>apply a varying range of control measures depending on the activity of
>>the sample? Any advice here would be very welcome.
>>
>>Lastly, do any of you know any thin-section labs which will prepare
>>material in the range of 0.6-5 uSv/hr?
>>
>>Many Thanks,
>>
>>Sam Broom-Fendley
>>
>>_________________________________________
>>
>>Dr. Sam Broom-Fendley,
>>Research fellow in geology,
>>University of Exeter, Camborne School of Mines.
>>
>>Room 3129,
>>University of Exeter, Penryn Campus,
>>Cornwall,
>>TR10 9FE
>>
>>https://emps.exeter.ac.uk/csm/staff/slb241
>>http://www.bgs.ac.uk/sosRare/home.html
>>
>>Twitter: @SoSRare
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>-----
>>Geo-mineralisation is administered by the Mineral Deposits Studies Group
>>(UK)
>>(www.mdsg.or.uk)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>Geo-mineralisation is administered by the Mineral Deposits Studies Group
>(UK)
>(www.mdsg.or.uk)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geo-mineralisation is administered by the Mineral Deposits Studies Group
(UK)
(www.mdsg.or.uk)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geo-mineralisation is administered by the Mineral Deposits Studies Group (UK)
(www.mdsg.or.uk)
|