1. SMOPIE - Work packages 2 and 3 Industry case studies and workplace categorisation
Peter Shaw, HPA-RPD, UK

2. SMOPIE: Case Studies and Partners

3. Process materials: Bq/g

4. Industry Characteristics
Large scale processes
Dusty (in parts)
Many process steps
mechanical plant
manual tasks
multi-tasking
All have workplace/individual monitoring
all do air sampling (personal and/or static)

5. Personal air sampling (PAS)
for dose estimates - UK1, UK2 and N1 (and F1)
shift and task sampling
radiometric and gravimetric
Static air sampling (SAS)
for dose estimates - F1 and N2
reassurance monitoring and particle size (N1)
Real-time dust sampling (RTDM)
SMOPIE surveys (not dose assessment)
gravimetric and optical (particle counting)

6. Annual internal doses - Inhalation

7. Results and conclusions from different case studies
Each case study is different
Annex 2 to Main Report
A lot of information
strategies and methods
results
advantages and limitations
practical tips
Just a small selection in this presentation

8. UK1 - Zircon sand, grinding and milling
Existing dust monitoring programme for many years (PAS)
UK industrial hygiene regulations
accepted by workers
Results used to assess radiation doses
Provided limited ALARA information
dusty areas and tasks
long terms trends
More sampling recommended

9. UK1 - Real-time dust monitoring
Specifically for the SMOPIE project
200 measurements in 2 days
complete “map” of workplace
day-to-day changes
short-term variations
localised dust levels
dust sources
tasks
leaking pipes/vessels
exhaust air from extractors
cleaning machine!

10. UK1 R-T dust results - by location

11. UK1 R-T dust results - time variations

12. F1. Case Study - U concentrate conversion
Comhurex, Malvési
Different to other case studies
activity concentration much higher
radiation protection (nuclear) background rather than industrial hygiene
Extensive monitoring programme
SAS, urine and lung
Focus on first step in the process
sampling drums of U concentrates

13. F1. PAS campaign - sampling stage
Drum unbanding/rebanding
SAS v PAS
both produce same rankings of dusty areas
PAS doses times higher
important factors
sampler location
time profile of dust
source of dust

14. Improvements to filling station
F1 Case study
Improvements to filling station
hopper modified to prevent over-filling
containment installed
Effectiveness demonstrated by PAS (task)
Problems with 1 drum type (from PAS/SAS)
Real-time (optical) particle counting
showing contamination peaks
Further improvements at filling station
drum handling equipment
new (confined) rebanding station

15. F1. RT sampling inside filling station

16. N1 - phosphorus production

17. N1. Monitoring programme
Focus on precipitator dust
Leaching tests
lung class S
PAS (on 2% of shifts)
alpha/beta counting
3 week delay
5 day count
245 results from

18. Doses categorised according to type of work
N1 - PAS results
Doses categorised according to type of work
0.1 to 2.8 mSv/y
mean = 1.2 mSv/y
Statistical uncertainties are important
worker variation is greater than task variation
varied work patterns
changing air concentrations
Only cleaners (2.8 mSv/y) and control room ( mSv/y) show significant difference

19. Conclusions from WP2 Case Studies Categorisation of workplaces
A strict categorisation is not helpful
Instead focus on characteristics common to ALL case studies
multiple dust sources, from machinery and workers
airborne dust is always present
dust levels always varying with space and time
working patterns are complex and often change

20. Conclusions from WP2 Case Studies Monitoring strategies
To implement ALARA
assessment of internal dose, and
information on how/where doses arise
requires a combination of monitoring techniques
Air sampling is better than other methods
dose assessment and ALARA information
Sampling uncertainties
are significant
are not considered enough in practice

21. Conclusions from WP2 Case Studies Monitoring strategies
PAS
provides best estimate of worker doses
SAS
to check doses are low (reassurance)
underestimates, always compare with PAS
Real-time
not for dose assessment
only suitable in certain workplaces
can provide best ALARA information

22. SMOPIE - WP3 Categorisation of exposure situations
Case studies indicated that categorisation was not helpful
Same conclusions apply in all cases
Some other factors to consider
gravimetric analysis requires constant Bq/g
alpha/beta counting requires contant radionuclide ratios
Bq/g and dose coefficent influence choice of analysis method (sensitivity)