1 / 54

Industrial Radiography Setting the Scene

Industrial Radiography Setting the Scene. Richard van Sonsbeek HSQE Manager Applus RTD richard.vansonsbeek@applusrtd.com. Industrial Radiography. A method of Non-Destructive Testing Radiation sources: Radioactive sources X-ray tubes Linear accelerators Location:

margaretthomas
Download Presentation

Industrial Radiography Setting the Scene

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Industrial RadiographySetting the Scene Richard van Sonsbeek HSQE Manager Applus RTD richard.vansonsbeek@applusrtd.com

  2. Industrial Radiography • A method of Non-Destructive Testing • Radiation sources: • Radioactive sources • X-ray tubes • Linear accelerators • Location: • Shielded enclosures / Radiation Bunkers • In the field / customer site • Onshore / offshore

  3. Industries that apply RT / NDT • Petrochemical Plants • Transport Pipelines • Power Generation • Offshore industries • Aerospace industries • Military defense • Marine industries • Waste Management • Automotive industries • Manufacturing industries • Transport industries | 3

  4. Classification of “exposure devices” according to their mobility

  5. Categorization of “exposure devices” according to the way the source is exposed

  6. Class P, Category I Exposure Device

  7. Category II Exposure Device

  8. Class P, Category II Exposure Device

  9. Class M, Category II Exposure Device

  10. Gamma Radiography Exposure Device

  11. Relevant Standards • ISO 3999 • Radiation protection - Apparatus for industrial gamma radiography - Specifications for performance, design and tests • IAEA-SSR-6 • Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material • ISO 2919 • Radiation protection – Sealed radioactive sources – General requirements and classification • IAEA SSG-11 • SSG-11: Radiation Safety in Industrial Radiography

  12. Radioactive sources – Energy and Thickness

  13. Radioactive Sources – Activities and Dose Rates

  14. X-ray Radiography Equipment • Typical specification: • 300 kVp • 6 mA • Dosisrate (@ 1 m) 6 tot 20 Sv/h

  15. X-raycrawler

  16. Linear Accelerator WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  17. Digital Radiography • Radiographic image = x-ray image (film photography) • RTR = Real Time Radiography = direct x-ray image | 17

  18. RTD RAYSCAN • Characteristics: • Real time • No crawler • Collimated beam • Lead shielded system High radiation safety! | 18

  19. Spoolbase Production Facility | 19

  20. Landline | 20

  21. Collimators

  22. Diaphrams

  23. Lead slabs

  24. Site Radiography – Gamma RadiographyTypical Stages during Normal Exposure • Storage of gamma source in storage facility • Movement of gamma source from store to vehicle • Transport of gamma source in vehicle to field location / client site • Movement of gamma source from vehicle to work site • Exposure(s) (after set up of equipment • Wind-out (gamma source in guide tube)  Highest Dose Rate • Exposure (gamma source in collimator) • Wind-in (gamma source in guide tube)  Highest Dose Rate • Movement of gamma source from work site to vehicle • Transport of gamma source in vehicle to store • Movement of gamma source from vehicle to store • Go to 1. | 24

  25. When using databases on individual doses, be aware that in general we are comparing… Apples Pears with ≠ | 25

  26. Differences in average dose per person | 26

  27. Controlled Area

  28. A Snapshot of Current Practice ofOccupational Radiation Protection in Industrial Radiography WGIR – ISEMIR Richard VAN SONSBEEK1, John C. LE HERON2, Gonzague ABELA3 , Francisco C.A. DA SILVA4 , RazakHAMZAH5 , Thomas A. LEVEY6 , Matthias PURSCHKE7 , Kamal SAHAIMI8 , Christian LEFAURE9 1Applus RTD; e-mail: richard.vansonsbeek@applusrtd.com 2International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria; e-mail: J.Le.heron@iaea.org 3EDF; Saint Denis, France; e-mail: gonzague.abela@edf.fr 4Institute of Radiation Protection and Dosimetry; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; e-mail: dasilva@ird.gov.br 5Malaysia Nuclear Agency; Kajang, Malaysia; e-mail: Razak_hamzah@nuclearmalaysia.gov.my 6Acuren Group Inc.; Edmonton, Canada; e-mail: tlevey@acuren.com 7German Society for Non-Destructive Testing (DGZfP); Berlin, Germany; e-mail: pm@dgzfp.de 8CNESTEN, Rabat, Morocco, sahaimi@cnesten.org.ma 9IAEA consultant; Paris, France; clefaureconsult@free.fr

  29. Background to ISEMIR • Information System on Occupational Exposure in Medicine, Industry & Research • There are some areas in medicine, industry and research where radiation uses can lead to significant occupational exposures • Both in normal operations and in accident situations • But detailed information at the operational level is lacking WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  30. ISEMIR – the launch • January 2009, for an initial 3 year period, to help improve occupational radiation protection in targeted areas • 2 Working Groups, initially • Interventional Cardiology, commenced Feb 2009 • Industrial Radiography, commenced Jan 2010 WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  31. Working Group Industrial Radiography(WGIR) From left to right: Christian Lefaure, Francisco Da Silva, Kamal Sahaimi, GonzagueAbela, Richard van Sonsbeek, Matthias Purschke, A. RazakHamzah, John Le Heron (Thomas Levey is not on the picture) WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  32. Composition of WGIR WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  33. Objectives of our effort WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012 Keeping ALARA: • the dose due to normal exposure • if normal exposure is justified! • the risk of exposure due to accidents • (risk= chance X consequence of accident)

  34. Agreed Mandate • To draw an overview picture of the situation concerning occupational exposures and radiation protection of staff in Industrial Radiography (radiographers and other industry and client staff members) all over the world. • To identify both good practices and shortcomings and define all types of actions (training, managerial, behavioural…) to be implemented for assisting the industry, clients, and regulatory bodies in avoiding exposures to accidents, and implementing the ALARA principle. • To propose recommendations for harmonising monitoring procedures. • To set up a system for regularly collecting occupational doses for these individuals and for dissemination of this information. WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  35. WGIR conducted a world-wide survey WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012 • to gain insight into the current practice of occupational radiation protection in industrial radiography • respectively addressed to • Regulatory Bodies (Licensing bodies for radiation protection) • Operating Companies (Licensees) • Industrial Radiographers / Radiography Technicians (“Operators”)

  36. Subjects of questionnaires WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012 • qualifications and training of radiographers in radiation protection, • learning from incidents (accidents, near misses, deviations from normal operations), • systems and procedures in place for safe operation, • emergency preparedness and response, and • individual monitoring. The IAEA Specific Safety Guide on Radiation Safety in Industrial Radiography (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-11) was used to develop questions

  37. Distribution of questionnaires • Questionnaires were translated in various languages • Operator and Company questionnaires were distributed via the networks of the WGIR members • NDT companies • (Inter)national NDT societies • Regulatory Body questionnaire was distributed by IAEA WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  38. Responses to the questionnaires WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  39. Results and discussion • For each questionnaire the responses to each item were consolidated in an Excel workbook • Responses were statistically analyzed • Various hypotheses on correlations between items were tested • The following slides contain the main findings from the three questionnaires. WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  40. Qualifications and training of radiographers in radiation protection • Initial radiation protection training appears to be well accepted and established • 98% of operators had received RP training • Refresher training was less well established • 70% of RBs required refresher training • 80% (60%) of companies offered refresher (practical) RP training • Emergency response training is also less established • 87% of operators had received emergency response training • only 65% of operators had been involved in practical exercises WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  41. Learning from incidents • Rate of occurrence of incidents in IR: • Level of dissemination of lessons learned appears to be low • 40% of NDT companies do not share learning with other organizations WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  42. Systems and procedures in place for safe operations • Systems and procedures should be in place for protecting the operator and the public • Results of compliance inspection are perhaps the best indication of whether such systems and procedures are in place • Compliance inspections are performed by NDT companies and regulatory bodies WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  43. Subjects of compliance inspections WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  44. Most common shortcomings • Results of the shortcomings perhaps reflect a different focus • Company perhaps focusing on company procedures • Regulatory body may have a focus on public protection WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  45. Emergency preparedness and response • Radiation sources used for industrial radiography purposes have high radiation outputs and are potentially very hazardous • It is essential that systems are in place for emergency preparedness and response • in particular an emergency plan for incidents with gamma radiography sources WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  46. Implementation of emergency plans • Almost all regulatory bodies (98%) stated that they require NDT companies to have an emergency plan; • 95% of NDT companies stated that they had an emergency plan; and • over 90% of radiographers stated that their NDT company had an emergency plan for site radiography WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  47. Emergency response equipment • Only three-quarters of regulatory bodies required NDT companies to have emergency equipment • However 90% of NDT companies stated that they had emergency equipment for site radiography • primarily long tongs, shielding material, and an emergency or rescue container. WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  48. Individual monitoring • All RBs required personal monitoring with passive dosimeters • 80% of RBs also required active dosimeters • With at least audible alarms • All Companies provided passive dosimeters • 94% provided active dosimeters • Almost all with at least audible alarms • About two thirds also with visual alarms WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  49. Dose distribution • The radiographer data are for 234 radiographers, the NDT company data are for nearly 3500 radiographers, and the regulatory body data are for over 16,000 radiographers • Average dose • Radiographer data: 3.4 mSv • RB data: 2.9 mSv WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

  50. Dose versus workload • No correlation found • Radiation protection in industrial radiography is not being effectively optimized • Mean occupational dose per radiographic exposure • 4.8 ± 2.3 μSv for all operators • 2.9 ± 1.2 μSv for operators with workload > 100 exposures • No effect on dose per exposure found with: • level of NDT training • type of sources being used, • activity of sources, • use of collimation, or • incidence of events • But limited data numbers WCNDT Durban 20 April 2012

More Related