Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

5. Report on Recent Status of NORM/TENORM in Australia
5.1 Introduction
This report outlines Australia’s inventory of technologically enhanced naturally
occurring radioactive material, current regulations, and further identifies a number of issues tobe solved in the future.
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) is distributed throughout the earth’s
crust and contains nuclides from the 238U, 235U and 232Th decay series, as well as otherlong-lived radionuclides such as 40K. These nuclides give rise to “background” radiation,
which varies by two orders of magnitude over the earth’s surface.
The widespread occurrence of NORM means that many of the ores and minerals (coal,oil and gas, iron ore, bauxite, phosphate rock), commodities (water, building materials,
fertiliser), products (ceramics), and other devices (welding rods, gas mantles and electronic
components) used by humans can contain NORM. Activities such as mineral processing, coalburning (for electricity generation) and water treatment can modify the NORM concentrationsin the products, by-products and wastes generated by these activities. In some situations,specific radionuclides can become separated from the original radionuclide mixture, eg
volatilisation of polonium and lead isotopes when coal is burnt to generate electricity and theseparation of radium and uranium during the processing of gypsum to produce fertiliser.
When the NORM concentrations have been modified in the material, it is called
technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material, or TENORM.
Human health is not affected in the majority of these situations, as the activity arisingfrom the NORM levels is not very high. However, when NORM has been significantly
concentrated through large-scale industrial production, occupational and public exposure toradiation can become an issue. In some industries this is already being addressed, but inothers NORM has not been recognised as a potentially significant problem.
Current and historical options for disposing of NORM wastes include landfill,near-surface disposal, land contouring and disposal into mine tailings dams. Other options
include dilution in industrial waste disposal facilities, land farming by ploughing in over agazetted disposal area, and incorporation into concrete for building construction or road base.
In some cases, a lack of awareness of NORM issues in the past has led to the creation ofcontaminated sites for which no individual or organisation is legally accountable. The
remediation of these sites will require careful consideration.

5.2 TENORM Inventory
Tables 1& 2 below outline the areas of industry where NORM is handled in Australia, thescale of production, typical radionuclide concentrations, and how resulting wastes are managed.

- 23 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Table 1 Summary of NORM in Australian Industries and Materials
I.
II.
III.

Category of NORM
Raw Material
Product(s)Waste/by-product

MINERAL SAND MINING AND
PROCESING
I.
II.
III.

Ore
Heavy minerals
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Tails from primary seperation
Oversize from secondary sepn
Tails from secondary sepn.
Dust from secondary sepn.
Solids from synthetic rutile
Kiln solids

Scale of mining/production and waste
generation in Australia (estimated)

I.
II.

III.

2.5 Mt/a Concentrate
2 Mt/a Ilmenite/Rutile
390 kt/a Zircon
80 kt/a Monnzite concentrate** kt/a Synthetic rutile

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

30 Mt/a
40 kt/a
400 kt/a
20 kt/a** kt/a** kt/a(kBq/kg)

I.
II.

3.5 Mt/a
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Typical radionuclide concentrations

III.

0.02-0.3, 0.03-0.12 U
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

0.3-3Th, <0.1-0.8 U
0.2-2Th, <0.1-0.6 U
0.6-1.2Th, 1-4 U
40-250Th, 6-30 U<0.2-1.5Th, <0.1-0.3 U

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

<0.2Th, <0.1 U
0.3-8Th, 0.6-2.0 U
0.8-24Th, 0.1-12 U
1-20Th, 0.1-6 U<0.2-1.5Th, <0.1-0.3 U
0.1-1.2Th, 0.1-1.2 U

Waste management or by-product use

IIIa.

Landfill disposal in mined out
area

IIIb. to IIIf.

Dilution with inert solids,
then landfill disposal

TITANIUM PIGMENT PRODUCTION
I.
II.
III.

Rutile/Synthetic rutile
Titanium pigment
a.
b.
c.

Neutralised slurries
Solids from effluent treatment
Liquid effluent

ZIRCONIUM AND CERAMICS
INDUSTRY
I.
II.
III.

ZirconZirconia, Refractory materials,
Ceramics, Glazes
a.
b.
c.
d.

I.
II.
III.

As above
185 kt/a titanium pigment

I.
II.
III.

as above
**
**

a.
b.
c.

I.
II.
III.

200 kt/a
200 kt/a
**

I.
II.
III.

SludgeChlorinator residues
Dust
Slag

- 24 -As above<0.01Th, <0.01 U
a.
b.
c.

1.2Th, 0.35 U
0.8-1.4Th, 0.3-0.5 U<0.1Th, <0.1 U

as above****IIIa. Landfill disposal
IIIb. Landfill disposal
IIIc. Ocean discharge

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Table 1 (cont) : Summary of NORM in Australian Industries and Materials
I.
II.
III.

Category of NORM
Raw Material
Product(s)Waste/by-product

Scale of mining/production and waste
generation in Australia (estimated)

Typical radionuclide concentrations

Waste management or by-product use

ALUMINA PRODUCTION
I.
II.
III.

BauxiteAlumina
Red mud
COPPER MINING AND PROCESSING
I.
Copper ore
II.
Copper concentrate/refined metalIII.
a.
Tails from flotationb.
Dust from smelterc.
Slag from smelter

TANTALUM/TIN MINING AND
PROCESSINGI.
Tantalum ore
II.
a.
Tantalum concentrate
b.
Tin
III.
a.
Tantalum tailsb.
Tin slag
IRON SMELTING
I.
Iron oreII.
Iron (+steel)a.
Furnace slagb. DustPHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
I.
Phosphate rockII.
Fertilisers, Phosphoric acidIII.
a. Phosphogypsum
b. Calcium fluoridec. Furnace slag and dust
d. Scale

I.
II.
III.

55 Mt/a bauxite
16 Mt/a alumina> 20 Mt/a red mud

I.
II.
III.

I.
II.

20 Mt/a

I.
II.
III.

a.
b.

800 kt/a primary copper products
250 kt/a refined copper

a.
b.
c.

**
**
**

kt/a
kt/a
kt/a

2.5 Mt/aa.
b.

2.5 kt/a** kt/a

a.
b.

**
**

I.
II.
III.

I.
II.

**
**

**
**

IIIa.

Disposal in tailings dam with
U tails

IIIa.

Landfill disposal

III.

Landfill disposal of slag and dust

IIIa.

Stockpiled on site /Plasterboard
manufacture (10%)

Bq/kg Th,
Bq/kg U
Bq/kg 210Pb, 210Po
Bq/kg Th,
Bq/kg U

**
**

kt/a
kt/a

200 Mt/a
8 Mt/aa.
b.

Landspreading<10 Bq/kg-Th, < 60Bq/kg U
a. 7.5-75 Bq/kg U + Th
a.
b.

III.

I.
II.
III.

III.

a.
b.
c.

III.

I.
II.

a.

0.5 kBq/kg Th, 0.12 U, 0.7 40K
n.d. Th, n.d. U
1.3 kBq/kg Th, 0.4 U, 0.15 40K

I.
III.

a.
**
b. < 100 kBq/kg 210Pb and 210Po

I.
II.

< 0.01 kBq/kg Th, 0.1-1.9 U

Mt/a
kt/a

2 Mt/a (local rock)
a.
b.
c.

4 Mt/a superphosphate
100 kt/a acid (<1993)
ADP

a.
b.
c.

250 kt/a (<1993)
90% of ore
1% of ore as dust and 85% as slag

**

a.
b.

III.

0.01-0.06 kBq/kg Th, 0.5-2.2 U,
0.1-1.0 226Ra (incl. ADP)
< 0.01 kBq/kg Th, 1.2-1.5 U,
0.3 226Ra

III.
a.
d.

- 25 -< 0.01 kBq/kg Th, 0.01-0.02 U,
0.28-0.35 226Ra, 0.32-0.44 210Pb< 0.01 kBq/kg Th, 0.01-0.2 U,
0.01-3.9 226Ra, 0.03-1. 210Pb

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Table 1 (cont): Summary of NORM in Australian Industries and Materials
I.
II.
III.

Category of NORM
Raw Material
Product(s)Waste/by-product

Scale of mining/production and waste
generation in Australia (estimated)

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
Natural oil and gas
Purified oil and gas

I.
II.
III.

I.

**

Typical radionuclide concentrations

Waste management or by-product use

III.

IIIa.

Landfill
Ocean discharge

IIIa.

Landfill disposal
Cement and brick manufacture

IIIb.

Landfill disposal
Road construction

a.
III.

a.
b.
c.

Sands and sludge
Soft scales
Hard scales and film

a.
b.
c.

b.

200 tonnes**
1-2 tonnesc.
COAL-FIRED
GENERATION
Coal
Electrical power

I.
II.
III.

POWER
I.

I.
a.
b.

35 Mt/a Black coal
38 Mt/a Brown coal

a.
b.

a.
b.

Fly ashBottom ash

WATER TREATMENT
Surface or bore water
Purified potable watera.
b.

SludgeResins and cartridges
BUILDING MATERIALSa.
b.

Raw materials
By-product wastes
Bricks, cement, plasterboard,
Ceramic tiles

I.

a.
b.

a.

8.6 Mt/a Fly ash
1 Mt/a Bottom ash

II.

I.

1400 GLIII.

100 kt/a1

I.
II.

0.005-0.05 kBq/kg Th, 0.01-0.05 U,
0.01-0.5 40K
0.005 kBq/kg Th, 0.01 U, 0.02 40K

III.

III.

b.
I.
II.
III.

< 0.01 kBq/kg Th, < 0.01 U, 0.1-10
226
Ra, 0.05-4 228Ra, 0.01-1 210Pb< 0.01-0.07 Na/kg Th, < 0.01 U,
0.1-10 226Ra, 0.05-4 228Ra,
0.01-1 210Pb< 0.01 Bq/kg Th, < 0.01-0.5 U,
0.1-100 226Ra, 0.1-40 228Ra,
0.1-300 210Pb

I.
II.
III.

b. 15% Phosphogypsum recycled,
10% Fly ash**

0.02-0.2 kBq/kg Th, 0.02-0.19 U,
0.04-0.3 210Pb, 0.1-0.8 40K
0.05-0.19 kBq/g Th, 0.05-0.2 U,
0.005-0.08 210Pb, 0.04-0.10 40K< 1 Bq/l 228Ra, < 1 Bq/L 226Ra****

I. b. As above
II.
Concrete – 0.001-0.24 kBq/kg Th,
0.001-0.25 226Ra,
0.005-1.5 40K
Bricks – 0.001-0.2 kBq/kg Th,
0.01-2.2 226Ra,
0.01-1.6 40K
Plasterboard - < 0.01-0.05 kBq/kg Th,< 0.01-0.7 226Ra, 0.025-0.1 40K
Ceramics – 0.02-0.2 kBq/kg Th,
0.03-0.2 226Ra, 0.16-1.4 40K

Note: ** information not currently available to author- 26 -

III.
a.
b.

Landfill disposal or landspreading
Landfill disposal

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Table 2

Summary of NORM Materials in Terms of Quantities and Activities

Radionuclide
Content(Bq/kg)Low ( < 1000 )Small( < 1kt )Quantity Produced Annually
Moderate
Large( 1kt – 100kt )( > 100kt )Synthetic rutile
Alumina waste (red mud)Coal ash
Ceramics
Furnace and metal smelter
Sand blastingmaterials

Slags
Phosphogypsum
Phosphate fertilisers
Water treatment sludges?
Tantalum tails
Copper tailings

Medium( 1000 – 20000 )Oil sand/sludge

Tantalum products

Phosphate rock
ZirconIlmeniteHigh( > 20000 )Zircon dusts
Copper smelter dusts

Monaziteconcentrates

Oil scales

Monazite tailings

Iron sinter dusts

5.3
5.3.1

Regulation for TENORM
Current Regulatory Requirements

The application of radiological protection regulations is currently not uniform
throughout Australia. There are nine separate jurisdictions (State, Territory andCommonwealth) having responsibility for radiation safety legislation associated with
NORM/TENORM The lack of uniformity in areas such as licensing, exemption limits anddefinitions (refer to Tables 3 & 4), and the fact that some parts of regulations in individual
jurisdictions do not meet current international best practice, creates problems acrossjurisdictions. Although safety has not been compromised, uniformity of legislation isregarded as a means of avoiding higher costs for the end user due to higher transport andproduction costs.
The development of acceptable and uniform national radiation protection legislation
became one of the responsibilities of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency (ARPANSA), when it was established as Australia's national radiation protection- 27 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Groupbody to administer the ARPANS Act (1998) and Regulations (1999). ARPANSA also
accepted the responsibility1 to develop a national regulatory framework for incorporation byindividual jurisdictions. This involved the development of standards, codes and guidelines fornational radiation protection and nuclear safety. The new guidelines are contained in the
National Directory for Radiation Protection (the Directory). The draft edition of the Directory(Edition 1) closed to public submissions in April 2004 after significant stakeholder input,
including submissions from mineral processing industries affected by NORM.
At its meeting on 27 July 2004, the Australian Health Ministers Conference (AHMC)
endorsed Edition 1 of the National Directory for Radiation Protection as the uniform nationalframework for radiation protection in Australia.
5.3.2

Industry Guides

There are a number of guidelines on NORM management within specific industries. For
example, Smith (1992)2 has reported on NORM in the USA petroleum industry, andAustralian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Limited (APPEA) has
published guidelines for the oil industry3. The APPEA Guideline provides guidance on
NORM monitoring, management of occupational radiation exposures and decision-making
regarding NORM waste disposal. APPEA recommended a similar approach to that used in theuranium mining and milling and heavy mineral sands industries.
5.4
5.4.1

Options for Establishing NORM Management Criteria
Activity Concentrations

The simplest approach is to use activity concentration as the basis for any required
action. However, this may not be satisfactory due to the wide variations in the amounts of
NORM to which workers, the public and the environment can be exposed in different
situations involving the same material.
5.4.2

Application of ALARA

Establishing activity limits may be less effective than optimisation when dealing with
NORM. This is because natural background levels vary over time and place, and because
NORM concentrations in existing products, commodities and wastes can vary considerably.
Optimisation,which
involves
application
of
the
ALARA
principle(As-Low-As-Reasonably-Achievable), requires consideration of a range of factors, including
social and economic impacts, of any NORM management strategy.
1

Australian Health Ministers’ Conference on 4 August 1999.
As cited in Radiation Health & Safety Advisory Council Naturally-Occurring Radioactive
Material (NORM) in Australia: Issues for Discussion. 30 June 2004

2

3 APPEA, 2002, as cited in Radiation Health & Safety Advisory Council Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material(NORM) in Australia: Issues for Discussion. 30 June 2004

- 28 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

5.4.3

Risk-based Assessment

In principle the risk-based assessment approach is the most desirable, but the wide
range of situations in which exposures to NORM can occur make it difficult to develop asingle, standard approach. In many of these situations, particularly where relatively small
quantities of NORM are involved, it is possible to make an assessment of potential risks byanalogy with the natural background occurrence of NORM (for example, fertiliser spreading,radon exhalation and/or emission of gamma radiation from granite slabs or clay bricks).
Estimation of NORM dose/risk as a fraction or multiple of the natural background dose/risk isanother possible approach. The process of risk assessment depends on the hazard and can be
simple or detailed.

- 29 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Table 3 Comparison of Total-Activity Exemption Levels
Nuclide40

KTh-nat (incl. 232Th)
232
Th series
232
Th
228
Ra
228
Ac
228Th
224

Ra
Rn
212
Pb
212
Bi
U-nat
238
U series
238
U
220

234Th
234

U

230Th
226

Ra
Rn
210
Pb
210
Bi
210
Po
222

1

Half -Life
1.28 x 109 y
1.4 x 1010 y
1.4 x 1010 y
5.75 y6.13 h
1.91 d
3.66 d55.6 s10.6 h60.55 m4.47 x 109 y24.1 d2.44 x 105 y
7.70 x 104 y
1.60 x 103 y
3.8235 d
22.3 y5.01 d138 d

IAEA BSS
Total
MBq
1
0.001

0.1
1
0.01
0.1
10
0.1
0.1
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
100
0.01
1
0.01

40

Australian Jurisdiction
QLD
SA
TAS1
MBq
MBq
MBq
1
0.001
5

0.04
0.4
4

0.1
1
0.01
0.1
10
0.1
0.1
0.001

40
0.04
0.4
0.04
0.4
4
0.4
4
40

0.1
1
0.01
0.1
10
0.1
0.1
0.001

5
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.05
0.5
0.05
0.5
5

4
0.04
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.4
0.004
0.04
0.004

0.01
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
100
0.01
1
0.01

40
0.4
0.04
0.04
0.04
4
0.04
0.4
0.04

0.01
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
100
0.01
1
0.01

5
0.05
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.5
0.005
0.05
0.005

ACT
MBq
4
4
0.004
0.04
0.004
0.04

ARPANSA
MBq
1
0.001

NSW
MBq

NT
MBq

3.7

0.037
0.037
0.037

VIC
MBq

WA
MBq

4

4

4

4

0.00040.0004

0.04
0.004

0.04
0.004

The Tasmanian regulations exempt a natural material with concentration less than 31Bq/g, but do not have an activity limit. Exemptions for individual radionuclides are

based on 1/2000th of the most restrictive Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) for that radionuclide. As ALI are based on ingestion/inhalation pathways only, the limits are very
restrictive when compared with systems that take into account a range of exposure scenarios.

- 30 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Table 4. Comparison of Activity-Concentration Exemption Levels: Current andProposed4
State or Territory

Exemption Requirements

Current
Queensland
Western Australia
Victoria
Tasmania
South Australia
New South Wales*

BSS exemption levels on individual radionuclides
Total activity concentration 30 Bq/g
Total activity concentration 30 Bq/g
Total activity concentration 31 Bq/g
Total activity concentration 35 Bq/g
Total activity concentration 100 Bq/g
AND if

Northern Territory

A3
A2
A4 
 A1
 40 + 400 + 4,000 + 40,000  ≥ 1
**Total activity 370 kBq

Proposed
National Directory for
Radiation Protection

BSS*** exemption levels on individual
radionuclides* In NSW a radioactive ore is defined as (a) in the case of an ore that contains uranium but not thorium, 0.02
per cent by weight of uranium; or (b) in the case of an ore that contains thorium but not uranium, 0.05 percent by weight of thorium; or (c) in the case of an ore that contains both uranium and thorium, a percentage
by weight of uranium and thorium such that the expression: [U/0.02 + Th/0.05] ≥ 1.
** A1-A4 are activities in kBq for different groups of radionuclides in the NSW Regulations.

*** IAEA 2003 International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionising Radiationand for the Safety of Radiation Sources.

5.5

Case Study Related to TENORM

A Task Group from Japan visited Australia between 10-14 February 2003. The group
included Prof. Toshiso Kosako (Japan Project Leader, RWM, Tokyo University; Prof. Takao
Iida, Nagoya University; Dr, Hirokuni Yamanisi, National Institute of Fission Science, Dr.
Nobuyiki Sugiura, Tokyo University and Dr. Takeshi Iimoto, Tokyo University.
Preliminary discussions were held with a number of technical experts in Australia
including representatives from ANSTO, the New South Wales Environment Protection
Agency and followed up with a visit to the large mining operation site at the Roxby Downs,
Olympic Dam Project in South Australia
4

R. Secomb D. Collier National Uniformity for Radioactive Protection in Australia and the Implications inregard to NORM (2004)

Issues discussed included:- 31 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group•an update on NORM in the Mining Industry which addressed recent ANSTO
involvement with the IAEA on NORM, the implementation of BSS 115 since 1996
and a review of the Draft Safety Standard 161 – “Radionuclide content in commodities
not requiring regulation for purposes of radiation protection”•

a summary of NORM issues relevant to the Australian Mining Industry•

an overview of the radon issues in TENORM•

international regulations existing in the NORM industry and wastes•

disposal of radioactive material•

exemption levels for NORM wastes•

waste issues arising from uranium mining•

the use of phosphate rock in fertiliser production and consumer goods•

radon in terms of Technology Enhanced Natural Radiation.

Discussions with the EPA focussed on rehabilitation of mineral sand mining sites,
rehabilitation of an old radium refinery, assessments of 210Po and 210Pb in smelter/sinter plantdusts, occurrences in refractory bricks, ceramic insulators, glazed products, zircon abrasives
and radionuclides in coal washery scales. Also discussed was the need to approve andformalise disposal and recycle options and the need to decide on regulatory requirements forthe higher-activity scales and sludges.
A visit to the Roxby Down.s, Olympic Dam Project site was made on Thursday 13th
February. The site visit provided an insight into operational control issues relating to NORM
on a large mining site, the regulatory controls that are required and the deportment of theradionuclides in smelter dusts. The photos below provide an oversight of the magnitude of the
Olympic Dam Operations site

- 32 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

- 33 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

5.6

Problems to be Solved

The major issues for managing NORM/TENORM waste in Australia (and worldwide)
include:a) Accepted Guidelines – As previously mentioned, the application of radiological protection
regulations is currently not uniform throughout Australia. There are nine separate
jurisdictions (State, Territory and Commonwealth) having responsibility for radiation safety
legislation associated with NORM and TENORM. In some jurisdictions, there are
additional exemption provisions, such limits on activity concentration or definitions of‘mineral substances’
The lack of uniformity in areas such as licensing, exemption limits and definitions,and the fact that some parts of regulations in individual jurisdictions do not meet current
international best practice, creates problems across jurisdictions, such as when transporting
NORM/TENORM commodities across national or jurisdictional boundaries. Althoughsafety has not been compromised, uniformity of legislation is regarded as a means of
avoiding higher costs for the end user due to higher transport and production costs.
These inconsistencies are an important matter, and will be addressed via the
National Directory for Radiation Protection, which is being developed by the Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
b) Methods of Disposal – There is no clear national or international agreement on acceptable
methods of disposal of NORM waste. There are various options for disposal of NORM
waste, each of which has advantages and disadvantages.
c) Measurement – Pipe geometry can affect the capacity of the oil and gas industry to assess
whether the level of radioactivity in scale inside pipes, pumps, valves and other equipment
requires remedial action.
d) Environment – The effects of ionizing radiation on non-human species have only recently
received attention from the scientific community. The traditional approach was to assume
that if humans were protected then all other species were automatically protected. As a firststep in evaluating the effects of ionizing radiation on other species, the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has published guidelines on assessing theseeffects5.
e) Occupational Health – Management of materials containing NORM can lead tooccupa-tional health issues. In some industries these issues are already being addressed; forexample, in the oil and gas industry radiation protection measures are implemented for staff
undertaking maintenance on NORM contaminated equipment. In industries where NORM
has not been recognised as a potential issue, occupational health matters may not beadequately addressed.

- 34 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Groupf) Public Health – The use of products containing NORM, or the disposal of NORM bearing
wastes may give rise to public health issues. For example, there is potential for issues toarise in industries where awareness is low and no NORM management procedures are
implemented. With some NORM-containing products, such as thorium gas mantles,
warnings must be provided to reduce the potential for inhalation of the fine dust that can
result from damaged mantles, and manufacturers are encouraged to produce
non-radioactive alternatives, where possible.
g) Contaminated Sites – In 1985 the National Health and Medical Research Council(NHMRC) published a statement “Guidelines for Remedial Action in Areas where
Residues from Mineral Sand Mining and Processing have been Deposited”6. Since that timeradiation protection standards have changed considerably.
There has been very little published in Australia on criteria for clean up of sites
contaminated with radioactive material. Internationally, the IAEA has published somedocuments on this subject and others are in preparation. The ICRP has also publishedrecommendations on the disposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste, which are relevant toremediation of contaminated sites. It is now considered that there may be a requirement forthe development of appropriate guidance on remediation criteria for sites contaminated withradioactive materials, including review of the 1985 NHMRC statement. This should takeaccount of the IAEA, ICRP and other relevant guidelines.
5.7

Conclusions

The issue of NORM and TENORM is a recurring one, and will be ever-present as longas mined materials such as coal, bauxite, ores and the like, which contain NORM atbackground levels, are processed in large quantities.
In Australia’s case, although regulation of NORM and TENORM is not consistentacross its nine jurisdictions, each set of regulations is somewhat similar and safety has notbeen compromised. However, replacement of these with a uniform regulatory framework forradiation protection would alleviate problems with transportation of the material within thewhole of Australia. It is also noteworthy that the regulations in some jurisdictions do notcompletely meet current international best practice, whereas the proposed national framework
would indeed do so.
For improved occupational and public health, NORM/TENORM must be recognised
as an important issue in industry, and warnings should be issued where relevant. Ideally, there
should also be an international agreement and guidelines concerning measurement andmethod of disposal of the material, taking into account specific environmental concerns.
Most of these objectives are currently underway.
5

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2002, as cited in Radiation Health & Safety Advisory
Council Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Australia: Issues for Discussion. 30 June 2004

6

NHMRC, 1985, as cited in Radiation Health & Safety Advisory Council Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM)
in Australia: Issues for Discussion. 30 June 2004

- 35 -

Activity Report of TENORM Task Group

References:
1) Radiation Health & Safety Advisory Council Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material(NORM) in Australia: Issues for Discussion. 30 June 2004
2) Malcolm B. Cooper Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in AustralianIndustries – Review of Current Inventories and Future Generation. December 2003
3) R. Secomb D. Collier National Uniformity for Radioactive Protection in Australia and the
Implications in regard to NORM. FNCA Workshop on Radioactive Waste Management
Kuala Lumpur, 27 September – 1 October 2004

- 36 -