(formerly The Radiation Protection Adviser) incorporating ADS News
Welcome to the nineteenth edition of Radiation Protection News (formerly the Radiation Protection Adviser) incorporating ADS News. The purpose of Radiation Protection News is to clarify areas of concern and update readers on further developments in the field of ionising radiation.
Over the coming months, HSE will be reviewing the HSE Statement on radiation protection advisers (RPAs) which we hope to complete by the end of this year. HSE will also start its research on the current skills base of RPAs in order to assess whether HSE's Criteria of Competence for RPAs will remain suitable for employers' future needs.
Work will also take place to examine how to provide adequate control of radioactive sources and HSE will be taking forward guidance to address natural radiation issues (NORM and Radon).
Please send your comments and queries to the editor:
Health and Safety Executive
Level 6, North Wing
2 Southwark Bridge
London SE1 9HS
HSE's Ionising Radiation web site: www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/index.htm
This publication may be freely reproduced, except for advertising, endorsement or commercial purposes. Please acknowledge source as HSE.
HSE is looking for contractors to undertake research looking at occupational exposure to enhanced levels of NORM. The aim is to obtain realistic data which will enable employers to carry out more realistic practical assessments of radiation doses to employees from work with NORM.
The successful contractor will need to undertake surveys from a number of representative workplaces from affected industries, to assess:
If anyone is interested in undertaking this project, they should E:mail email@example.com for further information.
In issue 18 we announced that HSC's Ionising Radiations Advisory Committee (IRAC) was planning to hold an open meeting in the Autumn of 2001. This will take place on 10 October 2001. The meeting will be held at HSE's London office at Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS.
The open meeting will provide an opportunity for people to see how the Committee works and to ask questions or take part in discussion. It will include presentations covering IRAC's role and the work it does. The meeting will focus on IRAC's programme for the next three years (assuming it is reconstituted, following HSC's review of Advisory committees) and will include a forward look to radiation protection in the next decade.
Tickets for the open meeting will be available later this year. If you wish to apply for a ticket or require further details please e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org or contact Graeme Royal on 0207 717 6834.
IRAC met three times during 2000-2001. The major topics discussed were procedures, guidance and publicity relating to IRR99 and other legislation implementing Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation; research projects; international developments; and how IRAC could contribute to Securing Health Together and Revitalising Health and Safety.
Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99) have been in force since 1st January 2000. Some HSE inspectors are reporting that they are disappointed with the level of compliance with these Regulations found during routine inspections. Many employers are failing in particular to carry out proper and adequate risk assessments for their work with ionising radiations, and some are not taking sufficient notice of the new requirements under IRR99 compared with those under IRR85. Whilst HSE acknowledges that many employers have striven successfully to achieve compliance, others are either pleading ignorance or are not reviewing their practices with regards to the new requirements of IRR99. The message from inspectors is that 'the honeymoon period is over' and that enforcement action will be taken against employers who fail to comply with IRR99.
HSE has been asked for clarification on the terminology used in the HSE Information Sheet No. 5 on Authorisation under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 to define 'industrial radiography'.
The interpretation that 'industrial radiography involves non-destructive testing of welds or structural integrity' is defined in the context of the Information sheet and prior authorisation only. The definition was designed to be specifically narrow so that it excluded the X-raying of baggage, post, contraband etc. from the requirement for prior authorisation. Where ionising radiation is used for these purposes, employers will still need to comply with all other relevant legislation. It may be that such work comes within the definition of site radiography in the Work with Ionising RadiationApproved Code of Practice (L121) paragraph 249*, in which case the advice given there should be followed.
HSC Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) and guidance in support of the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 is available through HSE Books ISBN 0 7176 1746 7 reference L121.
*The definition of site radiography is defined in the context of designating a controlled area where it means any radiography of inanimate objects rather than that which is carried out in an enclosure or cabinet that restricts the does rate (averaged over a minute) outside the enclosure to 7.5 micro seiverts per hour.
HSE issued, on 25 January 2001, a revised HSE Statement on radiation protection advisers (RPAs) (see HSE website )
The original HSE Statement, issued on 17 December 1999, required RPAs to have experience, as well as knowledge and training, of all aspects listed in the basic syllabus in Annex 3 of the Statement. HSE recognises that it is unreasonable to expect each RPA to have such wide experience and a small change to paragraph 3(i) of Annex 1 of the HSE Statement has therefore been made to remove this requirement. Nevertheless, RPAs will still be required to have the equivalent of three years full-time experience in a post directly concerned with radiation protection practice and other attributes. All the other requirements remain unchanged.
HSE is currently conducting a wider review of the HSE Statement on radiation protection advisers (RPAs) which it hopes to complete by the end of this year. The SRP Workshop on 1 March was a useful input to this process.
The aim of the review is to retain transparency and consistency in the system for recognition of RPA competence, while ensuring that competent people are not excluded from becoming RPAs. HSE therefore wishes to identify and address any inappropriate requirements in the current HSE Statement. The review may result in further amendment of the Statement. However, it may be that any concerns (e.g. what we mean by "experience") can be addressed adequately in guidance.
Readers are invited to send any comments on their experience of the HSE Statement and any suggestions as to how it can be improved to the Editor by the end of July.
The HSE Statement on radiation protection advisers (RPAs) states that one of the two methods for RPAs to demonstrate that they satisfy HSE's criteria of competence is to hold a level 4 National or Scottish Vocational Qualification in Radiation Protection Practice (N/SVQ) issued not more than five years previously.
HSE would like to clarify that there is no N/SVQ titled 'Radiation Protection Practice'. There is a level 4 N/SVQ in Occupational Health and Safety Practice with an optional unit called 'Radiation Protection Practice'. Holders of this N/SVQ with the optional unit will satisfy HSE's criteria of competence for individual RPAs.
The above level 4 N/SVQ is being revised by the Employment National Training Organisation (ENTO) and is currently not being offered by any training providers. HSE is contributing to the revision of the level 4 N/SVQ and will consider what can be done to encourage provision.
Since the last issue, readers have asked for further clarification on whether IRR99 requires employers to always appoint a radiation protection adviser (RPA) following consultation.
Regulation 13(2) of IRR99 requires employers to consult, and therefore appoint, an RPA for matters listed under Schedule 5 of the Regulations. In addition, employers are encouraged to consult and appoint an RPA on the specific matters listed in Table 2, page 57 of the IRR99 Approved Code of Practice 'work with ionising radiation'. Such matters include for example prior risk assessment, the designation of controlled and supervised areas, conduct of investigations, drawing up contingency plans, and dose assessment and dose recording.
Employers do not, however, need to appoint an RPA if they were merely seeking advice from that RPA on whether their work required formal consultation (and hence appointment). Nor do employers need to appoint an RPA in relation to carrying out work with ionising radiation that is not required to be notified to HSE (see Schedule 1 of IRR99)
Radioactive substances are widely used offshore and as part of HSE's Good Health is Good Business campaign, an inspection project was undertaken to raise awareness of issues surrounding work with ionising radiation among offshore operators and contractors. The project examined the various uses of ionising radiation offshore and the extent of compliance with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (IRR85).
The main activities involving the use of radioactive sources offshore include industrial radiography, well-logging and nucleonic process control gauges. The most common sources used for radiography were Iridium-192, Selenium-75 and Ytterbium-169. The typical activities of such sources used for radiography offshore range between 5-10 Curies. There appears to be an overall downward trend in the use of radiography offshore. This is a result of increasing fabrication onshore, longer time periods between verification inspections and the use of safer ultrasonic methods. Another development in this area is the use of small controlled area radiography which is based on the use of source cameras which do not require the source to leave the shielded container.
There is an increasing use of nucleonic process control gauges (level alarms/gauges, density gauges and interface gauges) offshore owing to their greater reliability and reduced running costs compared with conventional mechanical instruments. Ceasium-137 (0.1-3 Curies) is the most common source used in these applications.
Most installations make use of well-logging and wire lining contractors throughout the life of the well for various geological, geophysical and petrophysical applications. Recent trends in well-logging include the replacement of chemical neutron sources (Amercium-241/Beryllium-9) by minitron accelerators and the development of logging-while-drilling technology.
The project also found that low specific activity (LSA) scale is a common problem in the offshore industry. The radioactivity in the scale is mainly due to radium-226 produced from the decay of naturally occurring uranium-238; but other constituents of the uranium and thorium decay series are also present. The radiation emitted includes gamma, beta and alpha radiation. Though gamma and beta dose rates on the outer surface of LSA scale containing equipment can, very exceptionally, be as high as 100 microsieverts per hour, most installations had dose rates of less than 7.5 microsieverts per hour. Though the alpha radiation emitted from LSA scale cannot penetrate the outer layers of the skin and is not normally regarded as an external radiation hazard, it is of greater concern because of the potential for inhalation of LSA scale particles as a result of handling contaminated equipment. As a result, work involving possible exposure to LSA scale requires a high standard of personal protective equipment including the use of full face-mask respirators, waterproof suits and gloves.
Much smaller radioactive sources (5-300 micro Curies) were also used offshore, to a lesser extent, in reservoir and process tracer studies, depth markers (pip Tags), pig tracking and flooded member inspections. The sources used in tracer studies include water (H-3,), Methanol (C-14) and Krypton-85 and usually present an internal radiation risk. The sources used in depth markers (Cobalt-60), pig tracking (Tantalum-182) and flooded member inspections (Ceasium-137), although much smaller than the radiography sources, still present an external radiation hazard.
The project found that most of the offshore operators and contractors had comprehensive policies and procedures for managing work with ionising radiation and there was, overall, a good standard of compliance with IRR85. New Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99) came into force on 1 January 2000 and for employers who are already complying with IRR85, it is likely that little extra will be needed to ensure compliance. However, all employers will need to review their current practices to see if further or better controls are necessary in the light of the revised requirements under IRR99.
Though the project indicated generally good compliance with IRR85; it did, however, identify a number of generic areas where improvements were required by some duty holders in managing the control of ionising radiations to comply with IRR99. Offshore Operators and Contractors should therefore pay particular attention to the following:
The Natural History Museum, London, recently appeared at Blackfriars Crown Court and pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and guilty to 2 offences under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (regulations 6(1) and 11(1)).
These offences related to the storage of a large number of radioactive minerals in a public gallery over a number of years during which members of the public were exposed to levels of radiation up to several tens of microsieverts per hour.
The museum originally appeared before Marylebone Magistrates, who decided that their powers of sentencing up to a total maximum of £30,000 fines were insufficient. However, at the Crown Court the museum was given a 12 month Conditional Discharge and ordered to pay the HSE's costs of £6,305.10 in full.
Many museums and similar institutions store and exhibit radioactive materials and items. It is important that in these situations radiation exposures to members of public should be kept at levels which are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and that vigilance is maintained to ensure full compliance with IRR99
The Euratom Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive (96/29/Euratom) sets out basic safety standards for the protection of the health and safety of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations (REPPIR) will implement a relatively small part of the BSS Directive dealing with preparation of emergency plans for sites and rail transport operations using or carrying radioactive substances (Articles 48 to 52, Title IX, Section 1). The majority of the other BSS Directive requirements were implemented through the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99) which came into force on 1 January 2000. REPPIR also subsume the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992 (PIRER) requirements for premises and rail transport, and the general requirement on local authorities to provide information to the public in the event of a radiation emergency from whatever source.
REPPIR are due to come into force in the summer of 2001 and will complement the general requirements in IRR99 for contingency planning.
REPPIR include detailed requirements on hazard identification, risk evaluation and emergency planning for operations (on premises or in rail transportation) involving large quantities of radioactive substances where, if a radiation emergency were to occur, members of the public might be affected. (Major radiation accidents affecting members of the public are called radiation emergencies.)
The application of REPPIR is based on the quantities of radioactive substances involved in work with ionising radiations on premises or during transport (there are different quantities/separate Schedules for each). The quantities are an indicator of the potential hazard which may cause a radiation emergency, affecting members of the public. There are exemptions from the Regulations including for non dispersible sources where the form of the radioactive substance is such that a radiation emergency is not reasonably foreseeable.
All operators and rail carriers (transporters) have to identify hazards and evaluate risks for all hazards with the potential to cause radiation accidents arising from their work. They then have to take steps to prevent radiation accidents from occurring and to limit their consequences if they do occur.
If the report of assessment shows that a radiation emergency is reasonably foreseeable, then the operator or rail carrier has to prepare an emergency plan to deal with such radiation emergencies. For premises the local authority would also have to prepare an off-site emergency plan. Operator carrier and off-site emergency plans must be in place before work with ionising radiation commences.
If the report of assessment shows that a radiation emergency is not reasonably foreseeable, then no emergency plans are required under REPPIR. However, contingency plans under IRR99 will still be required for radioactive substances on premises or being transported.
Radiation emergencies are rare, but it is crucial that emergency plans are in place to be put into operation. Emergency planning involves co-ordinated efforts by relevant site operators, rail carriers, local authorities, the emergency services and health authorities/boards and the environment agencies.
Emergency planning is not new, but REPPIR formalise current arrangements around existing nuclear licensed sites and bring them into line with emergency arrangements for other industries. REPPIR will achieve consistency of approach to simplify planning for those who deal with emergency plans for more than one type of industry. The impact of REPPIR on non-nuclear sites is expected to be minimal.
Testing emergency plans
The BSS Directive requires emergency plans to be tested. The guidance on testing allows a range of testing options from full-scale live exercises to table-top exercises testing component parts of the plan. A three year review period has been adopted.
The regulation on emergency exposures provides a management framework for controlling exposures to radiation during a radiation emergency. Operators and carriers will have to discuss with other employers (e.g. of the emergency services) the dose levels for emergency exposures, and the operators and carriers will then need to agree these with the Health and Safety Executive. Each employer of these personnel will have to identify those who may be required to undergo emergency exposures beforehand and ensure they are provided with appropriate training (including for those authorising such employees), equipment and dosimetry.
The BSS Directive permits the disapplication of dose limits (under IRR99) during intervention, and this is covered in REPPIR.
The draft REPPIR proposals in the Consultative Document included all transport modes. The Department of Transport, the Environment and the Regions (DETR) Ministers subsequently decided to implement and enforce all aspects of Articles 48 to 52 of the Directive for road, air and sea/inland waterways through their own modal legislation. DETR will also take responsibility for the aspects of the PIRER that apply to the transport modes of road, air and sea/inland waterways.
HSE proposes to hold a series of workshops, later in 2001, to promote the new Regulations, with a target audience of relevant employers, emergency services, local authorities and health authorities/boards.
Guidance to accompany the Regulations is being developed in close liaison with stakeholder representatives, and should be available as or shortly after the Regulations come into force. The guidance will include advice on identifying non-dispersible sources, how the definition of radiation emergency fits with emergency reference levels, and the meaning of reasonably foreseeable and its link to the concept of extendibility. The importance of seeking advice on radiation protection issues will also be included, in particular within the context of controlling radiation doses during intervention.
NRPB's existing guidance relating to protection of people off-site during radiological emergencies is contained in Documents of the NRPB 1 (4) and includes the specification of Emergency Reference Levels (ERLs ).
HSE, as part of its regulatory exchanges with employers, has recognised that there would be advantages in developing guidance for the protection of on-site personnel in the event of a radiological emergency. As far as HSE is aware there is currently a lack of consensus guidance in this area and NRPB has agreed to assist HSE in the development of proposals for consultation with industry .
One of the key areas of application is expected to be consideration of the radiological consequences of a criticality accident, but the principles which are being developed are expected to be applicable to a broad range of radiological emergencies. It is expected that this work will have relevance to REPPIR. Initial guidance from NRPB is expected to be available in Summer 2001.
HSE notes that there has been confusion about how to monitor the doses received by employees to the hands, or other extremities. It is not necessary to attempt to capture the most exposed 1 cm2 of skin. Rather, the average dose to the hands, forearms, feet or ankles should be monitored. Only if the assessed dose approaches the limit for the extremities need there be investigations to confirm that the skin dose is unlikely to be excessive.
There are various types of extremity dosemeters in use, including some in the form of a tape and designed to assess Hp(0.07); and various designs of ring dosemeter better suited to measuring Hp(0.5). HSE has for a long time recommended ADS to assess Hp(0.07) as a matter of course for the extremities.
This advice, taken with the fact that the extremities are covered in skin (!), has led people to assume that the limiting area of 1 cm2 of skin must be applied to extremity dosimetry. This causes severe practical difficulties where work requires the hands to be close to the radiation source, because the dose distribution over the hand is variable, and the part of the hand receiving the highest dose is generally not known. In nuclear medicine and radiopharmacy, for example, doses across the hand may vary by a factor of from four to as much as an order of magnitude.1,2 These sorts of consideration have led some people to attempt to apply a safety factor to the dose measured by an extremity dosemeter; but mechanisms for doing this are difficult to design. It will not be satisfactory for an ADS to apply such a factor as a matter of routine; and to do so on a case by case basis would be too difficult to control.
In the routine situation, where the hands etc. are being monitored, it is not critical to identify that area of skin on the hands which receives the highest dose. Limiting the average dose to the hands, e.g. by making use of a dosemeter worn on a finger, will adequately protect the hands.
Situations for which the 1 cm2 averaging of skin dose is important are those where a localised part of the skin has the potential to receive a much higher dose than the rest. This can occur if a high activity source is handled directly, if a spot of radioactive contamination affects the skin, and if a very narrow radiation beam impinges on the skin (as might happen in x-ray optics). None of these situations is amenable to control by way of a personal dosemeter, because it is virtually impossible to locate a dosemeter to intercept the radiation. So such situations must be controlled by means of engineering controls, systems of work, and personal protective equipment in the normal way (see for example paragraph 71 of Work with Ionising Radiation Approved Code of Practice and guidance in support of the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 [available through HSE Books ISBN 0 7176 1746 7 reference L121]).
1 Batchelor, Penfold, Aric and Huggins, Nuc Med Comm, 12, 439-444 (1991).
2 Batchelor, Baldock, and Webber, Pharm J, December 14th 1991.
HSE is writing to all Dosimetry Services (ADS) approved under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99) to apply for approval under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR) which are due to come into force during the summer.
This additional approval for ADS is solely for the purpose of regulation 14 of REPPIR, which relates to emergency exposures. An emergency exposure means exposure of an employee engaged in an activity of, or associated with, the response to a radiation emergency or potential radiation emergency, in order to bring help to endangered persons, prevent exposure of a large number of persons or save a valuable installation or goods whereby one of the individual dose limits referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 4 of IRR99 could be exceeded. An emergency exposure under regulation 14 of REPPIR does not refer to exposures to employees and others as a result of an accident, incident or event.
REPPIR will provide for ADS to issue dosemeters, carry out dose assessments, and keep records of doses for employees who are subject to emergency exposures. Any ADS wishing to gain approval for REPPIR must be approved under IRR99. ADS which provide a service to employers who are likely to prepare emergency plans under REPPIR may wish to consider, in consultation with their clients, applying for approval under REPPIR.
HSE has prepared supplementary criteria for the approval of ADS under REPPIR which are similar to the Requirements for the approval of dosimetry services under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, parts 1-3 (RADS 1-3). ADS interested in seeking approval under REPPIR are invited to submit applications, including a statement of service, explaining how they meet these supplementary criteria. Comments on the criteria for the approval of ADS under REPPIR are also welcome, as they will be helpful for future consideration when HSE reviews these criteria at a later date.
Applications for approval should be submitted by 30 June 2001 to Lorraine Medcalf, Dosimetry Services Administrator, Health and Safety Executive, Technology Division, Magdalen House, Trinity Road, Bootle, L20 3QZ Copies of the criteria for approval of ADS under REPPIR are also available from the Dosimetry Services Administrator.
HSE will carry out partial reassessments during the summer of those ADS that have submitted applications for approval under REPPIR, with a view to issuing approvals when these Regulations come into force. Any applications received after 30 June will be considered in the normal way, but it cannot be guaranteed that consideration will be completed prior to the starting date of REPPIR.
The RADS (Requirements for Approval of Dosimetry Services) documents set out the circumstances under which an ADS may have its approval revoked. HSE has reviewed the revocation process in the case where an assessor believes that an ADS no longer meets the criteria for approval. The procedure that will be followed is designed to afford the ADS adequate opportunity to challenge the view of the assessor, or to make the necessary changes to meet the criteria.
Firstly, the HSE assessor, before recommending revocation, must warn the ADS in writing where it is failing and allow it two weeks to challenge this view. Secondly, the HSE officer who would revoke the approval (the designated signatory) will write to the ADS formally stating that revocation is being considered. At this stage, the ADS has three months to make the necessary changes to comply with the HSE criteria for approval. It will also be given the opportunity for a meeting with HSE, and the right to make representations if it is aggrieved.
Once the ADS has made the necessary changes, the assessor will examine the actions that have been taken and recommend approval if the criteria have been met. If the ADS still does not meet the criteria for approval, the assessor will recommend revocation of approval. The designated signatory will once again warn the ADS, allowing two weeks for comment and offering the option of a meeting. The decision whether or not to revoke the approval will be taken in the light of the assessor's report and whatever representations the ADS makes. If the decision is in the ADS' favour, a fresh assessor will be appointed, and the process will be repeated.
Otherwise, the designated signatory will write once again to the ADS to inform it of the decision to revoke approval. There will then be a period of 6 weeks before the revocation takes effect, to enable the ADS' clients to make alternative arrangements for dosimetry or record-keeping.
At any stage, the ADS may make representations to a more senior HSE official if it is aggrieved by the way HSE has handled the case.
HSE has decided to include in its Requirements for Approval of Dosimetry Services a performance test for dosimetry services seeking approval, or already approved, to measure doses received from fast neutron radiation. The performance test protocol is being finalised after consultation with Approved Dosimetry Services (ADS) and other interested organisations.
The performance test protocol was developed for HSE by NRPB with the co-operation of the National Physical Laboratory. During the development of the test, all existing dosimetry services approved to measure neutron radiation underwent a trial performance test. The results of this test have shown that the test is suitable for use in testing ADS. They have also been used to set the pass/fail criteria for the test.
During the autumn of 2000, ADS were invited to consider the introduction of this requirement for performance testing and to comment both on the test protocol and the pass/fail criteria. HSE is most grateful to all who took the trouble to comment on the proposals. It was pleasing to note that all who considered the proposals agreed that HSE should introduce a performance test for fast neutron dosimetry services.
It is expected that this new performance test requirement will be introduced in the summer of 2001 for all dosimetry services who seek approval and that, within 6 months of the introduction of the test, all existing fast neutron ADS will have successfully completed the test. Thereafter, ADS will be expected to repeat the test at least once every eighteen months. Full details will be sent to the affected ADS shortly.
HSE operates a scheme for the approval of dosimetry services under regulation 35 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99). This scheme is described in detail in the HSE Statement on the approval of dosimetry services under IRR99. This Statement can be found on the Ionising Radiation web site: www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/dosimetry/dosimetry-state.pdf [100kb]).
An important part of this approval scheme is a requirement for dosimetry services seekin2015-01-07 to repeat that test at intervals of no longer than 18 months.
Currently, parts 1 and 2 of the Requirements for the approval of dosimetry services under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (RADS1 and RADS2) state that 'if a dosimetry service seeks approval for a method of measurement for which it already has UKAS accreditation it need not undertake a performance test. It will, however, have to show the Approval Body that its accreditation by UKAS remains current.'
HSE believes that this exemption is no longer necessary and has therefore recently consulted ADS on its proposal to remove this exemption presently enjoyed by ADS that have UKAS accredited methods of measurement.
This consultation closed on 26 January of this year and no ADS has objected to HSE's proposal. HSE will therefore amend accordingly the HSE Statement, RADS1 and RADS2 to reflect this change.
[[back to top]]
Any changes in the information contained in the Approved Dosimetry Services list on the internet (see www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/doses/index.htm) should be notified to: email@example.com.
HSE has recently published the following guidance:
HSE has published five information sheets in the Ionising Radiation Protection series:
The following information sheets will be published at a later date:
HSE will shortly be consulting interested parties on the following draft guidance:
Updated on the HSE web site 10 September 2001