Introduction
Non-destructive testing (NDT) laboratories are essential in applying both radiation-based and non-radiation-based inspection methods across industries [1]. Radiographic testing, using X-rays or gamma rays, is especially common in nuclear, oil and gas, and power sectors as one of the 10 NDT methods under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9712 [2]. As reliance on radiographic techniques grows, so do concerns about occupational exposure to ionizing radiation, prompting stricter safety protocols. NDT radiography is categorized into industrial and medical applications [3, 4]. Globally, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR; 2020/2021) estimates 23–25 million workers are exposed to ionizing radiation [5, 6], including 12–13 million from natural sources and 11–12 million from man-made sources [7].
Developed countries have made significant progress in documenting radiation exposure and strengthening occupational radiation protection (ORP) systems. In contrast, developing countries like Indonesia face challenges due to limited studies and systemic gaps. For instance, Sadewa and Abu Arrah Arif Faisal [8] found that 69.3% of radiographers in Yogyakarta had low radiation protection practices, with many unaware of key principles like As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) and the Inverse Square Law. Similarly, Arifin et al. [9] reported inadequate infrastructure, training, and awareness in a vocational institution. These reflect broader concerns raised at the 15th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA15) about insufficient infrastructure, regulatory support, and trained personnel in developing countries [9]. International frameworks by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) often require adaptation for local contexts [10]. Studies from South Korea [11] and Bangladesh [12] emphasize the need for continuous monitoring and regulatory compliance in industrial radiography. A study involving 721 workers in Bangladesh reported a collective effective dose of 437.25 man·mSv during the study period, with the highest individual annual dose of 19.53 mSv [13]. However, the average annual dose remained low (0.39–0.83 mSv) [12]. In Indonesia, nationally representative data on radiation exposure and protection in NDT laboratories remains scarce, despite the sector’s growth.
This gap is one that is particularly concerning because Indonesian NDT laboratories such as the ones that are at the Science and Technology Park (KST) B.J. Habibie tactically support industrial certification, infrastructure development, and also technological innovation. Ensuring effective radiation protection measures that are in line with international standards becomes a challenge without any solid empirical data. This study therefore aims to ensure compliance with standards such as ISO 9712, General Safety Requirements Part 3: Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources (GSR Part 3), General Safety Guide No. 7 (GSG-7), Specific Safety Guide No. 46 (SSG-46), and Indonesia’s Badan Pengawas Tenaga Nuklir (BAPETEN) regulations to evaluate the effectiveness of radiation protection measures, as well as to quantify occupational radiation exposure levels of personnel in NDT laboratories, specifically focusing on radiation workers and participants at certification bodies operating within KST B.J. Habibie and other KST facilities to assess the radiation safety infrastructure, including facility design, shielding implementation, and operational layout, conduct radiation dose monitoring using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD).
The study strengthens national occupational health standards through addressing this critical research gap. It introduces a comprehensive approach to ORP in NDT laboratories by integrating real-time dose monitoring and infrastructure assessment to improve worker safety. The key novelties include detailed radiation dose quantification for both radiation workers and certification body participants, an aspect rarely studied in previous NDT-related research in Indonesia. It also provides a comparative evaluation of shielding and cordoning techniques used in Indonesian NDT laboratories, offering data-driven insights into their effectiveness. Furthermore, this study ensures alignment with international best practices, helping local NDT laboratories meet or exceed global radiation protection standards.
The novelty of this research is significant both nationally and internationally. For Indonesia, this study provides critical data on occupational radiation exposure, supporting the improvement of safety policies in NDT laboratories. It strengthens compliance with BAPETEN regulations, ensuring that local industries operate safely and legally, and serves as a reference for Indonesian certification bodies to enhance their radiation safety protocols. On an international scale, this research contributes to global discussions on occupational radiation safety, particularly in developing countries where NDT industries are expanding [14]. It provides comparative insights that can inform international regulatory bodies about radiation exposure trends in emerging economies and supports the harmonization of radiation safety standards by bridging gaps between local and international best practices. Ultimately, this research enhances workplace safety, regulatory compliance, and industrial efficiency in NDT laboratories, making it a valuable reference for both national and international stakeholders.
The experimental procedure integrated both cumulative and continuous monitoring of radiation levels and infrastructure as well as radiation dose assessments for the radiation workers and certification participants using TLD over a 3-month period (attempting to estimate the annual doses). In addition, when radiographic operations were performed in controlled and supervised areas, real-time dose rates were measured with the calibrated survey meter and the area radiation monitor. Cumulative dose is defined as the total radiation absorbed by personnel over a specified period, commonly 1 year, in NDT laboratories. Passive radiation detectors, including TLD, measure the total dose in mSv, mGy, and μSv/hr to ensure compliance with regulatory dose limits. Real-time monitoring involves the continuous measurement of radiation dose rate, typically μSv/hr, to facilitate immediate detection of increased radiation levels and enhance operational control. Survey meters, including Geiger-Müller counters, are used to assess dose rates or radiation intensities at specific locations or for individual personnel.
The radiation safety infrastructure was verified during the facility inspection and checklists. Technical checklists included details of thickness of shielding, controlled area configuration, the cordoning distance, type of warning signal, and availability of radiation protection equipment. These data were compared with the requirements in IAEA GSR Part 3, GSG-7, SSG-46, and BAPETEN regulatory requirements. The statistical analysis was then used to evaluate dose distribution, compliance, and effectiveness of protective barriers.
Materials and Methods
This study employs an experimental research approach conducted in NDT laboratories within the KST B.J. Habibie and other KST facilities in Indonesia. The research focuses on measuring occupational radiation exposure and evaluating the effectiveness of radiation protection measures in industrial radiography settings. The methodology is structured as follows.
1. Research Design and Approach
The study adopts a quantitative experimental method to assess radiation dose levels and the efficiency of radiation protection mechanisms. It involves direct measurement of radiation exposure experienced by radiation workers and certification body participants during radiographic testing procedures. Radiation protection’s guiding concepts [15] and safety for practices outlined in the Basic Safety Standard [16], as shown in Fig. 1, are as follows: justification, limitation of dose, and optimization [5, 17]. The justification of practices involves determining the validity of a given practice, considering all radiation doses incurred by workers and the public. Dose limitation is the maximum effective dose at which the danger of stochastic consequences from radiation is judged intolerable. This effective dosage limit is insufficient for deterministic effects when the eye’s lens, extremities, and epidermis are exposed locally. Consequently, equivalent dose limits are established for these circumstances (Table 1) [13, 18]. Optimization of protection and safety is protection optimization that must be addressed at every stage of the lifecycle of apparatus and infrastructure, concerning either current or future risks. The optimization of operational protection is an ongoing process that begins during the formulation of plans phase and continues through the scheduling, setup, execution, and evaluation stages.
The area where industrial radiography is conducted must be cordoned off to keep radiation exposure within acceptable limits for both the radiation worker and the public. If adequate distances are not available, additional shielding may be needed. The design incorporates shielding made from materials such as lead and concrete. As illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3, there are designs for building an NDT lab and X-ray room.
In Fig. 2B, points A, B, C, D, and E are the points where the dose rate needs to be measured before and during the irradiation process. Point A is the operator control room, point B is the west direction outside the X-ray room wall, point C is the north direction outside the X-ray room wall, point D is the east direction outside the X-ray room wall, and point E is the south direction or the entrance to the X-ray room. Number 1 in Fig. 2B is the Brand X1 (Waygate Technologies ISOVOLT) X-ray device room; number 2 indicates the X-ray device brand X2 (Rigaku); number 3 is the high voltage panel; number 4 is the X-ray device brand X3 (YXLON); number 5 is the control panel for the X-ray device; and number 6 is the X-ray device brand X4 (Rigaku). The arrows pointing to the red line near points A and C indicate the wall or wall for the shield whose concrete wall is coated with Pb. In Fig. 2B, the X-ray machine used in the experiment is at position 4. The room at number 4 is protected by concrete walls and Pb sheets. The radiation exposure rate at points A, B, C, D, and E is calculated to provide information regarding the desired exposure rate as small as possible, less than 0.5 μSv/hr. X-ray equipment can be installed or flexibly placed in various rooms based on operational needs.
Industrial radiography areas are restricted to keep radiation exposures within safe limits for workers and the public. If distance alone is insufficient protection, extra shielding is installed using reinforced concrete (a mix of cement, sand, gravel, and steel rods) or Pb plates (sheets of Pb, effective at blocking radiation). Wall thicknesses typically range from 12.5 cm to 20 cm for concrete and 3 mm to 5 mm for Pb, depending on the source strength and usage frequency. In the X-ray room, shields are 15 cm of concrete and 3 mm of Pb.
In this study, cobalt-60 (Co-60; Sentry Series A424-14) was used as the gamma source (1.79×1012 Bq out of 3.90×1012 Bq) for experiments, and the X-ray generator (YXLON) operated between 50 kV and 450 kV; 0.5 mA to 4.5 mA. Each radiographic test lasted 1 minute to 5 minutes, with operators working an average of 8 hours per day. Certification bodies for NDT practicums are used in accordance with the training schedule. The use of X-ray rooms in buildings that have been designed to remain is generally only used for a maximum of 8 hours for each practicum exam, while the use of gamma sources can be done outside the room by installing a perimeter or radiation sign according to the calculations and instructions of radiation protection officers for a safe distance of radiation exposure as low as possible, namely less than 0.5 μSv/hr or 0.11 μSv/hr continuously.
Radiation officers, including operators and radiation protection officers, are typically positioned 5 m to 10 m from the radiation source in X-ray rooms and 10 m to 20 m away in gamma-ray rooms. These areas are equipped with Pb shielding and controlled access to ensure the safety of personnel outside the supervised area. The locations of the radiation source and the precise direction of the beam are mapped in NDT laboratory layout, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, to assess dose distribution in relation to the shielding geometry.
According to the ICRP 118 [13], an occupational worker is an individual whose work is directly related to radiation sources, so they have the potential to receive occupational exposure, which is limited to a dose limit of 20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 years (Table 1). Meanwhile, an “individual employed” is a broader term and only refers to a person’s employment status, namely, anyone who works in a facility or company but is not exposed to radiation from sources directly related to their work can be treated as a member of the general public. The dose limit received by an individual employed according to regulations is 1 mSv/yr. In this study, the term ‘occupational worker’ is used interchangeably with ‘radiation worker.’
Inspection techniques can be carried out, portably or stationarily. Industrial radiography is used in welding, forging, casting components, composite piece inspection, food inspection, baggage control, aircraft maintenance, ballistics, turbine inspection, surface characterization, coating thick- ness measurement, etc. Cameras for industrial radiography, shown in Table 2, are tools for inspecting materials and components to find and measure defects and degradation in material properties [19]. This study used a portable X-ray machine, with the radiation source directed toward the ground, to minimize radiation exposure. Competent personnel (Table 3) carry out the technical implementation of tests or research.
The research is conducted in NDT laboratories equipped with X-ray and gamma-based radiographic testing methods (Fig. 3). The primary subjects of the study include radiation workers who operate X-ray and gamma-ray equipment and participants undergoing certification processes within the NDT laboratory environment.
2. Data Collection Methods
To obtain accurate and reliable data, the study incorporates the following data collection techniques:
(1) Radiation dose monitoring: Personal radiation doses are measured using TLD Harshaw, which records cumulative radiation exposure over a specific period. The results are compared against national and international safety limits. Calibration of Harshaw TLD dosimeters (LiF:Mg, Ti or LiF:Mg, Cu, P types) generally refers to international standards such as ISO 51261 for routine dosimetry using gamma radiation and IAEA standards related to individual dose (TLD-100, TLD-700, and TLD-600).
(2) Radiation safety infrastructure assessment: A comprehensive evaluation of laboratory safety measures, including facility design, shielding systems, radiation-controlled areas, and cordoning techniques, is conducted to ensure compliance with regulatory standards.
(3) Regulatory compliance analysis: The study verifies adherence to radiation safety standards, including ISO 9712, GSR Part 3, GSG-7, SSG-46, and Indonesia’s BAPETEN regulations.
3. Data Analysis, Ethical and Safety Considerations
The collected radiation dose data are analyzed using statistical methods such as time series analysis and sampling methods to determine exposure trends among radiation workers and certification participants. The effectiveness of shielding techniques is evaluated by comparing dose measurements in different laboratory setups. Compliance with safety standards is assessed by reviewing laboratory practices against established regulatory frameworks.
The study follows strict radiation safety protocols to minimize any risk to participants. All experiments are conducted within regulatory guidelines, ensuring worker and participant safety. The research also adheres to ethical principles related to data confidentiality and informed consent.
Results
1. Radiation Dose Measurement and Exposure Analysis
To ensure measurement accuracy and good and reliable performance of radiation protection equipment such as survey meters and pocket dosimeters [20] owned by NDT lab—National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), the equipment must be calibrated periodically and/or at any time if the equipment is damaged. This calibration is carried out by an authorized calibration laboratory appointed by BAPETEN, namely the DPLFRKST BRIN Calibration Laboratory. Monitoring of radiation worker doses recorded on the TLD badge every quarter must be sent to the NDT lab (BRIN) for evaluation [21]. Table 4 shows the personnel radiation dose monitoring. TLD calibration is a critical process to ensure the accuracy of radiation dose measurement. The general TLD calibration process and protocol include TLD preparation, radiation source, dose measurement, TLD reading, and calibration curve. The TLD used must be in good condition and clean, not contaminated; the radiation source used for calibration must be known, whether it is an X-ray source or a gamma source (Co-60 and Ir-192); the TLD to be calibrated is placed at a certain distance from the radiation source and irradiated with a known dose. The dose given must follow the dose range to be measured by the TLD. After irradiation, the TLD is read using a TLD reader. The TLD reader will measure the intensity of light emitted by the TLD in response to the radiation dose received. The TLD reading results are then used to create a calibration curve that connects the radiation dose with the TLD response.
The study involved nine permanent personnel who consistently work in the NDT laboratory. These individuals were selected for radiation dose monitoring, as their complete dose data are recorded every 3 months. Table 4 presents the annual radiation dose monitoring report for these personnel. The group comprises radiation protection officers, radiography operators (level 1), radiographers (levels 2 and 3), and radiography assistants. Personnel at levels 1, 2, and 3, as well as radiation protection officers, possess work permits and are required to report radiation doses to the regulatory body. In contrast, radiography assistants support the radiography process and may not hold work permits. In 2024, radiography assistants received higher radiation doses compared to other personnel. Therefore, it is recommended to implement work rotation or task adjustments to minimize the radiation exposure of radiography assistants while maintaining the quality of interpretation.
This Radiation Protection and Safety Program underscores the commitment of the NDT lab-BRIN License Holder (PI) to ensure the highest standards of radiation protection and safety. By establishing robust management structures, clear policies, and effective procedures, we are prepared to tackle the potential risks associated with X-ray and gamma-ray equipment [22]. Our focus is on creating a safe environment that reflects the seriousness of these hazards. Furthermore, we carry out dose measurements exclusively using the NDT radiography method [23] recognized by the certification body, ensuring reliability and precision in our safety practices. The objective is to minimize radiation exposure for both workers and the public in order to enhance safety and security. The classification of radiation workers, the maximum dose values, and quantization are detailed in Tables 4 and 5.
The procedure for determining the dose-limit value in the NDT laboratory is carried out through a structured process that aligns with regulatory standards and scientific best practices to ensure the protection of occupational radiation workers. This process begins with the classification of personnel based on potential exposure risks, following the guidance outlined in IAEA GSR Part 3 [24] and BAPETEN Regulation No. 4/2013 [16]. Workers are categorized, for example, into category A or B, depending on their likelihood of receiving significant radiation doses during radiographic operations. This classification is critical for prioritizing protection strategies and monitoring protocols.
Subsequently, a mapping of the maximum annual dose values is performed using dosimetry data collected through TLD, covering multiple monitoring periods. This mapping identifies the highest recorded doses associated with specific roles or activities within the laboratory, serving as a baseline for exposure trend analysis. To better understand the distribution of exposure levels and to inform protective measures, the mapped data are divided into quartiles (quarterization). This segmentation allows the lab to distinguish between low, moderate, and high-exposure scenarios, providing a structured basis for dose control strategies.
The quarterization approach, although not explicitly prescribed in regulatory documents, serves as a practical internal method to assess dose dispersion and support dose constraint development. It is particularly useful in facilities where exposure levels vary across operational roles and equipment usage. Based on this quartile analysis, the highest recorded dose from the upper quartile is used to estimate a reference dose-limit value for the laboratory. It is important to emphasize that this value does not represent a regulatory dose limit but rather functions as an internal operational reference (dose constraint), enabling proactive risk mitigation and early intervention. The adoption of such internal constraints is consistent with the optimization principle of the ALARA framework. Furthermore, all measurements are subject to uncertainty margins inherent in TLD systems, typically within 10%, and should be factored into dose evaluations to ensure reliable decision-making. Overall, this dose-limit determination approach ensures alignment with international safety standards, supports continuous improvement in ORP, and enhances the laboratory’s ability to manage exposure effectively across diverse NDT activities.
Table 5 shows that radiography assistants and radiation protection officers get more radiation dose results because they are technically always in the NDT lab room. For radiography, assistants get higher scores because, in addition to setting the equipment, they also help prepare test specimens; radiation protection officers must supervise all the work of all radiographers, including radiography assistants, by recording the large doses from the start of the radiation measurement until the measurement is completed. Annual doses from Table 5 are an average value (mean) of 0.53 mSv and a maximum dose of 0.83 mSv. So far, the equipment has been operated alternately. To calculate the dose constraint value in the NDT lab for the scope of NDT, it is 0.83 mSv×4 X-ray equipment=3.32 mSv, or 16.6% of the dose-limit value. From the experimental results, there were nine people whose dose monitoring was calculated over the course of a year: a radiation protection officer, a level 2 radiographer, a level 1 radiographer, and a radiographer’s assistant. Based on the data, the maximum annual dose was 0.83 mSv. The 3.32 mSv value is an estimate if we use four X-ray machines as the reference dose limit.
Occupational exposure predominantly arises during the handling and preparation of radioactive isotopes (RI), particularly in procedures involving gamma cameras. In contrast, radiographic generator (RG) operations typically result in lower exposure levels because they lack source preparation activities. This distinction accounts for assistant radiographers receiving the highest average dose (0.98 mSv), as they are more frequently engaged in close-proximity tasks during RI setup and retrieval. Personnel within the facility are not strictly designated as exclusive RG or RI operators; instead, assignments are determined on a task basis and may vary according to operational requirements.
In this study, radiation workers are still below the dose limit. If radiation workers exceed the dose limit of the regulation and ICRP, the actions that must be taken are to review radiation exposure, take corrective action steps, report to the regulatory body (BAPETEN), and limit the effective dose of radiation workers so that those concerned in the next 4 years may not receive an effective dose of 50 mSv [24].
Industrial radiography is generally reported as radiation exposure to the whole body of workers, and the members of the public, for the eye lens, skin, hands, and feet will be monitored separately by radiation protection officers. Radiation workers, with the results of Tables 1 and 5 showing radiation exposure to the whole body in a year of less than 1 mSv, show the standard for implementing tests and research following procedures and regulations.
Regarding the test’s side effects, X-rays constitute ionizing radiation. When radiation traverses matter, electrons are liberated from atomic bonds and subsequently interact once more. This secondary contact is typically significantly more efficient than the main radiation. Irreversible damage may occur in biological tissue. Consequently, appropriate radiation shielding must be guaranteed for all examinations [25, 26]. Table 2 shows the dose-limit regulation for cameras. In industrial radiography, “camera” refers to two main types of devices that use radiation sources: gamma and X-ray radiography. Gamma radiography cameras use a radioactive source such as Ir-192 or Co-60 to produce gamma rays, while X-ray radiography cameras use an X-ray tube to produce X-rays. The exposure conditions during the irradiation test with Co-60 activity of 1.79×1012 Bq (Fig. 3A) were measured using a Ludlum 26-1 survey meter (around the door: 0.16 μSv/hr to 0.3 μSv/hr; around the inner door in the central corridor: 0.8 μSv/hr to 1 μSv/hr). In the tensile test lab, the wall is approximately 2 μSv/hr to 8 μSv/hr (at the operator’s station: 0.3 μSv/hr to 0.6 μSv/hr; at the crank cable position: 23.6 μSv/hr; in the second-floor corridor: 0.5 μSv/hr to 1 μSv/hr). Following Indonesian regulations and procedures applied by certification bodies (general exposure requirements: 0.5 μSv/hr; radiation workers: 10 μSv/hr).
The methodology used in industrial radiography measurements consists of four main stages: preparation, exposure, processing, and interpretation of results. During preparation, the test specimen is identified or marked, and the exposure time and technique are calculated. Exposure is then performed according to the predetermined parameters, followed by chemical processing in a darkroom. The final stage involves interpreting the results to assess whether the image complies with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or ISO standards for defect inspection. For X-ray machines equipped with a focal spot, exposure is directed downward, as illustrated in Fig. 3D.
2. Evaluation of Radiation Protection Measures
Radiation work areas are split into a few parts (like, supervision area and control area). An area for supervision exists as a work area outside of the control area that calls for a review of work exposure and is not in need of special protection measures or safety provisions.
A supervision area can be determined by considering the potential for radiation exposure to a person beyond the dose constraint value of community members. This can happen before 3/10 of the dose-limit value of radiation workers. Each supervision area determined based on the above considerations must be clearly marked, with its boundaries clearly delineated using appropriate signs. In addition, signs shall be posted at nearly all access points providing access to the supervision area.
A control area is basically a work area under requirements for particular protection measures with safety provisions so as to govern consistent exposure throughout typical working conditions to avert or decrease possible exposure. The PI is able to determine one particular control area according to the possibility for obtaining some radiation exposure that exceeds 3/10 of the dose-limit value for most radiation workers. To work inside of the control area, each PI must take radiation protection that is necessary, in addition to safety measures that are important.
Radiation exposure in the workplace, particularly in the Xray room, is monitored at five locations (Fig. 2B). Point A is located inside the X-ray machine room, whereas points B, C, D, and E are located outside the room. Point A is the operator control room near the NDT personnel entrance and exit. The purpose of the measurement is to ensure that there is no radiation exposure before use and to ensure that the value is 0 mSv. This includes both the monitoring area and the control area. During the X-ray machine’s warm-up, radiation exposure is measured depending on how much kV and current are used. Generally, up to 350 kV and current up to 4.5 mA are used. The personal dosimeter employed to measure the cumulative dose received by personnel is typically TLD, which consists of an inorganic crystal that absorbs radiation energy. The absorbed dose is measured every 3 months using a specialized TLD reader. Upon analysis, the crystal releases stored energy as light, with the intensity of the emitted light directly proportional to the absorbed radiation dose. TLDs are characterized by high accuracy and can be reused following appropriate processing.
During the warm-up, radiation protection officers measure radiation exposure in the monitoring and control area. In the control area, especially in the operator’s room, radiation exposure is measured at 40 μSv. Personnel working in the NDT lab are limited to 8 hours a day.
Radiation exposure data was collected to highlight the stark differences between the X-ray machine’s focal spot being closed and open at points A through E. When the focal spot was closed, exposure levels measured only 1.3, 0.3, 0.24, 0.14, and 0.32 μSv, demonstrating very low radiation levels. In striking contrast, when the focal spot was opened, the measurements soared to 11.6, 4.5, 1.4, 1.4, and 1.9 μSv. This dramatic increase underscores the significant impact of operational settings on radiation exposure. All measurements were conducted under controlled conditions, utilizing a voltage of 200 kV, a current of 4.5 mA, and a duration of 420 seconds, reinforcing the importance of careful management in X-ray procedures to ensure personnel safety.
Occupational health and safety remains among the leading sciences and undoubtedly touches upon every discipline. An analysis of the indefinite within science and technology appears similar. It mirrors an analysis of the indefinite among the hazards. The research on assessment showed a certain effectiveness in shielding and cordoning techniques for implementation throughout NDT laboratories. The results confirm the following:
(1) Building design and shielding materials (Pb barriers, concrete walls, and controlled areas) significantly reduce radiation leakage. Shielding thickness complies with ISO 9712, GSG-7, and SSG-46 standards, providing optimal worker protection.
(2) Cordoning techniques, such as designated restricted zones and radiation warning signage, effectively control worker and participant exposure. These measures prevent unauthorized access to high-exposure areas, ensuring compliance with BAPETEN safety requirements.
(3) Real-time monitoring and periodic TLD assessment enhance radiation safety by enabling prompt intervention in case of unusual exposure trends.
3. Regulatory Compliance and International Benchmarking
The certification body has been able to develop occupational exposure control capabilities to meet the requirements of GSR Part 3 [16] by taking into account the relevant recommendations formulated through safety guides, e.g., GSG-7, SSG-46, ISO standards, and BAPETEN regulations [5, 27]. The others could be expected to develop these capabilities in the near future [28].
Radiation protection concepts are displayed across two situation categories, such as practices along with interventions. Practices represent human actions that elevate radiation exposure above the levels often detected from existing radiation sources. These actions also increase the probability of exposure. Interventions constitute definite actions by people directed at the lessening of radiation exposure currently or the probability of exposure later on, which do not establish a controlled practice. Radiation protection and safety measures can be suitably implemented before commencement, for thereby broadly minimizing associated radiation exposures, along with their respective likelihood, from the outset. The conditions that create exposure or possible exposure are already there, and lessening them can only happen with protective or corrective actions.
The Radiation Protection and Safety Program regulates radiation safety for operational implementers, the community, and the environment. If the results of monitoring the radiation worker’s dose show a significant dose or exceed the established dose constraint value, the PI will take follow-up action in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The primary safety purpose is to protect personnel and the environment from the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation [29].
Radiation worker doses recorded on the TLD badge must be sent to the Personnel Dosimetry and Personal Monitoring Laboratory (PDPL)-BRIN lab for evaluation every quarter. After that, BRIN will send dose monitoring data to the PI, and a copy will be submitted to the regulatory body (BAPETEN). Every year, we also submit some data to the Information System on Occupational Exposure in Medicine, Industry, and Research (ISEMIR) website.
Personnel performing NDT by this study shall be certified in radiographic testing following ISO 9712 or an equivalent internationally or nationally accepted certification scheme to an appropriate level in the relevant industrial sector. Level 1 certified personnel are to carry out NDT according to written instructions and under the supervision of level 2 or level 3 personnel. An individual certified to level 2 has demonstrated competence to perform NDT according to NDT procedures or NDT instructions. An individual certified to level 3 has demonstrated competence to perform and direct NDT operations. Level 1 personnel are also called operators, and level 2 and level 3 are experts and supervisors in NDT activities. Level 3 is the highest, which has qualified competence.
The data in Fig. 4 are the data of participants who participated in the certification. The radiation exposure for participants from 2022 to 2024 is currently worth 0 mSv. The value obtained is as expected, as small as possible, and the average participant is in the lab room for less than 1 hour. Until now, there has been no excessive exposure to workers and participants in the NDT lab. The total number of level 1 participants registered from 2012 to 2018 was 1,766, with 1,062 passing the exam. For level 2, 1,143 registered and 798 passed. From 2019 to 2021, 614 people passed level 1, level 2, and level 3. Data before 2022 is taken from the National Nuclear Energy Agency (BATAN) before its institutional integration into the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN). Fig. 4 shows the number of participants who took the exam at the certification body using the NDT laboratory. In 2022, the number of level 1 participants was 148, and level 2 was 63; in 2023, the number of level 1 participants was 146, level 2 was 30, and level 3 was five; in 2024, the number of level 1 participants was 266, and level 2 was 205. An exam was also conducted for nuclear engineering applications, i.e., certification for irradiators. The total number of personnel participating in certification from 2022 to 2024 who passed the industrial radiography method was 863 (level 1, level 2, and level 3). For applications in nuclear engineering, 20 personnel used gamma-ray sources.
In the NDT laboratory at the certification body, ensuring safety during testing is paramount [30]. A comprehensive assessment of various risks must be conducted, including radiation, physical hazards, temperature fluctuations, chemical exposure, psychological factors, and more. Radiation hazards are a significant concern in radiographic testing, where X-ray and gamma-ray sources are utilized. Historically, several accidents occurred in the industrial radiography field due to high doses causing severe health consequences such as radiation burns and, in a few cases, death due to malfunctioning of the radiography [31, 32]. Additionally, physical hazards associated with certain NDT methods can pose risks related to pressure, temperature extremes, and vibrations. Chemical hazards from substances like penetrants, developers, and fixers, along with potential corrosion [33], add another layer of danger. Electrical hazards, such as electric shocks, can occur if electric currents are not appropriately managed. Furthermore, environmental pollution and the risk of equipment damage cannot be overlooked. It is crucial to adhere to rigorous safety procedures to guarantee a safe testing environment in the NDT laboratory, especially within certification bodies. It involves appropriately calibrated equipment, providing robust training, and ensuring that NDT operators are highly competent (Table 3). Adequate supervision and control of the work environment and appropriate personal protective equipment are essential to protecting both personnel and equipment. By prioritizing these safety measures, we can uphold the highest standards of integrity and reliability in our testing processes.
Comparative analysis with global radiation safety standards shows that Indonesia’s NDT laboratories align well with international best practices. Adherence to BAPETEN regulations, ISO 9712, and IAEA GSR Part 3 guidelines ensures a high level of radiation protection, similar to practices in other countries with well-established NDT certification and radiographic testing regulations. However, the study identifies areas for improvement, including: Enhancing worker training programs to improve awareness of radiation protection best practices, implementing digital radiation monitoring systems for real-time exposure tracking, and strengthening safety audits and inspections to maintain long-term regulatory compliance [34].
4. Implications for the NDT Industry
The results demonstrate that effective radiation safety management in NDT laboratories is crucial for protecting workers and certification participants. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, industry professionals, and regulatory bodies, supporting the development of more efficient radiation safety policies. Moreover, the study sets a benchmark for other NDT laboratories in Indonesia and contributes to the global body of knowledge on ORP in industrial radiography [12].
In this case, the implications of research results for policy development in Indonesia have been regulated by the BAPETEN regulatory body for the safety and security of radiation source utilization for workers or the community, which is mandatory; the implementation of policies can result in interpretation of results according to certain standards and procedures and can modify technical practices in conducting research. The policy of the regulatory body (BAPETEN) for the industrial sector, especially industrial radiography [35], in addition to requiring the use of radiation sources and fulfilling radiation dose limits, also requires certified or licensed personnel. Training conducted by training institutions must satisfy the requirements for licensing the use of radiation sources and accreditation requirements.
Relevance of results for the future of the NDT industry in the certification body is needed for measuring whether the dose received does not exceed the dose limit according to standards and regulations; in the certification body, it is also necessary to measure the area at points according to Fig. 2 inside and outside the NDT lab and record the number of personnel who conduct competency tests in the NDT lab. There is a need to strengthen training and internal audits to support and ensure safety and security in the NDT industry.
Discussion
NDT laboratories are safely functioning, and this indicates radiation is managed in a good way. Assistant radiographers’ best-ever documented yearly radiation amount of 0.98 mSv is still far under the 20 mSv annual limit advised by the ICRP [36]. The long-term effects of low-dose radiation exposure can vary from individual to individual depending on several factors, including the dose, duration, and type of radiation. Some possible effects include cancer, genetic effects, damage to the cardiovascular system, damage to the nervous system, and damage to the eyes and skin. Low-dose radiation exposure can increase the risk of cancer, such as leukemia, thyroid cancer, and lung cancer. This risk can persist for years after the initial exposure. Low-dose radiation can also damage DNA and increase the likelihood of mutations that can lead to cancer cells or genetic defects in offspring. These discoveries coincide relatively closely with prior studies conducted in South Korea and Bangladesh. In that instance, the highest separate dose came to 19.53 mSv, nearing the highest allowed limit. The decreased exposure quantities seen across Indonesia’s NDT labs imply the combination of shielding methods, of radiation monitoring, and of worker education is successfully decreasing radiation hazards. Observing multiple radiation doses provided discoveries that stress the importance of thoroughly assessing and carefully tracking radiation exposure. It is important to consistently assess and track radiation exposure as it happens during events. The employment of TLD has demonstrated itself as critical within sustaining a thorough exposure record, along with authorizing timely corrective actions when needed. This methodological approach toward worker safety ensures safety as well as optimizes protection practices from radiation in compliance with ISO 9712 [2, 30] and with BAPETEN regulations [29].
The routine calibration for radiation measurement instruments [20], such as survey meters and dosimeters, confirms the accuracy in exposure evaluations. For maintenance of top-peak safety standards, certain regulatory organizations like BAPETEN make this practice in a comprehensively mandatory way. Also, continuing real-time monitoring of exposure through the ISEMIR-IR upholds the ALARA principle, thus enabling labs to monitor and improve radiation safety results very well.
Indonesia’s strict adherence to several global radiation safety standards, coupled with IAEA GSR Part 3 [16], GSG-7 [5], and SSG-46 [37], underscores within it a dedication to ORP. The certification bodies, such as Indonesia National Accreditation Body (KAN) and National Professional Certification Body (BNSP), fulfill a prominent role in assuring compliance through accreditation coupled with personnel certification. This structured technique about job training improves it and ensures that NDT employees operate safely within radiation-controlled areas.
NDT labs within Indonesia, when they are compared to global standards, show a prominent commitment to safety measures like those of more advanced nations. Nevertheless, many chances for total improvement broadly occur, notably from completely refining employee education initiatives, from entirely enacting electronic ray observing setups, and from greatly reinforcing security inspections. These improvements will additionally strengthen Indonesia’s position on workplace radiation protection handling throughout industrial X-ray radiography.
The results offer additional helpful understanding to many policymakers [38], industry professionals, and several regulatory bodies. Thus, this further reinforces the necessity of more stringent radiation safety protocols. By integrating advanced monitoring technologies and improving internal training frameworks, Indonesia’s NDT industry can continue to improve regarding workplace safety, regulatory compliance, and functional efficiency. These diverse improvements will fully assure sustainable and responsible usage of radiation technology by maintaining universal best practices [9].
Conclusion
Indonesia’s NDT laboratories operations unfold under safe occupational radiation limits, with maximum exposures recorded under good regulatory thresholds. The maximum dose measurement of radiation workers in 1 year is 0.83 mSv. In this study, the highest radiation exposure was produced by assistant radiographers, i.e., 0.98 mSv, compared to level 1 radiographers, level 2 radiographers, and radiation protection officers, greatly lower than the ICRP and BAPETEN limit of 20 mSv, thus displaying the effectiveness of current radiation protection measures. Principal safety measures in infrastructure design, including shielding and constant monitoring with TLDs, have contributed to maintaining occupational radiation exposure at secure levels. Following international rules of safety, such as with GSG-7, SSG-46, and ISO standards with GSR Part 3, along and within BAPETEN rules, makes sure Indonesia’s groups of certifications keep up strong safety as well as skill levels.
Even though Indonesia’s radiation safety framework mostly conforms to international standards, more improvements are needed. Improving employee education initiatives and incorporating computerized radiation tracking tools, along with performing routine protection assessments, will strengthen sustained safety as well as adherence. Through constantly improving upon workplace radiation protection plans, Indonesia can definitively remain a leader within industrial radiography safety management. Indonesia can additionally maintain its commitment to worker protection.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
XML Download
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
Print 
