Inspection Report
Licence Holder: Australian Antarctic Division – Polar
Medicine Unit (AAD-PMU)
Licence Number: S0008
Location inspected: Kingston, Tasmania
Date/s of inspection: 8 February 2017
Report No: R17/01965
An inspection was conducted as part of ARPANSA’s baseline inspection program to assess compliance with
the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the Act), the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 1999 (the Regulations), and conditions of Source Licence S0008.
The scope of the inspection included an assessment of AAD-PMU’s performance against the Source
Performance Objectives and Criteria and consisted of a review of records, interviews, and physical
inspection of controlled apparatus at the Kingston site.
Background
AAD-PMU, part of the Department of Environment and Energy, is authorised under section 33 of the Act
to deal with controlled apparatus. The AAD Chief Medical Officer (CMO) is responsible for medical
diagnostic radiation safety management given the specific clinical expertise and knowledge
requirements.
AAD-PMU uses mobile medical and dental X-ray equipment (controlled apparatus) to provide medical
and dental care at Casey, Davis and Mawson stations on Antarctica, the subantarctic station at
Macquarie Island, and supply ships. Medical diagnostic and dental radiography are part of the services
these Antarctic medical practitioners provide.
The medical and dental equipment are regularly rotated through stations and ships back to the
headquarters at Kingston. Once the equipment arrives at Kingston, it is sent for testing and servicing by
appropriately licensed personnel from the equipment supplier.
Observations
In general, the management of safety margins at the AAD-PMU facility at the Kingston site was found to
be satisfactory. During the inspection the CMO provided an overview of the Australian Antarctic Division
X-ray facilities. The presentation highlighted the operational procedures for the mobile medical and
dental X-ray equipment which included training requirements, work instructions, safety signage, patient
exposure tables, quality assurance and equipment maintenance.
Performance Reporting Verification
AAD-PMU’s quarterly reports have been submitted to ARPANSA in a timely manner in recent years, and
contained relevant information, including details of compliance with the Act and Regulations.
619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie VIC 3085
+61 3 9433 2211
38–40 Urunga Parade, Miranda NSW 2228
PO Box 655, Miranda NSW 1490
+61 2 9541 8333
[email protected]
arpansa.gov.au
UNCLASSIFIED
Information for quarterly reports is coordinated by the CMO who also has medical oversight of diagnostic
radiation safety.
Other documentation required by ARPANSA such as Regulation 51 submissions and Regulation 53
disposal requests are also coordinated through the CMO as needed.
Training
All personnel who operate the X-ray equipment are required to undertake training relevant to
equipment use before being permitted to carry out medical or dental radiography. Training records for
Antarctic medical practitioners for use of the equipment were verified by the ARPANSA inspectors for
each person who had completed the training.
Radiation Protection
AAD-PMU management has demonstrated a commitment to radiation protection by establishing a policy
to facilitate the safe and effective use of radiation at the various stations and ships. This is supported by a
comprehensive set of guidelines and procedures, Medical Diagnostic X-ray Safety Management (SM) and
Medical Diagnostic X-ray Radiation Protection (RP) to achieve and maintain best practice and compliance
with radiation legislation and ARPANSA licence conditions. Version 1.2 of the SM and version 1.3 of the
RP were assessed as part of this inspection. The next review for each of these documents is scheduled for
January 2018, 3 years after the last review. While both documents included a document amendment
history, the information table on the front cover contained some errors and in some cases was
inconsistent with the document amendment history table. For example, the authorisation date for the RP
was given as 12 January 2015 instead of 2012, or 2014 if it were meant to refer to the most recent
review date, and the date of the version was not consistent with the document amendment history table
in the RP.
The SM required that certain information be included on each X-ray image although on investigation of
several radiographs, the inspectors noted that the voltage and current were not present as prescribed.
The CMO provided documentation that each X-ray unit was serviced by the manufacturer as required in
the SM document.
Photographic evidence was provided to show that X-ray rooms at each of the stations and the ships were
fitted with appropriate warning signs and lights both at the entrance to the room and on the equipment.
Findings
The licence holder was found to be in compliance with the requirements of the Act, the Regulations, and
licence conditions.
The inspection revealed the following areas for improvement:
1.
Version control information was inconsistent.
2.
Labelling of X-ray images was not fully in accordance with procedures.
It is expected that improvement actions be taken in a timely manner.
2 of 2
UNCLASSIFIED