Industrial Radiation Protection Officer Licence in Qatar
October 8, 2026
12 min read
DITEC Experts, Radiation Protection Team, ALDuha Institute for Training and Environmental Consulting
The entry written in two limbs, among the five read in this batch
One point before anything else. Meeting the conditions in the Decision is what you can prepare for. Whether a licence is granted, and when, is a decision of the competent authority alone, and nothing in this explanation and nothing in any course is a commitment that a licence will be granted or that it will be granted within a given period. What this article does is set out the condition as the instrument states it and point to the training that bears on it.
The radiation protection officer is the person a facility puts between its sources and everything that can go wrong with them. He is the one who holds the dose records, who decides whether a controlled area is where it should be, who is called when a reading does not look right, and who the regulator corresponds with when it has a question about the practice. In the Qatari regulatory scheme the role is itself licensed, and the entry that licenses it for industry and research is item 13 of the industrial applications in the schedule attached to Decision 4 of 2007.
Item 13 is written differently from the entries this series has read before it, and the difference is structural rather than a matter of degree. It is one entry divided into two numbered limbs: the first for large institutions and the second for small institutions. The two limbs do not set the same academic condition, do not set the same experience condition, and do not treat the question of whether the officer is to be full-time in the same way at all. So a facility that knows it needs a licensed officer, and has identified a candidate, still has a prior question to answer: which limb it falls under.
A note on two words the items use and do not define. Item 13 is written in two limbs, one for large institutions and one for small institutions, and item 14 names a large institution as well. The items read in this explanation use those two descriptions and nowhere state what makes an institution one or the other: there is no number of workers in them, no number of sources, no activity figure and no category of practice. So we do not supply a threshold, and an employer who decides for himself which limb he falls under has decided a question the instrument left to the authority. Where it matters, and on item 13 it decides the academic condition, the experience condition and whether the officer is to be full-time, the useful step is to put the description of your own facility to the Ministry and ask which limb governs, and to keep the answer in writing.
One point of orientation before the conditions themselves: they are in the schedule attached to the Decision rather than in the body of it. The preamble records that it was issued having regard to the Executive Regulation and in particular to Article 25 of it, and, on the Committee recommendation, on the recommendation of the Radiation Protection Committee, and the issuing article does one thing only: the conditions for licences to work in the fields of radiation work, attached to this Decision, shall apply. So a reader who opens the Decision and reads the article that issues it finds a referral and no conditions.
The large-institution limb: five conditions
The first limb opens with the formula the following conditions must be present in the person who is granted a licence to work as a radiation protection officer at large institutions. The formula attaches the conditions to a person and not to an employer, requires them cumulatively, and ties the licence to a named function at a described kind of institution. A company does not hold an officer licence; a person does, and he holds it for the role.
Then come five conditions. The academic condition is that he hold the first university degree in engineering or sciences. The training condition is that he pass a radiation protection officer course in industrial applications from an approved centre. The experience condition is that he have practical experience in the field of industrial radiation work of not less than two years. The fourth is that he be full-time for this work. And the fifth is that he pass the prescribed medical examination. The prescribed medical examination stands as its own condition among the conditions the item sets, and the item says nothing about what it contains. Our practical reading is that it is not a protective measure, that it does not stand in for any course the item names, and that it does not stand in for anything in operational protection.
The academic condition fixes the field to engineering or sciences and the level to a first university degree, and it does not carry the phrase at minimum. Neither limb of item 13 carries that phrase, and items 14, 15, 16 and 17 all do. We record the difference in wording and we read no rule into it: the condition names a level and says nothing about what sits above it, and how a particular qualification is placed against that level, and how equivalence is treated, are matters for the competent authority. Put the question in the words of the item.
The experience condition is tied to a field by name, and the words that tie it are the ones to read closely: the experience is to be in the field of industrial radiation work, and the period is not less than two years. That is a different kind of tying from the one in the second limb of the same item, which ties the experience to a place rather than to a field. We set the two out side by side below rather than rank them.
The fourth condition is the one that costs an employer money and is the one most often discovered late: that he be full-time for this work. It stands as a condition of its own among the five, alongside the degree, the course and the experience. It is not a recommendation inside another condition and it is not a note at the end of the limb. In our reviews this is the condition a file is most often assembled against without anyone having read it, because the candidate is a competent engineer who already has a full job, and the limb that governs is the first one.
The small-institution limb, and the sentence that negates full-time
The second limb opens with the following conditions must be present in the person who is granted a licence to work as a radiation protection officer at small institutions, and then sets four conditions and adds a sentence that is not a condition at all.
The academic condition is that he hold a diploma, two years after secondary at least, in a branch of engineering or sciences, or a bachelor degree in management or what is in its like. The training condition is identical in wording to the first limb: that he pass a radiation protection officer course in industrial applications from an approved centre. The experience condition is that he have practical experience at an institution that deals with radioactive sources of not less than one year. And the fourth is that he pass the prescribed medical examination.
Two things in that academic condition deserve isolating. The first is the parenthesis, which fixes a duration and nothing else: two years after secondary at least. The second is that this limb names a qualification that is not technical, or a bachelor degree in management or what is in its like, and it is the only academic condition among the five items read in this explanation that does so. We record that it is named in the wording and we do not read a policy into it, and the trailing words admitting what is in its like are words whose application is for the authority.
Then comes the sentence that is the reason this limb has to be read and not summarised: it is not required at small institutions that the radiation protection officer be full-time for work as a radiation protection officer, and he may carry out this role in addition to his original work at the institution. That is an express negation of the full-time condition, and an express statement that the role may be carried out in addition to his original work at the institution. It is not silence. The first limb contains the full-time condition; this limb contains a sentence saying it is not required here.
The distinction between a provision that negates a condition and a provision that simply does not contain it is worth holding onto, because it decides what you can say. Items 14, 15, 16 and 17, which this batch also reads, contain no full-time condition and contain no sentence negating one either. So on those four entries the instrument is silent, and silence is not an express permission. Here, in the second limb of item 13, it is not silent. That is a difference between provisions, and it is the kind of difference a summary destroys.
The two limbs set side by side
The table sets the two limbs of item 13 against each other. It is a reading of that item, quoted in full on the Arabic version of this article, and nothing is added to it. The rows are set out to be read across rather than down, because the useful fact is not that one limb asks for more but that the two ask for different things: a different academic level, a differently tied experience condition, and opposite treatments of full-time working. We do not rank them.
The two limbs of item 13
| Condition | Large institutions, limb 1 | Small institutions, limb 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Function named in the opening formula | To work as a radiation protection officer at large institutions | To work as a radiation protection officer at small institutions |
| Academic condition | First university degree in engineering or sciences, and the phrase at minimum does not appear | Diploma, two years after secondary at least, in a branch of engineering or sciences, or a bachelor degree in management or what is in its like, and the phrase at minimum does not appear |
| Course named | A radiation protection officer course in industrial applications, from an approved centre | The same wording: a radiation protection officer course in industrial applications from an approved centre |
| Experience: what it is tied to | Tied to a field: in the field of industrial radiation work | Tied to a place: at an institution that deals with radioactive sources |
| Experience: the period | Not less than two years | Not less than one year |
| Full-time working | A condition of its own: that he be full-time for this work | Expressly not required, and the role may be carried out in addition to his original work at the institution |
| Prescribed medical examination | Required | Required |
| Conditions in the limb | Five | Four, and with them the sentence negating full-time |
What to settle before the file is assembled
The condition is one thing and the file that demonstrates it is another. Below is the order we use when a client asks us to look at an officer appointment before it is submitted. It is the Institute's own working practice, and the items set out in this explanation impose no form of file.
Preparing a radiation protection officer appointment
Settle which limb governs before you choose the candidate
- The two limbs set different academic levels, tie the experience to different things, and treat full-time working in opposite ways. So the limb decides who is eligible, and choosing the person first means choosing it by guess.
- The items read here use the two descriptions and do not define them, so the description of your facility goes to the Ministry and the answer is kept in writing.
Price the full-time condition before you commit to the appointment
- On the first limb being full-time for this work is a condition of its own among five, and it is not a condition another person can satisfy on the officer's behalf. In our reviews it is the condition most often read last, because the obvious candidate is an engineer who already holds a full post.
- On the second limb the instrument expressly says it is not required and that the role may be carried out in addition to his original work, so the same appointment is a different commitment under each limb.
Buy the course the entry names, not the course with the similar name
- Both limbs of item 13 name a radiation protection officer course in industrial applications. Items 15, 16 and 17 name a training course in radiation protection in industrial applications, and item 15 writes it with the additional phrase rendered here as in the field of. Those are different wordings, and whether a certificate in one answers a condition naming the other is a question for the Ministry rather than for a training brochure.
- Both limbs also describe where the course is to come from, so name the course and its provider together in the enquiry, before the course is booked.
Document the experience in the terms your own limb uses
- The first limb ties the experience to a field and the second ties it to a place, so the same employment history is evidenced differently under each. Record the dates, the employer, that the experience was practical, and then, specifically, what the work was and whether the institution dealt with radioactive sources.
- If the period is being gained now, create the records while it is being gained. They cannot be reconstructed later from an organisation chart.
Questions we are asked about this item
Our plant is not large. Can our officer hold the role alongside his day job?
If the second limb is the one that governs, the instrument addresses that directly: it says that being full-time is not required at small institutions and that the role may be carried out in addition to the person's original work at the institution. The condition that has to be settled first is which limb governs, and the items read here use the two descriptions without defining either, so that is a question for the Ministry and the answer is worth keeping in writing. What we will not do is tell you which limb you fall under.
Is a management degree really enough for the officer role?
The second limb names, among the qualifications in its academic condition, a bachelor degree in management or what is in its like, alongside a diploma in a branch of engineering or sciences. We quote that because it is in the wording, and we stop there: we do not say that such a degree is sufficient on its own, because the academic condition is one of four conditions in that limb and the officer course, the experience and the medical examination all remain. Whether a particular degree falls inside the words naming what is in its like is for the competent authority, and the first limb is written differently and names neither.
Does the officer course we already bought count, or do we need another one?
That is the question this batch exists to flag, and it is not one we answer. Items 13 and 14 name a radiation protection officer course in industrial applications; items 15, 16 and 17 name a training course in radiation protection in industrial applications, item 15 writing it with the additional phrase rendered here as in the field of. The wordings are not identical, and the items do not say whether a certificate in one answers a condition naming the other. So the useful step is to write to the Ministry quoting the condition from your own entry, naming your certificate and the provider that issued it, and asking whether the condition is satisfied. Ask before the next course is paid for, not after a file is returned.
Our candidate has the degree and the course but not the experience. Is there a route?
The third part of the schedule provides for that situation: a licence to practise radiation work as a trainee is granted to a person in whom the conditions of the licence sought are present with the exception of the experience condition, and then in that case he may not practise radiation work except under the supervision of a licensed person. So the exception is for the experience condition and for that condition only: every other condition in the entry still has to be present, and the practice is under the supervision of a licensed person. On the first limb that means the degree, the officer course, the medical examination and being full-time all still have to be present; on the second it means the academic condition, the officer course and the medical examination. The exception reaches the experience condition and nothing else in the entry.
Can one licensed officer cover two facilities belonging to the same company?
The conditions must be present in the person who is granted the licence, so the licence is personal and is not a corporate permission spread over sites. Beyond that, the first limb contains a full-time condition for this work and the second contains a sentence saying full-time is not required at small institutions; neither limb addresses holding the role at more than one institution, so the items read here do not answer your question and we will not answer it for the Ministry. Put the arrangement to it as a described arrangement, and keep the reply with the licence file.
A technical note: the licence is not the protection
A technical note, and it is the most important passage on this page. The conditions in this Decision are licensing conditions, not site work instructions. Meeting them, and any licence that may follow, replaces nothing in operational protection, and no course makes anyone safe by itself. One rule governs every judgement about where a source is and what is coming off it: it is settled by measurement, never by inference.
The measurement is made by the licensee, through a person qualified to make it, and the instrument has to respond to the radiation actually present and at the energies present. For a gamma source that means a gamma survey meter within its calibration validity and response-checked before work starts. Where neutron-emitting material may be present, a gamma-only meter can read clean beside an unshielded source and tell the person holding it nothing, so the instrument has to respond to neutrons as well.
What does not count is an inference. Not a mechanical indicator, not a position switch, not a painted mark, not a label on a container, and not the fact that the work went as planned. And if the measurement does not establish that the source is shielded, the work stops where it is, no one approaches, and the licensee acts on his own emergency arrangements and notifies the Ministry. These are obligations on the licensee under the Law, the Regulation and the conditions of his own licence, and their place is not this Decision.
This entry licenses the person others on the site rely on for that judgement. Two things about the role belong here. The first is that holding the licence does not make the officer competent. The dose assessments, the delineation of controlled areas, the leak testing programme, the source inventory and the emergency arrangements are duties on the licensee. They sit in the Law, the Regulation and the conditions of the facility licence. Their place is not this Decision, which sets out who may be licensed for the function.
The second concerns the second limb. There the instrument allows the role to be carried out in addition to a person's original work. The hours in which protection work is actually done still have to exist. A role carried alongside another post is not a role carried in the time left over from it.
One consequence follows and it is practical. The officer who is asked to approve the schedule of his own department is asked for a judgement in which he has a visible interest. That is not a condition in the item. It is the practical risk the structure of the limb creates. It is managed by writing down who may overrule whom, before the first disagreement rather than after it.
How the Institute can help
Two findings recur on officer appointments. The first is a file assembled against the wrong limb, because nobody settled whether the facility is described by the first or the second, and the two limbs set different academic levels, tie the experience to different things and treat full-time working in opposite ways. The second is a certificate in a course whose name is close to the one the entry names but not the same, offered against a condition that names the officer course in particular.
The Institute delivers the radiation protection officer course and radiation protection training for industrial applications, reviews an appointment against item 13 limb by limb and condition by condition, drafts the enquiry to the Ministry on which limb describes a given facility, on the standing of a named course at a named provider and on the prescribed medical examination, and advises on the records that let an experience condition be read whichever way it is tied. One of the courses these items name is a separate qualification obtained from a provider that offers it and the Institute does not issue it: the maintenance course named in item 16 for devices containing radioactive material. The Institute also does not issue product training on a particular make of equipment, which no item among these five names. What the Institute delivers is radiation protection training for industrial applications and the radiation protection officer course; whether a particular course at a particular provider satisfies the approved-centre requirement of a particular condition is for the Ministry to say.
Scope of what the Institute does: training and consulting. Field radiation surveys are carried out through specialist partners. The Institute does not carry out laboratory analysis, instrument calibration or equipment testing.
A note on the names of two courses, and it is the single most useful distinction in this batch. The items read here do not all name the same course. Items 13 and 14, the two officer entries, require a radiation protection officer course in industrial applications from an approved centre. Items 15, 16 and 17 require a training course in radiation protection in industrial applications from an approved centre, and item 15 writes that phrase with an additional word rendered here as in the field of. Those are different wordings naming courses that are not written identically, and an officer entry and a technician entry therefore do not name the same thing. We record the difference and we do not resolve it: we do not say that one of them discharges the other, we do not say that one ranks above the other, and we do not say what a certificate in one would do against a condition naming the other, because the items do not say. What follows practically is narrow and it is worth acting on: read which of the two wordings your own entry uses, buy the course the entry names rather than the one the market calls by a similar name, and put the question of whether a particular certificate answers a particular condition to the Ministry in the words of the item, in writing, before the course is paid for.
A note on the source of a course in these items. Each of the five items read in this batch requires a course that is to come from a centre the Decision describes with an Arabic word this explanation renders as approved. The items set out in this explanation do not define the term, do not say who gives that approval, and do not say whether it is a general status or given for a particular course. Our reading of the wording is that where the description appears it is attached to the centre the course comes from and to no other party. There is one course among these items that carries no such description at all: the maintenance course named in item 16. Silence in an instrument is neither a permission nor a prohibition, so it is recorded and not read either way. The English word is a rendering chosen for this explanation and is not a term of art: our practical reading is to ask in the Arabic wording of the item, naming the specific course and the specific provider, and to keep the answer in writing, because what the instrument leaves open the authority settles. The Institute is a licensed training provider and describes itself that way and no other way.
A note on the authority. The transcribed preamble of the Decision refers to the Executive Regulation issued by decision of the President of the Supreme Council for the Environment and Natural Reserves, number 4 of 2003, and it does not state who issued Decision 4 of 2007. So this explanation does not say that body issued it, and its name appears nowhere in this explanation outside a verbatim quotation but in this note. The authority addressed today is the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, and the unit concerned is named in the organisational decisions as the Radiation Protection Department; that is an administrative statement about who is addressed now and it is not offered as a reading of the Decision. In the Institute's own advice the authority is written as the Ministry.
This explanation is published for awareness by the radiation protection team at ALDuha Institute for Training and Environmental Consulting. The English text is an explanation, not an official translation: the Arabic text published in the Official Gazette governs in case of any difference, and the official Arabic wording of every condition discussed here is quoted in full on the Arabic version of this article. This explanation is introductory. It is not a legal opinion, it does not replace the conditions of your own licence, and it does not replace review by the regulator. Last updated 8 October 2026.