reew the radiation health and safety regulations, 2005

saskatchewan.ca

Review of The Radiation Health and Safety Regulations, 2005

Responses due by September 30, 2021

http://saskatchewan.ca

1Review of Radiation Health and Safety Regulations

Intent of the Public Engagement

The Government of Saskatchewan is undertaking a review of The Radiation Health and Safety Regulations, 2005 (the regulations) to identify provisions which require updating due to technological advancements in the industry, changes in radiation protection practices as well as changes in the workplace. These regulations have not been substantively reviewed since 2004.

As you may be aware, both federal and provincial legislation regulate radiation emitting equipment. The federal government is responsible for the safe construction and functioning of radiation emitting equipment. While the provincial government is responsible for regulating owners, contractors, installers and operators of radiation equipment to ensure that workers and members of the public are protected from unnecessary exposure to radiation. This includes establishing requirements for: dose limits, qualifications of operators of radiation installation or equipment, maintenance inspections and certification of ionizing radiation equipment, accident reporting, safe use of ultraviolet radiation, laser radiation, laser light shows, ultrasound equipment and radio frequency radiation.

The review of the regulations is also seeking to identify those existing requirements that are redundant, a duplication or create unnecessary red tape.

While this paper possesses some general questions about the adequacy and efficacy of the current provisions, this is not meant to be exhaustive. Instead, stakeholder input is essential to ensuring the regulations reflect the needs of all stakeholders.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Please submit all written responses no later than September 30, 2021 to:Radiation Health and Safety Regulations ReviewMinistry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety300–1870 Albert StreetREGINA SK S4P 4W1

You can also respond via email: [email protected]

2saskatchewan.ca

Ionizing RadiationDesignation of Occupational Worker

At present, the regulations establish different ionizing radiation dose limits based on the type of worker. For example, occupational workers can experience a much higher dose limit as compared to a regular worker. However, the regulations do not include a requirement for the owner of ionizing radiation emitting equipment to inform workers if they have been designated as an occupational worker. Additionally, there is no requirement for the owner to identify the risks associated with being designated as an occupational worker. Adding these requirements would: (1) ensure that an occupational worker is aware of the risks associated with radiation; and (2) would align with disclosure requirements of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for nuclear energy workers.

Questions for Consideration:

• Is it appropriate to include a requirement for the owner of the ionizing radiation equipment to inform a worker that the worker is an occupational worker?

• Is there any other information an occupational worker should be provided with? For example, the risk of exposure and dose exposure limits?


Dose Monitoring

Currently, section 5 of the regulations requires the owner of radiation equipment to ensure that the effective and equivalent doses above 0.25 millisieverts received by an occupational worker are reported at least every three months, to both the National Dose Registry and the Radiation Safety Unit of the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety.

Consideration is being given to requiring the reporting of occupational worker’s doses to:

1. the National Dose Registry at least every three months; and

2. the Radiation Safety Unit only in those situations where an occupational worker receives a dose of 5.0 millisieverts or greater in a period of three months.

The removal of the reporting of doses under 5.0 millisieverts to the Radiation Safety Unit would eliminate duplication of reporting. The Radiation Safety Unit has access to the doses through the National Dose Registry.

The increase to 5.0 millisieverts would establish consistency with the yearly dose limit of 20 millisieverts for an occupational worker.


• Should occupational worker doses below 5.0 millisieverts in a three-month period be reported to the Radiation Safety Unit? Why or why not?

• Is 5.0 millisieverts or greater the appropriate dose level for reporting to the Radiation Safety Unit? Why or why not?

4saskatchewan.ca

Dose Records

In addition to the requirement in section 5 to monitor the effective and equivalent doses received by an occupational worker, there is a requirement in section 7 for the owner or operator to maintain a permanent, cumulative record of the actual doses received by an occupational worker that is employed by the owner/operator or whom the owner/operator is training.

This record is to identify:

• the actual dose received by the worker over a one-year as well as five-year dosimetry period; and

• the committed doses received from any radioactive substances deposited in the worker’s body.

The owner/operator is also required to inform the occupational worker of the dose levels at least every three months. Currently, there is no requirement for the owner to provide cumulative dose records on the request of the worker.

Currently, occupational workers have access to their dose information through the National Dose Registry. Additionally, owners of ionizing radiation equipment have access to an occupational worker’s dose information if the worker provides consent. As a result, the requirement for an owner to keep dose records of an occupational worker on a continuous permanent basis could be viewed as a duplication.


• Given the availability of dose information through the National Dose Registry, is it necessary for the owner/operator to maintain a record on a continuous permanent basis? If not, how long should an owner/operator be required to maintain the dose records?

• Should the regulations be amended to allow the occupational worker to request cumulative dose levels at any time?

• Should the regulations allow the owner of ionizing radiation equipment to request from the occupational worker their dose records for the current one-year and five-year dosimetry periods?


Safety and Preventative Maintenance Inspections

Currently, section 13 requires that an owner of ionizing radiation equipment and associated apparatus located in hospitals, medical clinics, dental clinics, chiropractic clinics, and veterinary clinics must arrange for the inspection of the equipment by a qualified person to ensure that it is in safe operating condition and has been appropriately calibrated. The results of the calibration are to be submitted by the qualified person to the Radiation Safety Unit within 30 days of completing the inspection.

A qualified person is considered to be someone that holds a valid restricted x-ray journeyperson’s license issued in accordance with The Electrical Licensing Act.


• Is the definition of a qualified person, as defined in the regulations appropriate?

• Should it be the responsibility of the owner and not the qualified person to provide the inspection report to the ministry?

• Is there a need for the calibration results to be provided in a form prescribed by the ministry? Is it acceptable for the results to be provided in other formats as long as the information is what is required by the ministry?

Frequency of Inspections

Currently, section 14 requires ionizing radiation equipment that is used in a hospital or medical clinic to undergo a safety and preventive maintenance inspection at least once per year. The inspection frequency requirements may be greater depending on the age of the equipment.

In the case of mobile x-ray equipment, the required inspections are more frequent (two or three times per year) depending upon the number of diagnostic examinations conducted, the age of the equipment or the location/setting in which the equipment is used.

In the case of dental, chiropractic or veterinary x-ray equipment, there are different inspection frequencies depending upon the age of the equipment.

Additionally, permission is to be sought from an officer if two consecutive inspections are carried out in a period of less than 60 days.

6saskatchewan.ca

Consideration is being given to simplifying the frequency of safety and preventive maintenance inspections and establishing a minimum inspection frequency regime. This will continue to ensure that safety and preventative maintenance inspections are done at regular intervals, but reduce the regulatory burden on owners.

The inspection frequency approach would be based on the type of radiation equipment:

• once per year for medical x-ray equipment;

• once in three years for dental x-ray equipment; and

• once in five years for veterinary x-ray equipment.

Question for Consideration:

• What would be the implications of simplifying the frequency of inspections?

Certification of Equipment

Currently, section 15 requires a vendor to complete radiological safety tests and an inspection of the electrical and mechanical components of ionizing radiation equipment before the equipment is transferred to an owner’s control.

Additionally, the vendor is responsible for notifying the ministry that the equipment has been properly installed and can be safely used.

Consideration is being given to transferring the obligation to the owner for ensuring that the equipment has been tested and certified by a qualified person as operating within the manufacturer’s specifications.


• Should the responsibility reside with an owner? Why or why not?

• What would be the implications in establishing the owner’s responsibility to ensure certification of their equipment?


Non-Ionizing RadiationLaser Radiation

The regulations establish requirements for the safe use of lasers and laser devices, including the obligation on the owner to inform occupational workers on the hazards associated with the equipment. Additionally, such equipment is to be operated by a qualified person.

Consideration is being given to making two amendments:

1. Expand the list of qualified operators to include an occupational therapist. This occupation is distinct from those covered in section 28. Occupational therapists possess unique training and licensing structures. This addition would enable an owner to employ occupational therapists as operators of laser and laser devices.

2. Update the laser classification in accordance with American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Z136.1-2014 Safe Use of Lasers. The standard guides the safe use of lasers and laser systems by defining control measures for each of seven laser hazard classifications.


• Should the list of operators be expanded to include occupational therapists? Why or why not?

• What would be the implications of updating the laser classification?

Laser Light Shows

The regulations also provide control of the safe operation of laser light shows. Section 29 requires an owner of a permanent and mobile laser light show to notify the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety in a prescribed manner prior to the use of the equipment. The time frames for notification vary depending upon whether the equipment is permanent or mobile.

Consideration is being given to repealing section 29 as the provision is burdensome to owners and would not impact the citizens of the province.


• What would be the impact of removing the requirement to notify the ministry of the installation and use of laser light shows?

• Should there be a requirement to provide notification for certain classes of lasers that are used in a laser light show? What classes should this apply to?

8saskatchewan.ca

Ultrasound Equipment

Currently, statements regarding the use of medical ultrasound equipment is governed by section 31. This provision requires an owner to register the equipment with the Radiation Safety Unit, as well as annually provide a statement containing particulars of all medical ultrasound equipment under the owner’s control.

The consultations on amendments to Part V Radiation Health and Safety of the Act identified that a review of the ultrasound registration is needed. The original intent of the ultrasound statement was to track the numbers and locations of medical ultrasound equipment across the province as a means to provide efficient regulatory oversight. It has been demonstrated that this level of oversight is not proportionate to the risk being managed. Consideration is being given to removing the registry and yearly statements for medical ultrasound equipment. The removal would not affect the safety requirements that already exist for medical ultrasound equipment but would reduce red tape.

Consideration is also being given to expanding the list of qualified operators of therapeutic ultrasound equipment to include occupational therapists. This occupation is distinct from those covered in section 33. Occupational therapists possess unique training and licensing structures. This addition would enable an owner to employ occupational therapists as operators of therapeutic ultrasound equipment.


• What would be the implications of removing the requirement to register ultrasound equipment and provide the statement?

• Should an occupational therapist be added to the list of operators of therapeutic ultrasound equipment? Why or why not?



• Should the ionizing radiation exposure limits for notification of accidental exposure stated in section 41 be amended? If yes, what would be the reasonable limit to report on?

• What would be the implications of expanding the section to include irradiation accidents due to causes other than equipment malfunction?

Accidental Radiation Exposure

Section 41 requires an owner of radiation equipment to take all reasonable steps to protect occupational workers and the public from a malfunction of radiation equipment that results in unnecessary irradiation. This includes informing the Radiation Safety Unit within 48 hours of an incident where an occupational worker or a member of the public is exposed to radiation, and the risk cannot be terminated within six hours. Further, a full report is required that identifies the circumstances of the malfunction and actions taken.

Consideration is being given to broadening the application of this section. This section only requires reporting if radiation exposure is caused by a malfunction of the equipment and does not include other errors such as human error and procedural errors. It is believed that better protective measures should be in place to ensure the safety of workers and the public.

10saskatchewan.ca

Many of these fees have not been updated since 2004 and in some cases 1993. Consideration is being given to updating some of the fees and removing others entirely, for example:

• removing registration fees (section 44);

• increasing the fee for consultation services from $75 per hour to $150 per hour;

• increasing inspection fees from $50 per hour to $150 per hour; and

• removing the fees for leak test analysis (section 45), radon measurement (section 46), calibration of radiation monitoring equipment (section 47) and (section 50).


• What would be the implications of proposed changes to the fees?

Fees

The regulations establish fees for registration of x-ray and medical ultrasound equipment, leak test analysis, instrument calibrations, and radon measurement.

Currently, annual registration fees for radiation equipment are set in Table 4 of the regulations and are as follows:

Type of Equipment

First X-Ray Unit Each Additional X-Ray Unit

Each Ultrasound Unit

Maximum Total Fees

Medical $100 $50 $50 $1,000Dental $50 $30 - $200Veterinary $50 $30 - $200Industrial $50 $30 - $400Educational $50 $30 - $200


Dose Limit for Lens of the Eye

Currently, Table 7: Specific Equivalent Dose Limits sets the ionizing radiation dose limit for an occupational worker for the lens of the eye to 150 mSv in one-year dosimetry period.

Based on the recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, it is proposed to set an equivalent dose limit for an occupational worker for the lens of the eye to 20 mSv in a year, averaged over a five year dosimetry period, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv.


• What would be the implications of proposed changes to dose limit for lens of the eye for an occupational worker?

12saskatchewan.ca

Standards Updates

The regulations came into force in 2005 and, since then, safety standards and guidelines have not been updated. The current science in radiation protection indicates that the radiation protection requirements need to be updated to enhance the health and safety of workers and the public.

Old Standard Name New Standard NameStandard S-106 (E),Technical and Quality Assurance Standards for Dosimetry Services in Canada

REGDOC-2.7.2, Dosimetry, Volume I: Ascertaining Occupational Dose

Radiation Protection and Safety for Industrial X-ray Equipment, Safety Code 34, 1993

Radiation Protection and Safety for Industrial X-ray Equipment, Safety Code 34, 2003

Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices (2003), published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)

Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices (2021), published by ACGIH

ANSI Z136.1-2000, Safe Use of Lasers ANSI Z136.1-2014, Safe Use of LasersANSI Z136.3-2004 Safe Use of Lasers In Health Care

ANSI Z136.3-2018 Safe Use of Lasers In Health Care

ANSI Z136.2-1997 Safe Use of Optical Fiber Communication Systems Utilizing Laser Diode And LED Sources

ANSI Z136.2-2012 Safe Use of Optical Fiber Communication Systems Utilizing Laser Diode And LED Sources

Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz, Safety Code 6, 1999

Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz Safety Code 6, 2015


• What would be the implications of adopting the updated standards?


Summary

The government is asking your feedback to improve radiation health and safety in Saskatchewan workplaces. While specific topics for discussion have been provided, we are interested in your input on any of the radiation health and safety regulations.

Please submit all written responses no later than September 30, 2021 to:Radiation Health and Safety Regulation ReviewMinistry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety300–1870 Albert StreetREGINA SK S4P 4W1

You can also respond via email: [email protected]

reew the radiation health and safety regulations, 2005

Documents