Jeff Dovyak RTNM, CRPA (R) 

Radiation Safety Coordinator

Shared Health Manitoba
 

7.2 Proposed amendment: reporting requirements for portal alarm monitors. 
 

(b) file an annual report with the Commission by April 30 that contains a summary of radiation detections for the calendar year before the date of the report; and

The existing annual reporting requirement in para 3(3)(b) provides no additional safety benefit, therefore, the CNSC intends to remove this reporting requirement to reduce the regulatory burden associated with shipments of unknown nuclear substances detected while in transport and that emit doses below 5 μSv/h. 
 

No objection! 
 

I am in agreement with the 6th paragraph of Section 7.2, dropping the reporting requirement for an annual detections report – our Licensing Specialist was not sure where to file the last one that I submitted. 
 

Jeff Dovyak RTNM, CRPA (R) 

Radiation Safety Coordinator

Shared Health Manitoba

10.1 New and amending existing definitions:

New definition of “uniformly distributed”

The definition of exemption quantity (EQ) and of unconditional clearance level (UCL), both make mention of when the radioactive nuclear substances are uniformly distributed, however, the term is not defined. As such, the CNSC proposes to add a definition for “uniformly distributed”. 
 

Jeff Dovyak RTNM, CRPA (R) 

Radiation Safety Coordinator

Shared Health Manitoba

10.13 Section 20, Radiation Survey Meters:

The CNSC intends to amend this section to require that instruments used for radiation measurements, such as portable radiation survey and contamination meters and direct reading dosimeters must be calibrated within 12 months preceding their use. This amendment would help to clarify the requirement for persons to ensure that their instrumentation is calibrated prior to being used and aligns with section 25 of the Radiation Protection Regulations. 
 

I am most concerned if not alarmed (no pun intended) at the idea of requiring annual calibration of Contamination Meters. This is potentially a huge, unnecessary burden on licensees and a waste of taxpayer money for publicly funded departments. If response to a check source is within expected limits annual calibration should not be required and it is likely that most licensees are doing Efficiency Measurements.

I’m uncertain about the propriety & necessity of requiring annual calibration for DRDs, if they are not used as the primary personal dosimeter; for instance if a worker is “badged” with OSLD but wears an EPD during pregnancy for additional surveillance. So while I do not necessarily agree with that, I’m not as opposed as I am for requiring annual Contamination Meter calibration. 
 

It will be important to clarify what is meant by 'all documents applicable to the radiation device'. Commercially-sensitive information is included with each application package for device certification to the CNSC.

To say that a transferor must provide "all documents applicable" without a definition of just what that means may result in significant problems in interpretation, particularly with commercially-sensitive / proprietary information.
 

If the specific types of documents that must be provided to a transferee are not defined, there may be significant impacts related to the protection of sensitive / proprietary information on design aspects of a certified device.

Comment on the main body of DIS 24-01
I grew up near a nuclear dump and nuclear power plant, near Pickering. I never felt safe there, especially with that loud false alarm in January 2020. I was so glad to move. There is no safe disposal of nuclear waste or safe use of nuclear.

I am quite concerned with mandates for testing “fish tissue and other receptor species tests for exposure uptake”. As Canada is moving away from animal testing, this seems counterintuitive to include animal testing in a document to modernize practices, especially when there is no mention of phasing out and replacing the practice. Mining is harmful to all life, and to the planet. Forcing fish and birds to be exposed to the effluent, and cutting them up to test them for selenium and other pollutants is cruel and outdated. Canada is phasing out toxicity testing on animals. Please switch to animal free methods of testing effluent and other substances. For wild fish and birds, please stop lethal sampling and switch to humane non lethal bio monitoring like is done in humans. 
Mines destroy all sorts of animals in laboratory testing of their effluents, and in lethal sampling of birds, fish, frogs, etc. Please do not use animal testing for pollution monitoring.

There are cruelty free modern alternatives to animal testing, including acute lethality testing. Cell cultures can determine effect of pollution for instance. Please reach out to antivivisection organizations regarding these tests, and lobby to change these outdated laws.

Please stop the “acute lethality tests” on rainbow trout, three lined stickleback, and other fish species. These tests involve pumping effluents into fish tanks about once a month, and if more than half the fish die, the experiments are repeated. There are animal free ways to test for pollution. Any guardians of companion fish will test their tank using paper strips and test tubes. They do not deliberately expose the fish to effluents to see what happens. Please also end the practice of sublethal toxicity testing of effluent on baby fathead minnows and rainbow trout, and stop cutting up fish to test their livers for mercury. Please lobby the government to put an end to mandatory toxicity testing under the Fisheries Act and go cruelty free. Please only use non lethal sampling of wild fish, or take tissue samples from fish who were already caught for human consumption. Please do not kill or harm any animals for research.

Many mining companies also kill animals as “pests”. Please only use non lethal methods of wildlife coexistence.

Please only use humane non lethal methods to manage beavers and other wildlife. Killing beavers only leaves room for more animals to move in. And the traps kill many other animals. London Ontario and many other places manage beavers without killing.

The PTNSR Exemption for NORM Section 2(2)(a)(i) should be updated to align with the IAEA Regulations SSR6 as the current proposed wordings do not.

Section 7.2 the proposed change to the PTNSR to remove the annual reporting should not occur. The CNSC advises the reporting does not provide any additional safety benefits is not correct. The CNSC paper submitted at the IAEA 18th International Conference on the safe transport of radioactive materials outlined the benefit of additional reporting was to determine the use of the exemptions and that the majority of alarms were from medical isotopes and NORM.

Section 4 of the PTNSR requires shipments to be classified in accordance with the IAEA SSR6 regulations. The IAEA SSR6 section 107 (f) regulations requires all NORM shipments that are mixtures to be classified by section 405 of the IAEA regulations. Section 2(2)(a)(i) of the PTNSR does not align with the IAEA SSR6 allowing for shipments at a higher activity than considered safe as outlined in the Coordinated Research Project Report Regulatory Control for the Safe Transport of NORM (IAEA TECDOC 1728) and incorporated into the IAEA SSR6.

The CNSC does not regulate NORM Receiving facilities nor has the CNSC completed an assessment on NORM waste that would indicate 5µSv/hr is an exemption limit from the PTNSR. This is the limit for an exempted package. The CNSC will have no method of determining if NORM shipments have been properly classified as required by the PTNSR. This will create unsafe conditions as a result as the CNSC will not know if shippers are compliant with the PTNSR when no reporting occurs. Numerous Shipments of NORM fall under the PTNSR at 5µSv/hr when applying the exemption clauses.

NSRDR

10.16 Subsection 31(2), Obligations of Operators: 

NSRDR

10.18 Subsection 33(2), Obligations of Supervisors of Trainees: 

NSRDR

10.7 Subsection 8.1, Check Sources: 

NSRDR

10.12 Subsection 19(1), Transfers

Cody Cuthill

Normtek
Radiation Services Ltd.
 

The PTNSR should be updated to conform with the IAEA regulations as it pertains to NORM. In particular Section 2(2)(a).

Rationale: The PTNSR Section 2(2)(a) wording is confusing and not compliant with the IAEA regulations. The IAEA SSR6 outline that NORM can only be excluded in accordance with the 10 times rule only if in secular equilibrium in accordance with Table 2 and that NORM not in secular equilibrium must be calculated in accordance with the mixtures rule (Section 405), if they are to be transported in a safe manner. This came about as a result of the IAEA Coordinated Research Report to which Canada participated as outlined In TECDOC 1728 Safe Transport of NORM which states in the conclusion Section (7) the following; Screen shots from this document outlines it is not safe if the mixtures rule is not applied as follows:

“(7) The need to apply paragraph 405 of TS-R-1 (2009) [13] to radionuclides that are not in secular equilibrium should also be clearer. This requirement is best illustrated by radium isotopes that have been separated from the decay chain of their parent. The exemption value of 10 Bq/g for 226Ra and 228Ra may be too high when the rule for mixtures is not applied. Recommendations from this Coordinated Research Project are reflected in the 2012 Edition of the Transport Regulations. These requirements, approved by the Board of Governors in March 2012 are now published."

Furthermore,  the Coordinated Research Project Report then provided an example indicating that the safe transport of NORM mixtures resulted in an exemption limit of 4.1 Bq/g was necessary to safely transport mixtures as noted below.

“As the value of activity concentration for exempt material of TS-R-1, Table 2 e. g. for Th-228 activity concentration is by a factor 10 lower than this for the isotopes Ra-226 and Ra-228 as well as Pb-210 and Po-210, the limit of activity concentration decisively depends on the fraction of Th-228 (fTh228) in nuclides mixture, when applying the formula in para. 405. This issue is depicted at the following example: In the process of extraction of crude oil and natural gas, scaling takes place at the inner walls of the production pipes. The scales consist in most cases of barium sulphate in which radium isotopes co-precipitate, while the parent nuclides (U-228, Th-232) do not occur in the deposit. Accordingly. the secular equilibrium of the U-Ra decay chain and / or Th decay chain is disturbed. While Pb-210 and Po-210 are slowly re-growing from Ra-226 (the equilibrium is reached after about 100 years) Th-228 re-grows from Ra-228 with a so called “flowing equilibrium” within few years. Therefore, the fraction of Th-228 of the total activity is increasing with time (reaching equilibrium of 1.46 times Ra-228 activity concentration). The insertion of measured activity concentrations as provided in German report [3] into the formula of para. 405 leads to the following exempt activity concentration (sum activity): (fRa226 + fPb210 + fPo210 + fRa228) = 0.84 while fTh228 = 0.16 From this it follows that (0.84)/10 + 0.16/1 = 0.244, and next 1/0.244 = 4.1 Bq/g as exempt activity concentration, i.e. the sum activity of all relevant nuclides. This value can now be multiplied by 10 according to para. 107 f), while the specific activity of each radionuclide is given by its fraction.”

As a result of the findings outlined in TECDOC 1728 Safe Transport of NORM the IAEA: SSR 6 thus stated shippers must calculate mixtures in accordance with Paragraph 405 of the IAEA Regulations. There is no option to classify by any other means as noted below. 
 
"(f) Natural Materials and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides, which have been processed, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the values specified in Table 2, or calculated in accordance with paras 403(a) and 404-407. For natural materials and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides that are not in secular equilibrium the calculation of activity concentrations shall {emphasis Added} be performed in accordance with para 405."

The PTNSR is not safe if they do not meet this requirement or classify mixtures in accordance with Para 405. The PTNSR is confusing as it requires transporters to classify NORM in Section 4 as per the IAEA Regulations (which requires NORM mixtures to be classified as per section 405) then contradicts this in its exclusion for NORM in Section 2 as they do not outline the requirement to classify mixtures as follows;

"Exception
(2) These Regulations, except of Sections 6 and 7, do not apply  to the packaging and transport of a nuclear substance 

(a) that is naturally Occurring, provided that it has 

(1) a specific activity that is less than or equal to 70 kBq/kg, or 
(ii) an activity concentration that does not exceed 10 times the activity concentration limit for exempt material values set out in the IAEA Regulations."  

Shippers are left with a specific activity that corresponds to thirty year old legislation and does not address mixtures or what appears as a value determined from Table 2 of the IAEA Regulations but possibly calculated as per paragraph 405. Completely unclear.

1. Some interpret that both clause 2(2)(a)(i) and (ii) must be applied because of the provisional clause “PROVIDED THAT” in 2(2)(a) above means each clause must be applied and the lower option taken. Compliant with the IAEA Regulations. 
2. Some interpret the regulations to mean that clause (i) only applies to NORM in Secular Equilibrium and clause (ii) apply only to 10 times the values given in Table 2 (no Regard to mixtures) – Non-compliant with IAEA recommendations!
3. Some interpret that clause (i) applies to NORM in Secular Equilibrium only and Clause (i) is to be used only if the shipment is a mixture and calculated as per section 405 outlined in the IAEA regulations. The choice of the shipper is dependant on whether or not the shipment is in secular equilibrium or not. Compliant with IAEA Regulations. 
4. Some interpret that you have a choice to apply mixtures rule or not. You can and chose clause (i) or chose clause (ii) due to the word “or” at the end of clause (i). This is not compliant with the IAEA Regulations giving the shipper the option to be compliant or not compliant. CNSC staff have indicated this is their interpretation and stated the Canadian NORM Guidelines are wrong as shippers can disregard the IAEA regulations indicating this really is meant to be take the option that is the least restrictive. If this were the case the wording should state the “greater of”.   Transport is about safety. Either 41 Bq/g is safe as outlined for mixtures or 70 is safe. It cannot be both.

The safe transport of NORM is also identified in the IAEA SSG-26 Advisory Materials to the IAEA Regulations for the safe Transport of Radioactive materials Section 107.4.  Furthermore the IAEA update to SSR6 (Draft DS543) clarify that  the specific activity and activity concentration are considered the same as noted below.

“Specific activity of a radionuclide shall mean the activity per unit mass of that nuclide. The specific activity of a material shall mean the activity per unit mass of the material in which the radionuclides are essentially uniformly distributed. Note; the activity concentration and specific activity of a material are synonymous for the purpose of these Regulations.”

The NORM exclusion in Section 2 does not comply with the IAEA regulations for this definition.

Furthermore,  this error causes problems in NORM industries as many provincial governments utilize the PTNSR in their regulations indicating that a facility cannot accept NORM governed under the PTNSR. Providing two options further create confusion and unsafe conditions.

Normtek would recommend that the CNSC update clause 2(2)(a) to align with the IAEA Regulations by replacing clause (i) and (ii)  to state;
(i)    the specific activity of NORM in secular equilibrium shall be calculated as per Table 2 set out in the IAEA Regulations; and 
(ii)    the specific activity of NORM not in Secular equilibrium shall be calculated as per section 405 rules for mixtures set out in the IAEA Regulations.

Cody Cuthill

Normtek Radiation Services Ltd.
 

The PTNSR proposed amendment 7.2 to eliminate the reporting requirements of unidentified loads less than 5 µSv/hr should be scrapped.

Rationale: The CNSC proposes to eliminate reporting of unidentified loads less than 5 µSv/hr then advise under Section 7.6 of the proposed amendment to require improperly classified loads to be automatically reportable. Unidentified loads are improperly classified loads. In fact, most loads in the NORM industry are improperly classified loads as most within NORM industries have never even read the PTNSR and ship as NORM with no regards to classification. This has been brought to the attention of the CNSC as a result of a Dangerous Occurrence.

When the CNSC excluded NORM from its mandate it did so without ensuring the provincial and territorial governments had the necessary training and experience to govern radioactive materials. To date still little regulations or oversite exist causing harm to the environment, workers and the public. The CNSC paper submitted at the IAEA 18th International Conference on the safe transport of radioactive materials outlined the benefit of additional reporting was to determine the use of the exemptions and that the majority of alarms where from medical isotopes and NORM as follows;

“From the information collected over the years regarding these events, it was found that the majority of the alarms were caused by medical isotopes or naturally occurring radioactive materials”  

“Record Keeping and reporting of these events allow for the monitoring of the use of the exemptions, ensuring that the characterizations have been completed and that the nuclear substances have been safely disposed.”

The CNSC dose not regulate NORM receiving facilities nor has the CNSC completed an assessment on NORM waste that would indicate 5µSv/hr is an exemption limit from the PTNSR. This is the limit for an excepted package. The CNSC will have no method of determining if NORM shipments have been classified at all, which is presently the case in all provinces. Of the 400 packages received last year Normtek confirms not one was received based on the activity of the waste. A serious issue created by the CNSC by not ensuring provincial regulators had experience to regulate radioactive materials they mandated to regulate. This will further compound and create unsafe conditions as a result as the CNSC will not know if shippers are compliant with the PTNSR when no reporting occurs and provincial governments have no regulations surrounding proper classification. Furthermore, numerous Shipments of NORM fall under the PTNSR at 5µSv/hr when applying the exemption clauses.   If the CNSC is to implement a program based on dose rates if should be one that would reasonably assure compliance with mixtures of NORM at the 41 Bq/g that the IAEA considers safe for NORM transport. The transport of NORM is excluded from the IAEA regulations based on the 10 times rule due to the hazards of transport and not the hazards of these materials outside transport such as processing. Until such time as the CNSC can be confident the provincial governments have regulations in place for NORM that govern receiving facilities for those that fall under the PTNSR, the CNSC should not implement any further exclusions from reporting. 

Steven Hansen

TAM International

Marjorie Gonzalez, PhD MCCPM

Medical Physicist/Regional Radiation Safety Leader in Nuclear Medicine

Interior Health | Medical Imaging 
 

Community and Health Services Centre
 

[Some portions of this comment were redacted for violations of the CNSC’s Moderation Policy.]

Ipsos Custodes is a business in Ontario dedicated to improving Canada by mocking His Majesty’s incompetent bureaucrats.

Firstly the PTNSR, 2015 must be amended to remove inclusion by reference to a document “as amended” because such a function offends the principles of natural justice whereby His Majesty is the fount of all law. By allowing an external authority to decide law outside of His Majesty’s authority and oversight, His Majesty has abdicated his authority for law and order in Canada, something he cannot do. Therefore such an inclusion by is null and void. Furthermore, His Majesty’s subjects fail to have ability to petition The Crown prior to the law being brought into effect a fundamental feature of Canada’s system of law. Unconstitutional effects aside, many further problems exist.

Ipsos Custodes foresees circumstances where licensees fail to report a spill of greater than 100 EQ by quibbling over the definition of “contained” and may use the fact that a spill in an interior location would be “contained” by the building itself.

The contemplation for reducing the requirement for leak tests to shielding of nuclear substances used as shielding doesn’t go far enough. There is no a priori reason to specify that leak tests of exposure devices need leak tests any more than any other leak test for other shielding. If depleted uranium shielding requires a leak test then it requires such a leak test in all circumstances or none at all. The CNSC cannot justify such a narrow use of leak testing. How is the depleted uranium ballast exempted from licensure any less of a leak risk than an exposure device?

The section on radiation survey meters causes problems since this should have been included in the Radiation Protection Regulations since the NSRDR does not apply to licensees under the C2NFPER. This would cause a disparity between licensees—and confusion of licensees with both types of licence. Furthermore, the CNSC would have to define what “contamination meter” is very carefully as well as “direct reading dosimeter” since “survey meter” is already defined.

This proposal should have considered the constant confusion in the industry on the barriers to be placed for radiography since the Radiation Protection Regulations require barriers at 25µSv/h and the NSRDR require them at 0.1 mSv/h and if the barriers at 25µSv/h serve to meet both requirements. His Majesty’s lesser thinkers should consider just removing the clause or changing the dose rates to 25µSv/h to match the Radiation Protection Regulations.

The incorporation by reference would not be in fact as the CNSC staff put it: “ambulatory”. The BSS 2014 will not be revised ever again and therefore the won’t be ambulatory. The CNSC should instead take this opportunity to align the exemption quantities between the PTNSR, 2015 and the NSRDR. In fact dozens are nuclides do not have the same exemption quantity across the two regulations and could create circumstances where a quantity of nuclide is exempt under one regulation but not the other. All these differences result via the clause that specify the exemption quantity when the nuclide is not listed.

The CNSC staff should also take the time to clarify in the definition of exemption quantity that the exemption quantity for a uniformly contaminated substance is an ‘inclusive or’ and not an ‘exclusive or’ like most other laws and regulations, or frankly the English language.