EXPERIENCE SANITARY-EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION PROJECT OF PLACING A SOURCE OF IONIZING RADIATION (GENERATING) IN HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS

The article reviews the results of long-term sanitary-epidemiological examination of projects of placing of ionizing radiation (generating) sources in health care institutions of Saint-Petersburg. The majority among the placed sources presented for examination was X-ray diagnostic units and sets – 35.7%, dentist X-rays – 39.4% and fluorography units – 10.8%. Mammography units and computer tomographs made 6.7% each, accelerants – 0.7%.

The most frequent reasons of primary refusals to accept design documentation were: absence of calculations of protection against all placed diagnostic X-ray devices (23.6% – at placing of diagnostic X-ray sets, 16.2% – at placing of dentist devices), absence of the upper floors layouts (26.5% – at placing of dentist X-rays) and absence of permitting documentation for X-ray devices (at placing of dentist X-ray devices – 22.2%).

At carrying out of design activity of special importance is creation of medical and technical projects which were absent in 22.9% of presented projects and in 34.6% were replaced with technical projects. Significant drawbacks of the projects were ignoring the necessity to consider the distance from the personnel workplaces and the width of technical passes (34.0%). That was caused by the absence of corresponding documentation from suppliers of equipment for X-ray rooms.

At calculation of protection against X-ray radiation in 11.3% of projects of placing X-ray diagnostic devices (sets) and in 7.7% of projects of placing dentist X-ray devices, radiation directivity factors (N) were determined incorrectly.

Of importance is the issue of adequate choice of building and finishing materials. In 50.0% of projects of placing of diagnostic X-ray devices (sets) and 37.6% of projects of placing dentist X-ray devices there were no sanitary-epidemiological conclusions regarding the building and finishing materials to confirming their feasibility for healthcare institutions.

Analysis of the main stages of preparation of design documentation and the sanitary-epidemiological examination carried out upon the application to the Center of hygiene and epidemiology in Saint-Petersburg between the years 2011-2014 presented the main drawbacks of design activity, systematized design errors and suggested tools of expert work optimization.

1. Федеральный закон от 30.03.1999 N 52-ФЗ (ред. от 13.07.2015) «О санитарно-эпидемиологическом благополучии населения» (с изм. и доп., вступ. в силу с 24.07.2015) [Электронный ресурс] -http://www.consultant.ru/ (дата обращения: 07.08.2015 г.).

2. Приказ Федеральной службы по надзору в сфере защиты прав потребителей и благополучия человека № 224 «О санитарно-эпидемиологических экспертизах, обследованиях, исследованиях, испытаниях и токсикологических, гигиенических и иных видах оценок»: зарегистрирован 20.07.2007 г. Регистрационный № 9866. – М., Минюст России

3. Гигиенические требования к устройству и эксплуатации рентгеновских кабинетов, аппаратов и проведению рентгенологических исследований (СанПиН 2.6.1.1192-03): введены в действие от 18.02.03 г. № 8 с 01.05.03 г.

4. Нормы радиационной безопасности (НРБ-99/2009): Санитарные правила и нормативы (СанПиН 2.6.1.2523-09): утв. и введены в действие от 07.07.09 г. – М. : Федеральный центр гигиены и эпидемиологии Роспотребнадзора, 2009. – 100 с.

5. Ракитин, И.А. Региональные проблемы радиационной безопасности населения (опыт сравнительной гигиенической оценки) / И.А. Ракитин, А.Л. Зельдин, А.П. Ситников. – СПб. ; Ханты-Мансийск.: КультИнформПресс, 2010. – 306 с.