CMNT_TITLE

Repetition

Comments by the Barbados Workers Union (BWU). The Committee notes the comments transmitted by the BWU on 1 September 2011 which were communicated to the Government on 19 September 2011 and that no response thereto has been received from the Government. The Committee notes that the BWU reiterates its call to institute its previously suggested measures so as to mitigate the probability and severity of any incidents relative to radiation exposure, that the BWU on several occasions has requested that the Advisory Committee be reactivated, maximum admissible radiation exposure doses be fixed and a compulsory annual examination be instituted, among other measures and that according to the BWU workers in a number of establishments have, of late, made calls for the aforementioned measures relating to radiation protection to be implemented without delay. In the light of these comments, the Committee requests the Government to take all appropriate measures to ensure full application of the Convention. It also reiterates its request to the Government to respond to its previous observations which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the reply to its direct request. It notes that, despite comments it has reiterated for several years, the Government’s report contains no new information and that, according to the Government’s replies, no follow-up has been given to the Committee’s comments. The Committee also notes that the Government’s report refers to observations submitted by the “Barbados Workers’ Union” which requests the Government to reactivate the Advisory Committee on Radiation Protection (ACRP); to establish legislative measures to afford protection to workers exposed to ionizing radiation, particularly by fixing the maximum admissible radiation exposure doses; to take appropriate measures to prescribe a compulsory medical examination – not merely optional – for workers exposed to radiation; and to provide alternative employment allowing them to maintain their income for persons who can no longer work in zones exposed to radiation. In view of the above, the Committee is bound to reiterate its observations on the following matters.

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the regulatory body to monitor the exposure of workers to ionizing radiation has not been established yet. It further notes that the ACRP has not yet given directives regarding protective measures to be taken against ionizing radiation, or time limits for the application of such measures. Referring to its introductory comments, the Committee urges the Government to take the appropriate steps to make the ACRP operational and thus creating the framework for the monitoring of workers’ exposure to ionizing radiation and the issuing of directives regarding protective measures, which falls, according to the Committee’s understanding, in the area of competence of the ACRP.

Articles 3 and 6. With regard to the fixing of maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation, necessary in order to comply with the requirement to ensure effective protection of workers in the light of “knowledge available at the time” and in the light of “current knowledge”, the Committee noted from the Government’s report that the radiation protection officer, being a hospital physician and the chairperson of the ACRP, is well aware of the recent revised dose limits of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). In this regard, the Government indicates that reports on the doses of ionizing radiation received by workers show that the limits recommended by the ICRP were not exceeded. However, in particular cases recorded for cardiac catheterization doctors and one radiologist, the dose of radiation absorbed was beyond this limitation, which subsequently has been brought to their attention. The Committee, noting that the observance of the dose limits for ionizing radiation, as recommended by the ICRP in 1990, do not seem to set a problem to the Government in practice, requests therefore the Government to reconsider the possibility to fix maximum permissible dose levels of ionizing radiations with legally binding effect in order to guarantee by means of enforceable provisions an effective protection of workers exposed to ionizing radiations, in accordance with Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.

Article 5. With regard to the installation of a computerized system, type “Selectron HDR”, in 1990 which reduces the number of workers dealing with radiation sources to an extent that the probable exposure to radiation would turn to zero, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that this system is used in the treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix and related problems. However, its use in other medical disciplines has to be planned since logistical problems regarding the necessary equipment and the movement of staff working in related disciplines need to be resolved. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary action to enable the use of the “Selectron HDR” system in all medical disciplines where appropriate in order to restrict the exposure of workers to the lowest practicable level and to avoid any unnecessary exposure of workers. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on experiences already collected in applying the system in the field of the treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix.

Article 7. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that no legislation is in place to set a lower limit on the age of radiation workers. However, since it is a very fundamental issue, it is hoped that it will appear in the amended Radiation Act. In the meantime it belongs to the radiation protection officer’s tasks to ensure that adequate structural shielding in place is provided, such as area monitoring, warning lights or alarm where appropriate and that only qualified workers are employed to operate machines producing radiation. In this respect, the Committee notes again the Government’s indication provided with its 1998 report to the effect that the minimum age for engagement in radiation work was 16. Recalling the provision of Article 7(2) of the Convention which provides for a minimum age of 16 to become engaged in work involving ionizing radiation, the Committee requests again the Government to specify the legal basis providing for the prohibition to engage young persons under 16 years of age in work involving exposure to ionizing radiations. Moreover, the Committee recalls the provision of Article 7(1)(a) of the Convention, providing for the fixation of appropriate levels of exposure to ionizing radiations for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work and are aged 18 and over. The Committee therefore asks the Government once again to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to fix appropriate levels for this group of workers. Since the Committee understands from the Government’s indication that an amendment of the Radiation Act is intended, it would invite the Government to consider the possibility to incorporate such appropriate levels in the amendment of the above Act.

Article 8. With regard to dose limits to be set for workers not directly engaged in radiation work, the Government indicated that the reports on radiation received by these workers show either negligible or zero doses. While the Committee noted this information with interest, it nevertheless wishes to point out that Article 8 of the Convention obliges every ratifying State to fix appropriate levels of exposure to ionizing radiations for this category of workers, in accordance with Article 6, read together with Article 3(1) of the Convention, that is in the light of knowledge available at the time. In this respect, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, as well as to section 5.4.5 of the ILO Code of Practice on the Radiation Protection of Workers (ionizing radiations) of 1986, explaining that the employer has the same obligations towards workers not engaged in radiation work, as far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned, as if they were members of the public with respect to sources of practices under the employer’s control. The annual dose limits should be those applied to individual members of the public. According to the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, the annual dose limit for members of the public is 1 mSv. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to fulfil its obligation under this Article of the Convention.

Article 9. The Committee noted the information supplied with the Government’s report on the functions of the alarm systems used in those units at hospitals where radiation treatment is carried out. It also notes the existence of appropriate warning signs fixed on the doors to indicate the presence of hazards arising from ionizing radiations. However, with regard to adequate instructions of workers directly engaged in radiation work, the Committee calls again the Government’s attention to section 2.4 of the 1986 ILO Code of Practice on the Radiation Protection of Workers (ionizing radiations) which contains general principles for informing, instructing and training of workers. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers are adequately instructed in the precautions to be taken for their protection in conformity with Article 9(2) of the Convention.

Article 11. The Committee noted the Government’s indication to the effect that the workers designated to perform radiation work are presently monitored by TLD radiation monitoring badges supplied by the universities of the West Indies. The Committee requests the Government to explain more in detail the characteristics of this specific monitoring and the manner in which it is carried out.

Article 12. With regard to appropriate medical examination of workers directly engaged in radiation work, the Government indicated that a medical examination is still a prerequisite for an appointment to the public service. In addition, all workers assuming duties at the hospital are tested subsequently after they have taken up their work on a voluntary basis. In this respect, the Committee wishes to underline that subsequent medical examinations of workers directly engaged in radiation work have to be carried out on a mandatory basis and thus cannot be left to the discretion of the workers concerned whether or not they want to undergo a medical examination once they have been employed. The Government is accordingly requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged ensuring that all workers engaged in radiation work are obliged to undergo appropriate medical examinations, not only prior to their employment, but also subsequently at appropriate intervals.

Article 13. With regard to the measures to be taken in emergency situations, the Government indicated that no such measures are in place yet, but that it is hoped that the development of emergency plans will be one of the tasks of the proposed regulatory body. In this respect, the Committee states that the ACRP is responsible, inter alia, to prepare a detailed radiation protection programme for Barbados (point (3) of the Advisory Committee on Radiation Protection – Terms of reference). The Committee thinks that the preparation of measures to be taken in emergency situations would form an integral part of its task. The Committee therefore hopes that the ACRP will resume its functions in the near future and that it will, within the framework of its duties, elaborate plans for emergency situations. To this effect, the Committee invites the Government again to refer to its 1987 general observation under the Convention as well as to paragraphs 16–27 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention concerning occupational exposure during and after an emergency which intend to give guidance regarding the measures to be taken in emergency situations. The Committee hopes that the Government will report on any progress made in this respect.

Article 14. In absence of any additional information regarding alternative employment of workers with premature accumulation of their lifetime dose, the Committee requests once again the Government to indicate whether and, if so, under which provisions, it is ensured that a worker who is medically advised to avoid exposure to ionizing radiations is not assigned to work involving such exposure, or is transferred to another suitable employment if he or she has already been assigned.