ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1995, publiée 82ème session CIT (1995)

Convention (n° 115) sur la protection contre les radiations, 1960 - Pologne (Ratification: 1964)

Autre commentaire sur C115

Observation
  1. 1995
  2. 1990

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report on the Convention and in its general report of 1992.

1. Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, the Committee drew attention to the revised exposure limits adopted on the basis of new physiological findings by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations, issued in 1991 as ICRP publication No. 60. These Recommendations have a bearing on the application of the Convention, in view of the references to "knowledge available at the time" and "current knowledge", included in Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee accordingly asked governments to indicate the steps taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation and to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation in the light of current knowledge. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the State Atomic Agency has prepared a "proposal of amendment of the Regulation of the President of the State Atomic Agency of 31 March 1988 concerning threshold quantities of ionizing radiation and derivative indicators determining ionizing radiation hazard". The Government has not indicated whether and how this proposal includes the revised exposure limits and other protective measures set out in ICRP publication No. 60. The Committee notes, however, with interest from the Government's report that another draft Regulation being prepared concerning emergency situations is to follow the new, recently approved International Basic Safety Standards, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations and based on the 1990 ICRP Recommendations. Referring again to the explanations provided in its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee hopes that in amending the 1988 Regulation, effective protection of workers will be ensured in the light of current knowledge as embodied in the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and that the Government will supply full particulars of the new exposure limits and other provisions adopted.

2. Articles 7, paragraph 2, and 8 of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that section 6.1 of Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 concerning limit doses of ionizing radiation and indicators determining the risk connected with ionizing radiation (identical with the Regulation of 31 March 1988 mentioned in point 1 above) provides limit doses for persons from 15 years of age to 18 years; it had noted the Government's indication that this concerned only persons undergoing vocational preparation but that the age limit would be raised to 16 years when Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 was next amended. The Committee notes with interest from the Government's subsequent reports that while age and conditions of young persons' employment are governed by labour law and the atomic law age specification is only of informational character, the proposed amendment (mentioned in point 1 above) to the Order/Regulation of 31 March 1988 is to raise the age limit from 15 to 16 years. It also notes with interest that the Order of 21 December 1991 amending the list of jobs prohibited to young persons maintains the prohibition of employment of young persons in conditions of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that while young persons over 16 years of age may be so employed to the extent necessary for their vocational preparation, exposure to radiation has been limited to the level determined for the general public. The Committee looks forward to learning of the adoption of the draft amendment.

3. Occupational exposure during and after an emergency.

(a) In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 9(1) of the Atomic Law of 10 April 1986 workers intervening in abnormal situations where maximum permissible exposure limits are exceeded do not have the right to refuse such work. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its latest report that an amendment of the Atomic Law submitted to Parliament on 10 June 1994 proposes to delete from section 9(1) the words "a worker cannot refuse execution of such an order". The Committee looks forward to learning of the adoption of that amendment.

(b) In its previous direct request, the Committee noted with interest the adopted of Order No. 180 of 19 June 1989 (Monitor Polski, No. 23 of 1989) respecting the specific requirements and conditions for nuclear safety and radiological protection which sets forth measures to be taken and special exposure limits permitted with regard to emergencies. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 16 to 27 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the steps taken in relation to the matters raised in the conclusions to the general observation, in particular in paragraph 35(c) concerning the protection against accidents and emergencies. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its report that in 1993 the State Atomic Agency started to prepare a draft Regulation concerning the procedure applied in emergency situations resulting from radioactive hazard for people and the environment, and that values of intervention levels, determined in the draft Regulation, are in conformity with the new, recently approved International Basic Safety Standards, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to supply a copy of this Regulation, and that it will also specify the provision made in law and practice for:

(i) the prevention of accidents and the mitigation of their consequences, as set out in paragraphs 191 to 193 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards and paragraph 35(c)(i) and (ii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation under the Convention;

(ii) the strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers is to be allowed. In this regard, the Committee has noted the Government's indication that values of intervention levels determined in the draft Regulation are in conformity with the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards. The Committee observes that enforcement of the principles set out in paragraphs 233 to 238 of these Standards, concerning the protection of workers undertaking an intervention, read together with paragraphs 191 and 192(f) and (g) of the Standards would appear to meet the requirements of the strict definition called for in paragraph 35(c)(iii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation. While looking forward to the adoption of the corresponding draft Regulation, the Committee however notes that section 9 of the Atomic Law allows for higher exceptional exposure limits in circumstances which do not meet the same strict criteria, including any assignment "reducing and eliminating the effects" of accidents; this should be clearly limited along the lines set out in paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards as well as paragraph 35(c)(iii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation.

4. The provision of alternative employment. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation on the Convention, as well as paragraphs 96 and 238 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated to ensure the provision of suitable alternative employment not involving exposure to ionizing radiation for workers having accumulated well before retirement age an effective dose beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment arises.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer