Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does indeed not reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

With regard to its previous direct request, the Committee notes the information communicated in the Government’s report.

Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous direct request the Committee had noted the following:

According to the definition of the terms "member of the public" and "(radiation) worker" given in Chapter 3, Nos. 35 and 64 of Standard 3.01/88 of the National Committee on Nuclear Energy (CNEN), it would appear that workers not occupationally exposed to radiation are assimilated to members of the public (for whom the maximum recommended dose is currently 1 mSv) only "when absent from the restricted areas of the installation" but, as soon as they pass through such areas, they come under the definition of radiation workers and could therefore, as a consequence of their work at the service of the installation, receive annual doses above the limits established by the Standard for members of the public.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its last report that the rules laid down by the CNEN define the limits and conditions for persons exposed to radiation and for members of the public. It also indicates that there is an error of terminology, since any persons who work in units where nuclear energy is used for any purpose and may be exposed to radiation are also considered as members of the public. Therefore, labour inspectors will consider as workers anyone who may be exposed to radiation. According to the Government, this is a plus for safety given that the limits for persons exposed to radiation may be lower. The Government concludes by considering that what is necessary is to reduce the limits further, and this is in the process of being negotiated.

Hoping that the problems arising from any terminological errors can be solved, the Committee recalls the following:

Under this Article of the Convention, appropriate levels must be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiation or radioactive substances. The Committee refers to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention and paragraph II-8. of the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation, which establish that workers exposed to radiation from sources not directly linked to their work or essential to their work shall have the same level of protection as if they were members of the public.

The Committee asks the Government once again to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the workers covered by Article 8 of the Convention may not be exposed to radiation levels of over 1 mSv per year.

2. Emergency exposure. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that the definition of "emergency exposure" given in Chapter 3, No. 20 (of CNEN-NE Standard 3.01/88) and the corresponding rules in Guideline 5.2.4 should be reviewed. The definition given in Chapter 3, No. 20, covers exposure deliberately incurred during emergency situations not only for saving lives or preventing an escalation of accidents which may cause deaths, but also for "saving an installation of vital importance for the country". The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the maximum dose established in Guideline 5.2.4.3 is to be reviewed during the forthcoming general review of the standards to bring them into conformity with the latest Recommendations of the ICRP. It also notes that the Government considers that nuclear power plants are among the installations which are of vital importance for the country. The Committee refers to paragraph 35(d) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention and paragraphs V.27. to V.32. of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards and again asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to limit exceptional exposure of workers to what is required to cope with an acute danger to life and health. The Government is also asked to provide information on the arrangements made or envisaged to optimize the protection of workers against accidents and during emergencies, particularly with regard to the design and protective features of the workplace and equipment and the development of techniques which would avoid the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation.

In recalling the foregoing, the Committee observes that the Government restricts itself to pointing out in its last report that the revision of the national standard depends on the CNEN accepting the Ministry’s proposal. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this regard.

3. Provision of alternative employment. The Committee noted that an interministerial committee would shortly examine the issue of alternative employment for workers who have been exposed to radiation doses that endanger their health. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to, in order to ensure effective protection of workers, provide alternative employment to workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no requests for alternative employment have been made arising from situations involving exposure to radiation doses that are dangerous to health. The Committee considers that, irrespective of the situation, the Government should adopt the necessary measures to ensure that alternative employment is offered to workers who have been exposed to an accumulated higher dose of ionizing radiation that thus can endanger their health. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]