Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided with the Government’s report. It notes that a revision of the Ordinance on industrial safety and health, and the Ordinance on the prevention of ionizing radiation hazards has been undertaken in January 2000 in consequence to an accident that occurred at the uranium processing plant in Tokai-mura, Ibaraki prefecture, on 30 September 1999. Moreover, it notes that the Ministry of Labour issued regulations on the special education for nuclear fuel substances handling operations which are based on the provisions found in the Ordinance on the prevention of ionizing radiation (Ministry of Labour Notification No. 1, 20 January, 2000). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of the amendments referred to above as well as of the Ministry of Labour Notification No. 1, 20 January, 2000 and the Ordinance on mariners prevention of ionizing radiation hazards for further examination.

Furthermore, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Radiation Council after discussion has rejected the possibility of incorporating the dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiation, set out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations, into national law. The Committee accordingly understands that the dose limits have not been the subject of the amendments incorporated to the above ordinances in January 2000. In this context, it notes the abstract of reasons contained in the Government’s report, which has been submitted to the administrative agencies concerned in 1998 by the Radiation Council. The explanations, why the incorporation of the ICRP Recommendations into national legislation is not necessary only refer to workers’ exposure in emergency situations and to the exposure of pregnant or possibly pregnant women. With regard to workers engaged in radiation work, the Committee notes that article4 of the Ordinance on the prevention of ionizing radiation hazards fixes the annual dose limit at 50 mSv. The Committee therefore points out that in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention, all appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations, and maximum permissible doses and amounts shall be kept under constant review in the light of the available knowledge. In this regard, the Committee recalls its 1992 general observation under the Convention in which it referred to the relevant dose limits established by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations which reflect the knowledge available at the time in order to ensure effective protection of workers. The ICRP fixed the effective dose limit at 20 mSv per year averaged over five years, with the further provision that the effective dose should not exceed 50 mSv in any single year, for workers directly engaged to radiation work. The Government is therefore requested to reconsider the possibility of the incorporation of the dose limits set out in the above 1990 ICRP Recommendations into national legislation to give effect to Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

2. Emergency exposure situations. With regard to the protection of workers undertaking an intervention due to accidents designated in article 42, paragraph 1, of the Ordinance on the prevention of ionizing radiation hazards, as amended, in an area where a person could be exposed to radiation exceeding 15 mSv, the Committee notes that pursuant to article 7, paragraph 1, of the above Ordinance, workers may be exposed to radiation exceeding the annual dose limit of 50 mSv, provided for in article 4 of the same Ordinance, but not exceeding 100 mSv. As for mariners, the Government indicates that article 36, paragraph 1, read together with article 10 of the Ordinance on mariners prevention of ionizing radiation hazards, applies the above-described dose limits to mariners when they undertake an intervention in emergency situations following an accident. The Committee therefore would draw again the Government’s attention to paragraphs 17 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, as well as to paragraph V.27. of the 1996 publication of the International Basic Safety Standards, providing that a dose limit incurred in the course of an intervention after an accident, should not exceed, in any case, except for life saving actions, twice the relevant annual dose limit specified for workers employed in radiation work. While article 4 of the Ordinance on the prevention of ionizing radiation hazards prescribes an annual dose limit of exposure of 50 mSv for workers engaged in radiation work, this criteria would be met by the provision of article 7, paragraph 1,of the Ordinance on the prevention of ionizing radiation hazards. The Committee, however, refers to its comments under Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and recalls that the above dose limit for radiation workers does not reflect the knowledge available at the time which, for its part, is reflected in the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP to which the Committee had referred in its 1992 general observation under the Convention. The Committee consequently requests the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged in relation to the new exposure limits for abnormal circumstances established by the ICRP in 1990.

3. The provision of alternative employment. With reference to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of the 1992 general observation under the Convention, and the principles reflected in paragraphs 1.18. and V.27. of the 1996 publication of the International Basic Safety Standards, the Committee requests again the Government to provide information on the measures taken or contemplated to provide opportunities not involving exposure to ionizing radiations for workers having accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment to their health considered unacceptable is to arise and who may be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.