Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Jersey

Other comments on C115

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

Articles 3(1), 6 and 7(1) of the Convention. Appropriate steps taken to ensure the effective protection of workers in light of knowledge available at the time. Maximum permissible doses of ionising radiation for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work. Lens of the eye. The Committee notes that paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of Appendix 3 of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionising Radiation of 2002 set equivalent dose limits for the lens of the eye of 150 mSv in a calendar year for employees of 18 years of age and above and of 50 mSv in a calendar year for trainees aged under 18 years. With reference to paragraphs 31, 32 and 34 of its 2015 General Observation on the application of Convention No. 115, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to review the maximum permissible doses established with respect to the lens of the eye in light of current knowledge and therefore ensure that these dose limits are set as 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined periods of five years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv per year.

Article 14. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionising radiation pursuant to medical advice. With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes that in its report the Government refers to paragraphs 71 to 73 of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionising Radiation, which specify that: (i) the employer shall designate as “classified persons” those employees who are likely to receive an effective dose of ionising radiation under certain limits (paragraph 71); (ii) in order to designate employees as “classified persons” they must be 18 years or older and a medical advisor must have certified in the health record that, in his or her professional opinion, they are fit for the work with ionising radiation which they are to carry out (paragraph 72); and (iii) a medical advisor can require the employer to cease treating the employees as “classified persons” if he/she considers it necessary (paragraph 73). Moreover, the Committee notes that paragraph 7 of Appendix 6 of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionising Radiation establishes that the health record shall contain, inter alia, a statement signed by the medical adviser, made as a result of the medical examination or health review, classifying the employees as fit, fit subject to conditions (which should be specified) or unfit. The Committee also takes note that the Government indicates that should an employer not heed the medical advice on whether an employee is fit to work with ionising radiation this may constitute a breach of its general duties under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989. The Government indicates that this situation would lead to an investigation which could result in the issue of a legal notice by a Health and Safety Inspector formally prohibiting the employee concerned from continuing to work with ionising radiation, and the referral of the matter to the Island’s Attorney General for consideration on whether to instigate a prosecution of the employer.