National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - Spanish
Legislation. The Committee notes the information that there have been no legislative changes which affect the application of the Convention and welcomes the helpful transmission of relevant up-to-date legislation. It also notes the information provided regarding effect given to Articles 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on legislative measures undertaken with regard to the Convention.
Article 14 of the Convention. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government including a reference to the provisions in sections 4–6 of the Work Environment Act (17 June 2005, No. 62 (WEA)), requiring employers to take the necessary measures to enable workers with reduced capacity for work to keep or be given suitable work and the provisions requiring transfer in sections 5(7) (for workers with medical certificate) and 6 (for pregnant workers) of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation. It also notes the reference made to section 1 of the Regulation of companies that shall be associated with occupational health services of 21 April 1994 No. 333, requiring certain companies to have occupational health services. In addition, the Committee notes the references made to the special provisions regarding pregnant workers according to section 6 in the above ordinance. The Committee considers that this information does not fully respond to the query regarding efforts made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable as noted in paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide detailed information on the application of this Article in practice, in the light of paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation on the application of this Convention.
Article 15. Inspection services. The Committee notes the information provided that inspections by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) are carried out both in onshore and offshore industries focusing on radiation protection of workers and that inspections are also carried out in universities and research institutes with a focus on radiation protection of workers and students. The Government reports that during 2008 and the first half of 2009 about 40 inspections were carried out in these sectors and that nearly one third of these inspections found contraventions, the typical being lack of valid authorization from the NRPA and lack of updated instructions or procedures. The Committee also notes the information that every year about ten accidents involving radiation sources in the industrial sector are reported to the NRPA. The typical accidents or incidents include crossing of barriers established during work with radiation sources, technical problems with the radiation sources and orphan radiation sources, but that none of the accidents or incidents in the last few years have resulted in personal doses above the annual dose limit of 20 mSv. The Committee welcomes this detailed information and invites the Government to continue its reporting on inspections carried out and the outcome thereof and on any measures taken to address the problems reported.
Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided, including the guidelines on the application of the RPR, and that the NRPA and the labour inspection authorities cooperate on the basis of a written agreement. It also notes that this cooperation reportedly has, inter alia, triggered a launch of a five-year national strategy on radon exposure with the purpose of bringing the radon levels in all buildings and premises down to prescribed dose levels. With reference to this strategy, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) notes the communication transmitted by the Government that it has made efforts in this context to remedy the lack of information on exposure to radon in underground workplaces and that the authorities responsible for occupational safety and health seemed to be lagging behind in taking concrete action in accordance with the strategy. The LO also express concern that due to lack of knowledge about the existence of radon in certain construction sites in geological areas and in underground workplaces there is a lack of monitoring of exposure on these sites. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the application of the Convention in practice, including on the national strategy on radon exposure in the light of, inter alia, the comments by the LO.
The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:
Article 7 of the Convention. Young workers. The Committee notes that young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years are prohibited from performing work involving exposure to ionizing radiation under the Regulations on Employment of Children and Young Workers (Ordinance No. 551 of 30 April 1998, section 9(a)). It notes that under section 10, young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years may be exempted from this prohibition with respect to their vocational training if the effective dose does not exceed 5 mSv within a 12-month period and that young workers would then be covered by Ordinance No. 1362 of 21 November 2003 on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation (as amended up to Ordinance No. 167 of 18 February 2005) (RPR). For example, persons in that age category can invoke the right to medical examination before being assigned to work involving ionizing radiation. The Committee notes that this possibility of exemption is not applicable to young persons under the age of 16 years, in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples in its next report on exemptions granted under section 10 above.
Article 8. Dose limits for non-radiation workers. The Committee notes that section 20(3) of the RPR prescribes that, at workplaces where sources for ionizing radiation are used, arrangements should be made to ensure that workers outside restricted areas are not exposed to radiation doses exceeding 1 mSv per year. With reference to the ICRP recommendation of 1990 referred to in paragraph 14 of the Committee’s general observation of 1992 under the Convention in which it was indicated that the dose limit for members of the public should not exceed 1 mSv per year averaged over five years, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on how this provision is applied in practice.
Article 11. Appropriate monitoring of exposure levels. The Committee notes that, under section 7 of the RPR, workers shall have the competence, be properly instructed and that written work procedures shall exist, in accordance with the Convention. It also notes under section 22 of the RPR that workers within a controlled or monitored area shall carry a personal dosimeter or their personal radiation exposure shall be ascertained by other means. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report as to how the personal radiation exposure levels are ascertained “by other means” for workers not having a personal dosimeter.
Article 12. Medical examination. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation regulates the compulsory medical examination of workers before the commencement of work involving ionizing radiations of doses of more than 6 mSv during a time period of 12 months, in accordance with the Convention. It further notes that workers who may be exposed to more than 6 mSv within a time period of 12 months shall have a medical examination on a regular basis every third year. A medical examination shall also be carried out if the worker herself/himself so explicitly requests or if a medical doctor so decides. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the frequency at which medical examinations are carried out.
Article 13. Emergency work. The Committee notes that, under section 9 of the RPR, undertakings shall make an assessment of the risk factors associated with the use of radiation and on this basis take action to prevent risks and any possible loss of radiation sources by drawing up an emergency preparedness plan. It notes with interest that, in accordance with its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, section 21(3) of the RPR states that work involving exposure in excess of 50 mSv may only be carried out by volunteers who have been thoroughly informed of the risks and hazards involved (women of fertile age may participate provided they are not pregnant) and that it is only permitted for emergency situations to save lives, avoid serious damage to health or prevent a dramatic escalation of the accident and that exposure in excess of 500 mSv can only be permitted in order to save lives after a thorough assessment has been made and it is recognized that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs in the form of health risk to the rescue personnel.
Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes that section 5(7) of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation provided that workers with a medical certificate stating that they cannot work with ionizing radiation shall be transferred to work without occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. It notes the Government’s statement that relocation is not considered necessary in cases where shielding is dimensioned in such a way that the additional occupational radiation lies within the variations in the level of background radiation. The Committee also notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) expressing their concern that the legislation does not provide for a right per se for workers to be provided with alternative employment. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the practical application of this Article, taking into consideration the general observation of 1992 under the Convention.
Article 15. Inspection services. The Committee notes under section 42(2) of the RPR that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) carries out inspections. It notes that the NRPA may demand rectification where activities conflict with the provisions of the Regulations (section 43). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information with its next report of the activities carried out in this respect, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, disaggregated by sex, if available, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them.
Part III of the report form. Authorities. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) supervises the application of the RPR and that it may lay down individual decisions as necessary for this purpose (section 42(1)). Having previously noted the Government’s statement that, with respect to medical examinations, it is the Labour Inspection Authority who is the competent authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on measures taken or envisaged by the NRPA and the Labour Inspection Authority to supervise and enforce the legislation. It further notes the Government’s statement that a number of guidelines and codes of practices are currently being prepared and requests the Government to provide copies of them once they are adopted.
1. Further to its observation, the Committee notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) on the application of Article 14 and requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.
2. Article 7 of the Convention. Young workers. The Committee notes that young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years are prohibited from performing work involving exposure to ionizing radiation under the Regulations on Employment of Children and Young Workers (Ordinance No. 551 of 30 April 1998, section 9(a)). It notes that under section 10, young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years may be exempted from this prohibition with respect to their vocational training if the effective dose does not exceed 5 mSv within a 12-month period and that young workers would then be covered by Ordinance No. 1362 of 21 November 2003 on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation (as amended up to Ordinance No. 167 of 18 February 2005) (RPR). For example, persons in that age category can invoke the right to medical examination before being assigned to work involving ionizing radiation. The Committee notes that this possibility of exemption is not applicable to young persons under the age of 16 years, in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples in its next report on exemptions granted under section 10 above.
3. Article 8. Dose limits for non-radiation workers. The Committee notes that section 20(3) of the RPR prescribes that, at workplaces where sources for ionizing radiation are used, arrangements should be made to ensure that workers outside restricted areas are not exposed to radiation doses exceeding 1 mSv per year. With reference to the ICRP recommendation of 1990 referred to in paragraph 14 of the Committee’s general observation of 1992 under the Convention in which it was indicated that the dose limit for members of the public should not exceed 1 mSv/year averaged over five years, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on how this provision is applied in practice.
4. Article 11. Appropriate monitoring of exposure levels. The Committee notes that under section 7 of the RPR, workers shall have the competence, be properly instructed and that written work procedures shall exist, in accordance with the Convention. It also notes under section 22 of the RPR that workers within a controlled or monitored area shall carry a personal dosimeter or their personal radiation exposure shall be ascertained by other means. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report as to how the personal radiation exposure levels are ascertained "by other means" for workers not having a personal dosimeter.
5. Article 12. Medical examination. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation regulates the compulsory medical examination of workers before the commencement of work involving ionizing radiations of doses of more than 6 mSv during a time period of 12 months, in accordance with the Convention. It further notes that workers who may be exposed to more than 6 mSv within a time period of 12 months shall have a medical examination on a regular basis every third year. A medical examination shall also be carried out if the worker herself/himself so explicitly requests or if a medical doctor so decides. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the frequency at which medical examinations are carried out.
6. Article 13. Emergency work. The Committee notes that, under section 9 of the RPR, undertakings shall make an assessment of the risk factors associated with the use of radiation and on this basis take action to prevent risks and any possible loss of radiation sources by drawing up an emergency preparedness plan. It notes with interest that, in accordance with its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, section 21(3) of the RPR states that work involving exposure in excess of 50 mSv may only be carried out by volunteers who have been thoroughly informed of the risks and hazards involved (women of fertile age may participate provided they are not pregnant) and that it is only permitted for emergency situations to save lives, avoid serious damage to health or prevent a dramatic escalation of the accident and that exposure in excess of 500 mSv can only be permitted in order to save lives after a thorough assessment has been made and it is recognized that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs in the form of health risk to the rescue personnel.
7. Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes that section 5(7) of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation provided that workers with a medical certificate stating that they cannot work with ionizing radiation shall be transferred to work without occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. It notes the Government’s statement that relocation is not considered necessary in cases where shielding is dimensioned in such a way that the additional occupational radiation lies within the variations in the level of background radiation. The Committee also notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) expressing their concern that the legislation does not provide for a right per se for workers to be provided with alternative employment. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the practical application of this Article, taking into consideration the general observation of 1992 under the Convention.
8. Article 15. Inspection services. The Committee notes under section 42(2) of the RPR that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) carries out inspections. It notes that the NRPA may demand rectification where activities conflict with the provisions of the Regulations (section 43). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information with its next report of the activities carried out in this respect, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, disaggregated by sex, if available, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them.
9. Part III of the report form. Authorities. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) supervises the application of the RPR and that it may lay down individual decisions as necessary for this purpose (section 42(1)). Having previously noted the Government’s statement that, with respect to medical examinations, it is the Labour Inspection Authority who is the competent authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on measures taken or envisaged by the NRPA and the Labour Inspection Authority to supervise and enforce the legislation. It further notes the Government’s statement that a number of guidelines and codes of practices are currently being prepared and requests the Government to provide copies of them once they are adopted.
1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the attached documentation.
2. Article 1 of the Convention. Giving effect to the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Ordinance No. 1362 of 21 November 2003 on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation (as amended up to Ordinance No. 167 of 18 February 2005) (Ordinance No. 1362) that entered into force on 1 January 2004, implementing the provisions of Act No. 36 of 12 May on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, replacing to a certain extent the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation (No. 1157 of 14 June 1985, as amended up to Ordinance No. 494 of 1 March 2004). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the harmonization between the two sets of rules is based upon the specialist competence possessed, respectively, by the Labour Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet) and the Radiation Protection Authority (Statens strålevern). The Committee notes that the dose limits are regulated by the Radiation Protection Authority, while the provisions on medical examinations will continue to be regulated by the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation.
3. Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2. Maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation. The Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s statement that Ordinance No. 1362 is based on recent recommendations from international organizations (ICRP, IAEA and EU) and that section 21 of Ordinance No. 1362 prescribes a dose limit of 20 mSv per calendar year for workers over the age of 18 years, provides that the dose limit for young workers (between the age of 16 and 18 years), as part of their vocational training, shall not exceed 5 mSv per year and that with respect to pregnant women (once the pregnancy has been notified) the dose to the foetus shall not exceed 1 mSv, which are all in compliance with the 1990 ICRP Recommendations.
4. The Committee is raising certain other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.
Article 8 of the Convention. Further to its observation and with reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new regulations to be issued in application of Act No. 36 of 12 May 2000 on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation comprise a number of requirements previously set out in technical provisions, including dose limits for non-radiation workers, which shall not exceed 1 mSv per year. The Committee while noting that this dose limit would comply with the dose limit recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations for non-radiation workers, hopes that the regulations will be adopted in a near future in order to give effect to this Article of the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the new regulations once they have been adopted for in-depth examination.
The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comments. It notes with interest the adoption of the new Act No. 36 of 12 May 2000 on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, effective since 1 July 2000, repealing Act No. 1 of 18 June 1938 relating to the use of X-rays and radium, as well as the adoption of the Regulations of 14 June 1985 on ionizing radiation, as revised on 1 February 2001, which came into effect on 1 July 2001. The Committee notes that the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, lays down the general lines on radiation protection and empowers the ministry responsible to issue supplementary regulations prescribing the detailed measures to be taken to implement the respective provisions of the Act. In this respect, the Government indicates in its report that a set of regulations to be adopted under the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, are now in process and it is planned to put them into force on 1 January 2004. The content of the regulations is based to a large extent on the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and on Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996. In the light of this and with reference to its previous comments, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points.
1. Article 13 of the Convention. Emergency exposure situations. The Committee notes with interest that Chapter IV, sections 15-17 of the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, refers to the "Planning of incident and accident management. Emergency preparedness". It notes, in particular, section 15 empowering the ministry to impose, by way of regulations or individual decisions, on undertakings covered by the Act, the duty to establish plans for the handling of incidents and accidents and requirements with regard to exercises. Section 17 authorizes the King to issue regulations prescribing exception from dose limits and other requirements established under this Act in situations "... where implementing a rescue or civil emergency operation makes it necessary". In this regard, the Government indicates that the regulations to be adopted on this issue will replace the "non-legislative emergency planning documents", which previously addressed the issue of emergency situations. The Committee, while hoping that the new regulations will be adopted in the near future, requests the Government to supply a copy of the regulations as soon as they are adopted for in-depth examination to determine the extent to which they would give effect to Article 13 of the Convention.
2. Article 14. The Committee notes section 8, subsection 1, of the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, according to which persons, who because of young age, pregnancy or other reasons are particularly sensitive to radiation, shall either be assigned to tasks that do not involve exposure to radiation, or be protected by other appropriate measures. The Committee would like the Government to indicate whether section 8 of the above Act provides for the worker’s right to alternative employment possibilities, in the event that continued employment involving exposure to ionizing radiation is contraindicated for health reasons. If this is not the case, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to this effect. In this context, the Committee wishes to point out that the need to find alternative employment for the workers concerned is a general principle of occupational health, which appears in Paragraph 17 of the Occupational Health Services Recommendation, 1985 (No. 171), as well as in Paragraph 27 of the Radiation Protection Recommendation, 1960 (No. 114). Similarly, under Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148), every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise, where continued assignment to work involving exposure is found to be medically unadvisable. Moreover, effective protection of workers as regards health and safety against ionizing radiations, spelt out in Article 3, paragraph 1, of this Convention may require, inter alia, an offer of suitable alternative employment opportunities.
The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on another point.
1. With reference to its previous comments, where the Committee noted the Government’s indications that the regulations of 14 June 1985 on ionizing radiation were being amended to bring them into conformity with the dose limits established in the Directive 96/29 EURATOM of 13 May 1996 of the European Council, and that the amendments had been submitted to the different bodies involved in this process, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the amendments to the above regulations have been adopted, and, if so, to supply copies of them to the ILO.
2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee would reiterate the comments made on the following points.
Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation supplied in its last report that, although Norwegian legislation does not provide explicitly for dose limits on non-radiation workers, the dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations are nevertheless applied in practice through a number of technical provisions. In this respect, the Government indicates that, for example, the radiation protection requirements in well-logging, issued in 1997, the radiation protection requirements for industrial gauges, issued in 1996, and the radiation protection requirements for industrial radiography, issued in 1999, provide for dose limits of 7.5 macro Sievert per hour, equivalent to 1 mSv/year, which is the dose limit recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations for non-radiation workers. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to explain whether these technical provisions, which, according to the Committee’s understanding, do not have a legal character, are nevertheless binding and thus must be observed by the employer; or whether they only constitute reference values and it is thus left to the discretion of the employer to apply the dose limits fixed in technical provisions. In this relation, the Committee would recall the provision of Article 8 of the Convention which raises a particular concern for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation and thus not necessarily benefiting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations etc., may remain in, or pass through, areas where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations. In the case that the abovementioned technical provisions are not binding, the Committee again would invite the Government to examine the possibility to incorporate the dose limits established by technical provisions into national legislation, in order to ensure that workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work are protected effectively, since 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 or practices under the employer’s control.
Part V of the report form. The Committee again notes the Government’s indication that Norwegian legislation and codes of practices are based on recommendations and guidelines published by international organizations, like the ICRP, IAEA, EU etc., and thus applies the general principles of the Convention. The Government nevertheless considers that at present the incorporation of the abovementioned recommendations and guidelines into national legislation is arrived at an only "modest degree". The Government, however, declares that the basic act on the use of X-rays and radium, etc. of 18 June 1938, will be replaced in spring 2000 by a new radiation protection act, which will be followed by the adoption of a number of new regulations, to be issued in application of this act. At this occasion, a number of basic international standards, mainly the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and EU directives, will be incorporated into national legislation. The Government estimates that these measures would lead to a better application of the Convention at national level. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether the new radiation protection act and its regulations have been adopted in the meantime and, if that is the case, requests the Government to supply copies of the new act and the regulations. In this context, the Committee would refer to its observation and would again encourage the Government to consider the incorporation of provisions governing the issues of alternative employment and exposure to ionizing radiations in emergency situations into national legislation.
[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]
The Committee notes the comments made by the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions (LO), transmitted by the Government in January 2001. While awaiting the Government’s reply, the Committee refers to the comments made by the above workers’ organization in this observation.
1. As a general statement, the LO emphasizes that the ministry, when initiating legislative processes, should make an active effort to incorporate ratified ILO Conventions into Norwegian law, so that the implementation of the ILO Conventions, to which the country is a party, is not only a side effect of the implementation of its obligations under other international legal systems.
2. Article 13 of the Convention. Emergency exposure situations. In its comments, the LO complains that Norwegian legislation lacks rules or guidelines indicating what action should be taken in emergency situations in enterprises where workers are exposed to ionizing radiation. The Committee recalls that the Government had indicated in its previous report of 2000 that, while there were no regulations or codes of practices fixing dose limits for workers’ exposure in emergency situations, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), being the competent authority to issue regulations on radiation protection, had established so-called "non-legislative emergency planning documents" which reflect the Recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1990 as concerns the limits for workers’ exposure to ionizing radiation in emergency situations. Taking into consideration the comments transmitted by the LO, the Committee requests once again the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee that the "non-legislative emergency planning documents" are available in every enterprise where workers are exposed or likely to be exposed to ionizing radiation. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated as concerns the establishment of emergency plans regarding the design of protective features of the workplace and equipment, as well as the development of emergency intervention techniques. In this respect, the Committee refers to paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3.7 of the 1987 ILO code of practice on radiation protection of workers (ionizing radiations), which contains a set of practical recommendations which could provide guidance to the Government.
3. Article 14. Alternative employment. With regard to the provision of alternative employment, the LO points out that the Norwegian legislation lacks rules concerning the workers’ right to relocate and to change jobs in the event of danger arising out of exposure to ionizing radiation. The Committee recalls that the Government, in its previous report, indicated that neither regulations nor codes of practice exist dealing with the issue of alternative employment. In the light of the comments of the LO, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, explaining that every effort must be made to provide workers with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued employment in a particular job involving the exposure to ionizing radiation is contra-indicated for health reasons. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.
The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other matters.
1. The Committee notes with interest that the Regulations concerning dose limits for workers exposed to ionizing radiation of 1995, issued by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), establish dose limits in occupational exposure for workers engaged in radiation work, which are in line with the dose limits recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations.
It further notes with interest that the Regulations of 14 June 1985 on ionizing radiation are being amended in order to bring them into conformity with the dose limits set out in the Directives EURATOM of the Council of the European Union. With regard to the amendment’s procedure, the Government explains that the proposed amendments have been circulated for comments and have been submitted to the labour inspection’s governing body in June 2000, after approval by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Affairs. The Committee hopes that the amendments to the abovementioned Regulations will be adopted soon, and requests the Government to supply copies as soon as they are adopted.
2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to the following points.
Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that, although Norwegian legislation does not provide explicitly for dose limits for non-radiation workers, the dose limits recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations are nevertheless applied in practice through a number of technical provisions. In this respect, the Government indicates that, for example, the radiation protection requirements in well-logging, issued in 1997, the radiation protection requirements for industrial gauges, issued in 1996, and the radiation protection requirements for industrial radiography, issued in 1999, provide for dose limits of 7,5 macro Sievert per hour, equivalent to 1 mSv/year, which is the dose limit recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations for non-radiation workers. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to explain whether these technical provisions, which, according to the Committee’s understanding, do not have legal character, are nevertheless binding and thus must be observed by the employer; or whether they only constitute reference values and it is thus left to the discretion of the employer to apply the dose limits fixed in technical provisions. In this relation, the Committee would recall the provision of Article 8 of the Convention which raises a particular concern for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation work and thus not necessarily benefiting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations etc., may remain in, or pass through, areas where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations. In the case that the abovementioned technical provisions are not binding, the Committee would invite the Government to examine the possibility to incorporate the dose limits established by technical provisions into the national legislation, in order to ensure that workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work are protected effectively, since 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 or practices under the employer’s control.
Article 13. Emergency exposure situations. With a view to the issue of exposure to ionizing radiation in emergency situations, the Government indicates that, while there are no regulations or codes of practice fixing dose limits for workers’ exposure in emergency situations, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), being the competent authority to issue regulations on radiation protection, has established so-called "non-legislative emergency planning documents" which reflect the 1990 ICRP Recommendations on this issue, namely that of workers’ exposure in emergency situations to 0,5 Sv except for life-saving actions. The Committee noting this information requests the Government to explain the degree to which the dose limits established in the "non-legislative emergency planning documents" are binding, and asks the Government to supply a copy of such a document for further examination. The Committee also would draw the Government’s attention to the explanations given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention and the paragraphs V.27 and V.30 of the 1994 International Safety Standards. In this respect, the Committee adds that the reference it made in its 1995bis comments to paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards referred to the paragraphs of the provisional publication.
Article 14. Alternative employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication to the effect that neither regulations nor codes of practice exist dealing with the issue of alternative employment. The Committee therefore again draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its general observation under the Convention, and the principle reflected in paragraph I.18 (paragraph 96 of the provisional publication) of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.
3. Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Norwegian legislation and codes of practices are based on recommendations and guidelines published by international organizations, like the ICRP, IAEA, EU etc., and thus applies the general principles of the Convention. The Government nevertheless considers that at present the incorporation of the abovementioned recommendations and guidelines into national legislation is arrived at an only "modest degree". The Government, however, declares that the basic Act on the use of x-rays and radium etc. of 18 June 1938, will be replaced in spring 2000 by a new radiation protection Act, which will be followed by the adoption of a number of new regulations, to be issued in application of this Act. At this occasion, a number of basic international standards and recommendations, mainly the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and EU Directives, will be incorporated into national legislation. The Government estimates that these measures would lead to a better application of the Convention at national level. The Committee accordingly hopes that the new Act will be adopted soon as well as the regulations to be issued in application of this Act. In this respect, the Committee would again encourage the Government to consider the incorporation of provisions governing the issues of alternative employment and exposure to ionizing radiation in emergency situations into national legislation. The Committee requests the Government to send copies of the new Act and the regulations once they are adopted.
With reference to its previous comments the Committee notes with interest the Government's information in its report that the National Institute of Radiation Hygiene has taken steps to formally implement the new recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this regard and to transmit a copy of the provisions adopted.
In this relation the Committee also hopes that the Government will provide information on the following specific points raised in its previous direct request:
1. Article 8 of the Convention. With reference to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention concerning dose limits for non-radiation workers, the Committee has previously stressed that under current ICRP recommendations, workers not engaged in radiation work are not to be exposed to levels of radiation higher than the dose limit for members of the public, set at 1 mSv per year. The Committee noted in this connection that, while in practice the levels of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work may generally be low, a particular concern is raised in Article 8 of the Convention for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation work (and thus not necessarily benefitting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations, etc.), may remain in, or pass through, areas where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations. The Committee hopes that in the light of the 1990 ICRP recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work are protected as members of the public in so far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned.
2. Alternative employment. The Committee previously noted the Government's indication that regulations concerning genetic damage and the working environment have been elaborated with a view to entitling both men and women to be transferred to other work if conditions in their working environment involve risk of genetic damage. The Committee expresses again the hope that the Government will provide information on progress made in adopting these regulations and transmit a copy of the regulations once they are adopted. In this connection the Committee would also draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, and the principles reflected in paragraphs 96 and 238 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and request the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.
3. Emergency exposure situations. Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention and in the light of paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the measures taken or contemplated in relation to emergency situations.
1. Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request. It notes the Government's indication that there are no specific plans to introduce new provisions concerning maximum permissible doses for workers who are not directly engaged in work involving ionising radiation since the level of exposure is, in practice, low. The Committee would, in this regard, refer the Government to paragraph 14 of its General Observation under this Convention concerning dose limits for non-radiation workers. Under the current ICRP recommendations, workers not engaged in radiation work are not to be exposed to levels of radiation higher than the dose limit for members of the public, set at 1 mSv per year, which may be averaged over a five-year period. The Committee would note that, while in practice the levels of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work may generally be low, a particular concern is raised in Article 8 of the Convention for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation work (and thus not necessarily benefiting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations, etc.), may remain in, or pass through areas where they may be exposed to ionising radiations. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work are protected as members of the public in so far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned. The Government is requested to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.
2. The Committee notes with interest the indication in the Government's report that regulations concerning genetic damage and the working environment have been elaborated with a view to entitling both men and women to be transferred to other work if conditions in their working environment constitute a possible risk of genetic damage. The Government is requested to provide information on the progress made in adopting these regulations and to transmit a copy of the regulations once they are adopted.
3. The Committee would call the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention and requests the Government to indicate the steps taken or being considered in relation to the matters raised in its conclusions.
Further to its previous direct requests, the Committee notes from the Government's report that, formally, Norway has not fixed an annual dose limit of 5 mSv for workers not directly engaged in radiation work; but, that in view of the very low exposures met in practice, such a limit could easily be adopted. The Committee hopes that in the near future, the Government will adopt measures which set an appropriate maximum permissible dose level of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work, as required by Article 8 of the Convention.