Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Legislation. The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption by the National Committee on Nuclear Energy (CNEN) of standard NN 3.01/2005 which, inter alia, establishes exposure limits which are in line with those recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work, pregnant workers and in emergency situations to which the Committee referred in its 1992 general observation on the Convention in relation to Articles 3(1), and 6(2), of the Convention.

Article 1. Competent authority. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee understands that Decree No. 2210/97 continues to be fundamental with regard to the distribution of competencies in relation to the Convention. This Decree creates the Protection System for the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (SIPRON) which establishes the functions and relationship of the CNEN, the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON), the Ministry of Labour and the Jorge Duprat Figueiredo Foundation of Occupational Safety and Medicine (FUNDACENTRO) in the drafting of standards on radiation protection. In this regard, the Government indicates that the body responsible in Brazil for standards on radiation protection is the CNEN, which is linked to the Ministry of Science and Technology, and that the Ministry of Labour plays a complementary role. The Committee requests the Government to provide: (a) information on the manner in which the competent authority consults representatives of employers and workers when drafting such standards in accordance with this Article of the Convention, and (b) information on the consultations held during the period covered by the next report.

Articles 3(1) and 6(2). Pregnant workers. The Committee notes that according to paragraph 5.4.2.2 of the standard mentioned, workers exposed to radiation in the course of their work must undergo monitoring from the declaration, and for the remaining duration, of their pregnancy, to the extent necessary to ensure that the foetus does not receive an effective dose superior to 1 mSv. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that all pregnancies are declared without delay, as indicated in its 1992 general observation on the Convention, and on any protection measures taken with regard to women of child-bearing age.

Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged, with a view to ensuring effective protection of workers, to provide alternative employment to workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment could occur. The Committee notes that the activities of the Department of Safety and Health relate to the prevention of occupational accidents and health hazards but also notes that these activities do not include matters such as offering alternative employment to workers exposed to radiation or other harmful agents beyond the authorized limits. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the indication that the Department of Safety and Health is not competent to deal with alternative employment is irrelevant since the obligations assumed when ratifying the Convention are obligations of the Government and not of a particular ministry or department. Recalling paragraphs 28–34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation on the Convention  and the Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection, which recommend establishing the possibility of alternative employment or social security measures for all workers who have accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment considered unacceptable may occur, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to that end.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes that the Government provides very little of the information requested by the Committee on the application of the Convention in practice and that it indicates that it is unable to provide such information since it is beyond the remit of the Ministry of Labour. The Committee considers that there is a series of standards and institutions in Brazil which meet the requirements of the Convention but that it is not possible to obtain a comprehensive picture concerning the application of the Convention if it does not have information on its application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the protection measures to ensure that the exposure limits established in standard NN 3.01/2005 are not exceeded in practice. Furthermore, it requests the Government to make an effort to obtain from the relevant institutions the information requested by the Committee in the last paragraph of its previous observation and to provide it together with any information available on the application of the Convention in practice, including, for example, a copy of the radiological protection plans under standard NN 3.01/2005, as well as information on their application in practice. Furthermore, referring to its comment on the application of the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), in particular concerning the difficulties encountered by the labour inspectorate in enforcing the legislation in certain companies, the need for a coherent policy and the coordination between the various authorities, the Committee requests the Government to take these aspects into account with regard to Convention No. 115 and to provide information on this matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It further notes that it has been commenting since 2001 on the following matters: dose limits for non-radiation workers, the measures envisaged to limit exceptional exposure of workers in emergency situations and on the necessary measures taken or envisaged to ensure that alternative employment is offered to workers who have been exposed to an accumulated higher dose of ionizing radiation that can endanger their health. While noting that the standards of the National Committee on Nuclear Energy (CNEN) NE 3.01 – Basic Guidelines concerning Radiation Protection – has been revised in January 2005, the Committee hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

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.-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, in order to ensure effective protection of workers, to 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.

2. Part V of the report form. Further to its previous comments, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would make an effort to collect and communicate in its next report concrete information on the effect given to the Convention in practice, including, for instance, extracts from official reports or studies related to radiation protection, surveys, policy papers or other similar documents issued by the CNEN, statistics on the number of workers covered by relevant legislation, information on whether collective agreements which would establish new conditions of work in the nuclear energy industry had been concluded and, if so, to send copies to the Office, data on inspection visits and the results obtained in matters covered by the Convention, etc.

3. The Committee urges the Government to make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2007.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

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:

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 2004.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

With regard to its previous observation, the Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report.

Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information indicating that the subject of ionizing radiation comes within the competence of the National Committee on Nuclear Energy (CNEN). The Ministry of Labour has sole competence for the development of labour standards. The Standing Joint Tripartite Committee (CTPP) is the competent body for dealing with issues connected with occupational safety and health. According to the Government, the CNEN is launching the procedure for revising CNEN Standard NE 3.01 - Basic Guidelines concerning Radiation Protection. While noting the above information, the Committee is nevertheless bound to express its concern at the situation described in the present report in connection with the information provided in the previous reports. The Government indeed had indicated in previous reports that the body responsible for dealing with issues concerning ionizing radiation was the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON). According to the said information, a proposed legislative amendment had been sent to this body. The proposal would take into consideration the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), reflected in the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection again Ionizing Radiation, published in 1994. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report which national body is actually responsible for regulating the issues mentioned and indicate whether the procedure for revision of national legislation on protection against ionizing radiation has actually been initiated. The Committee would be grateful if the Government could find the appropriate solution to the problems of competence which appears to occur between the national bodies responsible for revision of legislation on protection against ionizing radiation and consequently proceed with the said revision, taking into account the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, reflected in the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation, published in 1994. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation reference had been made to the comments made by the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) concerning working conditions in the nuclear industry. Noting the Government’s observations on this matter, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on data registered within the framework of the actions taken to assess the situation in the nuclear industry and the changes that need to be made. The Committee also asked the Government to indicate whether collective agreements which would establish new conditions of work in the nuclear energy industry had been concluded and, if so, to send copies to the Office. Given that the Government has not communicated any of the information requested, the Committee repeats its request and hopes that the Government will communicate the said information with its next report.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2004.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (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.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report indeed does not reply to its previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

With regard to its previous observation, the Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report.

Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information indicating that the subject of ionizing radiation comes within the competence of the National Committee on Nuclear Energy (CNEN). The Ministry of Labour has sole competence for the development of labour standards. The Standing Joint Tripartite Committee (CTPP) is the competent body for dealing with issues connected with occupational safety and health. According to the Government, the CNEN is launching the procedure for revising CNEN Standard NE 3.01 - Basic Guidelines concerning Radiation Protection. While noting the above information, the Committee is nevertheless bound to express its concern at the situation described in the present report in connection with the information provided in the previous reports. The Government indeed had indicated in previous reports that the body responsible for dealing with issues concerning ionizing radiation was the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON). According to the said information, a proposed legislative amendment had been sent to this body. The proposal would take into consideration the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), reflected in the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection again Ionizing Radiation, published in 1994. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report which national body is actually responsible for regulating the issues mentioned and indicate whether the procedure for revision of national legislation on protection against ionizing radiation has actually been initiated. The Committee would be grateful if the Government could find the appropriate solution to the problems of competence which appears to occur between the national bodies responsible for revision of legislation on protection against ionizing radiation and consequently proceed with the said revision, taking into account the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, reflected in the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation, published in 1994. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation reference had been made to the comments made by the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) concerning working conditions in the nuclear industry. Noting the Government’s observations on this matter, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on data registered within the framework of the actions taken to assess the situation in the nuclear industry and the changes that need to be made. The Committee also asked the Government to indicate whether collective agreements which would establish new conditions of work in the nuclear energy industry had been concluded and, if so, to send copies to the Office. Given that the Government has not communicated any of the information requested, the Committee repeats its request and hopes that the Government will communicate the said information with its next report.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

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

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 report in detail in 2002.]

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

With regard to its previous observation, the Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report.

Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information indicating that the subject of ionizing radiation comes within the competence of the National Committee on Nuclear Energy (CNEN). The Ministry of Labour has sole competence for the development of labour standards. The Standing Joint Tripartite Committee (CTPP) is the competent body for dealing with issues connected with occupational safety and health. According to the Government, the CNEN is launching the procedure for revising CNEN Standard NE 3.01 - Basic Guidelines concerning Radiation Protection. While noting the above information, the Committee is nevertheless bound to express its concern at the situation described in the present report in connection with the information provided in the previous reports. The Government indeed had indicated in previous reports that the body responsible for dealing with issues concerning ionizing radiation was the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON). According to the said information, a proposed legislative amendment had been sent to this body. The proposal would take into consideration the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), reflected in the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection again Ionizing Radiation, published in 1994. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report which national body is actually responsible for regulating the issues mentioned and indicate whether the procedure for revision of national legislation on protection against ionizing radiation has actually been initiated. The Committee would be grateful if the Government could find the appropriate solution to the problems of competence which appears to occur between the national bodies responsible for revision of legislation on protection against ionizing radiation and consequently proceed with the said revision, taking into account the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, reflected in the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation, published in 1994. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation reference had been made to the comments made by the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) concerning working conditions in the nuclear industry. Noting the Government’s observations on this matter, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on data registered within the framework of the actions taken to assess the situation in the nuclear industry and the changes that need to be made. The Committee also asked the Government to indicate whether collective agreements which would establish new conditions of work in the nuclear energy industry had been concluded and, if so, to send copies to the Office. Given that the Government has not communicated any of the information requested, the Committee repeats its request and hopes that the Government will communicate the said information with its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no 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 reference to its observation on the Convention, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the following points:

1.  Article 8 of the Convention.  In its previous comments the Committee noted that 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 dealing with nuclear energy (CNEN), it would appear that workers not occupationally exposed to radiation are assimilated to members of the public 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, in its report, the Government states that the workers covered by this Article of the Convention should not be in controlled areas or have access to such areas where they run the risk of being exposed to ionizing radiation. The Government considers that it is preferable to define and control the areas where the risk of exposure exists rather than drafting new standards for workers who are not directly involved in radiation work.

The Committee recalls that 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 83 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 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 1mSv 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 and paragraphs 233 to 238 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.

3.  Provision of alternative employment.  The Committee notes that an interministerial committee will shortly examine the issue of alternative employment for workers who have been exposed to radiation doses that endanger their health. The Committee requests 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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the action taken during the period 1996-97 in relation to the development of legislation on radiation protection in Brazil. It notes, however, that the Government’s report contains no reply to the previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which reads as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports for 1995 and 1996.

1.  Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.  In its previous observation the Committee noted that the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON) had been sent a proposal for amending the legislation in the light of the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Committee notes that, in a report received in 1995, the Government stated that COPRON would meet shortly to begin work, on a tripartite basis, on a review of the maximum doses currently authorized. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the stage reached in the work of COPRON and progress made. More generally, the Committee notes that, according to the information supplied by the Government in its 1996 report, the examination of the Basic International Safety Standards jointly sponsored in 1994 by the IAEA, the WHO, the ILO and three other international organizations, is currently under way. The Government also indicates that it intends to apply these standards in the near future. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report the adoption of measures to ensure effective protection of workers and particularly of revised maximum permissible doses that conform to the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards.

2.  With regard to working conditions in the nuclear industry, on which the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) had commented, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the studies now under way concern three areas: nuclear installations - particularly temporary work performed in such installations - the storage of radioactive waste and the hospital sector. The Committee again asks the Government to provide information on the data collected in the course of the coordinated action undertaken with the social partners to assess the situation in the nuclear industry and the changes that need to be made. It also asks the Government to indicate whether the collective agreements revising working conditions, which the Government referred to in its previous reports, have been adopted and, if so, to send copies to the Office.

3.  The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government in which it again raises a number of points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

With reference to its observation on the Convention, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the following points:

1. Article 8 of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee noted that 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 dealing with nuclear energy (CNEN), it would appear that workers not occupationally exposed to radiation are assimilated to members of the public 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, in its report, the Government states that the workers covered by this Article of the Convention should not be in controlled areas or have access to such areas where they run the risk of being exposed to ionizing radiation. The Government considers that it is preferable to define and control the areas where the risk of exposure exists rather than drafting new standards for workers who are not directly involved in radiation work.

The Committee recalls that 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 83 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 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 1mSv 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 and paragraphs 233 to 238 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.

3. Provision of alternative employment. The Committee notes that an interministerial committee will shortly examine the issue of alternative employment for workers who have been exposed to radiation doses that endanger their health. The Committee requests 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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports for 1995 and 1996.

1. Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In its previous observation the Committee noted that the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON) had been sent a proposal for amending the legislation in the light of the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Committee notes that, in a report received in 1995, the Government stated that COPRON would meet shortly to begin work, on a tripartite basis, on a review of the maximum doses currently authorized. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the stage reached in the work of COPRON and progress made. More generally, the Committee notes that, according to the information supplied by the Government in its 1996 report, the examination of the Basic International Basic Safety Standards jointly sponsored in 1994 by the IAEA, the WHO, the ILO and three other international organizations, is currently under way. The Government also indicates that it intends to apply these standards in the near future. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report the adoption of measures to ensure effective protection of workers and particularly of revised maximum permissible doses that conform to the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards.

2. With regard to working conditions in the nuclear industry, on which the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) had commented, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the studies now under way concern three areas: nuclear installations -- particularly temporary work performed in such installations -- the storage of radioactive waste and the hospital sector. The Committee again asks the Government to provide information on the data collected in the course of the coordinated action undertaken with the social partners to assess the situation in the nuclear industry and the changes that need to be made. It also asks the Government to indicate whether the collective agreements revising working conditions, which the Government referred to in its previous reports, have been adopted and, if so, to send copies to the Office.

3. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government in which it again raises a number of points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

1. The Committee notes from the Government's reply to its previous direct request that CNEN Resolution No. 06/73 was revoked on 19 July 1988 by CNEN Resolution No. 12/88, which approved, on an experimental basis, the Basic Radiation Protection Guidelines in CNEN-NE Standard 3.01/88, now confirmed by Portaria No. 4 of 11 April 1994. It notes that this Standard, based on ICRP Publication No. 26, remains in force, but that the adoption of the revised effective dose limits recommended by the ICRP in its Publication No. 60 is being studied. Referring to its observation on the Convention, the Committee looks forward to the incorporation of these dose limits into national legislation and requests the Government to supply information on the provisions adopted or envisaged as well as further details on the following points.

2. Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes that under guideline 5.1.7 of CNEN-NE Standard 3.01/88, students and fellows above 18 years whose activities do not involve the use of radiation, as well as visitors are not to be exposed annually to radiation doses above the primary limits set for members of the general public, but that no comparable rule has been set for workers who, in the terms of Article 8 of the Convention, "are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations or radioactive substances"; under the definitions of "member of the public" and "(radiation) worker" given in Guideline 3, Nos. (35) and (64), it would appear that workers not occupationally exposed to radiation are assimilated to members of the public only "when absent from the restricted areas of the installation" but, as soon as they pass through such areas, they might come under the definition of radiation workers, since that definition itself, turns upon the fact that a worker may, as a consequence of his work at the service of the installation, receive annual doses above the primary limits established by the Standard for members of the public. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work may not be exposed to doses of radiation beyond those permissible for members of the public. In this connection, the Committee also recalls that for members of the public, the annual dose equivalent limit for the lens of the eye has been lowered by the ICRP to 15 m SV per year, and looks forward to learning of the corresponding amendment of the national standard.

3. Emergency exposure. In its previous request, the Committee had noted that section 13 of Portaria SSMT No. 001 of 8 January 1982 concerning standards for occupational safety and health in nuclear installations provides for general measures to be taken in the event of an emergency, and Annex II sets forth instructions for the notification of accidents involving ionizing radiations. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 16 to 27 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention concerning the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency, the Committee had asked the Government to indicate the steps taken with regard to the points raised in paragraph 35(c) of that general observation, including the strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers is to be allowed. The Committee notes the Government's reply in its report that Portaria SSMT No. 001 of 8 January 1982 is currently being re-evaluated. In this connection, the Committee notes that the definition of "emergency exposure" given in Guideline 3, No. (20) of CNEN-NE Standard 3.01/88 and the corresponding rules in Guideline 5.2.4 may also need to be re-examined. The definition in Guideline 3, No. (20) includes 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". Given the fact that any major power plant, including a nuclear reactor, might be considered as being "of vital importance" for a country, the Committee, referring again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35 of its 1962 general observation under the Convention, requests the Government to indicate the provisions made or envisaged in law and practice to ensure: (i) that exceptional exposure of workers, exceeding the normally tolerated dose limit, is strictly limited in scope and duration to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health and is not tolerated for the purpose of saving valuable equipment; (ii) that all installations concerned be required to make the necessary investment in mobile equipment for robotized and remote controlled emergency operations so as to minimize exceptional exposure of workers; and (iii) that tasks involving exceptional exposure of workers are to be voluntary whenever the normally tolerated dose limits may be overstepped, and not merely beyond a dose of 100mSV, presumably retained in Guideline 5.2.4.3.

4. The provision of alternative employment. In its previous direct request the Committee had asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged concerning the provision of alternative employment for workers having accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment considered unacceptable would occur. The Committee notes the Government's reply in its report that there is nothing to report. Referring again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 28 to 34 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee hopes that, in order to ensure the effective protection of workers required by Article 3(1) of the Convention, consideration will be given to adopting provisions aimed at securing suitable alternative employment opportunities not directly involved in radiation work for workers having already been exposed to an accumulated dose beyond 1 SV, and that the Government will indicate in its next report the steps taken or envisaged to this end.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

1. In its previous observation, the Committee had referred to comments made by the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) concerning dangerous working conditions to which workers are exposed in the nuclear industry; it had noted the Government's indication that coordinated action was to be undertaken with the social partners to determine the actual situation in the nuclear industry in order to bring about the necessary changes, and that working conditions needed to be reformulated by collective agreements. The Committee had accordingly asked the Government to communicate information thus collected concerning the present situation in the nuclear industry as well as any collective agreements relevant to the application of the Convention.

The Committee notes that this information has not yet been communicated to the Office. It must, therefore, reiterate its request for this information.

2. Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee had referred to the explanations provided in its 1992 general observation under this Convention where it drew attention to the revised exposure limits adopted on the basis of new physiological findings by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and asked governments to indicate the steps taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation and to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations in the light of current knowledge. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its report that the Coordinating Committee for Protection concerning the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON) has been sent a proposal for modifying legislation in the light of these recommendations of the ICRP. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to supply information on the amendments adopted or envisaged in this regard, a certain number of points are again being raised in a direct request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

I. Further to its observation, the Committee would recall its previous comments concerning the steps to be taken to review the legislation in the light of the latest recommendations made by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (Publication No. 60 of 1990) and requests the Government to provide detailed information, in its next report, on the following points:

1. The Committee would recall that by virtue of 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 to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations in the light of current knowledge. The Committee notes that the dose limits established by the Government in Resolution No. 6/73 of the National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN) correspond to the previous dose limits recommended by the ICRP in 1977 (Publication No. 26). The latest ICRP recommendations set a revised limit for the annual effective dose equivalent for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work at 20 mSv per year, averaged over five years (e.g., a maximum of 100 mSv in five years) but not to exceed 50 mSv in any single year. The Committee therefore requests the Government to review Resolution No. 6/73 and the Basic Guidelines concerning Radiation Protection (CNEN Standard NE 3.01) (Basic Guidelines) and to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure the effective protection of workers, as regards their health and safety, by revising the annual effective dose equivalent in the light of current knowledge.

2. Article 8. The Committee notes that under section 1 of Resolution No. 6 a worker is defined as any adult individual who could be exposed either regularly or occasionally to ionizing radiation in the course or as a consequence of his or her work. Under Article 8 of the Convention, appropriate levels of exposure are to be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations or radioactive substances. In this regard, the Committee would refer the Government to paragraph 14 of its general observation of 1992 under this Convention which indicates that the dose limits for non-radiation workers should be equivalent to those set for members of the general public (1 mSv per year averaged over any five consecutive years). The International Commission on Radiological Protection has also set separate annual dose equivalent limits for the lens of the eye of 15 mSv and for the skin, 50 mSv. The Government is requested to review and revise the dose limits for members of the public set forth in Resolution No. 6/73 in the light of the latest ICRP Recommendations and to indicate the measures taken to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work are only exposed to doses of radiation equivalent to those permissible for members of the public.

II. The Committee notes that section 13 of Portaria No. 001 of 8 January 1982 concerning standards for occupational safety and health in nuclear installations provides for general measures to be taken in the event of an emergency and Annex II sets forth instructions for the notification of accidents involving ionizing radiations. The Committee further notes that section 5.2.4 of the Basic Guidelines of July 1988 provides that any emergency work involving exposure to 100 mSv or more shall be voluntary. The Committee would refer the Government to paragraphs 16 to 27 of its general observation of 1992 concerning the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency. In this regard, the Government is requested to indicate the steps taken or envisaged with respect to the protection against accidents and emergencies raised in paragraph 35(c) of the conclusions to the 1992 general observation and, in particular, subparagraph (iii) concerning the strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers is to be allowed.

III. Finally, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged concerning the provision of alternative employment for workers having accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment considered unacceptable would occur.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee has noted the information provided in the Government's report in reply to the comments made by the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) (received by the Office on 4 January 1993) concerning the dangerous working conditions to which workers are exposed in the nuclear industry. In particular, the Committee notes the Government's indication that, given the absence of valid statistics on occupational diseases in the nuclear energy sector, the Ministry of Labour has proposed to undertake coordinated action with the social partners to determine the actual situation in the nuclear industry in order to bring about the necessary changes for the benefit of the entire population. The Government has also indicated that the entire process in respect of working conditions in the country needs to be reformulated and invigorated by means of a system of collective agreements.

The Committee further notes that section 6 of Decree No. 623 of 4 August 1992 establishing the System of Protection for the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (SIPRON) empowers the Commission for the Coordination of Protection of the Brazilian Nuclear Programme (COPRON) to elaborate drafts for the revision of legislation on nuclear safety. In this regard, the Committee would refer the Government to its general observation of 1992 under this Convention which sets forth the latest recommendations made by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) concerning exposure to ionizing radiations (Publication No. 60 of 1990) and hopes that the Government will review its legislation in this light. The Government is requested to communicate to the Office any information collected by the Ministry of Labour concerning the present situation in the nuclear industry, as well as any collective agreements relevant to the application of the Convention. The Government is also requested to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to revise existing legislation in the light of the latest ICRP recommendation.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

I. The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's latest report. The Committee would refer the Government to its general observation of 1992 under this Convention which sets forth the latest recommendations made by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) concerning exposure to ionizing radiations (Publication No. 60 of 1990) and requests the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. The Committee would recall that by virtue of 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 to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations in the light of current knowledge. The Committee notes that the dose limits established by the Government in Resolution No. 6/73 of the National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN) correspond to the previous dose limits recommended by the ICRP in 1977 (Publication No. 26). The latest ICRP recommendations set a revised limit for the annual effective dose equivalent for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work at 20 mSv per year, averaged over five years (e.g. a maximum of 100 mSv in five years) but not to exceed 50 mSv in any single year. The Committee therefore requests the Government to review Resolution No. 6/73 and the Basic Guidelines concerning Radiation Protection (CNEN Standard NE 3.01) (Basic Guidelines) and to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure the effective protection of workers, as regards their health and safety, by revising the annual effective dose equivalent in the light of current knowledge.

2. Article 8. The Committee notes that under section 1 of Resolution No. 6 a worker is defined as any adult individual who could be exposed either regularly or occasionally to ionizing radiation in the course or as a consequence of his or her work. Under Article 8 of the Convention, appropriate levels of exposure are to be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations or radioactive substances. In this regard, the Committee would refer the Government to paragraph 14 which indicates that the dose limits for non-radiation workers should be equivalent to those set for members of the general public (1 mSv per year averaged over any five consecutive years). The International Commission on Radiological Protection has also set separate annual dose equivalent limits for the lens of the eye of 15 mSv and for the skin, 50 mSv. The Government is requested to review and revise the dose limits for members of the public set forth in Resolution No. 6/73 in the light of the latest ICRP Recommendations and to indicate the measures taken to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work are only exposed to doses of radiation equivalent to those permissible for members of the public.

II. The Committee notes that section 13 of Portaria No. 001 of 8 January 1982 concerning standards for occupational safety and health in nuclear installations provides for general measures to be taken in the event of an emergency and Annex II sets forth instructions for the notification of accidents involving ionizing radiations. The Committee further notes that section 5.2.4 of the Basic Guidelines of July 1988 provide that any emergency work involving exposure to 100 mSv or more shall be voluntary. The Committee would refer the Government to paragraphs 16 to 27 of its general observation of 1992 concerning the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency. In this regard, the Government is requested to indicate the steps taken or envisaged with respect to the protection against accidents and emergencies raised in paragraph 35(c) of the conclusions to the 1992 general observation and, in particular, subparagraph (iii) concerning the strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers is to be allowed.

III. Finally, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged concerning the provision of alternative employment for workers having accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment considered unacceptable would occur.

[The Government is requested to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee has noted the information provided in the Government's report for the period 1989-90. It also notes the comments made by the National Commission of Workers in Nuclear Energy (CONTREN) received by the Office on 4 January 1993, concerning the dangerous working conditions to which workers are exposed in the nuclear industry and hopes that the Government will supply detailed information in reply to CONTREN's comments.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is requested to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with regret that no report has been received from the Government. 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 following matters which were raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee has noted that whereas the National Confederation of Industry sent information on the application of the Convention in October 1987, a report had not been received from the Government since 1983. It therefore hopes that the Government will not fail to provide a report when it is next due and that this report will contain the information requested in the report form on the application of the Convention, and in particular on paragraph 1 of Article 3 and paragraph 2 of Article 6, which require the measures of protection and the maximum dose limits to be reviewed in the light of current knowledge. The Committee also refers to its general observation of 1987 and hopes that the next report will contain the information requested in this observation.