Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2000, publiée 89ème session CIT (2001)

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:

1.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report. It notes in particular that a Code of Practice approved by the Social Security Committee under article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, was introduced in March 1994. The Committee notes that the Code of Practice sets the dose limits at 50 mSv per year for workers aged 18 and over, and 15 mSv per year for trainees under the age of 18. While noting the Government’s indication that it has taken careful note of the Committee’s comments and will be soon taking the appropriate steps to review the existing limits with a view to incorporating the dose limits recommended in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the measures taken to that effect for workers directly engaged in radiation work and those who are not, in the light of Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 8, of the Convention.

2.  The Committee notes that there are no provisions in the Code of Practice that expressly prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 16 in work involving radiation. The Committee would request the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that effect is given to Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

3.  With regard to the protection against accidents and during emergency situations, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that no exceptions are permitted in the Code of Practice which would allow for increases in the normally tolerated dose limits during emergency situations and that there is no industry base or other area of activity in Jersey where it can be regarded that such an emergency would be foreseeable. The Committee further notes that the Code of Practice provides that emergency procedures must be planned and should "deal with the hazards created in the most efficient and effective manner, limiting radiation doses to any personnel involved to values as low as reasonably practicable". Recalling paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, the Committee would request the Government to supply further information as regards the review of authorizations granted for practices or equipment found unsafe, the strict definition of tasks for which normal dose limits may be exceeded should an accident or an emergency situation occur, as well as the provision of alternative employment opportunities in case of overexposure of the personnel involved.