Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 115) sur la protection contre les radiations, 1960 - Luxembourg (Ratification: 2008)

Autre commentaire sur C115

Demande directe

2021
2015
2011

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the Government’s first report and the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 14 December 2000 concerning the protection of the population against the dangers resulting from ionizing radiations. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not provide full information on all the Articles of the Convention. Following examination of the above Regulations, the Committee refers to the following points.

Articles 3(1) and 6(1) of the Convention. Effective protection of workers in the light of the available knowledge; maximum permissible doses. The Committee notes that Chapter 5 of the Grand-Ducal Regulations of 14 December 2000 establishes dose limits in conformity with the Convention and current recommendations, with the effective dose limit for exposed workers being set at 10 mSv a year. It also notes that, under the terms of section 5.1.1(1), in exceptional situations occurring during normal operations, when other techniques that do not involve exposure to ionizing radiations cannot be used, a person exposed professionally, following joint written authorization by an approved physician and the radio-protection division, may receive a radiation dose which exceeds the annual limit (10 mSv) without exceeding the limit of 15 mSv accumulated in the first year. With reference to its general observation of 1992 concerning the application of this Convention, and particularly paragraph 11, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the dose limit of 50 mSv in such exceptional circumstances is in line with international recommendations on condition that the average dose over five years does not exceed 100 mSv, or in other words, if in one year a worker receives a dose of 50 mSv, in the four following years, she or he must not receive more than 50 mSv in total. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on these dose limits in both law and practice.

Article 13. Emergency situations. The Committee notes that section 5.1.8(2) of the Grand-Ducal Regulations of 14 December 2000 includes, among the criteria used to define an emergency situation in which the dose limits established for persons exposed at work may be exceeded: “saving valuable equipment”. Under the terms of subsection 3, the dose of 50 mSv may not be exceeded, except to save human lives. In such cases, the limit is raised to 250 mSv. The Committee refers to paragraphs 16 to 27 of its general observation of 1992 concerning the application of this Convention, and particularly to paragraphs 25 and 26, according to which, if in an emergency basic human rights such as those protected by the Conventions on freedom of association or the abolition of forced labour can be suspended only to save people’s lives, safety and health, then a Convention such as the Radiation Protection Convention, which itself is to protect the life, safety and health of workers, should tolerate no wider exceptions. In particular, if the effective protection of workers’ health under the Convention is to be suspended for “immediate and urgent remedial work”, that work must be strictly required to meet an acute danger to life and health; exceptional exposure of workers is neither justified for the purpose of rescuing “items of high material value”, nor, more generally, because alternative techniques of intervention, which do not involve such exposure of workers, “would involve an excessive expense”. The Committee requests the Government to take duly into account the above recommendations set out in the general observation of 1992, according to which exceptions to the dose limits in emergency situations must be limited to what is strictly necessary to save human lives, and it requests it to provide information on this subject.

Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures proposed to maintain income where assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is contrary to medical advice. The Committee notes that no information has been provided concerning the measures proposed to provide workers with alternative employment or other means of maintaining their income, and wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of the general observation of 1992 on the Convention, which indicates 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 is found to be medically inadvisable. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take due account of the recommendation that no worker shall be employed or continue to be employed in work involving exposure to ionizing radiations contrary to medical advice and that, for such workers, every effort is made to provide them with suitable alternative employment or to ensure them the means of maintaining their income, and to provide information on this subject.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, including extracts from inspection reports and, where such data exist, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of the violations reported and the number, nature and causes of employment accidents and occupational diseases reported.