CMNT_TITLE

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - New Caledonia

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

Repetition

The Committee notes the information provided concerning the developments in the area of occupational safety and health in general in the country, including, in particular, the adoption of law No. 2009-7 of 19 October 2009 concerning occupational safety and health (OSH) as part of the implementation of the new Labour Code adopted in 2008. The Committee notes that the new OSH law is broad in scope, that it emphasizes prevention and risk assessment, that it includes detailed provisions regarding the functions of the labour inspection services, and that the Government refers to several activities destined to increase the general awareness to OSH issues. The Committee notes with regret, however, that the Government reports that no change in law and in practice has occurred as regards the specific requirements of this Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new OSH law adopted, and urges the Government once again to pursue its efforts to institute legislative changes to comply with the Convention, to appoint a medical inspector and to inform the Committee of the results of these efforts including any progress made. Against this background, the Committee is bound to reiterate its previous comments, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, including the information concerning the adoption of Decision No. 547 of 25 January 1995 relating to the protection of workers against the hazard of ionizing radiations, as well as Orders Nos 3165-T, 3167-T, 3169-T, 3171-T and 3173-T of 10 August 1995. It wishes to bring the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 1 of the Convention. Tripartite consultation. The Committee notes that the legislation referred to by the Government as giving effect to the Convention does not seem to contain provisions ensuring consultation with the representatives of the workers and the employers regarding the preparation and implementation of measures giving effect to the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged for this purpose.

Article 3(1) and (2), and Article 6. Appropriate measures for ensuring the effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations and for the review, in the light of knowledge available at the time, of the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations. In its report, the Government refers to the exposure limits set forth in sections 5 to 8 of Decision No. 547/CP of 25 January 1995. The Committee notes that these exposure limits reflect those set forth by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1977. In this regard, the Committee brings the attention of the Government to the fact that under the terms of Article 3(1) and (2), and Article 6, of the Convention, all appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure effective protection of workers, as regards their health and safety, against ionizing radiations and that, for this purpose, maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations shall be kept under constant review in the light of “knowledge available at the time” and “new knowledge”. The Committee recalls that, following a recommendation of 1977, these maximum doses have been revised by the ICRP and that new exposure limits were set forth in its recommendations, adopted in 1990. The Committee refers to its recommendations in its 1992 general observation and emphasizes, in paragraph 11, that the ICRP set, inter alia, a maximum admissible dose limit of 20 mSv per year, averaged over five years (100 mSv in five years), but not exceeding 50 mSv in any single year. The Committee also invites the Government to refer to paragraph 13 of its general observation concerning the maximum admissible dose for pregnant women. The Committee notes that the legislation to which the Government refers is not in conformity with the latest recommendations of the ICRP according to which women who may be pregnant shall be ensured a level of protection broadly comparable with that provided for members of the general public (i.e. effective dose not to exceed 1 mSv per year). The recommendations also envisage that, once the pregnancy is declared, the equivalent dose limit to the surface of the woman’s abdomen should not exceed 2 mSv for the remainder of the pregnancy. Finally, the Committee notes that the legislation giving effect to the Convention does not seem to contain provisions ensuring the protection of the public in general against exposure to radiations. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged with regard to these points, thus ensuring the effective protection of the workers, in the light of the knowledge available at the time, according to the recommendations issued in 1990 by the ICRP.

Article 9(2). Instruction for workers. The Committee notes that section 10, paragraph 3, of Decision No. 547/CP of 25 January 1995, provides that any handling of industrial radiography or radioscopy apparatus shall be carried out by an employee having received special training. The Committee also notes that the second subparagraph of this section provides that an exemption to this measure may be granted by the Director of Labour in the case of electrical generators for fixed X ray machines. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all workers directly engaged in radiation work are duly trained as well as to indicate the criteria according to which the exemptions provided for in section 10, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2, of Decision No. 547/CP of 25 January 1995, are granted.

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 the legislation envisaged for the application of the Convention does not seem to contain provisions ensuring that no worker shall be employed or shall continue to be employed in work by reason of which the worker could be subject to exposure to ionizing radiations contrary to qualified medical advice. 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. In the light of the above indication, the Committee requests the Government to consider appropriate measures to ensure that no worker shall be employed or shall continue to be employed in work by reason of which the worker could be the subject of 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 offer them other means to maintain their income and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

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