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

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Brazil (Ratification: 1966)

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 The Committee notes from the Government's reply to its previous direct request that CNEN Resolution No. 06/73 was revoked on 19 July 1988 by CNEN Resolution No. 12/88, which approved, on an experimental basis, the Basic Radiation Protection Guidelines in CNEN-NE Standard 3.01/88,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.]