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

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Argentina (Ratification: 1978)

Article 14. Alternative work or other measures to maintain the worker’s income when to maintain the worker in a job involving exposure is contrary to qualified medical advice. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, according to the report, the possibility of framing national rules to reflect the provision establishing a guarantee of “alternative employment”, is beyond the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. The Committee points out that responsibility for the application of ratified Conventions lies with the Government and not some specific agency. The Committee again points out that paragraph 32 of its general observation of 1992 on the Convention indicates that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned (i.e. those for whom continued employment in a specific job is medically inadvisable) with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security or other measures where continued assignment to work involving exposure is found to be medically inadvisable. This applies not only when workers are found to be already suffering from the occupational disease, but also prior to that stage, so that the disease can be prevented. Consequently, the Committee again asks the Government to consider adopting appropriate measures to ensure that workers shall not be employed or continue to be employed in work liable to expose them to ionizing radiation contrary to qualified medical advice, and to undertake such efforts as are necessary to provide them with suitable alternative employment or other means of maintaining their income, and asks the Government to provide information on this matter.

Protection against accidents and emergency situations. Further to its previous comments the Committee notes the information sent by the Government on the measures to make protection against accidents and protection during emergency operations as effective as possible. Furthermore, in its previous comments the Committee noted that point 144 of Nuclear Regulatory Authority Resolution No. 22/01, according to which “situations in which intervention implies the exposure of volunteers to an effective dose exceeding 1 Sv or an equivalent dose through the skin exceeding 10 Sv, may only be justified if they involve the saving of human lives”. It pointed out that paragraph 23 of its general observation of 1992, which refers to the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), establishes a dose limit of 0.5 Sv, and asked the Government to bring its legislation into line on this point. The Committee notes that the report justifies maintaining an effective dose of 1 Sv in the instance under study by citing scientific articles or comparing mortality indices. The Committee points out that 0.5 Sv is the dose the Committee established in its general observation of 1992 on this Convention, on the basis of the ICRP’s recommendations; that the general observation of 1992 continues to be the most up-to-date reference for the present Convention and that the dose limits established in the general observation are those required of all countries that have ratified the Convention. Consequently, the Committee again asks the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the dose limits established for intervention in the event of emergency are not higher than those laid down in its general observation of 1992 on the present Convention.