Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Norway (Ratification: 1961)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 115 (radiation protection), 120 (hygiene – commerce and offices), 139 (occupational cancer), 155 (OSH), 162 (asbestos), 167 (OSH in construction), 176 (OSH in mining), 170 (chemicals), and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) together.

Application of OSH Conventions in practice. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on statistics regarding accidents at work and occupational fatalities per type of industry and type of accident, reported to the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) for the period 2015–19. The Committee notes that the Government provides statistical information regarding fatal and non-fatal work injuries over the past eight years in the construction sector. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Inspection Authority (LI) continues to carry out preventive activities to reduce the exposure to radon in order to fulfil the Government’s Strategy for the reduction of radon exposure in Norway. The Government further indicates that it implemented preventing measures on reducing the exposure to carcinogens for small enterprises through the Norwegian participation in the Healthy Workplace campaign “Healthy Workplaces Manage Dangerous Chemicals” 2018-2019. In addition, the Government indicates that the LI has recently developed a series of e-tools for specific industries to help companies with risk assessments and appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce risk and to help companies with safe handling of chemicals (such as the Risk Helper and the EU-OSHA Dangerous Substances e-tools). The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information, regarding its previous request under Convention No. 170, on the implementation of the Working Environment Guide (WEG), which is an e-tool designed to provide a simple introduction to systematic work on the working environment for employers, safety representatives and employees. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide available information on the application in practice of ratified OSH Conventions, including on the number, nature and cause of reported occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the WEG is still in use or whether it was replaced by other e-tools. For the application in practice of Convention No. 176, the Committee refers to its comment below.

A. General provisions

OSH and its promotional framework (Conventions Nos 155 and 187)

National policy

Article 2(3) of Convention No. 187. Measures that could be taken, in consultation with social partners, to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO. The Committee notes that, according to information provided by the Government in its report, during the reporting period, the Norwegian Tripartite ILO Committee discussed the possibility of ratifying a variety of OSH Conventions related to the follow-up to the resolution on the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is currently no basis to ratify any further OSH Conventions. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the periodic consideration given to measures that could be taken to ratify relevant ILO OSH Conventions, and to provide information on the consultations held in this respect.

Article 4 and 7 of Convention No. 155 and Article 3(1) of Convention No. 187. National OSH policy. The Committee noted, in its previous comments, the observations by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) questioning whether the extensive legislation regulating OSH matters in the country reflected a coherent national OSH policy covering both workplaces under the LI and those under the Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA). In this respect, it noted that the LI had informed the PSA about possible legislative changes regarding occupational safety and health and requested the Government to provide relevant information. In its report, the Government indicates that the legislative OSH framework allows for adaptations and adjustments with regard to specific sectors and industries, including the petroleum sector. With regard to improvements in the coherence of the national OSH policy resulting from the dialogue between the LI and the PSA, the Government indicates that the LI and the PSA manage several common regulations and have worked together for the establishment of a portal, which aims to disseminate information on effective preventive work environment to industries, sectors and companies. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the dialogue between the LI and PSA aimed to improve coherence of the national OSH policy.

Article 5(c) and Article 14 of Convention No. 155 and Article 4(3)(c) of Convention No. 187. Provision of OSH training. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the LO stating that, while under section 3-5(1) of the Working Environment Act (WEA) employers are required to undergo training regarding how to ensure satisfactory health, environment and safety at work, there are no regulations in place concerning the content and extent of this training, as opposed to training for safety representatives. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 3-5(1) of the WEA. The Government is of the opinion that the OSH training requirements for leaders of undertakings should be more flexible than those applying to safety representatives, and therefore, no specific requirements exist regarding OSH training for the chief executive of the undertaking under section 3-5. The Government indicates that training must be adaptable to the nature of the undertaking and its activities, risk factors and size, as well as each chief executive's personal working situation. However, the Government indicates that guidance is provided by LI, both on the content of the training and the desired acquired knowledge. The Government provides information of the LI’s supervising experience which shows that the content and scope of the training varies greatly depending mainly on the type of establishment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points previously raised.

National system

Article 4(3)(d) of Convention No. 187. Occupational health services. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the appointment by the Government of an expert committee to assess different OSH models. The Government indicates that the committee delivered its report in 2018, which was presented for a public consultation. The Committee notes that a project group, comprised of relevant professional authorities, and with the social partners’ participation, was subsequently established in December 2019. In November 2020, the group delivered its report with recommendations for legislative changes and other measures aiming towards developing occupational health service. The Committee notes that the report was endorsed by the social partners and the legislative suggestions were sent on a public consultation in June 2021. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the consultations and to continue to provide information on any other efforts undertaken to develop occupational health services.

Article 11(c) of Convention No. 155 and Article 4(3)(f) of Convention No. 187. Mechanism for the collection and analysis of data on occupational injuries and diseases. The Government indicates that with regard to recording of occupational diseases, the LI´s Registry record reports of work-related diseases from medical practitioners. The Committee notes that, although the reporting of work-related diseases is mandatory according to the WEA, less than 5 per cent of physicians in Norway report work-related diseases to the LI. The Government indicates that a digital procedure for the reporting of work-related diseases by physicians has not yet been implemented but refers to other measures taken to increase the reporting of work-related diseases. Regarding the recording of occupational accidents, it indicates that a new registry was established, under the management of the Statistics Norway. According to the information provided by the Government, the NAV, Statistics Norway, the LI, the PSI, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the National Institute of Occupational Health in Norway (STAMI) have jointly identified proposals for projects for the development of a common solution for electronic reporting of occupational accidents and diseases, reported in a feasibility study from 2016. Following the study, the authorities are working on implementing the recommendations and are currently working together on a digital public private joint solution programme (DSOP). The Department of Occupational Health Surveillance (NOA) at STAMI also coordinates, systemizes and disseminates knowledge on the working environment and health in the form of a surveillance system primarily targeted on work-related injuries. Referring to its comments under Conventions Nos 81 and 129, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information regarding the progress achieved in the development of an information system regarding diseases and to continue to provide information on the operation of the registry for occupational accidents and available statistics on the matter.

Article 4(3)(h) of Convention No. 187. Support mechanisms for progressive improvement of OSH conditions in micro-enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the informal economy. The Committee takes due note of the promotional activities, including tools and guidance, aiming at the progressive improvement of OSH conditions in SMEs and in the informal economy. In particular, the Government indicates that the LI, in cooperation with the social partners, has developed a web-based self-risk-assessment tool which is particularly useful for SMEs and micro-enterprises, who often do not have access to internal expertise in risk-evaluations. With regard to OSH conditions in the informal economy, the Government refers to a series of efforts aiming to combat work-related crime. The Committee notes the revised 2021 Strategy to combat criminal activities related to working life, as well as the “Tripartite industry program” that has been created to contribute to decent working conditions in vulnerable industries. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in relation to OSH support to the informal economy.

National OSH Programme

Article 5 of Convention No. 187. National OSH programme. The Government indicates that its main strategy for a safe and proper working life is stated in the Report No. 1 (2020-2021) on the National Budget, which provides that OSH is a key component in the main goals for the labour market as a whole. The Committee notes that four main strategic measures are mentioned in Report No. 1: a) Supervision, guidance and information, b) Development of regulation, c) Development of knowledge, d) Cooperation – tripartite cooperation. The Committee takes note of the White Paper on safety on the Norwegian continental shelf, as well as the White Paper No. 12 (2017-2018) on health, safety and environment in the petroleum industry. The Government indicates that there is a high degree of transparency and close cooperation with relevant stakeholders with respect to the National OSH Programme. The Committee observes that, however, the Government does not provide specific information on how its national OSH programme covers the elements in Articles 5(2)(a)–(e), as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provides further information on how it ensures that its national OSH programme covers the elements in Articles 5(2)(a)–(e), particularly with respect to the establishment of targets and indicators of progress (Article 5(2)(d)). It also requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which its OSH programme is periodically reviewed in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers.

B. Protection against specific risks

1. Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Article 14 of the Convention. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation pursuant to medical advice and alternative employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 4-6 of the WEA refers to persons with reduced capacity for work “as a result of an accident, sickness, fatigue or the like” and requested the Government to indicate if this provision also applies to situations before an occupational disease has been declared, but after it has been determined that it is medically inadvisable for a worker to be assigned work involving exposure to ionizing radiations. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that the section does not have an exhaustive list for the situations in which the obligation applies, and must be seen in the context of the employee’s duty to provide information about his capacity for work, but not about his sickness. Therefore, this provision also applies to situations before an occupational disease has been declared. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 4-6 of the Work Environment Act to workers engaged in work involving exposure to ionizing radiation.

2. Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139)

Article 1(1) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of a series of regulations, and requested the Government to indicate the specific provisions that give effect to the Convention. The Government indicates that sections 4 and 6 of the Act relating to the control of products and consumer services and sections 1-4 (definitions), 3-19 (prohibition on work with special chemicals), and 4-1 (prohibition on asbestos and asbestos-containing materials) of Regulation No. 1357 (performance of work, use of work equipment and related technical requirements) are relevant to the application of the Convention. It also indicates that sections 5-6 and 5-1 and Annex 1 of the Regulation concerning action and limit values for physical and chemical agents and related technical requirements (prohibition on work with special chemicals), as well as sections 5-4(1)(c) and (e) and 18-6(3)–(5) of the WEA are relevant. The Committee notes that Regulation of 16 June 2012 No. 622 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures was recently amended in March 2021. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the amended Regulation of 16 June 2012 No. 622 that give effect to the Convention.

Article 3. Measures taken to protect workers against the risks of exposure to carcinogenic substances or agents and record keeping. The Committee notes the information that the Act relating to prevention of harmful effects of tobacco (9 March 1973 No. 14) has been further amended, and section 12 was repealed and that section 25 now provides that in spaces and transportation with public access, the air must be smoke free and sets several means to ensure compliance with the ban on smoking. The Committee notes that for the period 2014–20, the LI conducted 202 inspections and issued 192 reactions to violations based on the said section of the Act. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and their application in practice.

Article 4. Providing workers with information on the dangers involved and the measures to be taken when exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents. The Government reports several measures taken to address the higher exposure of specific workers to carcinogenic substances or agents and the consequent health risk. It revised the guidance on health examination and physical capacity testing for smoke and chemical divers and established the organization “Firefighters against cancer”. In the period 2016–2018, the LI carried out 338 inspections related to the exposure to fire smoke among firefighters and sweepers and uncovered a series of offences. In addition to checking compliance with relevant requirements in the working environment legislation, the LI provided guidance on necessary measures to reduce the risk of health damage and illness related to harmful exposure to fire smoke. The Government reports that the LI's supervision in cooperation with the organization “Firefighters against Cancer” have led to increased prevention measures. The Government indicates that local authorities have prioritised the improvement of the condition of fire stations, including in relation to cleaning, hygiene, ventilation, and usage of personal protective equipment. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Article 5. Medical examinations and biological or other tests during the period of employment and thereafter. The Government refers to a series of risk prevention and risk assessment activities aiming to reduce exposure to dangerous substances, including setting of occupational exposure levels for carcinogenic substances. It also refers to the focus it places on the elevated health risks linked with night work commonly found in health care, manufacturing, transport, retail, and services sectors. In this respect, the Committee notes several initiatives conducted in this respect. The information provided by the Government does not focus on the measures taken to supervise the state of health of workers who have been exposed to carcinogenic substances after the period of employment. The Committee recalls that, given the often significant latency period (between 10 and 40 years between occupational exposure and development of cancer), Article 5 of the Convention provides for such medical examinations or biological or other tests or investigations during the period of employment and thereafter as are necessary to evaluate their exposure and supervise their state of health in relation to the occupational hazards. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide further information on the measures taken or envisaged to supervise the state of health of workers, who have been exposed to carcinogenic substances after the period of employment, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention.

3. Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162)

Article 3(3) and (4) of the Convention. Permitted derogations from preventive and protective measures. In reply to Committee’s previous request, the Government provides detailed information on the nature of the derogations from preventive and protective measures, their conditions and limits of time for the period 2010–20. It reports that for the years 2016, 2017 and 2020 one derogation from the regulations on asbestos was granted each year, while none was approved in 2018 and 2019. Regarding the Committee’s previous request on information on the precaution taken to protect workers’ health and the consultations held with the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned, as prescribed by Article 3(3) and (4) of the Convention, the Government indicates that the derogations are only permitted by the LI after an assessment of the work being justified from a safety and health perspective and if not in breach of the EEA Agreement. Representative organizations of employers and workers are not consulted directly but are familiar with the possibility to grant exemption from the Norwegian regulation/practice. The Committee takes note of this information, which address its previous request.

Article 21(5). Notification of occupational diseases caused by asbestos. Application of the Convention in practice and statistical information. The Committee notes that occupational diseases caused by exposure to asbestos remain largely under-reported and that despite their obligation to report cases to the LI, only 4 to 5 per cent of the medical practitioners fulfil their duties. In this respect, the Committee refers to its comments on Convention Nos 81 and 129, where it notes that despite LI’s intention, a digital notification procedure for reporting of work-related diseases has not been implemented yet and took note of measures taken to increase the reporting of work-related diseases. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government takes all the necessary measures to ensure that medical practitioners duly report occupational diseases caused by asbestos, and to provide information on any development in this regard.

4. Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170)

Legislation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government with regard to the provisions of Regulations No. 1355, 1356, 1357 and 1358 which give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. Consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations on national policy related to chemicals. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the LI had established a registration, evaluation authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH) office to stay up to date on REACH areas that concern the working environment in Norway. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the mandate and activities of the REACH Office and how employers’ and workers’ organizations are consulted in this process as well as in the periodical review of the national policy related to chemicals. The Government indicates that the LI is the coordinating competent authority concerning the Title IV of REACH European Union regulation on information in the supply chain. The Government also indicates that the LI participates in enforcement activities, for exchange of information on enforcement related to both REACH and on classification, labelling and packing of chemicals (CLP). The Government indicates that consultation with workers’ and employers’ organisations is centralised and is conducted by a representative from the Department for Working Environment and Legislation. Issues pertaining to REACH and CLP are channelled through this representative. The Committee takes notes of this information and requests the Government to provide information on the periodical review of the national policy related to chemicals.

C. Protection in specific branches of activity

1. Hygiene (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1964 (No. 120)

Article 6 of the Convention. Inspection and enforcement measures. Application in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee noted an increase in orders issued for the period 2010–13 and requested the Government to indicate the causes of this increase, the nature of the cases concerned, and measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the application of the Convention in practice. The Government indicates that the relevant statistical information regarding the commerce and offices sector is not available. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that statistical information regarding the commerce and offices sector becomes available. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is enforced and to provide relevant extracts from the reports of the inspection services concerning the application of the Convention.

2. Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167)

Article 15(2) of the Convention. Lifting appliances and gear. In reply to its previous comments regarding the measures envisaged or taken in order to ensure that no person shall be raised, lowered or carried by a lifting appliance unless it is constructed, installed and used for that purpose in accordance with national laws and regulations, except in an emergency situation. The Government points out that, according to section 8-18 of the Regulation concerning the performance of work, use of work equipment and related technical requirements, the employer must apply for exemption from the LI in cases where it is appropriate to use unapproved equipment for personal lifting because approved equipment has not been developed or because approved equipment is unsuitable for use, and its use is not of an exceptional nature. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 15 (2), exceptions are authorized in an emergency situation in which serious personal injury or fatality may occur, and for which the lifting appliance can be safely used. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 22. Structural frames and formwork. Supervision by a competent person. Adequate precautions to guard against danger. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the erection of structural frames and components, formwork, falsework and shoring be carried out only under the supervision of a competent person; and that adequate precautions are taken to guard against danger to workers arising from any temporary state of weakness or instability of a structure, in accordance with Articles 22(1) and (2) of the Convention. In its current report, the Government reports a series of additional regulations giving effect to Article 22, including Chapter 6 (Securing of dangerous workplaces and areas) of Regulation No. 1356, point 3.4.3 “Protection in the event of overturning” and point 3.4.4 “Protection in the event of falling objects” of the Regulation No. 544 of 2009 concerning machinery. The Committee notes that it refers also to section 17-24 of Regulation No. 1357, which provides for the requirement of a series of arrangements to ensure the safety of employees in connection with the use of rope and requires that the work shall be carefully supervised so that employees can get immediate assistance in an emergency. The Committee notes that these provisions meet the requirements of Article 22 (2). Furthermore, the Committee notes that only section 17-24 of Regulation No. 1357 provides for works to be carried out under the supervision of a competent person while the other provisions referred to by the Government do not provide for a similar requirement. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that work on structural frames and formwork is carried out only under the supervision of a competent person, in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Convention.

Article 24. Demolition. Supervision by a competent person. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that, when the demolition of any building or structure might present danger to workers or to the public, the work is planned and undertaken only under the supervision of a competent person, in accordance with Article 24(b) of the Convention. In the absence of information on this point, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that, when the demolition of any building or structure might present danger to workers or to the public, the work is planned and undertaken only under the supervision of a competent person, in accordance with Article 24(b) of the Convention.

Article 35. Implementation and application of the Convention in practice. The Committee refers to its comment above on the application in practice of OSH Conventions and to its comments under Conventions Nos 155 and 187.

3. Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176)

Application in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Government had experienced difficulties in finding statistical information on the total number of workers covered by the Convention and requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that such information becomes available. The Committee notes with interest that the Government provides detailed data on the number of employed persons in the sector of mining and quarrying for the period 2015–19. In this respect, the Committee notes that there were 58,755 persons employed in the sector at the 4th quarter of 2019. The Committee also notes the statistical data in the Government’s report on the number of orders, decisions of halt and coercive fines issued between 2016 and 2020. It notes that there were 17 orders in 2019 leading to 3 decisions of fines and 1 decision of halt and 27 orders in 2020, leading to 7 decisions of fines, none resulting in a decision of halt. The Government also provides detailed statistics on reported accidents at work for the mining and quarrying sector for the period 2015–19. The Committee notes that there were 419 accidents in 2015, 332 in 2016, 349 in 2017, 364 in 2018 and 348 in 2019. The Committee requests the Government to continue to submit information on available statistics.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), submitted with the Government’s report.

The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its report in reply to the Committee’s previous comment concerning Article 15 of the Convention on inspection services.

General observation of 2015. The Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2015 under this Convention, and in particular to the request for information contained in paragraph 30 thereof.

Article 14. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation pursuant to medical advice and alternative employment. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government refers to section 4-6 of the Work Environment Act (WEA), on adaptation for employees with reduced capacity of work. Section 4-6(1) provides that if an employee suffers reduced capacity for work as a result of an accident, sickness, fatigue or the like, the employer shall, as far as possible, implement the necessary measures to enable the employee to retain or be given suitable work. The employee shall preferably be given the opportunity to continue his normal work, possibly after special adaptation. Section 4-6(2) provides that if it is appropriate to transfer an employee to other work, the employee and the employees’ elected representatives shall be consulted before deciding the matter. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Inspection Authority supervises compliance with the provisions of the Work Environment Act, guiding undertakings in its implementation and issuing orders as necessary. Furthermore, it notes that undertakings collaborate with the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration with regard to social security and sickness benefits and follow-up plans. Noting that section 4-6 of the Work Environment Act refers to persons with reduced capacity for work “as a result of an accident, sickness, fatigue or the like”, the Committee requests the Government to indicate if this provision also applies to situations before an occupational disease has been declared, but after it has been determined that it is medically inadvisable for a worker to be assigned work involving exposure to ionizing radiations. It requests, in this regard, information on the application in practice of section 4-6 of the Work Environment Act to workers engaged in work involving exposure to ionizing radiation.

Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to the Committee’s previous request, that a national “Strategy for reducing the exposure to radon” was formulated for the 2009–14 period. The strategy aimed at ensuring that the level of radon exposure in all types of buildings and facilities was lower than established dose levels and at helping to lower the radon exposure in the country as much as possible. The Committee also notes that the Labour Inspection Authority prepared “Guidance on radiation in the workplace” and conducted a survey of radon in workplaces and underground workplaces to achieve updated knowledge about the existence and exposure levels in construction sites and underground workplaces. In this regard, the Committee notes that the LO once again refers to the lack of monitoring of exposure to radon in different sites, including construction sites in geological areas and underground workplaces. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice as well as any measures taken or envisaged to address the issues raised by the LO in its observations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Legislation. The Committee notes the information that there have been no legislative changes which affect the application of the Convention and welcomes the helpful transmission of relevant up-to-date legislation. It also notes the information provided regarding effect given to Articles 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on legislative measures undertaken with regard to the Convention.

Article 14 of the Convention. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government including a reference to the provisions in sections 4–6 of the Work Environment Act (17 June 2005, No. 62 (WEA)), requiring employers to take the necessary measures to enable workers with reduced capacity for work to keep or be given suitable work and the provisions requiring transfer in sections 5(7) (for workers with medical certificate) and 6 (for pregnant workers) of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation. It also notes the reference made to section 1 of the Regulation of companies that shall be associated with occupational health services of 21 April 1994 No. 333, requiring certain companies to have occupational health services. In addition, the Committee notes the references made to the special provisions regarding pregnant workers according to section 6 in the above ordinance. The Committee considers that this information does not fully respond to the query regarding efforts 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 as noted in paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide detailed information on the application of this Article in practice, in the light of paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation on the application of this Convention.

Article 15. Inspection services. The Committee notes the information provided that inspections by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) are carried out both in onshore and offshore industries focusing on radiation protection of workers and that inspections are also carried out in universities and research institutes with a focus on radiation protection of workers and students. The Government reports that during 2008 and the first half of 2009 about 40 inspections were carried out in these sectors and that nearly one third of these inspections found contraventions, the typical being lack of valid authorization from the NRPA and lack of updated instructions or procedures. The Committee also notes the information that every year about ten accidents involving radiation sources in the industrial sector are reported to the NRPA. The typical accidents or incidents include crossing of barriers established during work with radiation sources, technical problems with the radiation sources and orphan radiation sources, but that none of the accidents or incidents in the last few years have resulted in personal doses above the annual dose limit of 20 mSv. The Committee welcomes this detailed information and invites the Government to continue its reporting on inspections carried out and the outcome thereof and on any measures taken to address the problems reported.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided, including the guidelines on the application of the RPR, and that the NRPA and the labour inspection authorities cooperate on the basis of a written agreement. It also notes that this cooperation reportedly has, inter alia, triggered a launch of a five-year national strategy on radon exposure with the purpose of bringing the radon levels in all buildings and premises down to prescribed dose levels. With reference to this strategy, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) notes the communication transmitted by the Government that it has made efforts in this context to remedy the lack of information on exposure to radon in underground workplaces and that the authorities responsible for occupational safety and health seemed to be lagging behind in taking concrete action in accordance with the strategy. The LO also express concern that due to lack of knowledge about the existence of radon in certain construction sites in geological areas and in underground workplaces there is a lack of monitoring of exposure on these sites. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the application of the Convention in practice, including on the national strategy on radon exposure in the light of, inter alia, the comments by the LO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

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:

Article 7 of the Convention. Young workers. The Committee notes that young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years are prohibited from performing work involving exposure to ionizing radiation under the Regulations on Employment of Children and Young Workers (Ordinance No. 551 of 30 April 1998, section 9(a)). It notes that under section 10, young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years may be exempted from this prohibition with respect to their vocational training if the effective dose does not exceed 5 mSv within a 12-month period and that young workers would then be covered by Ordinance No. 1362 of 21 November 2003 on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation (as amended up to Ordinance No. 167 of 18 February 2005) (RPR). For example, persons in that age category can invoke the right to medical examination before being assigned to work involving ionizing radiation. The Committee notes that this possibility of exemption is not applicable to young persons under the age of 16 years, in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples in its next report on exemptions granted under section 10 above.

Article 8. Dose limits for non-radiation workers. The Committee notes that section 20(3) of the RPR prescribes that, at workplaces where sources for ionizing radiation are used, arrangements should be made to ensure that workers outside restricted areas are not exposed to radiation doses exceeding 1 mSv per year. With reference to the ICRP recommendation of 1990 referred to in paragraph 14 of the Committee’s general observation of 1992 under the Convention in which it was indicated that the dose limit for members of the public should not exceed 1 mSv per year averaged over five years, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on how this provision is applied in practice.

Article 11. Appropriate monitoring of exposure levels. The Committee notes that, under section 7 of the RPR, workers shall have the competence, be properly instructed and that written work procedures shall exist, in accordance with the Convention. It also notes under section 22 of the RPR that workers within a controlled or monitored area shall carry a personal dosimeter or their personal radiation exposure shall be ascertained by other means. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report as to how the personal radiation exposure levels are ascertained “by other means” for workers not having a personal dosimeter.

Article 12. Medical examination. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation regulates the compulsory medical examination of workers before the commencement of work involving ionizing radiations of doses of more than 6 mSv during a time period of 12 months, in accordance with the Convention. It further notes that workers who may be exposed to more than 6 mSv within a time period of 12 months shall have a medical examination on a regular basis every third year. A medical examination shall also be carried out if the worker herself/himself so explicitly requests or if a medical doctor so decides. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the frequency at which medical examinations are carried out.

Article 13. Emergency work. The Committee notes that, under section 9 of the RPR, undertakings shall make an assessment of the risk factors associated with the use of radiation and on this basis take action to prevent risks and any possible loss of radiation sources by drawing up an emergency preparedness plan. It notes with interest that, in accordance with its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, section 21(3) of the RPR states that work involving exposure in excess of 50 mSv may only be carried out by volunteers who have been thoroughly informed of the risks and hazards involved (women of fertile age may participate provided they are not pregnant) and that it is only permitted for emergency situations to save lives, avoid serious damage to health or prevent a dramatic escalation of the accident and that exposure in excess of 500 mSv can only be permitted in order to save lives after a thorough assessment has been made and it is recognized that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs in the form of health risk to the rescue personnel.

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 section 5(7) of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation provided that workers with a medical certificate stating that they cannot work with ionizing radiation shall be transferred to work without occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. It notes the Government’s statement that relocation is not considered necessary in cases where shielding is dimensioned in such a way that the additional occupational radiation lies within the variations in the level of background radiation. The Committee also notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) expressing their concern that the legislation does not provide for a right per se for workers to be provided with alternative employment. 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. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the practical application of this Article, taking into consideration the general observation of 1992 under the Convention.

Article 15. Inspection services. The Committee notes under section 42(2) of the RPR that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) carries out inspections. It notes that the NRPA may demand rectification where activities conflict with the provisions of the Regulations (section 43). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information with its next report of the activities carried out in this respect, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, disaggregated by sex, if available, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them.

Part III of the report form. Authorities. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) supervises the application of the RPR and that it may lay down individual decisions as necessary for this purpose (section 42(1)). Having previously noted the Government’s statement that, with respect to medical examinations, it is the Labour Inspection Authority who is the competent authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on measures taken or envisaged by the NRPA and the Labour Inspection Authority to supervise and enforce the legislation. It further notes the Government’s statement that a number of guidelines and codes of practices are currently being prepared and requests the Government to provide copies of them once they are adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. Further to its observation, the Committee notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) on the application of Article 14 and requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

2. Article 7 of the Convention. Young workers. The Committee notes that young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years are prohibited from performing work involving exposure to ionizing radiation under the Regulations on Employment of Children and Young Workers (Ordinance No. 551 of 30 April 1998, section 9(a)). It notes that under section 10, young workers between the ages of 16 and 18 years may be exempted from this prohibition with respect to their vocational training if the effective dose does not exceed 5 mSv within a 12-month period and that young workers would then be covered by Ordinance No. 1362 of 21 November 2003 on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation (as amended up to Ordinance No. 167 of 18 February 2005) (RPR). For example, persons in that age category can invoke the right to medical examination before being assigned to work involving ionizing radiation. The Committee notes that this possibility of exemption is not applicable to young persons under the age of 16 years, in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples in its next report on exemptions granted under section 10 above.

3. Article 8. Dose limits for non-radiation workers. The Committee notes that section 20(3) of the RPR prescribes that, at workplaces where sources for ionizing radiation are used, arrangements should be made to ensure that workers outside restricted areas are not exposed to radiation doses exceeding 1 mSv per year. With reference to the ICRP recommendation of 1990 referred to in paragraph 14 of the Committee’s general observation of 1992 under the Convention in which it was indicated that the dose limit for members of the public should not exceed 1 mSv/year averaged over five years, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on how this provision is applied in practice.

4. Article 11. Appropriate monitoring of exposure levels. The Committee notes that under section 7 of the RPR, workers shall have the competence, be properly instructed and that written work procedures shall exist, in accordance with the Convention. It also notes under section 22 of the RPR that workers within a controlled or monitored area shall carry a personal dosimeter or their personal radiation exposure shall be ascertained by other means. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report as to how the personal radiation exposure levels are ascertained "by other means" for workers not having a personal dosimeter.

5. Article 12. Medical examination. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation regulates the compulsory medical examination of workers before the commencement of work involving ionizing radiations of doses of more than 6 mSv during a time period of 12 months, in accordance with the Convention. It further notes that workers who may be exposed to more than 6 mSv within a time period of 12 months shall have a medical examination on a regular basis every third year. A medical examination shall also be carried out if the worker herself/himself so explicitly requests or if a medical doctor so decides. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the frequency at which medical examinations are carried out.

6. Article 13. Emergency work. The Committee notes that, under section 9 of the RPR, undertakings shall make an assessment of the risk factors associated with the use of radiation and on this basis take action to prevent risks and any possible loss of radiation sources by drawing up an emergency preparedness plan. It notes with interest that, in accordance with its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, section 21(3) of the RPR states that work involving exposure in excess of 50 mSv may only be carried out by volunteers who have been thoroughly informed of the risks and hazards involved (women of fertile age may participate provided they are not pregnant) and that it is only permitted for emergency situations to save lives, avoid serious damage to health or prevent a dramatic escalation of the accident and that exposure in excess of 500 mSv can only be permitted in order to save lives after a thorough assessment has been made and it is recognized that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs in the form of health risk to the rescue personnel.

7. 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 section 5(7) of the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation provided that workers with a medical certificate stating that they cannot work with ionizing radiation shall be transferred to work without occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. It notes the Government’s statement that relocation is not considered necessary in cases where shielding is dimensioned in such a way that the additional occupational radiation lies within the variations in the level of background radiation. The Committee also notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) expressing their concern that the legislation does not provide for a right per se for workers to be provided with alternative employment. 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. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the practical application of this Article, taking into consideration the general observation of 1992 under the Convention.

8. Article 15. Inspection services. The Committee notes under section 42(2) of the RPR that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) carries out inspections. It notes that the NRPA may demand rectification where activities conflict with the provisions of the Regulations (section 43). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information with its next report of the activities carried out in this respect, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, disaggregated by sex, if available, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them.

9. Part III of the report form. Authorities. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) supervises the application of the RPR and that it may lay down individual decisions as necessary for this purpose (section 42(1)). Having previously noted the Government’s statement that, with respect to medical examinations, it is the Labour Inspection Authority who is the competent authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on measures taken or envisaged by the NRPA and the Labour Inspection Authority to supervise and enforce the legislation. It further notes the Government’s statement that a number of guidelines and codes of practices are currently being prepared and requests the Government to provide copies of them once they are adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the attached documentation.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. Giving effect to the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Ordinance No. 1362 of 21 November 2003 on Radiation Protection and Use of Radiation (as amended up to Ordinance No. 167 of 18 February 2005) (Ordinance No. 1362) that entered into force on 1 January 2004, implementing the provisions of Act No. 36 of 12 May on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, replacing to a certain extent the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation (No. 1157 of 14 June 1985, as amended up to Ordinance No. 494 of 1 March 2004). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the harmonization between the two sets of rules is based upon the specialist competence possessed, respectively, by the Labour Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet) and the Radiation Protection Authority (Statens strålevern). The Committee notes that the dose limits are regulated by the Radiation Protection Authority, while the provisions on medical examinations will continue to be regulated by the Ordinance on work involving ionizing radiation.

3. Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2. Maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation. The Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s statement that Ordinance No. 1362 is based on recent recommendations from international organizations (ICRP, IAEA and EU) and that section 21 of Ordinance No. 1362 prescribes a dose limit of 20 mSv per calendar year for workers over the age of 18 years, provides that the dose limit for young workers (between the age of 16 and 18 years), as part of their vocational training, shall not exceed 5 mSv per year and that with respect to pregnant women (once the pregnancy has been notified) the dose to the foetus shall not exceed 1 mSv, which are all in compliance with the 1990 ICRP Recommendations.

4. The Committee is raising certain other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Article 8 of the Convention. Further to its observation and with reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new regulations to be issued in application of Act No. 36 of 12 May 2000 on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation comprise a number of requirements previously set out in technical provisions, including dose limits for non-radiation workers, which shall not exceed 1 mSv per year. The Committee while noting that this dose limit would comply with the dose limit recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations for non-radiation workers, hopes that the regulations will be adopted in a near future in order to give effect to this Article of the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the new regulations once they have been adopted for in-depth examination.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comments. It notes with interest the adoption of the new Act No. 36 of 12 May 2000 on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, effective since 1 July 2000, repealing Act No. 1 of 18 June 1938 relating to the use of X-rays and radium, as well as the adoption of the Regulations of 14 June 1985 on ionizing radiation, as revised on 1 February 2001, which came into effect on 1 July 2001. The Committee notes that the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, lays down the general lines on radiation protection and empowers the ministry responsible to issue supplementary regulations prescribing the detailed measures to be taken to implement the respective provisions of the Act. In this respect, the Government indicates in its report that a set of regulations to be adopted under the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, are now in process and it is planned to put them into force on 1 January 2004. The content of the regulations is based to a large extent on the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and on Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996. In the light of this and with reference to its previous comments, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 13 of the Convention. Emergency exposure situations. The Committee notes with interest that Chapter IV, sections 15-17 of the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, refers to the "Planning of incident and accident management. Emergency preparedness". It notes, in particular, section 15 empowering the ministry to impose, by way of regulations or individual decisions, on undertakings covered by the Act, the duty to establish plans for the handling of incidents and accidents and requirements with regard to exercises. Section 17 authorizes the King to issue regulations prescribing exception from dose limits and other requirements established under this Act in situations "... where implementing a rescue or civil emergency operation makes it necessary". In this regard, the Government indicates that the regulations to be adopted on this issue will replace the "non-legislative emergency planning documents", which previously addressed the issue of emergency situations. The Committee, while hoping that the new regulations will be adopted in the near future, requests the Government to supply a copy of the regulations as soon as they are adopted for in-depth examination to determine the extent to which they would give effect to Article 13 of the Convention.

2. Article 14. The Committee notes section 8, subsection 1, of the Act on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation, 2000, according to which persons, who because of young age, pregnancy or other reasons are particularly sensitive to radiation, shall either be assigned to tasks that do not involve exposure to radiation, or be protected by other appropriate measures. The Committee would like the Government to indicate whether section 8 of the above Act provides for the worker’s right to alternative employment possibilities, in the event that continued employment involving exposure to ionizing radiation is contraindicated for health reasons. If this is not the case, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to this effect. In this context, the Committee wishes to point out that the need to find alternative employment for the workers concerned is a general principle of occupational health, which appears in Paragraph 17 of the Occupational Health Services Recommendation, 1985 (No. 171), as well as in Paragraph 27 of the Radiation Protection Recommendation, 1960 (No. 114). Similarly, under Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148), 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 unadvisable. Moreover, effective protection of workers as regards health and safety against ionizing radiations, spelt out in Article 3, paragraph 1, of this Convention may require, inter alia, an offer of suitable alternative employment opportunities.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on another point.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. With reference to its previous comments, where the Committee noted the Government’s indications that the regulations of 14 June 1985 on ionizing radiation were being amended to bring them into conformity with the dose limits established in the Directive 96/29 EURATOM of 13 May 1996 of the European Council, and that the amendments had been submitted to the different bodies involved in this process, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the amendments to the above regulations have been adopted, and, if so, to supply copies of them to the ILO.

2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee would reiterate the comments made on the following points.

Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation supplied in its last report that, although Norwegian legislation does not provide explicitly for dose limits on non-radiation workers, the dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations are nevertheless applied in practice through a number of technical provisions. In this respect, the Government indicates that, for example, the radiation protection requirements in well-logging, issued in 1997, the radiation protection requirements for industrial gauges, issued in 1996, and the radiation protection requirements for industrial radiography, issued in 1999, provide for dose limits of 7.5 macro Sievert per hour, equivalent to 1 mSv/year, which is the dose limit recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations for non-radiation workers. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to explain whether these technical provisions, which, according to the Committee’s understanding, do not have a legal character, are nevertheless binding and thus must be observed by the employer; or whether they only constitute reference values and it is thus left to the discretion of the employer to apply the dose limits fixed in technical provisions. In this relation, the Committee would recall the provision of Article 8 of the Convention which raises a particular concern for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation and thus not necessarily benefiting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations etc., may remain in, or pass through, areas where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations. In the case that the abovementioned technical provisions are not binding, the Committee again would invite the Government to examine the possibility to incorporate the dose limits established by technical provisions into national legislation, in order to ensure that workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work are protected effectively, since the employer has the same obligations towards workers not engaged in radiation work, as far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned, as if they were members of the public with respect to sources or practices under the employer’s control.

Part V of the report form. The Committee again notes the Government’s indication that Norwegian legislation and codes of practices are based on recommendations and guidelines published by international organizations, like the ICRP, IAEA, EU etc., and thus applies the general principles of the Convention. The Government nevertheless considers that at present the incorporation of the abovementioned recommendations and guidelines into national legislation is arrived at an only "modest degree". The Government, however, declares that the basic act on the use of X-rays and radium, etc. of 18 June 1938, will be replaced in spring 2000 by a new radiation protection act, which will be followed by the adoption of a number of new regulations, to be issued in application of this act. At this occasion, a number of basic international standards, mainly the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and EU directives, will be incorporated into national legislation. The Government estimates that these measures would lead to a better application of the Convention at national level. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether the new radiation protection act and its regulations have been adopted in the meantime and, if that is the case, requests the Government to supply copies of the new act and the regulations. In this context, the Committee would refer to its observation and would again encourage the Government to consider the incorporation of provisions governing the issues of alternative employment and exposure to ionizing radiations in emergency situations into national legislation.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the comments made by the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions (LO), transmitted by the Government in January 2001. While awaiting the Government’s reply, the Committee refers to the comments made by the above workers’ organization in this observation.

1. As a general statement, the LO emphasizes that the ministry, when initiating legislative processes, should make an active effort to incorporate ratified ILO Conventions into Norwegian law, so that the implementation of the ILO Conventions, to which the country is a party, is not only a side effect of the implementation of its obligations under other international legal systems.

2. Article 13 of the Convention. Emergency exposure situations. In its comments, the LO complains that Norwegian legislation lacks rules or guidelines indicating what action should be taken in emergency situations in enterprises where workers are exposed to ionizing radiation. The Committee recalls that the Government had indicated in its previous report of 2000 that, while there were no regulations or codes of practices fixing dose limits for workers’ exposure in emergency situations, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), being the competent authority to issue regulations on radiation protection, had established so-called "non-legislative emergency planning documents" which reflect the Recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1990 as concerns the limits for workers’ exposure to ionizing radiation in emergency situations. Taking into consideration the comments transmitted by the LO, the Committee requests once again the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee that the "non-legislative emergency planning documents" are available in every enterprise where workers are exposed or likely to be exposed to ionizing radiation. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated as concerns the establishment of emergency plans regarding the design of protective features of the workplace and equipment, as well as the development of emergency intervention techniques. In this respect, the Committee refers to paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3.7 of the 1987 ILO code of practice on radiation protection of workers (ionizing radiations), which contains a set of practical recommendations which could provide guidance to the Government.

3. Article 14. Alternative employment. With regard to the provision of alternative employment, the LO points out that the Norwegian legislation lacks rules concerning the workers’ right to relocate and to change jobs in the event of danger arising out of exposure to ionizing radiation. The Committee recalls that the Government, in its previous report, indicated that neither regulations nor codes of practice exist dealing with the issue of alternative employment. In the light of the comments of the LO, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, explaining that every effort must be made to provide workers with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued employment in a particular job involving the exposure to ionizing radiation is contra-indicated for health reasons. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other matters.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

1.  The Committee notes with interest that the Regulations concerning dose limits for workers exposed to ionizing radiation of 1995, issued by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), establish dose limits in occupational exposure for workers engaged in radiation work, which are in line with the dose limits recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations.

It further notes with interest that the Regulations of 14 June 1985 on ionizing radiation are being amended in order to bring them into conformity with the dose limits set out in the Directives EURATOM of the Council of the European Union. With regard to the amendment’s procedure, the Government explains that the proposed amendments have been circulated for comments and have been submitted to the labour inspection’s governing body in June 2000, after approval by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Affairs. The Committee hopes that the amendments to the abovementioned Regulations will be adopted soon, and requests the Government to supply copies as soon as they are adopted.

2.  Further to its previous comments, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 8 of the Convention.  The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that, although Norwegian legislation does not provide explicitly for dose limits for non-radiation workers, the dose limits recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations are nevertheless applied in practice through a number of technical provisions. In this respect, the Government indicates that, for example, the radiation protection requirements in well-logging, issued in 1997, the radiation protection requirements for industrial gauges, issued in 1996, and the radiation protection requirements for industrial radiography, issued in 1999, provide for dose limits of 7,5 macro Sievert per hour, equivalent to 1 mSv/year, which is the dose limit recommended by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations for non-radiation workers. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to explain whether these technical provisions, which, according to the Committee’s understanding, do not have legal character, are nevertheless binding and thus must be observed by the employer; or whether they only constitute reference values and it is thus left to the discretion of the employer to apply the dose limits fixed in technical provisions. In this relation, the Committee would recall the provision of Article 8 of the Convention which raises a particular concern for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation work and thus not necessarily benefiting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations etc., may remain in, or pass through, areas where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations. In the case that the abovementioned technical provisions are not binding, the Committee would invite the Government to examine the possibility to incorporate the dose limits established by technical provisions into the national legislation, in order to ensure that workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work are protected effectively, since the employer has the same obligations towards workers not engaged in radiation work, as far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned, as if they were members of the public with respect to sources or practices under the employer’s control.

Article 13.   Emergency exposure situations.  With a view to the issue of exposure to ionizing radiation in emergency situations, the Government indicates that, while there are no regulations or codes of practice fixing dose limits for workers’ exposure in emergency situations, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), being the competent authority to issue regulations on radiation protection, has established so-called "non-legislative emergency planning documents" which reflect the 1990 ICRP Recommendations on this issue, namely that of workers’ exposure in emergency situations to 0,5 Sv except for life-saving actions. The Committee noting this information requests the Government to explain the degree to which the dose limits established in the "non-legislative emergency planning documents" are binding, and asks the Government to supply a copy of such a document for further examination. The Committee also would draw the Government’s attention to the explanations given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention and the paragraphs V.27 and V.30 of the 1994 International Safety Standards. In this respect, the Committee adds that the reference it made in its 1995bis comments to paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards referred to the paragraphs of the provisional publication.

Article 14.  Alternative employment.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication to the effect that neither regulations nor codes of practice exist dealing with the issue of alternative employment. The Committee therefore again draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its general observation under the Convention, and the principle reflected in paragraph I.18 (paragraph 96 of the provisional publication) of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.

3.  Part V of the report form.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Norwegian legislation and codes of practices are based on recommendations and guidelines published by international organizations, like the ICRP, IAEA, EU etc., and thus applies the general principles of the Convention. The Government nevertheless considers that at present the incorporation of the abovementioned recommendations and guidelines into national legislation is arrived at an only "modest degree". The Government, however, declares that the basic Act on the use of x-rays and radium etc. of 18 June 1938, will be replaced in spring 2000 by a new radiation protection Act, which will be followed by the adoption of a number of new regulations, to be issued in application of this Act. At this occasion, a number of basic international standards and recommendations, mainly the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and EU Directives, will be incorporated into national legislation. The Government estimates that these measures would lead to a better application of the Convention at national level. The Committee accordingly hopes that the new Act will be adopted soon as well as the regulations to be issued in application of this Act. In this respect, the Committee would again encourage the Government to consider the incorporation of provisions governing the issues of alternative employment and exposure to ionizing radiation in emergency situations into national legislation. The Committee requests the Government to send copies of the new Act and the regulations once they are adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

With reference to its previous comments the Committee notes with interest the Government's information in its report that the National Institute of Radiation Hygiene has taken steps to formally implement the new recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this regard and to transmit a copy of the provisions adopted.

In this relation the Committee also hopes that the Government will provide information on the following specific points raised in its previous direct request:

1. Article 8 of the Convention. With reference to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention concerning dose limits for non-radiation workers, the Committee has previously stressed that under current ICRP recommendations, workers not engaged in radiation work are not to be exposed to levels of radiation higher than the dose limit for members of the public, set at 1 mSv per year. The Committee noted in this connection that, while in practice the levels of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work may generally be low, a particular concern is raised in Article 8 of the Convention for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation work (and thus not necessarily benefitting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations, etc.), may remain in, or pass through, areas where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations. The Committee hopes that in the light of the 1990 ICRP recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work are protected as members of the public in so far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned.

2. Alternative employment. The Committee previously noted the Government's indication that regulations concerning genetic damage and the working environment have been elaborated with a view to entitling both men and women to be transferred to other work if conditions in their working environment involve risk of genetic damage. The Committee expresses again the hope that the Government will provide information on progress made in adopting these regulations and transmit a copy of the regulations once they are adopted. In this connection the Committee would also draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, and the principles reflected in paragraphs 96 and 238 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and request the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment.

3. Emergency exposure situations. Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention and in the light of paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the measures taken or contemplated in relation to emergency situations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request. It notes the Government's indication that there are no specific plans to introduce new provisions concerning maximum permissible doses for workers who are not directly engaged in work involving ionising radiation since the level of exposure is, in practice, low. The Committee would, in this regard, refer the Government to paragraph 14 of its General Observation under this Convention concerning dose limits for non-radiation workers. Under the current ICRP recommendations, workers not engaged in radiation work are not to be exposed to levels of radiation higher than the dose limit for members of the public, set at 1 mSv per year, which may be averaged over a five-year period. The Committee would note that, while in practice the levels of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work may generally be low, a particular concern is raised in Article 8 of the Convention for workers who, while not directly engaged in radiation work (and thus not necessarily benefiting from monitoring programmes, special medical examinations, etc.), may remain in, or pass through areas where they may be exposed to ionising radiations. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that workers not directly engaged in radiation work are protected as members of the public in so far as restricting their radiation exposure is concerned. The Government is requested to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.

2. The Committee notes with interest the indication in the Government's report that regulations concerning genetic damage and the working environment have been elaborated with a view to entitling both men and women to be transferred to other work if conditions in their working environment constitute a possible risk of genetic damage. The Government is requested to provide information on the progress made in adopting these regulations and to transmit a copy of the regulations once they are adopted.

3. The Committee would call the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention and requests the Government to indicate the steps taken or being considered in relation to the matters raised in its conclusions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1987, published 74th ILC session (1987)

Further to its previous direct requests, the Committee notes from the Government's report that, formally, Norway has not fixed an annual dose limit of 5 mSv for workers not directly engaged in radiation work; but, that in view of the very low exposures met in practice, such a limit could easily be adopted. The Committee hopes that in the near future, the Government will adopt measures which set an appropriate maximum permissible dose level of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work, as required by Article 8 of the Convention.