Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - France (Ratification: 1971)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comments: C.187, C.115, C.127, C.139, C.148 and C.62

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified occupational safety and health (OSH) Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 62 (safety provisions (building)), 115 (radiation protection),127 (maximum weight), 139 (occupational cancer), 148 (working environment (air pollution, noise and vibration)), and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) in a single comment.

The Committee notes the observations, communicated with the Government’s reports, made, firstly, by the General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (CGT-FO) regarding Convention No. 148 and, secondly, by the French Confederation of Management – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Employees (CFE-CGC) regarding Convention No. 187. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the CFE-CGC.

A. General provisions

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No.   187)

Article 2(3) of the Convention. Consideration of the ratification of relevant occupational safety and health (OSH) Conventions of the ILO. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that the social partners can raise any issue relating to negotiation, ratification and application of ILO instruments within the Steering Committee on Conditions of Work (COCT) and that since draft legislation or regulations on OSH are related to an international instrument, they are submitted to a specialist committee for examination, and then to the general committee to enable the social partners to give a formal opinion. Moreover, the Committee notes that France ratified the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184), in 2021, and the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), in 2023. Lastly, the Committee notes that ratification of the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) is under discussion. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the periodic consideration, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of the measures which could be taken to ratify relevant ILO occupational safety and health Conventions.

• National policy

Article 3(1). National policy on OSH. The Committee notes the Government indication, in reply to its previous comment, that national policy on OSH takes the form of an occupational health plan, that the 4th Occupational Health Plan (PST 4), covering the 2021–25 period, was drawn up in close collaboration with the social partners in the COCT and resulted in the adoption of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25”, which was also drawn up in connection with the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the evaluation of the results recorded further to the implementation of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25”.

• National system

Article 4(2)(d). Arrangements to promote, at the level of the undertaking, cooperation as an essential element of workplace-related prevention measures. The Committee notes that since 1 January 2018 the committees on health, safety and conditions of work (CHSCTs) have been replaced by economic and social committees (CSEs), which are composed by the employer and a staff delegation. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that, in enterprises with 50 or more employees, the CSE has certain prerogatives (right to be alerted, right to be informed and consulted, etc.) similar to those of the former CHSCTs and that in enterprises with fewer than 50 employees, the employer must submit a list of prevention and protection activities to the CSE. The Government also indicates that a committee on health, safety and working conditions (CSSCT) must be established in enterprises and separate undertakings employing 300 workers or more, as well as in undertakings featuring particular risks. The CSSCT, chaired by the employer or employer’s representative and comprising at least three staff representatives, is assigned by delegation of the CSE some or all of the latter’s functions relating to health, safety and working conditions. The Government adds that local representatives (représentants de proximité) with a remit relating to health, safety and working conditions can also be appointed. Moreover, the Government points out that Act No. 2021-1018 of 2 August 2021 on strengthening prevention in occupational health has boosted social dialogue within enterprises relating to assessment of occupational risks by requiring the CSE and CSSCT to contribute to this evaluation.

The Committee notes that the CFE-CGC, in its observations, deplores the fact that the reform leading to the creation of the CSEs has resulted in a weakening of the staff representation system. Indeed, on the basis of the report of the labour ordinance evaluation committee published in 2021, the CFE-CGC points out that, in enterprises which have not appointed local representatives, the handling of OSH issues can prove difficult and there is a risk of loss of contact between elected representatives and the workers and a failure to identify problems that exist on the ground. The CFE-CGC also points out that the labour ordinance evaluation committee, in its report, also indicates that the excessive workload of representation, the difficulties of reconciling it with work and the lack of expertise, taking account of the now vast range of subjects to be addressed, are likely to undermine the engagement of CSE members, who actually perform tasks which were previously a matter for staff representatives, the works council or the CHSCT. The CFE-CGC also objects that the CHSCT has been “devalued” by becoming a mere CSSCT, with no legal personality or capacity to take legal action.

The Committee notes that although the Government in its reply recognizes that the report of the labour ordinance evaluation committee refers to difficulties, including with regard to training for staff representatives, it emphasizes that the implementation of the reform is still being monitored and that CSE members receive longer training on health, safety and working conditions than was previously the case. The Government points out that the report noted that the new coordination between CSEs, CSSCTs and local representatives was difficult to establish but that various studies have now highlighted progress in terms of information sharing and coordination. The Committee notes that this report also reveals that the health crisis confirmed the difficulty of the role played by worker representatives and that it highlighted the fatigue felt by elected representatives, which is leading some to disengage or even resign. The growing complexity of the mandate of CSE members only reinforces the need for training and is a source of major concern as regards the attractiveness of holding office and the dynamics for the re-election of representatives. Noting that, according to the labour ordinance evaluation committee, the role of local representatives is not well defined, which makes performance of their role difficult, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how cooperation between CSEs, CSSCTs and local representatives in ensured with a view to promoting prevention in the workplace, to give specific examples of such cooperation and to describe any difficulties encountered in this regard.

Article 4(3)(h). Support mechanisms for a progressive improvement of occupational safety and health conditions in microenterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the informal economy. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that since 2016 the Fund for the Improvement of Working Conditions (FACT) has issued several calls for proposals relating to very small enterprises (VSEs) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee notes that section 3 of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25” aims to strengthen the culture of prevention within VSEs and SMEs, which have been identified as a priority target because they often have fewer resources to devote to prevention and a significant proportion of accidents occur in them. With regard to the informal economy, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that numerous posters containing prevention messages relating to four subject areas (chemical risks, working at height, manual handling and work equipment) have been produced and translated into eight languages. The Committee notes that PST 4 highlights the fact that the regulatory framework relating to the prevention of chemical hazards, on account of its technical and changing nature, poses problems for VSEs and SMEs and that discussion is therefore needed, including on the traceability of occupational exposure. The Committee also notes that the objectives of PST 4 also include support for enterprises, in particular VSEs and SMEs, in the implementation of initiatives relating to quality of life and working conditions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on action taken to achieve the objectives of PST 4, including solutions to the issues for VSEs and SMEs arising from the regulatory framework relating to chemical risk prevention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of section 3 of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25”.

• National programme

Article 5(1). Monitoring and evaluation of the national programme on OSH in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that the review of PST 3, relating to the period 2016–20, underlined, for each operational objective, challenges and progress as well as work remaining to be done, these elements being intended to serve as guidelines for the formulation of PST 4 and regional plans. The Committee also notes that a chapter of this review was devoted to the contributions of the social partners and that, according to the Government’s indications, areas for improvement in the steering and monitoring of PST 4 have been identified, after consultation of the social partners. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the request made in the last comment.

Article 5(2)(d). Objectives, targets and indicators enabling the evaluation and periodic review of the national programme on OSH. The Committee notes that PST 4 is divided into four strategic components and ten objectives and that monitoring is based on 14 strategic indicators (aimed at monitoring the impact of prevention on targeted groups), four steering indicators, and also numerous monitoring indictors (associated with actions in the plan for evaluating results and deliverables). The Committee notes that the review of PST 3 shows that, in order to better monitor and evaluate the results of a PST, there is a need, inter alia, to measure the impact of actions on the practices and behaviours of actors in the enterprise and that ultimately, beyond the focus placed on indicators in the formulation of PST 4, the latter would benefit from developing its own overall, utilizable data, along the lines of an annual OSH scoreboard which would supplement data available on accident rates and exposure and make it possible to carry out intermediate evaluations to strengthen or redirect certain actions if necessary. The Committee notes the information provided, which responds to the previous request for information.

• Protection against specific risks

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Articles 5 and 15 of the Convention. Restricting the exposure of workers and appropriate inspection services to the lowest practicable level. The Committee notes that, in line with the “Practical guide on radon” published in February 2018 and the “National action plan 2020–24 for radon risk management”, PST 4 makes provision for the continuation of measures to reinforce prevention of the risk of radon in the workplace. The Committee also notes that, when the risk of exposure cannot be reduced below the reference level, the employer must implement the reinforced system for the protection of workers against radiation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all measures adopted to take better account of radon in occupational risk assessment.

Article 14. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation pursuant to medical advice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that under section R. 4451.9 of the Labour Code, the only real limit on exposure to ionizing radiation for workers is the effective dose of 1 sievert over the whole of their career. If a worker reaches this limit in the context of occupational activity, the worker must not be exposed to any further ionizing radiation in that activity. Recalling that the Committee indicated in paragraph 40 of its general observation of 2015 on the Convention that employers should make all reasonable efforts to provide workers with suitable alternative employment in circumstances for which it has been determined that the workers, for health reasons, may no longer continue in employment in which they are, or could be, subject to occupational exposure, the Committee invites the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the labour inspection report for 2019 shows that, in all branches of activity combined, half of all occupational accidents are caused by activities involving manual handling ultimately likely to give rise to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The Committee requests the Government to provide data, disaggregated by branch of activity, age group and sex, on occupational accidents caused by the manual transport of loads and on all preventive measures taken or envisaged in this area.

Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139)

Article 1(3) of the Convention. Consideration given to the latest information and data. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2020 and 2021 a number of decrees and orders were adopted establishing the list of carcinogenic substances, mixtures and processes within the meaning of the Labour Code and occupational exposure limit values, thereby transposing certain European Union directives into French legislation.

Article 6. Appropriate inspection services. The Committee notes that action No. 2.1 of PST 4 aims to prevent exposure to chemicals since the latter constitutes the primary cause of fatal occupational diseases, with asbestos exposure the second biggest cause of occupational disease. In this regard, the National Action Plan for the labour inspection system 2023–25 highlights the fact that the application of regulations relating to risks arising from the inhalation of asbestos dust and, more broadly, risks arising from exposure to chemicals and to carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMRs), must be the subject of particular attention from the inspection services. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that certified enterprises loan workers to each other for the removal of materials containing asbestos, which means that some operations are carried out only by on-loan teams, under less stringent safety conditions. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the controls made by the labour inspection services to combat the practice of loaning workers between certified enterprises for the removal of materials containing asbestos and, more generally, on the implementation of the National Action Plan for the labour inspection system 2023–25 in relation to the risks arising from exposure to asbestos dust and CMRs.

Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148)

Legislation. The Committee notes that the Order of 19 July 2006 establishing the conditions for the measurement of levels of exposure to noise was repealed on 1 January 2016. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which are the new regulations applicable to exposure to noise in the working environment.

Article 5(4) of the Convention. Opportunity for representatives of the employer and representatives of the workers to accompany inspectors. The Committee notes that, under section L. 2312-10 of the Labour Code, the inspector shall be accompanied by a member of the staff delegation from the economic and social committee, if the latter so wishes. The Committee notes the information provided, which responds to the previous request for information.

Article 6(1). Responsibility of employers. The Committee notes that the CGT-FO claims in its observations that there are no provisions which hold the employer responsible in the event that a platform worker is exposed to pollution. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 7(2). Right of workers or their representatives to present proposals, to obtain information and training and to appeal to appropriate bodies. The Committee notes the remit of the CSE in enterprises employing 50 or more workers and in those employing between 11 and 50 workers. The Committee notes that in enterprises employing fewer than 11 workers there is no CSE but that numerous posters containing prevention messages relating to four subject areas (including chemical risks and work equipment) have been prepared for VSEs and SMEs and translated into eight languages. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what other measures give effect to Article 7(2) of the Convention in enterprises employing fewer than 11 workers.

Article 12. Processes, substances, machinery and equipment, the use of which is to be notified to the competent authority, which may authorize or prohibit it. The Committee notes that, with regard to the risks of exposure to asbestos, the Labour Code provides that the employer must send to the competent authorities the demolition, removal or encapsulation plan and the operating methods. The first use of pathogenic biological agents must be declared to the labour inspector at least 30 days before the start of the work. As regards young workers, although work exposing them to hazardous chemical agents or a certain level of vibration is prohibited, the employer has the possibility of submitting an exemption request to the inspector. The Committee also notes that the Labour Code prohibits the employment of temporary workers and fixed-term contract holders in certain types of work exposing them to hazardous chemicals or certain types of ionizing radiation and that any employer wishing to be exempt from this prohibition must submit an exemption request to the competent authorities. The Committee notes the information provided, which responds to the previous request for information.

• Protection in specific branches of activity

Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937 (No. 62)

The Committee recalls that the ILO Governing Body, at its 334th Session (October–November 2018), on the recommendation of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM TWG), confirmed the classification of Convention No. 62 in the category of outdated instruments, and placed an item concerning its abrogation on the agenda of the 112th Session (2024) of the International Labour Conference. The Governing Body also requested the Office to take follow-up action to actively encourage ratification of the up-to-date instrument, namely the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and recommended that the Office propose technical assistance to the countries most in need of it. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up on the Governing Body’s decision at its 334th Session (October–November 2018) approving the recommendation of the SRM TWG, and to consider ratifying Convention No. 167. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this regard. The Committee takes this opportunity to remind the Government that the International Labour Conference, at its 110th Session (June 2022), added the principle of a safe and healthy working environment to the fundamental principles and rights at work, thereby amending the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the possibility of availing itself of ILO technical assistance in order to bring both practice and applicable legislation into conformity with the fundamental occupational safety and health Conventions.

Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the various prevention measures deployed in the construction and public works sector in the last ten years and the strengthening of the powers of inspectors (greater power to stop site operations; administrative fines as a deterrent in the event of non-compliance with a stoppage order; criminal proceedings) have resulted in a considerable drop in the number of occupational accidents recorded, the main cause of which are falls from height or on the level (31 per cent) and manual handling (48 per cent), the latter often being the cause of musculoskeletal disorders. However, the Committee notes that falls from height still accounted for 45 per cent of occupational accidents in the construction and public works sector as at December 2021 and that the National Action Plan for the labour inspection system 2023–25, PST 4 and the Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25 continue to give priority to the risk of falls from height or on the level. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing informationon the measures taken to overcome the risk of falls in the construction and public works sector, including in VSEs and SMEs, and also data on the number of accidents caused by falls in this sector.

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

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 of the Convention. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation pursuant to medical advice and alternative employment. With reference to its previous comments on the situation of these workers, the Committee notes the reference by the Government to section R.4451-79 of the Labour Code, which provides that a worker may not be assigned to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations, except in cases of situations of radiological emergency, where the dose received by that worker over a period is higher than the established limit value. In this regard, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 40 of its general observation of 2015 on the Convention, which indicate that employers should make all reasonable efforts to provide workers with suitable alternative employment in circumstances for which it has been determined that workers, for health reasons, may no longer continue in employment in which they are or could be subject to occupational exposure. The Committee invites the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s latest report, and the attached legislation, indicating that France has completed its organizational reform of radiation protection by Law No. 2006-686 of 13 June 2006 on transparency and security in nuclear material, which creates a new independent administrative body called the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN). The Committee notes that the ASN can make decisions to supplement the technical arrangements implementing the provisions of the Labour Code in radiation protection, and that these decisions are subject to the approval of the Minsters of Labour and Agriculture. The Committee further notes that the ASN issued Decision No. 2010‑DC‑175 on 4 February 2010, approved by the Order of 21 May 2001, specifying the technical methods and frequency of inspections as required in the Labour Code and the Public Health Code. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on relevant 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 brief response provided by the Government indicating that action undertaken at the national level, to ensure the full application of the rules protecting workers in undertakings using ionizing radiation, other than natural sources, responds in particular to comments made by the Committee with regard to appropriate measures to ensure the application of this Article of the Convention. The Committee recalls that section R.231-96 of the Decree of 31 March 2003 provides that a worker directly engaged in radiation work may not be assigned to work exposing them to ionizing radiation, except in the event of a situation of radiological emergency, where one of the limits determined in sections R.231-76 and R.231-77 has been exceeded. The Committee notes that no information has been provided on measures offered to provide workers with alternative employment or other means for maintaining their income, and therefore wishes to again draw the attention of the Government to paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. In light of the foregoing, the Committee hopes the Government will consider appropriate measures to ensure that every effort is made to provide these workers with suitable alternative employment or to offer them other means to maintain their income and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Part III to V of the report form. Application in practice. Inspection services and legal decisions. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the 2010 national inspection campaign on the application of the regulatory system in undertakings using ionizing radiation, other than natural sources. The Committee further notes the information which indicates that the analysis of this campaign, in which approximately 2,000 undertakings were inspected, will allow for an evaluation of the level of application of the regulation relevant to this sector, and the identification of any gaps. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of this Convention in practice.

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

1. Further to its observation, the Committee wishes to bring the Government’s attention to the following points.

2. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that a draft order defining the monitoring arrangements for radiation protection and repealing the Order of 1 June 1990 establishing the monitoring methods employed by the approved body, and the Order of 2 October 1990 defining the monitoring arrangements for sealed sources and plants, is envisaged for October 2005. It requests the Government to provide copies of the relevant legislative texts once they have been adopted.

3. Parts III and IV of the report form. Application in practice - inspection services and legal decisions. The Committee notes the information provided concerning the Committee on Hygiene, Safety and Working Conditions as well as on the labour inspection system and its powers related to monitoring and sanctions. It also notes the decisions handed down by the Court of Appeal concerning the application of the Convention indicating that it appears that the Convention is properly applied in France. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the Convention.

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

1. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s detailed report, as well as the reform of the operational organization of the radiation protection system through the adoption of Act No. 2004-806 of 9 August 2004 relating to public health policy and the establishment in 2002 of an institute for the inspection of radiation protection - the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) - responsible for monitoring, for a single nuclear activity, the application of the provisions of the Public Health Code and the Labour Code concerning protection against radiation. The Committee also notes the reference made to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2001-270 of 28 March 2001 introducing the general principles of radiation protection into the Public Health Code and harmonizing the provisions relating to the protection of workers with the so-called "pro rata" principle according to which exposure level - defined over a period of 12 months - is adjusted pro rata to the effective time of the contract in order to protect the workers who work under short-term or temporary contracts.

2. Article 8 of the Convention. Workers not engaged in radiation work. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s explanations regarding sections R.1333-8 and R.1333-9 of the Public Health Code which provide that exposure to radiation due to nuclear work must not exceed 1 mSv per year for workers whose exposure is not the result of their professional activities.

3. Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that sections R.231-96, R.231-76 and R.231-77 of the Decree of 31 March 2003, read in conjunction with sections L.122-3-17 and L.124-22 of the Labour Code, ensure the application of Article 14. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government to consider appropriate measures to ensure that no worker shall be employed or shall continue to be employed in work by reason of which the worker could be the subject of exposure to ionizing radiation contrary to medical advice and that for such workers, every effort is made to provide them with suitable alternative employment or to offer them other means to maintain their income and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

4. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning the application of certain other provisions of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It notes with interest the information on the measures relating to emergency situations. The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of Decree No. 2003-296 of 31 March 2003 respecting the protection of workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation, which gives effect to the provisions of Articles 3, paragraph 1, 6, paragraph 2, and 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 8. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report in 2001 concerning the draft Decree to strengthen the protection of workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation in the context of the transposition of European Directive Euratom 96/29 of 13 May 1996 into the national legislation. This Decree will result, among other measures, in a lowering of exposure limit values taking into account the recommendations of the ICRP of 1990 and in accordance with the Directive. With regard to the dose limit for workers not directly engaged in radiation work, the Government indicates that it is its intention to set the limit value, de lege ferenda, at 1 mSv, which is the limit value for the population. The Committee notes that sections R.231-75 to R.231-77 of Decree No. 2003-296 of 31 March 2003 on the protection of workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation determines exposure limit values for the various categories of workers. However, Decree No. 2003-296 does not appear to indicate the permissible levels of exposure for workers not directly engaged in radiation work. In this respect, the Government indicates that the current regulations set out a limit value of 5 mSv for workers not engaged in radiation work, which exceeds the limit value of 1 mSv recommended by the ICRP. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to lower the limit value for workers not engaged in radiation work to 1 mSv.

2. Article 14. Provision of alternative employment. The Committee notes with interest section R.231-96 of the Decree of 31 March 2003 respecting the protection of workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation, which provides that a worker directly engaged in radiation work may not be assigned to work exposing him or her to ionizing radiation, except in the event of a situation of radiological emergency, where one of the limits determined in sections R.231-76 and R.231-77 has been exceeded. The Committee understands that this provision implies the obligation to provide alternative employment to a worker who has been subject to an accumulated exposure beyond which she or he would incur and unacceptable risk to her or his health. It therefore requests the Government to confirm that this provision in practice imposes such an obligation.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Referring also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply supplementary information on the following points.

1.  Article 8 of the Convention.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no distinction between the exposure limits applicable to workers directly engaged in radiation work, on the one hand, and those who are not, on the other. The Government also indicates that the radiation protection arrangements are identical for all workers whether they are employed by enterprises working directly with radiation or by external enterprises, as the regulatory provisions rely on the existence of the hazard (presence of a source of radiation) and its intensity (work in controlled zones or supervised zones). Under Article 8 of the Convention, appropriate levels must be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiation or radioactive substances. In this connection, the Committee is bound to draw the Government’s attention once again to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation. It recalls that the dose limits for such workers must be the same as those applied to individual members of the public, namely, according to the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, 1 mSv a year averaged over five consecutive years. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated so that workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiation or radioactive substances, are not exposed to doses higher than those applied for the public.

2.  Provision of alternative employment.  The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government to the effect that a draft reform designed to enhance protection for workers who have been subjected to cumulative exposure is being prepared. The Government indicates that this draft should make it possible for workers on short-term contracts to avoid an accumulation of problems linked with their temporary employment and those resulting from exposure close to annual limits. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the measures contemplated with regard to the provision of alternative employment to workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur.

3.  In regard to the provisions designed to ensure the provision of data regarding exposure of workers on which the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) commented, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the draft reform mentioned above is intended to clarify the arrangements for transmitting such information to workers themselves and to the Occupational Safety and Health and Conditions of Work Committee. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on measures taken in this respect.

4.  Protection against accidents and during emergency situations.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on measures relating to emergency situations. It requests the Government to supply further information on the circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers may be authorized as well as on the measures intended to optimize the protection against accidents and during emergency operations, particularly in regard to the design and protective features of the workplace and equipment and the development of techniques which, during emergency interventions, would avoid exposure of persons to ionizing radiation.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which reads as follows:

1.  Review of maximum permissible doses and effective protection of workers in the light of new knowledge (Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention).  The Committee notes that the Government indicates that by the year 2000 the maximum permissible dose of exposure of workers to ionizing radiation currently in force will be replaced by a new limit of 100 mSv over five consecutive years, in accordance with the prescriptions of Directive 96/29/Euratom, adopted in May 1996. With reference to its previous observation and its 1992 general observation, the Committee recalls that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), in recommendations formulated in 1990, sets a limit of 20 mSv per annum averaged over five years provided that the actual dose does not exceed 50 mSv in any one year. Moreover, in 1994 the limits established by the ICRP were incorporated in the International Basic Safety Standards. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report the adoption of provisions in conformity with the dose limits mentioned in its 1992 general observation, in the light of current knowledge such as that contained in the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards.

2.  The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Referring also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply supplementary information on the following points.

1. Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's indication that there is no distinction between the exposure limits applicable to workers directly engaged in radiation work, on the one hand, and those who are not, on the other. The Government also indicates that the radiation protection arrangements are identical for all workers whether they are employed by enterprises working directly with radiation or by external enterprises, as the regulatory provisions rely on the existence of the hazard (presence of a source of radiation) and its intensity (work in controlled zones or supervised zones). Under Article 8 of the Convention, appropriate levels must be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiation or radioactive substances. In this connection, the Committee is bound to draw the Government's attention once again to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation. It recalls that the dose limits for such workers must be the same as those applied to individual members of the public, namely, according to the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, 1 mSv a year averaged over five consecutive years. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated so that workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiation or radioactive substances, are not exposed to doses higher than those applied for the public.

2. Provision of alternative employment. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government to the effect that a draft reform designed to enhance protection for workers who have been subjected to cumulative exposure is being prepared. The Government indicates that this draft should make it possible for workers on short-term contracts to avoid an accumulation of problems linked with their temporary employment and those resulting from exposure close to annual limits. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the measures contemplated with regard to the provision of alternative employment to workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur.

3. In regard to the provisions designed to ensure the provision of data regarding exposure of workers on which the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) commented, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the draft reform mentioned above is intended to clarify the arrangements for transmitting such information to workers themselves and to the Occupational Safety and Health and Conditions of Work Committee. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on measures taken in this respect.

4. Protection against accidents and during emergency situations. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on measures relating to emergency situations. It requests the Government to supply further information on the circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers may be authorized as well as on the measures intended to optimize the protection against accidents and during emergency operations, particularly in regard to the design and protective features of the workplace and equipment and the development of techniques which, during emergency interventions, would avoid exposure of persons to ionizing radiation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. Review of maximum permissible doses and effective protection of workers in the light of new knowledge (Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention). The Committee notes that the Government indicates that by the year 2000 the maximum permissible dose of exposure of workers to ionizing radiation currently in force will be replaced by a new limit of 100 mSv over five consecutive years, in accordance with the prescriptions of Directive 96/29/Euratom, adopted in May 1996. With reference to its previous observation and its 1992 General Observation, the Committee recalls that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), in recommendations formulated in 1990, sets a limit of 20 mSv per annum averaged over five years provided that the actual dose does not exceed 50 mSv in any one year. Moreover, in 1994 the limits established by the ICRP were incorporated in the International Basic Safety Standards. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report the adoption of provisions in conformity with the dose limits mentioned in its 1992 General Observation, in the light of current knowledge such as that contained in the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards.

2. The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Referring also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply further information on the following points.

1. Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which maximum permissible dose levels are established and enforced for workers employed by undertakings that have no radiation sources, but whose work involves entering, on a temporary basis, establishments where direct or indirect exposure to ionizing radiations would occur. In this regard, the Committee would also draw the Government's attention to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation concerning dose limits for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionizing radiations or radioactive substances.

2. 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.

3. The provision of alternative employment. With reference 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, the Committee 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.

4. In its communication dated 9 December 1994, the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) indicates that no provision is made in government regulations to ensure that data concerning the monitoring of exposure to radiation of individual workers is made available to them, and that this data is sent to the Occupational Safety and Health and Conditions of Work Committee. The CFDT also indicates that there is no regulatory provision requiring a system of centralized storage for such data. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would make all comments it deems appropriate on the above indications of the CFDT in the light of Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It also notes the comments by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT), dated 9 December 1994, on the application of the Convention; it notes that the Government has provided no response to these comments.

1. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In its 1992 general observation on the Convention, the Committee referred to the findings set out in the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (Publication No. 60), which set dose limits establishing the maximum exposure of workers and members of the general public to ionizing radiations. The Committee notes the indications of the Government in its report that it has not yet adapted the regulations to implement the dose limits recommended by the ICRP because these limits, and in particular the limits relating to small doses of ionizing radiations, are the subject of debate within international bodies concerned with protection against ionizing radiation. In this regard the Committee refers to the indications of the CFDT in its communications that recent scientific studies confirm the validity of the dose limits recommended by the ICRP. The Committee also draws the attention of the Government to the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards which adopted the dose limits set out by the ICRP. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations in the light of current knowledge.

2. The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report in reply to its previous direct request. It requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points:

1. Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that Decree No. 86-1103 did not appear to ensure the protection of workers employed by undertakings which had no radiation sources, but whose work involved entering, on a temporary basis, establishments where direct or indirect exposure to ionising radiations would occur (for example, maintenance workers, demolition workers and plumbers). The Government's has indicated in its report that, while the responsibility for persons intervening from outside undertakings rests on the employer of the persons in question, this situation was likely to evolve due to a new EURATOM Directive of 4 December 1990 which reinforces the responsibility of the head of the establishment which involves exposure to ionising radiations in respect of workers entering its premises but employed by another undertaking. The Government is requested to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to ensure the protection of workers employed by undertakings which have no radiation sources, but whose work involves entering establishments in which there are radiation sources. The Government is once again requested to indicate the manner in which the established maximum permissible dose levels are enforced for such workers, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention.

2. Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6, paragraph 2. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 88-662 of 6 May 1988 which amends the exposure limits set out in Decree No. 75-306 of 28 April 1975 concerning the protection of workers against risks of ionising radiations in nuclear installations to bring them into line with the maximum annual dose of 5 rems fixed by Decree No. 86-1103 concerning the protection of workers against ionising radiations in establishments other than nuclear installations. In this regard, the Committee would call the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention which sets forth, inter alia, the revised exposure limits adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection on the basis of new physiological findings in its 1990 Recommendations (Publication No. 60). The Committee would recall that, under Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention, all appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionising radiations and to review maximum permissible doses of ionising radiations in the light of current knowledge. The Government is requested to indicate the steps taken or being considered in relation to the matters raised in the conclusions to the General Observation.

3. Article 8. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the classification of workers on the basis of their annual dose levels of exposure provided for in section 3 of Decree No. 86-1103 precedes the noting of the real exposure and, if it turns out that the measured exposure is not compatible with the classification, then the classification must be changed. The Committee would recall that this Article of the Convention provides that exposure limits shall be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 14 of its General Observation concerning dose limits for non-radiation workers. It recalls that employers are to ensure that the maximum permissible doses established for the general public (1mSv per year, averaged over any five consecutive years) are not exceeded for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that appropriate limits of exposure are fixed for workers who are not directly exposed to ionising radiations, but who may remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionising radiations or radioactive substances.

4. The Committee notes with regret that the information provided in the Government's report contains no reply to the General Observation of 1987. The Committee would now call the Government's attention to paragraphs 16 to 27 of its General Observation under this Convention which concern the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency. The Government is requested to indicate whether, in emergency situations, exceptions are permitted to the normally tolerated dose limits for exposure to ionising radiations and, if so, to indicate the exceptional levels of exposure allowed in such circumstances and to specify the manner in which these circumstances are defined.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1988, published 75th ILC session (1988)

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 86-1103 of 2 October 1986 regarding the protection of workers against the risks of ionising radiation. It requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points in its next report.

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 17(IV) of Decree No. 86-1103 provides for the supervision of measures of protection against ionising radiations for workers who perform work of a temporary nature outside the undertaking. However, this section does not appear to ensure the protection of workers employed by undertakings having no radiation sources but whose work involves entering on a temporary basis establishments where they may be directly or indirectly exposed to ionising radiations (for example maintenance workers, demolition workers and plumbers). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the protection of the above-mentioned workers, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Please specify the manner in which maximum permissible dose levels are enforced for such workers in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention.

Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that Decree No. 86-1103 does not apply to nuclear installations and that section 3, paragraph 2, of Decree No. 75-306 of 28.4.1975 concerning the protection of workers against risks of ionising radiations in nuclear installations refers to the maximum admissible exposure levels set out in Decree No. 67-228 of 15.3.1967. Decree No. 67-228 uses the formula D = 5 (N - 18) in rems, to fix the maximum permissible exposure level. The Committee would point out that this formula is not consistent with current knowledge, and that the maximum exposure limit currently recommended by the International Commission of Radiological Protection is an annual dose of 5 rems, which is the limit fixed by Decree No. 86-1106. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to apply to workers in nuclear installations maximum admissible dose levels consistent with current knowledge, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Article 8. The Committee notes that section 3 of Decree No. 86-1103 provides for the classification of workers on the basis of their annual dose levels of exposure. Please indicate whether the levels used for this classification become exposure limits for the workers concerned once they have accordingly been classified.