Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Poland (Ratification: 1964)

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

Previous comments: C.62, C.115, C.119, C.120, C.127, C.161, C.170 and C.176

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 62 (safety provisions (building)), 115 (radiation protection), 119 (guarding of machinery), 120 (hygiene, commerce and offices)), 127 (maximum weight), 148 (air pollution, noise and vibration), 161 (occupational health services), 170 (chemicals) and 176 (safety and health in mines) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union “Solidarność” on Conventions Nos 62, 115, 127, 148, 161 and 170, received on 7 September 2023. The Committee notes the response of the Government to the observations on Conventions Nos 62, 115, 127, 148 and 161, received on 16 November 2023.

A. General provisions

Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report concerning Article 3 of the Convention, which responds to its previous request on the development of occupational health services for all workers and sectors.

Application of the Convention in practice.Labour inspections and statistical information. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the average number of preventive medical examinations of workers fell by nearly 9 per cent during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from 5.1 million performed annually between 2013 and 2019 to 4.66 million, while the number of follow-up examinations conducted after a long-term absence due to sickness lasting more than 30 days, increased by more than 20 per cent during the same period. According to the Government, the number of periodic medical examinations gradually increased in the following months of the pandemic. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the presence of occupational physicians in the workplaces was significantly reduced during the pandemic, with the number of workplaces visited decreasing by more than 53 per cent. The Government further indicates that in 2022, occupational physicians visited over 6,100 workplaces and 32,400 workstations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the application in practice of the Convention.

• Protection against specific risks

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Articles 3(1) and 6(2) of the Convention. All appropriate steps to ensure the effective protection of workers, in the light of available knowledge and dose limits for occupational exposure.Application in practice of the Convention. Following its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication in its report that the Atomic Law has been amended in 2019 to implement EU legislation and that Annex 4 of the Law provides new dose limit values for ionizing radiation for workers and members of the public. The Committee notes the observations of Solidarność, according to which there are violations of OSH regulations on radiation protection in the health sector and according to which alarming data in this regard had been submitted in 2021 by the Supreme Audit Office. The Government, in its response, indicates that the irregularities found were likely the result of negligence or ignorance, and that meetings had been organised between the State Atomic Energy Agency and the Supreme Audit Office to discuss those findings and possible legislative amendments to ensure better clarity of the legal requirements. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that in the reporting period, 18 workers were reported to have exceeded the effective dose of 20 millisieverts (mSv) but that there are fewer and fewer cases of exceedance over the years. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to address the irregularities noted, including any legislative amendments impacting the application of the Convention.It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of this Convention in practice, including statistics on the number of workers that have exceeded the effective dose limits and any other violations detected during labour inspection visits and their follow-up.

Guarding of Machinery Convention, 1963 (No. 119)

Legislation. The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of the Government regarding legislative developments, which addresses its previous request.

Article 15 of the Convention. Inspection. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the period 2014–23, the percentage of inspected machines that did not conform to regulatory requirements remained relatively high each year, ranging between 47 per cent and 75 per cent in the period 2014–22. In the period between January and June 2023, the Government indicates that 145 products were evaluated, and that 79 per cent of such products were found to be non-compliant with EU legislation. The Committee nevertheless notes the indication from the Government that such machines were selected for inspection, among others, in cases of suspected product defects or non-compliance with regulatory requirements, which were revealed during inspections carried out for reasons that were originally unrelated to market surveillance. The Government states that, where violations are found, actions are taken to enforce compliance regarding the equipment. If the responsible parties do not take appropriate actions, market surveillance proceedings are initiated, and decisions proportionate to the violations are issued, including orders to withdraw the equipment from the market or from use. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the results of inspections regarding machinery and on any other measures to ensure compliance of machinery with the applicable legislation.

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention. Application in law and in practice of the Convention, and consultation of the social partners.Adequate training and instructions. Following its previous comments regarding OSH training, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, according to statistics, the number of irregularities detected in relation to the manual transport of loads is low compared to the number of inspections carried out, but that the problem is the inadequate preparation of workers for work, and in particular, the lack of or improperly prepared instructions. In this regard, the Government also indicates that preventive activities such as the issuance of publications, and the organization of trainings and meetings, are undertaken by the National Labour Inspectorate (NLI). The Government further refers to projects carried out by the Central Institute for Labour Protection–National Research Institute, which include the organization of information campaigns, and the implementation of multi-year programmes such as the “Improving safety and working conditions” for 2023–25. The Committee notes the observations of Solidarność which indicate that, due to insufficient controls, the state of application of the Convention is unclear in certain sectors, including commerce, construction, transport and warehouse management, healthcare and social assistance, but that the NLI’s workplan for 2022–24 foresees an increase in inspections in the commerce and warehouse management sectors. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the results of inspection visits conducted and the number of infringements detected. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of preventive and other measures on the application in practice of Article 5 of the Convention, particularly on the rate of compliance with OSH training requirements for the manual transport of loads.

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

Article 12 of the Convention. Processes, substances, machinery and equipment to be notified to the competent authority. Noting that section 209 of the Labour Code has been repealed, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to identify the processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve exposure of workers to occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution, noise or vibration, that shall be notified to the competent authority for authorization.

Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170)

Legislation and other measures of application. The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of the Government regarding legislative developments, which addresses its previous request.

Articles 10–15 of the Convention. Responsibilities of employers. Application of the Convention in practice. Following its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the measures taken to apply the Convention, including progress achieved in the multiannual programme titled “Improvement of safety and conditions of work”, which resulted in the adoption of new standards regarding chemicals. The Government also indicates that, for the years 2022–24, the NLI is implementing the Chemical Control Strategy, which as one of its three key priorities, covers oversight and control activities in the area of chemical safety in production, use and storage of substances and mixtures, across various sectors of economy. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following 820 inspections conducted in 2022 within the framework of the Chemical Control Strategy, the NLI issued 9,265 OSH decisions and 229 verbal orders, addressed 3,579 motions, and gave 4,216 pieces of advice regarding technical safety at work. The Committee also notes the results of inspection visits related to the application of Articles 10–15 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, according to the observations of Solidarność, there has been a concerning upward trend in the numbers of irregularities detected in relation to employers’ compliance with requirements on safety data sheets, packaging, and labelling, among others. The trade union considers that actions taken so far, such as information campaigns, are insufficient to ensure compliance with OSH regulations. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on measures taken to improve the application in practice of Articles 10–15 of the Convention, and to continue to provide information on the results of inspection visits related to the application of those Articles.The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the measures taken.

• Protection in specific branches of activity

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

The Committee recalls that the ILO’s Governing Body (at its 334th Session, October–November 2018), on the recommendation of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group, confirmed the classification of the Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937 (No. 62) as an outdated instrument, and has placed an item on the agenda of the 112th Session of the International Labour Conference (2024) concerning its abrogation. The Governing Body also requested the Office to undertake follow-up action to actively encourage the ratification of the up-to-date instrument concerning the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and recommended to offer technical assistance to those countries requiring most support. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 334th Session (October–November 2018) approving the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group and to consider ratifying Convention No. 167. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility of availing itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard.The Committee takes this opportunity to recall that in June 2022, the International Labour Conference added the principle of a safe and healthy working environment to the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, thus amending the 1998 Declaration on Principles and Fundamental Rights at Work. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the Office for the purpose of bringing both the practice and the applicable legislation into conformity with the fundamental Conventions relating to occupational safety and health, and to provide support for any consideration of ratification of these standards.

Article 6 of the Convention. Statistical information relating to the number and classification of accidents occurring to persons occupied on work within the scope of the Convention. Application of the Convention in practice. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on inspection activities conducted in the construction sector. In particular, the Government indicates that OSH irregularities are most often detected in micro-enterprises of one to nine workers, which resulted in an increase in the number of decisions issued by labour inspectors for those enterprises over the years. The Committee also notes that, according to the statistics of the Government, scaffolding, work at heights, protection against damage to electric cables and the securing and marking of hazardous areas are issues where most decisions have been issued in the period 2014–23. In the view of Solidarność, the number of OSH violations in the sector remains high and the Government has decreased the number of inspections and increased information campaigns, which, alone, are not adequate solutions to the rampant violations of OSH regulations. In response, the Government indicates that it is worth paying special attention to intensifying inspections, as well as introducing additional legal solutions, including more severe financial penalties for infringement of OSH regulations. The Government also indicates a number of measures recommended by the Labour Protection Board in its position paper of 13 June 2023 on the “Strategy for ensuring safety in selected hazardous works in the construction industry”. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of the Convention, including on the number of inspections, the number of violations detected, and the sanctions imposed. Noting the high numbers of OSH violations recorded in small enterprises, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged that would strengthen labour inspectors’ ability to enforce the applicable OSH legislation in those enterprises, as well as on their impact. It also requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the measures recommended in the “Strategy for ensuring safety in selected hazardous works in the construction industry”.

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

Legislation. The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of the Government regarding legislative developments, which addresses its previous request.

Article 6 of the Convention. Inspection. Application of the Convention in practice. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the inspection visits conducted in retail and wholesale by the NLI in the period 2014–23. In particular, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, during the reporting period, a significant number of irregularities were detected concerning the conduct of preventive medical examinations, OSH training, OSH risk assessments, measurement of noise and mechanical vibrations, the provision of hygiene and sanitary premises and first aid systems, and failure to provide drinking water to workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding measures taken with a view to improving the application of the Convention in practice, and to continue to provide information on the enforcement activities undertaken, including the number of violations detected and measures applied.

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

Legislation. The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of the Government regarding legislative developments, which addresses its previous request.

Article 13(2)(f) of the Convention. Right of safety and health representatives to receive notice of accidents and dangerous occurrences relevant. Following its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the legislation does not explicitly impose an obligation on the employer to notify workers’ representatives of occupational accidents and dangerous incidents. According to the Government, the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 1 July 2009 on establishing the circumstances and causes of accidents at work, however, provides that where a social labour inspector does not exist in the undertaking, an accident team established to investigate the cause of an accident will have to include the employee representative. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the Convention, procedures for the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 shall be specified by national laws and regulations and through consultations between employers and workers and their representatives. The Committee requests the Government to indicatewhether it intends to adopt legislative provisions specifying the right of workers’ representatives to receive notice of accidents and dangerous occurrences relevant to the area for which they have been selected.

Application of the Convention in practice. Following its previous comments on this issue, the Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government on the results of inspections by the NLI in the mining sector. Those statistics indicate that the most common irregularities found in underground mining operations were the improper condition of haulage routes, access routes to workplaces, and passageways at workplaces. The Committee notes that the number of offences detected has, overall decreased, between 2014 and 2022, from 401 to 198 per year. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice and to provide further information on the measures taken to remedy the irregularities found.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in its report in response to its previous request, concerning: Article 14 of the Convention, on workers who can no longer perform work involving exposure to ionizing radiations; and Article 15 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.

Articles 3(1) and 6(2) of the Convention. All appropriate steps to ensure the effective protection of workers, in the light of available knowledge and dose limits for occupational exposure. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Atomic Law, in special cases, excluding radiological emergencies, radiation workers may willingly and with the consent of the President of the National Atomic Energy Agency, receive doses exceeding dose limit values, if this is necessary to perform a specified task.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report that there has not been any requests made for consent regarding the planned exceeding of the dose limits. However, it also notes the Government’s indication that between 2009 and 2013, 28 workers were subject to effective annual doses of between 20 and 50 mSv, and two workers were subject to an annual effective dose of more than 50 mSv. Recalling that under Article 6(2) of the Convention, maximum permissible doses shall be kept under constant review in the light of current knowledge, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of its general observation, in which it noted that the dose limits recommended for occupational exposure are 20 mSv per year averaged over defined five-year periods, with a maximum of 50 mSv effective dose in any one year. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures it is taking to review the maximum permissible doses established, in light of current knowledge, as well as the steps taken to ensure that these limits are applied in practice in order to provide effective protection for workers.

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

The Committee notes the detailed information contained in the Government’s report, and the attached legislation, indicating recent amendments to legislation giving further effect to the Convention, including the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers of 18 January 2005 on ionizing radiation dose limits (Journal of Law, No. 20, item 168) supplemented by a table in the Annex to the Ordinance containing values of conversion factors for determining effective doses of noble gases exposure for adults, and the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers of 24 August 2004 upholding the ban on juveniles performing work exposing them to ionizing radiation at the level exceeding the dose limits laid down by the provisions of the Atomic Law.

Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Dose limits for occupational exposure. With reference to the Committee’s comment on exposure exceeding dose limit values in special cases, as allowed by section 19(1) of the Atomic Law Act 2000, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that no applications of this provision were registered in the territory of Poland in the current reporting period. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that, in theory, section 19 could be applied in a situation where an employer predicted that workers carrying out particularly complicated assignments might be exposed to radiation exceeding the dose limits. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any situations or special cases which justify extensive exposure of workers on the grounds of section 18(1) of the Atomic Law.

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 to the Committee’s comments that pursuant to sections 230 and 231 of the Labour Code, where symptoms of an occupational disease are detected in an employee, the employer shall be obliged, on the basis of a medical certificate, to transfer the employee to a job not exposing them to the factor which has caused the symptoms, and that where the transfer to another job results in a reduction of remuneration, the employee shall be entitled to a compensatory allowance for a period not exceeding six months. The Government has also indicated the availability of benefits under the Act of 30 October 2002 on social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the measures in place to cover workers transferred, pursuant to sections 230 and 231 of the Labour Code, to another job, resulting in a reduction of remuneration, after the compensatory allowance period has been exceeded. The Committee, with reference to its request, refers the Government to paragraph 32 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention.

Article 15 and Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that nuclear regulatory authorities control all entities, not only in the health-care sector, that are involved in activities resulting in potential exposure to the level of ionizing radiation which must be authorized by or communicated to the President of the National Atomic Energy Agency. The Committee also notes that approximately 850 entities are subject to inspection every year, and that section 123 of the Atomic Law Act has contributed to the increased awareness of the issue of non-compliance with dose limits. The Committee notes the detailed statistical information provided in the Government’s report, including results of the supervision executed by the State Sanitary Inspectorate in terms of radiation hygiene which found that the most frequent irregularities in terms of protection against ionizing radiation were the lack of a quality management system, improper documentation and lack of health and safety at work training. The Committee asks the Government to provide information, in its next report, on measures taken to address these identified irregularities and to continue to provide detailed information on labour inspections and statistical information on the number of exposure cases registered, disaggregated by gender, if available.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the information supplied in response to its previous comments. It notes with interest the adoption of the Atomic Law of 29 November 2000, as amended by the Law of 12 March 2004 which appears to reflect the main principles of radiation protection, as well as the executive acts issued in application of the Atomic Law. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 3, and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention. Dose limits for occupational exposure. The Committee notes article 25 of the Atomic Law 2000 as amended, empowering the Council of Ministers to establish by means of regulations, dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiation of the different categories of workers including the general public. In this respect, it notes the Ordinance of 28 May 2002 issued by the Council of Ministers which sets forth dose limits for workers’ exposure to ionizing radiation. Given that the text of the abovementioned Ordinance is not available to the Committee, it is not in a position to assess the extent to which the dose limits established under the Ordinance ensure effective protection of workers in the light of the current knowledge, as embodied in the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). However, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the amendments to the Atomic Law and the adoption of its implementing ordinances have taken place in the framework of the country’s accession to the EU and hence to align the national legislation with the provisions contained in the European Council Directive 96/29 Euratom. While the dose limits set forth by the latter correspond to the dose limits recommended by the ICRP, the Committee would believe that the dose limits adopted through the Council of Minister’s Ordinance of 28 May 2002 would reflect the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP, and thus would give effect to Article 3, and Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Government is requested to supply a copy of the above Ordinance for further examination. The Committee further notes the provision of article 19, paragraph 1, of the Atomic Law prescribing that in special cases, excluding radiological emergencies, workers classified as category A workers pursuant to article 18 of the Atomic Law, may willingly and with the consent of the President of the National Atomic Energy Agency, receive doses exceeding dose limit values, if this is necessary to perform a specified task. However, by virtue of article 18, paragraph 2, of the Atomic Law, exposure referred to in paragraph 1, are prohibited for apprentices, students and female pregnant and breastfeeding workers, if the exposure involves a probability of their radioactive contamination. It appears to the Committee that article 18, paragraph 1, of the Atomic Act carries the risk to undermine the protection of workers provided through the adoption of dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiations. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to specify the situations or special cases, which would justify extensive exposure of workers on the grounds of article 18, paragraph 1, of the Atomic Law. It further requests the Government to indicate whether recourse yet has been made to article 18, paragraph 1, of the Atomic Act and, if that is the case, to supply information about the circumstances justifying the reception of radiation exceeding the established dose limits.

2. Article 13. Exposure in emergency situations. The Committee notes with interest the provisions of article 20 of the Atomic Law reflecting the main principles of radiation protection in the case of workers’ exposure following an emergency, as specified by the Committee in its conclusions under item 35(c)(iii) of the 1992 general observation under the Convention and under paragraphs V. 27 to V. 31 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards.

3. Article 14. Alternative employment. The Committee notes article 31, paragraph 1, of the Atomic Law, providing for obligatory medical examination of workers in the case of proven excess of any of the dose limits established under the Council of Ministers Ordinance of 28 May 2002. Article 31, paragraph 2 of the same Law stipulates that further work involving occupational exposure requires the consent of the medical practitioner. In the event the authorized medical practitioner refuses to allow further work involving exposure to ionizing radiations, article 31, paragraph 3, of the Atomic Law refers to the respective provisions of the Labour Code. The Committee takes note of article 230, paragraph 1, of Labour Code, 1997, obliging the employer to transfer the employee in whom symptoms of an occupational disease are detected, at a time and for a period indicated in the medical certificate, to another job where the employee is not exposed to the factor which has caused the symptoms of the occupational disease. Similarly, article 231 of the Labour Code obliges the employer to transfer an employee to another suitable job who has become unable to carry out the work for which he or she is engaged due to an occupational accident or occupational disease. Pursuant to article 230, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code, the employee concerned is entitled, in both cases, to a compensatory allowance for a period not exceeding six months if the transfer to another job results in a reduction of remuneration. With regard to this limitation in time of worker’s entitlement to allowances the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of the Committee’s 1992 general observation under the Convention, indicating 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 inadvisable from the medical point of view. The Committee believes that the restricted entitlement to allowances to be paid in the case that the job to which the worker concerned is transferred is less remunerated would contravene the above principle. In this context, the Committee recalls that for the purpose of Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government is required to take all appropriate steps, in the light of knowledge available at that time, to ensure effective protection of workers as regards their health and safety against ionizing radiations. However, under the current national legislation, workers whose continued exposure to ionizing radiations is medically contraindicated may be faced with the dilemma that saving their health means, in the long term, losing a part of their prior salary, which would thus have a strong incentive to neglect their health in order to preserve their salary. The Committee feels that the above considerations of the consequences of article 31, paragraph 3, of the Atomic Law in conjunction with articles 230 and 231 of the Labour Code, seem to be endorsed by the provision of article 20, paragraph 6, of the Atomic Law prescribing that persons intervening in an emergency and who have received the doses established for emergencies shall not be withdrawn from further employment in exposure conditions nor transferred to another position against their will. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to review the legislation on this matter in light of the above indications.

4. Article 15 in conjunction with Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes article 123 of the Atomic Law prescribing the fines applicable in the event of violation of the provisions concerning nuclear safety and radiological protection. Article 123, paragraph 2, of the Atomic Law, in particular, provides for an amount of a fine to be imposed on the nuclear facility employee who does not notify his supervisor or the regulatory body of the event or the condition which may cause a threat to nuclear safety or radiological protection. The amount of the fine is twice the average monthly pay in the national economy, calculated for the year prior to the occurrence of the violation and published by the President of the Central Statistical Office. With regard to the practical application of the legal texts designed to give effect to the Convention, the Government refers to the inspections carried out by the National Labour Inspection in the years 2001-03 in chosen health-care institutions. The Government indicates that the results of the inspections show violations of mainly organizational nature, i.e. cases related to non-observance of dose limits, employment of female pregnant or breastfeeding women in work involving exposure to radiations, exposure of workers in emergencies, and occupational diseases caused by radiation. The Committee, while noting the serious character of the infractions stated by the inspectors, requests the Government to indicate whether the fines imposed at these occasions, by virtue of article 123 of the Atomic Law, have led to a better application of the legislation in the establishments inspected. It further requests the Government to indicate whether, and, if so, to what extent, other establishments where workers are exposed to ionizing radiations in the course of their work and which do not belong to the health care sector, have been inspected.

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

1.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government’s report in response to its comments. It notes with interest the Government’s indication that the draft Atomic Law has been discussed at the occasion of its first reading in Parliament and subsequently has been sent to a subcommission for further work. As to the content of the draft Atomic Law, the Committee notes that the effective dose limits in occupational exposure of workers to ionizing radiation will be fixed by a regulation, but that the maximum permissible doses will be 50 mSv in any single year, but not exceeding 100 mSv, averaged over five consecutive years. The Committee would consider that these threshold limits would be in conformity with article 9 of the European Commission Directive 96/29 Euratom, as well as with the 1990 ICRP Recommendations, and thus would apply the provisions of Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

2.  The Committee further notes the Government’s indication to the effect that issues related to extreme exposure to ionizing radiation during and after an emergency will be governed by regulations of a lower rank than an Act of Parliament, but that the draft Atomic Law would serve as a legal basis with regard to the scope of application of the regulation. Moreover, the draft Atomic Law lays down the general principle according to which workers who are called to intervene in emergency situations after an accident may not receive higher doses than those established for any worker engaged in radiation work. This general principle, however, provides for two exceptions as follows: the maximum permissible doses tolerated for persons who are acting to prevent either serious loss of health or a larger scale of catastrophe, or who are acting to avoid a high exposure of a considerable number of people may not exceed 100 mSv. The maximum permissible doses for persons who are participating in actions to rescue human life may not exceed 500 mSv. It thus would appear to the Committee that these provisions would correspond to the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, as specified by the Committee in its conclusions under item 35(c)(iii) of the 1992 general observation under the Convention.

3.  The Committee finally notes the Government’s indication that the annex to the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 18 November 1983 provides for a list of occupational diseases and that item 8 particularly refers to "occupational diseases resulting from ionizing radiation, including malignant neoplasm". It further notes that workers having received the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation, as fixed under the respective provisions of the draft Atomic Law, must undergo medical examinations. In the event the continuation of employment involving an exposure to ionizing radiation is not considered advisable according to medical opinion, the draft Atomic Law guarantees the worker’s transfer to another post where the worker will not be subject to exposure to ionizing radiation, which would give effect to Article 14 of the Convention on alternative employment.

4.  The Committee, taking due note of this information, hopes that the draft Atomic Law will be adopted in the near future in order to ensure effective protection of workers exposed to ionizing radiation in the course of their work. It requests the Government to supply a copy as soon as the draft Atomic Law is adopted as well as a copy of the regulation to be issued in application of the draft Atomic Law.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. The Committee requests the Government to supply additional information on the following points.

Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's indication to the effect that the annual limit value presently in force for exposed workers should not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. This annual limit value is in line with Article 9 of the European Commission Directive 96/29 EURATOM based on the 1990 ICRP Recommendations. The Government further indicates that the limit of an effective dose of 20 mSv/year, averaged over five years, as also provided for by Article 9 of the European Community Directive 96/29 EURATOM and recommended by the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and the Committee's 1992 general observations under the Convention, has not been converted yet into national legislation. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the Government's indication according to which a revision of the present legislation is planned in order to bring in line the provisions of national laws and regulations with the requirements of the European Commission Directive 96/29 EURATOM, which are based on the 1990 ICRP Recommendations. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to keep it informed on progress made in this regard and to provide the relevant texts for further examination as soon as they are adopted.

Article 13. Occupational exposure during and after an emergency. (a) The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication that an amendment of section 3(1) of the "Act-Atomic Law" of 2 February 1996 concerning the amendment of the "Act-Labour Code" and concerning the change of certain other Acts (Dziennik Ustaw No. 24-Text 110) provides for the right of male workers to refuse the participation in emergency action where permissible exposure limits will possibly exceed five times the annual limit value. It also notes with interest that section 10 of the "Act-Atomic Law", permitting the unlimited exposure of volunteers to ionizing radiation in emergency actions has been repealed.

(b) As concerns regulations with respect to extreme exposure to ionizing radiation, the Committee notes the Government's indication to the effect that a legal act on this subject has not been issued yet due to a lacking Act of Parliament which only could serve as a legal basis in conformity with the Polish legal system. The Committee notes, however, the Government's indication that the parliamentary commissions currently do preparatory legislative work on the draft Act concerning natural calamities. The Committee further notes that a legal act concerning extraordinary exposure to radiation will be issued in the form of an executory regulation of the Council of Ministers, and that a draft regulation has been prepared in 1997 by the State Agency of Atomic Energy, in consultation with other ministries. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government's indication according to which the draft regulation corresponds to the 1990 ICRP Recommendations as well as to the International Basic Standards on Biological Protection. However, the matters raised in item 35(c)(iii) of the conclusions to the Committee's 1992 general observations under the Convention were not included, but will be incorporated in the final redaction of the draft regulation. The Committee therefore recalls once again item 35(c)(iii) of the conclusions to its 1992 general observation according to which a strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers, exceeding the normally tolerated dose limit, is to be allowed for immediate and urgent remedial work; that work must be strictly limited in scope and duration to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health; exceptional exposure of workers is neither justified for the purpose of rescuing items of high material value, nor, more generally, because alternative techniques of intervention, which do not involve such exposure of workers, would involve an excessive expense. The Committee hopes that this new Regulation will be adopted in the near future and asks the Gvernment to supply a copy as soon as it is adopted.

Article 14. Alternative employment. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the provisions of the "Act-Atomic Law" and the executory provisions do not contain any provisions on alternative employment in the case of exposure exceeding limit values, but that procedures as well as benefits for workers such as transfers to other jobs, compensatory allowance, etc. are provided for in the labour legislation (Labour Code and the executory provisions) in the event that workers are affected by employment accidents or symptoms of occupational disease due to harmful agents. In this respect, the Committee notes section 237(1) of the Labour Code providing for the entitlement to benefits of workers suffering from an accident at work or of occupational diseases as specified in the list of occupational diseases, which is to be established by the Council of Ministers, as well as stipulated in separate provisions of law. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether diseases on the ground of exposure to ionizing radiation appear on the list of occupational diseases. The Committee, however, observes that benefits for workers are linked to employment accidents or emerging symptoms of occupational disease due to harmful agents. The Committee would like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that item 35(d) of its 1992 general observations under the Convention recommend alternative employment or social security measures for all workers having accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment considered unacceptable is to arise, without making any reference to whether or not the worker shows already symptoms of diseases linked to ionizing radiation. The Committee further notes that the mentioned sections of the Labour Code do not provide for a transfer to another job in the case that the worker could not continue the work involving exposure to ionizing radiations. The Committee would therefore request the Government to specify the provisions providing for possible transfers of workers who cannot continue, because of medical reasons, their employment involving an exposure to ionizing radiations.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report on the Convention and in its general report of 1992.

1. Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, the Committee drew attention to the revised exposure limits adopted on the basis of new physiological findings by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations, issued in 1991 as ICRP publication No. 60. These Recommendations have a bearing on the application of the Convention, in view of the references to "knowledge available at the time" and "current knowledge", included in Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee accordingly asked governments to indicate the steps taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation and to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation in the light of current knowledge. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the State Atomic Agency has prepared a "proposal of amendment of the Regulation of the President of the State Atomic Agency of 31 March 1988 concerning threshold quantities of ionizing radiation and derivative indicators determining ionizing radiation hazard". The Government has not indicated whether and how this proposal includes the revised exposure limits and other protective measures set out in ICRP publication No. 60. The Committee notes, however, with interest from the Government's report that another draft Regulation being prepared concerning emergency situations is to follow the new, recently approved International Basic Safety Standards, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations and based on the 1990 ICRP Recommendations. Referring again to the explanations provided in its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee hopes that in amending the 1988 Regulation, effective protection of workers will be ensured in the light of current knowledge as embodied in the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and that the Government will supply full particulars of the new exposure limits and other provisions adopted.

2. Articles 7, paragraph 2, and 8 of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that section 6.1 of Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 concerning limit doses of ionizing radiation and indicators determining the risk connected with ionizing radiation (identical with the Regulation of 31 March 1988 mentioned in point 1 above) provides limit doses for persons from 15 years of age to 18 years; it had noted the Government's indication that this concerned only persons undergoing vocational preparation but that the age limit would be raised to 16 years when Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 was next amended. The Committee notes with interest from the Government's subsequent reports that while age and conditions of young persons' employment are governed by labour law and the atomic law age specification is only of informational character, the proposed amendment (mentioned in point 1 above) to the Order/Regulation of 31 March 1988 is to raise the age limit from 15 to 16 years. It also notes with interest that the Order of 21 December 1991 amending the list of jobs prohibited to young persons maintains the prohibition of employment of young persons in conditions of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that while young persons over 16 years of age may be so employed to the extent necessary for their vocational preparation, exposure to radiation has been limited to the level determined for the general public. The Committee looks forward to learning of the adoption of the draft amendment.

3. Occupational exposure during and after an emergency.

(a) In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 9(1) of the Atomic Law of 10 April 1986 workers intervening in abnormal situations where maximum permissible exposure limits are exceeded do not have the right to refuse such work. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its latest report that an amendment of the Atomic Law submitted to Parliament on 10 June 1994 proposes to delete from section 9(1) the words "a worker cannot refuse execution of such an order". The Committee looks forward to learning of the adoption of that amendment.

(b) In its previous direct request, the Committee noted with interest the adopted of Order No. 180 of 19 June 1989 (Monitor Polski, No. 23 of 1989) respecting the specific requirements and conditions for nuclear safety and radiological protection which sets forth measures to be taken and special exposure limits permitted with regard to emergencies. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 16 to 27 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the steps taken in relation to the matters raised in the conclusions to the general observation, in particular in paragraph 35(c) concerning the protection against accidents and emergencies. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its report that in 1993 the State Atomic Agency started to prepare a draft Regulation concerning the procedure applied in emergency situations resulting from radioactive hazard for people and the environment, and that values of intervention levels, determined in the draft Regulation, are in conformity with the new, recently approved International Basic Safety Standards, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to supply a copy of this Regulation, and that it will also specify the provision made in law and practice for:

(i) the prevention of accidents and the mitigation of their consequences, as set out in paragraphs 191 to 193 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards and paragraph 35(c)(i) and (ii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation under the Convention;

(ii) the strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers is to be allowed. In this regard, the Committee has noted the Government's indication that values of intervention levels determined in the draft Regulation are in conformity with the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards. The Committee observes that enforcement of the principles set out in paragraphs 233 to 238 of these Standards, concerning the protection of workers undertaking an intervention, read together with paragraphs 191 and 192(f) and (g) of the Standards would appear to meet the requirements of the strict definition called for in paragraph 35(c)(iii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation. While looking forward to the adoption of the corresponding draft Regulation, the Committee however notes that section 9 of the Atomic Law allows for higher exceptional exposure limits in circumstances which do not meet the same strict criteria, including any assignment "reducing and eliminating the effects" of accidents; this should be clearly limited along the lines set out in paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards as well as paragraph 35(c)(iii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation.

4. The provision of alternative employment. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation on the Convention, as well as 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 the provision of suitable alternative employment not involving exposure to ionizing radiation for workers having accumulated well before retirement age an effective dose beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment arises.

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

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

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

1. Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, the Committee drew attention to the revised exposure limits adopted on the basis of new physiological findings by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 Recommendations, issued in 1991 as ICRP publication No. 60. These Recommendations have a bearing on the application of the Convention, in view of the references to "knowledge available at the time" and "current knowledge", included in Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee accordingly asked governments to indicate the steps taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation and to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation in the light of current knowledge. The Committee notes from the Government's report for the period ending June 1994 that the State Atomic Agency has prepared "a proposal of amendment of the Regulation of the President of the State Atomic Agency of 31 March 1988 concerning threshold quantities of ionizing radiation and derivative indicators determining ionizing radiation hazard". The Government has not indicated whether and how this proposal includes the revised exposure limits and other protective measures set out in ICRP publication No. 60. The Committee notes, however, with interest from the Government's report that another draft Regulation being prepared concerning emergency situations is to follow the new, recently approved International Basic Safety Standards, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations and based on the 1990 ICRP Recommendations. Referring again to the explanations provided in its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee hopes that in amending the 1988 Regulation, effective protection of workers will be ensured in the light of current knowledge as embodied in the 1990 ICRP Recommendations and the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards, and that the Government will supply full particulars of the new exposure limits and other provisions adopted.

2. Occupational exposure during and after an emergency. (a) In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 9(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 10 April 1986 workers intervening in abnormal situations where maximum permissible exposure limits are exceeded do not have the right to refuse such work. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its latest report that an amendment of the Atomic Energy Act proposed by the State Atomic Energy Agency and submitted to Parliament on 10 June 1994 which proposes to delete from section 9(1) the words "a worker cannot refuse execution of such an order which has been taken into account by the Parliamentary Commissions in its work on the amendment of the Labour Code and certain other Acts containing provisions on labour matters". The Committee looks forward to learning of the adoption of that amendment.

(b) In its previous direct request, the Committee noted with interest the adoption of Order No. 180 of 19 June 1989 (Monitor Polski, No. 23 of 1989) respecting the specific requirements and conditions for nuclear safety and radiological protection which sets forth measures to be taken and special exposure limits permitted with regard to emergencies. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 16 to 27 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the steps taken in relation to the matters raised in the conclusions to the general observation, in particular in paragraph 35(c) concerning the protection against accidents and emergencies. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its report that in 1993 the State Atomic Agency started to prepare a draft Regulation concerning the procedure applied in emergency situations resulting from radioactive hazards for people and the environment, and that values of intervention levels, determined in the draft Regulation, are in conformity with the new, recently approved International Basic Safety Standards, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to supply a copy of this Regulation, and that it will also specify the provision made in law and practice for:

(i) the prevention of accidents and the mitigation of their consequences, as set out in paragraphs 191 to 193 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards and paragraph 35(c) of the Committee's 1992 general observation under the Convention;

(ii) the strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers is to be allowed. In this regard, the Committee has noted the Government's indication that values of intervention levels determined in the draft Regulation are in conformity with the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards. The Committee observes that enforcement of the principles set out in paragraphs 233 to 238 of these Standards, concerning the protection of workers undertaking an intervention, read together with paragraphs 191 and 192(f) and (g) of the Standards would appear to meet the requirements of the strict definition called for in paragraph 35(c) of the Committee's 1992 general observation. While looking forward to the adoption of the corresponding draft Regulation, the Committee however notes that section 9 of the Atomic Act allows for higher exceptional exposure limits in circumstances which do not meet the same strict criteria, including any assignment "reducing and eliminating the effects" of accidents; this should clearly be limited along the lines set out in paragraphs 233 and 236 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards as well as paragraph 35(c)(iii) of the Committee's 1992 general observation.

3. The provision of alternative employment. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 28 to 34 and 35(d) of its 1992 general observation on the Convention, as well as 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 the provision of suitable alternative employment not involving exposure to ionizing radiation for workers having accumulated well before retirement age an effective dose beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment arises.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1998.]

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

Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that pursuant to Order No. 419 of the State Atomic Energy Agency dated 7 July 1995 the minimum age for admission to occupational training, in conditions of exposure to ionizing radiation for which dose limits are provided under section 6.1 of Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 concerning limit doses of ionizing radiation and indicators determining the risk associated with ionizing radiations, has been raised from 15 to 16 years. The Committee recalls in this connection that it has noted previously with interest that the Order of 21 December 1991 amending the list of jobs prohibited to young persons maintained the prohibition of employment of young persons in conditions of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that while young persons over 16 years of age may be so employed to the extent necessary for their vocational preparation, exposure to radiation had been limited to the level determined for the general public.

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

The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's report with respect to the application of Article 8 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide further information on the following points:

1. Article 7, paragraph 2. In its previous comment, the Committee had noted that section 6.1 of Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 concerning limit doses of ionising radiation and indicators determining the risk connected with ionising radiation provides limit doses for persons from 15 years of age to 18 years. The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that this paragraph does not concern workers, but rather persons undergoing vocational preparation, including persons trained for work involving ionising radiation sources. The Government adds that young persons under the age of 18 years are prohibited from employment involving ionising radiations by virtue of Order No. 312 of 26 September 1958. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication that the next amendment to Order No. 124 will take into account the problem of changing the age limit from 15 to 16 years of age also for persons undergoing vocational preparation. The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

2. In its previous comment, the Committee had noted that, under section 9 of the "Atomic Law" Act of 10 April 1986, workers intervening in abnormal situations where maximum permissible exposure limits are exceeded do not have the right to refuse such work. The Committee had referred the Government to section 5.8.1 of the ILO Code of Practice on Radiation Protection of Workers which deals with planned special exposure which provides that a worker has the choice of accepting a proposal made by the employer that he or she intervene in an abnormal situation involving special exposure. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the protection of workers in respect of emergency procedure will be determined in detail in further Acts issued in implementation of the Atomic Law. The Government is requested to indicate the progress made in ensuring that workers' intervention in abnormal situations is voluntary.

3. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Order No. 23 of 1989 respecting the specific requirements and conditions for nuclear safety and radiological protection which sets forth measures to be taken and special exposure limits permitted with regard to emergencies. In this regard, the Committee would call the Government's attention to paragraphs 16 to 27 of its General Observation under this Convention. It requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the steps taken in relation to the matters raised in the conclusions to the General Observation, and, in particular, as concerns paragraph 35(c).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. Further to its observation, the Committee has noted that section 6.1 of Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 concerning limit doses of ionising radiation and indicators determining the risk connected with ionising radiation provides limit doses for persons aged 15 or over and under 18 years of age. The Committee would recall, however, that Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention provides that no worker under the age of 16 shall be engaged in work involving ionising radiations. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that persons under the age of 16 are not engaged in work involving ionising radiations.

2. The Committee draws attention to Article 8 which provides that appropriate levels of exposure to ionising radiations shall be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionising radiations or radioactive substances. The Committee notes that section 9 of Order No. 124 prescribes dose limits for persons resident or present in the generally accessible vicinity of sources of ionising radiation. Furthermore, section 6.2 of this Order provides that dose limits for persons temporarily present in conditions involving exposure to ionising radiation shall correspond to the limits set in section 9, paragraphs 1 and 3. The Government is requested to indicate whether these dose limits also apply to employees who work in areas regularly exposed to ionising radiations, but who themselves are not directly engaged in radiation work. If workers not directly engaged in radiation work are not covered by the limits fixed in section 9, the Government may wish to refer to paragraph 5.4.5 of the ILO Code of Practice on Radiation Protection of Workers (ionising radiations) for guidance in setting primary dose limits for workers not engaged in radiation work. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged for fixing exposure limits for workers not directly engaged in radiation work.

3. In its observation for 1990, the Committee noted with interest the measures taken to fix exposure limits for workers intervening in abnormal situations during the second phase, and that protective measures must be taken when exposure exceeds a certain level during the first phase of an abnormal situation, where intervention is necessary to save life or substantially limit the exposure of other persons. Section 9, paragraph 3, of the "Atomic Law" Act of 10 April 1986 provides that a worker intervening in the second phase of an abnormal situation can only be exposed to levels of radiation exceeding twice the normal annual limit once in a year and paragraph 1 of this section provides that the exposure over a lifetime shall not exceed five times the permissible annual limit values. Furthermore, the Committee notes that under this section it is explicitly indicated that a worker has no right to refuse involvement in such work. For guidance concerning action to be taken in abnormal situations, the Government may wish to refer to Section 5.8 and Chapter 6 of the ILO Code of Practice on Radiation Protection of Workers which deal with planned special exposure. Section 5.8 of the ILO Code of Practice recommends certain approaches to special exposures at the second phase of an abnormal situation where the doses of ionising radiations may exceed the normal limit values. Paragraph 5.8.1 of the Code of Practice provides that a worker may choose to accept or not to accept a proposal made by the employer that he or she intervene in an abnormal situation involving special exposure. Paragraph 5.8.2 recommends that a special exposure should not exceed twice the relevant annual limit value. Paragraph 5.8.5 provides that a worker should be informed of the estimated doses and special conditions involved in a special exposure and should be consulted about potential occupational hazards. A worker intervening in a special exposure situation should be instructed in the measures to be taken to keep the doses and risks as low as possible (paragraph 5.8.6), and a medical determination concerning a worker's aptitude for work involving special exposure should be made (paragraph 5.8.7). Chapter 6 recommends certain procedures to be followed in case of emergency situations. The Government is requested to indicate any further measures taken or envisaged concerning special exposures in abnormal situations.

4. The Committee notes that section 10.2 of Order No. 124 establishes a limit for concentrations of radon and its derivatives in premises designated for constant occupation by humans. The Government is requested to indicate whether there are limits for the concentration of radon in work premises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of Order No. 124 of 31 March 1988 issued by the President of the State Atomic Agency concerning limit doses of ionising radiations and indicators determining the risk connected with ionising radiation which ensures the application of Article 6 of the Convention. In particular, the Committee appreciates the information provided by the Government concerning limits of exposure for workers called to intervene in abnormal situations, in response to the questions raised in its general observation of 1987.

In the general observation, governments were requested to indicate the measures taken concerning abnormal situations where the level of exposure to ionising radiations exceeds the normal annual level fixed by law. It was pointed out that there are two phases to an abnormal situation. The first phase is when emergency measures are necessary in order to save human life or avoid a substantial increase in the scale of the incident. Neither the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) nor the ILO Code of Practice on Radiation Protection (ionising radiations) fix an exposure limit for this first phase of intervention. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest that section 8.2 of Order No. 124 endeavours to ensure protection beyond a certain level of exposure by providing that rescue workers intervening in abnormal situations to save human life or substantially limit the exposure of other persons shall be protected from doses exceeding 50 rems for the entire body and 300 rems for individual tissues or organs.

As concerns the second phase of an abnormal situation, although the ICRP and the ILO recommend that remedial measures be taken while maintaining compliance with permissible annual dose limits (50 mSv or 5 rems), it is also noted that in special circumstances certain essential operations may need to be carried out when the level of exposure to ionising radiations is still beyond the fixed limits. It is recommended, however, that workers intervening in this second phase should not be exposed to a dose greater than five times the permissible annual dose limit in a lifetime (i.e. 250 mSv or 25 rems). In this regard, the Committee notes that section 8.1 of Order No. 124 provides that workers who intervene in the second phase of one or more emergency situations shall not be exposed in the course of a lifetime to a level of ionising radiations exceeding five times the normal annual limit dose prescribed (the annual limit dose being fixed at 50 mSv (5 rems)).

The Government is requested to continue supplying information on any other measures taken or envisaged concerning the procedures to be followed in abnormal situations.

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