Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Jersey

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Articles 3(1), 6 and 7(1) of the Convention. Appropriate steps taken to ensure the effective protection of workers in light of knowledge available at the time. Maximum permissible doses of ionising radiation for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work. Lens of the eye. The Committee notes that paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of Appendix 3 of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionising Radiation of 2002 set equivalent dose limits for the lens of the eye of 150 mSv in a calendar year for employees of 18 years of age and above and of 50 mSv in a calendar year for trainees aged under 18 years. With reference to paragraphs 31, 32 and 34 of its 2015 General Observation on the application of Convention No. 115, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to review the maximum permissible doses established with respect to the lens of the eye in light of current knowledge and therefore ensure that these dose limits are set as 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined periods of five years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv per year.

Article 14. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionising radiation pursuant to medical advice. With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes that in its report the Government refers to paragraphs 71 to 73 of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionising Radiation, which specify that: (i) the employer shall designate as “classified persons” those employees who are likely to receive an effective dose of ionising radiation under certain limits (paragraph 71); (ii) in order to designate employees as “classified persons” they must be 18 years or older and a medical advisor must have certified in the health record that, in his or her professional opinion, they are fit for the work with ionising radiation which they are to carry out (paragraph 72); and (iii) a medical advisor can require the employer to cease treating the employees as “classified persons” if he/she considers it necessary (paragraph 73). Moreover, the Committee notes that paragraph 7 of Appendix 6 of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionising Radiation establishes that the health record shall contain, inter alia, a statement signed by the medical adviser, made as a result of the medical examination or health review, classifying the employees as fit, fit subject to conditions (which should be specified) or unfit. The Committee also takes note that the Government indicates that should an employer not heed the medical advice on whether an employee is fit to work with ionising radiation this may constitute a breach of its general duties under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989. The Government indicates that this situation would lead to an investigation which could result in the issue of a legal notice by a Health and Safety Inspector formally prohibiting the employee concerned from continuing to work with ionising radiation, and the referral of the matter to the Island’s Attorney General for consideration on whether to instigate a prosecution of the employer.

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. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that workers medically advised to cease radiation work are prohibited from such employment. It notes the Government’s reply in this regard that, pursuant to the Approved Code of Practice on Work with Ionising Radiation, the Health and Safety Inspectorate must be notified if any of the dose limits specified in the Code are exceeded. If an employer were to continue to require employees who have reached their individual dose limits to perform work with ionizing radiations, an investigation would be carried out by the Inspectorate. The investigations could lead to the issuance of a legal notice formally prohibiting the employee concerned from continuing work with ionizing radiations, and refer the matter to the Attorney General, who could initiate a prosecution. The Government also indicates that there have been no cases notified to the Inspectorate of employees reaching their individual dose limits. The Committee recalls that Article 14 of the Convention provides that no worker shall continue to be employed in work by reason of which the worker could be subject to exposure to ionizing radiations contrary to qualified medical advice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a worker whose individual dose does not exceed the limits prescribed, but who nonetheless, according to qualified medical advice, cannot continue to be employed in work involving exposure to ionizing radiations, does not engage further in such work.

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

The Committee notes the responses provided in the Government’s latest report, in particular with regard to the effect given to provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. With reference to the Committee’s comment concerning Article 7(2), the Committee also notes the clarification made by the Government that the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) is intended to refer to persons who are not employees.

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 information in the Government’s report indicating that the aim of the ACoP is to prevent circumstances where workers are excessively exposed to radiation and does not therefore address the scenario where workers have been excessively exposed and are unable to continue working with ionizing radiations. The Committee also notes the information that, given the limited work that is carried out with ionizing radiations, the inspectorate is not aware of such a situation occurring, but in the event of an occurrence, a worker who meets the criteria for social security or income support schemes administered by the Social Security Department, would be provided with financial support. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on measures undertaken or envisaged to ensure that workers medically advised to cease radiation work, are in fact prohibited from such employment. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the criteria for social security or income support schemes, should a worker be prohibited from undertaking radiation work due to a risk to their health.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the application of the Convention in practice, including reference to the 2008 online annual report for the Health and Safety Inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice over longer periods of time, including information on the number of workers covered by the Convention, disaggregated by gender if available; the number and nature of the contraventions reported; and the number, nature and cause of accidents reported.

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

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

2. Article 1 of the Convention. Giving effect to the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Approved Code of Practice for Work with Ionizing Radiation (ACoP) by the Employment and Social Security Department under article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, which entered into force on 1 October 2002 and provides practical guidance on the application of the Law. It notes the Government’s statement that it was introduced after a period of consultations with the social partners, in accordance with the Convention.

3. Article 3, paragraph 2; Article 6, paragraph 2; and Article 8. Maximum permissible doses. The Committee notes with interest that, under section 1 of Appendix 3 of the ACoP, the average dose limit for workers of 18 years of age and above is 20 mSv per year, not to exceed a maximum of 50 mSv in any single year, that section 9 of Appendix 3, the dose limit for pregnant women after they have declared their pregnancy is 1 mSv for the remainder of the pregnancy and that the dose limit for non-radiation workers is 1 mSv (section 6 of Appendix 3), all in accordance with the Recommendation of 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). With respect to trainees between the ages of 16 and 18, the Committee notes that the limit is an effective dose of 6 mSv per year.

4. Article 7, paragraph 2. Workers under the age of 16. With respect to the general prohibition of engaging workers under the age of 16 years in work involving ionizing radiations, as required by the Convention, the Committee notes that, under section 6 of Appendix 3 of the ACoP, the dose limit for these young workers is 1 mSv per year. It feels obliged to point out to the Government that, under the Convention, no worker under the age of 16 shall be engaged in work involving ionizing radiations. The Committee requests the Government to take appropriate action to ensure the full application of this Article and hopes that this will be undertaken in the very near future, and requests the Government to provide precise information in this respect in its next report.

5. Article 12. Medical surveillance. The Committee notes that, under section 87 of the ACoP, employees shall be subject to medical surveillance, in accordance with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the periodicity of medical examination under section 89 of the ACoP.

6. Article 13. Emergency work. The Committee notes that, under sections 129 to 134, employers must prepare a written risk assessment and a contingency plan. The Committee asks the Government to specify the circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers may be authorized. In this regard, it would draw the Government’s attention to the matters raised in item 35(c)(iii) of the conclusions of the Committee’s 1992 general observation under the Convention 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 excessive expenses.

7. Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation is medically inadvisable. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report of measures taken or envisaged to provide alternative employment for a worker whose exposure to radiation is medically inadvisable. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise, where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable.

8. Parts III and V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the ACoP is administered by the Health and Safety Inspectorate of the Employment and Social Security Department and that, when necessary, advice and specialist support is provided by Specialist Radiation Inspectors of the UK Health and Safety Executive. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on activities undertaken by the Health and Safety Inspectorate.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s last report in response to its comments. It notes the Government’s indication that the 1993 Approved Code of Practice made by the Employment and Social Security Committee under article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 is currently under revision in the light of the basic safety standards laid down in the Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996, and the Ionizing Radiations Regulations No. 3232 of 1999 (IR 99) of the United Kingdom. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the present state of the revision work and the progress yet accomplished in this regard. The Committee, while hoping that the revised Approved Code of Practice will be adopted soon, invites the Government to refer to its comments made on the Ionizing Radiations Regulations No. 3232 of 1999 (IR 99) of the United Kingdom with regard to the application of this Convention by the United Kingdom, in order to ensure that the revised Approved Code of Practice, once it has been adopted, will address the issues covered in the previous direct requests, which were related to the need to review the existing limits of workers’ exposure with a view to incorporating the dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in order to give effect to Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 8 of the Convention and the specific protection measures to be taken against accidents and during emergency situations in the light of the indications given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention.

The Committee finally requests the Government to supply a copy of the revised Approved Code of Practice as soon as it has been adopted.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

        1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report. It notes in particular that a Code of Practice approved by the Social Security Committee under article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, was introduced in March 1994. The Committee notes that the Code of Practice sets the dose limits at 50 mSv per year for workers aged 18 and over, and 15 mSv per year for trainees under the age of 18. While noting the Government’s indication that it has taken careful note of the Committee’s comments and will be soon taking the appropriate steps to review the existing limits with a view to incorporating the dose limits recommended in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the measures taken to that effect for workers directly engaged in radiation work and those who are not, in the light of Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 8, of the Convention.

        2. The Committee notes that there are no provisions in the Code of Practice that expressly prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 16 in work involving radiation. The Committee would request the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that effect is given to Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

        3. With regard to the protection against accidents and during emergency situations, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that no exceptions are permitted in the Code of Practice which would allow for increases in the normally tolerated dose limits during emergency situations and that there is no industry base or other area of activity in Jersey where it can be regarded that such an emergency would be foreseeable. The Committee further notes that the Code of Practice provides that emergency procedures must be planned and should "deal with the hazards created in the most efficient and effective manner, limiting radiation doses to any personnel involved to values as low as reasonably practicable". Recalling paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, the Committee would request the Government to supply further information as regards the review of authorizations granted for practices or equipment found unsafe, the strict definition of tasks for which normal dose limits may be exceeded should an accident or an emergency situation occur, as well as the provision of alternative employment opportunities in case of overexposure of the personnel involved.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report. It notes in particular that a Code of Practice approved by the Social Security Committee under article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, was introduced in March 1994. The Committee notes that the Code of Practice sets the dose limits at 50 mSv per year for workers aged 18 and over, and 15 mSv per year for trainees under the age of 18. While noting the Government’s indication that it has taken careful note of the Committee’s comments and will be soon taking the appropriate steps to review the existing limits with a view to incorporating the dose limits recommended in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the measures taken to that effect for workers directly engaged in radiation work and those who are not, in the light of Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 8, of the Convention.

2.  The Committee notes that there are no provisions in the Code of Practice that expressly prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 16 in work involving radiation. The Committee would request the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that effect is given to Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

3.  With regard to the protection against accidents and during emergency situations, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that no exceptions are permitted in the Code of Practice which would allow for increases in the normally tolerated dose limits during emergency situations and that there is no industry base or other area of activity in Jersey where it can be regarded that such an emergency would be foreseeable. The Committee further notes that the Code of Practice provides that emergency procedures must be planned and should "deal with the hazards created in the most efficient and effective manner, limiting radiation doses to any personnel involved to values as low as reasonably practicable". Recalling paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, the Committee would request the Government to supply further information as regards the review of authorizations granted for practices or equipment found unsafe, the strict definition of tasks for which normal dose limits may be exceeded should an accident or an emergency situation occur, as well as the provision of alternative employment opportunities in case of overexposure of the personnel involved.

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

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report. It notes in particular that a Code of Practice approved by the Social Security Committee under article 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, was introduced in March 1994. The Committee notes that the Code of Practice sets the dose limits at 50 mSv per year for workers aged 18 and over, and 15 mSv per year for trainees under the age of 18. While noting the Government's indication that it has taken careful note of the Committee's comments and will be soon taking the appropriate steps to review the existing limits with a view to incorporating the dose limits recommended in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the measures taken to that effect for workers directly engaged in radiation work and those who are not, in the light of Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 8 of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that there are no provisions in the Code of Practice that expressly prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 16 in work involving radiation. The Committee would request the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that effect is given to Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

3. With regard to the protection against accidents and during emergency situations, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that no exceptions are permitted in the Code of Practice which would allow for increases in the normally tolerated dose limits during emergency situations and that there is no industry base or other area of activity in Jersey where it can be regarded that such an emergency would be foreseeable. The Committee further notes that the Code of Practice provides that emergency procedures must be planned and should "deal with the hazards created in the most efficient and effective manner, limiting radiation doses to any personnel involved to values as low as reasonably practicable". Recalling paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, the Committee would request the Government to supply further information as regards the review of authorizations granted for practices or equipment found unsafe, the strict definition of tasks for which normal dose limits may be exceeded should an accident or an emergency situation occur, as well as the provision of alternative employment opportunities in case of overexposure of the personnel involved.

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

1. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report. 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, on the basis of new physiological findings, by the International Commission on Radiological Protection 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.

2. 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 and 35(c) of its General Observation under this Convention which concern 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 prescribed 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.