Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1995, Publicación: 82ª reunión CIT (1995)

Convenio sobre la protección contra las radiaciones, 1960 (núm. 115) - Dinamarca (Ratificación : 1974)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report.

1. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention. In its 1992 general observation and direct request, the Committee drew attention to the revised exposure limits adopted on the basis of new physiological findings by the ICRP, and asked the Government to indicate the steps taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation and to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations in the light of current knowledge.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the State Institute for Radiation is currently working on the evaluation of new knowledge; that no decisions have been made during the period under review to change the dose limits; and that this work takes place in close cooperation with the other EU countries. Noting the Government's indication that changes will be made in the form of submission of draft directives, the Committee hopes that the necessary changes will soon be made and that the Government will supply details of the directives adopted or envisaged.

2. Scope of emergency work. The Committee notes the Government's reference to Order No. 838 of 10 December 1986 on dose limits for ionizing radiation, which contains provisions on unintended radiation and exposure to radiation in emergency situations.

The Committee notes that under section 9 of Order No. 838, an emergency situation is to be understood as "a situation in which it is a matter of helping people in danger, to prevent radiation of a big number of persons or to save valuable equipment".

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 23 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation on the Convention, the Committee recalls that provision in law and practice should be made to ensure that work involving exceptional exposure of workers, exceeding the normally tolerated dose limit, 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 requests the Government to review section 9 of Order No. 838 accordingly and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers or other volunteers in emergency situations are not exposed to exceptional levels of radiation in order to save valuable equipment, and that the necessary investment be made in robotized or other techniques of intervention aimed at minimizing exceptional exposure of workers.

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, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated to ensure the provision of suitable alternative employment to workers who exceed an accumulated dose of 1 Sv well before retirement age, and/or whose further exposure to radiation has been disapproved by the National Health Authority.

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