Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2001, publiée 90ème session CIT (2002)

Convention (n° 115) sur la protection contre les radiations, 1960 - Inde (Ratification: 1975)

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

1. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the Draft Radiation Protection Rules will be sent to the representatives of the employers and workers for their comments once the revision is finished, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to confirm the arrangements adopted to ensure that consultations with representatives of employers and workers are held on the occasion of the revision of the abovementioned Rules.

2. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to the protection of pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work, the Government indicates that the dose limit of 2 mSv for pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work is applied to the surface of the women’s abdomen for the remainder of the pregnancy in order to ensure that a level of protection equal to that of the public is granted to the foetus. In this respect, the Committee calls the Government’s attention to paragraph 13 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is explained that, according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the methods of protection at work for women who may be pregnant should provide a standard of protection for any unborn child broadly comparable with that provided for members of the general public which are not to be exposed to more than 1 mSv per year. Once the pregnancy has been declared, the ICRP considers that the unborn child should be protected by applying a supplementary equivalent dose limit to the surface of the women’s abdomen (lower trunk) of 2 mSv for the remainder of the pregnancy and by limiting intakes of radionuclides to about one-tenth of the annual limit on intake. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to optimize the standard of protection for any foetus, by taking into consideration the elements provided with the 1990 ICRP Recommendations to which the Committee’s 1992 general observation under the Convention refers. As to the practice, the Government specifies that about 5 per cent of the female radiation workers receive annual doses in excess of 2 mSv. However, the radiological safety officer in each institution is empowered to take decisions in every single case on the grounds of the assessment of the type of work performed and the history of doses of radiation received, in order to adjust the work of pregnant workers. Moreover, by virtue of section 26 of the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971, the employers are expected to make every reasonable effort to provide alternative employment opportunities to those radiation workers whose work has to be regulated because of radiation exposure. In this context, the Government adds that no worker ever has declared to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) a loss of wages because he or she has been removed from work on grounds of excessive radiation exposure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether in these circumstances the employer is legally obliged to provide alternative employment that, however, would not lead to a loss of wages, since both employment security and income protection for women concerned represent essential prerequisites to ensure an effective protection of this particularly vulnerable group of workers.

3. Protection against accidents and during emergency situations. The Committee notes with interest that, while the Radiation Protection Rules are being revised, the AERB has issued a safety manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities offering guidance on emergency exposure of occupational workers. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the above manual. It hopes that the new Radiation Protection Rules will be adopted soon and that they will reflect, inter alia, the indications given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, in which it is stressed that immediate and urgent remedial work must be strictly limited to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health.

4. Alternative employment. The Committee notes that the regulatory agency is empowered to prohibit the continuation of work involving exposure to ionizing radiations to those workers who have accumulated exposure doses beyond the dose limits fixed, and that the prohibition is effective during the period of investigation of the circumstances under which the exposure took place. In these cases, however, no worker has refused alternative employment opportunities. The Committee invites the Government to report on the practical experiences gained in relation to the provision of alternative employment opportunities to workers who because of overexposure were not allowed to continue radiation work.