Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2004, publiée 93ème session CIT (2005)

Convention (n° 115) sur la protection contre les radiations, 1960 - Pologne (Ratification: 1964)

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.