Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - India (Ratification: 1975)

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments concerning Article 1 of the Convention on consultations with representatives of employers and workers, and Article 14 on measures taken in cases where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is medically inadvisable.

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 6(2) and 7(2) of the Convention. Dose limits in occupational exposure and dose limits for persons between 16 and 18 years of age. The Committee notes the Order on Dose limits for exposures from ionizing radiation for workers and members of the public, 2011, submitted with the Government’s report. It notes that section 1.1 of the Order establishes, for occupationally exposed workers, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 150 mSv in a year. Section 1.2 establishes, for apprentices and trainees between 16 and 18 years of age, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 50 mSv in a year. With reference to paragraphs 11, 13, 32 and 34 of its 2015 general observation, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the most recent recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection that recommend, for radiation workers, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 20 mSv/year, averaged over defined periods of five years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv per year, and for students between the ages of 16 and 18 who use sources of radiation in the course of their studies, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 20 mSv/year. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to review the maximum permissible doses established, in light of current knowledge, including with respect to the lens of the eye.

Article 13. Medical surveillance and records of individual doses. The Committee notes that section 6.1.1.4 of the Order of 2011, sets out dose limits for occupational exposure for temporary workers that is lower than the limits established for occupational exposure. It also notes the information provided by the Government that in 2011 and 2012, two incidents took place at different nuclear power plants that resulted in a total of five temporary workers receiving radiation exposure in excess of the specified dose constraints. Following those incidents, the workers were medically examined and assigned work in the non-radioactive areas of the plant. With reference to paragraph 41 of its general observation of 2015, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to ensure the effective and comprehensive protection of temporary workers, including with respect to the keeping of a complete record of all doses received for such workers.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s latest report, and the attached documentation, indicating the notification and directive issued under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 during the period between 2005 and 2010, and that notifications on dose limits based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations and on the radiation protection symbol have been prepared and are ready to be issued. The Committee also notes the response provided by the Government, and the relevant sections of the 2005 Atomic Energy Regulation Board (AERB) Safety manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities (Safety Manual 2005) attached, which indicate the exposure levels requiring prompt investigation and give further effect to Articles 3(1) and 6(2) of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on relevant measures undertaken with regard to the Convention and to provide copies of any notifications or directives issued under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 concerning application of the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention. Consultation with representatives of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that during the formulation of the recent notification and directive, consultation was undertaken with relevant stakeholders, including industry representatives. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to consult with the concerned representatives of employers and workers on all aspects related to the application of the Convention, including the development and review of relevant legislation and ongoing development of notifications under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004.

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 response provided by the Government indicating that under the Safety Manual 2005, cases of exposure exceeding the dose of 20 mSv in a year should be investigated by an exposure investigation committee, which should include as a member the medical officer of the facility. The Government indicates that one of the functions of this committee is to suggest further action in respect of work to be allocated to the person who has been advised to be removed from radioactive areas as a result of exposure. The Committee further notes the information that AERB team members verify that over-exposed persons who are removed from radioactive work are suitably deployed in a non-radioactive area for a specified period. The Government indicates that no cases concerning loss of wages as a result of alternative employment has been brought to the attention of the AERB. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the specified time period that applies for workers removed from radioactive work due to over-exposure; and to indicate whether other means for maintaining income are offered in cases where alternative employment does not cover the entire duration in which workers are medically advised not to continue work involving exposure.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding the application of the Convention through the relevant administrative procedures in place. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of this Convention in practice, with particular reference to any investigations carried out under part 11 of the 2005 Safety Manual, and to specify any situations where workers have been removed from radioactive work and provided with alternative employment. The Committee also asks the Government to provide general information on the number of workers covered by the Convention and the number and nature of infringements reported by the labour inspectorate.

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

1. The Committee notes the information and appended documentation in the Government’s report including the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, the Atomic Energy Regulation Board (AERB) safety manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities and the Annual Report of the AERB for the period 2003-04. The Committee also notes the information that notifications under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, are being developed and requests the Government to transmit copies thereof once they have been issued.

2. The Committee notes with interest the clarifications and additional information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments concerning the protection of pregnant women engaged in radiation work, protection against accidents and during emergency situations, and the enforcement of legislation on radiation protection and requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments, in law and in practice, in these areas.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. Consultation with representatives of employers and workers. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Committee notes the indication of the Government that the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, were prepared by specialists in radiological safety and other experts of nuclear and radiation facilities, and that all aspects related to safety of workers and the public were duly considered. It regrets, however, to note that the Government indicates that these rules were adopted without consultation with representatives of employers and workers. While noting the explanation of the Government that it was found impracticable to refer the draft rules to the large number of representative bodies of employers and workers, the Committee wishes to emphasize that Article 1 of the Convention requires the competent authority to consult with representatives of employers and workers while applying the provisions of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it drew the attention of the Government to this obligation in its comments made in 1987 and that in response, the Government indicated in 1990 that the Department of Atomic Energy would take into consideration the requirements of Article 1 while framing rules. Furthermore, in its report submitted in 2000, the Government indicated that the draft of the Radiation Protection Rules, 2004, would be sent to the representatives of all the concerned employers’ and workers’ organizations for their comments. Under these circumstances, in the light of the importance of the consultation required under Article 1, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the competent authority will take appropriate measures in the future to consult with the concerned representatives of employers and workers on all aspects related to the application of the Convention, including the development and reviews of relevant legislation such as the ongoing development of notifications under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

4. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. Effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government clarifies that the AERB Safety Directive No. 7-1999, on radiation exposure adopted in 1999 in accordance with the recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60 (1990), prescribe a maximum permissible dose limit of 30 mSv for workers involved in radiation activities, subject to a cumulative dose over a defined block of five years not exceeding 100 mSv. It also notes, with interest, the Government’s further explanation that an exposure of 10 mSv at any time in the year triggers a review of the work practice of the exposed worker and the taking of remedial measures, as appropriate, to ensure that the annual dose limit is not exceeded, and that such reviews have actually helped in instituting appropriate remedial measures. Noting that the AERB Directives do not seem to regulate such a review, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific provision of national legislation or the specific directive that requires a review of work practice when the dose of a worker exceeds 10 mSv and to keep the Committee informed of the application of this review process.

5. 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 indications of the Government in response to its previous comments that all instances where workers are exposed to ionizing radiation in excess of the prescribed limits are reviewed by specialist committees and appropriate directives are issued to the licensee. The directives would include a prescribed discontinuation of radiation work by the worker and the engagement of the worker in alternative work for a specified period. The Government also indicates that such provision of alternative work for a specified period has never been a problem for the licensee and that no case of loss of wages in the case of such alternative employment has been brought to the notice of the AERB. The Committee notes that there is thus a possibility for workers who have been subjected to excessive exposure to secure alternative employment for a specific period. The Committee notes however that the information furnished by the Government does not appear to cover all cases where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable nor does it seem to apply generally as it is limited to specific time periods. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to paragraph 32 of its 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. In the light of the above indication, the Committee requests the Government to consider taking appropriate measures to ensure that no worker shall be employed or shall continue to be employed in work by reason of which the worker could be the subject of exposure to ionizing radiation contrary to medical advice and that for such workers, every effort is made to provide them with suitable alternative employment or to offer them other means to maintain their income and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

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

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.

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

The Committee notes the information provided with the Government’s report. Further to its previous observation, it draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Articles 3, paragraph 1 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the revision of the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 is still in progress, but that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), being the responsible body for the revision of the above Rules, has implemented in the intervening time the latest Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) concerning permissible levels of exposure to ionizing radiations by means of safety directives. With regard to the dose limits prescribed, the Government indicates that the AERB lowered the annual permissible dose limit of 30 mSv to 10 mSv per year as from 1 January 1999. The Committee notes with interest the new annual dose limit for workers directly engaged in radiation work, since this dose limit is in line with the annual dose limit of 20 mSv prescribed by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations to which the Committee refers in its 1992 general observation under the Convention. It accordingly hopes that the dose limit will be maintained in the revised Radiation Protection Rules. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that all cases of exposure above 20 mSv per year were reviewed by an Apex Committee of Specialists. The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to explain the influence of the above described review of exposure on further exposure of workers to ionizing radiations. It also requests the Government to supply a copy of the Safety Directives currently in force. Finally, while hoping that the new Radiation Protection Rules will be adopted in the near future, the Committee asks the Government to transmit a copy as soon as they are adopted.

2. With reference to the comments of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) complaining about the lack of effective enforcement of the legislation on radiation protection by the AERB, owing to organizational weakness, the Government indicates that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s Safety Directives are effectively enforced in various radiation installations and that the AERB issued in November 1996 a manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities which addresses, inter alia, the regulatory requirements with respect to the employment of temporary workers, as well as the issue of appropriate medical examinations of workers in nuclear installations. The Government further states that all aspects of the enforcement of radiation protection are constantly reviewed by the AERB through a multi-tier process and that compliance with the provisions of the Radiological Safety Directives is monitored by an independent health physics unit. The records on doses received by workers are maintained by nuclear facilities and are being checked during regular inspections. In this context, the Government says that compliance with regulatory requirements by radiation installations has been satisfactory. The Committee, taking note of the information, requests the Government to supply, with its next report, extracts from official reports, including for example inspection reports, in order to enable the Committee to appreciate the manner in which the radiation protection legislation is enforced in practice by the AERB. The Government is also requested to transmit a copy of the manual on radiation protection issued by the AERB in November 1996.

The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

1. The Committee notes the Government's assurance in its 1994 report that the draft of the new Radiation Protection Rules will be submitted to the representatives of employers and workers, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. In a comment attached to the Government's report of 1994, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) indicates that consultations of workers' representatives with regard to the enforcement of the legislation on radiation protection needed to be improved. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the arrangements made to ensure consultations of representatives of employers and workers in revising the Radiation Protection Rules, and to supply any comments on the point raised by AITUC.

2. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to the protection of pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work, the Committee notes that the Government stresses the importance to inform female workers that they should declare their pregnancy to the employer without delay. The Government also states that their status of work is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that the approach followed is to ensure that the foetus is granted a level of protection equal to that of a member of the public. Recalling that employment security and income protection for the women concerned are prerequisites of effective protection, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in which manner it is ensured that the standard of protection for any foetus is to be broadly comparable with that provided for members of the public; and to supply information on the equivalent dose limit to the surface of the women's abdomen during the remainder of the pregnancy and on measures taken to provide them with alternative employment that would reduce their exposure to the minimum.

3. Protection against accidents and during emergency situations. The Committee notes the Government's reply to its direct request. It notes with interest that the production of a radiographic device which was found to be unsafe was stopped. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information on the review of authorizations granted for practices or equipment found unsafe.

As the Government indicates that provisions concerning the protection of workers in emergency situations will be revised and included in the new Radiation Protection Rules, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, in which it stresses that immediate and urgent remedial work must be strictly limited to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health. The Committee would request the Government to supply information on the conditions in which exceptional exposure of workers is permitted and the measures taken or envisaged to optimize the protection during accidents and emergency situations, in particular as regards the design and protective features of the workplace and the provision of planned emergency procedures.

4. Alternative employment. The Committee notes the Government's indication that, under paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Radiation Rules, 1971, if a radiation worker has to discontinue radiation work under orders of the competent authority because of over-exposure, the employer shall make every reasonable effort to provide such worker with alternative work not involving exposure to radiation. The Committee further notes that the Government indicates that the possibility to improve these provisions would be examined within the framework of the revision of the Radiation Protection Rules. As the Government also indicates that these Rules will be revised in the light of the experience gained from its implementation, the Committee would request the Government to indicate whether there have been instances where the competent authority prohibited a radiation worker to continue work involving radiation, and whether such worker(s) were given alternative employment.

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

1. Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication, in its reports of 1994 and 1996, that the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971, are being revised by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and will reflect the principles established by the International Safety Standards of 1994 which are based on the recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) of 1990. The Committee further notes with interest that the Government indicates that, in the meantime, new dose limits for occupational exposure, taking into account the IRCP Recommendations and the international standards, have been set by AERB in Safety Directives that have been supplied to all employers. As the Government states that these limits are fixed at 100 mSv for five years from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1998, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, and how, these limits will be maintained after this date. It also requests the Government to supply a copy of the Safety Directives adopted by the AERB and the new Radiation Protection Rules as soon as they are adopted.

2. The Committee also notes that, in a comment attached to the Government's report of 1994, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) underlines the lack of effective enforcement of the legislation on Radiation Protection by the AERB, due to organizational weaknesses. The AITUC also indicates that improvement is needed to ensure effective protection of temporary workers against ionizing radiation; to minimize occupational exposure (work planning and execution), and to conduct proper medical examination for early detection of occupational diseases. The Committee requests the Government to communicate any comments that it considers appropriate on the points raised by the AITUC, in the light of Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 12 and Article 15 of the Convention.

3. The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

1. In earlier comments, the Committee had noted a communication from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) to the effect that the workers' organisations had not been consulted before the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984, were adopted. The Committee had recalled that under Article 1 of the Convention, in applying the provisions of the Convention, the competent authority shall consult with representatives of employers and workers.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its latest report that the Department of Atomic Energy has now assured that it would keep the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention in view while framing rules. The Government, however, adds that, since the nuclear energy establishments are owned by the Government in India, the stipulation regarding consultation with employers is ipso facto complied with. In this regard, the Committee must point out that, under Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, this Convention applies to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionising radiations in the course of their work, and not only to nuclear estalishments. Even where implementing laws and regulations concern a single government-owned industry, wider consultation may be called for to ensure consistency of approach to the protection of workers against ionising radiation. Moreover, the Government's function as a public authority implementing the Convention through the adoption of rules under Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention differs from its role as an entrepreneur and employer called upon to abide by those regulations. This distinction needs to be clearly maintained when it comes to representing on the one side, the public interest, and on the other, employers' concerns in adoption of laws and regulations under the Convention. The Committee accordingly hopes that, in framing rules and other instruments giving effect to the Convention, representatives of both employers and workers will be duly consulted, in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention, and that the Government will report from case to case on the arrangements made for this purpose.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply to its General Observation of 1987 concerning measures following abnormal situations. Referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the Government indicates that the current practice requires that, following an abnormal situation, the employer should send workers likely to have been exposed to radiation for prescribed medical examinations and attention. Also, the employer should forward a detailed report of the incident along with the personal monitoring badges of persons likely to have been exposed to radiation in excess of the limits in the incident, to the Division of Radiological Protection, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, for urgent processing and dose evaluation. If it is suspected that the persons may have received radiation doses in excess of the limits, the concerned individuals are required to be sent to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, for chromosomal observation tests. In practice, if the personal monitoring badge reveals that a worker has received a dose in excess of 1,000 mR in one month, an investigation is initiated by the Division of Radiological Protection of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay. The Government further states that, if the personal monitoring badge reveals that a worker has received a dose in excess of 2,000 mR in one month, the worker is laid off, an investigation of the excessive exposure is initiated by the Division of Radiological Protection (BARC), and any recommendations are implemented by the employer. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention, in particular, paragraphs 16 to 34 concerning the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency, and the need to find alternative employment for workers faced with the dilemma that saving their health may mean losing their employment.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the steps taken or considered in relation to the matters raised in this regard in paragraph 35(c) and (d) of the General Observation, in particular as regards the review of authorisations granted for practices or equipment of a type found unsafe, the optimisations of protection, the strict definition of emergency tasks for which normal dose limits may be exceeded, and the provision of alternative employment opportunities to victims of excessive exposure.

3. Referring more generally to its General Observation under this Convention, the Committee notes that revised exposure limits have been established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection on the basis of new physiological findings 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 paragraph 35(a) and (b) of the conclusions to the General Observation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1987, published 74th ILC session (1987)

1. Further to its observation of 1985 on the adoption of the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984, the Committee notes a communication from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) to the effect that the workers' organisations had not been consulted before the said Rules were adopted and had not been furnished with a copy of those Rules. In its comments on the matters raised by the CITU the Government states that the text of the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984, was published in the Gazette of India under 6SR No. 782 dated 21 July 1984 and hence is a public document: however a copy has now been sent to the CITU. The Government further states that representatives of employers and workers were not consulted before the Rules were adopted because the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 under which the Rules were adopted does not provide for any such consultation. The Committee recalls that under Article 1 of the Convention, in applying the provisions of the Convention, the competent authority shall consult with representatives of employers and workers. The Committee hopes that the Government will ensure that in the future, representatives of employers and workers are duly consulted on the measures taken to apply the Convention as required by Article 1.

2. The Committee also notes that the communication received from the CITU indicated that the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984 do not fix exposure limits for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. The Rules, in fact, do not fix permissible exposure limits for any workers, whether they are directly or indirectly engaged in radiation work. In this regard, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that in pursuance of section 23 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the exposure level for workers who are not occupational radiation workers is fixed at 5 mSv/year, which is in accordance with the current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and thus in compliance with Article 8 of the Convention.

3. Further, the Committee notes the information in the CITU's communication and in the Government's report concerning the medical examination of seafarers who may have been subject to radiation exposure as a result of their passage through the Black Sea during the fall-out from Chernobyl. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the affected seafarers were given appropriate medical examinations and that an agreement has been reached between the Shipping Corporation of India, Ltd., and the Forward Seamen's Union of India, under which the SCI undertakes responsibility for the medical treatment of the concerned crew, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention.