sou · GZB318 · 2011-03-02 00:00:00 — It may be mentioned, for instance, that UN Resolution (2004) provides inter alia for the control of nuclear armament. Before such measures are transposed into Swedish law, however, it will be necessary to determine the best way to proceed and to assess the possible consequences. On the other hand, the Committee proposes that the ban set out in the 1996 (CTBT)be incorporated in Swedish legislation. 6 Regulation 428/2009. parties to the CTBT undertake not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. has ratified the treaty.7 However it has not yet entered into force. Despite this, the ban should be transposed into Swedish legislation as it contributes to international nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation efforts. The advantage of a new, unifying law on the control of nuclear material is that parts of current legislation governing non- proliferation will be incorporated in one and the same act. This will make for greater clarity. Moreover a separate act on the control of nuclear material can be designed to resemble as far as possible other legislation aimed at preventing the spread of other weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, such a law could be easily adapted to comply with parts of Resolution (2004) and/or other new, upcoming requirements in the non- proliferation sphere. proposes in this connection a consequential amendment to Chapter 2, Section 3 of the Environmental Code. Use of cosmetic solariums The Radiation Safety Inquiry proposes that a new rule be inserted into Chapter 12 of the Environmental Code banning operators of commercially operated solariums equipped with devices that radiate ultraviolet light primarily for the purpose of tanning the skin (cosmetic solarium) from making these available to people under the age of 18. The proposal is in line with recommendations issued by the for Research on Cancer (IARC), a UN/WHO body. It also agrees with the proposal put forward in the report, A National Cancer Strategy for the Future (SOU 2009:11), as well as with recommendations issued by the and a number of international and national expert bodies. has a federal law prohibiting minors from using solariums for cosmetic tanning purposes. 7 Govt 1997/98:174. Some lasers are basically harmless, while others can cause lasting damage to the eyes. High-powered laser beams can also burn exposed skin. Thus, if carelessly handled, lasers can harm people and animals. light is used in professional contexts such as treatment, in the measurement of air pollution and vehicle speed, and in cosmetic skin treatments. There are also laser pointers and laser shows used in advertising and for art and entertainment. Other devices, mainly for private use, include laser pointers, laser collimators and distance measurement equipment. They are often used by people with insufficient knowledge of the dangers associated with laser radiation. The risk of injury from a laser beam depends on its strength, the distance between the laser and the person and how long the beam is trained on a given part of the body, the eye, for example. Potentially dangerous, high-class lasers are becoming cheaper and therefore more common, although lower-powered lasers are often adequate for their intended purpose. and more potentially dangerous higher-class lasers (>laser class 2m) are now coming onto the market, despite the fact that lower output lasers (laser 1, 1m, 2 and 2m) are usually strong enough for their intended purpose. They are often used by people with insufficient knowledge of the dangers associated with laser radiation. Increased access to high-powered laser pointers (with outputs of over 100 mW) has been accompanied by more widespread abuse of these devices. According to the National Board8, these are used to harass private persons, officers and pilots etc. beams can cause lasting eye damage, leading in some cases to blindness. If the driver of a road vehicle is dazzled by a laser beam, the result may be a serious accident. The same problem is found throughout Economic Area (EEA). The radiation safety authorities in , , and accordingly proposed in a communication to the EU Commission on 3 November 201o that the Commission introduce common import restrictions on high-powered laser pointers. The communication also included a proposal to ban the use of excessively high-powered laser pointers by members of the public. According to the authorities, members of the public should 8 report, POA-742-3480/10. only be allowed to use class 1 and 2 lasers (European standard EN 60825-1) with a maximum output of 1 mW. shares the views of the Nordic radiation safety authorities regarding high-powered laser pointers and proposes that a be inserted into Chapter 12 of the Environmental Code banning the import or introduction into of pointers of class 3 B or 4 and otherwise prohibiting the possession, storage, sale, hire or conveyance of these items. However, it is proposed that the ban should not apply to professional use of laser pointers, e.g. for military purposes. has also taken account of the regulations governing the issuance of permits for lasers, which it understands have been introduced in and . accordingly proposes that a be inserted into Chapter 12 of the Environmental Code requiring a party who introduces, imports, sells, hires or makes over lasers to classify and label them in accordance with Swedish standards. Parties should also be required to ensure that lasers are accompanied by instructions and warning notices indicating the precautions that must be taken when assembling and using the device in order to avoid injury or damage. The market for cosmetic treatments is growing, along with the risk of damage or injury from these procedures. In addition, a new type of radiation, intense pulsed light (IPL)9, with emissions as intense as laser light, has recently been developed. Research is lagging behind the application of these techniques, which are being introduced before we have had time to gain a scientific understanding of how they work and their possible long-term effects. There are therefore compelling grounds in the Committee's view for strengthening and extending the permit requirement set out in the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority's regulations to include the possession and use of stronger class lasers as well as laser-based cosmetic treatment. The extended permit requirement should not however apply to the use of lasers in connection with or odontological treatment or examinations. Lasers used in connection with treatment constitute a device under the 1993 Devices Act (1993:584). A device may be marketed provided it meets the requirements laid down in 9 IPL is a technology using special lamps, together with capacitors, to produce light of high intensity during a very short period of time. the act and in the regulations issued by the . proposes that rules governing permit requirements be incorporated in the proposed Ordinance on Operations Involving Radiation instead of, as now, in the regulations issued by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. The reason for the Committees recommendation that the proposed provisions be inserted in the Environmental Code and in the proposed Ordinance on Operations Involving Radiation is that failure to observe them should in the Committees view be punishable under Chapter 29, Section 1 on environmental crimes, or, alternatively, under Chapter 29, Section 4 on unauthorised activities detrimental to the environment. Penal provisions in the field of radiation safety are mainly found in the Nuclear Operations Act (1984:3), the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220) and the Environmental Code. The Environmental Code also applies – alongside the provisions in the Nuclear Operations Act and the Radiation Protection Act – to operations or activities involving ionising or non-ionising radiation. The penal provisions in the Code thus also apply to operations or activities in the sphere of radiation safety. A breach of radiation safety regulations is punishable both under the Code and the above two acts. For example, conducting an operation involving radiation without a licence is punishable both under Section 25 of the Nuclear Operations Act and Chapter 29, Section 4 of the Environmental Code. finds that certain changes and additions should be made to the provisions in the Environmental Code if substantive radiation safety provisions are inserted into Chapter 12 of the Code. The key penal provisions in the environmental criminal law sphere are set out in Chapter 29, Section 1 on environmental crimes. The offences are listed under four points in the first paragraph of Section 1. Point 3 is concerned with radiation. Point 1 in the same paragraph deals with deliberate pollution of land, water or air in a which involves or is liable to involve risks for human health or detriment to flora and fauna. pollution is irrelevant; it makes no difference whether the polluting agent is emitted directly or for instance as a result of burning, or cooling. The proviso here is that the perpetrator shall have caused a substance to be leaked or emitted into the surrounding environment which typically or in the specific case in question results or could result in pollution involving considerable risks to human health or detriment to flora and fauna, or other significant detriment to the environment. The word caused should of course be understood to refer both to a deliberate action and to an unlawful failure to act, i.e. passivity, on the part of the offender. The provisions relating to environmental crimes can already be applied to offences under the Nuclear Operations Act and the Radiation Protection Act. Under Point 3, a person who causes substantial detriment to the environment as a result inter alia of radiation, whether ionising or non-ionising, can be convicted of environmental crime. now proposes the addition to Chapter 29, Section 1 of a provision to the effect that a person found guilty of causing prohibited exposure to ionising or non- ionising radiation detrimental to human, animal or plant health, or to the environment, shall be liable to conviction for environmental crime. Such an addition to Chapter 29, Section 1 – concerning unlawful exposure to ionising radiation – links more effectively to the interests of protecting people and the environment that the penal provisions are intended to safeguard. further considers that the penal provisions in the Environmental Code should be supplemented by a new provision and a new crime classification, as follows: Chapter 29, Section 1a, Environmentally Hazardous Activities Involving Radiation. It is proposed that the provision be worded as follows: A person who deliberately or through negligence engages in environmentally hazardous operations or activities shall be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years for 1.failure to comply with the obligation to adopt such measures as are necessary to maintain radiation safety in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 12, Section 21, 2.failure to comply with the obligation to report a near-accident in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 12, Section 22, or to report information of significance to an assessment of the radiation risks associated with an operation, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 12, Section 30, 3.failure to comply with the obligation to dispose of waste from operations involving radiation, in accordance with Chapter 12, Section 23, 4.failure to comply with the obligation to pursue research and development activities in accordance with Chapter 12, Section 25, 5.failure to comply with the obligation to conduct regular overall assessments in accordance with Chapter 12, Section 27. No penalty shall be imposed under this Section if the offence is punishable under Section 1 or Section 9. This provision is partly a clarification of previous provisions in the Nuclear Operations Act and Section 36 of the Radiation Protection Act. Point 4 would replace Section 15 of the Nuclear Operations Act, under which a licence could be revoked if the reactor owner had not undertaken prescribed research and development activities. Thus the – perhaps highly theoretical – possibility of having ones operating licence revoked would be replaced by a penal provision. The penal provisions in the Environmental Code should also be supplemented by a provision on unlawful operations or activities involving radiation: Chapter 29, Section 1b. It is proposed that the provision be worded as follows: A person who deliberately or through negligence engages in unlawful operations or activities involving radiation shall be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years for 1.failure to observe the provision set forth in Chapter 12, Section 32 prohibiting the recommissioning of decommissioned reactors, 2.failure to observe the provision set forth in Chapter 12, Section 33 prohibiting the designation of a beneficiary of insurance coverage against damage to elements, systems, components and facilities of significance to radiation safety in operations or activities involving radiation, other than the licence holder, 3.failure to observe the provision of mandatory classification or labelling of lasers set forth in Chapter 12, Section 34, 4.failure to observe the provision set forth in Chapter 12, Section 35 prohibiting the importing or introduction into , possession, manufacture, use, storage, sale, hire or conveyance of laser pointers of laser class 3R, 3B or 4, 5.failure to observe the provision prohibiting the employment of persons under the age of 18 in work or activities associated with ionising radiation set forth in Chapter 12, Section 36, 6. failure to observe the provision set forth in Chapter 12, Section 37 prohibiting the commercial hire of solariums for the purpose of cosmetic tanning to persons under the age of 18. Point 3 in paragraph 1 applies only to the commercial use of lasers. This provision may also be said to constitute a partial clarification of the corresponding penal provisions in Section 25 of the Nuclear Operations Act and Section 36 of the Radiation Protection Act. A penal provision incorporated in a special section of the Code (Chapter 29, Section 1d) imposes a fine on persons who deliberately or through gross negligence contravene Council Regulation (Euratom) No. 2587/1999 of specifying the types of investment project to be reported to the EU Commission. A corresponding provision exists in the Nuclear Operations Act. Under Chapter 29, Section 4, a person who initiates or pursues an activity, or who implements a measure without permission or authorisation, or without having submitted notification as required by the provisions set forth in the Code shall be liable to conviction for unauthorised activities detrimental to the environment. It is proposed that this Section be supplemented by a provision designed to make it applicable to the new Chapter 12 on radiation safety. In addition to the penal provisions mooted above, the Committee proposes a number of other changes and additions, including a to the effect that a person who neglects to provide requisite data in the event of a near-accident, threat or similar circumstance be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years for obstruction of environmental control. has also concluded that a system of environmental sanction charges should be introduced in the radiation safety sphere. Actions liable to sanctions would include less serious infringements for which the application of penal provisions would appear unnecessary. On the basis of the proposed ordinance on operations involving radiation, the Committee considers that a system of environmental sanction charges could be meaningful with regard to infringements of certain provisions therein, as Adoption of the Committees proposals would mean that legal action could be taken against such infringements without the need to involve the or prosecution service. proposes that the rules on environmental sanction charges set out in Chapter 30 of the Environmental Code also apply in the radiation safety sphere. An important reason for this is that the system described in Chapter 30 of the Code is both simple and easy to apply. Another reason is that the sanction charges specified in the Code already apply to certain activities involving radiation. The system is simple and clear. Implementation can easily be standardised and cases can be processed quickly. accordingly proposes that the Environmental Sanction Charges Ordinance (1998:1950) be supplemented by provisions governing activities or operations involving radiation. The regulations issued by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority contain a large number of provisions concerning the obligation to inform and report, etc. These should be eminently suitable as a platform for sanction charges. However, the Committee has not been able, in the time available to it, to analyse the provisions contained in the regulations. It therefore proposes that the Radiation Safety Authority itself undertake a thorough examination of its regulations so that careful consideration can be given to the possibility of introducing a system in which criminal liability is attributed through reference to other legislation.. Public inspection in the radiation safety sphere – local safety committees Local safety committees should be retained but reformed Although a number of shortcomings with respect to the operations of local safety committees have been noted, the Committee considers that there are still solid grounds for retaining them. The role of the committees as representatives of the public in matters concerning both radiation safety and contingency planning and preparedness is an important one, and when the committees function as intended, their work should generate greater transparency and facilitate public insight in this area. In the Committees view local interaction and support are important as they enable the rapid identification of questions nearby residents may have on ongoing operations. In the Committees view, government-appointed local safety committees should be retained at facilities that handle nuclear material and where there could be a risk that such operations might cause problems for peoples health and the environment as a result of radiation exposure. With regard to the local safety committee at the nuclear reactor, the Committee notes that all nuclear material in the form of spent nuclear fuel has been removed from the reactor site. As there is no longer a significant radiation source at and thus no tangible risk of a radiation spill, there are no further grounds for a safety site. therefore proposes that the local safety committee at the nuclear facility be wound down. catchment areas should be extended In the Committees view, safety committee catchment areas should be extended. Information on radiation safety and contingency planning is not just of importance to residents of the municipality in which nuclear facilities are located. These issues are also of concern to surrounding municipalities. Safety committees should be open to other actors further recommends that safety committees be opened to actors other than political representatives. The proposal to geographically extend the safety committees catchment areas will also entail a broader recruitment base. Committees can benefit from the potentially valuable skills associated with municipal undertakings on safety issues through bodies such as the Emergency and . Representatives of local advocacy groups and grassroots organisations such as environmental and other organisations could also be appointed by the Government as committee members on the same basis as other members. The existing arrangement under which committee members are proposed for appointment by the municipality concerned, as well as the requirement that they be residents of the municipality that proposed them, should be discontinued. Safety committees currently comprise a maximum of 13 members plus alternates. In the Committees view, such a large number is difficult to justify given the relatively limited extent of the task involved. , in the Committees opinion, is there any real necessity for alternate members. At the same time it is also important, in view of the nature of the task, to ensure that the number of members is not too small. The Committees overall assessment is that nine members is a suitable number. The safety committees information tasks wishes to particularly emphasise that the safety committees inspection tasks involve more than just passing on information from their nuclear facility. The committees role as information processers should therefore be strengthened. If safety committees are to be perceived as credible, they must, in the Committee's assessment, process the data they receive before passing it on to the public. Similarly, their assignment should include informing the public of the questions they have put to the power company and the answers the company has given. By welcoming questions from the community and bringing them to public notice, the committees can encourage interest in their work and in radiation safety and emergency preparedness issues in the municipalities concerned. The role of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority The Committees assessment is that the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority should play a more clearly defined, stronger role in the safety committees. Representatives of the authority, as well as of the county administrative boards, should be present at safety committee meetings in order to report on radiation safety and emergency preparedness work at relevant nuclear facilities, inspection outcomes and follow-up activities. These authorities should assist the safety committees with locally relevant information regarding inspections undertaken, and ensure that the information prepared by the committees on radiation safety, contingency planning, possible deficiencies and measures is fair and balanced. As part of the process of strengthening the role of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority in the local safety committees, the latter should, in the Committees assessment, be formally required to apprise and inform the authority if it discovers evidence of or receives information regarding deficiencies in radiation safety in the facility concerned. By the same token, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority should be required to inform the relevant committee if in the course of its inspections it discovers similar shortcomings. Although allocations to local safety committees are relatively modest, the Committee emphasises the importance of financial management and follow-up of their operations. In the Committees view, there are no grounds for continuing to exempt safety committees from external audits. Like all other government bodies, the committees should be required to submit annual reports and accounts as well as activity reports. In the Committees view, continuing to finance the safety committees activities from charges levied on power companies under the ordinance governing charges by the Radiation Safety Authority, rather than via the authoritys research appropriation, would appear to be the most logical approach. 's point of departure is that by extending each safety committees catchment area and recruitment base to include representatives of local interest organisations, strengthening Radiation Safety Authority participation in the committees work, and requiring committees to be externally audited, the latter will operate satisfactorily and their credibility will be significantly enhanced.