********************
Following is a question by the Hon Albert Ho, and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Dr Ko Wing-man, in the Legislative Council today (March 27):
Question:
I have been advised by some members of the building services industry that tritium exit signs (TES), i.e. self-luminous signs illuminated by radioactive gaseous tritium, have been used for decades in advanced countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States without any reported health incidents. In the Netherlands, the use of TES is encouraged by a tax rebate because it is a green product. In Singapore, the use of TES with tritium activity not exceeding 70 GBq is permitted with no licensing requirement. However, the sale and distribution, installation, maintenance, record keeping and disposal of TES in Hong Kong are subject to much tighter regulatory control. For example, the use of TES has to be justified by the non-availability of electrical power, which is considered as tantamount to a total ban by some members of the trade because hardly any building requiring exit signs to help evacuate occupants is not supplied with electrical power. They have also pointed out that apart from publishing a notice in the Gazette of an exemption granted in respect of tritium timepieces in 2011, the Radiation Board of Hong Kong (RB) has not published in the Gazette, pursuant to the Radiation Ordinance (Cap. 303) (the Ordinance), any other notice of exemption granted in respect of other radioactive substances or irradiating apparatus. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons for the authorities not following the practice of advanced countries to adopt a less stringent control on TES;
(b) whether it knows if RB has granted exemptions under the Ordinance in respect of radioactive substances or irradiating apparatus other than tritium timepieces in the past five years; if RB had granted such exemptions, of the reasons for not publishing notices of exemption in the Gazette; and
(c) to whom RB is accountable in formulating and implementing its policy on TES; of the channels through which a party aggrieved by the RB's decisions on TES can seek redress or remedy?
Reply:
President,
The potential harm of tritium signs is the possibility of increasing the internal radiation exposure of the uninformed public by the leakage of tritium during their normal use, and potential internal radiation exposure of the public on breaking of signs because of accidents, acts of vandalism and losses or improper disposals. The same concern has been expressed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which states that "EXIT signs that contain tritium are potentially hazardous" and "recommends considering non-radioactive alternative technologies when purchasing replacements." Hence, the potential health risks is a well acknowledged real concern even in USA.
On environmental friendliness, no authority of international standing has ever classified tritium exit sign as an environmental friendly product. Rather, the USEPA, through launching an on-line training program, "promotes government, industry and purchaser awareness of tritium EXIT sign safety and legal requirements and Energy-Star non-radioactive 'green' sign alternatives" and "with a goal to avoid elevated levels of radiation exposure from leaking Tritium EXIT signs in confined indoor environments." The underlying advice is to replace tritium exit sign with "green" alternatives, rather than tritium exit sign itself being a type of "green" product.
The considerations of the Radiation Board (the Board) behind the concerned policy on the use of tritium exit signs have been thoroughly scrutinised and explained in a judicial review in 2008 (HCAL 53/2008) and in a subsequent Case Conference of the Legislative Council on October 4, 2010. In the judicial review, the court dismissed the challenge against the Board's policy and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent (the Board) the costs of the proceedings.
My reply to the three parts of the questions raised by Hon Ho is as follows:
(a) There has never been a common "practice" on the regulatory control of tritium exit signs. As stated in the Judgment of the case HCAL 53/2008, "The Board is factually correct in saying that its policy is by no means restrictive when compared with neighbouring areas/countries". Moreover, the consideration of the Board's policy on the justified use of tritium exit signs where the use of electrical power is not possible or feasible is well echoed by the USEPA which has advised the public in one of its factsheets that "This useful property of tritium can be applied to situations where a dim light is needed but where using batteries or electricity is not possible".
(b) The Board is empowered by the Radiation Ordinance (the Ordinance) (Cap 303) to control the import, export, possession and use of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus through licensing. The Board may also grant exemption from any of the provisions of the Ordinance under Section 15. In the past five years (2008 to 2012), the Board has issued 83 exemptions to specified persons or groups of persons for the possession and use of radioactive substance and irradiating apparatus other than timepieces. The notices of exemption so granted have been issued directly to the specified persons or groups of persons in accordance to Section 15(2). As issuing a notification in the Gazette is not a legal obligation under Section 15(2), the Board has not published any notifications in the Gazette. In the case of exemption of tritium timepieces, the exemption has been granted to the retailers and end-users with a notice issued in the Gazette. On the other hand, if an exemption is granted in respect of a specified radioactive substance or irradiating apparatus, section 15(3) provides that a notice in writing shall be published in the Gazette. However, the Board has never granted exemption to any radioactive substance or irradiating apparatus. As such, no notice of exemption has ever been issued under section 15(3).
(c) The Ordinance aims to control the import, export, possession and use of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus. The Board is an independent statutory body established under the Ordinance to carry out functions set out in the Ordinance. The Board consists of ex officio members and non-ex officio members and its non-ex officio members are appointed by the Chief Executive.
The Board reviews its policies as and when appropriate so as to keep its policies in line with the prevailing international standards.
As far as licensing is concerned, there is an appeal mechanism according to section 11(1) of the Ordinance which states that "an appeal by an applicant for or holder of a licence under this Ordinance shall lie by way of petition to the Chief Executive from any refusal to grant or renew or from any cancellation or suspension of a licence under section 9 or 10 within one month of notice being given of such refusal, cancellation or suspension." Section 11(2) of the Ordinance also states that "on consideration of the petition, the Chief Executive may make such order as he thinks proper and such order shall be final."
On the other hand, the Ordinance does not provide an appeal mechanism for a refusal decision to grant exemption from provisions of the Ordinance under section 15 of the Ordinance. However, any party aggrieved by the Board's decisions in this regard may consider applying for judicial review. A case of judicial review of such nature had been brought against the Board in 2008 but dismissed by the court.
Ends/Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Issued at HKT 17:05
NNNN
