Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ17: Tritium signs
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