18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/21 
— whether the Commission could do more to encourage 
subcontracting to SMEs in shared-cost programmes; 
— whether further work on the utilization plan by the 
Commission (DG XIII) could do more to promote the 
interests of SMEs in the subsequent technological 
development phase which if successful will end in the 
market place of the Community. 
4.4. A greater role for innovation 
The Committee emphasizes that shared-cost research 
programmes will only have been successful in terms of 
value for money if they result in subsequent successful 
innovation either in the form of new products and 
processes which the market will buy or in beneficial 
changes for health, welfare and the protection of the 
environment. 
The Committee believes that just as research strategy has 
been the subject of intense study and activity, its 
counterpart innovation should receive similar treatment; 
otherwise there is a likehood that the Community will not 
receive value for money from its research expenditure. In 
particular, the Committee urges the Council to implement 
the amendment to the EEC Treaty proposed by the 
European Council in Luxembourg in December 1985 
which explicitly defines the Community's role in the 
dissemination and exploitation of the results of Com­
munity research development and technology demonst­
ration (RDTD) activities. 4.5. Protection of intellectual property 
The Committee asks in the Commission to help contractors 
to solve their real and apparent difficulties in the protection 
of the intellectual property created in shared-cost work. 
4.6. Actions to strengthen the industry-university link 
The Committee believes that the Commission techniques to 
devise shared-cost research projects which bring together 
universities and other higher educational establishments 
with research organizations in industry and elsewhere, are 
of great value. 
The Commission is urged to continue to work in this area. 
4.7. Public relations by the Commission 
The Committee feels that the shared-cost programmes of 
the Commission are still not yet sufficiently publicized. The 
feeling among potential contractors persists that it is 
difficult to find out about them, expensive to tender for 
them, and bureaucratically complex to undertake them. 
Furthermore there are doubts in the minds of potential 
contractors about the ownership of the results. There is 
need for the Commission to undertake promotional work 
to correct these misconceptions. 
The Committee noted with approval the exhibition of new 
technology arranged by the European Parliament on the 
occasion of its new technologies symposium held in 
Strasbourg in October 1985 and felt that this might well be 
repeated elsewhere. 
Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the prevention of environmental pollution 
by asbestos (') 
(86/C 207/08) 
On 18 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal for a Directive. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 May 1986 
in the light of the report by Mr Bleser. 
(') OJ No C 349, 31. 12. 1985, p. 27. 
No C 207/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
The Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes to 42 with eight 
abstentions at its 237th plenary session on 21 May 1986 (vote recorded). 
1. Scope of the Directive 
1.1. The aim of the proposed Council Directive is 
twofold: to prevent asbestos emissions from various 
sources directly endangering public health in the Com­
munity, and to prevent them increasingly contaminating 
the environment to an extent which would eventually harm 
human health. 
1.2. The Committee has always attached great import­
ance to the need to fight against the health hazards relating 
to asbestos. It therefore welcomes the Commission's 
proposal for a Council Directive to help prevent environ­
mental pollution by asbestos. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The principal aim of this Directive must be to 
protect public health as comprehensively as possible. mandatory use of substitutes. In this respect at least the 
seventh amendment of Directive 76/769/EEC is an 
important step towards a complete ban on asbestos. A 
deadline should be set for a total ban on all use of asbestos. 
Substitute materials and processes have already been 
developed for the large majority of asbestos products. This 
has happened primarily because of public criticism of the 
use of products containing asbestos. Contrary to the 
Commission's assertions in the explanatory memorandum 
to the Directive (page 3), the health risks associated with 
these substitutes, in particular the danger of cancer, have 
been shown to be less than with asbestos. 
2.7. With regard to the Community's environmental 
research objectives, as spelt out under the EEC's R&D 
policy within the framework of the outline programme for 
1986 to 1990 (OJ No C 301 of 25 November 1985), the 
Committee considers that special attention should be paid 
to asbestos and substitute products. Technological and 
financial aid should also be made available to reduce to a 
minimum emissions into the environment of asbestos 
produced by industry. Under no circumstances must health 
protection be jeopardized for economic reasons. 
2.2. Preventive action must be focused primarily on 
cancers since it is widely known that asbestos fibres are 
among the most dangerous carcinogens. The general 
scientific view is that asbestos fibres are primarily 
responsible for bronchial carcinoma as well as pleural and 
peritoneal mesotheliomas. Certain malignant tumours of 
the gastro-intestinal tract have also been attributed by 
leading asbestos scientists and WHO's International 
Cancer Research Centre to asbestos fibres. 
2.3. Scientists also postulate that larynx carcinoma can 
be caused by asbestos. Other scientific discussions are 
continuing as to whether asbestos causes carcinoma of the 
upper respiratory tracts, the mammary glands, the ovaries 
and the lymphatic system. 
2.4. Without in any way wishing to deny the need for 
this new Directive, which is specifically concerned with 
environmental pollution, the Committee considers it 
necessary to draw up a framework directive to protect the 
environment and the public from all substances which pose 
a threat to health and are harmful to the environment. A 
special chapter in this framework directive would be 
devoted to asbestos. 
2.5. The Committee regrets that the Commission's 
proposed Directive fails to provide effective health 
protection for the population, especially against malignant 
tumours induced by asbestos. Yet this must be the central 
environment goal of any EEC Directive on this subject. 
2.6. The Directive — in the preamble at least — should 
reiterate the policy pursued by the EC to date, namely the 
phased prohibition of asbestos in conjunction with the 2.8. The measures in the draft Directive concentrate on 
those firms processing crude asbestos, including its 
incorporation into products. Emission limits have been 
drawn up primarily for them. The fact is, however, that the 
gravity of the health risk to the public from asbestos fibres 
depends on the degree of exposure of the population group. 
An asbestos Directive which does not set limits for the 
exposure of particular population groups cannot be 
satisfactory from the point of view of environmental and 
health policy. Hence emission and exposure must be seen in 
relation to the risk to the public. Emissions from road 
vehicles, especially through the wearing of brake linings, 
must also be taken into consideration. 
2.9. To ensure the protection of public health, notifi­
cation and authorization should be mandatory for certain 
activities, e.g. demolition work and the transport of 
asbestos waste. 
2.10. In particularly polluted areas selective epi­
demiological studies should be carried out into the 
connection between the incidence of cancer and exposure 
to asbestos, giving particular attention to certain malignant 
tumours such as bronchial cancer, cancer of the larynx, 
pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas. 
2.11. The standards on sampling and analysis methods 
should be drawn up in a way which can be readily 
understood by all concerned, i.e. they should not be based 
solely on the criteria laid down by the ISO (International 
18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/23 
Standards Organization). Steps must be taken to ensure 
that asbestos fibres in any form, and not only those of 
certain size-ranges, fall within the Directive. 
2.12. As far as possible the data on asbestos consump­
tion in the Community should be brought up to date. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
3.1.1. Here it should be expressly stated that the 
protection of public health is the primary objective of this 
Directive. In the last analysis the danger to the public 
arising from technical uses of asbestos and population 
density is very much greater than other environmental 
risks, e.g. to species. 
3.1.2. Article 1 or a new Article following it should 
stipulate that the Member States must gradually replace 
asbestos by substitute materials and fibres and, at the same 
time, gradually ban asbestos. Steps must at the same time 
be taken to ensure that substitute materials are without 
danger — or at least — are not as dangerous as asbestos. 
3.1.3. Following in the footsteps of Council Directive 
83/478/EEC, which provides for a wide-ranging ban on the 
uses of crocidolite, efforts should be made to ensure that 
asbestos is replaced or banned in the case of the following 
products or uses: 
(a) Asbestos-cement panels, especially light-weight build­
ing boards; 
(b) Insulating materials in the following areas: 
— protection against fire, 
— acoustic insulation, 
— thermal insulation, 
— insulation against cold, 
— protection against humidity. 
(c) Filter units and filter materials; 
(d) Putty, adhesives; 
(e) Mortar and filling compounds; 
(f) Floor coverings and road surfacing; 
(g) Thermal cladding; 
(h) Flower stands, sports facilities and other prefabricated 
products; 
(i) Brake linings and clutch facings; 
(j) Fibre-strengthened thermoplastic materials; 
(k) Asbestos-cement pipes, torque converters and seals as 
far as this is technically possible. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. This Article, which defines the scope of the 
Directive's measures, should in principle also contain the 
following: — limit values for the exposure of the public and of 
particular population groups to airborne asbestos fibres 
where certain sources of emission are present, 
— mandatory notification and authorization for certain 
work, and measures to ensure the safety of the public in 
special cases. 
3.3. Article 3 (1) 
3.3.1. In the list of fibrous silicates the German version 
should read 'Amosit (Griinerit-Asbest)' and the following 
be added in all versions: 'or any compound containing one 
or more of these minerals.' 
3.4. Article 3 (2) 
3.4.1. With regard to the sampling methods and 
analyses to be laid down, a new second paragraph should 
be added stating that asbestos fibres of all sizes fall within 
the scope of the Directive. This is necessary because 
asbestos fibres possess the property of continually splitting 
into thinner fibres down to elementary fibrils. In addition, 
medical science has not yet ruled out the possibility that 
very small asbestos fibres may also lead to illness; it must 
also be borne in mind that large asbestos fibres can 
certainly represent a cancer hazard in the upper respiratory 
tract and in the gastro-intestinal tract. Recent findings on 
other cancers caused by asbestos should be examined, e.g. 
in relation to cancer of the larynx and malignant tumours in 
the gastro-intestinal tract. 
3.4.2. The definition of the 'use of asbestos' in the 
present second paragraph is much too narrow as it does not 
cover most risk situations encountered by the general 
public. 
3.4.3. Thus, for instance, the asbestos emissions of a 
firm manufacturing asbestos products some distance from 
residential areas, with a consequent decrease in concen­
tration, can be relatively slight for the public compared 
with, say, the emissions arising in a heavily populated area 
from garages, building activity and traffic. The definition 
of 'use of asbestos' should therefore encompass all handling 
of crude asbestos and products containing asbestos, 
including demolition, alterations and repair work. 
3.4.4. The 100 kilogram threshold should be scrapped. 
3.4.5. A further new paragraph in Article 3 should 
define the exposure of the population to asbestos fibres. 
The urgency of such a definition can be shown from the 
following example: in large cities the average daily 
concentration of asbestos fibres (standard definition) often 
reaches 1 000 to 10 000 fibres per m\ This means that over 
a period of 10 years children breathe in altogether between 
100 million and over 1 000 million asbestos fibres, if all 
fibre sizes are included. Some of these fibres remain in the 
lungs so that after 10 to 35 years the risk of cancer is 
No C 207/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
extremely high. By comparison, the 'ubiquitous' asbestos 
fibre concentration in 'clean-air zones' comes to only about 
50 fibres per m? — and this even in industrialized countries. 
3.4.6. If the paragraph 'The working of products 
containing asbestos' is to remain, it should be stated clearly 
that this also means repair and demolition work, including 
to ships and motor vehicles. 
3.5. Article 4 
3.5.1. The qualification 'not involving excessive costs' 
should be deleted. The aim should always be to use the best 
available, i.e. state-of-the-art technology; if necessary, 
transitional provisions could be introduced for old plant. If 
so, a clear distinction would have to be made between old 
and new plant. 
3.6. Article 5 
3.6.1. Instead of setting a general limit value this Article 
should set out a package of measures. 
3.6.2. First, it would be necessary to define the 
objective: the prevention of asbestos emissions into the air 
as far as possible. This would be a realistic demand for, for 
instance, new purpose-built plants. 
3.6.3. In addition, the relationship between emissions 
and the degree of exposure of certain population groups 
would have to be dealt with. This would be necessary above 
all in the case of groups in the immediate vicinity of 
asbestos emission sources. Cumulative factors would have 
to be taken into account, e.g. the build-up of asbestos 
emissions from manufacturing firms, garages, demolition 
works, other construction work and traffic. Special checks 
would be needed in the case of hospitals, schools, nursery 
schools, workplaces (such as local industries), residential 
dwellings and recreational areas. In calculating exposure 
values it would have to be remembered that asbestos fibres 
occur as suspended dust particles which are continually 
being whirled around by air currents. 
3.6.4. The aim should be to reduce the average daily 
exposure of the general public to as low a level as possible. 
Present concentrations should be reduced to a level near to 
that of asbestos concentrations in 'clean-air zones'. This 
should be carried out through short-, medium- and long-
term programmes. The obligation to draw up such 
programmes should be included in the Directive. 
3.6.5. A general limit value of 0,1 mg/m3 for discharges 
into the air is not acceptable. Account must always be taken 
of the actual exposure of the public arising from this. This 
value can be considerably reduced with current separation and filter techniques; a graduated programme should be 
laid down to achieve this. 
3.6.6. The Member States have to lay down special rules 
for mining, to ensure that the latest technology is used to 
minimize the emission of asbestos fibres into the air. 
3.6.7. In certain cases, the fibre count per m3 of air 
discharged should be given. Measuring and analysis 
instructions which provide concrete data would limit the 
possibilities of manipulation. 
3.7. Article 6 
3.7.1. At 30 grams of suspended matter per m' of 
aqueous effluent discharged and 0,7 m3 of effluent 
discharged per tonne of asbestos-cement produced, the 
limit values for aqueous effluent are too high. 
3.7.2. Special rules must be laid down in the event of 
disruption of the working and transport of asbestos. 
3.8. Article 7 
3.8.1. Paragraph 1 should also provide for regular 
checks on the exposure levels of the general public. 
3.9. Article 8 
3.9.1. This Article should provide for a ban on certain 
activities, such as the working of products containing 
asbestos with abrasive cut-off machines or high-speed 
circular saws or the cleaning of brake-drums with 
compressed air in garages. 
3.9.2. Mandatory notification and authorization should 
be introduced for demolition, alterations and repair work. 
All repair work, including to ships and vehicles, should fall 
within the Directive. The mandatory authorization should 
cover both the qualifications of the demolition firm and the 
demolition technique employed. Experts would have to be 
brought in in certain cases. 
3.9.3. For demolition work and for certain normal 
construction activities the public would have to be 
informed about the health dangers from asbestos. If 
necessary, short-term measures — e.g. the closing of 
nursery schools — would have to betaken if high emissions 
were expected. This Article should include the obligation of 
the Member States to draw up contingency plans to protect 
the general public. 
3.10. Article 9 
3.10.1. It should be stipulated that asbestos fibres must 
not be released when waste containing asbestos is dumped; 
the provision of containers or suitable packaging should 
therefore be mandatory. 
3.10.2. When asbestos waste is not enclosed in con­
tainers or packaging, immediate covering should be 
prescribed to prevent fibres or dust being blown up into the 
atmosphere. 
18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/25 
3.12. The Annex 
3.12.1. The development of reference methods and 
procedures for sampling and analysis must not be left solely 
to the ISO. A possible alternative would be the creation of a 
Committee for clean air, soil and water in the EEC. This 
committee could intervene in matters relating both to the 
environment in general and to the working environment. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIXES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX I 
Voting: 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, present or represented, voted for 
the opinion: 
Amato, Araujo Dos Santos, Beretta, Berger, Bernasconi, Binnenbruck, Bleser, Boddy, Bonety, Brassier, 
Brigand, de Caffarelli, Calvet Chambon, Carroll, Cavazzuti, Ceballo Herrero, Chalioris, Curlis, Dassis, 
Dassoulas, von der Decken, De Grave, d'Elia, Delia Croce, Delourme, Drilleaud, Dunet, Elkan, Emo 
Capodilista, Engelen-Kefer, Etty, Flum, Geuenich, Glesener, Gomes Proenca, Gomez Martinez, Goris, Gredal, 
van Greunsven, Hammond, Hadjivassiliou, Heuser, Hilkens, Houthuys, Jarvis, Jaschick, Jenkins, Kamizolas, 
Kirschen, Kitsios, Kolble, Laka Martin, Landaburu Da Silva, Lojewski, Margalef Masia, Marvier, Masucci, 
Meraviglia, Mols Sorensen, Morselli, Mourgues, Muller, Muniz Guardado, Murphy, Nielsen B., Nielsen M., 
Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Ognibene, Plank, Pronk, Raftopoulos, Rainero, van Rens, Rouzier, Saiu, Santillan 
Cabeza, Schmitz, Schoepges, Smith A., Smith L., Soulat, Spijkers, Strobel, Tixier, Vallejo Calderon, Vanden 
Broucke, Vasseur, Vassilaras, Velasco Mancebo, Vercellino, Weber, Zoli, Zufiaur Narvaiza 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Antonsen, Breitenstein, Broicher, Cammann, Campbell, Ceyrac, Cuenca Valvidia, De Bievre, De Tavernier, 
Dore, Dracos, Fortuyn, Fuller, Hemmer, Kenna, Low, Machado von Tschusi, Martin Almendro, Masprone, 
Neto Da Silva, Noordwal, de Normann, Pearson, Pelletier, Poeton, Querleux, Riera Marsa, Rolao Goncalves, 
Sa Couthinho de Lencastre, Schnieders, Stahlmann, Staratzke, Storie-Pugh, Storm-Hansen, Swift, Tamlin, 
Termes Carrero, Van Der Mensbrugghe, Van Melckenbeke, Wagner, Wick, de Wit 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Aparicio Bravo, Arena, Bagliano, Bredima, Corell Ayora, Lopez De La Puerta, Pereira Da Silva Costa, Regaldo 
APPENDIX II 
Defeated amendments: 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure were defeated in the debate: 
Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 to be deleted and replaced by the following text: 
'Preventive action must be focused primarily on cancers since it is widely known that asbestos fibres are among 
the most dangerous carcinogens. The general scientific view is that asbestos fibres are primarily responsible for 
bronchial carcinoma as well as pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas. Some asbestos scientists have attributed a 
link with asbestos to malignant tumours in other body sites but such links are still not firmly established. 
Scientific discussion is continuing as to whether asbestos causes cancer of other parts of the body'. 3.11. Article 14 
3.11.1. The following should be added to this Article: 
'The representatives of the Member States shall consult 
in particular with experts from the industry, workers' 
representatives and other interested parties.' 
Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986. 
No C 207/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
Reason 
Recent medical evidence has discounted any significant excess cancer risk in relation to gastro-intestinal tract, 
(ref. Effects on Health of Exposure to Asbestos — R. Doll and J. Peto, Health and Safety Commission, London 
1985). It is more practical to ensure that research findings are available and agreed before referring to specific 
examples. 
Result of the vote 
For: 39, against: 84, abstentions: 10. 
Delete paragraph 2.6 and replace by: 
'The Directive — in the preamble at least — should reiterate the policy pursued by the European Community to 
date, namely the prohibition of asbestos in certain products, where it can release, to the detriment of human 
health, fibres and dusts which can cause asbestosis and cancer. In this respect at least the seventh Amendment of 
Directive 76/769/EEC is an important step towards a complete ban on asbestos. Substitute materials and 
processes have already been developed for the large majority of asbestos products'. 
Reason 
This is consistent with the EC policy to date — see preamble to Directive 83/478/EEC amending for the fifth 
time (asbestos) Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions 
of the Member States, relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and 
provisions. A total ban on all use of asbestos while desirable would be more appropriate when substitutes can be 
introduced without danger to health. In these circumstances it is difficult to set a deadline. 
Result of the vote 
For: 44, against: 83, abstentions: 6. 
Paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 to be deleted and replaced by the following text: 
'Article 1 or a nex Article following it may refer to Directives 83/478/EEC and 85/610/EEC stipulating that 
Member States must replace asbestos by substitute materials and fibres in certain products where free fibres and 
dusts can be released. Steps must a the same time be taken to ensure that those substitute materials are without 
danger'. 
Reason 
The list of products enumerated under paragraph 3.1.3 belongs to the authority of DG III — internal market. 
This Directorate has already undertaken a number of measures to ban applications where the release of free 
asbestos fibres may occur and progressively continues these efforts. DG III has under consideration all use of 
asbestos within the Community and a selective list as at 3.1.3 is inappropriate. 
Result of the vote 
For: 39, against: 94, abstentions: 7. 
APPENDIX III 
Minority Statement of Employers Group 
The members of the employers group support, in general, the proposals for a Directive regarding environmental 
pollution by asbestos as stated in the Commission's document. 
However, these members cannot support the opinion because it goes far beyond the issues proposed by the 
Commission. 
The employers group cannot agree with the very wide ranging proposals in the opinion in relation to the use of 
asbestos especially the proposal to set a deadline to ban the use of all asbestos products.