Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work` () (98/C 284/17)

On 25 May 1998, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 June 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Fuchs.

At its 356th plenary session on 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 2 July), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 72 votes to 20, with five abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. In 1997, when it adopted the Directive amending for the first time Directive 90/394/EEC () on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work, () the Council invited the Commission to submit a proposal to further amend Directive 90/394/EEC. The Council give three main reasons for this request:

- Appropriate safety standards were to be introduced to protect workers against the risk posed by mutagenic substances not already covered by the directive.

- The carcinogenicity of wood dusts was to be addressed with a view to including them in the directive; the issue of how Directive 90/394/EEC was to be applied to wood dusts was also to be clarified.

- This directive was to be framed to consolidate the existing directives on carcinogens at the workplace, in particular vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos.

1.2. With the present proposal, the Commission broadly meets the Council's request. It should be noted, however, that as far as asbestos is concerned, the existing directive remains in force, although it is currently being revised.

1.3. When the first amendment was submitted - on 31 January 1996 () - the Economic and Social Committee issued an opinion covering fundamental aspects of Directive 90/394/EEC. It may be useful at this point to refer to the basic components of this opinion. In it, the Committee noted that carcinogenic risk is only one possible result of chemical effects. It alerted the Commission to other, equally serious risks, such as genetic mutation. The Committee indicated that future Community action would be required in this area, and is happy to note the steps that have now been taken to extend the directive to mutagens.

1.4. Overall, the proposed amendment is a further, logical step towards implementing the principles enshrined in the framework directive. The aim is to improve the protection of workers against the risks of carcinogenic substances at work.

2. General comments

2.1. In general terms, the Committee feels that the Commission proposal marks a significant advance in worker protection and improves legal arrangements in this regard.

2.2. Mutagens

2.2.1. The Committee notes that the proposed amendment is based on information from the Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents. Accordingly, for risk management purposes at the workplace, germ cell mutagens and genotoxic carcinogens are to be treated on a similar basis.

2.2.2. The Committee recalls that, under Council Directive 67/548/EEC () on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, mutagens are divided into three categories. The Committee confirms that only categories 1 and 2 are relevant for the present amendment; these are labelled with the risk phrase R46 ('may cause heritable genetic damage`).

2.2.3. The Committee notes that Category 1 relates only to substances known to be directly mutagenic to humans. The ESC is aware that, in practice, this is extremely difficult to prove. For this reason, practical importance focuses on Category 2 substances. These are substances for which there is evidence of 'heritable genetic damage` on the basis of 'appropriate animal studies` and 'other relevant information`. The draft directive rightly points to the general consensus that, as a precaution, mutagens of this type should be treated as carcinogens for the purpose of this directive.

2.3. Wood dusts

2.3.1. The Committee notes that the treatment of wood dusts in the proposed amendment is based on information from the Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents. The Committee also notes that, to date, there is evidence only that the dusts of oak and beechwood are carcinogenic, and, in humans, may in particular cause adenocarcinoma of the nose and the nasal mucous membranes. Evidence of carcinogenicity for other types of wood is, the Committee notes, less compelling.

2.3.2. For this reason, the Committee feels that, in the first instance, direct action is needed to protect workers against exposure to oak and beechwood dust. In this respect, it considers that the Commission proposal is the logically consistent approach.

2.3.3. On the other hand, the Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents has stated that, clearly, other wood types are also under suspicion. That being the case, the Economic and Social Committee, while endorsing the proposal, has certain reservations about the fact that the amendment brings only oak and beechwood dust into the scope of the directive. This can only be a first step. The ESC would therefore urge that protection at the workplace be expanded to include other wood dusts in the near future.

The Committee is aware that it is extremely difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, to secure epidemiological evidence of the carcinogenic effects of a whole range of possibly relevant wood types. The Committee would point out, however, that preventative measures cannot be put off until the findings of infallible scientific tests on all wood types have definitely proved positive.

2.3.4. The Committee presumes that, in the wood processing sector, experience of this type of industrial protection will be gained following the introduction of uniform limit values for oak and beechwood dust. As more experience is brought to bear in this field in the Member States, it will be possible to discuss the technical feasibility of extending such industrial protection arrangements to all suspected carcinogenic wood types.

2.3.5. The Economic and Social Committee notes that, up to now, limit values for oak and beechwood dust - and, in some cases, for wood dust in general - have varied from one Member State to another. The limit values range from 2 to 10 mg/m3. The ESC feels that, for occupational exposure, a practicable compromise would be to incorporate a limit value of 5 mg/m3 into the directive initially, and to review this figure within five years on the basis of scientific findings.

2.3.5.1. The ESC would stress that standardized methods should be developed for the measurement and evaluation of the air concentration of dust at the workplace.

2.3.6. While the ESC recognizes the problem that there is no scientific evidence as to whether the dusts of woods other than oak and beech may also be carcinogens, it would nevertheless point out that prolonged exposure to dust of any kind is potentially injurious to health and may lead amongst other effects, to diseases affecting the respiratory system. In its view, therefore, consideration should be given to whether the proposed limit of 5 mg per cubic metre may be applied to all wood dusts, both hardwood and softwood, regardless of whether they are deemed to be carcinogenic or not. The Commission is urged to set appropriate limit values in a suitable legal framework or in a separate directive.

2.4. Consolidation in Directive 90/394/EEC of existing Council directives on the protection of workers against specific carcinogens

2.4.1. With regard to vinyl chloride monomer, the Economic and Social Committee would point out that this product is used in only a handful of chemical installations in the Community. In these installations, mainly in the large-scale chemical industry, available information indicates that the values put forward by the Commission have long since been met. In the ESC's view, therefore, more radical cuts in the vinyl chloride monomer limit value will be possible in the future. For this reason, it endorses the Commission's announcement that it will review these values within the next five years on the basis of scientific data relating to health and safety at work, in order to determine whether a further reduction is required.

2.4.2. As for asbestos, the Economic and Social Committee notes that the existing directive, and its various specific provisions, are not to be consolidated with the current Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work. The Commission intends to await reactions from the Council and the European Parliament to its communication on the provisions of Directive 83/477/EEC. () In this respect, the ESC feels it is appropriate to postpone any decision on whether the arrangements for occupational exposure to asbestos should be incorporated into this directive.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the new wording of Article 1(4) which states that the provisions of this directive are to apply to asbestos where they are more favourable to health and safety at work.

3.2. The Committee feels that items 5 to 7 added to Annex I are consistent and, on the grounds set out in the general comments, either advisable or tenable.

3.3. As things stand, the Committee endorses the agents and their limit values added to part A of Annex III. However, these arrangements must be consistently reviewed on the basis of new scientific data, at the latest after five years.

3.4. The Committee welcomes Article 2, which repeals Directive 78/610/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions on the protection of health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer. The repeal of this directive will facilitate administrative simplification and deregulation.

Brussels, 2 July 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 123, 22.4.1998, p. 21.

() OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

() OJ L 179, 8.7.1997.

() OJ C 97, 1.4.1996, p. 25.

() OJ L 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1.

() COM(96) 426 final, 5.9.1996.

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received more than one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the course of the deliberations:

Point 1.2

Add new paragraph at the end:

'The Committee furthermore notes that the proposal does not clarity how the provisions of the Directive could be applied to wood dusts, which was requested by the Council in its Common Position (EC) No 3/97 of 2 December 1996, amending for the first time Directive 90/394/EEC (see Official Journal of the European Communities No C 6, dated 9 January 1997, pages 15-20 - Statement of the Council's reasons IV.2 second indent). The Committee is of the opinion that several articles of the directive cannot be applied to wood dust as such and invites the Commission to study the applicability of the provisions on dusts from oak and beech in more detail before including "work involving exposure to wood dusts from the following species: oak and beech" in the directive.`

Result of the vote

For: 33, against: 56, abstentions: 8.

Point 1.4

Delete.

Result of the vote

For: 30, against: 59, abstentions: 11.

Point 2.3.1.1 (second part of the tabled amendment)

'In order to avoid distortion of competition and to prevent "social dumping" the importation of wood and wood products from countries which do not have such a limit and do not apply similar safeguards should be restricted.`

Result of the vote

For: 29, against: 62, abstentions: 13.

Point 2.3.2

Replace the last sentence 'In this respect ... consistent approach` with the following:

'The Committee however feels that Directive 90/394/EEC cannot be applicable to dust of oak and beechwood as such and that other, more effective routes to come to the introduction of an Occupational Exposure Limit for oak and beechwood dust should be explored.`

Result of the vote

For: 25, against: 60, abstentions: 6.

Point 2.3.3

Delete.

Result of the vote

For: 26, against: 63, abstentions: 5.

Point 2.3.4

Delete.

Result of the vote

For: 26, against: 62, abstentions: 6.

Point 2.3.4.1

Add a new paragraph:

'The requirements of the directive should be modified to take into account the special nature of the wood industry, particularly in relation to sealed containers and closed systems, which are virtually impossible to achieve in many wood-working processes. This gives rise to the thought that the protection of workers in the timber trades might be better achieved by the introduction of a separate directive to deal with wood dusts, where the conditions and problems which are specific to this industry could be dealt with adequately.`

For: 25, against: 55, abstentions: 8.

Point 2.3.5 (first part of the tabled amendment)

'Delete the last part of the final sentence after "directive".`

For: 26, against: 67, abstentions: 4.