No C 332/162 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Barcelona Convention for the protection of the Medi­
terranean sea against pollution, must intensify implementation: the Community's MEDSPA pro­
gramme is especially important in this respect. 
Done at Brussels, 20 September 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 83/477/EEC on the 
protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work 
(90/C 332/43) 
On 21 June 1990 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 118A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned 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 13 September 1990. 
The Rapporteur was Mr Etty. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 20 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The draft Directive partially reviews the Council 
Directive of 19 September 1983 on the protection of 
workers from the risks related to exposure to agents at 
work: asbestos, hereafter to be referred to as the asbes­
tos Directive. 
1.2. The Committee adopted an Opinion on the draft 
of this Directive in September 1981 (*). It will be recalled 
that the asbestos Directive was the second individual 
Directive under the so-called framework Directive of 
27 November 1980 on the protection of workers from 
the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and 
biological agents at work (80/1107/EEC). The Commit­
tee adopted an Opinion on the framework Directive in 
1979. 1.3. The main elements of the present revision con­
cern some of the provision in the asbestos Directive 
foreseen in Article 9 of the Directive, the level of action 
(Article 3.3 of the Directive) and the limit values for 
exposure at the workplace (Article 8 of the Directive). 
Furthermore, it adds specific proposals for building 
constructions to Article 5 of the Directive which at 
present only prohibits the spraying of asbestos. 
1.4. The Committee endorses the current proposal, 
subject to the following comments: 
2. General comments 
(!) OJ No C 310/43, 30. 11. 1981. 2.1. It should be recalled that, in its Opinion on the 
Asbestos Directive in 1981, the Committee stated: 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/163 
'According to the latest scientific findings, it is not 
possible to lay down 'safe' exposure levels for the 
harmful properties of asbestos. Asbestos differs in 
this respect from lead, another dangerous substance 
on which the Committee recently delivered an Opin­
ion. It is the carcinogenic properties of asbestos 
which are the problem. Even a very low dose can 
cause cancer. The only truly 'safe' solution is thus 
to ban asbestos. The limit values laid down for 
asbestos and also to be found in the present Com­
mission proposal must be regarded not as 'safe' 
limits based on scientific findings, but rather as the 
outcome of a weighing-up process in which non-
health considerations have played a role. (1)' 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Explanatory memorandum 
3.1.1. The Committee recommends the deletion of 
the word 'asbestos' in the sequence 'crocidolite, asmos-
ite, asbestos and chrysotile', listed in the penultimate 
paragraph on page 3. 
3.1.2. Support can be given to the retention of the 
reference method for measuring concentrations of 
asbestos in the workplace air. The basis of this support 
is that it will ensure continuity and consistency across 
the Community until more precise methods can he 
universally agreed and adopted. If some organizations 
wish to use more advanced methods this should be 
recognized, but attempts made to ensure that data from 
different systems may be correlated for epidemiological 
purposes (page 3, final paragraph). 
3.2. Article 1 (amending Article 3(3) of the asbestos 
Directive) 
3.2.1. The Committee would recall that in the 1981 
Opinion it was considered that the use of blue asbestos 
(crocidolite) should be prohibited. The Committee 
adheres to this position. 
3.2.2. The text of the proposed titles of (a) and (b) 
in the proposed amended versions of Article 3(3) might 
lead to confusion and should be reformulated as fol­
lows: 
(a) 'for chrysotile alone' and 
(b) for all other cases (mixtures or other forms of 
asbestos) (2)'. 
(*) Op. cit. paragraph 1.9. 
(2) in the Dutch text of the draft Directive the title for (b) 
proposed by the Commission mentions 'crocidolite' instead 
of 'chrysotile', which figures in the English text. 3.2.3. The proposed lowering under Article 3.3 of 
the action level (the level placed on the employer) is 
acceptable. 
3.2.4. With regard to Article 1.2 of the draft Direc­
tive (amending Article 5 of the asbestos Directive), the 
Committee: 
— supports, in general terms, the Commission's pro­
posed ban on the use of releasable asbestos products 
in building construction, not only because it will 
ensure future protection of workers in initial con­
struction, maintenance and demolition but also 
because it will, as time goes by, protect other 'down­
stream' workers such as those involved in waste 
disposal, 
— considers, however, that the wording chosen by the 
Commission is confusing and that it might lead 
to problems of definition (what should exactly be 
understood by 'detachable' or 'friable' asbestos, or 
rather: asbestos containing products ?), 
— prefers to stick to the Committee's previous formu­
lations on this point (paragraph 2.4.2 of the 1981 
Opinion): 
'The spraying of asbestos and other processes in 
which the permissible limit values are regularly 
exceeded should be prohibited.* 
3.2.5. In this connection, the Committee would refer 
to the special case of demolition or maintenance of 
existing constructions, installations, equipment, etc. 
containing asbestos, where as a rule the exceeding of 
limit values cannot be avoided. These activities are 
addressed in Articles 11 and 12 of the asbestos Direc­
tive. 
Many small enterprises and independent workers are 
engaged in this kind of work. In order to reduce the 
risk for the workers' health, demolition should be 
restricted to specially licensed firms. The Commission 
should establish a code of good practice for these activi­
ties. 
As far as maintenance work is concerned, the Com­
mission should ban the use of high-speed rotating 
machinery or tools. As regards the protective personal 
equipment (PPE), referred to in Articles 11 and 12 of 
the asbestos Directive, it must be stated that the resort 
to it rather than the control of atmospheric levels com­
pounds the difficulties because: 
a) a judgement is needed (i.e. assessment) of when PPE 
should be used; this should be based on necessity 
or justification rather than cost; 
b) exposure of other workers or the public is not 
controlled; 
c) technical questions such as the selection, provision, 
maintenance, hygiene and inspection of the equip­
ment must be laid down; 
d) instruction and training in use of PPE is needed; 
No C 332/164 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
e) resort to PPE may also imply that the work oper­
ation would cause soiling of clothes with asbestos 
and control and laundry provisions would be needed 
in consequence. 
3.2.6. The Committee can accept the proposed 
amendments to Article 7.1 of the asbestos Directive in 
Article 1.3 of the draft Directive. 
3.2.7. As regards Article 1.4 of the draft Directive 
(amendment to Article 8 of the asbestos Directive): 
— subparagraph (a): 
the Committee has, as stated before, recommended 
in 1981 to diminish the levels chosen initially by the 
Commission by a factor 2; this would mean, going 
down from 1,0 to 0,5 instead of from 1,0 to 0,8 for 
chrysotile, as the Commission now proposes: 
— subparagraph (b): 
the Committee has recommended a ban on the 
use of crocidolite in its 1981 Opinion; as concerns 
amosite, or any form of asbestos other than crysoti-
le, either alone or in combination in the the air at the 
workplace, the level proposed by the Commission is 
acceptable; 
Done at Brussels, 20 September 1990. — subparagraph (c): 
it is unclear what exactly the Commission means in 
this text; is it mixtures in the product or in the air 
at the workplace? (In this connection attention is 
drawn to paragraph 2.8.2 of the Committee's Opin­
ion of 1981 in which strong reservations were stated 
against the assumption that, in case of a mixture 
containing crocidolite, the percentage of crocidolite 
in the air can be considered to be equivalent to the 
percentage of crocidolite in the mixture.) 
3.3. Article 2 
3.3.1. In Article 2 of the draft Directive, the Com­
mission proposes that the Member States shall 
implement the provisions in it by 31 December 1992; 
this date is postponed until 31 December 1995 in the 
case of asbestos-mining activities. These proposals give 
rise to two observations. 
3.3.2. Firstly, while endorsing the Commission's 
objective that the Member States comply with the new 
provisions in a relatively short period of adaptation, the 
Section recommends that the Commission investigates 
whether or not this short period can be considered to be 
realistic for those Member States which most recently 
joined the Community. 
3.3.3. Secondly, the Committee observes that wor­
kers in asbestos mines should be entitled to the same 
protection from this carcinogenic agent as their col­
leagues in industry. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE