30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/43 
Opinion on the proposal for a second Council Directive on the protection of workers from the 
risks related to exposure to agents at work: asbestos 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 262 of 9 October 1980, page 7. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 7 October 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 190th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 September 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of the 
European Communities on 7 October 1980 for an 
opinion on the proposal for a second Council Directive on 
the protection of workers from the risks related to 
exposure to agents at work: asbestos (')> 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 28 
October 1980, instructing the Section for Social 
Questions to draw up an opinion and a report on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the 
abovementioned Section at its meeting on 10 September 
1981, 
Having regard to the report presented by the Rapporteur, 
Mr Etty, at this meeting, 
Having regard to the Committee's study of 22 February 
1979 on health and environmental hazards arising from 
the use of asbestos, 
Having regard to the Committee's opinion of 30 October 
1980 on the proposal for a Council Directive amending 
for the fifth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the 
approximation of the laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions of the Member States relating 
to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain 
dangerous substances and preparations (2), Having regard to the discussions at its 190th plenary 
session on 23 and 24 September 1981 (meeting of 
24 September), 
Whereas the European Community has an obligation to 
promote improved working conditions and an improved 
standard of living for workers and their families as well 
as to promote prevention and control of occupational 
diseases; 
Whereas the Economic and Social Committee supports 
proposals designed to harmonize the legislation of 
Member States with respect to reducing occupational 
risks due to asbestos, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
with 79 votes for, 42 against and 10 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The draft Directive is the second in a series of 
specific proposals relating to the protection of the general 
environment and human life and health from the risks 
associated with the use of asbestos. The first, the proposal 
for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time 
Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the 
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the 
Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing 
and use of certain dangerous substances and 
preparations (3), was the subject of an opinion by the 
Committee adopted on 30 October 1980. 
(') OJ No C 262, 9. 10. 1980, p. 7. 
(2) OJ No C 331, 17. 12. 1980, p. 6. (>) OJ No C 78, 28. 3. 1980, p. 10. 
No C 310/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 81 
1.2. The Committee, in the above opinion, endorsed 
the Commission's work. In so doing, it commented inter 
alia on the links between these proposals and the need for 
the Council to discuss them together. 
1.3. As the Commission points out in its proposal, 
asbestos is a dangerous substance. There is scientific 
proof that all types of asbestos are carcinogenic. 
1.4. On the basis of scientific evidence, the 
Commission considers blue asbestos (crocidolite) to be 
more dangerous than the other varieties. The Committee 
took a similar view ('). This scientific evidence has been 
reflected in the legislation of a majority of Member States. 
They have clamped down more on blue asbestos 
(crocidolite) than on white asbestos (chrysotile) or brown 
asbestos (amosite). In some cases, they have even gone so 
far as to impose a complete ban. A number of Member 
States have taken a different line. On the basis of the 
legislation and the measures adopted, it must be 
concluded that these Member States regard all kinds of 
asbestos as equally dangerous. 
1.5. Human exposure to asbestos takes various 
forms. Asbestos fibres are widely found in the general 
environment, especially in urban areas. The sharp 
increase in the use of asbestos products is the cause of 
this. 
1.6. However, work and work-related activities 
constitute the most direct and important source of 
exposure. Special importance must therefore be attached 
to the work sector, as the Commission quite rightly does 
in its proposal. There should be more stringent protection 
at work than elsewhere; exposure at work, and thus the 
risk, is higher. 
1.7. In this connection, special mention must be made 
of Convention 139 and Recommendation 147 of the 
International Labour Organization with regard to the 
prevention and control of occupational hazards caused by 
carcinogenic substances and agents. This Convention has 
to date been ratified by two Member States, the Federal 
Republic of Germany and Denmark. 
1.8. It is most common for asbestos fibres to enter the 
body via the respiratory system and the lungs. There is no 
doubt that inhaling asbestos is very dangerous. It can 
cause serious illnesses, such as asbestosis and various 
forms of cancer. Scientific studies indicate that the 
swallowing of asbestos may also be a health hazard. 
Mesotheliomas should be mentioned in this connection. 
It is assumed, but not yet proved, that swallowing asbestos causes tumours of the stomach. In studies, it has 
been associated with the occurrence of gastro-intestinal 
cancers. 
1.9. 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 opinion (2). 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 Commission 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. 
1.10. The Commission asked scientific experts in the 
Member States for proper job statistics for industries in 
which workers are exposed to asbestos. It did not get 
satisfactory replies. Clearly, the Commission's proposal 
is currently being discussed in the context of massive 
Community-wide unemployment, which continues to 
rise sharply. 
1.11. The Committee reiterates the view, expressed in 
its 1979 study, that it is unrealistic to contemplate an 
indiscriminate ban on asbestos at the present time. On the 
other hand, it is convinced that harmful exposure must be 
eliminated in all instances where asbestos is extracted, 
manipulated, treated, transformed, loaded, unloaded, 
applied, removed or demolished, or used in the 
manufacture of articles. The question remains as to how 
stringent the precautions should be. 
1.12. The Committee agrees that one must not only be 
concerned with asbestos workers. Indirect exposure, too, 
is disquieting. This can take the form of contamination 
affecting asbestos workers' families or pollution of the air 
by asbestos-generating activities. 
Of course, account must also be taken oi the effects on 
those living and working near processing plants, and of 
the contamination of crops intended for human 
consumption, especially fruit and vegetables. The search 
for solutions for effective protection should be intensified 
in order to minimize the risk to all those affected by this 
particular kind of contamination, and to select specific 
areas where new plants can be set up, causing the least 
possible risk for the people and crops concerned. 
(J) OJ No C 331, 17. 12. 1980, p. 6. (2) OJ No C 300, 18. 11. 1980, p. 22. 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/45 
1.13. The definition of exposure is a crucial point in 
the draft Directive. After extensive deliberation, the 
Committee has formed the view that the definition given 
by the Commission in Article 3 is acceptable. 
1.14. Given the aim of the Directive, use should be 
made of the most advanced equipment for the sampling 
and analysis of asbestos so that all fibres can be counted. 
The Committee understands that electron microscopy 
detects more airborne fibres than optical methods. But it 
also appreciates that there are technical, financial and 
practical problems in recommending it as the preferred 
method at present. Current methods of analysis have been 
geared to the optical microscope. These methods have 
provided most of the current knowledge about 
dose-response relationships. Nevertheless, the 
Committee believes there is a need to vigorously pursue 
research designed to bring electron microscopy to the 
stage where it can, through its greater sensitivity, make 
the most effective impact on control measures. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
The aim of the Directive, as defined, relates to the 
protection of workers and the prevention of risks arising 
from exposure. It should also include the elimination of 
such risks. 
2.2. Article 2 
The Committee finds the definition of asbestos given by 
the Commission acceptable. Definitions referring only to 
'fine asbestos dust1 are considered less suitable by the 
Committee since they cover only one specific manner of 
exposure. 
2.3. Article 3 
The definition of 'exposure', as set out in the draft, is 
acceptable. However, attention should also be given to 
occasional exposure. 
2.4. Article 4 
2.4.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
view that asbestos should be replaced by 'suitable and 
safer substitutes'. This is a matter of fundamental 
importance. Research to develop these substitutes and to 
make them available should be stepped up. In line with 
ILO Convention 139 and ILO Recommendation 147, the 
Committee stresses that this substitution should be 
carried out regardless of whether there is any emission. 
This substitution need not necessarily entail a loss of jobs. 
In some sectors it could even create jobs. 2.4.2. Article 4 (2) should read as follows: 
'The spraying of asbestos and other processes in 
which the permissible limit values are regularly 
exceeded, shall be prohibited.' 
2.4.3. The present draft Directive seeks to reduce the 
use of blue asbestos (crocidolite) to a minimum, as the 
Commission believes it is the most harmful variety. 
According to the draft, blue asbestos (crocidolite) may 
continue to be used for two purposes, but only on the 
basis of year-to-year authorizations from the responsible 
authorities in the Member States. 
2.4.4. In its 1980 opinion, the Committee noted that 
the Commission regarded blue asbestos (crocidolite) as 
currently the most dangerous of all varieties. In its 1979 
Study, the Committee proposed a ban on the use of blue 
asbestos (crocidolite), except where it was technically 
indispensable and proven harmless. 
2.4.5. The Committee shares the Commission's view 
that the technical need to use blue asbestos (crocidolite) is 
not as great as initially envisaged. 
2.4.6. Taking all this into account, and in view of the 
need - commented on earlier - for rigorous protection 
of workers at the workplace, where exposure is greatest, 
the Committee considers that the use of blue asbestos 
(crocidolite) should be prohibited. It suggests that the 
same transitional period as that already proposed (i.e. 
ending 31 December 1983), be observed. 
2.5. Article 5 
Instead of having 'access to the notification' as provided 
for in Article 5 (1) worker representatives in the 
undertaking or establishment should receive a copy of the 
notification. Furthermore, the relevant authority should 
be required to consult the worker representatives in 
doubtful cases. 
The list of activities covered by the notification system 
should include the mining of asbestos. 
2.6. Article 6 
Demolition work should be covered by a separate 
Article. 
2.7. Article 7 
Information and guidance should be provided in order to 
remove the impression that the risk of lung cancer is 
No C 310 / 46 Official Journal of the 
abolished simply by not smoking at the workplace. The 
synergic effect which smoking has on the development of 
lung cancer among those working in the asbestos industry 
must be continuously stressed. 
2.8. Article 8 
2.8.1. The Committee endorses the provisions 
specifying that the sampling of asbestos is to be planned 
and carried out regularly and that it is to be representative 
of worker exposure. By and large, the Committee 
considers that the provisions governing the minimum 
standards for compliance with the Directive and the 
comparability of results are adequate. The methods of 
sampling and analysis should, however, be spelled out in 
greater detail, preferably in an Annex to the Directive. 
Special attention should be given to their standardization. 
New methods of analysis based on electron microscopy 
must be developed as quickly as possible, so as to provide 
more refined methods of control than those currently 
afforded by the optical microscope. 
2.8.2. The Committee, however, has strong 
reservations about the assumption made in point 9 of this 
Article, that, in the case of a mixture containing blue 
asbestos (crocidolite), the percentage of blue asbestos 
(crocidolite) in the air can be taken to be equivalent to the 
percentage of blue asbestos (crocidolite) in the 
mixture. 
2.9. Articles 9 and 10 
The proposed limit values should be reduced immediately 
by a factor of two, in view of the dangerous carcinogenic 
properties of asbestos and the fact that these limits do not 
offer any certainty. 
As far as white and brown asbestos (chrysotile and 
amosite) are concerned, these new limit values should 
then gradually be reduced further. 
2.10. Article 11 
The Directive should include an Article on the right of 
workers to stop work, if they have justified grounds for 
suspecting that there is an immediate, serious threat to 
their life or health. 
In this connection the Committee would refer to the 
International Labour Organization's new Convention 
and Recommendation on health and safety at work, 
adopted at the 67th session of the International Labour 
Conference in June 1981. 
2.11. Article 12 
Under (b) personal protective equipment is to be made 
available and worn only when the limit values laid down uropean Communities 30. 11. 81 
in Article 9 are exceeded. This evidently overlooks the 
fact that even when the limit values are adhered to, several 
million fibres can be inhaled by workers per working day. 
Accordingly personal protective equipment should also 
be supplied when the limit values are adhered to, because 
there is always a danger of exposure to asbestos dust 
causing cancer. 
2.12. Article 13 
A provision should be added, placing an obligation on the 
employer to notify workers and their representatives 
immediately if any defects are detected in the protective 
equipment. 
2.13. Article 14 
Medical record keeping and medical surveillance of, for 
example, asbestos workers could be greatly improved by 
setting up a comprehensive European cancer register, 
which would provide a factual profile of health and 
mortality rates of workers in hazardous industries. The 
register should extend not only to present staff, whether 
permanent or provided by subcontractors, but also to 
former employees who have moved to other occupations. 
The files should be kept for a minimum period of 40 years 
following termination of the asbestos-related 
employment. The value of such a register would clearly be 
greatly enhanced if it differentiated between different 
occupations. 
2.14. Article 15 
It should be stated with regard to the first sentence of 
Article 15(1) that the inhaling of asbestos fibres is never 
anything but a contra-indicated risk. Therefore, greater 
emphasis should be placed on the existence of health 
restrictions, as indicated'indirectly by (b). 
2.15. Article 16 
The Committee can accept the term 'protective clothing', 
provided the text makes clear that it covers protective 
means other than just clothes. 
2.16. Article 17 
2.16.1. Workers should receive all necessary 
information on the dangers of asbestos at the workplace. 
The information should be provided both orally and in 
writing and should be visibly displayed to each worker at 
the workplace. 
2.16.2. Asbestos products should be marked not only 
to show that they contain asbestos but also to indicate 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/47 
that exposure to asbestos may cause cancer. These 
indications must remain legible for the entire life of the 
products. 
2.17. Article 18 
Paragraph 1 does not make much sense. It is not clear how 
it is to be established that certain sickness absences are 
due to asbestos exposure. 2.18. Annex 
The information to be submitted by applicants seeking 
authorization should be expanded in several respects. 
Paragraph 2 should include information on the flow of 
production and on the further processing of the product. 
Paragraph 6 should not be confined to blue asbestos 
(crocidolite) but should cover all varieties. 
Done at Brussels, 24 September 1981. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments were rejected in the course of the discussions: 
Page 45, para. 1.13. 
Add the following text: 
'. . . but it recommends that the Commission be asked to give a clearer definition of what is to be 
understood by "exposure".' 
Reasons: 
In order to be able to apply these rules correctly the managers of firms will have to know exactly who is 
subject to exposure and who is not. The present definition is not clear on this point. 
Result of the vote: 
For: 42, against: 61, abstentions: 8. 
Page 45, point 2.4.1. 
Delete sentence 4. 
Reasons 
It is not possible to conclude from the ILO Convention and ILO Recommendation quoted in the opinion 
that substitutes should be issued in all cases even when there is no emission. Substitutes can only be 
mandatory where dust is a potential hazard. 
Result of the vote: 
For: 43, against: 62, abstentions: 12. 
No C 310/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 81 
Page 45 - Point 2.4.1. 
Delete sentence 5. 
Reasons: 
The Committee has no conclusive evidence of the effects of substitution on jobs. 
Result of the vote: 
For: 45, against: 58, abstentions: 5. 
Page 45 - Point 2.4.3. 
The following new paragraph to be inserted: 
'The Committee believes that the authorization should run for at least two years.' 
Reasons: 
Industry needs more time to plan. The year-to-year authorization proposed in the Commission's draft 
Directive is too short. 
Result of the vote: 
For: 52, against: 60, abstentions: 7. 
Page 45, para. 2.4.6. 
Amend to read as follows from the third line: 
'. . . where exposure is greatest, the Committee proposes that the use of blue asbestos (crocidolite) be 
prohibited except in cases where this use is unquestionably a technical necessity. It suggests . . .' 
Reasons: 
The proposed wording corresponds basically to that of the Committee opinion of October 1980 on the 
proposal for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time Directive No 76/769/EEC on the 
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to 
restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations. There are no new 
findings that would justify a change in the attitude on this point at the present time. 
Result of the vote: 
For: 58, against: 62, abstentions: 2. 
Page 46 - point 2.9. (Articles 9 and 10) 
Delete the remarks on Articles 9 and 10 and replace them with the following: 
'Article 9 (1) of the Commission proposal should be deleted and a single limit value for concentrations 
of asbestos fibres in the air at work set for all types of asbestos. 
The Committee is of the view that the limit value laid down in Article 9 (2) should be set at 2 • 0 fibres 
per cm3.' 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/49 
Reasons: 
Article 9 (I): Scientists cannot agree about whether crocidolite is potentially more harmful. Crocidolite is 
needed by, and is essential to, modern technology. A single limit value avoids any discrimination. 
Article 9 (2): The limit value of 2- 0 fibres per cm3 is the same as that laid down by American hygienists 
(ACGIH), which in turn is based on recent experimental research. 
There is no scientific justification at all for cutting the limit value by half (from 2 • 0 fibres per cm' to 1-0 
fibre per cm3). Limit values laid down by the ACGIH are based on (a) totally reliable findings from the field 
of industry and (b) data from experimental research on man and animals. The ACGIH limit should 
therefore not be changed, and certainly not cut by half, unless there is scientific justification for it. 
The limit values laid down in Article 10 should likewise be adjusted in view of the lack of adequate scientific 
evidence - something which the Section is aware of from the Explanatory Memorandum introducing the 
draft Directive. 
Reducing the limit value by a factor of two would require a technology that it not at present available, nor 
will be so in the foreseeable future. A cut would have serious consequences for industry (e.g. the automobile 
and chemical industries) and for jobs in general. 
Result of the vote (on Article 9 (1)): 
For: 42, against: 70, abstentions: 4. 
Result of the vote (on Article 9 (2)): 
For: 42, against: 71, abstentions: 6. 
Page 46 - Point 2.16.2. 
The Committee has come out in favour of adding an indication that asbestos may cause cancer to the 
marking 'contains asbestos' provided for in Article 17 (2). 
This addition should be dropped. 
Reasons: 
It is not logical to require this warning for asbestos, which presents a much lower cancer risk than, for 
example, that to which a cigarette smoker is exposed. Cigarettes do not, however, carry such a 
warning. 
Furthermore, in practically all the Member States there is already a 'label' whose form and text are already 
standardized. 
Result of the vote: 
For: 42, against: 73, abstentions: 4.