Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Asbestos'
Date: 1999-03-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: asbestos, health risk, occupational health, occupational safety, public health, substitute product

C 138/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Asbestos’

(1999/C 138/09)

On 19 and 20 March 1997 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of
Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on ‘Asbestos’.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs, and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 March 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Etty.

At its 362nd plenary session (meeting of 24 March 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 55 votes in favour and 9 votes against, with 13 abstentions.

1.

Introductory remarks

1.1.
Asbestos has already been recognized by the EU for
many years as a proven human carcinogen. Relevant EU
legislation is in place since 1983.

The Committee has,

in several earlier Opinions on
1.2.
asbestos — and asbestos related EU legislation, endorsed the
Commission’s view that all types of asbestos are carcinogenic.
It has also maintained that ‘it is not possible to lay down “safe”
exposure levels for the harmful properties of asbestos (...). Even
a very low dose can cause cancer. Therefore, the only truly
“safe” solution is to ban asbestos. The limit values laid down
for asbestos (...) 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) New scientific findings have been followed systemati-
cally by stricter limit values.

1.3. Most of the serious, mainly deadly, illnesses caused by
asbestos (a/o. different forms of cancer, asbestosis) become
manifest only many years (5 - 10 or more) after first exposure.
Despite protective legislation in the past decades, scientifically
based forecasts for the occurrence of asbestos-related diseases
are still alarming. For instance, a recent study commissioned
by the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment states
that in the next 35 years 40 000 asbestos-related diseases will
be diagnosed in the Netherlands. In the period 1945-1995, it
is estimated, some 10 000 people have been exposed to
asbestos in factories in the Netherlands, working with raw
asbestos. Furthermore, some 330 000 people have been
exposed to asbestos by handling and working with materials
and products containing asbestos. 19 000 cases of pleural

mesothelioma are expected, and 19 000 of asbestos-related
lung cancer (2). In a very recent publication Dr J. Peto, a leading
expert, has forecasted that a quarter of a million individuals
will die of asbestos-related mesothelioma in Western Europe
over the next 35 years. Peto’s study focused on six countries:
Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and
Switzerland (3).

1.4.
In the EU, only two of the three commercially used
asbestos fibres (blue and brown asbestos) and the products
containing them are completely banned since January 1986.
White asbestos (chrysotile) is prohibited in fourteen product
categories, but it is still used in asbestos cement products (e.g.
drain pipes, roofing materials, wall claddings — some 85 % of
use volume), friction materials (9 %), textiles, seals and gaskets
(6 %) and in a few very specialized applications as medical
filters.

Nine Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Fin-
1.5.
land, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden) have
now imposed a ban (with exceptions) on the first use
(production, transformation, sale, importation and marketing)
of asbestos.
Ireland and Luxembourg support a ban in
principle. The Government of the UK is presently engaged in
consultations about the introduction of a ban. The Govern-
ments of Greece, Portugal and Spain, countries which have
important asbestos cement industries, still support the status
quo. They say that they do not accept the scientific reasons
underlying the position of the other Member States and point
to the adverse economic effects of a ban.

In addition to the risks for workers and consumers,
1.6.
related to the first use of asbestos, there is exposure of
workers and the general public in the EU to existing asbestos,
particularly in buildings, by demolition, maintenance, repair,
and electrical and plumbing work. There is EU legislation in
place pertaining to these situations and activities.

(1) ‘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’, in: OJ C 310, 30.11.1981, p. 44, para. 1.9,
repeated in the Committee’s ‘Opinion on the proposal for a
Council Directive amending Directive 83/477/EEC on the protec-
tion of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at
work’ in OJ C 332, 31.12.1990, p. 162.

(2) A. Burdorf et al Schatting van asbest-gerelateerde ziekten in de periode
1996-2030 door beroepsmatige blootstelling in het verleden, Den
Haag, maart 1997.

(3) British Journal of Cancer, vol. 79 (3/4). The number of lung
cancer deaths caused by asbestos is at least similar to the number
of mesotheliomas. So the total number of asbestos-related deaths
in Western Europe over the next 35 years is likely to be more
than 500 000.

18.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 138/25

1.7.
Finally, there is the serious problem of environmental
pollution (air, water) by waste containing asbestos (from
asbestos industries and demolition) used for the maintenance
of (countryside) roads, and by corrosion of asbestos cement
pipes. Relevant EU legislation exists also in this field.

2. Motivation for this own-initiative opinion

2.1.
There is ever overwhelming scientific proof of the
harmful, and often fatal, effects of exposure to asbestos
(including white asbestos).

2.2.
It must be feared that existing EU legislation and
enforcement do not sufficiently protect workers and the
general public. First, there is the fundamental point, made
earlier, that it is not possible to lay down safe exposure levels
for the harmful properties of asbestos. Secondly, experts think
that it is difficult in many cases to control exposure of workers
and others who handle or use asbestos or products containing
asbestos. Limit values set by EU legislation may often be
exceeded.

2.3.
The Committee is also of the opinion that the current
derogations are far too wide, and allow the unnecessary
importation and use of white asbestos, either where there is
no need for the use of asbestos at all, or where safer substitutes
are available. It is aware that in many cases only few Member
States are still using these derogations, which suggests that if
they had been needed at one stage — and some Member States
used them initially — this is no longer the case.

Of more concern, however, is that such derogations
2.3.1.
should only exist where there are no comparable alternatives
available. Since in almost all cases such alternatives do exist,
we are left with a peculiar situation whereby the derogations
should not be needed, but are in practice used to a greater or
lesser degree (in one case, a Member State has a specific
derogation but has used it only eight times). The Committee
thinks that, where suitable alternatives exist, derogations are
superfluous and should be abandoned.

2.3.2.
The Committee is also concerned that the science
used to determine whether derogations should be allowed has
been flawed in that it has dealt only with the manufacture and
initial use of such products containing asbestos, rather than
their use after time, when they are being worked on or are
decaying. Throughout the EU materials containing asbestos,
which are indeed safe when in perfect condition, are crumbling
and releasing fibres into the working and wider environment,
whether they are being consciously disturbed or not.

2.4.
The present situation in the EU, with nine Member
States now in favour of a ban on the first use of asbestos,
means that there is a clear qualified majority for an EU banning
policy for white asbestos.

2.5.
Industry has made significant progress in the develop-
ment of regulated alternatives to asbestos judged to be safer (1).
Studies done for the European Commission have shown that
there are now, for practically all uses of white asbestos,
substitutes available which are considered to be less dangerous
than the latter, such as polyvinylalcohol fibre, cellulose and
p-aramid (2).

2.6.
The Committee, taking these points into account, is
pleased that the Commission has announced that it intends to
prohibit the first use of white asbestos in the very near future.
there will only be a very limited number of
Allegedly,
derogations from this ban. The instrument will take the
form of an amendment to Annex 1 of ‘Council 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 (asbestos)’. It will include pro-
visions for transitional periods.

2.6.1.
Obviously, a ban on the first use of white asbestos
will have important repercussions for the asbestos cement
industries in Greece, Portugal and Spain. The Committee
wishes to express its views on the matter.

2.7.
The Social Affairs Council of 7 April 1998 asked for a
strengthening of existing controls on the exposure of workers
totally banning or stringently
to asbestos. A Directive,
restricting the marketing and the use of asbestos, will be an
important step into the right direction. It will, however, not
touch the enormous problems created by existing asbestos in
the EU, which will remain with us for several decades to come.
These problems must, once again, be addressed.

in particular

2.8.
Another reason for the Committee to produce this
Own-Initiative Opinion is the complaint which Canada, the
world’s biggest exporter of white asbestos, has lodged against
France at the World Trade Organization (WTO) following the
French decision to ban chrysotile. The complaint targets
measures taken by France,
the Decree of
24 December 1996, with respect to the prohibition of asbestos
and products containing asbestos, including a ban on imports
of such goods. Canada alleges in its complaint (WT/DS 135)
of 28 May 1998 that these measures violate Articles 2, 3 and
5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, Article 2 of the Agreement on Techni-
cal Barriers to Trade, and Articles II, XI and XIII of GATT
1994. Canada also alleges nullification and impairment of
benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited. If
Canada would succeed with its complaint, this could have
highly undesirable consequences for relevant EU legislation.

(1) All substitute fibres are regulated under Council Directive
80/1107/EEC of 27.11.1980 on the protection of workers from
the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological
agents at work (OJ L 327, 3.12.1980) and under the Chemical
Agents Directive 94/24/EC of 7.4.1998 (OJ L 131, 5.5.1998).
(2) Environmental Resources Management (ERM) study underlying
the CSTEE (Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment) Opinion of 15.9.1998.

C 138/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.1999

2.9.
Finally, The Committee’s initiative is motivated by
concern about the situation in several, and perhaps all, of the
candidate Member States. In Central and Eastern European
countries, for a very long period, little attention has been paid
to the effects on the health of workers of exposure to asbestos.
Most probably, large quantities of products containing asbestos
have been used in building and construction. Many of the
problems referred to above will exist in these countries — and
on a large scale. According to the European Commission some
of the candidate Member States have recently started to take
legislative measures with regard to the protection of workers
against the effects of exposure to asbestos.

3. Current state of legislation in the EU Member States

(in particular with regard to derogations)

3.1.
The main derogations allowed by European law are in
terms of asbestos cement products; seals and gaskets; and
friction materials. There are many detailed derogations for
specific products in each Member State, but overall, the picture
is as follows: where a country is not mentioned there is a
general derogation for products where no suitable, safer
alternative exists — the countries referred to below have either
banned the use entirely or allow only very limited derogations.

Derogations for asbestos cement expired in 1994 or
3.2.
1995 in Germany, Italy and Austria (with the exception of
water pipes). Its use has been banned for much longer in
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Its use was
banned in France from 1997. Seven Member States still have
general derogations for asbestos cement.

3.3.
Derogations for seals and gaskets are allowed in a
number on Member States — Denmark (for combined high
pressure and high temperature conditions), Finland,
the
Netherlands (same conditions as Denmark) and Sweden (ditto)
— but have expired in Austria (1993), Germany (except for
diaphragms in chlor-alkali electrolysis in existing plants) and
Italy. Even where the derogations exist, in each case alternatives
must be used if available. Only in eight Member States does a
general exemption exist.

Derogations for

3.4.
friction materials (banned as of
1.1.1999) existed in Denmark (but only where there is no
substitute , and then only in vehicles registered before 1988),
Finland (if no comparable substitutes available), France, the
Netherlands (certain heavy transport vehicles) and Sweden
(where there is no comparable substitute), in Germany (where
they applied only to railway clutch linings) and Italy. Seven
Member States until recently had a general exemption.

4. Alternatives for asbestos

4.1.
If there are safer substitutes available, there is no need
to retain derogations (especially because many derogations
already allowed for the phased introduction of such alterna-
tives).

4.2.
Often, the ‘substitute’ for asbestos is simply not to use
the product at all or to make it without asbestos in it. Asbestos
has too readily been used as the safety solution for risks (e.g.
fire) which did not, in practice, exist. In identifying the need to
use asbestos products, the risks involved in not using those
products ought to be considered and properly evaluated.

4.3.
Thus, many roofs are built with materials containing
asbestos when there is no need, and no need to use alternatives
to asbestos either. Similarly, the need for materials containing
asbestos (or their substitutes) can be engineered out of the
buildings and processes for which asbestos or a suitable
alternative is currently considered necessary.

4.4.
The Committee is assured that there are alternative
products on the market for almost all the current uses of white
asbestos in the EU. Some differ marginally in performance
criteria, and several differ significantly in terms of price (but
the price differential in part depends on whether a ban is in
place). Substitutes are least available for asbestos seals and
gaskets used in conditions of simultaneous high pressure and
high temperature.

There are often several alternatives for a product
4.5.
containing asbestos and,
in some cases, some alternatives
are natural products (often vegetable-based) rather than the
synthetic mineral fibres which are often the focus of discussion
about asbestos substitutes.

4.6.
The Committee accepts that some of the alternatives
to asbestos, especially in terms of synthetic mineral fibres, may
well be hazardous, sometimes grievously so, and it notes what
the opinion of the DG XXIV Scientific Committee on Toxicity,
Ecotoxicity and Environment has to say on this matter. More
research should indeed be conducted into these substitutes.
The Committee welcomes the important conclusion that the
three alternative products for chrysotile, mentioned in para.
2.5 above, involve a risk which, with regard to carcinogenesis
and lung fibrosis, is likely to be lower. The Committee fully
agrees with the SCTEE’s recommendation to expand research
in the areas of toxicology and epidemiology of the substitute
fibres as well as in the technology of the development of new
thicker/less respirable fibres. It also supports the SCTEE’s call
not to relax environmental controls of substitute fibres at
workplaces.

3.5.
In addition to what the Committee has said explaining
its motives for this Opinion in para. 2.3 above, it is also
concerned about the implementation in practice of existing
European legislation. It fears that practice in the EU falls short,
and that capacity in the Member States to monitor and control
implementation is, in many cases, not sufficient.

4.7.
The Committee rejects the suggestion made by some
interested parties that, until further research has been conduc-
ted, workers should continue to be exposed to the known risks
of white asbestos. A joint meeting of Canadian and UK
scientists on 30 September 1997, organized to give the
Canadians the opportunity to present evidence on the control

18.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 138/27

of health risks of chrysotile, agreed that white asbestos can
cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis (1). In these
circumstances, the known risks should be dealt with before
dealing with the speculative risks of the other products — but
the Committee agrees that these less understood products
should be used with extreme caution.

legislation is much more detailed and strict than the standards
incorporated in Convention No 162. (It should be noted that
ILO Conventions and Recommendations are designed to
provide minimal universal standards on which to build by
countries in all stages of economic development, and not
binding commitments in terms of maximum standards which
cannot be improved upon in the national
legislation of
countries that have ratified the instruments.)

5. Relevant international instruments

5.1.
The ILO has Convention No 162 on Safety in the Use
of Asbestos (1986) and Recommendation No 172 on idem.
The Convention is about the controlled use of asbestos,
including the types already completely banned in the EU and
it allows derogations. It prohibits the use of blue asbestos and
the spraying of all forms of asbestos. The protective and
preventive measures deal with the same elements as relevant
EU legislation, but generally they have a more procedural
character and they are less strict and detailed. The same holds
for the rules prescribed for surveillance of
the working
environment and workers’ health, as well as for information
and education of workers and employers with regard to health
hazards inherent in exposure to asbestos, and for methods for
prevention and control.

5.2.
Up until now, the Convention has been ratified by 22
Member States of the ILO, among them are only five Member
States of
the EU: Belgium, Finland, Germany, Spain and
Sweden. Portugal ratified the Convention by Presidential
Decree No 56/98 of 2 December 1998; although the instru-
ment of ratification has not yet been deposited.
In the
Netherlands, Parliament gave its approval in early 1999, so
ratification will take place shortly.

This is the only specifically relevant
is of great

international
5.3.
Convention and it
importance that as many
countries as possible will become a party to it. It is unfortunate
that most EU Member States have not yet ratified it. The reason
for this is not that the Convention would conflict with existing
EU legislation, but rather that the European Commission has,
for some time, claimed exclusive competence with regard to
certain important aspects of the ILO standard setting and
implementation process in the field of safety and health.

5.4.
Ratification by all EU Member States would not only
contribute to the reputation of the ILO Convention as a major
instrument for world-wide protection of workers’ safety and
health. It would also, and more importantly, eliminate the
(false) argument, used by many developing countries, that the
simple fact
the EU Member States
are apparently capable of ratifying the Convention proves
convincingly that the standards, set by this instrument, are
excessively high and that therefore they cannot be expected to
ratify it. This is certainly not the case. As stated earlier, EU

that only a few of

(1) HSE meeting between Canadian and the UK representatives,

30.9.1997; Report issued by HSE, 12.12.1997.

6. Proposals for EU action

6.1.
As a point of principle, the Committee thinks that the
EU should introduce a total ban on the first use of all asbestos.
It welcomes, therefore, the Commission’s intention to adapt
Council 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 (asbestos) by
banning all forms of asbestos from being marketed or used.

It recognizes, that a ban without any exemption is at
6.2.
present not a realistic political option. Therefore, the Com-
mittee strongly recommends that if the EU will allow dero-
gations, these should be limited to the utmost in both scope
and time, and should not be wider that the strictest regime
existing for that particular use within the EU.

6.3.
To prevent stockpiling dangerous products, the Com-
mittee thinks that the use of products containing chrysotile
which have not been applied by the time a ban comes into
force should be prohibited at very short notice thereafter.

6.4.
As regards the economic consequences of a ban of
chrysotile asbestos for Greece, Portugal and Spain, and in
particular for the asbestos cement industry in these countries,
the Committee notes what
the Environmental Resources
Management report, commissioned by the European Com-
mission, has to say about this: a five year transition period
could provide sufficient time for adjustment of the asbestos
cement
investment in asbestos free
production technologies (thus retaining employment) and
absorption of redundant workers within local economies (2). It
also notes that the three countries will receive financial support

industry in terms of

(2) In the three countries, 13 firms are operating 15 asbestos cement
plants with in total 2 480 jobs. Indirect and induced employment
is calculated by ERM as 5 695 (statistics for the year 1997).
Products are roofing materials and pressure pipes. Greece has the
only working asbestos mine in the EU since Italy stopped its
mining operations in 1991. If Greece, Portugal and Spain will get
a transition period of 5 years, ERM estimates that slightly over
one third of the 2 480 direct jobs will be retained. Job losses in
the asbestos cement industry will be offset to a considerable
extent by the job gains which are likely to occur in companies
manufacturing PVC pipes and steel sheets. It is possible that up to
1 000 jobs could be created in these companies.

C 138/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.1999

from the EU Structural Funds in order to overcome the
employment and economic restructuring difficulties caused by
the ban, while other Member States, which have already
banned white asbestos, have had to solve these problems by
their own means.

6.5.
A total ban (or a ban with strictly limited exemption)
will require an extra effort by Member States in the field of
monitoring and control of compliance with legislation. The
Committee invites the Commission to investigate in the very
near future compliance with already existing legislation and to
move forward with proposals for measures to promote
effective compliance and enforcement measures.

6.6.
As regards demolition and maintenance, the Com-
mittee notes with concern that the occupational groups most
at risk currently are those required to work with asbestos in
repair, maintenance, refurbishment, demolition and removal.
Their exposure is often dependent on chance rather than
design, and unlike the manufacturers and installers of such
products who already suffer such high rates of fatality and
illness, the maintenance and removal workers are exposed to
less than perfect states of the materials concerned. Many of
them are self-employed. Because of the mobility of their work,
they hardly ever see a labour inspector. The health and
safety of these workers requires effective regulation of their
employers (including effective licensing and quality assess-
their working
ment), proper regulation of
conditions, and effective enforcement of such regulations,
including sufficient inspection by the public authorities. The
Committee is not satisfied with the current implementation of
the EU safety law in this regard. It requests the Commission to
cooperate closely with national authorities to improve the
situation and, if such cooperation does not lead to significant
improvement
to come forward with
proposals designed to remedy these problems.

in the near future,

the details of

6.7.
Some Member States already have registers of buildings
which contain asbestos (France, Germany, Netherlands) or
have collected relevant data. As a first step, the Commission
could study the underlying motives and experiences of these
efforts at national level and make an assessment of the practical
utility and value of a register. On this basis, the Committee
urges the Commission to examine the practicability of a
proposal for the establishment, in each Member State, of a
register of buildings and installations which contain asbestos.

6.8.
There is also need for national laws to require building
owners to develop a plan, in cooperation with occupiers, to
identify any asbestos in their buildings which, through the use
of surveys for example. would ensure that no worker has to
begin work without knowing whether there is asbestos present.

such asbestos is effectively contained, there should be a higher
priority to deal with other asbestos-containing materials in
precarious condition, where there is a significant risk that
workers or the public could be exposed to fibres. The first
priority must therefore be to remove or repair damaged
asbestos, and leave the removal of asbestos still sealed in place
until the most hazardous sources have been addressed. This
implies that, where asbestos is undisturbed, it should for the
time being not be removed, as the risks associated with such
operations can outweigh the risks of leaving the asbestos
undisturbed.

When asbestos is removed, however,
it is vital that it be
removed safely, and disposed of with proper attention to the
protection of workers and the environment. Asbestos removal
should always involve the evacuation of staff not engaged in
the removal operation; the use of permit-to-work systems
before, during and after the removal;
the licensing and
monitoring of the quality and operation of the firms engaged
in the removal; and stronger practical protective measures for
the removal workers than those for maintenance workers
outlined above.

It

6.10.
is highly desirable that effective measures be
developed to prevent resale and second use of asbestos
containing material.

6.11.
In addition to the proposal made in paragraph 6.5
above, the Committee would like to see the Commission take
new measures for reduction of the risks to workers. Proposals
should include:

— tightening of limit values for exposure;

— training,

employers,
education and information for
workers and the general public (including young people);

— obligatory investigations of the presence of asbestos by the
owners of buildings in case of demolition or maintenance;

— information campaigns on safer substitutes, active pro-

motion of the use of these by various means;

— information campaigns on the risks inherent in the use of

substitutes.

The Committee hopes and expects that the relevant services of
the Commission will be adequately equipped to cope with
these tasks.

6.12.
The Committee draws the attention to the very special
case of military personnel. It fears that existing EU legislation
does not adequately protect them, and it urges the Commission
to develop ideas which must improve that situation.

As regards removal and disposal,

the Committee
6.9.
recognizes the vast amount of asbestos in the built environ-
ment of the EU, including workplaces and dwellings. Where

The Commission should actively support research
6.13.
into the hazards for the health and safety of workers and the
general public arising from the use of substitutes for asbestos.

18.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 138/29

In some Member States,

6.14.
interesting developments
have taken place with regard to the recognition of asbestos
related diseases as occupational diseases and to compensation
schemes for the benefit of victims or their surviving family.
Mesothelioma is recognised by the EU, WHO and most
Member States as an occupational disease. Other asbestos-
related diseases are generally accepted as occupational diseases.
Some countries have registers of mesothelioma victims, but
few do the same for other cancers caused by asbestos. Against
this background, the Committee urges the Commission to
re-examine its Recommendation of 22 May 1990 to the
Member States concerning the adoption of a European Sched-
ule of Occupational Diseases to see whether or not it is
necessary to upgrade its current requirements (1).

6.15.
Recent efforts by the Member States to improve
legislation with regard to safety and health of workers have
not only resulted in stricter legal instruments, but also in the
development of ‘soft law’ and codes of conduct. Examples are
practical
‘step-by-step’ guides for the removal of asbestos
containing material from buildings, covering both technical
and occupational safety and health aspects, and developed by
employers’ and workers’ organizations at industrial branch
level. The Committee recommends that
the Commission
stimulate a similar development at European level, in addition
to legislation.

6.16.
The Committee is extremely concerned about the
possible impact of the Canadian WTO-complaint against the
banning by France of chrysotile. It is very surprised that, as
yet, there has been no public debate whatsoever about this
matter in the EU. The Committee invites the Commission to
open a debate with a critical assessment of the Canadian
complaint. It invites the Council of Ministers to issue a strong
statement of support for France.

6.17. With reference to the Committee’s 1995 Opinion on
EU/ILO-relations, it is proposed that the Commission urgently
take an initiative for co-operation with the Member States in
order to promote in the very near future ratification of ILO
Convention No 162 on Safety in the Use of Asbestos by the
10 Member States which have not yet done so. Some elements
of ILO Recommendation No 172 might be used for future
European legislation and/or soft law.

(1) In this context, also see the ESC own-initiative Opinion on

‘Occupational Medecine’, OJ C 307, 19.11.1984.

Brussels, 24 March 1999.

6.18.
The Committee thinks it logical at this point of time
and with regard to new development of European legislation
(the ban to be proposed), that the Commission take a fresh
look at its relevant environment policy instruments.

6.18.1.
One issue is the promotion of alternative tech-
nologies for treatment of waste containing asbestos. The usual
way of disposing of such waste is controlled dumping. In some
countries technologies, currently in use or under development,
are designed to treat asbestos with high temperatures or
chemical processes in order to destroy the fibres structure.
These technologies are, so far, much more expensive than
dumping. Some Member States are subsidizing research and
development for such environmental technology. The Com-
mittee thinks it important for the Commission to get involved
in this too.

The Committee also wishes to draw the Com-
6.18.2.
mission’s attention to problems related to the production of
granulated rubble, large quantities of which are used for road
foundation. This material often contains asbestos, even if strict
regulations exist for demolition. The Committee hopes that
the Commission will support research into the health risks
involved and into the development of normalized and validated
measuring methods for asbestos in demolition waste and
granulated rubble. If results would demonstrate the need for
European measures, the Committee expects the Commission
to come forward with proposals, including rules for imported
material.

6.18.3.
In several EU countries, asbestos waste has been
used for many years (and possibly is used today) for mainten-
ance of countryside roads in the vicinity of (former) asbestos
cement
factories. The Commission should encourage the
Member States to investigate the situation and to take appropri-
ate measures.

6.19.
Finally, with a view to the accession of new Member
States to the EU, the Committee wishes to draw the Com-
mission’s attention to asbestos-related problems they are
facing, and in particular to the situation in Central and Eastern
European countries. The Commission should open a discussion
with the Governments of these countries on the problems and
approaches discussed above, with a view to producing an
inventory of their asbestos related problems and relevant
existing policies. On the basis of such an inventory, certain
forms of co-operation could be developed between the EU and
the candidate members, for instance with regard to drawing
up new legislation and in particular to implementation of this
new legislation in practice.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI