Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work"
Date: 2002-02-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: World Health Organisation, asbestos, labour law, occupational health, occupational safety, working time

C 94/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.4.2002

Point 3.1

— second paragraph:

Delete the second sentence and replace with the following:

‘The Committee criticises the fact that the environmental indicators in the documents in question (total of seven) are
still inadequate.’

— third paragraph:

Delete.

Result of the vote

For: 40, against: 62, abstentions: 8.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of
workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work’

(2002/C 94/09)

On 13 September 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 January 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Etty.

At its 388th Plenary Session of 20 and 21 February 2002 (meeting of 21 February), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 62 votes to 14 with three abstentions.

0.

Introduction

0.1.
In March 1999 the Economic and Social Committee
adopted an Own-initiative Opinion on Asbestos in which,
inter alia, it called for a ban on the first use of all asbestos and
better protection for workers and self-employed who are
required to deal with asbestos in repair, maintenance, refur-
bishment, demolition and removal.

0.2.
The present Commission proposal for amendments of
Council Directive 83/477/EEC is a response to the Committee’s
call for a review of the existing legislation as well as for new
measures for reducing the risk for those exposed to asbestos
at work, as noted by the Commission in its Explanatory
Memorandum.

In 1999, the Committee expressed the hope and the
0.3.
expectation that the relevant services of the Commission
would be adequately equipped to perform the tasks identified
in the opinion. Today there seems to be reason for some
concern as regards the financial and human resources required.
In this context, mention should also, and once again, be made
of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU.

The Commission proposals testify to the continued
0.4.
interest of
the Commission for better safety and health
conditions at work, in particular in relation to asbestos. The
Committee notes, however, with regret that the Commission
seems less concerned about the unintended consequences of
the better protection of workers in the EU, such as export of
dangerous products like asbestos mined in the EU, and of
dangerous work such as the stripping of ships containing
asbestos to other parts of the world where governments
show less concern for these matters. In the latter case, the
Commission must draw the attention of Member States to
their responsibility in international organisations such as the
IMO and ILO and under the Basle Convention.

1. General remarks

The ban on marketing and use of asbestos by Com-
1.1.
mission Directive 1999/77/EC could have allowed for a
fundamentally different improvement of the protection of

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 94/41

workers and the self employed (1) from the risks related to
exposure to asbestos at work. Taking as its starting point that
products containing asbestos are no longer being manufac-
tured in the EU and that, by consequence, workers do not
need protection any longer in the pre-manufacturing and
manufacturing process apart from the single exemption to the
general prohibition (diaphragms for electrolysis), the new
instrument could have concentrated on measures to be taken
to better protect those people who are still at risk of exposure
because they have to deal with existing asbestos products in
their work, such as demolition, repair, maintenance, removal
and similar activities. Unfortunately, the present Draft Directive
does not make such a clean break. It still contains elements
which are more appropriate to an asbestos-producing environ-
ment.

1.2.
It could also have dealt with specific provisions for:
health surveillance; registration; and information and training;
the risks faced by the self-employed (1); the risks posed to
workers (and the population in general) from the second
use of products containing asbestos; and improving the
recognition of asbestos related diseases as occupational dis-
eases. These are matters which the Commission ought to
address through other legal instruments if this Directive is not
appropriate.

The proposal contains several positive elements:

1.3.
it
concentrates on workers who will be most exposed in the new
situation, it contains simplifications of certain procedures, it
introduces a reduction of limit values for exposure, require-
ments for identification of materials containing asbestos before
starting demolition or maintenance, for the provision of proof
of competence by firms engaged in this sort of work, and for
training of workers. The Draft Directive could be improved by
greater clarity as regards the mining of asbestos in the EU. It is
also noted that the Commission has not responded to the
Economic and Social Committee’s proposals on the issue of
national registers of buildings and installations containing
asbestos.

1.4.
After several amendments, the Council Directive of
1983 will become a rather complicated instrument. Therefore,
the Committee recommends codification in the near future. A
further complication is that certain provisions in the Carcino-
gens Directive also apply to the Asbestos Directive.

(1) It is noted, following the adoption of this section opinion, that
the Commission work programme of 31 January 2002 envisages
a ‘Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the health and
safety at work for the self-employed’, to be adopted in February
2002 (Art. 308).

2. Specific remarks

2.1.
The Commission should reconsider the proposed
replacement of Article 3.3, in particular the provisions regard-
ing work situations involving the removal of asbestos coating,
insulation or panelling. Instead of listing individual activities,
the exceptions set out in Article 3.3 should be defined by
means of a list of criteria. The Committee feels that Articles 4,
15 and 16 should not apply to small-scale work where a risk
assessment has established that it does not fall within the
category of high-risk activities (whereas the removal of sprayed
or loosely bound asbestos, which is very dangerous, obviously
does).

2.2.
The new notification required by Article 4 (4) must be
submitted prior to the start of the changed activities. It should
still include all the information set out in Article 4 (2) and
should in addition include information about the duration of
the demolition, repair, maintenance or removal project, as well
as on methods to be taken in order to limit exposure of
workers involved.

2.3.
Article 5 must contain a general prohibition of all
handling of products containing asbestos, with exemption
only for demolition, repair, maintenance and removal.

2.4.
The proposed new text of Article 6.5 continues to
make reference to the mining activities mentioned in the
1983 and 1991 Directives. Apparently, the Commission does
not consider mining to be included in the marketing or first
use of asbestos. The Committee thinks it has to be. The
Commission should clarify this point.

2.5.
The text of Article 7 (6), which specifies a particular
method for measurement in air, is too specific. The Committee
is concerned that some Member States believe the WHO-
system laid down in this Article might not be satisfactory and
that other methods such as the SEM-EDX method (2) should
be allowed. So as not to be too specific, the Committee

(2) The SEM-EDX (Scanning Electron Microscopy — Energy Disper-
sive X-ray Analyser) measurement system is a microscopy system
which uses a scanning electron beam to visualise the fibres and
particles. Depending on the methods/equipment used fibre shapes
down to widths of about 0,05 microns can be determined. If SEM
is fitted with the EDX system this can be used to determine
the elemental composition of fibres with widths greater than
0,2 microns. This enables the analyst to differentiate asbestos
from non-asbestos fibres, and also to determine what type of
asbestos is present.

C 94/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.4.2002

recommends that the Article be amended to allow other
methods to be used as long as they achieve at least the same
level of sensitivity as the WHO-method.

2.6.
Article 8 of the Draft Directive proposes that employers
shall ensure that no worker is exposed to an airborne
concentration of asbestos in access of 0,1 fibres per cm3 as an
8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). The Committee believes
that this is not consistent with the sort of working practices
likely in future, because the work which will expose workers
to asbestos is rarely carried out over an eight-hour day. A limit

Brussels, 21 February 2002.

of 0,1 fibres per cm3 as a 4-hour TWA, which would reduce
the exposure levels, would be preferable.

The content of training (Article 12 a) must be reviewed

2.7.
and renewed periodically.

2.8.
The competence requirement for firms engaged in
demolition or removal work, called for in Article 12 (b)
must be made more specific. The Commission should make
reference to the use of nationally-determined criteria, so that
there is a clear and concrete standard against which the ability
of the firms concerned can be judged. Governments of Member
States should develop such criteria in close consultation with
the relevant employers’ organisations and trade unions.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

During the debate, the following amendment, which received more than 25 % of the votes cast, was defeated.

Point 2.6

Delete point.

Reason

Thresholds for chemical substances encountered in the workplace are always set by reference to an 8-hour period. It
is not clear what the effect of using a shorter reference period would be. It could mean either an increase or a
reduction in the threshold of 0,1 fibres per cm3. The opinion should therefore refrain from commenting on the
threshold.

Result of the vote

For: 39, against: 40, abstentions: 7.