Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) COM(2007) 669 final — 007/0230 (COD)
Date: 2008-03-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Cenelec, European standard, electromagnetic interference, occupational health, occupational safety

C 204/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and
safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents
(electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Directive 89/391/EEC)

COM(2007) 669 final — 007/0230 (COD)

(2008/C 204/22)

On 21 November 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromag-
netic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 February 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Pater.

At its plenary session, held on 12 and 13 March 2008 (meeting of 12 March 2008), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 66 votes to 1 with 11 abstentions.

1. Conclusions

2. Background to the opinion

1.1
The EESC believes that the protection of workers' health
against the negative direct and indirect impact of electromag-
netic fields should be covered by the provisions of a European
directive as soon as possible. Nonetheless, taking into account
the arguments put
forward by the Commission and those
presented in this opinion, the EESC takes a positive view of the
Commission's proposal.

Simply postponing

1.2
transposition of Directive
the
2004/40/EC will not solve the problems arising from the prac-
tical
its provisions. The EESC therefore
agrees with the Commission on the need to undertake urgent
work on improving this directive.

implementation of

1.3
The EESC emphasises that the postponement by four
years of the date on which the current directive will enter into
force and the planned amendments to its content will give
workers and employers an unclear message about the Commis-
sion's legislative plans. The EESC therefore expects the Commis-
sion to take urgent action to mitigate the negative effects of this
uncertainty within the EU legal system.

2.1
The purpose of the Commission's proposal is to post-
pone by four years, until 30 April 2012, the transposition of
Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety require-
ments regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising
from physical agents (electromagnetic fields).

The main justification for the Commission's proposal is
2.2
the concern that the exposure limit values for workers laid
down in the directive may impede the development of medical
diagnosis using magnetic
imaging (MRI). The
Commission also wishes to have more time to carry out a
detailed assessment of the impact of the directive on the safety
of other categories of worker and on the development of other
sectors of the economy which use electromagnetic fields.

resonance

2.3
At the same time, the Commission has announced that it
will propose changes to Directive 2004/40/EC in connection
with the scheduled publication in 2008 and 2009 of the results
of new scientific research, including the ICNIRP (1) and WHO (2)
recommendations, which the Commission expects to propose
exposure limit values different from those currently stipulated in
the Directive.

The Commission's proposal has not been the subject of

2.4
an opinion by the European social partners.

2.5
The proposal amending Directive 2004/40/EC is the
eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16
(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC; it concerns the protection of all

1.4
The Committee recommends that the Commission take
into account in its future work the detailed comments and
proposals contained in this opinion.

(1) ICNIRP — International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection.

(2) WHO — World Health Organisation.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/111

categories of worker against the risk of exposure to electromag-
netic fields in the workplace (3). The original draft Directive (4)
was not submitted to the EESC for its opinion, as the EESC
opinion of 1993 (5) on the directive relating to the four physical
agents in the work place was considered to be sufficient for this
purpose.

2.6
Protection against excessive exposure to electromagnetic
fields currently varies significantly among the Member States —
seven countries have already informed the Commission that
they have completed the implementation of the directives in
their national law (Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia and Italy (6)); in other countries, older provisions
continue to apply (Sweden, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania,
United Kingdom, France etc.); finally, there are some countries
which lack any detailed provisions in this area (7).

3. General comments

sophisticated approach to the issue of protection against the risk
of exposure to electromagnetic fields, and take account of the
detailed comments outlined below.

The Committee notes with regret

3.4
the European
Commission has, for the first time in its history, significantly
delayed the entry into force of the provisions of a binding direc-
tive concerning minimum safety requirements for workers and
their protection against risks in the workplace.

that

The Commission's announcement

changes are
that
3.5
the directive and its call to the
needed to the contents of
Member States to halt transposition (8), effectively means the
withdrawal of the directive in its current form. Yet, formally, all
that will happen will be the postponement of the date of entry
into force. This will lead to legal inconsistencies, as the parties
concerned will receive conflicting signals as to the scope of the
action needed to limit European workers' exposure to electro-
magnetic fields. The EESC would therefore stress the importance
of establishing consistent rules as soon as possible.

3.1
Taking into account the provisions of the Framework
Directive 89/391/EC and the extensive scientific data available,
these issues clearly must be covered by a European directive in
order to ensure the appropriate protection of workers' health
taking into special consideration potential mothers against the
direct and indirect negative impact of electromagnetic fields and
their professional duties
to enable workers
correctly.

to carry out

3.6
An analysis of the provisions of Directive 2004/40/EC
carried out in a number of Member States in preparation for
transposition revealed a number of shortcomings which made
full
transposition difficult. The Committee expects the draft
version of the improved directive, which the Commission hopes
to have ready in 2009, to be submitted for its opinion, and any
comments it may make to be given serious consideration.

Nonetheless,

the arguments put
taking into account
3.2
forward by the Commission and those presented in this
opinion, the EESC takes a positive view of the Commission's
proposal.

The Committee notes that the current levels of protec-
3.7
tion for workers against the risks of exposure to electromagnetic
fields vary between individual Member States. The urgent
preparation of an improved text for the directive, providing all
workers with an appropriate level of safety during exposure to
electromagnetic fields, should be treated as a matter of priority.

3.3
The EESC agrees with the Commission that improve-
ments to the directive are urgently needed in order to ensure
practical implementation of provisions from the Directive. The
EESC believes that the improved directive should take a more

(3) Sources of electromagnetic fields in general use in various sectors of the
economy include: electrothermal
industrial appliances (induction
heaters and stoves), dielectric and resistance sealers, welding equip-
ment, electrolytic apparatus,
industrial/distribution sector electrical
power appliances, radio and TV transmitters, wireless telecommunica-
tions equipment, including cellular telephone network base stations,
radar apparatus, diagnostic and therapeutic medical equipment for use
in fields such as electrosurgery, physiotherapeutic diathermy, magnetic
resonance tomography, trans-cranial magnetic stimulation, etc.

(4) Council Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements
regarding the exposure of workers to the risk arising from physical
agents — OJ No C 77, 18.3.1993, p.77.

(5) Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to
the risk arising from physical agents — OJ No C 249, 13.9.1993, p.28.

(6) Based on information from DG Empl.
(7) Based on information from the WHO website: http://www.who.int/

docstore/peh-emf/EMFStandards/who-0102/Worldmap5.htm.

4. Specific comments

The Commission's reasons for postponing the deadline
4.1
for the transposition of the directive would appear somewhat
one-sided,
focusing on only a very small group of workers
(several hundred individuals across Europe) who are particularly
i.e. MRI equipment operators. The
exposed to such risks,
Commission does not take account of the effect of postponing

(8) IP/07/1610 of 26.10.2007.

C 204/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

action on a much larger group of workers exposed to electro-
magnetic fields used in various economic sectors (welding, elec-
trolytic equipment, transmitter aerials, power installations etc.),
at least to number in millions Europe-wide.

health caused by conditions in the workplace such as exposure
to static magnetic fields or intermediate frequency electromag-
netic fields (including exposure over many years).

The EESC emphasizes that

4.2
the
transposition deadline will not, on its own, solve the recently
identified problems, which are related to imprecise definitions.
This would be necessary to create a level playing field for both
sides of industry.

the postponement of

4.3
The EESC believes that it is important that the rules that
are laid down have a solid scientific foundation. The history of
scientific research into the effects of exposure to electromagnetic
fields dates back to the mid 20th century, giving well established
scientific background for minimum health and safety limits of
workers' exposure. The EESC therefore believes that the adop-
tion of the improved directive should be executed without a
longer delay than the four years proposed by the Commission.

The EESC believes that the European Commission should
4.4
show more initiative and independence by actively drawing up a
policy for protecting workers against excessive exposure to elec-
tromagnetic fields in the workplace (particularly, given that the
general public already enjoys such protection under Recommen-
dation 519/1999 (9)), and some countries already created the
legal systems for protection of workers against electromagnetic
fields exposure (10).

4.5
The Committee believes that, by Europe-wide consulta-
tion of scientific and legal experts and institutions, from all 27
Member States, the Commission will be able to make effective
use of their practical experience and take account of the specific
legislative solutions adopted in various regions to solve recently
identified problems which are now preventing the transposition
and effective application of Directive 2004/40/EC.

4.7
Taking into account the Commission's planned improve-
ments to Directive 2004/40/EC and its call to the Member
States to cease all work on the formal implementation of the
provisions of the Directive, published CENELEC (12) standards
should not
‘harmonisation with
Directive 2004/40/EC’ until such time as the improved text has
been drawn up. This will make it possible to maintain an appro-
priate level of consistency within the EU legal system.

include references to their

Bringing the conditions of exposure of workers into line
4.8
with the provisions of
in certain cases,
the directive may,
involve significant technical adjustments (including the replace-
ment of equipment), and the implementation of the directive by
take into
businesses should therefore,
to a certain extent,
account economic considerations. In this context,
it is worth
examining past experience of implementing the provisions of
the work equipment directive (13), which included an appro-
priate period for adapting work stations to the directive's
requirements.

From the employers' perspective, provisions on new
4.9
equipment are most urgently needed, as the cheapest and most
effective approach to the problem is for manufacturers to
produce technical solutions that reduce or completely eliminate
the risk to workers. The EESC stresses that such action also
protects from exposure persons who use such equipment for
independent economic activity and who are not
formally
covered by the employee protection provisions of the directive
(e.g. during welding work in family craft firms, or on farms).

The EESC calls on the Commission, like in its opinion of
4.6
1993 (11) to conduct research to identify the risks to workers'

(9) Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limita-
tion of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to
300 GHz) (OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

(10) The ICNIRP, referred to above, which has played an important role in
developing EU regulations in this field for many years, bases its work
on studies drawn up by a group of a dozen or so experts from 9 EU
countries, without the participation of social partners and experts
from those countries which joined the EU from 2004.

(11) Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to
the risk arising from physical agents — OJ No C 249, 13.9.1993,
p.28.

Furthermore,

4.10
the provision by manufacturers or
suppliers of documentation on the nature and extent of the elec-
tromagnetic fields generated by various appliances will,
in
future, make it possible to significantly cut the cost of assessing
the absence of any
work-related exposure risks. At present,

(12) CENELEC — European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisa-

tion.

(13) Council directive of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum
safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by
workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (89/655/EEC), as amended:
95/63/EC and 2001/45/EC.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/113

effective regulations at European level means that such docu-
mentation is often not provided. This is particularly burdensome
for SMEs, which can often ill afford to carry out professional
risk assessments.

4.11
The access to the adequate manufacturers' documenta-
tion would enable trade unions and insurance companies to
irre-
undertake various activities aimed at protecting workers,

spective of the deadline for the implementation of the directive
and its future provisions (in line with the universally recom-
mended practice of avoiding unnecessary risk, where possible).

4.12
The EESC is concerned that the postponement of the
transposition deadline may lead to new equipment entering into
service which lacks any documentation on the risks arising
during use or repair.

Brussels, 12 March 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU budget reform and future
financing

(2008/C 204/23)

On 25 September 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an own-initiative
opinion, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on

EU budget reform and future financing.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 February 2008. The rappor-
teur was Ms Florio.

At its 443rd plenary session, on 12 March 2008, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 113 votes to 18 with 15 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

Commission to clarify which instruments it intends to use in
the consultation procedure.

1.1
The radical changes of recent decades have led the Euro-
pean Union to launch a new political agenda whose priorities
include climate change, energy and immigration: new issues
requiring a rapid response. The EESC is keen to take part in the
debate opened up by the Commission on budget policy, the key
to rising to the above challenges.

1.2
The review of the European budget comes in the context
of the sensitive ratification period of the Lisbon Treaty and is
directly connected to the debate on cohesion and research
policy and the CAP ‘health check’. Moreover, the elections to the
European Parliament and the installation of the new Commis-
sion are in sight. For this reason, the EESC would stress the diffi-
culty of holding such an important debate at a time when two
major institutions are undergoing renewal. The EESC also hopes
that the governments of the 27 Member States will be prepared
to take bold strategic decisions. The Committee urges the

There is a fundamental choice to be made when shaping
system.
federalism or an intergovernmental
the arrangements for financing the budget are one

1.3
budget policy:
Clearly,
measure of the level of advancement of European integration.

1.4
Before assessing what economic resources are needed
and what methods will be used to locate them, it will be neces-
sary to ensure that the Community's policies are up to date, in
particular those that have a long history and which, despite
having had a positive impact on development and economic
growth, will need to be adjusted and bolstered if they are to
respond to the new challenges. An in-depth, courageous analysis
of the Structural Funds, cohesion funds, regional policies etc.
needs to be carried out, to analyse in particular their impact and
effectiveness in the new Member States, taking into account the
Fourth report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2007)
273 final) on which the EESC recently issued an opinion (1).

(1) See EESC opinion on the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,

CESE 1712/2007.