POSITION PAPER OF UEAPME IN RESPONSE TO THE SECOND CONSULTATION OF THE
SOCIAL PARTNERS ON THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS AGAINST RISKS LINKED TO
EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS AT WORK
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Given the serious illnesses which can arise from exposure to asbestos, UEAPME fully
supports the Commission’s view that action must be taken to ensure the best possible
levels of protection for workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work.
The application of directive 83/477/EEC involved very strict prevention and protection
measures, and the legislation in certain member states already goes well beyond the
minimum requirements of this directive. Furthermore, the forthcoming generalisation of
the ban on placing products or equipment containing asbestos on the market will limit
potential exposure to rare occurrences within particular operations.
UEAPME recognises that some problems linked to asbestos exposure remain, notably in
the case of workers exposed to high concentrations of asbestos in the past, and to those
engaged in activities which expose them to asbestos fibres in certain materials and
equipment already on the market. In this regard, however, UEAPME considers it
necessary to underline the distinction between the protection of workers which lies within
the compass of the social partners, and the management of public health and
environmental problems arising from asbestos exposure, the responsibility for which rests
very definitely with the national authorities.
Nevertheless, in view of the risks arising from the presence of asbestos in equipment,
products and buildings, UEAPME regards the Commission’s advocacy of action at EUlevel as justified. However, UEAPME emphasises the importance of distinguishing
between friable and non-friable materials, and the need to target amendments to directive
83/477/EEC by identifying the sectors and activities in which workers are most at risk.
Moreover, UEAPME does not regard a reinforcement of the current legislation as a
useful step in improving worker protection. It warns against a regulatory approach to the
question which would increase the burden on small enterprises, rendering the protective
measures inapplicable, and would ultimately go against the original objective. Instead,
UEAPME urges the Commission to promote non-regulatory measures particularly
through awareness-raising, and the dissemination of quality information targeted at small
and medium enterprises.
OPINION ON THE OBJECTIVES AND CONTENT OF THE ENVISAGED PROPOSAL
Measurements, risk assessment and risk management
Whilst supporting the principle of risk assessment with a view to ensuring the highest
possible level of worker protection, UEAPME does not support a policy of systematic air
measurement. This be extremely costly for small firms without bringing any real
improvement to risk-prevention. UEAPME therefore recommends that air measurement
be limited to those cases where preliminary assessments have proved inconclusive.
Inventories
UEAPME has several remarks with regard to reinforcing the requirements for keeping
inventories of products and buildings. Firstly, whilst concurring with the Commission on
the usefulness of tightening requirements for such inventories as a protective measure,
UEAPME stresses that the requirement to undertake inventories should only apply in
cases where the equipment or buildings can be qualified as “risk” (predominantly those
containing friable material), and where demolition, asbestos-removal or maintenance
work is actually foreseen. Such inventories should also enable an assessment of the state
of degradation of the friable material. Secondly, UEAPME is against general application
of inventory requirements, which would result in unacceptable administrative burdens
and financial expenditure for businesses. Moreover, it may prove unfeasible in view of
the fact that the relevant information and documents for compiling such inventories may
no longer be available particularly in countries where asbestos has long been banned
from the market.
A second consideration on which UEAPME insists, is that a clear distinction be made
between the responsibility of the employer for the protection of the employees, and the
duty of the owner to identify the presence of asbestos in the building.
Use of specialists for demolition work
UEAPME supports the Commission’s proposal that only specialist firms should carry out
the demolition and removal of asbestos. However, we suggest that once again, it is useful
to make the distinction between friable and non-friable materials, and to apply this
condition only to cases where the demolition and removal of friable asbestos is
concerned.(WKÖ)
Reducing the limit value for occupational exposure
In view of the fact that an optimal maximum level of exposure has not been scientifically
established, UEAPME proposes a maximum limit of 0.25 fibres/cm² (UNICE’s
suggestion – WKÖ suggests 0.2), and considers that a further reduction would produce a
negative cost-benefit relationship. Furthermore it suggests that the application of limits
should be restricted to certain cases, and should depend on the provision of individual
protective equipment.
- demolition work
UEAPME supports the Commission’s position that demolition and removal of asbestos
should only be carried out by certified companies. This is already a legal requirement in
certain member states, and should therefore be generalised across the Union to ensure
fair competition, as well as to maximise worker protection.
Means of protection
The Commission suggests that the workers should have a right to choose their means of
protection. UEAPME agrees with UNICE that this choice should be left in the hands of
the employer in order that the most appropriate protection, including personal protection
equipment, be found based on the results of the risk assessment and proportionate to the
potential risks.
OTHER MEASURES ENVISAGED
Resale or re-use of materials containing asbestos
In UEAPME’s opinion, the issue of the resale or re-use of materials containing asbestos
is a question of internal market regulation which falls outside the scope of a legislative
initiative on worker protection by DG Employment and lies beyond the competence of
the European social partners within the framework of the social dialogue.
Training and information
UEAPME welcomes the Commission’s recognition that legislation is not necessarily the
most appropriate response to the protection of workers. The current legislative apparatus
at EU level, particularly the obligations resulting from the framework Directive 89/391,
already requires Member States to apply strict rules of risk prevention. Therefore,
UEAPME regards the most important task in hand, as the promotion of practical means
and instruments for implementing this legislation and raising awareness at enterprise
level.
In some Member States workers are already well-informed regarding the risks of
exposure to asbestos and the necessary protective measures through their vocational
training. However, it is clear that this level of information and training must be made
available to workers in all member states in order to reduce the risks as far as possible.
UEAPME therefore welcomes European-level initiatives to support such training.
Priority should be given to the production and dissemination of such tools as the practical
training guides to which the Commission refers in its second consultation document, or
guidelines as to the application of Directive 83/477/EEC.
NEGOTIATING PROCEDURE
UEAPME is delighted that, for the first time, the Commission has adhered to the
procedures laid down in Article 138 of the Treaty concerning the consultation of the
social partners in matters of occupational health and safety. However, not only do we
consider that the legislative framework already in place is adequate as regards the
protection of workers, but we regard the subject of asbestos-protection as overly technical
for negotiation by the social partners, and recommend therefore that it be left in the hands
of experts at the Commission. Instead the focus of the European social partners together
with the Commission and the ACSHH, should be on promoting European-level coordination and action of flanking measures such as the development of practical guides,
information and awareness-raising campaigns.
Finally, UEAPME takes this opportunity to draw attention once again, to the joint
proposals made by the social partners to the Commission, at the end of 2000, regarding
the procedure for consultation in the field of occupational health and safety, and to
request that the Commission make careful consideration of these proposals. (cf UNICE
doc)