EUROPÄISCHE UNION DES HANDWERKS UND DER KLEIN- UND MITTELBETRIEBE
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATON OF CRAFT, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES
UNIONE EUROPEA DELL’ ARTIGIANATO E DELLE PICCOLE E MEDIE IMPRESE
UEAPME response to the first stage consultation of the Social Partners on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and substances which are toxic for human reproduction
The European Commission has asked for the opinion of the social partners on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and substances which are toxic for human reproduction, and invites the social partners to answer 3 questions.
First of all UEAPME would like to insist on the ambiguity the Commission introduces with this consultation concerning the actions to be taken in the field of public health and the actions relating to health and safety measures at the work place.
Answer to the questions:
- Do the social partners consider it advisable to take an initiative in this area? In particular, do they think that the absence of measures in this area has an adverse impact on the protection of the safety and health of workers?
UEAPME does not consider that an initiative in this area is advisable, nor that theabsence of measures in this area has an adverse impact on the protection of the safety and health of workers.
Whilst claiming that “between 35,000 and 45,000 cancer deaths per year in the EU are due to exposures occurring in the workplace”, the consultation document does not provide any new scientific evidence as to the causes. Neither does it analyse to what extent inadequate implementation of existing legislation is a contributory factor, in which case extending or revising current legislation would have little impact. Importantly, the consultation document also neglects to consider that the positive effects of Directive 90/394 (amended in 1997 and 1999) may not yet have had enough time to be reflected in official statistics and that a significant number of the cancers attributed to occupational exposures may have been caused before the implementation of the carcinogens directive.
In the introduction to the consultation document, the Commission states that “the most common exposures at the workplace are solar radiation, environmental tobacco smoke, crystalline silica, diesel exhaust, radon decay products and wood dust”. It is very unclear from the rest of the document, however, which of these the Commission thinks should be included in the extension of the scope of the carcinogens directive. Apart from environmental tobacco smoke, none of these substances are mentioned again.
Solar radiation
UEAPME is at a loss to imagine how it is possible to establish occupational exposure limit values for solar radiation or to measure the exposure of workers to it. Replacing it with a less dangerous substance, preparation or process, ensuring that it is used in a closed system, limiting the quantities at the place of work, limiting the number of exposed workers, evacuating it at source, etc. would appear equally difficult. Distinguishing between exposure to solar radiation at the workplace and in private life would also present serious problems.
Environmental tobacco smoke
This is clearly a public health issue and therefore an area of national competence. As the consultation document points out, this issue has already been dealt with at European level in the Council recommendation on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control which provides that Member States take measures to protect from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces.
Diesel exhaust
This is a general environmental issue. Strict regulations already apply to gas reduction systems for petrol stations. Establishing OELVs strikes us – without any further reliable scientific evidence – as unnecessary.
Crystalline silica
To our knowledge, there is currently no available method for measuring exposure to crystalline silica, the establishment of occupational exposure limit values would therefore be pointless.
Reprotoxic substances
The Commission states that “significant associations were reported between impaired semen parameters and chemical exposures to metals, pesticides, ethylene glycol ethers and estrogens”. Such substances therefore fall under the scope of the Chemical agents Directive, and where they do not, reliable new scientific evidence must be provided before occupational exposure limit values can be established for them.
UEAPME also points out the need to verify the consistency of the proposals in the consultation with the REACH proposal (COM 2003/644) currently under discussion. The Commission has already stated that the classification of chemicals will change as a result of REACH. This will have direct consequences for the carcinogens directive 90/394, which is another reason why the proposals in the consultation on the carcinogens directive are premature at this stage. The final adoption of the REACH proposal will in any case require a revision of the carcinogens directive 90/394.
Furthermore it should be noted that the existing obligation of the employer in the carcinogens directive to replace or reduce dangerous substances does not correspond to the REACH principle (art. 57 §3), whereby authorisation is given if the effects are controlled or the socio-economic advantages outweigh the risk to human health.
- If so, should this initiative be taken at Community level?
No initiative at Community level in this area can be justified without new reliable scientific evidence.
- If so, do you share the Commission’s view as to how the Community should approach the problem, namely by initially encouraging Member States to take the necessary measures on a voluntary basis, or do you consider that a binding instrument is called for from the outset?
UEAPME is puzzled by this question as – apart from for tobacco smoke - there is no mention in the document of initially encouraging Member States to take any measures on a voluntary basis. Indeed, the document clearly states that “the Commission intends to propose the extension of the scope of the "Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive" to substances toxic for reproduction. In addition, it plans to propose the revision of occupational exposure limits values (OELVs) for carcinogens, listed in the Directive, and to establish OELVs for some carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants, not yet included in the Directive. Finally, it is suggested to introduce the possibility of indicative OELVs for carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances to simplify and better adapt the procedure to technical progress.”
Regarding the revision of occupational exposure limits values (OELVs) for carcinogens, listed in the Directive – the consultation document nowhere elaborates which of these it has in mind nor provides any scientific evidence for why the current OELVs are no longer adequate.
Concerning hardwood dust, UEAPME would like to bring the Commission’s attention to the counter-study produced by Wolf et al[1] to the proposal of the SCOEL to reduce the OELV for hard wood dust from 5mg/m³ to 0.5mg/m³. Whilst there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the current OELV of 5mg/m³ provides an insufficient degree of protection, an official study carried out in Germany[2] has shown that limit values of less than 5mg/m³ are technically unachievable in industrial practice and most certainly not where handcraft operations are concerned. Such a reduction in exposure limit values would have extremely severe consequences for SMEs and craft trades in the wood sector.
Regarding the establishment of OELVs for some carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants which are not yet included in the Directive, again, it is very unclear which substances the Commission intends here and UEAPME repeats its position (see answer to question 1) that no new OELVs should be established without reliable scientific evidence.
UEAPME very strongly rejects the Commission’s proposal to introduce indicative OELVs for carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances.
Such a procedure may allow a quicker reaction to new scientific findings, but it does not take account of the technical feasibility of implementing such limit values. There is therefore a serious risk for the economy of being confronted with limit values which have been decided via the comitology procedure and then transposed directly into national legislation without any form of impact assessment or feasibility study. The implementation of such legislation often requires enormous investment and creates very serious difficulties for enterprises, often leading to bankruptcy and the loss of many jobs.
As the technical feasibility of OELVs is only taken into account when establishing binding limit values, UEAPME insists that any limit values resulting from the carcinogens directive must be established via the normal legislative procedure (consultation of social partners and co-decision procedure). In this way the transparent participation of all stakeholders is guaranteed, which would not be possible in the case of the comitology process.
12 May 2004
1
[1] “Comments on the recommendation of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) for wood dust” by J. Schulze, T. Brüning, K. Donhuijsen, H. Kleine, B. Pesch, M. Raulf-Heimsoth, H.-G. Schroeder, J. Wolf, March 2003
[2] ibid