1. Crystalline silica Developments and need for coordinated action FIEC Health and Safety Ctee – 09.03.16F

2. 2 Crystalline Silica is ubiquitous in nature : it forms 12% of the Earth crust

3. 3 Crystalline silica is present in almost all materials extracted from the soil. These materials are essential components in many products such as glass, ceramics, foundry, paints, plastics and construction products

4. Respirable fractions of Crystalline Silica harmful to the lungs. Depending on length and intensity of exposure Silicosis / lung cancer Cancer seems « second line » to silicosis Two possibly relevant frames for workers protection: Carcinogens Directive or Chemical Agents Directive So far, no EU regulation of RCS 2006, a Social Dialogue agreement (NEPSI): signatories commited to control the exposure of workers to dust and crystalline silica Alternative to hard legislation / first multilateral agreement / BUT construction workers (70% of exposed population) not covered.

5. EU Commission determined to include new list of subtances/processes under Carcinogen at Work directive Political pressure to act CAD/CMD: ‘Legal evidence’ for the Carcinogen Directive Commissioner plan: 2 waves in 2016 RCS / RCS generating processes in the 1st wave list + exposure limit value (likely 0.1 mg/m³). Revision of the Carcinogen at work directive not on the work programme of the Commission, no roadmap released, and no public consultation on impact assessment. OSH Refit is in the programme

6. 6 Applies to any employer / workplace where product containing crystalline silica /exposure Risk assessment of worker exposure (nature, degree, duration) RA renewed regularly / any change in exposure Limit access to contact area Available to authorities Risk MUST be prevented / Cascade Substitution (substance or process) Closed systems Exposure below fixed limit value AND as low as Technically possible AND …

7. 7 Limit the quantity of carcinogen at workplace Lowest possible number of workers exposed/likely exposed Lowest possible exposure duration Measurements (incl. abnormal exposures) Design work process to minimise release / Evacuation at source Collective and individual protective measures Hygiene measures (cleaning surfaces) Demarcation of areas (incl. « no-smoking ») Emergency plans Safe storage / sealed and labelled containers Safe collection and storage of wastes (sealed and labelled containers)

8. 8 Information to authorities Activites and processes carried out Quantities of substances manufactured / used Number workers exposed Preventive measures taken Protective equipment used Nature and degree of exposure Replacement Information to workers Restricted access areas in general Forbiden to eat, drink and smoke in exposure areas Appropriate special clothing provided (+ storage, washing, etc.) Sufficient training (risk, precautions, warning signs etc.) Worker representatives access to implementation List of exposed workers Crisis / accidental exposure (access to areas + crisis equipment)

9. 9 Health surveillance Details established by authorities on basis of risk assessemnt For each worker prior to exposure and at regular interval Domino effect of health abnormalities Individual medical record Archives 40 years All cancer cases notified to authorities + « Environmental » exposure (demolition, wastes, neighbourhood, etc.) ???

10. 10 As such the Carcinogen Dir. is tremendously inadequate Our impact assessment (excl. construction) 152 bn€ under CMD (25 bn € for an OEL under CAD). Regulatory haste is inadequate Need to find a sensible and proportionate path Arguments: Lack of transparency / Better Regulation (roadmap, impact assessment, proportionality) Risk assessment ongoing (threshold aspect) Social Dialog Agreement (NEPSI) under review / highlight of Junker’s Commission Actions: Interservice Letters Thyssen, Kaitainen, Timmermans, Dombrowski, Bienkowska, Sec Gen Update of Nepsi (soft legislation)

11. Construction sector so far at the margin of industry coordinated actions Obvious specificities compared to mining and manufacturing industry Strong argument for DG employ to take CMD measures (« 70% exposed population is not managed ») Contemplated CMD measures as Inadequate/catastrophic (if not more) for construction than others « Business as usual » / lack of implemenation unlikely with a carcinogen short-list High time for visible engagement Preferably join common action / letters Alternatives?

12. Contacts Florence Lumen: f.lumen@ima-europe.euf.lumen@ima-europe.eu Didier Jans: d.jans@ima-Europe.eud.jans@ima-Europe.eu