Toespraak van directeur-generaal Boereboom op het Europees Asbest Forum

Toespraak | 11-06-2015

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is my honour that the organisation asked me to speak as the first speaker on the first conference of the European Asbestos Forum.

It is certainly not the first time that a lot of people come together to discuss new knowledge and the state of affairs on asbestos in the Netherlands, or elsewhere in Europe. There are a lot of conferences, workshops, courses, and conventions on asbestos – a clear sign that it is seen as a major problem, due to its omnipresence, its horrible effects on health, and also its image in the mind of the general public.

In all of these conventions, knowledge is shared and messages are conveyed, just as we are about to do today.

So what is the 'first' of this conference?

I would say there are 2 aspects that stand out to make this a 'first'. To begin with, it is the scope of the conference. Although there is one day available and it remains to be seen how much will be achieved in this limited timeframe, a considerable effort is put in to enlightening the problem of asbestos presence in society from all different relevant angles. The focus will not only be on the health risks, and the insights on epidemiology. The focus will not only be on practices in asbestos removal, not only on innovative techniques. The focus will not only be on the position of victims of asbestos. And the focus will not only be on new knowledge on workers and occupation at risk. Instead, the focus will be on ALL of this. My hope, and I think I share that hope with all of you, is that this will lead to a broader insight in the decisions that have to be made and the goals that have to be sought.

The second aspect that makes this conference special is the distinct emphasis on the international perspective that this conference calls for. Although there may be regular sharing of knowledge between parties involved, this often is limited to a national setting in which the national approach and the national aspects are debated. Useful as those gatherings may be, it is the strong belief of the organizer of this conference that there is so much more to be learned if we extend our scope beyond the borders of our own countries. I for one must admit that I certainly recognize this rather limited 'national' horizon. The problems that we at the Ministry try to solve, call for attention on a national or regional level; therefore we focus mainly on that level. And although we may know, or feel, that there is much to be learned from the experiences abroad, there is often not enough time taken, or available, to really make a case for it. So, I do not know what exactly can be learned, but I have a strong gut feeling that the organizer could be right. And I am very curious to learn how this turns out today.

Asbestos is a worldwide problem. But it is not regarded as a problem in the whole world. While we strive to think of ways to remove asbestos from our society in a safe way, in other countries asbestos is still being extracted from mines. Especially Russia, but also China, Brazil and Kazakhstan, produce large amounts of raw asbestos. These, and other countries, like India, also use it as building material in construction. The production of asbestos and the use of it has not diminished over the last decade, it has rizen. This will lead to many new asbestos victims in those countries in the future. In the producing countries asbestos is also incorporated into products that are used in households or businesses. Some of these products even are exported to countries that have a ban on the use of asbestos. Via this route products with asbestos can once again become available on the market in these countries. Illegally, of course. For example, the Dutch Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate, was confronted with asbestos in the brakes of imported scooters. And asbestos in plates in ornamental fireplaces.

Especially chrysotile asbestos is seen as 'not hazardous' in the eyes of producing countries.

I think maybe this is a good time to shift the focus to the Dutch domain.

In 2010, the Dutch Health Council, after a thorough meta-analysis of scientific evidence, came to the conclusion that asbestos is more hazardous than was generally acknowledged before. This holds true for chrysotile asbestos as well as asbestos amphiboles. Amphiboles were even about 5 times more hazardous for health than chrysotile.

We recognise that these findings must have consequences for the protection of people that are exposed to asbestos. The occupational exposure limit for asbestos that we had, 10.000 fibres per cubic metre, was already 10 times lower than the European Asbestos Directive requires. But we set out to see if this could be lowered. We wanted an exposure limit that would mean a sufficiently low risk of getting asbestos disease. (For the aficionados of numbers: this should lead to a chance of 1 in a million exposed workers of getting asbestos disease).

This led to the reduction of the exposure limit for chrysotile to 2.000 fibres per cubic metre in 2014, and the planned reduction of the exposure limit for asbestos amphiboles of 2.000 fibres per cubic metre this year. We would prefer to set this last limit, for asbestos amphiboles, even lower.

However, the European occupational exposure limit is still 100.000 fibres per cubic meter. The Dutch Minister of Social Affairs has sent a letter to the European Commission to point out that this leads to an unacceptably high risk. The letter was sent also on behalf of the Dutch employers and workers representative. At this moment, the European scientific advisory Committee SCOEL is preparing a new advice on asbestos, which, we hope, may lead to a proposal from the European Commission to lower the European occupational exposure limit for asbestos.

However, you can set the exposure limit as low as you want, but if this does not translate into changes in asbestos removal practice, nothing is gained.

For the Dutch lower exposure limits to be achieved, new ways of asbestos removal are necessary. Ways that maximally impede emission of asbestos fibres. Innovation is necessary; the development and use of new and better working methods. To achieve this, a lot can and must be learned from the practices that are in use abroad. For Dutch companies are of course used to applying Dutch practices. And these are maybe not always the best practices available. Therefore I am glad to see sessions on the agenda, which focus on the sharing of knowledge on technological development.

I am confident that the companies present today will be interested to exchange their experiences on this topic.

I feel this confidence because you would not be here if you would not be willing to learn, if you didn’t already have this broader perspective.

There are also other choices possible. I realize that there is economic pressure to remove asbestos as cheaply as possible. Because there are strict rules, the profit by not abiding to them can be high. Unfortunately, there are companies that cannot withstand that lure. This may lead to illegal asbestos removal and with this, to very unsafe situations. This is unacceptable.

We have learned enough about the hazards of asbestos. It is heart wrenching to know that so many people have died of asbestos diseases due to exposure in the past. And to know that in the Netherlands– every year, for the coming decades! - there will be hundreds and hundreds of people losing their lives because of this exposure in the past. It is not possible to go back in time and prevent this . It is only possible to help these people, get proper treatment, give support and recognize their suffering. But, it IS possible to prevent new asbestos victims. To maximally diminish the present exposure.

That is why it is unacceptable for companies to make a mess of asbestos, remove it unprofessionally and to discard it in the environment.

This is the most important reason for the Dutch Labour Inspectorate to make asbestos top priority in its inspection programme. Preventing exposure of workers to asbestos. Because there are still risk sectors in which workers can be exposed, even if the use of asbestos has been prohibited for more than 20 years. This holds true not only for the asbestos removal sector , but also for some other sectors of industry. For example, the installation sector and the ship maintenance and repair sector.

I would like to give you an insight in the way the Dutch labour Inspectorate works.

In the Netherlands, there are strict rules about the removal of asbestos. In general, only companies with a certificate are allowed to make risk inventories for buildings with asbestos, and only companies with a certificate are allowed to remove asbestos from buildings. However, asbestos is sometimes removed by companies or persons that are not certified and are lacking the knowledge for the task. Not only does this lead to risks but it also disturbs the level playing field.

Since 2012 there is a specialized Asbestos Inspection team with specific asbestos expertise. They inspect and enforce strictly, especially on the companies that – on the basis of risk selection, need extra supervision. These inspections are aimed at the certified removal companies as well as the illegal asbestos activities. More priority has been given in the last years to better tackle illegal asbestos activities.

And, in January 2013, the Stricter Enforcement and Sanctions Act has come into force. Punishment and fines are a lot stricter than prior to 2013. Also, new instruments can be used by the Inspectorate, like the preventive shutdown of a company. The total fines given to a company that is dealing illegally with asbestos can be more than 125.000 euro’s. With fines this high, the profit that can be made from not living up to the rules, becomes less attractive.

As a last intervention, since august 2014 the names of companies that have committed a heavy offence are published on the website of the Labour Inspectorate. Not only the names are published, but also where and when the offense was committed and which rules were violated. With this transparency , parties involved have the information to make informed choices about which companies they hire to remove asbestos. Of course we hope that this is also an extra stimulant for companies to work safely.

The specialist approach and the strict enforcement seem to work. Compliance with the rules is getting better, at least in the case of certified companies. In 2012, in not more than 30% of the inspections the situation at the asbestos removal location was according to the rules. In 2013, this was already 39% and the first analysis over 2014 indicates this positive trend is continuing.

Also, there are indications that more property owners use certified companies for asbestos removal and that more asbestos removal activities are reported to the authorities, according to the rules.

However. We still think compliance should and could be better. Certified companies should deliver high-quality work. This is certainly not always the case and perhaps not even the standard. By giving stakeholders influence in how our goal-oriented rules work out in practice, we want to address them as a professional and responsible sector.

For this, I wonder, what is the attitude of asbestos removal companies towards safe and healthy working in your countries? Is it an obvious part of their routine? Is it a burden, an annoyance? Or is it something they value, try to excel in? Do they take pride in their jobs? What special education do they have? It would be interesting to hear some answers to these questions today.

Back –to –back with the strict enforcement, the Labour Inspectorate invests in communication and networks. They have developed tools to stimulate awareness of asbestos, its risks and the way these risks should be addressed. Please allow me to give 3 examples of this.

First, a 'safe-asbestos-removal' test was developed. Photo’s and films show a situation, which you have to classify as 'safe' or 'unsafe'. The tool is meant to promote health and safety at the asbestos removal site. The main message is that asbestos removal is a craft. Not something everyone can do. Demolishing is something completely different than removing asbestos. And craftsmanship means safe working methods!

Second, a film was created to promote awareness of asbestos risk, especially among workers in the installation sector.

The third example I would like to give is the development of an Asbestos App. As fraudulent companies who remove asbestos illegally will not report this to the authorities, the Inspectorate needs tips and input from local authorities and observant citizens. To support this, someone who observes demolishing or renovation activities can check if this activity is reported as asbestos removal in advance at the Labour inspectorate (as is obligatory in Dutch and European law). If not, a signal can be passed on to the Inspectorate in an easily accessible format. You can download the app via Google Play Store or the Apple Store now. In that way you can do some asbestos supervision yourself, if you decide to take a stroll in the busy streets of Amsterdam around Krasnapolsky during your coffee or lunch break today....

'Sharing makes us stronger' – is our motto today. This is what we are trying to bring into practice. The Dutch government wants to work together with stakeholders in eradicating asbestos.

There is cooperation between asbestos removal companies, laboratories, workers representatives, knowledge institutions, certifying bodies, working together on certification schemes that elaborate and clarify the rules and give provisions for sanctions to be made by the certifying bodies.

There is cooperation between national inspectorates and regional and local authorities, in order to effectively tackle illegal asbestos removal activities.

And there is cooperation between government, employers, workers, and insurance companies that has led to a scheme called 'allowance for asbestos victims'. This scheme regulates that advance payments to asbestos victims are made. It is applicable for mesothelioma patients and since last year also for patients that suffer from asbestosis. Victims who contact the Institute for Asbestos Victims and are confirmed to be suffering from mesothelioma or asbestosis receive an advance payment from the government. This is not to replace or to take over the liability of the employer. The goal is to make sure there is a swift procedure so the payment is received while the patient is still alive. The Institute furthermore mediates between employer and patient to arrange compensation. The 'allowance for asbestos victims' gives a compensation for people that are exposed to asbestos during work. There is also a similar scheme that arranges compensation for people that get mesothelioma in another way. It is applicable for family of asbestos workers that are exposed for example by washing the dirty work clothing; or for people that are exposed via asbestos in the environment.

All in all, I hope I have been able to give you some insight in the approach of the Dutch government to important aspects of asbestos policy. It is a broad field, with a lot of stakeholders, involved parties, and views from different angles. But I hope to have given you some ideas, perhaps inspiration, a question to think about, that can be addressed in the engaging subjects and talks that will follow.

I appreciate your commitment to the goal of constraining the risks of asbestos and eventually remove asbestos from our society in a healthy and safe manner; and to fight the diseases that it causes and help the patients suffering from it. For this we have to work together and inspire each other. I wish you all a very inspiring and fruitful conference.