Directive 2004/40/EC on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)

Notes of Open Consultation Meeting

HSE, Rose Court, London
27 July 2004

This summarises the areas covered by the speakers and lists the comments and questions raised by those who were present at the consultation meeting. Where appropriate, the response made by HSE is also included. This information forms a continuing part of our consultation on the EMF Directive and will be used to assist the implementation process.

1. Introduction by Mike Shepherd.

EMFs are not a priority issue in the context of risks and hazards addressed by HSE. We have to direct our resources to those areas where there are real health and safety issues and where we can make an impact. We do not envisage any significant health benefits from this Directive and have negotiated a framework that puts minimum impact on industry. We intend to implement this directive using an appropriate ‘light touch’ approach.

2. The EMF Directive – presentation by Norman Smith

The structure of the Directive has been much improved compared with the initial text presented in December 2002. We were successful in negotiations in shaping the early drafts in order to remove what we saw as the excesses of the original proposal.
We will interpret the requirement for reducing risk to a minimum as compliance with the ELVs (commonly known as the basic restrictions).
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 8 were discussed in some detail in relation to their requirement.

3. Technical aspects of the Directive – presentation by Arwel Barrett

There was a general overview of the Directive that covered: Biological effects; Existing guidelines and legislation; Recitals No 5 and 7; Articles 4, 5 and 6; Areas of impact.

The conclusion: For those industries already complying with the NRPB Guidelines that were published in March 2004 (vol 15, No 2, 2004), the impact will be small. Dutyholders are advised to use the next few years to understand the potential for EMF exposures in workplace including a review of the sources and the establishment of any engineering controls. This should commence as soon as possible and not wait for 2008 when new regulations will come into force.

4. General Discussion

Phil Chadwick was invited to outline briefly the work that will be undertaken by CENELEC in response to a mandate issued by the European Commission. The aim is to develop assessment standards for use in the assessment of exposure to electromagnetic fields in relation to the Directive.

Recent work by CENELEC has concentrated on laboratory or point of sale standards for equipment or devices. This will now be extended to include exposure of people. The aim is to produce assessment procedures that will be as simple as possible. The main focus will be on those industries where there is the greatest need. A special group will also be established to develop guidance for the assessment of exposure to those people who have pacemakers or some other form of implanted device.

The guidance will also consider the ways to assess situations comprising multiple sources and multiple frequencies. The aim will similarly be to produce practicable, fit for purpose standards.

He predicted that there could be one general standard published in the Official Journal of the European Communities with reference to a range of other more specific supporting standards that would provide more detail. This approach has not been confirmed but any work programme would last for three to four years. Care would be taken to ensure that the work did not duplicate the work that had been done to comply with other European Directives.

Open Discussion

Implementation and Regulations

• Will the Directive be implemented in the UK earlier than April 2008? HSE said it has no plans to fast-track implementation of the Directive
• Do we know whether any Member State plans to fast-track implementation of the Directive? HSE does not know of any other Member State planning to introduce the Directive earlier than 2008.
• The intention by HSE to implement with a ‘light touch’ is welcome.
• Will articles with the CE mark comply with the new regulations?
  If the workplace contains only certain specified types of equipment, it will not require further assessment and it will be deemed that occupational exposures in that workplace will comply with Directive 2004/40/EC.
  Those specified sources include devices which have been CE marked, where (and only where) that CE marking includes an EM field assessment using one of the CENELEC product standards listed under the relevant Directive (harmonised under RTTE or LV Directive). A list of relevant harmonised standards will be included as an Appendix to the new CENELEC "umbrella" standard.
  CE marking, with these provisos, means that emissions from the equipment have been shown to be compliant with the public exposure levels of the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (1999/519/EC).
• Will there be degrees of harmonisation across Member States and is any guidance expected from the European Union? HSE said it did not expect any guidance to be produced by the EU. Arwel Barrett said that he intended to organise a meeting in the second half of 2005 for technical regulatory specialists from Member States to discuss common solutions to the more difficult issues that may arise from implementation.

Standards and measurement

• What will happen if the CENELEC standard measurement protocols are not ready by 2008? Phil Chadwick said that these are expected to be ready in time for implementation based on his experience of previous CENELEC work. If this is not the case, then other suitable technical methods can be used during the interim period.
• Assessment and measurement of electromagnetic fields is a complex process that may be beyond the capability of many companies and businesses. It is important that industry and Government work together closely during the process of implementation and that information is made freely available.
• Any information about what equipment, processes and sources that will not require detailed assessments would be useful.
• The EEF – the manufacturers’ organisation, has commissioned some survey work on EMF exposures.
• For those companies that have undertaken and continue to perform regular risk assessments, will this Directive require anything further? HSE said that for those companies carrying out risk assessments and taking account of the revised NRPB guidelines, there should not be any significant impact.
• The contact current Action Value (40 mA) is designed to avoid shock and burn but it is not clear as to what action should be taken above the Action Value. Arwel Barrett said he would pursue this question through existing liaison routes with recognised bodies.

Liaison

• Will HSE be liaising with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to assess the impact of the Directive on ships? The HSW Act applies when vessels are in dock but the MCA assumes responsibility when vessels are at sea. HSE will pursue liaison.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

• There are serious concerns amongst the medical profession about the impact on the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in clinical applications. An unnecessary imposition was being placed on the medical profession. As exposure limit values for static magnetic fields are not in the Directive, HSE said that the restrictions in the NRPB guidelines still apply and these should be used when assessing exposure to static magnetic fields.
• Those involved in MRI work are entitled to be protected from adverse effects on health.

Medical Surveillance

• Will there be any advice on medical surveillance? HSE said this will be considered further but it was more likely to put emphasis on the self-reporting of effects.

5. Next steps – how industry can work with HSE on implementation: Mike Shepherd

Mike Shepherd proposed that a small Steering or Advisory Group be convened with representation from HSE and industry. The aim was to convene a group representing the broad needs of industry in taking the process of implementation forward.

This was agreed and the following organisations indicated their intention to participate: the EEF, MCL, Construction Products Association, London Underground, Energy Distribution Networks and those with interests in the clinical use of magnetic resonance. Representation from the foundry and welding industries would also be useful.
The first meeting was expected in November.