33. The duties in France

France is a member of the European Union and has transposed Directive 2004/37/EC into the Code du travail. The case treated here is not specifically named there either; the duties are framed without naming a specific substance. Three circumstances nevertheless distinguish France from Germany: the limit value lies five times lower than the European one, exceeding a binding VLEP brings with it the stopping of work, and the duty of investigation for asbestos expressly covers industrial installations, rail vehicles, ships and aircraft. The only published field study that describes the finding on engines under maintenance conditions by measurement comes from France and is evaluated in section 19. [5, 151]

Assessment before the activity and substitution

Article R. 4412-61 of the Code du travail requires, for every activity which may present a risk of exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substances, that the employer assess “la nature, le degré et la durée de l’exposition des travailleurs”, in order to be able to assess the risks to health and safety and to determine the protective measures. According to the account of the French institute INRS, the assessment covers all exposures that can create a risk, including absorption through the skin, and has to be renewed before every new activity and in the event of changes. This corresponds to the requirement of Directive 2004/37/EC, whose transposition in Germany is effected by section 6 of the Hazardous Substances Ordinance. [151, 154]

The ranking is the same as in Germany, but the documentation duty is framed more explicitly. Article R. 4412-67 requires, as a matter of priority, the avoidance of the risk. Where this is not possible, Article R. 4412-66 requires the replacement of the substance, the preparation or the process by less hazardous ones, “dans la mesure où cela est techniquement possible”, and records: “L’employeur consigne le résultat de ses investigations dans le document unique.” Where replacement is also not practicable, Article R. 4412-68 requires use in a closed system. A substitution check that has not been carried out or has not been documented is therefore a defect of the document unique in France and not merely an omitted measure. For high temperature insulation this means: substitute materials without alkali and alkaline earth metal oxides are available, the check can be carried out with a result, and the result belongs in the document unique. [151, 154]

Minimisation, zones, hygiene and medical surveillance

Articles R. 4412-70 to R. 4412-75 require the reduction of the risk to the lowest achievable level, the limitation of the quantities present at the workplace, the limitation of the number of exposed employees, extraction and ventilation, and the demarcation and marking of the hazard areas with restricted access. Article R. 4412-72 prohibits eating, drinking and smoking in contaminated areas and requires that the protective clothing provided is not worn outside the establishment. Articles R. 4624-22 to R. 4624-28 place exposed employees under the suivi individuel renforcé, with a pre-employment examination, an intermediate examination and periodic examinations; the dossier médical en santé au travail is kept for at least fifty years after the end of the exposure. The content coincides with sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the German TRGS 561; the retention period corresponds to the purpose of the German exposure register. [151, 154, 19]

The limit value of 0.001 mg/m³ and the consequence of exceeding it

Under Article R. 4412-149 of the Code du travail, a binding VLEP of 0.001 mg/m³ as an eight hour average and a short term value of 0.005 mg/m³ apply to chromium(VI) compounds. The French institute INRS at the same time carries the group of substances with the note “risque de pénétration percutanée” and as CMR substances. Since 17 January 2025 the European binding limit value has been 0.005 mg/m³; the French eight hour value is thus five times lower and corresponds to the Dutch value. [152, 153]

The legal consequence is framed more clearly in France than in Germany. Under Articles R. 4412-76 to R. 4412-80, compliance with a binding VLEP has to be checked at least once a year by an accredited body, and exceeding a binding VLEP brings with it the stopping of work at the workplaces concerned. Whether this value is complied with when handling chromate-containing insulation, when removing exhaust components or during overhaul inside an incineration plant is a question of measurement; section 31 describes why a general ambient air measurement does not represent the release from dust pockets and why skin contact is not captured by air measurements. With a limit value of this level and the consequence of stopping work, the weight shifts from measurement to avoidance. [151, 154]

Investigation before work begins: the named substance in six domains

For asbestos, France has a separate duty of investigation before work begins, the repérage avant travaux. Under Article L. 4412-2 and Article R. 4412-97, the person who decides on an operation in which employees may be exposed to asbestos, that is, the donneur d’ordre, the maître d’ouvrage or the owner, has the asbestos search carried out. It is “adapté à sa nature, à son périmètre et au niveau de risque qu’elle présente” and must be available at the time of the invitation to tender; the client has to commission a certified operator, to provide the documents and may not prescribe the methodology. An incomplete preliminary report does not satisfy the duty to provide information. [155, 159]

What is decisive for this analysis is the scope. Article R. 4412-97 II names six domains: immeubles bâtis, immeubles non bâtis including engineering structures and transport infrastructure, matériels roulants ferroviaires et autres matériels roulants de transport, navires, bateaux et engins flottants, aéronefs, and installations, structures ou équipements concourant à la réalisation ou à la mise en œuvre d’une activité. The corresponding orders have been published: 19 June 2019 for ships, 16 July 2019 for built real property, 13 November 2019 for rail and other vehicles, 24 December 2020 for aircraft, 22 July 2021 for installations, structures and equipment, with the main part applying from 1 July 2023, and 4 June 2024 for unbuilt real property. [155, 156]

These six domains correspond to the classes of installation and vehicle treated in this analysis: industrial installations and equipment, rail vehicles, ships, aircraft and structures. For the named substance there is a duty of investigation before work begins in those domains, which lies with the client, requires a certified operator and must be completed before the contract is awarded. For the formation of chromate on chromium-alloyed hot components there is no corresponding duty, although the same installations are affected and the compound belongs to the same hazard class. According to the account of the French labour administration, a missing or incomplete repérage carries a fine of 3,750 euros and an administrative sanction of 9,000 euros. France thus shows the same asymmetry that this analysis describes for Germany and Switzerland, and here it is developed the furthest. [155, 156, 159]

Sanctions and the faute inexcusable

Article L. 4741-1 of the Code du travail punishes an employer who, through personal fault, infringes the provisions of Books I to V and the decrees issued thereunder with a fine of 10,000 euros. The sentence that matters reads: “L’amende est appliquée autant de fois qu’il y a de travailleurs de l’entreprise concernés.” For a repeat offence, one year of imprisonment and 30,000 euros may be imposed. The sanction attaches to the infringement and multiplies with the number of employees concerned, not with the number of cases of damage. [157]

To this is added the faute inexcusable de l’employeur. According to the case law of the Cour de cassation, it is present where the employer had knowledge of the danger to which the employee was exposed or ought to have had such knowledge, “a eu ou aurait dû avoir conscience du danger”, and “n’a pas pris les mesures nécessaires pour l’en préserver”. The consequences are the increase of the pension under Article L. 452-2 of the Code de la sécurité sociale and a supplementary compensation under Articles L. 452-1 and L. 452-3. The standard of liability therefore does not turn on actual knowledge, but on having had to know. The state of the sources documented in sections 1, 2 and 16, from the patent specification to the service bulletins of the years 2019 to 2025, is precisely the material against which this standard is measured. [158]

What is present in France and what is missing

There are three French contributions on this subject: the field study by Passeron and others, in which 45.4 ng of chromium(VI) were measured on the hand after removal although gloves were worn, and in which the colorimetric rapid test came out negative at a place where the laboratory analysis detected 869 ng; the French translation of the Caterpillar bulletin, which made the subject known in the French service companies; and the initiative of Anses on chromium(III) oxide at European level. [5, 12, 129]

I have not found a publication of the INRS, of a Carsat or of the labour administration that treats the formation of chromate on insulated hot components or in combustion residues as a case in its own right. That is not a statement about whether the process occurs in French installations; the field study shows that it was measured there.

Conclusion for companies in France

The need for action is the same as in Germany; the framework is stricter in three places. The limit value is 0.001 mg/m³, compliance with it has to be demonstrated annually by an accredited body, and exceeding it leads to the stopping of work. The substitution check has to be documented in the document unique. For the named substance there is a duty of investigation in precisely those classes of installation in which chromates arise. And liability attaches to having had to know of the danger. Anyone who in France insulates, maintains or dismantles chromium-alloyed hot components therefore meets a framework that takes up the question of this analysis directly in law. [151, 152, 155, 158]