NoC34/42 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 2.2,94
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheprotectionofthehealthandsafety
ofworkersfromtherisksrelatedtochemicalagentsatwork(*)
(94/C34/15)
On14June1993,theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee
underArticle118AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforSocial,Family,EducationalandCulturalAffairs,whichwasresponsiblefor
preparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubjectadoptedtheOpinionon11November1993.
TheRapporteurwasMrEtty.
Atits310thPlenarySession(meetingof24November1993)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajoritywithtwoabstentions .
1.Introduction 1.6.Thegeneralandspecificprinciplesofprotection
inallthreetypesofagentreferredtoearlier,however,
dohavecommonfeaturesandtheformatofthepro­
posaldemonstratestheapplicationbytheCommission
oftheseprinciplesindraftingtheDirective.1.1.TheCommissionproposalispresentedasafur­
therindividualDirectiveundertheFrameworkDirec­
tiveof12June1989;thatDirectiveprovidesthebasis
fortheprotectionofthehealthandsafetyofworkers
againstrisksfromchemical,physicalandbiological
agentsatworkreflectedinaseriesofspecificDirectives.1.7.Intheintroductoryexplanatorymemorandum ,
theCommissionhasidentifiedimportantissueswhich
theproposalisintendedtosolve:
1.2.TheEconomicandSocialCommitteehascon­
tinuouslyparticipatedinthedevelopmentofthese
measures;withinthelastyearithasrecordedOpinions
ontheproposedAmendmenttotheBiologicalAgents
DirectiveandthePhysicalAgentsDirective.Thepresent
proposalonchemicalagentsis,however,morecomplex
innatureandeffectthanthoseonbiologicalandphysi­
calagentsforthreereasons:i)InlinewithArticle118AoftheEECTreatythe
proposaliscouchedingeneraltermscoveringall
chemicalagentsbecausethiswillavoidthemethod
adoptedinthepastofdealingwithindividualsub­
stancesonacase-by-casebasis,i.e.itismorecost­
effectivetoprovideageneralframework .
1.3.First,therealreadyexistseveralgeneraland
specificDirectivesonchemicalagents.Indeed,partof
theobjectiveofthepresentproposalistosimplify,
clarifyorextendtheearlierinstruments,orwhere
appropriate,repealandreplacethemmoreeffectively.ii)TheadoptionoftheDirectivewillpreventthe
unequalapplicationofminimumstandardsfor
workerprotectionindifferentMemberStatesand
sopreventdistortionofcompetition .
iii)Theprovisionsintheproposalforactiononinfor­
mationfulfilsthespecificrequirementsoftheCom­
munityCharteronBasicSocialRightsforWorkers.1.4.Second,thevolume,scopeofuseanddiversity
ofchemicalagentsisenormous,enteringvirtuallyall
areasofworkactivity.
iv)Theproposalhasbeencastasobjectivestobe
achievedratherthanasprescriptiverequirements .1.5.Third,inconsequenceofthewideuseandof
therangeofpossiblehazardouseffectsthehealthand
safetyaspectsofuseofexposuretochemicalagents
areofconcern.Whilstthemajorchemicalproduction
industriesarenotinthegroupofhighriskindustries,
thewidespreaduseofchemicalagentsrequiresthe
formulationofadequatecontrols.v)Theproposalisconsonantwithinternationally­
acceptedapproachestothecontrolofrisksfrom
chemicalagents,andwillfiteffectivelyalongside
standardsnowdevelopingaspartofthestandardiz­
ationpolicyoftheEuropeanCommunity .Inthis
way,duplication,overlaporconflictwillbeavoid­
ed:theDirectivewillprovidetheprinciples,the
standardswillprovidethetechnicalguidance. (i)OJNoC165,16.6.1993,p.4.

2.2.94 NoC34/43 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
aspectsinthewidespreadmoregeneralpresenceof
chemicalagentsintheworkplaceareadequatelyaddres­
sedintheproposal.
2.3.Theminimumrequirementsfortheprotection
ofworkersshouldbemoreclearlylinkedtothepoten­
tialrisksarisingfrom
(i)theintrinsichazardouspropertiesofthechemical
agentsaloneorincombination
(ii)thelevelofexposure1.8.Thecentralthrustoftheproposalistoensure
thatprotectionagainstriskfromchemicalagentsis
basedonaproperassessment,andthataccountistaken
oftheworkplace,theactivityandthecircumstances
sothatmeasuresareappropriatewithoutunnecessary
burdensbeingplacedonemployersandworkers.In
thiscontext,theEconomicandSocialCommittee
restatesheresomepointsgiveninitsOpinionof
23September1987ontheProposalforaCouncilDirec­
tiveamendingDirective80/1107/EEContheProtection
ofWorkersfromtheRisksrelatedtoExposureto
Chemical,PhysicalandBiologicalAgentsatWork
[COM(86)296final]whichapplyequallytothepresent
proposal:
a)Theselectionofagentsforparticularcontrol
measuresshouldbebasedon:
—theextenttowhichtheagentsareusedinthe
EuropeanCommunity ;
—theseriousnessofthehealthrisksposedbythem;
—thenumberofworkersexposedtotheagentsat
theworkplace;
b)thequestionofexposuretomixturesshouldbedealt
with.(iii)thecircumstances ofwork.
Thecurrentscopeoftheproposalnowseemssowide
astocausemisinterpretation .
2.4.TheDirectivecoversallchemicalagents.The
Committeeconsidersthatstrengtheningthelinkageof
controlmeasurestoriskassessmentwouldprovidea
basisforthelayingdownofrequirementsforthose
classifiedashazardous (forexample,asregardsspecific
protectionmeasures,healthsurveillanceandprovision
ofinformation).
2.GeneralComments 2.5.TheCommitteehasnotedaninconsistency
betweenthisproposalandthatforPhysicalAgents
currentlyindevelopment .InArticle18FinalProvisions
inthePhysicalAgentsproposaltheCommissionshall,
onthebasisofMemberStates'reportsonprogresson
implementation ,informtheEuropeanParliament,the
Council,theEconomicandSocialCommitteeandthe
AdvisoryCommitteeonSafety,HygieneandHealth
ProtectionatWork;inArticle15FinalProvisionsin
theChemicalAgentsproposaltherequirementto
informtheAdvisoryCommitteeisomitted.TheCom­
mitteehasbeeninformedthatthelegalopinionofthe
Commission isthattheAdvisoryCommitteeonSafety
HygieneandHealthProtectionatworkisnotanorgan
oftheCECandmaynotbespecifiedinaDirective;the
AdvisoryCommitteehashoweverbeenspecifiedin
Article3ofthePregnantWorkersDirective92/85.The
Committeeisconcernedthatthereshouldbeadequate
consultationwiththesocialpartnersontheimplemen­
tationoftheDirective.Thispointisfurtheraddressed
inpoint3.12ofthisOpinion.2.1.TheCommitteegenerallyconsiderstheCom­
missionproposaltobeavaluableadvanceinworker
protectionandaclarificationofregulatorycontrols,
providedthat
(i)itinnowayweakensorrestrictsorconflictswith
theeffectofestablishedhealthandsafetyDirectives
(theCommitteewelcomestheassurancesgivenby
theCommissiononthisfundamentalissue);
(ii)itisamendedtobemorerisk-assessment oriented,
inlinewithArticle6oftheframeworkDirective
89/391,recognizingthatthisshouldbethemain
determinantoftheactionsrequired.
2.2.TheCommitteeconsidersthatthesafetyaspects
aretreatedlessthoroughlythanthehealthaspects.
Thereasonwouldpartlyseemtobelessthancareful
drafting.
2.2.1.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotesthecur­
rentreviewbytheCommissionofthe'Seveso'group
ofDirectivesaimedatpreventionofmajorchemical
industrialaccidentsbutisconcernedwhethersafety2.6.Initspresentformat,thedraftDirectivemight
beconsideredtoputunnecessarybureaucraticburdens
ontheemployer.TheCommitteeconsidersthatrecord­
keepingobligationsshould
—bemorecloselylinkedtokeepinganinventoryof
chemicalagentswithinanenterprise;

NoC34/44 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 2.2.94
—includeinformationprovision; 3.3,Article3(Generalobligations)
—beconsequentuponandincluderiskassessmentin
thesenseofArticle6oftheFrameworkDirective,
TheCommitteeisconcernedthattheprotectionafford­
edbyArticle3shouldnotberestrictedbysubsequent
Articles(giventheunclearrelationshipbetween
Articles3and8,andthecontentsofArticle11).2.7.TheCommitteenotestheflexibilityoftheDirec­
tiveinaccommodating controlsonfuturechemical
developmentandtheavoidanceofneedforindividual
Directivesonindividualsubstances .Also,itnotesthe
exclusionoftheCarcinogensDirectivefromthetext.
However,itseeksinformationfromtheCommission
onthepossibilitythatotherspecialcategoriesofrisk
fromchemicalagentsmayalsorequirespecialtreat­
ment;forexample,ReproductiveHazardsfromchemi­
cals.3.3.1.Theterm'specialrisk'in3.1(c)requiresclarifi­
cation.
3.3,2.In3.1(d)the'effectivearrangements'tobe
madeshouldnotonlypertaintoaccidentsandemerg­
encies,butalsotoincidents.
2.8.TheCommissionproposalisofgreatimport­
ance,notonlyforthesafetyandhealthofworkersin
majorchemicalcompanies,butalsoforthoseinsmall
andmedium-sized enterprises .TheCommitteewould
recommendthattheCommissionshouldprovideappro­
priateguidelinesastohowtohandlesafetyandhealth
problemsflowingfromtheuseofchemicalagentsat
work.3.3.3.Extendingtheobligationin3.2onthe
employerofkeepinga'safetyandhealthdocument'
whichidentifiesanyriskatworkwouldstretchthe
scopeoftheDirectivebeyondthereasonable .TheCom­
mitteeproposesthattheCommissionlimitsitto'risks
atworkarisingfromthechemicalpropertiesofthe
agent'asspecifiedinpoint2.3above.
3.SpecificComments
3.1.Article1.13.3.3.1.ThelastparagraphofArticle3.2shouldbe
clarifiedtoreadasfollows:
Theemployershallensurethattheworkersare
informedofthecontentsofthesafetyandhealth
documentandwheneveramajoralterationatthe
workplaceleadstoachangeinthedocument.'3.1.1.InspecifyingthesubjectoftheDraftDirective,
theCommissionshouldclarifythattherisksworkers
shouldbeprotectedagainstarethoseresultingfromthe
factorslistedin2.3above.
3.2.Article2(Definitions)3.3.4.Asregardstheriskassessmentwhere,aspart
ofaprocessofauthorizationforplacingonthemarket
ofachemicalagent,aspecialevaluationconcerning
risksforusershastakenplaceearlier,thetextofthe
Directiveshouldclearlystateonwhomtheobligation
falls(firstindentof3.2).
3.3.5.Theterm'design'inthetextafterthethird
indentof3.2mightgiverisetoconfusion.Apparently,
whattheCommissionmeansbyitis'thesystemof
work'.Thetextshouldclearlystatethis.3.2.1.Thedefinitionofoccupationalexposurelevel
in2(c)requiresclarificationnotablyonthreepoints:
(i)thespecificmeaningof'occupationalexposure
level';
(ii)theeffectofthequalification 'unlessotherwise
specified';
(iii)thespecification ,legalbasisandapplicationof
'occupationalguidancevalue'.
Theparticularmeaningsof'hazard'and'risk'arecon­
sistentwithotherCECinstruments,forexamplethe
newSevesoDirective,andwithotherarticlesinthis
proposal. j
3.2.2.TheCommitteenotesthatthe'competentper­
son'definedin2(g)isnotnecessarilyalsotherespon­
sibleperson(cf.Annex2.2'Personincharge').3.3.6.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheDirective
shouldnotweighunnecessarily ontrivialrisksand
proposesthatin3.3theformulation'toachievethe
maximumdegreeofreductionofrisk'shouldbe
changedinto'toreducetheriskinfullaccordancewith
thesystemofmeasureslaiddowninArticle6ofthe
frameworkDirective,includingsubstitution ,com­
battingrisksatsource,adaptationofworkmethods
basedontechnicalprogress,andgivingcollectivepro­
tectivemeasurespriorityinpreferencetoindividual
protectionmeasures.'

2.2.94 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC34/45
TheCommitteerecommendsthatthereshouldbean
additionalArticleonsubstitutionofhazardouschemi­
calagentswithsaferones.3.3.6.1.Thelastpartof3.3shouldbeclarifiedto
readasfollows:
'...collectiveprotectionmeasuresinparticularcle­
anertechnologiesandotherorganizational and
technicalmeasures,inpreferencetoindividualpro­
tectionmeasures.'3.8.Article8(Occupationalexposurelevels)
3.4.Article4(Specificprotectionandprevention
measures)
3.4.1.InthisArticle,theproblemofconfinementof
chemicalsshouldbeaddressed .
3.4.2.Thetextfollowingthefirstindentshouldalso
mentionproceduresandtraining.
3.4.3.Thetextafterthesecondindentshouldbe
completedbytheformulation'exceptwhereessential
tothenatureoftheprocess'.3.8.1.TheCommitteethinksthattheterminology
usedinthisimportantarticleisconfusing.TheCom­
missionshouldreconsiderit.Byintroducingnewand
questionableterminology ,theCommissionproposal
mightaddtothealreadygreatpotentialforconfusion
duetotheplethoraoftermsusedinthisarea.The
legalbasisforsettingtheproposedstandardsshouldbe
clarified;similarly,theadoptionofparticularstandards
shouldhavetheirlegalandscientificbasisprecisely
defined.
3.8.2.Furthermore ,theCommitteeisconcerned
abouttheprocedureproposedforsetting'occupational
exposurelevels'(seecommentstoArticle13,
hereunder).
3.9.Article9(Healthsurveillance)3.5.Article5(Communication ,warningandalarm
systems)
3.5.1.ThethirdlineofthisArticleshouldbe
amendedto'enableassistance,escape,emergency
responses,actionsandappropriaterescueoperationsto
belaunched'.3.9.1.TheCommitteenotesthegeneralityof
Article9,andtheprocedureforMemberStatesto
informtheCommissionunderArticle15ofthetextsof
theprovisionsofnationallawtocomplywiththe
Directive;thiswillincludehealthsurveillance .The
financialimpactcalculationsinAnnexAarebasedon
averysmallnumberofchemicalsandmoreinformation
isneededonboththecostandresourceimplications
ofthehealthsurveillancerequirements ,andonthe
benefits.
3.10.Article10(Consultationandparticipationof
workers)3.6.Article6(Keepingworkersinformed)
3.6.1.Thetextafterthefirstindentof6.1must
bereformulated .Asitstandsnow'theneedsofthe
individualworker'canbeinterpretedinmanyways,
rangingfromlanguageprovisions (forthebenefitof
migrantworkers)totheprotectionofspecialrisk
groups(e.g.pregnantworkers).
3.6.2.Thetextfollowingthesecondindentof6.1
shouldbeeithergenderneutralorread'himself/herself'.
3.6.3.Inthetextafterthethirdindentof6.1the
Commissionshouldclarifywhethertheword'it'refers
to'writteninformation',to'theassessment',ortoboth.
3.6.4.TheCommitteethinksitdesirablethatinthe
MemberStatesthesamesafetysignsforthesame
substancesareused.Atpresent,forgasesdifferent
coloursarebeingusedindifferentcountries.Reference
ismadetotheSafetySignsDirective92/58.3.10.1.TheCommitteenotesthatthearrangements
tobemadebytheemployertofacilitateparticipation
ofworkers'inappraisingtheirworkplacesandinthe
establishment ofprecautions'undercertaincircum­
stancesappeartobeanextensionoftherequirements
forconsultation assetintheFrameworkDirective.
3.11.Article11(Minimumrequirementsforhealth
andsafety)
3.11.1.Thesetwoparagraphsareconfusing.Clarifi­
cationisneeded.
3.11.2.ThereferencetoArticle14inbothpara­
graphshasbeencorrectedtoArticle15.3.7.Article7(Prohibition)
3.7.1.InthisArticleonlyprohibitionandclosed
systemsarementionedassolutions.

NoC34/46 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 2.2.94
3.12.Article13(Committee) 3.16.3.Insub-paragraph 3.5,lineone,'exposureto'
shouldbeinsertedafter'measurements of'.
3.17.Annex,Paragraph4(Protectionfromabnormal
risks)3.12.1.TheCommitteeisgreatlyconcernedabout
theproposalinpoint1.
3.12.2.TheCommitteeconsidersthatwhilstthepro­
cedureforsettingguidelinevaluescanbesetbyCom­
mitteeprocedureasproposed,limitvaluesshouldbe
setbyprocedureinvolvingfullconsultationwithsocial
partners,theEconomicandSocialCommitteeandthe
EuropeanParliament .
3.12.3.Limitvaluesrequiretobesetonthebasisof
adequateconsultationonbothtechnicalandsocio­
economicaspects.
3.12.4.TheCommitteethinksthatconsultations on
questionsofthisimportanceshouldbeguaranteed .3.17.1.Thefirstsentenceofsub-paragraph 4.4.1
shouldberephrasedasfollows:
'Appropriatemeasuresshallbetakentoprevent
accumulationofhazardouschemicalagentsinthe
workplaceatmospherewhichmaypresentapoten­
tialrisktothehealthandsafetyrisktotheworker.'
3.17.2.Inthesecondsentenceofthissub-paragraph ,
'systems'shouldbereplacedby'measures'.
3.17.3.Inthefirstlineofsub-paragraph 4.4.3.
'Gases'shouldbereplacedby'substances'.3.13.Article14(Revocation)
3.13.1.Thereisanincongruityofinsertionofrefer­
enceinpoints(2)and(3)totheDirectiveonNoise(a
physicalagent)inaDirectiveonChemicalAgents,but
thisisnecessarytocompletetherevocationinpoint(1)
ofArticle14.3.18.Annex,Paragraph6(Safetyequipmentmainten­
ance)
3.18.1.Inthetext,areferenceshouldbemadeto
trainingoftheworkersconcernedforproperuseofthis
equipment .3.14.Annex,paragraph 1(Preliminarynote)
3.14.1.Amajordeficiencyinthispreliminarynote
isthatitisnotstatedwhowilldecidewhetherparticular
circumstances orrisksrequiretheapplicationofthe
requirementsoftheDirective.3.19.Annex,Paragraph7(SpecialHealthSurveillance
Measures)
3.19.1.TheCommitteeconsidersthathealthsurveil­
lanceshouldberequiredwhereitisnecessaryand
beneficialandinaccordancewithArticle14ofthe
FrameworkDirective.3.15.Annex,paragraph2(Supervisoryobligations)
3.15.1.Inthe'COMversion'thereisnosub-para­
graph2.1.
3.15.2.Thetext'atalltimesbeincharge'inpoint2.2
isunderstoodtomean'incharge'butnotnecessarily
presentatalltimes.3.20.Annex,Paragraph8(Recordkeeping)
3.20.1.Insub-paragraph 8.1thefinalpartofthelast
sentenceshouldread:'...andsuppliedtothecompetent
authorityonrequest'.
3.20.1.1.Therearesometranslationproblemscon­
cerningthisparagraphintheCommissiontext.It
shouldbenotedthattheEnglishversionistheoriginal.
3.20.2.Inregardtotherequirementforretaining
recordsforatleast40years,theCommitteerecognizes
thatretainingrelevanthealthandexposurerecordsis
valuable,forexample,forepidemiological research.3.16.Annex,paragraph3(Protectivemeasures)
3.16.1.Paragraph3.1shouldbemoreclearlybased
onriskassessment .
3.16.2.Onthepointofmonitoringdevicesthetext
goesintotoomuchdetail;itwouldbesufficientto
requirethatappropriatesafetydevicesshouldbepro­
videdaccordingtotheassessmentrecordedinthehealth
andsafetydocument .

2,2,94 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC34/47
3.21.2.Insub-paragraph 9.3'retainthelabel'should
read'remainlabelled'.Itshouldbepointedoutthat,
however,transportlabelsmaycarryquitedifferent
informationthanuserlabels(differenthazards).3.21.Annex,Paragraph9(Informationonchemical
agents)
3.21.1.Insub-paragraph 9,2,secondindent,'hazard­
ous'shouldbeinsertedbetween'other'and'chemical
agents'.
DoneatBrussels,24November1993,
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
OpinionontheCommunication fromtheCommissiononacommonpolicyonsafeseas
(94/C34/16
On24February1993theCommissiondecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee
onthecommunication fromtheCommissiononacommonpolicyonsafeseas.
TheSectionforTransportandCommunications ,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingthe
Committee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon10November1993.TheRapporteur
wasDrBredima-Savopoulou .
Atits310thPlenarySession(meetingof24November1993)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.Introduction
1.1.Seafaringhasalwaysbeenconsideredasan
inherentlydangerousactivity,althoughlesssocom­
paredtoothertransportactivities,andasoneposing
potentialriskstothemarineenvironment .1.2.However,safetyandpollutionpreventionare
notanewsubjectfortheEuropeanCommunity .The
ECCounciltackledthesesubjectsonthefollowing
occasions :
1.2.1.CouncilResolutionof25February1992on
thefutureCommunitypolicyconcerningtheprotection
ofEuropeancoastalzones;CouncilDirective92/43/
EEContheconservation ofnaturalhabitatsandof
wildfaunaandflora;CouncilResolution90/C206/01
onthepreventionofaccidentscausingmarinepollution;
CouncilResolutionof26June1978settingupanaction
programmeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesonthecon­
trolandreductionofpollutioncausedbyhydrocarbons
dischargedatsea,whichprovidesanimmediate
responsecapability;CouncilRecommendation 78/584
of19July1978ontheratificationbytheMemberStates
ofConventionsonSafetyinShipping:SOLAS1974
Convention ,MARPOL1973/1978Convention ,Con­
ventionNo147of1976ontheminimumstandardson
boardmerchantships(ILO);CouncilRecommendation
79/114of21December1978ontheratificationofthe1.1.1.Recentmarineaccidentscausingenvironmen­
talpollutiononEuropeancoastshavemovedpublic
opinioninECMemberStates.Widespreadcallsfor
improvedmaritimesafetyandpollutionstandards
withintheECarereflectedintheworkcurrentlyunder­
takenbyCommunityinstitutionsoverthisissue.Fol­
lowingtworelevantResolutionsoftheEP(on
17December1992andon21January1993)andajoint
Transport/EnvironmentMinistersCouncil(25January
1993)onshippingsafetyandpollutionprevention,the
Commissionadoptedon24February1993aCommuni­
cationon'ACommonPolicyonSafeSeas'.