No C 175/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 88 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending for the eighth time Directive 
76/769/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the 
Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous 
substances and preparations (l) 
(88/C 175/05) 
On 23 February 1988 the Council of the European Communities asked the Economic and 
Social Committee, in pursuance of Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs to prepare the work on this matter. The Section adopted its Opinion on 
5 April 1988 (rapporteur: Mr Proumens, co-rapporteurs: Mr Saiu and Mr Storie-Pugh). 
At its 255th plenary session (meeting of 27 April 1988), the Committee adopted the following 
Opinion by a unanimous vote. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The present draft Directive, which constitutes 
the eighth amendment of the 1976 Directive, has been 
prompted by the need to align a number of the national 
laws governing the products concerned. The draft 
Directive also takes account of concerns about cancer 
and the environment. 
Some of the amendments which have been proposed 
derive from Directive 83/189/EEC which provides for 
the exchange of information between the Member 
States. A particular case in point is Article 1, point 22. 
1.2. The Commission's philosophy on this subject is, 
of course, based on securing a systematic ban on all 
substances and preparations which are known and pro­
ven carcinogens, or strictly regulating their use. 
This stance does, however, make it necessary to find 
substitutes for the products in question. 
It is possible that, subject to a number of precise and 
binding restrictions, these same substances and prep­
arations may also used by persons working in a pro­
fessional capacity. Professional users are, moreover, 
afforded special protection in a number of Directives 
imposing restrictions at places of work. By the very 
nature of their qualifications these users are also able 
to take special precautions in using the substances in 
question. 
1.3. In this context the Committee asks the Com­
mission to encourage the Member States to ensure (a) 
that both supplies and trade associations have actually 
set up information procedures, in particular through 
the intermediary of training establishments and (b) 
that the precautions to be adopted in the use of these 
dangerous substances and preparations are well defined 
and well known. 
(!) OJ No C 43, 16. 2. 1988, p. 9. 1.4. The Committee thus registers its satisfaction 
with this eighth amendment whose aims are eminently 
praiseworthy, even though a number of details may 
need to be rectified by the Commission. These rectifi­
cations do, however, relate to procedural matters and 
not to matters of substance. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The text of Article 1 (3) is ambiguous. The 
Committee proposes that the second part of this point 
be amended to read as follows: 
'However, this provision shall not apply in the 
case of the marketing of: 
a) motor fuels, 
b) substances and preparations for use in 
industrial processes, 
c) waste covered by ...' 
2.2. Points 17 and 18 provide for the implementation 
at EC level of a pre-1940 agreement of the International 
Labour Organisation (ILO) to which only the US and 
the UK have failed to give their assent. At EC level this 
amendment would involve aligning the UK with the 
other Member States. 
In this context — and the same consideration applies 
to many other fields — attention should be drawn to 
the need for the Commission to insist that the Member 
States check that their national laws in all areas are in 
accordance with the specific Directives. This would not 
appear to be the case, for example, with regard to the 
present lead carbonates and sulphates in question, as 
listed in the specifications laid down by a number of 
administrations. 
4. 7. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 175/11 
2.3. As regard points 19, 20 and 21, which concern 
mercury compounds, arsenic compounds and organo-
stannic compounds, the major matter of concern is 
clearly the protection of the environment. 
Nonetheless, the use of these substances in industrial 
processes, for example vacuum or pressure processes, 
is to remain authorized, as is their use on boats of over 
25 metres in length. Smaller boats are generally of the 
pleasure boat type which are kept moored to jetties 
for very long periods and which may therefore cause 
localized pollution. 
Selling only in packagings containing at least 20 1 is one 
possible way of ensuring that private users do not break 
these rules, given that these large packagings cost some 
1 000 ECU. 
2.4. With regard to these same points, the Committee 
considers that the very general wording may cause 
problems as regards the 'export notification' procedure, 
since the relevant Regulation stipulates that reference 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1988. 
The Committee notes with interest the report from the 
Commission on the operation of the rapid information 
exchange system during the 4-year period 1984-1988, 
submitted in accordance with Article 8.2 of the Council 
Decision of 2 March 1984 (84/133/EEC); the Committee be made to the headings used in Directive 76/769/EEC 
and its subsequent amendments. 
One can understand that if the Commission was to use 
more specific terms, this would give rise to considerable 
complications, given the multitude of derived products. 
With regard to these export notification procedures, 
the Commission should therefore systematically take 
into account the restrictions set out in the right-hand 
column of the points in question. 
2.5. Point 22 concerns a new substance which has 
been recently notified to the EC authorities and which 
originates in a non-EC country. 
Provision has been made for an exemption, however, 
since a particular process is involved in which the user 
does not come into contact with the substance, of which 
there are only very slight traces in the finished product. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
also recalls that it issued an Opinion on this subject on 
26 March 198011). 
(!) OJ No C 182, 21. 7. 1980. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 84/133/EEC introducing 
a Community system for the rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use 
of consumer products 
(88/C 175/06) 
On 6 April 1988, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 235 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee for an 
Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for the preparatory work, adopted ist Opinion on 5 April 1988, in anticipation 
of the referral by the Council. The rapporteur was Mrs Williams. 
At its 255th plenary session (meeting of 27 April 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion.