NoC249/28 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 13.9.93
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheminimumhealthandsafetyrequire­
mentsregardingtheexposureofworkerstotherisksarisingfromphysicalagents(*)'
(93/C249/11)
On31March1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle118AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforSocial,Family,EducationalandCulturalAffairs,whichwasresponsiblefor
preparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon10June1993.The
RapporteurwasMrEtty.
Atits307thPlenarySession(meetingof30June1993)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionby92votesto48,with7abstentions .
1.Introduction missiontoprepareaproposalforaDirectiveinthe
fieldofrisksduetonoiseandvibrationandanyother
physicalagentatwork.
1.1.TheCommissionproposalfollowsonfromthe
FrameworkDirectiveof12June1989.Itcoversarange
ofexposurestophysicalagentsnotsofaraddressedin
ECDirectives,withtheexceptionofNoise,whichis
alreadythesubjectofaDirectiveinforce.2.Generalremarks
1.2.TheproposalnowbeforetheCommitteeis
intendedtocoverasubstantialpartoftherisksfrom
physicalagents,includingup-datingoftheearlierDirec­
tiveonNoise.Itcoversnoise,vibration,opticalradi­
ationandelectromagnetic fieldsandwaves.Itdoesnot
coverionizingradiationwhichhaslongbeenthesubject
ofseparatedetailedECcontrol,northenon-auditory
effectsofnoise(wheretheCommission ,asafirststep,
willprepareasupplementary Recommendation ).
Neitherdoesitcoveramongstotherthingsexposureto
compression/decompression ,heat/coldstress,orphysi­
caleffectsonthemusculoskeletal systemwhichare
attributabletoworkmethodsratherthanaspecified
agent,norforinstanceelectricalaccidents.Thedegree
ofinformationandknowledgeaboutrisksvariesamong
theagents,nowconsideredbeingmuchgreaterfor
noiseandvibrationwhicharerecognizedasserious
occupationalriskagents;neverthelesstherearerecog­
nizeddangersfromcertainopticalradiations(forexam­
pleultravioletandlaser).2.1.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheCommission
proposalisanimportantadditiontoexistingCom­
munityregulationsinthefieldofsafetyandhealthat
work,andtakesseriousnoteofthesizeoftheseparticu­
larareasofriskaffectingtensofmillionsofworkers
withintheCommunity .
2.2.Atthesametime,theCommitteenotesthegaps
in,anddisparities,betweennationalregulations.It
alsorecognizesthecomplexityofdraftingCommunity
regulationslayingdownstandardsrequiringmeasure­
mentandcompliance .Theaimistoachievecontrol
toalevelofacceptableriskdeterminedthroughthe
Communitydemocraticprocedures .
2.3.TheCommitteecanaccepttheformatchosen
bytheCommissionforthisDirective.
2.4.Asregardstheproposedlegalinstrumentfor
Noise,theCommitteecanagreewithanupdatingof
theexistingDirective86/188/EEC.Itisawareofthe
factthatsomeMemberStateshaveonlyrecently
implemented thisDirectiveandthattherefore
importantexperiencehasnotyetsufficientlybeenob­
tained.Takingintoaccounttheobligationsonthe
Counciltore-examinetheDirectivebefore1January
1994,thegreatnumberofworkersinvolvedandtechni­
calprogressmadesincetheadoptionoftheDirective,
revisionoftheexistinginstrumentsislegitimate.The
Committeenotesthattheprovisionsarespecifically
directedtotheauditorydamageeffectsofnoise,and
drawsattentiontotheinclusionofdeafnesscausedby
noiseintheCommissionRecommendation of22May
1990concerningtheadoptionofaEuropeanschedule
ofoccupationaldiseases.1.3.TheCommission haschosentheformatofa
Directiveembodyinggeneralprinciplesofriskassess­
ment,measurement ,exposurecontrol,protection,
trainingandconsultation ,andhealthsurveillance,and
hasappliedtheseprinciplestothefourAgentsinspecific
Annexes.Thissystematicapproachischoseninprefer­
encetoseparateindividualDirectives,andisincon­
formitywiththeResolutionof13September1990of
theEuropeanParliamentinwhichitinvitedtheCom­
(i)OJNoC77,18.3.1993,p.77.
/

13.9.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC249/29
2.4.1.TheCommitteenotesthattheProposalfor
Noiseconcernsairandseatransportsectors,whichare
notcoveredbytheexistingDirective86/188/EEC.This
extensionwillcertainlyhaveimportantcostimpli­
cations.However,insufficientinformationisavailable
onthepossiblefinancialimpact.Withaviewtoforth­
comingstepsinthedecision-making processregarding
thisdraftdirective,theCommitteethinksitisimportant
thattheCommissionsupplementtheirProposalwith
moreadequatecalculations .Obviously,itwillbe
necessarytoincludeinthesecalculationsthecostsfor
societyintermsofnegativeeffectsonthehealthof
workersasaconsequenceofunchangedsafetyand
healthpolicies.thatriskarisingfromexposuretophysicalagentsmust
bereducedtothelowestachievablelevel.Furthermore ,
itisnotclearinthetextoftheDirectiveifthethreshold
levelconstitutesalegalrequirementornot.
2.8.2.TheCommitteethereforerecommends the
Commission torethinktherelevantformulations .
2.9.Thisissueisthe'Leitmotiv'oftheSpecific
Remarksbelow,inwhichtheArticlesoftheDirective
andtheAnnexesparticulartoeachofthefoursections
ofPhysicalAgentsareconsidered.Itwouldalsobeof
significanceforagentswhichmightbebroughtunder
thisDirectiveinthefuture.
2.5.TheCommitteewelcomesingeneraltheCom­
missionproposalsinthedraftDirectiveregarding
vibrations,andconsidersittobeoftheutmostimport­
ancethataCommunityDirectivedealingwiththis
problembeintroduced .Adversehealtheffectsfrom
vibrationaresimilarlyincludedintheCommission
Recommendation onaEuropeanScheduleofoccu­
pationaldiseases.
2.6.TheCommitteehasexaminedsomedifficulties
relatingtotheassessmentandmeasurementandcontrol
oftheoccupationalrisksofopticalradiationandelec­
tromagneticfieldsandwaves,butconsidersitpossible
toextendsomeprotectivemeasurestoworkersinsuch
areas.Itnotesexampleswherespecificmeasuresare
required (ultra-violetradiation,lasers).Simple
measuresarealreadyavailableandpractical.Giventhe
presentlevelofknowledgeitmightbeprematureto
developinstrumentsforopticalradiationandelectro­
magneticfieldsandwavesatthispointoftime.Witha
viewtothecurrentscientificdebates,theCommittee
wishes,however,toencouragetheCommissiontocon­
tinueitsworkleadingtoformulationofrelevantprotec­
tivemeasuresinthefuture.3.Specificremarks
3.1.Article3(3)
3.1.1.TheCommissionshouldprovideguidance
regardingthegroupsatparticularrisk(e.g.intermsof
occupations).Thisshouldnotbelefttotheindividual
MemberStates.
3.1.2.Itshouldbemadeclearthatthemeasuresto
betakenforspecialriskgroupsshouldexclusivelyserve
preventionandmustnotconstituteabasisforselection
ofworkers.
3.1.3.TheCommitteeraisesthequestionofpossible
synergyeffectsfromconcurrentexposuretoaphysical
agentwithotherexposurestophysicalorchemical
agents.
3.2.Article15
3.2.1.Bothsidesofindustryshouldbeinvolvedin
theformulationoftheadditionaldocuments .
3.3.Annex1,Noise
3.3.1.Recallingitsgeneralobservation in
paragraph2.8aboveregardingthethresholdlevel,the
CommitteenotesthatitsubscribestotheCommission's
aimtoestablishalong-termobjectiveof75dB(A).
TheCommissionmight,however,rethinktherelevant
formulations asthepresentonescouldgiveriseto
confusion .
3.3.2.Asregardstheintermediatelevel,whichthe
Commissionsetat80dB(A),theCommitteethinks
thattheCommissionshouldstatemoreclearlythe
argumentsfortheproposeddecreaseoftheactuallevel
of85dB(A).
3.3.3.TheCommitteenotesthelackofinformation
onthefinancialimpactofthedecreaseoftheintermedi­
atelevelfrom85to80dB(A)onthecostsofhealth
surveillance .2.7.TheCommitteehasexaminedthegeneral
measuresproposedinSectionIIoftheproposaland
considersthattheyconformwithCommunityprinciples
forprotectionofhealthandsafetyatwork.Italso
endorsestheproposalsinSectionIIIforthedevelop­
mentofappropriatemeasuresinrespectofhealthsur­
veillance,equipmentandworkingmethodsandthe
consultationproceduresenvisagedinArticle10(and
notablyinArticle14onexemptions).
2.8.TheCommitteehasbeeninformedofthedif­
feringviewsonthespecificationoftargetlevels:a
ceilinglevelbeyondwhichexposuremustbeprevented;
athresholdleveltowardswhichtheprotectivemeasures
withintheproposedDirectiveareaimed;andanaction
bandwithinwhichspecifiedmeasureswouldachieve
reductionappropriatetothecase.
2.8.1.WhileacceptingtheCommission'sintentthat
thethresholdlevelshouldbealong-termobjective,the
CommitteealsonotesthattheDirectivealsorequires

NoC249/30 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 13.9.93
3.3.3.1.ItthinksthattheCommissionshouldexplain
whythetextonhealthsurveillanceinthisAnnexrefers
totheworker's'right'tohealthsurveillancewhileother
Annexesstatethattheworkeris'entitled'toit.Commissionhasmadefor8hours.Itappearsthatthere
isnocompellingreasonfordealingwithvibrationsin
adifferentmannerthanwithotherphysicalagents.
3.4.2.Asfaraswholebodyvibrationsisconcerned,
theCommitteethinksthatreductionofriskcan,in
mostinstances,beachievedbyergonomicprescriptions .
3.4.3.Asregardsindividualprotectionfromwhole
bodyvibrations,theCommitteenotesthatitcan,in
manycases,beachievedbyconstructionoftheseaton
machines,generallyatlowcosts.3.4.AnnexII,Vibrations
3.4.1.TheCommitteehasexaminedthearguments
proandcontraadifferentstandardmeasurefor
vibrationsandforotherphysicalagents(forinstance,
4insteadof8hours).Itcanacceptthechoicethe
DoneatBrussels,30June1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
APPENDIX
totheOpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
Thefollowingamendment,whichreceivedatleastonequarterofthevotescast,wasdefeatedduringthe
discussion .
'Omitsections1andfollowingoftheOpinionandreplaceby:
1.Introduction
1.1.TheCommissionproposal,undertheFrameworkDirective89/391/EEC,isintendedtoupdatethe
existingDirectiveonProtectionagainstNoise(86/188/EEC)and,atthesametime,incorporatethisupdating
withinaSub-framework Directivecoveringprotectionofworkersagainstriskofexposuretoanumberof
otherphysicalagents.
1.2.Theproposalcoversnoise,vibration,opticalradiation,andelectromagnetic fieldsandwaves.The
CommissionhaschosentheformatofaDirectivewhichattemptstoapplycommonprinciplestoallfour
physicalagentsselected(and,presumably,toanyfurtherphysicalagentsaddedinduecourse).These
principlesincludetheassessmentofrisk;measurement ;controlofexposure;protectivemeasures;training;
consultation ;healthsurveillance;exposurethreshold,intermediateactionlevelsaswellasamaximumlevel.
2.Generalcomments
/
*
LettherebenodoubtthattheCommitteewishesthatworkersshouldbeprotectedagainstrisksfrom
exposuretophysicalagents.
TheCommittee,however,believesthattheproposedDirectivedoesnotprovideaneffectivemeanstoachieve
this.Thereasonsforthiscanbebrieflysummarizedasfollows:
2.1.Theformatoftheproposal,attemptingtoapplyasinglesetofprinciplestofourverydifferent
physicalagents(withthepossibilityofaddingfurtheragents)isunsatisfactory .Differencesinthefour
Annexesillustratethisdifficultywhicharisesoutoftheinherentdifferencesbetweentheagentsandthevery
differentextentofknowledgeofthevariousagentsandtheireffects.
Forexample:themultiplicityofthevariouslevelsispotentiallyconfusinganddifficulttocomplywith.(Itis
significantthatasimilarproposedDirectiveontheprotectionofworkersagainstrisksofexposureto

13.9.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC249/31
ChemicalAgentslimitsitselftoonlyonecoherentgroupofchemicalagents,asfarascontrol,butnot
necessarilybanning,isconcerned,leavingchemicalssuchascarcinogensandbiologicalsubstancestobe
controlledbyseparateDirectives.)
a
i
2.2.Theproposalisnotclearlywritten,sothatitcanleadtomisunderstandings anddifferentinterpret­
ationsbydifferentauthorities.Thoseexpectedtoapplytheprovisionsinpracticefaceuncertaintiesasto
howtheyareintendedtoapplythem.
Forexample:inArticle5(1),itisnotclearwhatismeantby'exposuretophysicalagentmustbereducedto
thelowestachievablelevel';norisitclearwhatismeantbythisreductionhavingtobeto'belowthe
thresholdlevelreferredto...'.TheCommissionstatesthatthisisalongtermobjective,butthisstatementis
notsupportedinthetextoftheproposalandhas,therefore,noregulatorystatus.
2.3.TheCommitteeregretsthataninformativecostbenefitanalysishasnotbeenperformed.The
Committeebelievesthattherequirementswouldimposesubstantialcostsfordubiousimprovementinhealth
atworkandwouldhaveadisproportionately adverseeffectonsmallandmediumsizeenterpriseswhowould
requireadvicefromconsultantsonhowtotackletheimplementation oftheproposal.Inaddition,noaccount
istakenoffinancialfeasibilityinthetextofArticle5[inparticularArticle5(2)]yetthisaspectisofparamount
importanceinmanycases.
2.4.TheCommitteeisconcernedthatthisproposalisenvisagingcontrolsoncertainphysicalagentswhich
donotappeartobesupportedbyscientificevidence.
' i
3.CommentsonSpecificPartsoftheProposal(IndividualPhysicalAgents)
Thefollowingtechnicalexamplesofconcernsregardingindividualphysicalagentsincludedintheproposal
illustratethegeneralcommentsaboveandtheconclusionwhichfollows:
3.1.Noise
s
3.1.1.Directive86/188/EECspecificallyrequires,inArticle10,thattheDirectiveshallbere-examined,
'takingintoaccountinparticularprogressmadeinscientificknowledgeaswellasexperiencegainedinthe
applicationofthisDirective'.TheCommitteeisnotawareofanyreportonsuchexperiencegained;thisis
understandable ,sincetheDirectivecameintoforcerelativelyrecently,incertainMemberStatesveryrecently.
Becauseofthislackofareportonexperiencegained,notonlyistheCommissionproposingthattheCouncil
shouldactinbreachofDirective86/188/EEC,butanimportantfoundationonwhichtobasesuchareview
ismissing.
3.1.2.Thequantitativeselectionof75dB(A)forthethresholdlevelisextremelycontentious.Itis
understoodthathearinglossisverysmallevenatexposuretolevelsoftheorderof80dB(A),(includingthe
mostsensitivefractileofthepopulation )whenthecontributionofthenaturalageingprocessistakeninto
account.75dB(A),therefore,appearstobewithoutsecurefoundation .Theveryneedforthethresholdlevel
isquestionedforthisreason,andthosereferredtointhefollowingparagraph.
V
3.1.3.Thepurposeofsettingathresholdlevelisnotclearparticularlysinceittriggersnoclearlydefined
action.Bearinginmindtheproblemsmentionedaboveinparagraph2.2withreferencetoArticle5(1),ifthis
unclearlywordedparagraphisinterpretedtomeanthatexposureistobereducedtothethresholdlevel,in
particularbymeansoftechnicaland/ororganizational measuresaccordingtoArticle5(2),thencompliance
willbeinanumberofcasestechnicallynotfeasible,andwillentaildisproportionately highcostsinmanyof
thecaseswhenitistechnicallyfeasible.StatementsinAnnex1.2,confusethetextfurther,becausethey
introducethedoubtwhethertheprogrammeofreductionreferredtoinArticle5(2)istobeaimedtoreach
thethresholdof75dB(A)ortheactionlevelof85dB(A).Moreover,theuseofpersonalprotection—the
mostfrequentlyapplicableprotectionmeasure—isleftunclear.
X
3.1.4.Theproposedcreationofrestareasatverylowlevelsisproblematical inmanycases,andreduction
to60dB(A)duringsleepfrequentlyunrealistic.
3.1.5.Theproposedextensionoftheprovisionsalsotocoverairandseatransportactivitiesisboundto
haveseriouscostimplications,butnoassessmentispresentedandtheextensionisnotjustifiedbycorrespond­
ingbenefits.
3.2.Vibrations
3.2.1.Thethresholdandotherlevelsproposedareverycontentiousasregulatoryspecifications .

NoC249/32 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 13.9.93
Theirmeasurementintheworkplace,particularlyasapersonaldosageandeffect,isdifficultanduncertain,
dependingnotonlyontheequipmentproducingthevibration,butalsoonthemannerofuse,onthematerial
beingworkedandonambientcircumstances .
Applicationofregulatorylevelsisimpracticalwithoutmeaningfulmeasurement .
3.2.2.ExperienceoutsidetheCommunitysuggeststhatcompliancewithregulatoryrequirements is,
therefore,notalwayspossibleandpracticable,andthatguidelinesprovideabetterwaytoworkerprotection.
3.2.3.'Noadequatepersonalprotectiveequipmentagainstvibrationispresentlyavailable'(Statementin
Annex2).
3.2.4.ThevariousderogationspermittedaccordingtotheAnnexindicatesomeoftheproblemsinapplying
theproposedmeasuresinthepresentstateofknowledge.
3.3.OpticalRadiation
3.3.1.Scientificknowledgeisstillrelativelylimited,andmeansofmeasurementareatalaboratorystage
ratherthansuitableforworkplaceapplication.
3.3.2.Anenormousnumberofworkersworkingintheopenarelikelytobeexposedtolevelsofultraviolet
radiationfromthesunexceedingthevaluesproposedinAnnex4afterevenashortexposure,buttheir
protectionisextremelyproblematical .Evenifadvantageistakenofthepossibilityofderogationforworkers
.workingintheopen,thisderogationdoesnotexemptthemfrommedicalsurveillance .Compliancewith
suchregulatoryspecifications isvirtuallyimpossibleforsmallandmediumenterprises.
3.3.3.Hazardsoflasersappeartobeundercontrolwithouttheneedforadditionalregulatorymeasures.
3.4.FieldsandWaves
3.4.1.Similarlytopreviouslymentionedphysicalagents,thescientificknowledgeregardingfieldsand
wavesisstillinthedevelopmentstage,asarealsomeansofmeasurementandprotectivemeasures.
3.4.2.'Thereisnoadequateandpracticalwaytoshieldagainstmagneticfieldexposure'(Statementin
Annex4).
4.Conclusions
TheCommittee,therefore,believesthateffectiveprotectionofworkersisnotbestservedbymeansofthe
proposedDirectiveCOM(?2)560final.Thetextisnotconducivetoeffectiveimplementation and,insome
cases,inadequateknowledgeandequipmentexistforproperimplementation .
5.Recommendations
TheCommitteerecommendsthattheCouncilshouldreferthisproposalbacktotheCommission,inparticular
to:
5.1.Prepareareportonprogressmadeinscientificknowledgeandtechnologyaswellasonexperience
gainedintheapplicationofDirective86/188/EEC.Onthebasisofthisreport,andonthebasisofother
relevantfacts,theCommissionshouldthenreviewDirective86/188/EECandprepareanewproposalforan
amendedDirectiveontheprotectionagainstnoiseifthisisfoundnecessary.
5.2.Promotefurtherresearchintothepropertiesoftheotherphysicalagentsincludedinthepresent
proposal,theireffectsonworkers,andmeansofmeasurementandofprotectionwiththeviewtoconsidering
thepreparationofscientificallyandpracticallybasedproposalsforanynecessarylegislativeinstruments .

13.9.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC249/33
5.3.Inthemeanwhile,toprepareGuidanceDocumentsaimedatthemosteffectiveinformationfor
employersandworkers,aswellasattheirprotectioninpracticeagainsttheeffectsofmechanicalvibrations,
opticalradiation,andfieldsandwaves.'
Reasons
Self-explanatory .
voting
For:56,against:92,abstentions :5.
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDecisionconcerningaCommunityTechnology
InitiativeforDisabledandElderlyPeople(TIDE)(1993/1994)(J)
(93/C249/12)
On11June1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheCommitteeinstructedtheSectionforSocial,Family,EducationalandCulturalAffairs
toprepareitsworkonthesubject.InthecourseofitsworktheCommitteeappointed
MrFrandiasRapporteur-General (Articles18and46oftheRulesofProcedure).
Atits307thPlenarySession(meetingof30June),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
unanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.TheCommitteedeploresthefactthataverytight
deadlinehaspreventeditfrommakingathorough
examinationoftheproposedDecisionconcerningthe
TIDEinitiativebecausethenecessarydocumentation
wassenttoittoolate.technologiesand(b)allowingdisabledandolderpeople
toplayafullroleintheworldofwork,theCommittee
notesthatfurtheractionwillbeneeded;thetypeof
assistanceshouldbeextended,asitatpresentfocuses
onafewparticularaspectsofappliedsciencesuchas
telematics .
2.TheCommitteeendorsestheneedforaninitiative
toencouragethecreationofaninternalmarketin
rehabilitationtechnologyintheECinordertohelpthe
elderlyanddisabledtoplayamoreactivepartin
economicandsociallife.
3.TheproposedTIDEinitiative,whichbuildson
theresultsoftheTIDEpilotaction,isundoubtedlya
positivestepinthisdirection.6.Intheinterestsofthetwofoldobjectivementioned
above,itisimportantthattheinitiativeshouldnotbe
toonarrowlybased.Systematicmultidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary linksshouldbeforgedwiththefour­
yearresearchandtechnologicaldevelopment (RTD)
frameworkprogrammeandwiththeplannedappli­
cationsoftheStructuralFunds.4.TheCommitteereservestherighttomakemore
generalcommentsandtoputforwardfurtherideasin
anAdditionalOpinion.
5.Inordertomeetthetwofoldobjectiveof(a)
creatingamarketindedicatedrehabilitation aidsand7.Theonlywaytocreatealargescalemarketand
tointegratetheelderlyanddisabledproperlyisto
ensurethatalltypesofaidforovercomingphysiological (i)OJNoC166,17.6.1993,p.12