28.B.86 (Official]ournal of the European Communities ^oC189B2B 
Opinion on the proposal foraC^ouncilfO^^tive on the protection of ^orl^ers from the ris^s 
related to exposure to benzene at v^orl^(Eifth individual fOirective within the meaning of 
Article8offO^^^^B^O^EEO)^ 
(86BC189B11) 
On 20Januaryl986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100oftheTreatyestabhshingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,on the abovementioned 
proposal 
The Section for Social questions,^hich^as responsible for preparing the Committee^s^orl^ on 
the subject, adopted its opinion on9Apnll986, in the light of the report by^irtOassis. 
At its236thplenary session (meetingof 23 April 1986) theEconomicandSocial Committee 
adopted the following opinion by 99 ^otes to 2,^ith 21 abstentions. 
1, general comments 
1.1. Theto^icity of aparticular substance should be 
examined in the content of the products in which it is used. 
13en^ene is after all used in a whole range of organic 
compounds,mcludingalarge number of solvents. 
This aspect of the question has not escaped the legislators 
of some member States of the European Community, who 
inmost cases have limited tol^the proportion ofben^ene 
contained inproducts. Some countneshave even stricter 
laws, however,with the benzene content being limited to 
belowl^^). 
1.2. whilst it regrets the failure to adopt a global 
approachtotheben^enequestion andtheslownessand 
shortcomingsof action atCommunity level, theCommittee 
welcomes the efforts made by the Commission to improve 
protection of workers from workplace hazards. The 
Committee would urge the Commission to press ahead 
with implementation of the specific measures laid down in 
the framework Uirective of 2B^^ovemberl980^) and in 
the second European Communities action programme on 
health and safety at the workplace ^). 
1.3. The Committee would drawattention to the fact 
that manumber of recent opinions it has given its views on 
the protection of health and safety at the workplace ^). 
1.^. The Committee approves the general approach, 
structure and main articles ofthe draft fOirective.ldowever, 
it is regrettable that in some cases the provisions are not 
worded precisely enough. This gives rise to uncertainty as 
to the nature and scope of some of the prescribed measures 
and entails a nsl^ of diverging interpretations. The 
Committee regards this lacl^ of precision as an obstacle to 
^eoi^oL^^^t^m^o,D^. 
^oi^De^,^^m^^,D^ umform,effectiveimplementationof these provisions of 
the Uirective in the member States. 
1.^. The Committee notes that thecarcmogenic pro^ 
perties of ben^ene,which have been well l^nown for some 
time and are not contested, are mentioned in the 
explanatory memorandum but not in the recitals. 
1.6. In the light ofthe point made by the Commission in 
the seventh recital — that current scientific knowledge is 
not such thatalevel can be established belowwhichnsl^s to 
health cease to e^ist— the Committee tal^es the view that 
ideally there should be no exposure to benzene.ldowever,it 
acknowledges that this solution is impracticable at present 
for vanousreasons,and accepts the limit values fi^ed in 
Articles3and8. 
1.^. The Committee would also stress that benzene 
e^posureisespecially dangeroustoyoungpeopleunder 
18 years of age and to women who are pregnant or breasts 
feedmg.The Committee would request that the Uirective 
should stipulate, as is the case in many member States, that 
peoplem thesecategones shouldnot beassigned to, or 
continue to perform ^obs where they are exposed to 
benzene. 
t.8. On the important question of the cost of protection 
measures, the Committee would point out that it has 
always held that in this field priority should be given to the 
health of workers, while an attempt should be made not to 
prejudice thecompetitivenessof firms andtheneeds of 
economic growthto an unjustifiable extent. 
1.9. TheCommittee stresses thatthisquestion cannot be 
considered fromapurely economic or bookkeeping angle. 
AnyapproachtothecostBbenefitratiomust include the 
analysis of factors such as^ 
— the positive effects of occupational safety investments 
on productivity, the wording environment and labour 
relations, 
— the financial burdens on firms and society resulting 
from accidents at worm 
No C 189/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 7. 86 
In this connection reference should be made to the view 
expressed in the Committee's opinion of 27 Septembre 
1984 on occupational medicine: 
'The whole of society has to bear the burden of industrial 
accidents and work-related diseases. The workers 
concerned suffer physically, psychologically and finan­
cially; undertakings have to bear the cost of halts in 
production, repair work and the absence and replace­
ment of sick and injured workers whilst also having to 
pay compensation; and society as a whole has to 
contribute to compensation schemes. Industrial ac­
cidents and work-related diseases represent a waste of 
human and material resources that needs to be 
combated' (1). 
1.10. The Committee feels that small firms must be in a 
position to respect the provisions of the draft Directive. 
However, the specific problems and situations of certain 
small firms should be taken into account in the way the 
measures are implemented, without undermining the strict 
enforcement of the Directive. It should be noted that 
weaker concentrations of benzene in preparations would 
reduce the exposure of workers in firms — particularly 
smaller firms — where benzene is used. 
1.11. The Commission document rightly accords an 
important place to the organization of medical monitoring. 
In this context, the Committee would draw attention to the 
recommendations made in its opinion on occupational 
medicine, and particularly on the drawing-up of a 
Community Directive on occupational medicine. 
2. Detailed Comments 
2.1. Article 1 
Paragraph 2 
The Committee notes that the exclusion of sea and air 
transport from the scope of the proposed Directive stems 
from the framework Directive of 1980. These two sectors 
are the subject of special measures. 
Paragraph 3 
Whilst in no way underestimating the difficulties involved, 
both practical and financial, the Committee would request 
that the use of less dangerous substitutes for benzene be 
encouraged wherever possible. This should be explicitly 
(!) OJ No C 307, 19. 11. 1984. stated in the Directive. The Committee would therefore ask 
that the following Article be inserted: 
'Benzene should be replaced by less dangerous substitute 
products wherever this is technically feasible.' 
2.2. Article 3 
Paragraph 3 
Given, on the one hand, the risks arising from exposure to 
benzene at work and elsewhere, and, on the other hand, the 
fact that there is no level below which health risks are 
absent the Committee approves the exposure 1 p.p.m. 
limit. 
As smaller firms, in particular certain fims in the 
distribution sector, may encounter technical and adminis­
trative or financial difficulties, the Directive should be 
implemented in such a way as to help them overcome such 
problems. The Committee would also request that 
accurate, standardized methods be used to measure 
exposure levels, so as to avoid mistakes. 
2.3. Article 4 
The Committee agrees that information on the subjects 
listed in the article should be sent to the authorities 
responsible. Provided it does not conflict with the 
objectives of the Directive, the Committee would ask that 
specific problems relating to certain commercially sensitive 
information be taken into account. 
The Committee feels that the third indent of Article 4 
should be expanded to read: 
'the substances, preparations or products manufactured 
or for use which contain benzene'. 
2.4. Article 5 
The terms used in parts of this Article are not precise, which 
means that differences in interpretation may occur. 
The expression 'reasonably practicable' (first paragraph, 
subparagraph (a) and subparagraph (c)) should not be used 
in this Article, on the one hand, because it gives rise to an 
unacceptable ambiguity between what is reasonable from 
an economic point of view and what steps should 
reasonably be taken to protect workers' health, and on the 
other hand, because it will be very difficult to transpose this 
expression into the various national legislations. The 
expression also represents a potential source of abuse or 
distortion. 
28. 7. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 189/29 
The Committee also feels that subparagraph (d) of 
Article 5 should be expanded to read: 
'(d) waste containing benzene, including waste produced 
from filtering the air in the workroom, shall be 
collected...'. 
2.5. Article 6 
Paragraph 1 
The Committee would urge that the greatest possible care 
be taken to ensure that waste containing benzene is stored 
in known and appropriate places, in view of the hazards for 
workers and the general public. It would therefore propose 
that the paragraph be completed as follows: 
'Benzene and waste containing benzene shall be stored in 
such a way that they do not endanger the health and 
safety of workers and the general public'. 
Paragraph 3 
With respect to the transport of benzene or waste 
containing benzene, the Committee would draw attention 
to the fact that special rules already exist. 'Observed' 
should be replaced by iapplied\ In the French version 'il a 
lieu de tenir compte', should be replaced by 'il y a lieu 
d'appliquer\ 
2.6. Article 8 
In view of the dangerous effects of exposure to benzene, the 
Committee feels that the ideal solution would be to 
preclude the possibility of exposure to benzene. 
The limit value of 5 p.p.m. mentioned in this Article 
appears to be based not on strict scientific evidence, but on 
a compromise between what is economically acceptable for 
firms and a level of pollution which, although not 
completely toxic-free, is nevertheless an improvement on 
the current limit value of 10 p.p.m. It is worth noting that 
the Commission itself acknowledges that in the present 
state of the art it is not possible to establish a minimum level 
below which benzene no longer constitutes a health risk 
(seventh recital). 
The Committee feels that the limit value of 5 p.p.m. may at 
this moment in time represent the middle road between 
workers' health requirements and economic and technical 
constraints. 
2.7. Articles 9 and 10 
The term 'certain activities' used in Article 10 is too vague. 
It should be made clear that it refers to exceptional 
activities of a fixed duration. The Committee requests that workers and their rep­
resentatives participate fully in the implementation of the 
measures outlined in these Articles. 
2.8. Article 11 
Indent c iii should be amended to read: 
(iii) protective equipment is placed in a readily ac­
cessible place; it is checked at regular intervals and 
... etc' 
2.9. Article 12 
The Committee proposes that the end of the first sentence 
should read: 
'... receive adequate information and training con­
cerning:' 
The various subparagraphs of this Article should be 
reworded accordingly. 
2.10. Article 13 
In indent (b), the Committee proposes that the expression 
'as quickly as possible' be replaced by ''immediately'. 
2.11. Article 14 
Point 1 
In the Committee's view, one medical examination a year is 
not enough. It would point out that in some countries a 
medical examination is undergone every three months in 
the case of workers exposed to benzene, and every six 
months in the case of those exposed to similar substances or 
involved in delivering fuel and servicing or repairing 
vehicles. 
The Committee would request that the second paragraph 
of Point 1 be amplified as follows: 
'... clinical abnormality, indicative of short or long-term 
adverse health effects, likely...'. 
2.12. Article 16 
Complete the article to read: 
'... recognized or presumed cases...'. 
2.13. Article 18 
The Committee hopes that the new Member States will 
take the necessary steps to implement the Directive within 
the prescribed time limit. 
No C 189/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 7. 86 
It feels that the words 'at the same place', in the first and 
second line of the last sentence of paragraph 2, should be 
deleted. 
Sampling on a group basis can be justified where groups of 
workers are performing identical or similar tasks, regard­
less of whether they are working in the same place or not. 
2.15. Annex II 
Paragraph 3 
The Committee proposes that the following sentence be 
added: 
'An appropriate test should be carried out in cases of 
serious and excessive exposure.' 
Done at Brussels on 23 April 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was rejected by the Committee 
during plenary session discussions: 
Point 2.14 
Delete the first line under the comments on Annex I, paragraph 1, namely: 
'The workroom atmosphere should be kept under permanent surveillance.' 
Reasons 
The three-monthly personal exposure monitoring programme recommended in the Commission's Annex I is 
simple, practical and sufficient. Personal exposure sampling technology of the type recommended by the 
Commission, has made enormous advances in recent years to the extent that their advantages substantially 
outweigh those of fixed position monitors. For the Economic and Social Committee to support this proposal 
would appear to reveal serious deficiencies in its technical competence. 
Permanent monitoring of the workroom atmosphere is technically very difficult, expensive and irrelevant to 
assessment of exposure of workers. It is also totally impractical for many outdoor locations such as refineries, 
chemical plants, gasoline distribution and retail activities. 
Voting result 
For: 31. Against: 86. Abstentions: 8. 2.14. Annex I 
Paragraph 1 
The workroom atmosphere should be kept under per­
manent surveillance. 
Workers' exposure levels should also be measured 
whenever they or their representatives so request. 
Paragraph 2 
The Committee does not agree that the frequency of 
measurements should be reduced, because benzene is 
highly sensitive to the slightest change in production levels 
or use.