30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/41 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 80/1107/EEC on the 
protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological 
agents at work(1) 
(87/C 319/14) 
On 19 June 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 16 July 1987 in the 
light of the report by Mr Etty. 
At its 248th plenary session (meeting of 23 September 1987) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion with 125 votes in favour, no votes against and 
8 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee thinks it is very important for 
workers in the European Community to have the best 
possible protection against health hazards at the 
workplace. It therefore welcomes steps by the Com­
mission to harmonize the fixing of exposure limits or 
biological indicator limits for chemical, physical and 
biological agents at work. However, the resultant Com­
munity-wide list of limit values must be based on defi­
nitions of the most important terms (especially 'limit 
value') that are both clear and generally acceptable 
throughout the Community. Furthermore, the compil­
ing of such a list must go hand in hand with a common 
measuring and sampling strategy. 
1.2. The proposal amending Directive 80/1107/EEC 
(the 'Framework Directive') amounts to an expansion 
of the latter's provisions. The aim is initially to lay 
down limit values for certain agents, as provided for in 
the Framework Directive. 
1.3. The first question that arises here is whether 
the proposed amendment can in fact make a major 
contribution to improving the protection of workers' 
health at the workplace. In answering this question, 
attention must be paid to both the general approach 
chosen by the Commission in tackling the problem of 
laying down limit values and the composition of the 
proposal's list of one hundred agents. 
1.4. The Commission states that its proposal maps 
out a basic strategy which is designed to ensure that 
rapid progress is made in the area covered by Directive 80/1107/EEC. The term 'basic strategy' suggests a line 
of approach that is geared to the long term, well 
thought-out, based on specific criteria and consistent. 
However, the Commission seems to have been guided 
to a large extent by more pragmatic and short-term 
considerations. The proposed initial list of Community-
wide limit values contains agents for which most Mem­
ber States have already laid down identical values in 
their own lists. In those cases, where there is no such 
agreement, the Commission has adopted the highest 
values applicable in the Community. 
The proposal's would-be strategy seems to have been 
largely sacrificed to pragmatism and a tactical 
approach. 
The Committee would urge that future proposals for 
amending the Framework Directive along the lines of 
the present proposal, be based on the approach set out 
in point 1.1. 
1.5. Another conflict which seems to be inherent in 
the proposal (and which may be partly due to the 
above) is that between (a) the wish to put into practice 
the various action programmes and resolutions with 
regard to health and safety at work, in which the 
protection of workers' health is the central aim and (b) 
the need to eliminate certain discrepancies which have 
a direct influence on the functioning of the internal 
market. This in itself is not surprising considering that 
Member States' rules and regulations are the result 
of a trade-off between medical/scientific and political 
considerations. However, it would seem that the choice 
of the one hundred agents in the proposal has not been 
dictated first and foremost by the need to improve the 
protection of workers' health at work. If this had been 
the case, one would have expected that an interrelated 
set of criteria would be used for the selection of the 
(!) OJ No C 164, 2. 7. 1986, p. 4. agents, e.g.: 
No C 319/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
the extent to which the agents are used in the 
European Community, 
the seriousness of the health risk posed by them, mentioned Opinion if all interested parties could sit on 
the technical committee. Besides workers and em­
ployers, the Committee would expressly include doctors 
and scientists among these interested parties. 
— the number of workers exposed to the agents at the 
workplace. 
However, there is little sign of this in the Commission 
proposal. This raises the suspicion that it was more 
the need to tackle certain economic problems (e.g. 
differences in the terms of competition within the Com­
munity) that was behind this initial move to produce a 
Community-wide list of limit values! 2. Specific comments 
2.1. Explanatory Memorandum 
1.6. The Committee recognizes in keeping with its 
1979 Opinion on the Framework Directive (1), that such 
a conflict can arise. However, it still abides in full 
by the view expressed in the 1979 Opinion that the 
protection of a worker's health must take first place, 
though economic interests should suffer as little as 
possible as a result. 
In similar proposals for amending the Framework 
Directive in the future, the choice of agents should be 
based on the three criteria mentioned above. 
The limit values listed in the present proposals should 
at all events be reviewed. Where no agreement exists, 
the aim should be to find values which, unlike the ones 
in the present proposal, demonstrate that an effort is 
being made to protect workers' health as much as 
possible. 
1.7. The Commission states in the preamble to its 
proposal that 'representatives of employers and workers 
have a role to play in the protection of workers'. 2.1.1. Chapter 5 'Measurement of occu­
pational exposure limits' 
— The Committee does not agree with the Com­
mission that reference methods are not a prerequi­
site for agreement on exposure limits and that as a 
first step it is sufficient to adopt a basic sampling 
strategy and a first list of limit values. The Com­
munity list, sampling strategies and reference 
methods, should be indissolubly linked with each 
other. If this is not so, the Community list will be 
left hanging in the air. It possibly cannot make then 
a major contribution to improving the protection 
of workers at the workplace (5.3). 
2.1.2. Chapter 6 'The procedures used 
for establishing occupational 
exposure limits' 
— Exposure limits based on scientific evaluations can­
not be presented as an 'ideal goal'. For example, 
they generally disregard certain risk factors such as 
damage to embryos and the alteration of hereditary 
material as well as the chronic effects of exposure 
to relatively low concentrations. 
This phrase focuses attention on Articles 9 and 10 
of Directive 80/1107/EEC, which refer to a technical 
committee of Member States' representatives presided 
over by a Commission representative. It also recalls the 
Economic and Social Committee's 1979 Opinion, which 
stated with reference to these two articles that the 
protection of workers' health at the workplace requires 
the cooperation of all interested parties (particularly 
workers and employers) in planning and applying the 
requisite measures. The Committee considered it absol­
utely essential for employers' and workers' representa­
tives to be involved to that end in the technical com­
mittee's work. 
The Committee still adheres to that view in full and 
thinks that it would be in keeping with the above-
(}) OJ No C 297, 28. 11. 1979, p. 5. Allergies, too, may be caused by agents at the 
workplace. 
The Commission proposal could take due account of 
these risk factors by indicating them in an extra column 
in the list of limit values (6.2). 
2.1.3. Chapter 7 'The establishment of 
Community occupational ex­
posure limits' 
— The Committee agrees with the Commission that it 
is possible and necessary to make rapid progress. 
However, it thinks that it is absolutely necessary 
for efforts to this end to have a solid basis. The 
Commission proposal does not seem to make 
adequate provision for this (7.2). 
30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/43 
— It is noted that in most of the cases where a majority 
of the Member States have not agreed on a limit 
value, the Commission simply opts for the least 
favourable value from the point of view of worker 
protection. This is a strange choice if the protection 
of workers really is the Commission's first priority. 
The Committee does not agree with this and calls for 
a review of this approach in the light of its comments 
in 1.6 (7.3). 
— The Committee notes that the Commission con­
siders that it is unable at present to provide any 
exposure limit values for mixtures, in view of the 
lack of adequate scientific data on multiple or mixed 
exposures. However, exposure to a variety of agents 
or to mixtures happens frequently and is a serious 
health hazard. Considering that the Commission 
itself states quite emphatically that scientific con­
siderations are only one of the factors that have to 
be weighed up, its view that it is unable, for the 
reasons put forward, to tackle the question of 
exposure to mixtures at this stage seems rather 
inconsistent. In some industrialized countries a 
method based on an 'addition formula' has been 
introduced. It is applied in all cases where it is not 
clearly established that there can be no harm to 
health if this formula is disregarded. The formula 
applied is as follows: 
CI C2 Cn 
Tl T2 Tn 
where Cn is the concentration of the substance and 
Tn the corresponding limit value. 
If the sum of the various factors is greater than one, it 
must be assumed that the exposure limit has been 
exceeded. 
Given the importance of this problem, the Committee 
would strongly urge the Commission to adopt this 
approach until scientific progress makes a better 
approach possible (7.4). The Committee wholeheartedly endorses this recital, 
but thinks that it hardly fits in with a number of points 
in chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum 
that have been discussed above. 
— 'Whereas the said protection should as far as poss­
ible be ensured by measures to prevent exposure or 
keep it at as low a level as is reasonably practicable.' 
The Committee considers this recital to be worded too 
loosely. 
— Finally it would be advisable to include a reference 
to the Single European Act, and especially Article 
21 thereof, which provides for the addition of the 
following Article 118 A to the EEC Treaty: 
'Article 118 A 
1. Member States shall pay particular attention to 
encouraging improvements, especially in the 
working environment, as regards the health and 
safety of workers, and shall set as their objective 
the harmonization of conditions in this area, 
while maintaining the improvements made. 
2. In order to help achieve the objective laid down 
in the first paragraph, the Council, acting by a 
qualified majority on a proposal from the Com­
mission, in cooperation with the European Par­
liament and after consulting the Economic and 
Social Committee, shall adopt, by means of direc­
tives, minimum requirements for gradual 
implementation, having regard to the conditions 
and technical rules obtaining in each of the Mem­
ber States. 
Such directives shall avoid imposing administrat­
ive, financial and legal constraints in a way which 
would hold back the creation and development 
of small and medium-sized undertakings. 
3. The provisions adopted pursuant to this Article 
shall not prevent any Member State from main­
taining or introducing more stringent measures 
for the protection of working conditions compat­
ible with this Treaty.' 
2.2. Recitals 
The reference to Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome 
is somewhat strange in view of the composition of 
the list of one hundred agents and the reasons put 
forward by the Commission itself for their selection. 
The agents have been selected in such a way that 
there cannot be any competition problems. 
'Whereas for improved protection of workers with 
respect to chemical, physical and biological agents 
at work, it is necessary to strengthen the provisions 
contained in Council Directive 80/1107/EEC 2.3. The text of the draft Directive 
2.3.1. Article 1(1) (referring to Article 2 of 
Directive 80/1107/EEC) 
2.3.1.1. The Committee notes that the definitions of 
'agent', 'worker' and 'limit value' are the same as those 
given in the Framework Directive. Unfortunately these 
definitions are thus not up for discussion at the present 
time. 
No C 319/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
What is new are the definitions of five physical states. 
These are particularly important for one category of 
agents covered by the Directive, namely chemical 
agents. 
2.3.1.2. The addition of the 'liquid' physical state 
to the proposed list could be considered. This is of 
importance in connection with the possible absorption 
of dangerous agents through the skin. 
2.3.1.3. In view of the definition given of 'agent', 
the inclusion of definitions for physical and biological 
agents might also be considered (in the former case, 
insofar as not covered by the Euratom Treaty). The 
Committee is naturally aware that the definitions of 
physical states are tailored to the Commission's pro­
posed list of limit values for one hundred agents. 
2.3.1.4. The definition of 'dust' is considered by the 
Committee to be too narrow. It should also cover 
particles outside the 0.1-25 micrometres range. 
2.3.1.5. The same applies to the definition of 'fume': 
the 0.01-5 micrometres limits should be dropped. 
2.3.1.6. The Committee queries the definition of 
'gas' and, in particular, the sentence 'It consists of 
molecules'. 
2.3.1.7. The Committee has a number of objections 
to the definition of 'limit value'. It realizes, however, 
as stated above, that this definition has been taken over 
from the Framework Directive and is thus not a part 
of the proposal under consideration. Nonetheless, the 
Committee considers that the Commission ought to be 
made aware once more of the objections to this defi­
nition which the former put forward in its 1979 Opinion 
on the Framework Directive. 
In addition, the Committee considers it rather unfortu­
nate that limit values and biological indicator limits 
have been lumped together. It is not clear either what 
the term 'limit value' embraces. Provision should also 
be made in the list of limit values for the recording 
of certain risk factors (see 2.1.2 above). It should be 
indicated more clearly that the values listed in the 
Commission's proposal are not recommended but 
mandatory values. 
2.3.2. Article 1(2) (referring to Article 4 (4) of 
Directive 80/1107/EEC) 
2.3.2.0. The Committee notes that the measures 
referred to in the new text the Commission is proposing 
for this Article, must still be viewed in the light of Article 3 of the Framework Directive of 1980 and in 
particular the optional nature of paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
that Article. Only if a Member State decides to intro­
duce limit values for a certain substance or substances 
specified in the list in Annex I to the draft Directive 
will it be obliged to adhere to the values proposed by 
the Commission. These values will then be mandatory. 
2.3.2.1. Assessment of the risk (4 a) 
The Committee fears that the reference in this para­
graph to Annex IV may cause some confusion. From a 
legal point of view the impression may be created that 
the Framework Directive's provisions are confined to 
the one hundred agents listed in Annex IV. The Com­
mittee would draw the Commission's attention to this 
fact and recommends that the text be amended so as 
to rule out any possible misunderstanding. 
The Committee thinks that the question of exposure to 
mixtures should be dealt with at this point in the 
Framework Directive, in the manner indicated above 
(see 2.1.3). 
2.3.2.2. Reference method (4 b) 
The Committee considers that it is of great importance 
to have a clearly indicated threshold for action. The 
threshold of one fifth of the limit value should be 
presented more clearly as such. 
The Committee thinks that the reference method to be 
used should not be left vague. It believes that the 
Commission should lay down common reference 
methods. 
2.3.2.3. Exposure level (4 c) 
The phrase 'reduced to as low a level as is reasonably 
practicable' is open to widely varying interpretations 
and therefore does not seem to serve much purpose. 
The Committee proposes a more precise text, e.g. a 
reference to an exposure level which takes account of 
the state of the art, as far as possible. This would give 
better protection of workers' health. 
2.3.2.4. Exceeding of a limit value (4 d) 
The Committee considers this provision to be too 
vague. As stated above, it should be made clearer that 
the limit values are mandatory. It is also important for 
the text to state explicitly that if the limit values are 
exceeded, appropriate remedial action must be taken 
straightaway. The measures to be taken should be 
specified in more detail than at present. 
30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/45 
As regards the reference to Annex IV, the Committee 
would repeat what it said in 2.3.2.1 above. 
2.3.2.5. Checks to determine whether limit values are 
being exceeded (4 e) 
The Committee wants the Commission text to provide 
at this point for mandatory regular checks. It urges that 
employers be obliged to draw up a work-plan to protect 
the health of their personnel from the risks involved in 
working with dangerous agents. Provision should also 
be made in such a plan for giving workers and their 
representatives a say in its drawing-up and implemen­
tation. 
The Committee thinks that 'work process' should be 
substituted for 'work'. 
2.3.2.6. Workers' rights (4 f) 
The Committee thinks that the measures referred to 
here should be strengthened by making it clear that it 
Done at Brussels, 23 September 1987. is a question of giving a say to workers and their 
representatives. 
2.3.2.7. (With regard to Article 4.9 of Directive 
80/1107/EEC) 
The first sentence of Article 4 (9) might once again 
give the impression that the scope of the Framework 
Directive is restricted {cf. 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.4). 
2.4. Annexes to Directive 80/1107/EEC 
Annex III, 'Technical aspects as referred to in 
Article 8 (3)' 
The wording of the new point 9 could create the 
impression that the translation of scientific data into 
measures for protecting workers' health is being 
impeded. 
The Committee naturally does not want this to be so 
and recommends that the Commission reword the text 
so as to rule out such an interpretation. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
No C 319/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following proposed amendments, rejected in the course of the deliberations, received at least a quarter 
of the total votes cast: 
Insert a new paragraph 2.1.0: 
'2.1.0. Chapter 4 'The Definition of Occupational Exposure Limits'. 
The Committee supports the general principles contained in this chapter and in particular the desire expressed 
in paragraph 4.2 that there should be no confusion about definitions. It is therefore concerned at the 
introduction in paragraph 4.9 of the term 'action level', which does not appear in the proposed Directive at 
all, and is therefore not defined. Moreover, the Committee cannot accept the generalization that this 'action 
level' must always be one fifth of the limit value. Because the properties of the listed substances vary 
enormously, an 'action level' must sometimes be less than one fifth, but can often be more than one fifth, 
and is sometimes entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, the Committee is advised by agreed experts throughout 
industry that the highly technical derivation of the universal 'action level' at one fifth of the limit value is 
based on some false assumptions and is, therefore, incorrect. To be effective in practice, the level at which 
action should be taken (also referred to in the proposed Directive in Article 1.2. b) should be determined on 
a case-by-case basis.' 
Reason 
It is important for effective protection of workers that initial action, e.g. preliminary measurements or 
information of workers, should be taken at the appropriate level according to the nature of the substance 
concerned, and not at some arbitrary pre-set fraction of the limit value. For example, highly irritating 
substances such as ammonia or hydrochloric acid may well require action at levels below one fifth of the 
limit value; conversely, substances with extremely low limit values, such as platinum or silver salts, yellow 
phosphorus or respirable quartz are hardly detectable under workplace conditions at levels even approaching 
the limit values. Directive 83/477/EEC on Asbestos contains an action level of one quarter to one half of the 
limit value and Directive 82/605/EEC on Lead has action levels of 27 % and 50 % of the limit value. These 
illustrate the need for a case-by-case approach and the inapplicability of a universal rule of action level 
always being one fifth of the limit value. 
Voting 
For: 40, against: 84, abstentions: 7. 
2.3.2.2. Reference Method (4 b) 
Replace the second sentence by: 
'The thresholds for action should be clearly presented in Annex I to the proposed Directive individually for 
each substance as appropriate.' 
Reason 
The same as for Amendment 1. 
Voting 
For: 40, against: 84, abstentions: 7.