Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening har den 16. juni 2014 svaret BUSINESSEUROPE i sagen om Chemicals

Hearing Statement on Chemicals

Future revision of Directive 2004/37/EC on exposure to carcinogens and mutagens at the workplace (CMD)

Questions:

  • Do you continue to support the previous positions taken by BUSINESSEUROPE regarding CMD?

Yes.

  • Following some member states proposals (see above), do you support to increase the number of Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Values (BOELVs) for carcino-gens, as a way of reinforcing harmonization between member states or not? Do you believe that this could also contribute to reduce additional regulatory initiatives at national and EU level or not (i.e in the framework of REACH authorisation, where the existence of BOEL may be taken into account when performing best Risk Management Options assessment)?

No.

  • Do you agree that there should be clarification regarding the priority list of candi-dates for BOELVs?

No.

  • Do you agree to involve national bodies in charge of establishing OELs at national level in the context of an EU network including national bodies and SCOEL – the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits?

Yes.

Interplay between Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (CMD) and Chemical Agents Directive (CAD)

Questions:

  • Do you agree that there are inconsistencies between the chemical agents directive and the carcinogens and mutagens directive when considering threshold carcino-gens?

Yes.

  • What is your view on the idea of integrating the two directives in a single directive covering all chemicals at work? Would this lead to simplification and deal with in-coherencies between the two or not? Please provide reasons.

We need an approach to risk analysis and management of exposure to chemical mixtures containing both carcinogens/mutagens and non-carcinogens/mutagens in order to simply practical uses.

  • If you are not in favour of this approach, is there another way to ensure more con-sistency between the two directives?
  • If you are in favour of this approach, would you agree that the ‘hierarchy principle’ (cascading of risk management measures including substitution, technical containment, collective protective equipment, personal protective equipment) needs to be redefined for some chemicals? For example, substitution is not really appropriate for some chemicals (substituting crystalline silica is not so relevant and feasible) or Personal Protective Equipment may be the sole practical risk management option for short term exposure.

Yes.

  • In that context, do you believe there is a need to distinguish between substances having a threshold limit of effect (meaning no effect can be observed below the limit – reprotoxic agents) and non-threshold substances (substance for which a residual risk can be expected at very low concentration, it concerns especially genotoxic carcinogens) in any future regulatory framework?

Yes.

  • Do you consider a risk based approach based on the calculation of the residual risk for non-threshold substances (genotoxic substances) should be explored? Such approach is already in place in Germany (traffic light approach, for example).

No. National approaches are sufficient.

Interfaces between REACH and EU OSH Regulation

Questions:

  • Employers are confident with SCOEL OEL process to establish limit values (‘estab-lishment derivation process’) which has proven to be efficient for decades even if employers may have some concerns about transparency. Therefore, do you agree that SCOEL OEL derivation guidance should remain the reference method? Do you agree that consequently, ECHA guidance for the derivation of DNEL cannot serve for establishing OELs?

Yes.

  • Do you consider it necessary to request a clarification of how Derived No Effect Level (DNEL) limit values are derived as opposed to Occupational Exposure Limit Values (OELVs) (both technically and legally)?

Yes.

  • What in your view are the consequences for employers of the way that these limit values are derived?

We prefer specific values for the protection of workers, OELs.

  • Do you agree that the Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) should clarify the situation with a simple and understandable set of messages to reduce misunderstanding regarding the mention of DNEL and OEL, for example in the same Safety Data Sheet for the same substance?

Yes.

  • Should the Commission and ECHA clarify the process of derivation of DNEL when OEL exists and how to manage the situation when OELs are obsolete/not updated?

Yes.

  • Should the Commission, SCOEL and ECHA initiate a process of comparing and aligning the methods of derivation of DNEL and OEL considering the OEL SCOEL methods as the reference?

Yes.

4TH List of indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values (IOELVs)

Questions:

  • Do you agree that it will be difficult to achieve the proposed values for carbon monoxide in mining and extractive activities?

We support the proposed values, but we have no experience on mining in Denmark.

  • Are there other activities for which the proposed values for carbon monoxide would be difficult to achieve, i.e. where the conditions of work and/or the equipment cannot be changed/improved in the short-term?

No.

KONTAKT
Publiceret:
18. juni 2014