Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

Parliamentary questions
28 June 2017
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
Heinz K. Becker (PPE) , Marian Harkin (ALDE) , Sofia Ribeiro (PPE) , Claude Rolin (PPE) , Michaela Šojdrová (PPE) , Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) , Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) , Renate Weber (ALDE) , Jana Žitňanská (ECR)

 Subject:  ECHA RAC mandated by Commission to set OELs

In a recent letter, the Commission requested the assistance of the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) in providing recommendations for Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) for some of the chemical agents covered by future revisions of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (CMD — 2004/37) and the Chemical Agents Directive (CAD — 98/24). By making this request, the Commission has sidestepped the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits for Chemical Agents (SCOEL).

1. Does the Commission consider that the existence of ‘significant divergences’ between RAC and SCOEL, which according to its letter to ECHA result in different recommendations for the same substances, is sufficiently resolved by mandating the RAC to propose OELs for some chemical agents while others remain with the SCOEL?

2. How does the Commission ensure that RAC members, who have a more general background in comparison to SCOEL members’ specialised scientific background and experience in the protection of workers from chemical risks, have the scientific expertise and experience needed for proposing OELs?

3. Has the Commission requested input on this matter from the Scientific Advice Mechanism’s High Level Group, which is tasked to provide recommendations for improving the overall interaction between Commission policymaking processes and independent scientific advice? If not, why not?

Last updated: 13 July 2017Legal notice