6

αποτέλεσμα(ατα)

Λέξη (-εις)
Τύπος δημοσίευσης
Τομέας πολιτικής
Συντάκτης
Ημερομηνία

Limits on exposure to carcinogens and mutagens at work: Third proposal

30-08-2019

The European Commission has proposed to amend Directive 2004/37/EC by expanding its scope and by including and/or revising occupational exposure limit values for a number of cancer- or mutation-causing substances. The initiative is proceeding in steps. The first proposal of May 2016 covered 13 priority chemical agents, the second, of January 2017, a further seven. The current (third) proposal addresses an additional five. Broad discussions with scientists and the social partners fed into all three ...

The European Commission has proposed to amend Directive 2004/37/EC by expanding its scope and by including and/or revising occupational exposure limit values for a number of cancer- or mutation-causing substances. The initiative is proceeding in steps. The first proposal of May 2016 covered 13 priority chemical agents, the second, of January 2017, a further seven. The current (third) proposal addresses an additional five. Broad discussions with scientists and the social partners fed into all three proposals. Reacting to the Commission's set of measures as a whole, trade unions have acknowledged the importance of further improving the existing framework. Actors on the employers' side have underlined the need to ensure that values are proportionate and feasible in terms of technical implementation. After adoption by the Parliament and Council, in March and May respectively, based on a text agreed in trilogue in January 2019, the final act was signed by the presidents of the co-legislators on 5 June 2019. Directive (EU) 2019/983 entered into force on 10 July 2019 and is to be transposed into national law within two years, by 11 July 2021. Third edition. The 'EU Legislation in Progress' briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.

Protection of workers from exposure to carcinogens or mutagens: Third proposal

17-12-2018

This detailed appraisal focuses on the process and evidence base used in the IA for setting the limit values for cadmium and beryllium, notably in light of some knowledge gaps and methodological challenges identified in the IA in relation to the number of workers exposed and the estimation of the burden of disease. The appraisal concludes that the IA has relied on a vast and updated amount of information, including scientific journals, guidelines, manuals, surveys, published by authoritative research ...

This detailed appraisal focuses on the process and evidence base used in the IA for setting the limit values for cadmium and beryllium, notably in light of some knowledge gaps and methodological challenges identified in the IA in relation to the number of workers exposed and the estimation of the burden of disease. The appraisal concludes that the IA has relied on a vast and updated amount of information, including scientific journals, guidelines, manuals, surveys, published by authoritative research centres, publishers and international organisations, making the overall analysis sufficiently convincing and robust. As regards the limitations of the analysis, which are transparently acknowledged, the analysis carried out by the external contractors and endorsed in the IA recognises that the full current and future disease burden deriving from historic exposures to cadmium and beryllium is not captured; consequently, the disease burdens may be underestimated. As regards the estimated number of workers exposed to cadmium, the value of 10 000 workers considered by the external contractors for their modelling (in addition to a higher value of 30 000), and taken over in the IA, is coherently justified in light of the recognised wide divergences among the different estimates. This value appears to be reasonable, based on the availability of data at national and EU level, and the way some of them were gathered. As regards the estimated number of workers exposed to beryllium, the figure of 54 071 workers exposed in the EU 28 (excluding the construction sector) identified by the external contractor and used in the IA appears to be plausible, based on the justifications provided. However, it is acknowledged that higher exposure levels would imply higher costs and benefits at all target OEL values.

Limits on exposure to carcinogens and mutagens at work

22-01-2018

The European Commission proposes to amend Directive 2004/37/EC by expanding its scope and by including and/or revising occupational exposure limit values for a number of cancer-causing chemical agents. According to the Commission, this would improve workers' health protection, increase the effectiveness of the EU framework and promote clarity for economic operators. Overall, the proposal received a broad welcome from stakeholders. After completion of the legislative procedure at first reading in ...

The European Commission proposes to amend Directive 2004/37/EC by expanding its scope and by including and/or revising occupational exposure limit values for a number of cancer-causing chemical agents. According to the Commission, this would improve workers' health protection, increase the effectiveness of the EU framework and promote clarity for economic operators. Overall, the proposal received a broad welcome from stakeholders. After completion of the legislative procedure at first reading in the European Parliament and the Council, the presidents of the co-legislators signed the final act on 12 December 2017. The directive applies as from 16 January 2018.

Countering hybrid threats: EU-NATO cooperation

02-03-2017

The concept of hybrid threat has gained traction in relation to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and the ISIL/Da’esh campaigns going far beyond Syria and Iraq. Faced with this constantly evolving challenge, the European Union and NATO have taken several steps to strengthen their respective capabilities and pursue common objectives through closer cooperation. The EU-NATO joint declaration adopted in July 2016 in the margins of the Warsaw NATO Summit represents a clear step forward in this regard. The document ...

The concept of hybrid threat has gained traction in relation to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and the ISIL/Da’esh campaigns going far beyond Syria and Iraq. Faced with this constantly evolving challenge, the European Union and NATO have taken several steps to strengthen their respective capabilities and pursue common objectives through closer cooperation. The EU-NATO joint declaration adopted in July 2016 in the margins of the Warsaw NATO Summit represents a clear step forward in this regard. The document outlines new areas for practical cooperation, in particular with regard to hybrid threats, building resilience in cybersecurity, and strategic communications. The Council conclusions of 6 December 2016 stressed that the implementation of the joint declaration is a key political priority for the EU. It welcomed the progress achieved in advancing EU-NATO relations, including implementing and operationalising parallel procedures and playbooks for interaction in countering hybrid threats. With a view to ensuring further progress, the Council endorsed a common set of proposals focused on better coordination, situational awareness, strategic communication, crisis response, and bolstering resilience. The North Atlantic Council endorsed the same set of measures. Reports on implementation, including possible suggestions for future cooperation, should be provided on a biannual basis from the end of June 2017. This is an updated edition of an At a Glance note published in June 2015.

Protection of workers from exposure to carcinogens or mutagens

18-07-2016

Overall, the Commission appears to have provided sound reasoning and justification for the initiative. The methodology used to compare the scope of impacts is well-developed, but the proposed range of options limits the scope of the analysis. As Option 3 is barely considered, and Option 4 does not seem to be consistent with the objectives, the added value of these options is not evident. Moreover, both the IA and the Explanatory Memorandum of the proposal are not explicit about the preferred option ...

Overall, the Commission appears to have provided sound reasoning and justification for the initiative. The methodology used to compare the scope of impacts is well-developed, but the proposed range of options limits the scope of the analysis. As Option 3 is barely considered, and Option 4 does not seem to be consistent with the objectives, the added value of these options is not evident. Moreover, both the IA and the Explanatory Memorandum of the proposal are not explicit about the preferred option. More information on the consultation with SCOEL and ACSH would have been welcomed in order to understand the way in which the OELs were set. Finally, it is not entirely clear why the Commission has come forward with this proposal before the ex-post evaluation of the OSH Framework undertaken within the remit of REFIT has been completed. Indeed, including the results of the ex-post evaluation in the IA might have strengthened the Commission’s evidence base as well as further clarified the monitoring and evaluation arrangements and the interaction between the various pieces of legislation under the OSH Framework.      

Workshop on Seveso III Directive : Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances - Brussels, 13 April 2011

16-05-2011

These proceedings summarise the presentations and discussions at the Workshop on the proposed Seveso III Directive, held on 13 April 2011. The aim of the workshop was to allow an exchange of views between the European Commission, MEPs and stakeholders. Topics for discussion included the impacts on the scope resulting from the alignment with the CLP Regulation, informational requirements and proposed obligatory inspection intervals. The workshop was chaired by MEP János Áder, rapporteur for the Seveso ...

These proceedings summarise the presentations and discussions at the Workshop on the proposed Seveso III Directive, held on 13 April 2011. The aim of the workshop was to allow an exchange of views between the European Commission, MEPs and stakeholders. Topics for discussion included the impacts on the scope resulting from the alignment with the CLP Regulation, informational requirements and proposed obligatory inspection intervals. The workshop was chaired by MEP János Áder, rapporteur for the Seveso III Directive.

Εξωτερικός συντάκτης

Verena Stingl (Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Wien, Austria)

Προσεχείς εκδηλώσεις

30-11-2020
EPRS online Book Talk | How to own the room (and the zoom) [...]
Άλλη δραστηριότητα -
EPRS
30-11-2020
Hearing on Future-proofing the Tourism Sector: Challenges and Opportunities Ahead
Ακρόαση -
TRAN
30-11-2020
LIBE - FEMM Joint Hearing: Combating Gender based Violence: Cyber Violence
Ακρόαση -
FEMM LIBE

Εταίροι