29. 7. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 188/19 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3599/82 on 
temporary importation arrangements as regards the date of its implementation (') 
(85/C 188/09) 
On 2 May 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, acting 
under the optional consultative clause of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Broicher rapporteur-general to prepare 
the Committee's work on the matter. 
At its 227th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1985) the Committee unanimously adopted 
the following opinion: 
The Economic and Social Committee approves the Commission's proposal. 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
(') OJNoC 117, 11.5. 1985, p. 6. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on limit values and quality objectives 
for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in list I in the Annex to Directive 
76/464/EEC 
(85/C 188/10) 
On 11 February 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 
14 May 1985. (rapporteur: Mr Vercellino). 
At its 227th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1985), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Commission proposal consists of an imple­
menting Directive covering a number of dangerous 
substances discharged into water. The objective is to 
monitor such emissions and prevent any harmful 
effects, in accordance with the framework Directive 
-adopted nearly 10 years ago on 4May 1976. The 
Committee supports the proposed Directive, consid­
ering it an important and useful move in the drive to 
combat pollution and protect the environment. It 
nevertheless feels that the proposal could have been 
drawn up more swiftly. Its comments, plus a number of 
reservations and suggestions, are set out below. 1.2. The Committee appreciates that the Commission 
was faced with the weighty and complex task of 
research and preparation, involving the gathering of 
vast amounts of information and details of projects, all 
of which required a considerable amount of time and 
lengthy discussions with national bodies and experts. 
1.3. This work has culminated in an important step 
forwards: with the cooperation of representatives and 
experts throughout the Community, 1 500 substances 
with a special chemical structure were identified from a 
total of around 50 000 substances used for technical 
purposes; of these, 500 substances produced in the 
EEC in quantities greater than 100 tonnes per annum 
No C 188/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 7. 85 
were then selected; and finally, a list of the 129 most 
dangerous substances was compiled, some of which 
have been singled out for priority monitoring. 
1.4. The solutions put forward with respect to moni­
toring methods, emission limits and quality objectives, 
general procedures and deadlines, and the specific 
measures to be undertaken by Member States are more 
realistic and flexible than the measures recommended 
in other Directives on pollution; they cover the full 
gamut of situations and existing national and sectoral 
schemes in the EEC, without creating undue exceptions 
and imbalances. The Directive provides for two stages: 
the first places priority on the need to decentralize as 
far as possible, making implementing measures and 
rules a matter for national and local authorities; the 
second stage is designed to develop standardization in 
the light of the outcome of the first stage. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Before proceeding to its detailed comments, the 
Committee would voice two initial reservations. 
First, it has doubts as to whether the method of 
combining or alternating two different systems (the one 
based on emission limit values and the other on quality 
objectives) is an appropriate way of monitoring 
discharges of dangerous substances. 
The Committee's misgivings stem from the fact that in 
many plants, both systems are simultaneously in opera­
tion : the first is designed to record the results of emis­
sion limits (this also involves monitoring water quality), 
and the second is to pinpoint and tackle individual 
sources of pollution (this obviously involves moni­
toring limit values as well) as a means of improving 
water quality. 
It would therefore be more fitting to speak, not of a 
choice between two different monitoring systems to be 
vetted by the Commission, but of using two systems 
with priority given to limit values unless, for practical 
reasons, it is not possible to measure the toxicity of 
emissions at the place of discharge. In practice, as the 
aim is to achieve a balanced combination of these two 
methods, it is only in instances where monitoring of 
limit values is replaced with quality objectives that the 
approval of the Commission is required. 
The Committee feels that this should be stated more 
clearly in the Directive so as to avoid creating misun­
derstandings and unfair competition conditions, parti­
cularly since public bodies also play a major role in 
monitoring the quality of water. 
Turning to its second reservation, the Committee would 
question whether it is appropriate for the Directive to cover (Annex I) some of the dangerous substances 
whose emissions should be monitored as a matter of 
priority, such as carbon tetrachloride and chloroform. 
According to the experts, it has not been fully proven 
that the latter is a high-risk carcinogenic agent. 
2.2. Whilst upholding the Directive's approach and 
objectives and calling for swift adoption and correct 
implementation, the Committee would, in the interests 
of capitalizing on progress made to date and guiding 
future activities, make the following recommendations 
to the Commission and the Council: 
2.3. Relationship between limit values and quality objec­
tives 
The first proposal is to carry out further tests, using the 
urgency procedure (so as not to delay the adoption and 
implementation of the Directive), to take account of 
concern expressed by a number of national experts and 
consultants with regard to the need to attain a balanced 
combination of both monitoring methods proposed (i.e. 
compliance with emission limits and quality objec­
tives), thereby precluding any possibility of an exces­
sive bias towards one or other of these methods, which 
might give rise to infringements and inequalities. 
2.4. Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform 
The second proposal is that more substantial evidence 
should be provided to justify the inclusion of carbon 
tetrachloride and chloroform in the Directive. 
The Committee believes that objections raised by some 
experts and representatives of the sectors concerned 
over the toxicity levels of these two substances should 
be examined. The Committee would reiterate the 
importance of the principle that suspect substances are 
to be considered dangerous until proved otherwise. At 
the same time, however, the Committee convinced that 
in practical terms extra information (which is already 
available in part or could be supplied without delaying 
the Directive) would actually further implementation of 
the Directive, make the proposed rules more acceptable 
to the Member States, sectors and groups concerned 
and strengthen their contribution to the campaign to 
reduce pollution and protect and environment. 
2.5. Inclusion of other substances 
The Committee also feels that the Commission should 
state more precisely how it intends to guarantee that the 
scope of the Directive will be quickly enlarged to 
include other dangerous substances discharged into 
water. In view of the amount of valuable research 
29.7.85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 188/21 
which went into the preparation of the Directive, this 
kind of information must surely be available. It would 
be extremely useful both for the sectors concerned and 
for all those working for the protection of the environ­
ment. 
2.6. Directive 76/464/EEC 
In line with the foregoing comments, the Committee 
would encourage the Commission to examine if and 
when it will be possible to amend framework Directive 
76/464/EEC. With respect to the present Directive it 
should be specified that all plants manufacturing, 
processing or marketing toxic substances must receive 
authorization from the national authorities to ensure 
that they observe either limit values or quality objec­
tives, or that they conform to any specific counter-
pollution scheme run by the Member State. National 
programmes should be geared towards technologies 
which reduce waste and recycle pollutants. The general 
application of the authorization procedure is stipulated 
in Article 3.1 of framework Directive 76/464/EEC. 
2.7. Definition of the term 'best technical means' 
The Directive should specify what is meant by 'the best 
technical means available' or best technology; this 
concept is referred to several times, but with differing 
wording. 
3. Detailed comments 
The following amendments are proposed with a view to 
incorporating the above recommendations in the Direc­
tive: 
3.1. In Article 1, indent 7 (p. 31), replace the words 
'within the meaning of Article 5' by ', which are to be 
authorized in line with these programmes'. 
3.2. In Article 2 (g) (p. 32), delete the rest of the 
sentence after the words 'this Directive' and insert 'or 
has made any substantial modifications or extensions 
to its production cycle or to the treating of waste mate­
rials'. 
3.3. Add the following indent at the end of Article 2: 
'(h) best technical means available 
— new technology is available when an indus­
trial-scale prototype plant has been satisfac­
torily in operation in a given sector or EEC 
Member State for at least one year.' 3.4. In Article 3 (2), replace the term 'applied' (line 6) 
by 'monitored' and add the following sentence: 
'When toxic substances are discharged at the same 
time as other waste waters, provision must be made 
for the taking of samples before any admixture 
occurs during the processes of treatment or discharge 
to public waters.' 
3.5. Amend the first paragraph of Article 4 to read as 
follows: 
'The Member States concerned shall be responsible 
for monitoring the effects of discharges from plants 
on the aquatic environment by the same procedure 
under the two systems (emission limit values and 
quality objectives).' 
3.6. Reword the second sentence of Article 5 (2) to 
read: 
'These shall include the measurement of amounts of 
toxic substances in the waste waters so as to evaluate 
the most appropriate measures and techniques ...'. 
3.7. Insert the following paragraph at the end of 
Article 5: 
'4. Authorization for discharges from plants not 
included under heading A of Annex II or plants 
for which no standards are laid down under the 
present Directive is to be issued on the basis of 
the specific programmes.' 
3.8. Under heading B of Annex I (3), other statisti­
cally significant parameters may be added to the arith­
metical mean. 
This would be advisable because the arithmetic-mean 
limit does not offer sufficient guarantee, particularly as 
pollution levels may be subject to considerable varia­
tions. 
3.9. In line with the comments on Article 4, add a 
point 7 under heading A of Annex I stating that where 
there is a high concentration of waste outlets in the 
aquatic environment, the quality of waters should be 
monitored according to the procedure specified under 
heading B. 
3.10. Given that the 10 formulation units (i.e. where 
the processing of raw material into the finished product 
takes place) in the EEC are responsible for 90% of all 
DDT pollution, the Committee feels that it would be 
inappropriate to leave this matter entirely to the discre­
tion of Member States. It therefore proposes that table 
A on page 49 be amended to indicate that emission 
standards should also be fixed for formulation units 
which are not on the same site as production plants. 
No C 188/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 7. 85 
4. Conclusion 
4.1. Whilst urging the Commission to accept the 
above amendments, the Committee is in favour of adopting the Directive and its Annexes and would ask 
the Commission to hasten the full implementation of 
framework Directive 76/464/EEC. 
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR