No C 197/54 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
4.3.7.  That  the  Commission  should,  in  the  Community  (Social  Fund,  Regional  Fund,  EIB 
conjunction  with  the  Secretariat  of the  Standing  and  EAGGF). 
Committee  on  Employment,  engage  in sustained 
action  with  particular  emphasis  on creating  jobs  for Done  at Brussels,  25 May  1976. 
young  people; 
4.3.8.  That  steps  be  taken  to  ensure  better 
coordination  of the  various  instruments  available  to The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  in the course  of the discussion: 
Paragraph  2.1.4 
Add the following  at the end  of the paragraph: 
'Although  these  benefits  should  be increased,  this  may  lead  some  of the  unemployed  in 
some  countries,  under  certain  circumstances  and  quite  apart  from  other  legitimate  motives, 
to hesitate  about  accepting  a new  job  that  would  bring  them  an income  close  to that 
received  from  benefits,  to which  various  advantages  are at times  added.' 
Reason  for submitting  amendment 
When  reducing  social  inequalities,  people  who  work  should  have  an income  equal,  if not 
superior,  to that  of those  who  do not  work;  although  the  responsibility  of the  latter  should 
not be called  into  question. 
Voting 
For: 22, against:  49, abstentions:  21. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  concerning  the dumping  of waste  at sea 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 40 of 20 February  1976,  page  3. 
On 21  January  1976,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the  European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 197/55 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  Article  100  of  the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 21 
January  1976, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
27 January  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Protection  of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up an opinion  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Protection  of the  Environment,  Public  Health 
and Consumer  Affairs  on 13 April  1976  and  the 
report  submitted  by the  Rapporteur,  Mr  de Grave, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session  held  on 26 May  1976  (meeting  of 25 and  26 
May  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION: 
unanimously: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  approves  the  proposal  for  a 
Directive.  However,  it thinks  that  the  proposal  can 
only  be considered  as being  a first  step  covering  the 
minimum  provisions.  In its programme  of action  on 
the environment  of 22  November  1973  (x), the 
Council  made  the statement  quoted  below,  to which 
reference  has now  been  made  by the Commission  in 
its draft  resolution  of 24  March  1976  on  the 
continuation  and  implementation  of a European 
Community  policy  and  action  programme  on the 
environment. 
'Of all the  different  forms  of pollution,  marine 
pollution  constitutes  now,  and  to an even  greater 
extent  in the  long  term,  one  of  the  most 
dangerous,  because  of the  effects  it has  on the 
fundamental  biological  and  ecological  balances 
governing  life  on our  planet.  This  danger  is even 
greater  on account  of the level  of pollution  which 
has already  been  reached,  the  diversity  of 
pollution  sources  and  the  difficulty  of ensuring 
that any  measures  adopted  are  complied  with. 
The pollution  of the  sea  has  already  reached  a 
high  level.  For  example,  a  disturbing 
(*) OJ No C 112,  20. 12. 1973. accumulation,  of pollutants  can  be detected  in 
plankton,  other  living  organisms  and  sediments, 
and even  now  there  is evidence  of a considerable 
danger  of eutrophication  in certain  estuaries  and 
coastal  areas.' 
1.2. The  Committee  would  therefore  ask  that  the 
proposal  be tightened  up in certain  respects  either  by 
amending  the  text  as it stands  at present  or by 
adopting  further  provisions  shortly. 
1.3. It  thinks  that  the  important  role  still  to be 
played  by Member  States,  the diversity  of the checks 
and penalties  and  the vagueness  of certain  provisions 
in the appendices  may  lead  to differences  in the way 
Member  States  apply  the Directive,  and  consequently 
to appreciable  distortions  of competition  between 
countries. 
1.4. The  Committee  would  in particular  like  to 
mention  in its  'general  comments'  a number  of 
problems  to  which  it thinks  that  inadequate 
consideration  is given,  namely:  (i) the  rise  in the 
concentrations  of marine  pollutants  and  the  effects 
of this  rise  on certain  foods  of marine  origin,  (ii) the 
monitoring  of  synergistic  effects,  (iii)  the 
repercussions  on  the  seabed,  (iv)  the  need 
for preventive  action,  and  (v) the fair  application  of 
the 'polluter-pays'  principle.  These  points  give  rise 
to a number  of  suggestions  in  the  'specific 
comments'  regarding  the  Articles  and  appendices 
and to other  specific  observations  relating  mainly 
to the  vessels  used  (Articles  2 and  4)  and 
the need  for a more  uniform  and  more  Community-
wide  application  of certain  provisions  that  might  be 
interpreted  differently  by Member  States,  even  if 
they all sign  the various  conventions  in this  field. 
1.5. The  concentrations  of  marine  pollutants  and 
their  effects  on certain  foodstuffs 
1.5.1.  One  of the  most  serious  problems  is the 
persistence  of toxic  matter  in low  concentrations. 
However,  the proposal  seeks  in particular  to ban  the 
dumping  of highly  toxic  matter.  It also  states  in 
Appendix  I B that  'this  Annex  does  not  apply  to 
substances  which  are  rapidly  rendered  harmless  by 
physical,  chemical  or biological  processes,..The 
physical  processes  of dilution  and  precipitation  may 
eradicate  the  high  toxicity  of certain  pollutants 
without  necessarily  rendering  them  harmless. 
1.5.2.  Filter-feeding  organisms  and  animals  at the 
end of a food  chain  may  build  up  very  high 
concentrations  of pollutants,  and  this  phenomenon 
can be a source  of particular  concern  in enclosed 
No C 197/56 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
seas.  In most  EEC  countries  there  are  still  no 
marketing  standards  on the  basis  of which  fish, 
molluscs  and  crustaceans  contaminated  by heavy 
metals  can  be declared  unfit  for consumption,  even 
though  the  internationally  accepted  limits  are 
frequently  exceeded. 
1.5.3.  All  additional  pollution,  even  when 
rendered  harmless  locally  by 'physical  processes'  (cf. 
Appendix  IB),  can  therefore  increase  existing 
concentrations,  especially  in enclosed  seas,  and  make 
fish unfit  for consumption. 
1.5.4.  It  is therefore  necessary: 
—• to tighten  up  the  proposal  on this  point  by 
excluding  from  Appendix  I B certain  physical 
processes  such  as dilution  and  dispersion,  at least 
as regards  pollutants  that  are  harmful  in low 
concentrations, 
— to lay down  promptly  EEC  standards  specifying 
beyond  what  point  fish,  crustaceans  and  molluscs 
are to be declared  unfit  for consumption.  This 
will stop  polluted  foodstuffs  being  channelled  — 
by a sort  of 'negative  selection'  process  which  is 
well known  — to consumers  in Member  States 
where  rules  are lax,  non-existent  or still  hardly 
applied. 
1.6. Synergistic  effects 
1.6.1.  The  synergistic  or  inhibitive  effects  of 
substances  added  to the marine  environment  are not 
adequately  known  and  are  difficult  to verify. 
However,  specific  account  could  no doubt  be taken 
of these  effects  by making  the  proposal  more 
stringent  in certain  respects  (dumping  sites  and 
procedures).  Examples  of synergistic  effects. 
— nickel,  which  is relatively  non-toxic,  increases  the 
toxicity  of copper  by a factor  of 10, 
— a reduction  in the  pH  of water  promotes  the 
methylation  of inorganic  mercury  by  certain 
aerobic  bacteria. 
In order  to lessen  the  above  dangers,  or even  take 
advantage  of certain  inhibitive  effects,  there  should 
be checks  and  consultations  at EEC  level,  especially 
as regards  dumping  sites  and  procedures,  before 
permits  are issued. 
1.6.2.  The  Committee  is pleased  to note  that  much 
greater  consideration  will  be given  henceforth  to 
synergistic  effects. 1.7. The  pollution  of the seabed 
1.7.1.  The  elimination  of surface  pollution  or of 
localized  pollution  is a slow  process.  In some  cases, 
however,  this  pollution  may  be less  harmful  than 
some  forms  of less  reversible  pollution  caused  by 
even  non-toxic  particulate  waste  on the seabed.  This 
particulate  waste  forms  a sterile  crust  which  puts  an 
end to chemical  and  biochemical  reactions  at the 
bottom  of the sea (decomposition  of dead  plankton, 
oxidation-reduction).  These  reactions  release  the 
elements  which  phytoplankton  uses  — together  with 
light  as its source  of energy  — for the production  of 
oxygen  and  for the initial  synthesis  of proteins,  thus 
forming  the first  link  in a long  food  chain  which 
determines  the size  of fish  populations. 
1.7.2.  Even  if it is not  toxic,  particulate  waste 
dumped  in the  sea  — and  especially  in shallow 
waters  forming  the breeding  ground  for  marine  life 
(the photic  zone  does  not extend  beyond  a depth  of 
100 to 200  metres)  — may  lead  to a decline  in fauna 
and flora  and  also  lower  the  sea's  degrading 
capacity. 
1.7.3.  As  particulate  waste  can  be dumped  in a 
less harmful  way  provided  that  certain  precautions 
are taken,  the Section  thinks  that  marine  life and  the 
generation  of  oxygen  must  be  given  special 
protection  against  even  non-toxic  particulate  waste. 
This  can  only  done  by laying  down  the  following 
at EEC  level: 
— dumping  areas,  especially  on the  basis  of depth 
and other  characteristics, 
—• dumping  methods, 
— dumping  periods, 
— quantities  to be dumped, 
—• type  of waste. 
1.8. The  need  for preventive  action 
1.8.1.  The  Committee  would  reiterate  a view 
which  it has  voiced  on several  occasions  and  to 
which  it attaches  great  importance,  namely  that  an 
effort  must  be made  to reduce  pollution  not  only  by 
recycling  waste  but  also  by  employing  reusable, 
recyclable  or degradable  products. 
1.8.2.  It  notes  with  satisfaction  that  the 
Commission  has  laid  down  the following  as the first 
principle  of any  environment  policy: 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 197/57 
'The  best  environment  policy  consists  in 
preventing  the creation  of pollution  or nuisances 
at source,  rather  than  subsequently  trying  to 
counteract  their  effects.. 
This  was  also  the line  taken  at the adoption  of the 
Council  Directive  of 15 July  1975  on waste,  in which 
connection  the  Commission  advocated  'Community 
action  to avoid  the  spread  of products  which  are 
difficult  to dispose  of'. 
1.8.3.  The  Committee  would  therefore  ask  that 
the possibilities  of recycling  waste  and  above  all, the 
measures  to avoid  waste  be developed  using  the most 
suitable  techniques,  so as to reduce  the  amount  of 
waste  to be dumped  at sea. 
1.9. The  'polluter-pays'  principle 
1.9.1.  The  'polluter-pays'  principle  is  not 
properly  applied  if people  do not  even  have  to pay 
for the right  to dump  toxic  substances  at sea.  Less 
harmful  forms  of disposal,  the recycling  of waste  and 
preventive  action  (in  respect  of raw  materials  or 
processes)  may  be made  less  competitive  if people 
can cause  pollution  at  no  financial  cost  to 
themselves.  This  right  may  thus  impede  the adoption 
of less-polluting  techniques  which  would 
automatically  become  imperative  as a result  of 
market  forces  if the  cost  of damage  — which  is 
indeed  difficult  to quantify  — were  charged  to the 
polluter. 
1.10.  Distortions  of competition  that  may  remain 
1.10.1.  The  Committee  takes  note  of the  fact  that 
this Directive  will  make  it possible  to reduce  one  of 
the factors  responsible  for distortion  of competition 
between  Member  States  and  non-member  countries 
which  have  signed  international  conventions  in this 
field.  However,  it is still  concerned  about  distortions 
which  might  continue  to exist  between  signatory 
States  and  non-signatory  countries  outside  the EEC, 
and the  effects  of these  distortions  on the  economy 
and the  employment  situation.  These  distortions 
might  also  enable  rich  countries  to export  pollution 
to poor  countries. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. The  Committee  notes  that  'deversement' 
must  be replaced  by 'immersion'  in the  title  and 
text of the  French  version  of the proposal. 
2.2. Article  2 
2.2.1.  The  Committee  would  like  the  words 
'incidental  to'  to  be  replaced  by  'occurring accidently  in'. This  would  enable  a ban  to be placed 
on the  dumping  of floating  objects  and  other 
undesirable  waste  from  articles  consumed  by boat 
passengers  and  crews. 
2.2.2.  The  Committee  considers  that  the Directive 
— like  the London  Convention  — should  cover  all 
vessels,  especially  inland  waterway  and  coastwise 
vessels  travelling  at sea.  The  current  term  'sea-going 
vessels'  might  not  cover  all cases.  It takes  note  of 
the Commission's  statement  that  the  term 
'platforms'  also  embraces  artificial  islands. 
However,  since  Article  6 and  the  London 
Convention  are more  explicit  on this  point  (they  use 
the words  'platforms  and  other  man-made  structures 
at sea'),  the Committee  would  ask  the  Commission 
to check  whether  the present  wording  is adequate  on 
this point  and  to align  the  different  language 
versions. 
2.2.3.  Finally,  the  Committee  considers  that  the 
Directive  would  very  probably  not solve  the problem 
of the  floating  factories  which  are  under 
construction  and  which  might  spread  in the  future, 
since  such  vessels  could  be registered  under  a flag  of 
convenience. 
2.2.4.  The  building  of floating  ammonia  and  urea 
plants  for the manufacture  of fertilizers  is a major 
cause  for  concern  because  of  the  innovatory 
character  of such  projects  and,  more  especially,  the 
prospects  of development  in other  sectors.  This  is a 
matter  that  must  not be overlooked  by the EEC. 
2.3. Article  3 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  endorses  this  Article, 
though  it would  stress  the difficulties  of supervising 
dumping  operations,  especially  when  they  are 
performed  far away  from  EEC  coasts. 
2.3.2.  The  Committee  proposes  that  a fourth 
indent  laying  down  simplified  provisions  for  the 
international  transport  of waste  be added  to Article 
3 (1). Such  provisions,  which  are to be found  in the 
French  law  on the  prevention  of marine  pollution 
caused  by dumping  operations,  should  ensure  that 
Articles  4 and  5 cannot  be evaded.  Since  vessels 
ostensibly  taking  waste  elsewhere  are not  subject  to 
any special  checks,  they  could  secretly  dump  at sea 
waste  that  was  supposed  to be  exported  for 
No C 197/58 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
processing.  Notification  or registration  of these 
operations  would  simplify  supervision. 
2.3.3.  In  line  with  Article  7 (4) of the  London 
Convention,  the  Committee  wants  the  Member 
States  to take  measures  to ensure  that  vessels 
enjoying  sovereign  immunity  are  subject  to similar 
rules.  The  same  guarantees  should  be obtained  from 
non-member  countries  with  large  fleets,  especially  in 
the Mediterranean. 
2.4. Articles  5 and 6 
2.4.1.  For  the  reasons  set  out  above  in the 
'general  comments',  the  Committee  does  not  want 
the arrangements  concerning  permits  to be the sole 
responsibility  of the Member  States. 
2.4.2.  EEC  provisions  should  be drawn  up as soon 
as possible  — as part  of a kind  of 'area  planning 
policy'  for the seas  — to deal  with  the arrangements 
envisaged  in these  Articles,  especially  as regards 
dumping  sites. 
2.4.3.  If  need  be,  a system  could  be set up for 
approving  the vessels  to be used. 
2.5. Article  7 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  thinks  that  the  individual 
items  of information  should  remain  confidential,  but 
the Commission  should  publish  the main  data  in the 
form  of a general  survey. 
2.6. Article  10 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  would  like  this  Article  to be 
re-worded  to read: 
'In the  event  of force  majeure  due  to bad 
weather  or to any  other  cause  when  human  life 
or the  safety  of a ship  or aircraft  is threatened 
and if the provisions  of Articles  4 and  5 cannot 
be applied,  the  Member  State  shall  immediately 
notify  the  Commission  and  any  Member  State 
who may  be affected,  of the  details  of the 
circumstances  surrounding  the  dumping 
operation  and  of the  nature  and  quantity  of the 
waste  or other  materials  dumped.' 
2.7. Article  11 
2.7.1.  The  Committee  would  ask  that  the  very 
vague  wording  of Article  11 (3) — which  deals  with special  authorizations  — be reviewed.  Although  the 
Committee  does  not  underestimate  the  economic 
imperatives  (which  the  Commission  took  into 
account  in the Directive  on titanium  dioxide),  it does 
not think  that  disposal  costs  should  be able  to be 
used  systematically  as a general  argument. 
2.7.2.  This  comment  is all the more  relevant  since 
the Directive  departs  from  the  'polluter-pays' 
principle,  so that  the process  of weighing  the cost  of 
pollution  against  the  cost  of waste  recycling  or 
disposal  will  be systematically  distorted. 
2.7.3.  The  Commission's  authorization  should 
take the form  of a decision  published  in the Official 
Journal  of the European  Communities. 
2.8. Article  12 
2.8.1.  The  Committee  would  ask  that  the 
recycling  of waste  and  the  utilization  of non-
polluting  technologies  and  products  be specifically 
mentioned  in  the  description  of  the  scientific 
research  programmes  in Article  12. 
2.9. Article  13 
2.9.1.  The  Committee  would  point  out  that 
uniform  application  of the  Directive  will  probably 
necessitate  an appreciable  increase  in staff  at the 
Commission. 
2.10.  Article  IS 
2.10.1.  The  word  'main'  should  be  deleted, 
whilst  the  words  'provision  of national  law  which 
they adopt'  should  be replaced  by 'provisions  which 
they lay down  by law  or administrative  action'. 
3. Comments  on the Appendices 
3.1. Appendix  I (substances  whose  dumping  is 
banned) 
3.1.1.  Since  no research  has  been  carried  out  into 
synergistic  effects,  the  Committee  thinks  that 
supervising  dumping  sites  and  procedures  could  at 
least  initially  help  in tackling  this  problem. 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 197/59 
3.1.2.  The  Committee  notes  that  several  points  in 
this Appendix  (A 1, A 2, B, C) are  worded  very 
generally  and  are  liable  to be applied  differently  in 
the individual  Member  States.  Even  when  present  in 
non-toxic  concentrations,  persistent  organohalogen 
compounds  and  heavy  metal  derivatives  may  cause 
considerable  damage  if they  accumulate  in certain 
organisms  or combine  with  other  substances. 
3.1.3.  The  Committee  would  therefore  reiterate  its 
general  comments  on this  Appendix. 
3.2. Appendix  1, A 2 
3.2.1.  The  Committee  is not convinced  of the need 
for the  general  inclusion  here  of organosilicon 
compounds,  given  the fact  that  this  Appendix,  which 
lists substances  commonly  recognized  as  being 
dangerous,  does  not  include  carcinogenic  substances. 
Although  the  Council  stated  in its 1973  Action 
Programme  that  the Commission  could,  if necessary, 
submit  Community  proposals  for the revision  of the 
list of substances  mentioned  in conventions,  the 
Committee  considers  that  the text  need  not be called 
into question  on this  point,  provided  that  those 
organosilicon  compounds  which  should  be included 
in Appendix  I because  of the  specific  physical  or 
chemical  toxicity,  the  non-degradability  and  the 
biological  accumulability  of such  compounds  and 
their  monomers  are specified  by name. 
3.2.2.  An  item  6 covering  the  organosilicon 
compounds  not  included  in Appendix  I should  thus 
be added  to Appendix  I. 
3.2.3.  This  greater  degree  of precision  would  make 
for uniform  application  by Member  States,  for  the 
text as it stands  at present  could  be interpreted  in 
different  ways. 
3.3. Appendix  1, A 5 
3.3.1.  This  point  should  cover  all floating  objects 
likely  to hamper  navigation  or  to lead  to a 
deterioration  in the  marine  environment,  and  not 
simply  objects  made  of synthetic  material. 
3.3.2.  The  Committee  also  thinks  that  persistent 
plastics  are  rarely  dumped  at sea.  The  solution  to 
this problem  has  mainly  to be found  at other  levels 
(e.g. recycling  and  reduced  utilization). 3.4. Appendix  I, A 6 
3.4.1.  The  Committee  proposes  that  this  item  be 
expanded  to include  hydrocarbons  of non-petroleum 
origin.  This  wider  definition  would  place  a ban  on 
the dumping  of products  such  as coal  tar and  all 
hydrocarbons  produced  by  the  pyrogenation  of 
organic  matter.  This  toxicity  of these  products  (due 
to their  very  high  concentrations  of  aromatic 
hydrocarbons)  is beyond  doubt. 
3.5. Appendix  I, A 7 
3.5.1.  The  Committee  wonders  what  is going  to 
happen  to low-level  radioactive  wastes  and  other 
materials  before  the  Council  adopts  provisions 
dealing  with  these  substances. 
3.5.2.  Moreover,  the Committee  cannot  voice  any 
views  on this  matter  in the  absence  of information 
on alternative  methods  of disposal. 
3.6. Appendix  1, A 8 
3.6.1.  This  item,  which  concerns  acids  and  alkalis 
from  the  titanium  and  the  aluminium  industries, 
could  be amended.  The  Committee  thinks  that,  in 
principle,  no distinction  should  be drawn  between 
acid and  alkali  wastes  according  to their  industrial 
origin.  Instead,  the  main  criterion  should  be the 
quantities  dumped.  However,  as things  stand  at the 
moment,  the aluminium  and  the  titanium  industries 
dump  most  waste,  which  probably  explains  why  item 
A 8 in Appendix  I is worded  as it is. 
3.6.2.  The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  would 
re-affirm  its unanimously-adopted  opinion  on the 
phased  reduction  of waste  dumped  by the  titanium 
dioxide  industry  (*). Because  of  the  special 
circumstances  referred  to in this  opinion,  this  waste 
should  be excluded  from  the scope  of the Directive. 
3.6.3.  Other  acid  and  alkali  wastes  must  be 
considered  in the  light  of the  quantities  dumped, 
their  secondary  components  and  the  dumping  areas 
(pollution  of the seabed  by sterile  crusts),  rather  than 
on the basis  of their  origin. 
3.7. Appendix  I, B 
3.7.1.  The  Committee  requests  that  this  item, 
which  deals  with  toxic  matter  that  is rapidly 
rendered  harmless,  be  amended  along  the  lines 
indicated  in the 'general  comments'  and  expounded 
(*) OJ No C 131,12.  6. 1976. 
No C 197/60  Official  Journal  of the European  Communities  23.  8. 76 
in the  Section's  report.  It is necessary  to prevent 
large  quantities  of pollutants  such  as cadmium  and 
mercury,  etc.,  from  being  diluted  or dispersed  in the 
marine  environment  and  contaminating  organisms 
that are  capable  of accumulating  substances  present 
in low  concentrations. 
3.8. Appendix  I, C 
3.8.1.  The  Committee  would  ask  that  this  item  be 
worded  more  precisely  so as to ensure  that  a large 
quantity  of waste  containing  traces  of the  toxic 
substances  listed  in Appendix  I, A cannot  ultimately 
cause  a considerable  increase  in pollution  in absolute 
terms. 
3.8.2.  It  points  out  in this  connection  that  some 
areas  have  been  heavily  contaminated  by  heavy 
metals  following  the  large-scale  dumping  of waste 
containing  only  traces  of such  metals.  Special 
supervision  and  a Community  definition  of the word 
'traces'  are therefore  necessary. 
3.9. Appendix  11  (substances  whose  dumping  is 
conditional  on the prior  issue,  in each  case  of a 
special  permit  and  is  subject  to  special 
conditional  on the prior  issue,  in each  case,  of a 
precautions) 
3.9.1.  The  Committee  urges  the  adoption  of 
criteria  for  'special  care'  and,  in  particular, 
authorized  quantities  and  dumping  areas.  It 
considers  that  the  Community  must  define  without 
delay  the areas  where  the dumping  of different  types 
of waste  is to be authorized.  If there  are no uniform 
EEC  provisions,  firms  in those  countries  where  rules 
are strictest  will  suffer  from  distortions  of 
competition. 
3.9.2.  For  the  reasons  stated  in the  'general 
comments'  and  expounded  in the  Section's  report, 
the Committee  thinks  that  a very  careful  watch  must 
be kept  on  some  of the  substances  listed  in 
Appendix  II, especially  pesticides,  copper  and  zinc. 
A total  ban  should  be imposed  on the  dumping  of 
some  of these  substances  in certain  areas  or in large 
quantities.  This  also  applies  to even  the  non-toxic 
particulate  wastes,  which  should  be included  in 
Appendix  II. 
3.9.3.  The  Commission  should  pay  special 
attention  to item  4 of Appendix  II ('substances which,  though  of a non-toxic  nature,  may  become 
harmful  due  to the  quantities  in which  they  are 
dumped,  or which  are  liable  to seriously  reduce 
amenities')  in order  to ensure  that  the  Directive  is 
applied  correctly  and  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of Article  13.  Some  seemingly  harmless 
substances  — including  sodium  chloride  — may 
cause  damage  if dumped  in unduly  large  quantities. 
3.10.  Appendix  III  (criteria  governing  the  issue  of 
permits) 
3.10.1.  In  Appendix  III of the  draft  Directive  a 
number  of criteria  governing  the issue  of permits  for 
dumping  at  sea  are  set  out.  Differences  in 
interpretation  and  application  of  these  criteria 
between  Member  States  could  lead  to  grave 
distortions  of  competition.  So  the  Committee 
suggests  that  these  criteria  be clearly  defined  and 
that numerical  values  to be adhered  to be given 
wherever  possible. 
3.10.2.  At  all events,  it should  be explicitly  stated 
in Appendix  II or Appendix  III that  there  can  be no 
question  of allowing  the  dumping  of waste  which 
would  lead  to pollution  of bathing  waters  exceeding 
the limits  laid  down  as guidelines  in the  Council 
Directive  of 8 December  1975  concerning  the quality 
of bathing  water  (1). 
3.10.3.  Finally,  greater  attention  must  be paid  to: 
— the  exact  manner  of dispersal, 
—• the analytical  methods  used  for  the  various 
wastes, 
— the  bracket  within  which  the  various 
concentrations  may  vary,  and  any  tolerances 
which  may  be authorized  in relation  to figures 
specified. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
H OJ No L 31, 5. 2.1976.