No C 283/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 11. 78 
Having regard to the discussions at its 160th plenary 
session held on 20 and 21 June 1978 (meeting of 21 
June 1978), 
Whereas the Community must attach top priority to the 
fight against marine pollution caused, in particular, by 
hydrocarbons; Whereas the Member States should accede, in so far as 
they have not yet done so, the 1974 International Con­
vention for the safety of life at sea and the 1978 Pro­
tocol relating thereto (SOLAS), the 1973 Convention 
for the prevention of pollution by ships, as amended by 
the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL), and ILO Convention 
No 147 on minimum standards for merchant shipping, 
Whereas safety in shipping, the living and working 
conditions of crews and their level of competence, must 
all undoubtedly be improved; HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
Whereas the Council and the Member States should 
take suitable action forthwith and the Member States 
should at the appropriate international forums adopt a 
common front on the rapid application of the existing 
international rules in this field, especially with regard to 
minimum standards for the operation of ships; 
Whereas Community action in this field must be in with 
that of the specialized international bodies; unanimously: 
1. The Economic and Social Committee endorses the 
proposal, which seeks to make the Member States ratify 
or accede as soon as possible to the Conventions and 
Protocols mentioned in the recitals. 
2. The Committee believes this would be a first step 
towards improving safety at sea. 
Done at Brussels, 21 June 1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Basil de FERRANTI 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of groundwater against 
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official journal of the European 
Communities No C 37 of 14 February 1978, page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 8 February 1978 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community. 
27. 11. 78 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 283/39 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 160th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 20 and 21 June 1978. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 198 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 8 February 1978 for an 
opinion, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman on 
6 March 1978 instructing the Section for Protection of 
the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs 
to prepare an opinion and a report on the matter 
(Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section for 
Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs on 13 June 1978, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the 
rapporteur, Mr van Campen, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 160th plenary 
session held on 20 and 21 June 1978 (meeting of 20 
June 1978), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. General comments „ 
1.1. The Committee endorses the Directive's aim, 
which is to protect the quality of groundwater by regu­
lating or banning the discharge of dangerous sub­
stances, because groundwater pollution is often irrever­
sible or takes a very long time to disappear. 
The soil is still too frequently considered to be a dump­
ing ground and it would seem wise for the Directive to 
include a provision banning the discharge of untreated 
effluent into the soil if they present a risk for the quality 
of groundwater. The Committee also has a number of 
queries about the Directive. Thus, it wonders whether it 
is possible to make the distinction the Commission has 
made between the saturation and aeration zones in all 
areas. Although the aeration zone in some areas will 
have a positive purifying and degrading effect on the substances in List II, this is not universal, and therefore 
the authorization referred to in Article 4 should take 
local factors into consideration. 
1.2. Such a distinction cannot be due either to the 
degradability of the substances in Lists I and II, for both 
lists contain both degradable and non-degradable sub­
stances. 
The proposal seems to lean too heavily on the Directive 
on the pollution of surface water caused by dangerous 
substances, although groundwater and surface water are 
two quite distinct environments. A good deal is known 
about the composition and flow characteristics of sur­
face water and the techniques used for analyzing the 
substances therein, but there are still great gaps in our 
knowledge about what the Directive calls the saturation 
and aeration zones. 
The Committee is not arguing that the protection of 
groundwater does not need to be taqkled. However, it 
would warn against too rigid a Directive and the copy­
ing of this or that point from Directives which deal with 
a completely different field. 
1.3. The Committee thinks that in a number of in­
stances the Directive fails to give precise and scientifi­
cally accurate definitions of some of the terms used, e.g. 
'aquifer', 'aquifers which are isolated from the bio­
sphere' and 'biologically harmless'. Unless these terms 
are more precisely defined ambiguities in interpretation 
are bound to occur. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. Some of the substances in List II (e.g. selenium 
and cyanides) are considered by the Committee to be 
more dangerous than a number of the substances in 
List I. The Committee would also refer in this connec­
tion to Article 13, by which it is possible to transfer 
substances from List II to List I. Surprisingly, however, 
transfers in the opposite direction are not possible. The 
Committee can very well imagine that after a while the 
harmful effect of a compound in List I may appear to 
have been overestimated and that this compound should 
be in List II instead. 
2.1.2. It would be more realistic to specify limits for 
substances' concentrations in both lists. There would 
seem to be little point in banning a discharge when the 
pollutant's concentration is lower than the concen-
No C 283/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 11. 78 
tration to be found in nature. Analytical methods are 
reaching an ever increasing level of perfection, which 
makes it possible to detect more and more substances. 
Norms valid for approximately two years, in which the 
natural concentration acts as the lower limit, should be 
specified for the substances listed in the Annex or to be 
added thereto. 
2.1.3. It is also not clear why hydrocarbons of non-
petroleum origin are not included and persistent syn­
thetic substances which may float, remain in suspension 
or precipitate have been omitted when it has not been 
established beyond any shadow of doubt that they do 
not occur in groundwater. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. Above all, the Committee is not wholly con­
vinced by the reasons put forward for exempting certain 
discharges. The polluting capacity of domestic effluent 
from one isolated dwelling may in certain cases not be 
very great, but a group of such dwellings may very well 
endanger the quality of groundwater. The same applies 
to agricultural activities. The Committee is aware that a 
licensing system for isolated dwellings could encounter a number of difficulties and that farming would be 
strongly hindered if the Directive were to be applied too 
strictly. However, it would point out that these two 
categories' discharges may be neglected, and would like 
the qualifying phrase 'as long as they present no risk for 
the quality of groundwater' to be added in both in­
stances. The Committee would also like this phrase to 
be added to Article 3 (2) (e), because these discharges 
may also endanger the groundwater in certain areas. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. 'Waste water' in Article 3 (2) (c) and 'scientific 
work' in Article 3 (2) (d) could be defined more clearly. 
These two expressions should not be allowed to be 
interpreted to© broadly. 
2.4. Articles 5 and 6 
2 AX, The Committee thinks that Articles 5 and 6 are 
broadly identical and it would therefore perhaps be 
better to amalgamate them. 
2.5. Article 13 
2.5.1. As indicated under .2.2, Article 13 should be 
amended so as to make transfers from List I to List U 
possible. 
Done at Brussels, 20 June 1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Basil de FERRANTI 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 75/106/EEC on the 
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making^up by volume of 
certain prepackaged liquids 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 250 of 19 October 1977, page 7. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 14 October 1977 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Articles 100 and 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community.