NoC 176/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
5. General and final provisions 
5.1. It should be made clear in Article 15, which 
deals with the establishment of an advisory com­
mittee, that the members appointed to sit on this 
committee should be experts on environmental mat­
ters. Article 15 should therefore be re-worded as fol­
lows: 
'An Advisory Committee consisting of one envi­
ronment expert per Member State and represen­tatives of European organizations which are 
recognized as consultative partners at Com­
munity level and chaired by a Commission 
representative is hereby set up.' 
5.2. The Committee would request that it be sent 
a copy of the annual Commission report mentioned 
in Article 16, for the purposes of study. 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the supervision and control of 
trans-frontier shipment of hazardous wastes within the European Community 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 53 of 25 February 1983, page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 January 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic 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 
207th plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 April 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 25 January 1983 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Direc­
tive on the supervision and control of trans-frontier 
shipment of hazardous wastes within the European 
Community, Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 25 January 1983, instructing the Section for Pro­
tection of the Environment, Public Health and Con­
sumer Affairs to draw up an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the Section's discussions at its 74th 
meeting held on 20 April 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Kolble, 
Having regard to the discussions on 27 April 1983 
during the 207th plenary session held on 27 and 
28 April 1983, 
4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 176/5 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
with no dissenting votes and two abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee approves the aim of the Com­
mission proposal, which is to ensure the strict 
supervision of hazardous waste during its journey 
from its place of production to its place of disposal 
in another Member State. 
1.2. The Committee, bearing in mind inter alia the 
recent events surrounding the trans-frontier disposal 
of the waste from the Seveso disaster, agrees with 
the Commission about the urgent need for a solu­
tion to this matter. 
It hopes that the Council will be able to start discus­
sions on the proposed Directive on 17 June 1983, so 
that it can be implemented as soon as possible. 
The Committee considers that even more emphasis 
should be placed in the proposal on the need to pro­
tect the environment and health, by disposing of the 
waste in the safest and most suitable places and 
with the safest and most suitable machinery. 
1.3. The Committee thinks that in principle hazar­
dous waste should be disposed of in its country of 
origin in compliance with the Directives referred to 
in Article 2; it should be transported abroad only in 
cases in which it cannot be disposed of properly in 
the country of origin. Encouragement should be 
given to Member States' efforts to provide or main­
tain an adequate and efficient infrastructure — 
whether private or public — for the proper disposal 
of hazardous waste in their own countries. 
At all events, Member States should be free to 
refuse waste which they cannot dispose of without 
entering into conflict with human health or environ­
mental requirements. 
1.4. The Committee agrees with the Commission 
that this Directive should not deal with the 
problems associated with the methods used for the 
shipment of hazardous products or waste; these problems should be solved on the basis of existing 
provisions and in the light of the special features 
of this category of 'goods'. 
1.5. Article 3 presupposes that the Member States 
which may serve as the country of dispatch, country 
of transit or country of disposal, are to determine 
and name the authorities that are to receive notifica­
tion. This assumes that the Member States are 
obliged to ensure that they have an adequate and 
suitable network of authorities. 
The Committee notes that the proposal does not 
indicate whether the 'competent authorities' are to 
be local, regional or national authorities. 
Of course, each Member State must be free to deter­
mine which authorities are to be competent, since this 
depends not only on its constitution and adminis­
trative machinery but also on which social relations 
must be taken into account in the country. It may be 
easier for producers and consignors to deal in the 
country of dispatch with the most local authorities. 
In the country of destination the 'competent 
authorities' should have a sufficient idea about the 
extent to which suitable facilities are available in 
their country for disposing of hazardous waste. This 
may militate in favour of the appointment of a cen­
tral authority, unless special circumstances make it 
seem expedient to delegate responsibility elsewhere 
and let a regional or local authority decide. 
1.6. More broadly, the draft Directive should not 
only require Member States to adequately coordi­
nate trans-frontier shipments in order to ensure 
maximum safety and optimum information of the 
public, but should also make it possible for them to 
take urgent, exceptional action, within the spirit of 
the Directive, whenever they are faced with situa­
tions that pose a particularly dangerous threat to 
local inhabitants and the environment. 
No C 176/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 3 
2.1.1. In view of the recent events surrounding the 
trans-frontier shipment of the waste from the Seveso 
disaster, the Committee thinks it is necessary to 
extend and tighten up the requirements laid down in 
Article 3 regarding the notice and evidence which 
the producers or consignors of hazardous waste will 
have to provide. In the Committee's opinion it does 
not suffice to limit responsibility and the require­
ments on notification and evidence to the waste dis­
poser, treatment centre or user of the waste in the 
country of destination. Data must also be included 
about all the other establishments which, under the 
producer's or consignor's plan for disposing of the 
waste, will or may come into contact with the waste 
in the one or the other country prior to its perma­
nent disposal by storage or burning. This refers in 
the main to the firms entrusted with the transport of 
the waste at some intermediate stage or with its 
interim storage. 
2.1.2. The Committee proposes the deletion of 
'final' in front of 'disposal' in the first and second 
paragraphs of Article 3. 
2.1.3. In addition, the terms used in this Directive 
should be taken from the 1978 basic Directive 78/ 
319/EEC. 
2.2. Article 4 
2.2A. According to Article 4 waste may not be 
shipped to the country of destination until acknow­
ledgement of the notification by the competent 
authorities has been received and it is indicated 
therein that there are no objections to the shipment. 
2.2.2. The Committee wonders what action is open 
to a producer if the competent authorities in the 
country of destination fail to acknowledge receipt of 
the notification referred to in Article 3 within the 
prescribed period. 
2.2.3. The Committee asks the Commission to con­
sider making an addition to its proposal which 
would ensure that longer periods of uncertainty 
about the way the waste is to be disposed of, not to 
mention the recurrence of the recent incidents 
involving the Seveso waste, are avoided. In that 
particular instance, neither the national nor the Community authorities were able to obtain and 
supply promptly the requisite information and 
assurances as to the method of transportation and 
disposal. 
2.2.4. It could, as experience has shown, be 
extremely useful in the event of prolonged uncer­
tainty if, for example, an addition to Article 3 were 
to ensure that the producer or consignor advises the 
recipient of the waste at the same time as he notifies 
the competent authorities in the country of destina­
tion, so that the recipient can, if necessary, press for 
a speedy acknowledgement of the notification from 
the competent authorities in his country. 
2.2.5. The Committee thinks it is important to 
point out that once its competent authorities have 
acknowledged receipt of the notification, the coun­
try of destination should share responsibility for 
ensuring that any human health or environmental 
hazards posed by the waste shipment are averted or 
eliminated as far as possible. 
2.3. Article 5 
2.3.1. The Committee calls for the addition of a 
reference to the 'country of transit', whose compe­
tent authorities might object to a shipment of hazar­
dous waste on the same count as the country of des­
tination. 
2.4. Article 7 
2.4.1. In view of the recent revelations about the 
disposal of the Seveso waste, the Committee would 
point to the special practical significance of 
Article 7 (3), which requires all subsequent under­
takings involved in the disposal operation to com­
plete, sign and retain a copy of the consignment 
document. 
2.4.2. The events surrounding the disposal of the 
Seveso waste have also shown how necessary it is 
for the forms to be properly designed and their com­
pletion monitored so that clear and full information 
is provided about the composition of the waste. 
Above all, the consignment documents accompany­
ing particularly hazardous waste should include 
adequate information which is generally under­
standable and does not only mean something to the 
competent authorities. 
4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 176/7 
2.5. Article 11 2.9. Article 17 
2.5.1. The Committee shares the Commission's 
concern about making sure that the nature and ori­
gin of hazardous waste is readily identifiable on the 
packaging. A label might not be able to satisfy this 
requirement in some cases, especially in view of the 
risk of it being damaged. In the Committee's view it 
might be better to specify that packages must bear 
indelible markings. 2.9.1 The Committee hopes that the circulation 
among the Member States of the names of the 
authorities which are to be responsible for imple­
menting this Directive will result in the designation 
of authorities at the same level in each Member 
State. 
2.5.2. The Committee also thinks that not only 
packaged waste but also bulk waste should always 
be able to be identified adequately and that an 
appropriate way of complying with this requirement 
should be found. 2.10. Article 18 
2.5.3. Not only the competent authorities but also 
the general public should be able to identify particu­
larly hazardous waste from the form and content of 
the markings. 
2.6. Article 12 
2.6.1. The Committee takes this Article to mean 
that as a rule it will suffice if the person or undertak­
ing is in possession of a licence for the transport of 
dangerous goods which also covers the transport of 
hazardous waste. 2.10.1. The Commission is urgently requested to 
consider whether the Directive could be imple­
mented in less than the 12 months currently laid 
down. The Committee thinks that it would be quite 
realistic to lay down a six-month deadline. Should a 
shortening of the deadline prove impossible, the 
Committee would ask the Commission to do every­
thing in its powers to ensure that the Member States 
strictly observe the 12-month deadline for incorpora­
tion in national law. The Committee thinks it would 
be indefensible, in view of the increased risks 
involved in the shipment of hazardous waste, if the 
delays encountered in incorporating previous waste 
Directives into national law were to be repeated. 
2.7. Article 13 
2.7.1. The Committee thinks that the lists to be 
compiled by the Member States should, if possible, 
also include information about where imported or 
exported waste has ended up and what has hap­
pened or is going to happen to it. 
2.8. Article 14 
2.8.1. The Committee would be pleased if, apart 
from the Council and the European Parliament, it 
too were to receive the Commission reports and be 
given the chance to discuss them with Commission 
representatives. 2.10.2. The choice of a Regulation instead of a 
Directive would ensure that the proposal — which is 
designed to protect human health and the environ­
ment — could enter into force as soon as possible. 
However, there could be a delay if the Commission 
were forced to change its proposal's form, since the 
numerous individual provisions required in such a 
case would necessitate a considerable amount of 
preparation. The Committee therefore thinks that 
the most expedient solution would be to retain the 
proposal for an outline Directive, though provision 
should be made for supplementing the Directive at 
the same time as it is enacted, or shortly afterwards, 
with individual Regulations that lay down the rules 
to be applied directly in key areas. These could 
include rules requiring the producers or consignors 
of hazardous waste to supply information to the 
competent authorities in the country of destination, 
the country of origin and, if applicable, the country 
of transit. The need for uniform rules to deal with 
this requirement has been highlighted by the recent 
revelations concerning the disposal of the Seveso 
waste. 
No C 176/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
2.11. Annex 1 be simplified further. If possible, there should be 
simplified further. If possible, there should be one 
2.11.1. The notification and consignment docu- single document for both operations, 
ments for the shipment of hazardous waste should 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Amendments or changes made to the text during discussion 
The following passage in the section opinion was deleted following the adoption of an amend­
ment during the discussions 
Page 2, point 1.3, first sentence 
'1.3. The Section thinks in this respect that hazardous waste should normally be dis­
posed of in its country of origin in compliance with the Directives referred to in 
Article 2; it should be shipped abroad to be disposed of only in exceptional cases, when 
it cannot be disposed of properly in the country of origin.' 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning temporary work 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 128 of 19 May 1983, page 2. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 18 May 1983 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 
207th plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 April 1983.