No C 168/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
APPENDIX 
The following amendment, submitted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was defeated: 
Page 2, point 1.4 
Add the following at the end of the second paragraph: 
'At all events, to ensure that the transitional period is effective and useful, and in keeping with the spirit of 
the fourth recital of the proposal, Article 1 (8) should be reworded to read: 
'Furthermore, Member States shall allow the placing on the market ...' 
Simply giving Member States the possibility of authorization could produce contradictory effects; the 
option could be used to create barriers within the Community rather than to apply the transitional 
arrangements effectively.' 
Reasons 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 21. 
Against: 56. 
Abstentions: 3. 
Opinion on the draft Council Directive amending Directive 80/836 laying down the basic safety 
standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of 
ionizing radiation as regards prior authorization of shipment of radioactive waste (*) 
(90/C 168/13) 
On 30 November 1989 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 31 of the Treaty, on the abovementioned draft Directive. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 April 1990. The rapporteur was 
Mr Flum. 
At its 276th plenary session (meeting of 25 April 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion with no dissenting votes and seven abstentions: 
1. General assessment 
1.1. The basic standards currently in force are contained 
in Directive 80/836/Euratom, as amended by Directive 84/ 
467/Euratom, which sets out transport requirements in 
quite general terms. In order to ensure that administrative 
authorities keep track of radioactive waste at all times, 
there is a need for specific provisions governing the 
shipment of such waste. The present draft Directive has 
been drawn up to meet this need. 
1.2. With this aim in view, it is proposed that further 
provisions be added to Article 5 of Directive 80/836/ 
Euratom and that an Annex IA be inserted, setting out the 
administrative procedure governing the shipment of 
radioactive waste. 
(!) OJ No C 5, 10. 1. 1990, p. 7. 1.3. The Commission has convincingly demonstrated 
the need for administrative supervision of shipments of 
radioactive waste. 
1.4. The Committee fundamentally and emphatically 
welcomes the Commission's prorjrils. 
2. General comments on the administrative supervision of 
the shipment of radioactive waste 
2.1. Annex IA describes in detail the procedure to be 
followed as regards prior notification, authorization and 
documentation. 
2.2. Bearing in mind that such shipments may involve, 
directly or indirectly, various Member States and non-
Member States, the draft Directive endeavours to cover 
every aspect. This does, however, make it difficult to 
formulate rules which are straightforward and thus readily 
monitored. 
10. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 168/19 
2.3. The public is repeatedly receiving alarming reports 
of irregularities in the transport of radioactive waste. The 
draft Directive under review was drawn up as the result of 
such an incident. As so frequently happens, this case did not 
involve administrative shortcomings but was caused by a 
false declaration with regard to the contents of drums being 
transported. 
2.4. It is very necessary that the authorities should keep 
track of waste. But, in view of the fact that the safety of 
workers and the general public depends on observance of 
the regulations, the responsibility of all those involved in 
transport operations, from the producer to the purchaser, 
needs to be constantly underlined. The authorities must 
develop suitable procedures for monitoring observance of 
the regulations at key points of the transport operations 
and for rectifying shortcomings forthwith. 
2.5. It is rightly pointed out in the Directive that 
producers and consignees have to be recognized as 
qualified by the competent authorities. The same applies to 
all other parties involved in transport operations, and in 
particular to transport undertakings. The authorities must 
not shrink from employing the sanction of withdrawing 
authorization from a firm. 
3. Comments on the draft Directive 
3.1. The Committee draws attention to the fact that the 
draft Directive does not apply to transport operations 
regulated by Directive 80/836/Euratom. The Directive on 
the shipment of radioactive waste is designed to plug a gap 
in the provisions covering this field. 
3.2. The draft Directive does not deal with meas­
urement, identification, packaging, concrete monitoring 
measures or hazards. These measures are covered by other 
Directives and other agreements (dealing with liability, 
prevention, measurement, identification, mixing) which 
should be listed in the Annex. 
3.3. In the Committee's view, it would have been helpful 
if the Commission had submitted a new draft Directive 
bringing together all the associated issues and provisions, 
rather than merely proposing a supplement to Directive 80/ 
836/Euratom. A completely new Directive would have 
made the application of Community law in this field 
simpler and, consequently, safer. 
3.4. The Committee, nonetheless, welcomes the draft 
Directive as it represents an important step towards 
improving safety in this field. It does, however, call on the 
Commission to take account, in the final version of the 
Directive, of the proposals set out below. 
3.5. There is a need for clarification as regards the 
shipment of military waste (quantities, hazards). The 
Commission should ensure that this field is covered. 3.6. The draft Directive should also draw attention to 
the dangers involved in the shipment of toxic chemicals. 
Steps must be taken to ensure that the classification of 
waste as, for example, slightly radioactive waste, does not 
preclude the necessary classification of waste as a toxic 
material and to ensure that the standard of safety 
precautions is not diminished. 
3.7. The Committee calls upon the Commission to 
ensure that the safety provisions are implemented quickly. 
4. Specific comments on the draft Directive 
4.1. Article 1 (1) 
4.1.1. Under Article 1 (1) prior authorization for 
shipment is prescribed only in the case of radioactive 
substances for which no use is foreseen and which are 
therefore to be placed in final storage. The authorization 
requirement consequently does not apply to radioactive 
substances and materials being shipped in connection with 
manufacturing or for reprocessing purposes and due to be 
used again at a later stage, frequently after being placed in 
intermediate storage for several years. 
4.1.2. The Committee is by no means convinced of the 
justification of restricting the field of application of the 
draft Directive in this way. The Committee has been unable 
to obtain the slightest assurance that shipment of the 
radioactive substances and materials in question is covered 
by Directive 80/836/Euratom or other suitable Community 
legal provisions. 
4.1.3. In the absence of such guarantees there is, in the 
Committee's view, a serious omission in the draft Directive 
which runs counter to the declared aim of providing 
improved protection for the general public, workers and 
the environment against the dangers of ionizing radiation. 
The Commission should therefore forthwith consider 
extending the field of application of the draft Directive to 
take in all radioactive materials, irrespective of their 
intended purpose or their final use, or submitting an 
equivalent draft regulation. 
4.2. Annex IA 
4.2.1. Part 1: Definitions andgeneral requirements 
4.2.1.1. Point 1 
(a) As regards the definition of 'radioactive waste' for the 
purpose of the draft Directive, attention is drawn to the 
comments made in point 4.1 above. 
No C 168/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
(b) The Commission is asked to call upon the Member 
States to provide it with lists of the competent 
authorities. 
(c) The definition of 'the producer of radioactive waste' is 
too restrictive as it does not cover persons such as those 
who use radioactive materials for irradiation, material 
testing, etc. In some cases radiation source materials are 
returned by users directly to the manufacturer for 
disposal or reprocessing. 
(d) The definition of 'holder' does not cover forwarding 
agents, carriers and their subcontractors with sufficient 
preciseness. These terms must be defined more clearly. 
4.2.1.2. Point 2 
Reference should be made in this paragraph to both the 
carrier effecting the shipment and the 'holder' on whose 
behalf the shipment is carried out. 
4.2.2. Part III 
Paragraph 10 
The first sentence of paragraph 10 specifies a maximum of 
one month between the forwarding of the notification and 
the forwarding of the acknowledgement. This means that 
the shipments take place before the transit state is able to 
make use of its right. 
This procedure, therefore, involves considerable potential 
danger, since it does not preclude cases of certificates being 
issued as a favour or possible cases of inadequate training 
in states of destination. These shortcomings were one of the 
grounds for issuing a revised version of the draft Directive. 
Under the final subparagraph of paragraph 10 the 
authorities in the last Member State of transit bordering on 
the third State of destination are entitled to issue the 
acknowledgement of receipt or to raise any objection in 
place of the authorities in the Member State of dispatch. 
This right may, however, not be exercised earlier than three 
months after the Member State concerned has com­
municated to the Commission and other Member States its 
intention so to act. 
In the Committee's view such a prescribed period, which 
can in total amount to four months, may not only impede 
operations and give rise to additional costs, particularly in 
view of storage requirements, but it may also increase the 
danger to the general public, workers and the environment, 
thereby running counter to the objective of the draft 
Directive. 
The Committee therefore proposes that the provision 
concerned be aligned on Article 6 (4) of the Basle 
Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. It should read as 
follows : 
'A Member State of transit ... shall inform the 
Commission and other Member States without delay. It 
may then exercise this right within a period of 60 days 
following such communication.' 
Paragraph 14 
The wording of this paragraph admits different safety 
standards. The Commission should reword this paragraph 
in such a way as to ensure that safety requirements are set at 
an equally high level in both the Member States of dispatch 
and the Member States of transit. 
4.2.3. Part VI 
Paragraph 22 
It must be ensured that the producer of the radioactive 
waste is not discharged of his responsibility before the 
waste is put into final storage or recycled. The documents 
should be kept for at least 10 years. 
The same applies to Part VII, Paragraph 26. The chain of 
responsibility must be continuous. 
4.2.4. Part VIII 
The Commission should ensure that modern means of 
communication such as fax and electronic mailing are 
included in the data relating to the competent authorities. 
With regard to the competence of the authorities the 
Commission is requested to ensure that holders of 
radioactive waste conduct their written communications 
with the authorities concerned regarding the shipment of 
waste only via the competent authority in the state of 
dispatch. This will enable the authorities in the state of 
dispatch to have an overview of the whole process. This is 
the only way to guarantee that the responsible authorities 
are informed in the event of irregularities and are able to 
coordinate appropriate measures. 
4.2.5. Part IX 
Paragraph 30 
— First indent: the word 'significant' should be deleted, 
— Second and third indents: 
The term 'quantity and type' should be broadened to 
include the form of the waste, in order to take greater 
account of the differing problems associated with the 
various forms of waste (solid, bulk, powder, etc.). 
Similarly, no account is taken of the type of radiation 
(alpha, beta or gamma) emitted by the waste. 
10. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168/21 
4.2.6. PartX 
The Committee welcomes the compiling every two years of 
a report which will also be submitted to it. This report, 
which should be prepared with the participation of the 
workers concerned, should publicize, in a plain and simple 
form, the experience gained in the implementation of the 
Directive and point out any conclusions which have to be 
drawn. 
4.2.7. Part XII 
Experience demonstrates that monitoring can only take 
place if electronic means are used. Consignment notes must, therefore, be no longer than one VDU screen page; it 
has been found that texts longer than this are either 
disregarded or not taken fully into account by persons 
completing the forms. The Commission should, therefore, 
restrict itself to the most important data. 
Done at Brussels, 25 April 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
APPENDIX 
The following amendment was rejected in the course of the debate: 
Page 3, paragraph 4.1.1 
Add at the end : 
'Therefore it is essential that waste material be identified as such at the point of origin and cannot 
subsequently re-enter the fuel cycle or be reprocessed.' 
4.1.2 and 4.1.3 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The addition to 4.1.1 emphasizes the specific final nature of waste. 
The deletions are proposed to ensure that the reason for the amending Directive is not lost in wider applications. 
The Directive is clearly designed to tighten up regulations in the shipment of identified radioactive waste where 
experience has shown that present regulations are defective. 
It would be a grave error, causing confusion, if this clear objective were to be applied widely to all radioactive 
substances. This would dilute the attention being paid to waste transport and cause conflict with International 
Atomic Energy Agency regulations, provisions of the Lome Convention and national regulations for the 
transport of materials in the fuel cycle or for reprocessing which have proved to be adequate and enforceable. 
Voting 
For: 27. 
Against: 61. 
Abstentions: 9.