No C 131/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
Item  2.1.3 
End of the paragraph  to read: 
and in some  cases  this  water  has  been  used  for  many  years  without  known  harm  to 
public  health.' 
Reason 
The fact  that  no cases  of damage  resulting  from  use  of the  water  are  known  does  not  prove 
that damage  has  not  occurred  or that  damage  is not possible  in the future. 
Voting 
For:  19,  against:  24,  abstentions:  2. 
Item  2.1.4 
Delete. 
Reason 
Use of impure  water  should  not  be allowed  even  for  initial  washing,  because  further 
washings  in pure  water  are  not  sure  to remove  completely  any  dangerous  substances  left  by 
the impure  water. 
Voting 
For:  20,  against:  22,  abstentions:  2. 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on waste  from  the  titanium 
dioxide  industry 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 222  of 29 September  1975,  page  110. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 29 July  1975,  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 137th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 February  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/19 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made 
by the Council  of the European  Communities  on 
29 July  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in par-
ticular  Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 23 September  1975,  instructing  the Section  for 
Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up an opinion  and  a 
report  on the above  proposal, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr Eboli,  and  the opinion  issued  by 
the Section  for  Protection  of the  Environment, 
Public  Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  at its meet-
ing on 10 February  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 137th 
plenary  session,  held  on 25 and  26 February 
1976  (meeting  of 25 February  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a unanimous  vote: 
The Committee  approves  the  proposal  for  a 
Directive,  subject  to the  comments  and  sugges-
tions  set out below: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. Impact  on the environment  and  health 
1.1.1.  The  Commission's  document  does  not 
make  it clear  whether  the Commission  is thinking 
about  harmfulness  to the environment  or harm-
fulness  to health  when  it talks  about  the 'poten-
tial or actual  harmfulness'  of waste  from  the 
titanium  dioxide  industry. 
1.1.2.  The  Commission  should  eliminate  such 
weaknesses  in its document  as soon  as possible. 
In addition,  the reasons  and  need  for a Directive 
should  be spelled  out in more  detail,  with  special 
reference  being  made  to: (a) the present  state  of 
the marine  environment;  (b) the  water's  waste-absorbing  and  degrading  capacity;  (c)  the 
increase  in titanium  dioxide  production  which  the 
Commission  expects  to occur  over  the  next  10 
years  (it is impossible  to predict  exactly  how  large 
this increase  will  be). 
1.1.3.  In  certain  cases  in the  past,  scientific 
research  has  shown  the  harmfulness  (sometimes 
the extreme  harmfulness)  of substances  which  a 
few years  previously  were  still  being  used  without 
the requisite  precautions.  In order  to make  cer-
tain that  this  does  not  happen  again,  adequate 
Community  rules  should  be laid  down  now  for 
the dumping  of titanium  waste.  There  is no proof 
that such  dumping  has a harmful  effect  on human 
health,  but  if the  necessary  precautions  are not 
taken  it may  degrade  the  natural  environment 
and the countryside.  At the same  time,  there  are 
solid  grounds  for suspecting  that  the departure  of 
certain  marine  species  from  their  former  habitats 
is connected  with  the dumping  of titanium  diox-
ide waste. 
1.1.4.  The  Committee  also  considers  that 
encouragement  should  be given  to establishing 
and expanding  a coordinated  programme  of 
research,  experiments  and  documentation 
designed  to: (a) assess  the actual  impact  of waste 
disposal  on the  natural  environment;  and  (b) 
identify  technical  solutions  which  can  be applied 
on an industrial  scale  during  the period  when  the 
research  is being  carried  out.  Two  other  steps 
should  be taken  without  delay:  (a) rules  should 
be drawn  up  for  discharge  methods;  and  (b) 
provisions  should  be  made  for  Community 
monitoring.  Naturally,  any  production  plant  con-
structed  during  this  period  would  have  to be 
designed  with  great  care,  so as to ensure  that 
waste  treatment  facilities  can,  if necessary,  be 
added. 
1.1.5.  The  Committee  stresses  the  need  for 
Community  rules,  given  the  fact  that  departure 
from  the  fundamental  principle  of Community 
natural-resource  management  will  not only  affect 
competition  between  Community  firms  (and  by 
the same  token,  employment)  but might  also  pose 
a threat  to the ecological  balance  of geographical 
areas  stretching  across  more  than  one  Member 
State.  Perhaps,  this  threat  has  not  been  taken 
seriously  enough. 
1.2. Impact  on  environment,  and  financial 
considerations 
1.2.1.  The  Committee  has consistently  stressed 
— the most  recent  occasion  being  its opinion  on 
No C 131/20 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
the proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the 
reduction  of water  pollution  caused  by wood 
pulp  mills  in the Member  States  (') — that  anti-
pollution  Directives  should  not  lay  down  rules 
which  are  so expensive  to comply  with  that 
Community  firms  have  to close  down. 
1.2.2.  The  Committee  therefore  feels  that  it is 
important  to be realistic:  (a)  when  assessing 
methods  for  processing  titanium  dioxide  waste, 
and when  evaluating  the expenditure  which  firms 
are going  to have  to make  in order  to comply 
with  the  Directive;  and  (b)  when  assessing  the 
effects  which  the adoption  of certain  environmen-
tal standards  will  have  on the economic  viability 
of these  firms,  having  regard  to the increase  in 
production  costs  which  will  result  from  the 
additional  investment  (the  capital  and  running 
costs  of processing  are very  high  in relation  to the 
cost of titanium  dioxide). 
1.2.3.  The  Committee  therefore  proposes  that 
the Commission  should  also  provide  for adequate 
amounts  of Community  aid  to the  titanium 
dioxide  industry,  so that  the firms  concerned  can 
adapt  their  plant  (to a more  realistic  treatment 
programme  than  the one  set out in the Directive). 
The procedure  for the grant  of such  aids  should 
take account  of the  desirability  of encouraging 
the installation  of treatment  facilities  within 
deadlines  which  are both  technically  feasible  and 
as short  as possible.  It would  help  Community 
management  of the  aids  if a special  EEC  fund 
were  created. 
1.2.4.  As  far as the question  of employment  in 
the titanium  dioxide  industry  is concerned,  the 
Committee  feels  that  the  Community  must  take 
steps  to disseminate  information  about  trends  in 
the titanium  dioxide  industry  in the Community 
and about  its position  in the world  economy.  The 
Community  could  also  adopt  measures  to assist 
the retaining  of any  workers  threatened  by re-
dundancy  in the short-  or long-term.  The  urgent 
(>) OJ No C 248,  29. 10. 1975,  p. 18. need  for such  measures  is evidenced  by the fact 
that there  are  more  than  20  000  workers  in 
Community-based  firms  producing  titanium 
dioxide  and  a further  40 000  employed  in allied 
industries. 
1.2.5.  Whilst  not  forgetting  that  there  is a 
serious  danger  of redundancies  resulting  from  the 
closure  or conversion  of firms  whose  plant  is so 
obsolete  that  the  requisite  investment  is unwar-
ranted,  the Committee  points  out that  in extreme 
cases  the  closure  or expensive  modification  of 
factories  would  be justified  by the need  to protect 
health,  even  if the result  is unemployment. 
1.3. Effects  on the international  competitiveness 
of Community  firms 
1.3.1.  The  Committee  has  already  considered 
this aspect  in its opinion  on the  reduction  of 
pollution  caused  by wood  pulp  mills,  and  in its 
general  opinion  on the application  of the 'pollu-
ter-pays'  principle.  In both  opinions,  the Commit-
tee stressed  the  need  to take  account  of the 
problems  which  certain  Community  industries 
would  have  to face  in terms  of international 
competitiveness  if there  was  a rigorous  enforce-
ment  of environmental  standards  which  have  not 
been  properly  thought  out. 
1.3.2.  Furthermore,  if the  Community  alone 
introduced  laws  to combat  pollution  — with  all 
that these  would  entail  in terms  of financial 
outlay  — the  titanium  dioxide  industry  might 
have  second  thoughts  about  staying  in the Com-
munity  and  move  to neighbouring  countries, 
where  the same  environmental  constraints  would 
not apply  and  where  it would  be free  to expand. 
1.3.3.  The  Commission  should  therefore  take 
the initiative  and  start  international  negotiations 
on marine  pollution  caused  by waste  from  the 
titanium  dioxide  industry.  Such  negotiations 
should  form  part  of a master  plan  to protect  the 
environment,  so that  any  proposed  measures  do 
not reduce  the  competitiveness  of Community 
industries,  but  play  a part  in preserving  the 
natural  and  aesthetic  heritage  of the  whole  of 
mankind. 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/21 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  1 
2.1.1.  It  says  in the  first  paragraph  of the 
Article  that  the aim  is the eventual  elimination  of 
pollution.  Praiseworthy  though  this  aim  may  be, 
the Committee  feels  it will  be hard  to attain, 
especially  since  the Commission  itself  states  that 
total  reduction  of pollution  will  be 95%  (see 
Article  8). 
2.1.2.  In  the  second  paragraph  we first  come 
across  the  concept  of 'full  production  capacity' 
which  serves  as a basis  for  the  distinction 
between  'existing  industrial  establishments'  and 
'new  industrial  establishments'.  The  Committee 
believes  it is going  to be difficult  to make  this 
distinction  in practice  because  the  economic 
situation  is rarely  such  as to allow  firms  to work 
to maximum  capacity.  The  Committee  wonders 
whether  a more  suitable  criterion  would  not 
perhaps  be the  'legal  moment'  at which  prior 
authorization  is given  for the dumping  of waste. 
2.2. Article  3 
2.2.1.  In  view  of all that  has  been  said  in the 
general  comments,  and  in order  to make  the 
objectives  of Article  3 more  concrete,  the Com-
mittee  proposes  that  Article  3 be amplified  and 
that its new  version  make  mention  of: (a) crea-
tion of a Community  fund  for financing  research 
into the  recycling  of waste;  (b)  promoting 
research  into  possible  manufacturing  techniques 
which  are  less  polluting;  (c) the development  of 
new techniques  for treating  waste. 2.3. Articles  4 and 5 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  emphasizes  that  restric-
tions  on waste  disposal  operations  will  be of only 
relative  effectiveness,  if such  operations  are  car-
ried out  on  the  basis  of prior  Member  State 
authorization.  The  Commission  should  be 
responsible  for  this  authorization.  If this  is 
impossible,  the  Commission  should  at least 
supervise  authorization  provisions. 
2.4. Article  7 
2.4.1.  The  Committee  thinks  that  the Commis-
sion should  also  be responsible  for  monitoring 
the environment  in areas  where  discharges  are 
authorized. 
2.4.2.  The  Committee  thinks  that  in view  of 
the effect  on the  industries  concerned,  the ban-
ning  of discharge  operations  would  be  an 
extremely  radical  measure.  The  Committee  feel 
that the Commission  should  spell  out the circum-
stances  under  which  discharge  is liable  to be 
banned,  and  the criteria  to be used  when  deciding 
whether  to ban  discharge. 
2.5. Article  10 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  asks  that  this  Article  be 
deleted,  because  it is absolutely  essential  that 
environmental  protection  be tackled  on a Com-
munity  scale  if it is to be effective.  Moreover,  if 
one or more  Member  States  were  to take  different 
measures,  this  would  produce  distortions  of com-
petition  and  undoubtedly  endanger  workers'  jobs 
in these  industries. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 February  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
No C 131/22 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussion. 
Item  1.1.3 
Third  sentence  to read: 
'There  is no proof  that  such  dumping  has  a harmful  effect  on human  health,  but  it 
definitely  degrades  the natural  environment  and  the countryside.' 
Reason 
According  to the  Commission,  not  even  the  proposed  measures  are  sure  to prevent  all 
damage  to the environment. 
Voting 
For: —, against:  21, abstentions:  16. 
Item  2.4.1 
Delete. 
Reason 
The Commission  thinks  it is unnecessary  to have  central  Community  monitoring  and  that 
such  a system  would  lead  to excessive  centralization  and  bureaucracy.  The  Commission  also 
feels  that  monitoring  is a Member  State  matter. 
Voting 
Rejected  by a unanimous  vote.