No C 329/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 12. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning minimum requirements for 
vessels entering or leaving Community ports carrying packages of dangerous or polluting 
goods (]) 
(89/C 329/08) 
On 5 June 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 84 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 October 1989. The Rapporteur 
was Mrs Bredima-Savopoulou. 
At its 270th plenary session (meeting of 18 October 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Following a spate of accidents—Torrey Canyon, 
Amoco Cadiz, the Betelgeuse to name just a few—which 
had seriously polluted the marine environment and 
coastal areas of the Member States, the European 
Council, at its April 1978 summit meeting in Copenhag­
en, called for the Community to play a role in making 
shipping safer and in preventing pollution from this 
source. 
1.2. In response to heightened awareness on the part 
of international public opinion of the problem of pol­
lution in general and marine pollution in particular, a 
number of Community measures were adopted, includ­
ing Directive 79/116/EEC (2). 
2. Summary of the draft Directive 
2.1. Directive 79/116/EEC lays down minimum 
requirements for tankers entering or leaving Com­
munity ports carrying bulk consignments of oil, liqui­
fied gas or chemicals. The aim is to reduce the risk of 
accidents involving such tankers in coastal areas of the 
Community. 
2.2. There is a major loophole in Directive 79/116/ 
EEC, however, in that it fails to cover shipments of 
dangerous goods in packages, containers, tanker 
wagons, tanker lorries and mobile tankers, etc. There 
has been a significant increase in such shipments in the 
last few years, with a greater risk of accidents as a 
result. 
2.3. The present draft Directive aims to provide the 
Community with legislation to close this loophole. It is 
a further step towards effectively protecting the marine 
environment against the hazards inherent in shipments 
of dangerous goods. The draft is designed to prevent 
accidents and mitigate their effects should they occur. 
(') OJ NoC 147, 14.6. 1989, p. 3. 
(2) OJ No L 33 of 8. 2. 1979, p. 33. More specifically, the draft Directive stipulates that 
vessels entering or leaving Community ports and carry­
ing dangerous goods in packages should comply with 
certain minimum requirements designed to improve the 
safety of shipping, protect human life and safeguard the 
marine environment and coastal areas of the Member 
States. Shipments covered by the rules would include, 
inter alia, explosives, flammable liquids, toxic substanc­
es, radioactive materials and various polluting sub­
stances. 
2.4. The draft Directive is primarily concerned with 
the notification procedure to be followed by vessels 
carrying dangerous goods in packages and the type of 
information to be supplied to the relevant authorities. 
The draft Directive requires such vessels to provide 
port authorities with information about the vessel and 
its cargo; to avail themselves of the pilot services and 
to provide pilots which detailed information about the 
vessel; it instructs pilots to inform port authorities 
about any deficiencies they find; it obliges coastal states 
to inform all vessels in their territorial waters of the 
presence of other ships known to be carrying dangerous 
goods. 
3. General comments 
3.1. The Committee unreservedly endorses the aim 
of the draft Directive, which is to create a safe, pollut­
ion-free shipping zone around the Community's exten­
sive coasts. About half of all vessels bound for Com­
munity ports carry dangerous goods in one form or 
another, which goes to show that the proposed measur­
es are of considerable interest in practical terms. 
3.2. However, the draft Directive raises the further 
question of how, as a matter of principle, the Com­
munity should proceed, given that work on the protec­
tion of the marine environment has been carried out at 
30. 12. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 329/21 
international level and there is widespread adoption 
of international standards. The Community has two 
alternatives: it could either introduce different stan­
dards and requirements of its own, or it could work 
towards effective implementation of international stan­
dards. The problem with the first alternative is that 
other countries or regional groups of countries might 
be tempted to follow suit, which would result in differ­
ent rules being applied in different geographical areas, 
causing unnecessary confusion to shipping and to the 
competent authorities. The Committee therefore rec­
ommends that the Community follow the second course 
of action by complying with the international standards 
laid down by specialized international maritime agenci­
es, by including these into Community legislation and 
by ensuring that these standards are strictly observed. 
In the final analysis, pollution is an international, not 
a Community, problem. What matters for the Com­
munity, then, is strict enforcement of international stan­
dards by its Member States. 
3.3. The intergovernmental Maritime Organization 
(IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations with 
133 member countries, is the body par excellence for 
dealing with shipping safety and protection of the mar­
ine environment. In this capacity, the IMO adopted the 
International Convention for the Prevention of Pol­
lution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). Annex III of 
MARPOL lays down regulations for the prevention 
of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in 
packaged form. The harmful substances are those 
defined as 'pollutants' in the International Maritime 
Dangerous Goods (IMDG) code. The list of pollutants 
contained in the code will be reproduced in an IMO 
circular, to be regularly updated. The code gives the 
technical name and UN number of pollutants, as well as 
specifications concerning marking, packaging, stowage, 
and special precautions on containment forms. The 
code is applicable to all vessels covered by the Inter­
national Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 
(SOLAS 1974) when transporting cargoes of hazardous 
goods. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to the 
IMO member countries, organizations representing the 
whole range of interested parties (e.g. shipping interests, 
the chemical industry, environmentalists and seafarers) 
take part in the proceedings of IMO; thus, MARPOL 
73/78, including Annex III, and the IMDG code rep­
resent the consensus of all concerned. The IMDG fol­
lows the classification of dangerous goods which the 
UN has adopted for uniform application in sea, air and 
land transport. The increasingly widespread intermodal 
transport is an additional reason for making uniformity 
with IMO standards indispensable. ratified the International MARPOL 73/78 Convention, 
and their ships are covered by Annex III, which is due 
to come into force internationally on 1 January 1991. 
In 1978 the Community recommended that its Member 
States ratify the MARPOL Convention (Recommen­
dations (EEC) No 114/79 of 21 December 1978 (*) and 
No 584/78 of 26 June 1978 (2). Moreover, in 1982 four­
teen European States including the EEC Member States 
adopted the Memorandum of Understanding on Port 
State Control (MOU) which is an administrative agree­
ment concerning inspections by port authorities in a 
uniform way. The MOU enlists among the leading 
conventions to be followed in the inspections MARPOL 
73/78. Consequently, the Committee has no objection 
to the draft Directive, provided that it does not conflict 
with international standards. 
3.5. The MARPOL standards are the most demand­
ing, and Community vessels already meet them. If it 
were to introduce a different set of lower standards in 
the draft Directive, the Community would be basically 
addressing itself to non-MARPOL vessels calling at 
Community ports. This would make for a strange situ­
ation whereby the requirements for non-MARPOL ves­
sels would be lower than those for Community vessels. 
The same standards should apply to all vessels to avoid 
flag discrimination which, in this instance, would be to 
the disadvantage of the Community. This is yet another 
reason for aligning the draft Directive with the text of 
Annex III of MARPOL 73/78, which in many respects 
is more stringent than the proposed Directive. Overall 
the adoption of regional controls in addition to the 
internationally agreed measures established and oper­
ated through the IMO would not serve the cause of 
improving standards and would only lead to confusion 
and misunderstanding. 
3.6. Finally, the Committee notes that, if adopted, 
the present Directive should incorporate Directive 79/ 
116/EEC so that Community legislation is consistent 
internally as well as with international standards. 
4. Specific comments 
4.1. The title of the draft Directive should be amend­
ed to read 'dangerous goods of harmful substances in 
packaged form' instead of 'packages of dangerous or 
polluting goods', in order to align it with the wording 
of Annex III of MARPOL 73/78. 
4.2. In the first recital of the preamble, after 'danger­
ous goods' add 'and harmful substances'. 
3.4. Virtually all the EC Member States (with the 
exception of Spain, Ireland and Luxembourg) have (!) OJ No L 33, 8. 2. 1979, p. 17. 
(2) OJ No L 194, 19. 7. 1978, p. 17. 
No C 329/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 12. 89 
4.3. In Article 1 (line 2) replace 'packages of danger­
ous goods' with 'dangerous goods of harmful substanc­
es in packaged form'. 
4.4. Article 2 should be redrafted to read: 'For the 
purposes of this Directive: 
— 'vessels concerned' means vessels carrying danger­
ous goods or harmful substances in packaged form; 
— 'harmful substances' means substances which are 
identified as pollutants in the International Mari­
time Dangerous Goods (IMDG) code; 
— 'packaged form' means one of the forms of packag­
ing specified for harmful substances in the IMDG 
code.' 
4.5. In Article 4 after 'set out in Articles 5, 6, 7 and 
8 of this Directive' add the following sentence: 'together 
with those laid down in Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 
and in particular with requirements concerning packag­
ing, marking, labelling, documentation and stowage as 
defined in detail in the IMDG code.' 
4.6. In the last line of Article 5(i), after the word 
'sailings' add the words 'and should be made available 
to the port workers'. In the second sentence of Article 
5(i), after the words 'sets sail' aid 'or as soon as possible 
after completion of loading'. 
4.7. In Article 5(h), after the word 'radar' (line 3) 
add 'or Vessel Traffic Services (VTS)'. 
4.8. In the first indent of Article 6, line 3, after 
'safety' insert the words ', occupational safety'. 
In the second indent of Article 6, after 'dangerous 
goods' add, ', pollutants or related wastes, where 
known' and delete ', particularly of goods listed in 
Annex 4, II.' 
4.9. In Article 7, line 5, after the word 'vessel' add 
the words ', occupational safety'. 
4.10. In Article 8, first line after 'coastal state' insert 
the words 'judging upon the gravity of the situation'. 
5.1. The title of Annex I should be reworded to read 
'dangerous goods or harmful substances in packaged form', instead of 'packages of dangerous goods'. (It is 
understood that the classification of the dangerous 
goods should be as agreed by the United Nations for 
uniform application by land, sea and air transport). 
5.2. Point 1.7. of Annex I should be reworded as 
follows: 'Precise nature of the substances carried, as 
required by Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 (Regulation 
4 - Documentation) and as listed in the International 
Maritime Dangerous Goods code.' 
5.3. Point 1.8. of Annex I should read: 'Confir­
mation that a list, manifest or stowage plan is on board, 
as required by Annex III (Regulation 4) of MARPOL 
73/78.' 
5.4. Annex 2 is a checklist for vessels carrying pack­
ages of dangerous goods; the title of the checklist should 
be reworded as follows: 'checklist for vessels carrying 
dangerous goods or harmful substances in packaged 
form'. The checklist could be simplified as all the items 
included in B ('Safety installations aboard') are covered 
in any case by the certificates required in C ('Safety 
certificates and other documents'). Furthermore, vessels 
are obliged under Article 6 of the draft Directive to 
report any deficiencies or malfunctions. Finally, for the 
purposes of vessels identification the checklist could 
also mention the international ship's number, if avail­
able. 
5.5. To be consistent with established international 
practice, the Committee recommends replacing 
Annex 3 ('Detailed notification') with the IMO stan­
dard report format and procedures (general principles 
for ship reporting systems and ship reporting require­
ments, Resolution A 598 (15) of 19 November 1987), 
containing a harmonized notification procedure. 
5.6. The Committee would point out that Annex 4.1 
lists the categories of dangerous goods likely to be 
carried either in bulk or in packaged form, whereas the 
draft Directive itself refers only to goods which are 
carried in packaged form (see the preamble and Article 
1). The Committee proposes that Annex 4.1. be deleted. 
5.7. The list of polluting substances set out in Annex 
4.II is much shorter than the list of marine pollutants 
given in the IMDG code. The nomenclature and presen­
tation are also different. Annex 4.II should be with­
drawn to avoid confusion on the part of the competent 
national authorities, shipowners and shippers. The 
Committee has proposed redefining the terms given in 
Article 2 in order to align the list of polluting substances 
with that given in the IMDG code. 
30. 12. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 329/23 
5.8. The comments made in respect of Annex 4.II 
also apply to Annex 4.Ill ('Generic types of dangerous 
waste'). 
6. Conclusion 
The Committee, whilst endorsing the aim of the draft 
Directive, believes that: there is no legal obstacle for an early application of 
Annex III of MARPOL 73/78 at the discretion of 
EC Member States, and 
there is room for closer cooperation between the 
Community and IMO with a view to achieving 
a closer alignment with international standards, 
without detracting in any way from the competence 
of Member States in that forum. 
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technical 
development programme for the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC), in the field 
of management and storage of radioactive waste (1990-1994) (') 
(89/C 329/09) 
On 5 June 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 170 of the EAEC Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 6 October 1989. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Plum. 
At its 270th plenary session (meeting of 18 October 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. General assessment 
The specific research and development programme on 
the management and storage of radioactive waste comes 
under the framework programme for Community 
activities in the field of research and technological 
development (1987-1991) (2). 
This is already the fourth 5-year programme on the 
management and storage of radioactive waste and it 
covers the period 1990-1994. Community funds total­
ling 79,6 million ECU have been earmarked for this 
research programme. 
In its proposal the Commission explains in great detail 
and convincingly how necessary it is that the work 
started as early as 1973 on radioactive waste manage­
ment should be carried on. The Commission also points out that the current programme (1985-1989) (3) (whose 
main results are also set out in the Commission docu­
ment) must be continued with a further supplementary 
programme in order to ensure the management of radio­
active waste with the highest degree of safety in the 
short and long term. 
The Committee expressly welcomes, in general terms, 
the fourth 5-year programme for further Community 
research on radioactive waste management proposed 
by the Commission and the Opinions of the advisory 
committees on this programme. 
2. General comments on the disposal of special waste 
All fields of technical activity (research, medicine, 
industry, housekeeping, etc.) give rise to waste that has 
(i) OJNoC 144, 10.6. 1989, p. 11. 
(2) OJ No L .302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 1 ct scq. (•') OJ No L 83, 25. 3. 1985, p. 20 et seq.