No C 23/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending and supplementing Annex II to 
Directive 86/280/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain danger­
ous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC 
(89/C 23/03) 
On 5 October 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
8 November 1988. The Rapporteur was Mr Rolao Goncalves. 
At its 260th plenary session (meeting of 23 November 1988), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
The proposal is endorsed, subject to the following 
comments. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The purpose of the proposal is to widen the 
scope of the Directive on the discharge of dangerous 
substances, in order to reduce water pollution. The list 
of dangerous substances to is to be extended to include: 
— 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC), 
— trichloroethylene (TRI), 
— perchloroethylene (PER), and 
— trichlorobenzene (TCB). 
These substances are to be made subject to limit values 
and quality objectives, in accordance with the pro­
visions of the framework Directive. 
1.2. This is the third time that the list of substances 
has been amended. The previous two amendments were 
unanimously endorsed by the ESC(1). 
1.3. Like the second amendment, the proposal is 
presented under Article 130s of the Treaty, to speed up 
procedure in line with one of the conclusions of the 
ministerial seminar on Community water policy held 
in Frankfurt on 27/28 June 1988. Accordingly, while 
the decision on the inclusion of the substances in the 
list must be unanimous, the values which are to apply 
can be established by a qualified majority. 
1.4. For the first time, the list is to include substances 
with a very high volume of production in the Member 
States. Thus, according to the information obtained by 
the Commission: — EDC (an essential raw material in the production 
of vinyl chloride, a monomer used in the manufac­
ture of PVC) is produced at over 30 plants which 
process from 15 to 20 million tonnes per year, 
— TRI (used mainly as a solvent in downstream indus­
tries) is produced at 8 plants in the Community. 
Production is around 200 000 tonnes per year, 
— PER (used in 60 % of cases as a solvent, in 30 % to 
remove grease, and also as a synthesizing agent in 
the manufacture of CFCs) is produced at 12 plants 
in the Member States. Annual production is just 
over 350 000 tonnes, 
— TCB (an intermediate substance in the manufacture 
of pesticides) involves four plants in the Com­
munity. Annual production is just over 10 000 
tonnes. 
The total production value of the four substances comes 
to several tens of thousands of million ECU. 
1.5. Toxicological tests have proved that these are 
highly toxic substances for the aquatic environment 
(TCB), and for man (EDC, TRI and PER). However, 
none of them can be considered carcinogenic for man. 
The results of tests on animals have been controversial. 
The substances must be greatly diluted in water when 
being discharged if they are to meet the limit values 
laid down for emission standards. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee would reiterate the recommen­
dation made in the abovementioned Opinion on 
inclusion of HCB and HCBD, that the combined or 
cumulative effect of the various compounds should be 
considered (2). This was also mentioned in one of the 
conclusions of the Frankfurt seminar, which called on 
the Commission to propose measures covering a num-
(!) OJ No C 232, 31. 8. 1987 and C 356, 31. 12. 1987. (2) OJ No C 356, 31. 12. 1987. 
30. 1. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/5 
ber of substances in tandem, grouping similar sub­
stances in categories and dealing with specific sectors. 
2.2. Stress is also laid on the importance of consider­
ing the interaction of pollutants and other factors which 
affect the environment on land, in the air and in water. 
2.3. Any extension of the list, tightening-up of the 
limit values and quality standards, or shortening of the 
deadlines for their entry into force, even if incontrover-
tibly necessary, will produce reorganization costs. 
These may in some cases have a significant effect on 
production costs, and could even lead to the closure of 
the relevant concerns, with all the economic and social 
implications this would bring. The likely consequences 
of measures of this type should always be the subject 
of a study, as should the possible need to phase them 
in gradually. In particular, when the products involved 
have a high economic value at Community level, or are 
intermediate products which provide the raw materials 
for industries drownstream, and have to compete with 
non-EEC goods, great care must be taken to reconcile 
the interests at stake with the natural and essential 
priority of human health. Here too it is worth recalling 
one of the conclusions of the Frankfurt seminar, that 
water policy should form part of an overall environment 
policy, and should dovetail with the Community's 
industrial, agricultural and regional policies. 
2.4. At the same time, the Committee criticizes the 
apparent lack of a logical system for defining the toxic 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1988. substances which are to be included in the black list. A 
time-schedule for action is essential, in the common 
interest. The Commission should take early steps to 
draw up an overall selection framework, laying down 
objective standards, so that the various parties involved 
(the public, the water authorities, and industry) can 
coordinate their action. 
Up to now, the inclusion of a substance in List I or 
List II does not seem to have been based on strict, 
clearly defined criteria. The use of words like 'strong', 
'medium' or 'weak' to describe toxicity is unscientific. 
Similarly, clarification is urgently needed of carcino­
genic properties for inclusion in List I. Once these 
criteria have been defined, it will be possible to make 
an objective selection of the relative priorities for 
including in the lists the 129 substances which may be 
included in List I. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. The deadlines for the introduction of the limit 
values and quality objectives should take account of 
the fact that this process involves two stages. Firstly, 
the principles contained in the Directive have to be 
incorporated into national legislation. Secondly, a 
reasonable length of time must be allocated for industry 
to adapt its practices. Yet the deadline proposed 
(1 January 1980) would provide little more than a year 
for both these stages (legislation and implementation). 
Whilst the procedure needs to be expedited, more time 
can certainly be saved during the first stage (incorpor­
ation of the Directive into national legislation). 
3.2. In all other respects, the Committee endorses 
the proposal. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE