Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 94/67/EC on Incineration of hazardous waste'
C 214/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 94/67/EC on Incineration of hazardous waste’ (1) (98/C 214/02) On 2 February 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 31 March 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Gardner; co-rapporteurs were Mr Ceballo Herrero and Mr Colombo. At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 and 30 April 1998), the Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes with one abstention. 1. Introduction 1. 1. This proposal introduces the concept of Inte- grated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), as recently adopted by the Council (Directive 96/61/EC) (2), into Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste (3). The aim of the proposed directive is to prevent the transfer of pollutants from air to water by introducing controls on waste water resulting from hazardous waste incineration facilities, particularly in relation to scrubber effluent liquor. The proposal does so by revising completely Article 8 of the existing Directive (94/67/EC) and adding a new annex. 2. General comments 2. 1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to control the release of dangerous pollutants and approves the proposal subject to the comments below. The Committee agrees there is a need to prevent 2. 2. the transfer of pollution and hence considers the incor- poration of relevant measures into Directive 94/67/EC as a necessary contribution to environmental control. Many Member States already impose restrictions to discharges of waste water from hazardous waste inciner- ation facilities. It is appreciated that there is considerable disparity in the limits currently set ranging from no limits at all to the stringent discharge permits in at least one Member State. 2. 3. The proposal aims at limiting aquatic pollution through the setting of the same uniform limits for all discharges throughout the EU. The Committee believes that a number of the proposed limit values appear to have been culled from some national legislations, and (1) OJ C 13, 17. 1. 1998, p. 6. (2) OJ L 257, 10. 10. 1996. (3) OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994. has reservations on whether sufficient research has been performed, and whether adequate data on practical operational situations has been gathered, to ensure the proposed values are the most appropriate for EU-wide use. 2. 3. 1. Furthermore, the Committee considers that, for some of the pollutants included in the Annex, uniform emission values, are ‘minimum’ values so each Member State can set more stringent limits where necessary, taking into consideration the quantity of the pollutant mass released, receptor sensitivity and the local environment (e. g. natural variation in the composition of water). 2. 3. 2. In this connection, the Committee notes that the Commission has currently started legal action against no fewer that six Member States concerning their transposition of the base Directive 94/67/EC. This indicates that there may be real implementation prob- lems and makes it all the more important to base this amendment on sound facts applicable throughout the EU. 2. 3. 3. In the opinion of the Committee, the proposal is at variance with some of the principles agreed under the recent IPPC Directive, in particular Article 9(4), which states that discharge limits should be appropriate to a particular site and be set as part of the permit for that site. This takes into account the local environment and is also in line with subsidiarity. 2. 3. 4. The Commission, however, appears to present the proposal only in accordance with Article 18(1) of the IPPC Directive: Community emission limit values. Clarification is, therefore, required over the conflict between these Articles of the IPPC Directive, and confirmation over which is the dominant Article, within the context of this proposal, is vital to prevent any confusion among Member States. 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/7 2. 4. The Committee is concerned that the full costs and impact of this proposal have not been worked out because of the lack of information on numbers of non-commercial in-house hazardous waste incineration facilities (e. g. a small hazardous waste incinerator located in a research facility), and lack of clarity among Member States and individual plant operators of what does and does not constitute hazardous waste. 2. 4. 1. Recent proposals for additions to the EU Hazardous Waste List (94/904/EC) (1) and the European Waste Catalogue (94/3/EC) (2) identify sewage sludge and effluent treatment plant residues, among other items, as being potentially hazardous. Proposed additions and revisions of these documents could greatly increase the number of installations affected. 2. 4. 2. Equally there is a grey area as to where clinical waste may become classed as hazardous due to the presence of cytotoxic wastes and other potentially hazardous wastes within the waste stream. This could greatly increase the number of installations affected; hence the borderlines need to be clearly defined. 3. 2. 2. Since an incineration plant’s infrastructure for collecting and piping rainwater will intercept such water, preventing it from entering the plant and possibly becoming contaminated by contact with equipment, the draft directive should not apply to this intercepted rainwater. 3. 2. 3. Irrespective of the water pretreatment, treat- ment and cleaning systems, registers should be kept for samples taken before and after such treatments and, automatically, before they are finally discharged into rivers or sewer systems. 3. 2. 4. As they stand, these paragraphs infer that rainwater and/or cooling water which may also be discharged from a ‘plant’ would be considered as contaminated and also be subject to a permit. However, it is understood that only the effluent from the scrubber itself will be subject to the limits set in Annex IV. This is far from clear in the text of Article 8 and clarification should be provided. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. Explanatory memorandum — VI Benefits and costs of action or lack of action 3. 1. 1. A cost-benefit analysis may have been done on the base Directive (94/67/EC), however, the number of installations and scope of installations covered may have substantially changed since 1994. In addition, the proposed requirement for separate effluent treatment might incur significant additional costs, particularly where such treatment is not easily incorporated into an existing facility. The Committee, therefore, expresses its reservations on the proposal not including a cost-benefit analysis of these additions. 3. 2. (Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraphs 1 and 3 This should be changed to ‘any waste water 3. 2. 1. with a risk of contamination discharged from an incineration plant shall be subject to a permit granted by the competent authorities’. (1) Council Decision of 22 December 1994, OJ L 356, 31. 12. 1994. (2) Commission Decision of 20 December 1993, OJ L 5, 7. 1. 1994. 3. 2. 5. There is also a need to clarify within Article 8, how this paragraph applies in those cases when there is no wet-scrubbing due to use of dry techniques (i. e. where a wet scrubber is not used, a permit is still required for wastewater discharges, however, the limits in Annex IV should not apply). 3. 3. (Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 4 Clarification is required as to what is con- 3. 3. 1. sidered the point of discharge from the incineration plant to reduce confusion. It should also be made clear that the Article applies regardless of whether the discharge enters the aquatic environment and/or sewer- age system. 3. 3. 2. There may be situations where the discharge from an incinerator enters a large and complex waste water treatment works. Further treatment is then carried out and a permit is complied with for the site as a whole. Such a site could have one or more incineration facilities feeding effluent into the inlet of the combined treatment works. Other wastes from rainwater, bin washing, etc. may also enter. Clarity is, therefore, required on how the limits would be enforced. Mass balances would prove difficult due to the natural presence of some of the pollutants in water and the complex dilution effects; which would be difficult to calculate and enforce. C 214/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 In complex arrangements (1) it would not be 3. 3. 3. feasible to carry out any mass balances due to the fluctuations in composition and flow attributed to such a facility. The monitoring points would also be excessive and unnecessary. Flexibility should be allowed to use an alternative method. 3. 3. 4. Also this article does not consider the sensitivity of the receptor and whether it is foul drainage, where further treatment will be carried out by the sewerage company, inland water or tidal water. The conflict between Articles 9(4) and 18(1) of the IPPC Directive, within the context of this proposal, requires clarification. 3. 4. (Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 6 3. 4. 1. Clarification is required on where the so called ‘operational control parameters’ apply. Temperature can determine likelihood of further reactions. For intermediate discharges, the parameters need not include turbidity as this would change after subsequent treat- ment. Flow is important with regard to the inlet, final discharge and at pollutant sampling points for correction. The pH is the crucial control parameter in relation to the waste water discharge. 3. 5. (Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 7 Sampling and analysis requirements should be 3. 5. 1. appropriate to the likely emissions in the effluent. Further comment is provided below. 3. 6. (Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 8 uncontaminated rainwater should not need to be stored (see comments made in relation to Article 8 para- graph 1). 3. 7. 2. The paragraph should be reworded to state: ‘Storage capacity shall be provided for potentially contaminated rainwater run-off from the inciner- ation plant site or for contaminated water arising from spillages or fire fighting operations, allowing for any volume of contaminated rainwater run-off which may occur during the incident. ’ 3. 8. (Article 1 = new) Annex IV 3. 8. 1. The IPPC Directive states in Article 9(4): ‘geographical and local environmental conditions must be taken into account’ for authorization conditions. As discussed earlier and within the context of this proposal, this Article is in conflict with Article 18(1) which calls for the setting of Community-wide emission limit values for hazardous waste incineration facilities. 3. 8. 2. For suspended solids, the highly toxic metals (polluting substances 2-4 of Annex IV) and for dioxins and furans (polluting substance 15 of Annex IV), the Committee agrees with the setting of EU-wide emission limit values. However, for the other metals (polluting substances 5-14 of Annex IV) natural background levels can vary widely. Taking as an example figures for only one UK region, ranges in receptors for some metals were found to be in íg/l: 3. 6. 1. The Committee agrees with the proposed sampling frequencies for polluting substances 1-4 of Annex IV, but considers that monthly measurement should prove sufficient for polluting substances 5-14. Again it should be left to Member States and/or the regulatory authority to impose more stringent control where considered necessary. Copper: River < 1 - 12,6, Estuary <1 - 297. Zinc: River < 4 - 103, Estuary <4 - 105. Nickel: River < 5 - 30, Estuary <3 - 72. 3. 7. (Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 10 3. 7. 1. The way the article is worded suggests that storage capacity is required for all rainwater even if it Intercepted and hence could be uncontaminated. (1) Re-circulation of effluent liquor, multi-stage scrubbing or a multi-incineration facility. 3. 8. 3. The effluents from some installations with very small volumes will only be of negligible environmental significance, in relation to metals 5-14, given the back- ground variations, relative flows and dilution effects. 3. 8. 4. For metals 5-14, the present Annex prescribes EU-wide limits which do not take needs of the local environment into account. The Committee considers that control of these pollutants would best be achieved by changing the present limit values to benchmark values for achieving environmental quality standards. 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/9 3. 9. Article 2 3. 9. 1. This proposal is under the cooperation pro- cedure which is always lengthy and where the total timing is unpredictable. [January 1998] therefore must be replaced by: ‘x months after adoption of the directive’. Brussels, 29 April 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the limitation of the emission of oxides of nitrogen from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes’ (98/C 214/03) On 13 February 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 84(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 31 March 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez and the co-rapporteurs were Mrs Ström and Mr Tsirimokos. At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 119 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The aim of this proposal for a directive is to slow down the rate of increase in NOx emissions from subsonic jet aircraft; it endeavours to offset the projected rapid growth in air traffic over the coming years by improving the emission efficiency of new engines on aircraft operating in the EU. 1. 2. To this end, new NOx emission limits are laid down for engines, based on two different levels of thrust. At the same time it is prohibited to register aircraft in the Member States with engines which do not meet the directive’s requirements. 1. 3. To give engine manufacturers and airlines suf- ficient time to implement these provisions, two reference dates are laid down. The first, 31 December 1999, is the deadline for new engine models to comply with these new limitations; the second, 31 December 2007, is the cut-off date for the installation in aircraft of engines whose first model was manufactured before the entry into force of this directive. The above-mentioned ban applies only to aircraft 1. 4. registered in an EU country so as not to affect the operation of aircraft registered in third countries overfly- ing or landing in the EU. The proposal 1. 5. incorporates and supports the resolution of the third meeting of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP/3), which is part of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2. General comments The Committee approves the proposed directive 2. 1. which should help to improve the environment as regards both the formation of ozone in the upper troposphere and the reduction of greenhouse gas emis- sions (effect of N2O). 2. 2. Precisely because of the greenhouse effect of the N2O, the Committee feels a mention should be made of the contribution which this measure will make to meeting the commitments entered into at the Kyoto Conference