Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste'
C 116/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 1999 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste’ (1999/ C 116/10) On 30 November 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 February 1999. The rapporteur was Mrs Sirkeinen. At its 361st plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 85 votes in favour, 17 against and 12 abstentions. 1. Introduction The proposed directive is intended to replace two previous directives adopted by the Council: — Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste generation plants; — Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste- incineration plants. The EU’s waste management policy framework was revised in 1997 by the Council Resolution of 24. 2. 1997 on a Com- munity strategy for waste management (97/C 76/01). This states that (paragraph 22): ‘The Council “recognizes, as regards recovery operation, that the choice of option in any particular case must have regard to environmental and economic effects, but considers that at present, and until scientific and techno- logical progress is made and life cycle analyses are further developed, reuse and material recovery should be considered preferable where and insofar as they are the best environmental option”. ’ Any examination of how the waste incineration directive relates to other EU legislation, should take into account the other directives which have been adopted(1). The Commission argues that a new directive is needed to replace the existing directives on incineration of municipal waste because of, inter alia, the following shortcomings in these directives: — Current EU legislation only covers the incineration of certain wastes. — The requirements relating to co-incineration of wastes may be less stringent, with the result that increasing amounts of waste go to co-incineration. — The EU has sought, in a number of contexts, to limit emissions of heavy metals, dioxins and furans. However, emission limit values for dioxins and furans are only addressed in the directive on hazardous waste incineration. — Imposition of more stringent controls on air emissions for incineration plants can lead to the transfer of pollutants from air to water. — The proposed directive is designed to remedy shortcomings in the existing legislation on incineration, by imposing more stringent air emission limits for incineration plants; it also seeks to introduce uniform provisions governing co-incineration throughout the EEA. — The Commission feels that it is extremely important to use the energy recovered by incineration as effectively as possible. — The Commission has elsewhere drawn attention to the worrying increase in the quantity of waste across the EU. Indeed, one of the priorities of the EU’s waste management policy is to reverse this trend to one of waste reduction. 2. General comments (1) Council Directive of 18. 3. 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste; Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (LCP) and the Commission proposal for amending this Directive of September 1998 (98/C 300/04); European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste; Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC); Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste. 2. 1. The need for a Directive on waste incineration 2. 1. 1. Efficient sorting of waste at source can help in the implementation of the waste management hierarchy. The first priority of this hierarchy is to prevent the creation of waste. If this is not possible, waste must be recovered first, as material, and secondly, as energy. The final alternative is appropriate 28. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 116/41 handling at landfill sites. Waste materials must be sorted so that different waste types can be treated in the most suitable manner. 2. 1. 2. Waste incineration can reduce pressure on landfill sites and, according to current thinking, also reduce green- house-gas emissions which accelerate climate change, while saving on non-renewable fossil fuels. The Committee shares the Commission’s view that waste incineration without energy recovery in the form of heat or electricity generation should be restricted. The Directive(1) on packaging and packaging waste 2. 1. 3. requires a reduction in the quantity of packaging waste, its effective recovery and recycling. The forthcoming product- specific priority waste stream directives are expected to contain similar aims. According to the new Community Strategy for waste management(2), the first priority remains recycling of waste. However, the fact is that, because of limited demand, recycling can only partially meet the requirements laid down in the directive. Moreover, as the collection of waste increases so, is not technically possible to recycle. Incineration is then the only way in which this surplus waste can be recovered. too, does the recovery of materials which it 2. 1. 4. The Economic and Social Committee supports the Commission’s intent to monitor waste incineration emissions and endorses the Commission proposal which argues that sustainable development is achievable. The objective must be to ensure a high level of health and environmental protection, as well as the restriction of unwelcome cross-border waste shipments. The draft directive is on the right lines, but it has certain shortcomings. The Committee therefore proposes the following comments and revisions. 2. 2. Uniform legislation and procedures will reinforce the internal market 2. 2. 1. The Committee agrees with the Commission on the need to prevent the release of pollutants into the environment and therefore considers that the adoption of appropriate provisions is essential from the point of view of the environ- ment and human health. Uniform provisions are needed in order to harmonize the provisions for, and monitoring of waste incineration and to prevent unfair competition in the European Economic Area. The Committee would nevertheless point out that the introduction of new provisions does not in itself always lead to the required level of harmonization. A precondition for harmonization in practice is that the pro- visions be implemented and their application monitored. The interpretation of the definition(3) of waste used 2. 2. 2. in the Waste Framework Directive is deplorably inconsistent and efforts to clarify this interpretation have not had the desired effect. High hopes were set on the guidelines(4) drawn up by the OECD, but they have proved to be of little help in distinguishing clearly between waste and non-waste products in ambiguous cases. In the absence of coherent guidelines, Member States apply different methods in borderline cases to determine whether a given material is waste or not. 2. 2. 3. The Committee strongly endorses the Commission’s proposal for an integrated permit scheme for incineration plants, which would enable the competent authorities to control both dedicated incineration plants and co-incineration plants. 2. 3. Coherence with IPPC- and LCP-directives must be ensured 2. 3. 1. According to the Fifth Environment Action Pro- gramme, the aim of the IPPC Directive is to ensure that the permit procedure for emissions of industrial pollutants and its control is harmonized throughout the Member States at the latest by 30 October 1999. The objective is to ensure, over the long-term, a high level of environmental protection throughout the EU, by making environmental permits con- ditional upon the best available technology, while nevertheless taking into account the technical characteristics of the instal- lation concerned, its geographical location and local environ- mental conditions. In the LCP Directive 88/609/EEC, emission require- 2. 3. 2. ments are differentiated according to whether a combustion plant is a new or existing installation. By contrast, in the proposed directive on waste incineration, the formula for the determination of emission limit values for co-incineration takes no account of differences in the technologies employed by new plants and existing plants, i. e. plants for which the original operating licence was granted before 1 July 1987 on the basis of the LCP directive, which is still in force. The Committee supports the objective of developing the tech- nologies employed by older existing plants for the protection of air quality so that they meet the technical specifications of new plants as soon as possible. 2. 3. 3. The emission limits in the draft directive appear to be based on a cost-benefit assessment rather than the best available technology (BAT). The accuracy and scope of the assessment are therefore important. The description of the assessment included in the Explanatory Memorandum does not clearly explain the criteria for this assessment, nor its scope. For example, the figures provided only apply to plants based in exceptionally large European cities in densely populated areas. (1) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 (3) Article 1(a) of Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. (2) Council Resolution of 24 February 1997 on a Community (4) OECD Guidance document for distinguishing waste from non- Strategy for waste management. waste, 1998. C 116/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 1999 2. 4. Sorting waste to ensure that different waste types are treated by the most suitable plants 2. 4. 1. The Committee would stress that, where necessary, waste intended for incineration should always be sorted and pre-treated before being sent to an incineration plant so as to ensure safe incineration and protection of the environment and human health. Wherever possible, material classified as non-hazardous waste should be sorted from waste which is non-hazardous in itself but likely to give rise to harmful emissions, as well as from hazardous waste. Industrial waste, in particular, can generally be clearly sorted. Producers and holders of waste must provide incineration plants and co- incineration plants, in particular, with precise information on the quality and characteristics of waste so that they can assess the suitability of the waste for incineration in the plant concerned. Strict emission limits are appropriate for the incineration of non-hazardous waste which might, conceiv- ably, give rise to harmful emissions, such as dioxins, furans or environmentally-undesirable heavy metals. 2. 4. 2. Agriculture and forest residues and wood, with the exception of those that may contain halogenic organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment, are excluded from the scope of the draft directive. The Committee asks the Commission to study whether other non-recyclable materials classified as wastes, but not causing harmful emis- sions when incinerated, could also be excluded from the scope of the proposed directive. Such materials are for instance non-halogenated plastic materials, paper, cardboard and tex- tiles. 2. 5. Restricting dioxin and furan emissions is essential 2. 5. 1. Dioxins and furans are particularly harmful sub- stances, and the incineration of non-hazardous mixed waste, particularly household waste has been identified as one of the major sources of such emissions. Since even low-level emis- sions of dioxins and furans are a potential hazard to human health and the environment, the Committee feels that preven- tion of these emissions must be a priority. This is best done by encouraging separation of waste at source. In the Committee’s view, incineration of waste containing halogens and particu- larly chlorine should be restricted in incineration plants where outdated or otherwise deficient technology does not adequately prevent emissions of dioxins and furans into the surrounding environment in flue gases. 2. 6. 2. Incineration conditions in modern cement kilns and power and heat-generation plants may be even better than those in the newest incineration plants. The temperature in cement kilns is about 1 450 ° C. Furthermore, many new power and heat-generation plants and the technology they use are of such a high standard that the stringent requirements set for waste incineration are easily achievable. The Committee considers that the Commission’s 2. 6. 3. proposal to allow co-incineration is appropriate but that it does not go far enough. In particular, it will probably be impossible to meet the requirements laid down in the packag- ing waste directive, in the case of chlorine-free plastics and fibre-based packaging waste unsuitable for recovery without recourse to incineration. In Member States such as Ireland, Austria, greece, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom, where there are only a few, if any, dedicated incineration plants, compliance with the recovery targets set out in the packaging waste directive requires co-incineration on a considerable scale. The alternative is for packaging waste unsuitable for recovery to be shipped to landfill sites or to other Member States for incineration. The Committee does not consider this option to be recommendable from the point of view of life cycle assessments (LCA). 2. 6. 4. Power and heat generation plants and some industrial installations suited for the purpose have expressed an interest in principle in co-incinerating hazardous waste. The Com- the Commission proposals on co- mittee thinks incineration serve this interest without undermining the need to protect the environment and public health. that 2. 6. 5. In the case of co-incineration of non-hazardous wastes which complies with the existing stringent emission limit values applied to the flue gases of the regular fuel, there seems to be a need to further study possibilities of developing the directive proposals on co-incineration in order to meet both strict health and environmental protection levels and the optimal use of existing incineration capacity. 2. 6. Co-incineration as a requirement for achieving the waste recovery objectives 2. 6. 1. The Committee feels that existing infrastructure should be used in waste management in order to ensure cost efficiency and to maximise the competitive requirements of EU companies. The construction of new dedicated waste incinerators should be avoided if appropriate and safe inciner- ation capacity is available in existing industrial, power and heat-generation plants. The economic life of many power and heat- 2. 6. 6. generation plants and cement kilns can run into tens of years, and there is no economic justification for their replacement by new plants. The Committee suggests that, during a sufficiently long transition period, existing or old plants involved in the co-incineration of non-hazardous waste giving rise to harmless emissions should use the emission limit value laid down in the permit of the plant concerned as the Cproc value in the formula set out in Annex II of the Commission proposal. By contrast, in the case of new incineration plants, as defined in the LCP directive, there is justification for applying the emission limit values laid down in the Commission proposal. 28. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 116/43 2. 7. The monitoring requirement should involve a risk assessment 2. 7. 1. In many dedicated waste incineration plants, the material fed into incinerators is not homogeneous, and may in some cases be of undefined composition. The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal for fairly extensive con- trol and monitoring. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. Article 4, Application and permit As the Commission suggests in its draft proposal, the monitor- ing of incineration requires a permit system. It is extremely important when permits are issued that waste qualifying for incineration is defined in a genuinely unambiguous way, in accordance with Article 4(4)1. 3. 2. Article 7, Annex II, Air-Emission Limit Values To achieve the hierarchical objectives of the EU’s waste management strategy, the Committee proposes that, in accord- ance with the LCP directive, in the case of combustion plants and kilns classified as existing plants, less stringent emission values should be applied for the incineration of non-hazardous waste giving rise to harmless emissions, in accordance with the directive in question, than for new plants. In practice this could be done, for example over a ten year transition period, by using the emission value defined in the environmental permit for the particular plant in question as the Cproc term in the formula given in Annex II. 3. 3. Article 13, Abnormal Operating Conditions Abnormal operating conditions aggravate incineration emis- sions. The Committee endorses the Commission proposal to Brussels, 25 February 1999. set tough restrictions on incineration in cases where the requirements for good incineration are not met. 4. Conclusions 4. 1. The harmful effects of incineration on the environment and public health must be minimised and the energy produced during incineration must be put to the best possible use. This can be achieved by setting up a uniform permit procedure and through careful monitoring by authorities. 4. 2. Incineration is beneficial for environmental protection because it dramatically reduces the volume of waste and almost without exception the energy released can be recovered. Furthermore, most studies indicate that waste incineration indirectly reduces the release of greenhouse gases more harmful than carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and this helps to slow down climate change. 4. 3. The incineration of unsorted waste and incineration carried out under otherwise imperfect conditions can neverthe- less result in the release of harmful emissions, which may result in damage to the environment and human health. The Committee therefore feels that it is extremely important for waste incineration in the EU to be properly monitored in a uniform manner, and in line with the requirements of the IPPC Directive, to ensure sustainable development and the protection of health and the environment. The Committee would stress the value of separating waste at source. However, unclear definitions of waste and subsequently divergent interpretations by Member States may lead to discrepancies between EU Member States. 4. 4. The co-incineration of waste in heat and power generation plants, as well as in industrial furnaces, reduces the need for investment in new incineration plants. The Committee recommends that this consideration be taken into account in subsequent stages of the legislative procedure. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI