Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste'
14. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 198/37 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste’ THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, (1999/C 198/08) having regard to the proposal for a Council directive on the incineration of waste (COM(1998) 558 — 98/0289 SYN) (1); having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 7 October 1998, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter; having regard to the decision taken by its bureau on 15 July 1998 to instruct Commission 4 for Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment to draw up the relevant opinion; having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 447/98 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 4 on 4 February 1999 (rapporteur: Mr Mikkelsen), adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 28th plenary session on 10 and 11 March 1999 (meeting of 10 March). Introduction 1. The Commission’s final proposal for a Council directive on the incineration of waste, presented on 7 October 1998, has been referred to the Committee of the Regions. 2. The above Commission proposal covers both waste incinerated in conventional waste incineration plants and installations for the co-incineration of waste, such as cement kilns or combustion plants. General comments 3. The COR welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a Council directive on the incineration of waste. This directive meets a major need and the proposal seems well thought-out. 4. The purpose of the proposed Council directive is to help ensure that waste incineration takes due account of environmental and health considerations. However, it does not solve problems arising out of the strong resistance in many areas of Europe to the use of incineration plants as an element in waste disposal policy which means that landfilling large quantities of waste is the preferred option in such areas. Here the risks include pollution of groundwater, the sea, lakes and watercourses; further, the disposal of biodegradable waste generates methane emissions, which are a major contributor to the greenhouse effect. 5. In the COR’s view, energy-generating waste incineration can be one component of a modern waste processing system with the proviso that it must form part of a coherent waste disposal programme and that waste incineration does not hold back recycling or waste reduction schemes. In addition, far-reaching rules on air, water and other forms of pollution must be respected in such operations. The Council’s resolution on a Community strategy for 6. waste management (2) stresses the need to promote utilization of waste, e. g. for energy purposes. The Commission’s proposal for a Council directive on the landfill of waste (3) also lays down requirements for a reduction in the volume of biodegradable waste going to landfills. In its opinion of 11 June 1997(4) on the above directive on the landfill of waste, the Committee of the Regions endorsed these requirements. In this connection, the COR would point out that an increase in waste incineration must be expected during the years ahead. 7. The COR feels that a high level of environment protec- tion should be the guiding principle for the operation of incineration plants and that the level of transparency in the planning, setting up and management of such plants should also be high. This would help alleviate problems connected with suitable location and establishment of future plants — the ‘NIMBY’ (Not in My Back Yard) syndrome. The COR would stress that local and regional authorities are often the main organizers and paymasters for waste management and play a decisive role in communicating with the general public; close involvement of these authorities is therefore a prerequisite for the framing of a sound waste management system. (1) OJ C 372, 2. 12. 1998, p. 11. (2) OJ C 76, 11. 3. 1997, p. 1. (3) COM(97) 105 final — OJ C 156, 24. 5. 1997, p. 10. (4) CdR 112/97 fin — OJ C 244, 11. 8. 1997, p. 15. C 198/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 7. 1999 8. Here it is most important that the setting up of waste incineration plants should form part of a consistent waste/ener- gy programme to ensure optimum environmental impact and credibility as an environmentally friendly option. Directive 75/442/EEC) and the incineration of waste as a waste-disposal process (see D10, Annex IIA, Directive 75/442/EEC). 9. The COR considers that the draft directive on inciner- ation of waste needs to be backed by provisions requiring the sorting of waste prior to incineration so as to remove any unwanted waste components. In this connection, it would stress the importance of effective sorting at source before waste is transported to the incineration plant. 10. Uniform waste incineration guidelines are needed in the Member States, e. g. to avoid unnecessary transport of waste from country to country. The COR feels that it is vital to limit this problem. The COR disagrees with the proposed provisions 16. industrial plants to use waste allowing certain types of incineration processes which result in pollutant waste com- ponents being incorporated into products in view of the potential harm to the environment and/or human health. 17. The cement industry is one case in point: heavy metal components of waste are incorporated into cement and hence into building materials. This dissemination of noxious substances via cement industry products can ultimately cause problems when the building materials are used and especially when they are processed as waste in an uncontrolled way. In the COR’s view, such processes amount to dilution of waste. 11. However, the COR considers that realistic transitional arrangements will be necessary to cover the time-gap between the draft directive’s entry into force and its transposition by the individual Member States into national legislation. Concurrently steps must be taken to prevent waste being transported from countries which have implemented the directive to other countries which do not yet comply fully with its guidelines. 18. The COR is opposed to waste incineration processes which dilute waste and incorporate pollutants (e. g. heavy metals) into products which are subsequently disseminated in the environment in the shape of building materials. That would seem incompatible with the draft directive’s aim (see fifteenth paragraph of the preamble) of achieving a high level of environmental protection. 12. The COR regards the draft directive as particularly important for local and regional authorities since they are largely responsible for the setting up and operation of incineration plants and, in many cases, also for monitoring of the environmental impact of such plants. 19. The COR feels that co-incineration of waste should be permitted only in the case of homogeneous and well-defined waste components of carefully determined origin and on condition that it is consistent with an approved waste manage- ment programme. The COR is pleased to observe that the sixth paragraph 13. of the preamble refers to the Council’s Resolution (1) on a Community strategy for waste management which, among other things, stresses the need to prevent the transport of waste for incineration. The COR agrees that transport of waste should be avoided wherever possible. The COR notes with satisfaction that this directive is 14. framed as a minimum set of provisions (see fifth paragraph of the preamble), thereby allowing the individual Member States to fix more stringent requirements for the regulation of waste incineration plants. 15. The COR welcomes the directive’s guidelines on co- incineration of waste. Hitherto regulation in this area has been sadly lacking. In the Committee’s view there is, however, an urgent need to make a distinction between the co-incineration of waste as a waste-recovery process (see R1; Annex IIB of (1) OJ C 76, 11. 3. 1997, p. 1. 20. The COR would point out that local and regional authorities are largely responsible for the establishment of a sufficient number of efficient waste treatment and disposal facilities. These facilities should be designed to support sus- tainable solid waste management, and to reduce amounts of waste generated and to improve recycling and recovery. In this connection it should be underlined that the removal of highly combustible, non-recyclable waste components, will make it technically, economically and environmentally extremely to run dedicated waste incineration plants in a difficult sustainable way. Annex II of the draft directive contains a ‘co- 21. incineration formula’ for purposes of determining limit values for air pollution caused by waste co-incineration. A corre- sponding formula is used in directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste. 22. The formula is used to calculate limit values for air emissions and is based on the percentage of exhaust gases produced from waste incineration and the percentage pro- duced from fossil fuels. 14. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 198/39 The COR feels that, 23. in some cases, use of the co- incineration formula can mean that the limit values for air emissions of pollutants produced by co-incineration of waste are not as stringent as those applicable to conventional incineration plants. 24. Differing rules for co-incineration and dedicated incin- eration plants would also seem incompatible with the Com- mission’s Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Community’s waste manage- ment strategy, which states: ‘The environmental impact of a given emission has the same potential irrespective of the emitting process. Consequently, there is no reason to set up different standards for different sectors (industry and waste treatment facilities) as long as the input material and process is comparable. The same strict standards should, in principle, apply for waste whether it is treated in industrial installations or in waste treatment installation (recovery of disposal). ’ The practical arguments for such an alignment of standards can be found in the ‘Blokland’ report drawn up for the European Parliament by MEP Blokland. Earlier, in its opinion of 16 January 1997 on the 25. above strategy, the COR expressed its satisfaction over the Commission’s drive to ensure that the same standards applied to waste, regardless of whether treatment was undertaken in industrial or waste processing plants. Given the implications described above, 26. the COR underlines that the Annex II co-incineration formula must be written in such a way that uniform limit values for incineration and co-incineration plant will be set, and uniform conditions for incineration and co-incineration thereby achieved. If this can not be achieved by the use of the co-incineration formula, the COR are of the opinion, that the formula should be rewritten or replaced by limit values for total air emissions of pollutants so that the same requirements apply to both waste incineration and co-incineration plants. Specific comments on individual articles of the draft directive 30. The COR is pleased to note that the definition given in Article 3 of an incineration plant applies to the entire process, covering waste reception, storage and sorting prior to incineration, exhaust gas, waste water, storage of residues at the plant, etc. In the Committee’s view, there is also a need to stipulate that the combustion heat generated in the course of the operation of waste-incineration plants should be recovered, using state-of-the-art technology, with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the commitments entered into by the EU (Kyoto Protocol). 31. The COR also observes with satisfaction that the same definition underpins the definition of waste co-incineration activities covered by this directive. 32. The COR agrees with Article 4’s requirement that energy generated during the incineration process be recovered as far as possible and that residues be prevented, reduced or recycled wherever possible. Here it should be stressed that the development of 33. methods to reduce and recycle waste incineration residues needs to be speeded up to curb residue disposal problems. It is the opinion of the COR that more research is needed in this area. 34. In addition, the COR supports the minimum require- ments indicated in Article 4 regarding the investigations to be undertaken by the competent authority in connection with the preparation of waste incineration permits. 27. However, the COR would stress that care must be taken, in setting limit values for co-incineration of waste, to heed the best available technology principle (see also Directive on Integrated Prevention and Control of Pollution — IPPC Directive 96/61/EC). Unnecessary emissions must therefore be avoided. 35. With regard to Article 5 of the draft directive, the Committee of the Regions feels it must emphasize the absolute need to implement appropriate monitoring systems to avoid accidental incorporation of harmful waste. In the COR’s view, 28. future work must ensure that co-incineration and dedicated waste incineration plants are subject to uniform requirements. 36. In the COR’s view, with Article 5 needs to be amplified by an obligation to sort waste prior to incineration, preferably at source, so as to improve the incineration process and thereby reduce the volume of unwanted substances in residues and exhaust gas emissions. 29. The Committee recommends that Council Directive No 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste and the present draft directive on the incineration of waste be inte- grated into a common Directive in order to make the EU rules more readily understandable and easier to implement. 37. Article 6 provides that the volume of total organic carbon (TOC) of the slag must be less than 3 %. In its view, modern incineration plants can now meet this 3 % TOC ceiling without difficulty, and indeed by a comfortable margin. It therefore endorses this requirement. C 198/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 7. 1999 38. Article 6 also requires that incineration plants be built and operated in such a way as to ensure that exhaust gases remain at a level of at least 850°C for no less than 2 seconds. This requirement has the COR’s support. In the COR’s view, a mandatory temperature of 850°C 39. for operation of the incineration plant helps to prevent dioxin formation. Since Article 11 also requires continuous measurement of the furnace temperature, the temperature can be monitored constantly, thereby preventing dioxin formation. Article 6 would therefore seem conducive to achieving 40. a high quality of incineration. Article 6 also provides that all incineration plants must 41. be equipped with auxiliary burners so that the temperature can quickly be raised to the desired level when waste is burned. The compulsory installation of auxiliary burners is necessary to ensure that the incineration plant starts up rapidly and that the temperature inside it does not fall below the minimum as long as some waste still remains which is not incinerated. 42. Article 7 specifies that incineration plants must be built and operated in such a way that the air emission limit values set out in Annex V are not exceeded. 43. In the COR’s view, the limit values specified in Annex 5 are readily attainable, by a comfortable margin, using technology. If the existing proposal for a directive is to be merged with Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste, unified emission limit values should apply to all types of waste incineration plants. The COR recommends a limit value for ammonia (NH3) 44. since the nitrogen filtre cleaning process normally involves the addition of ammonia to the exhaust gases. Excessive concentrations of ammonia can cause foul smells and nitrogen residues in the soil. 45. Article 7 of the draft directive refers to Annex II as regards limit values for air pollution caused by co-incineration of waste. Annex II specifies the ‘co-incineration formula’ to be used to determine limit values for air emissions of pollutants. The limit value for such emissions in the case of co-incineration of waste (e. g. in industrial plants) is calculated as an average of the limit value specified in the directive on incineration of waste and the limit value applicable to incineration of fossil fuels, which is usually higher. This results in different con- ditions applying to co-incineration and waste incineration in dedicated incineration plants. As already mentioned, the COR considers that the same guidelines should hold good for both types of plant and feels that, whatever happens, the level of emissions should not be higher than those from traditional fuels or raw materials. In the course of the proposed merging with Directive 94/67/EC the co-incineration of non-hazardous waste should be limited to no more than 40 % waste, with reference to the heat released. 46. Further, the COR advocates the fixing of a limit value for nitrogen discharges since waste water from incineration plants typically contains nitrogen, which can cause increased eutrophy in the recipient. 47. Article 8 also requires that steps be taken to avoid dilution of waste water by mixing different waste water streams from the plant. The COR agrees with the principle that dilution must be avoided. One option could be joint treatment of slag cooling water and waste water from exhaust gas cleaning at the plant but other waste water streams (e. g. rainwater) should not be used for purposes of dilution to meet limit values. The best technologies available for the case in question must be used to deal with this problem. 48. Article 10 specifies that the measurement equipment shall be tested once a year. The COR considers that the wording of this requirement is too broad since there are many different measurement methods, not to mention different the third manufacturers of such equipment. paragraph should require that measurement equipment is tested in accordance with the supplier’s instructions, but at least once a year. In its view, 49. Annex III also specifies that sampling and analysis of all pollutants shall be carried out in compliance with CEN standards. In those areas where CEN standards do not yet exist, national standards are to be observed. 50. The COR would stress the need to frame CEN standards in these remaining areas as speedily as possible so that no doubts can arise as to whether the draft directive’s limit values for incineration of waste are respected. Hence references to national standards are not a sustainable solution in the long term since these do not necessarily exist yet in all relevant areas. 51. Article 11 refers to the measuring requirements set out in Annex III. The current wording of the Annex III rules would seem too vague. The COR would stress the need for clear and specific rules on this matter so as to ensure the introduction, at national, regional and local level, of uniform guidelines in the respective Member States. 14. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 198/41 52. The requirement that heavy metals, dioxins and furans in exhaust gases must be measured at least twice a year (see Article 11) seems undemanding compared with the strict requirements governing measurement of waste water. Given the wide differences in waste incineration operating conditions, the COR feels that the measurement requirements for exhaust air and waste water should be clarified further by an expert group. Lastly, the COR would highlight the positive aspects of 53. the Commission’s proposal and would point out that a generally applicable directive on the incineration of hazardous and non-hazardous waste should be adopted as quickly as possible. It would point out that the draft directive’s more stringent environmental requirements imply higher financial costs for local and regional authorities, insofar as they bear responsibility for both setting up and operating incineration plants, as well as monitoring the environmental impact of such plants. Brussels, 10 March 1999. The President of the Committee of the Regions Manfred DAMMEYER Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development and innovation’ (1999/C 198/09) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to ‘Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development and innovation’ (COM(1998) 275 final); having regard to the Commission decision of 8 June 1998 to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter; having regard to the COR Bureau decisions of 15 July 1998 and 18 November 1998, in accordance with Article 198c(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to instruct Commission 5 — Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism — to draw up the relevant opinion; having regard to the 1998 Annual Report: Research and technological development activities of the European Union (COM(1998) 439 final); having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programmes implementing the fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technical development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) (COM(1998) 305 final); having regard to the COR Opinion on the First action plan for innovation in Europe — Innovation for growth and employment (CdR 68/97 fin) (1); (1) OJ C 244, 11. 8. 1997, p. 9