30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/25 
'preparatory studies' so as to make clearer the scope 
of this provision. 
2.4. The Committee wonders whether it is desira­
ble to set up a committee composed of representa­
tives of the Member States. This formula, which is 
adopted in other Community Regulations, is liable 
to prolong the decision-making process. Will it be 
useful, given that provision will have to be made 
each year in the Community budget (under the 
heading of non-compulsory expenditure) for the 
annual sums specified in the two financial sheets? 
2.5. The Committee also wonders about the desira­
bility of a four-year deadline for taking stock of the 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, application of this Regulation. Would it not be bet­
ter to reduce this period by one or two years? 
2.6. The Committee hopes that this Regulation 
will make it possible to finance coordinated pro­
grammes suited to the needs of the persons in ques­
tion. The Committee stresses in this connection that 
the execution and financial monitoring of these pro­
grammes ought primarily to be service-oriented 
rather than strictly accountancy-oriented. The key 
element of evaluation, in place of potential bureau­
cratic trappings, ought to be the amount of ground­
work achieved and actual aid provided in real, 
human terms to the trainees, to the sick and to the 
mentally handicapped in question. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Having Regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 27 April 1983 for 
an opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 
on the combating of air pollution from industrial 
plants, Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the combating of air pollution from 
industrial plants 
(84/C 23/12) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 139 of 27 May 1983, page 5 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 27 April 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
212th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 November 1983. 
No C 23/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Com­
mittee Bureau on 26 April 1983 in anticipation of 
the Council's request instructing the Section for Pro­
tection of the Environment, Public Health and Con­
sumer Affairs to draw up an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr de Normann, 
Having regard to the supplementary opinion drawn 
up by the Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts 
and Services on 12 September 1983, 
Having regard to the discussions at the 78th meeting 
of the Section for Protection of the Environment, 
Public Health and Consumer Affairs held on 
16 November 1983, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting on 
23 November 1983 (212th plenary session of 23 and 
24 November 1983), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously with three abstentions: 
1. Preliminary remarks 
1.1. The Committee basically endorses the Com­
mission's proposal and the need to undertake timely 
and effective action to combat air pollution from 
industrial plants. 
It welcomes the proposal for a Directive to establish 
a framework of control over air pollution as one of a 
number of proposals in an overall strategy by the 
Commission. 
It supports the Commission policy directed to the 
stabilization of air pollution followed by its reduc­
tion. 
Specifically within the proposal the Committee sup­
ports: 
the application of authorization procedures to 
new and existing plants likely to cause signifi­
cant air pollution, 
the principle of measures to control air quality 
and emissions. 2. The Community system for the control of air 
pollution 
2.1. The 1973 and the 1977 action programmes 
called for the objective valuation of risks to human 
health and the environment from air pollution and 
for the formulation of quality objectives and the set­
ting up of quality standards. 
2.2. The 1983 action programme calls on the Com­
mission to continue its efforts to establish air quality 
standards and to develop a policy of stabilizing total 
emission followed by a programme of progressive 
reduction. It states that where appropriate this 
should be achieved by establishing emission stan­
dards for certain types of source. 
2.3. The action programme on the environment 
1982 to 1986 states 'the reasons for any new mea­
sures need to be examined carefully and their cost-
effectiveness analyzed before the measures are actu­
ally taken'. 
3. General comments 
3.1. Policy, strategy and priorities of the Commission 
The Committee would like the Commission to take 
the opportunity in the explanatory memorandum to 
this proposal to state its priorities for air pollution 
control and to give a clear indication of expected 
subsequent Directives for forward planning pur­
poses in Member States. 
In particular it would like the relative place of air 
quality limits and emission limits in the Commis­
sion strategy to be indicated. 
There is no justification in calling for 'air quality 
values preceding emission limits'. Air quality values 
can only be met if emission limits are first laid 
down. This means that a policy that really seeks to 
achieve clean air must be based on both emission 
limits and air quality values. 
The Committee urges the Commission to review this 
proposal for areas where there is a possibility of 
duplication of other Community legislation, espe-
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/27 
daily in the fields of air quality values, employee 
protection, environmental impact analysis and 
special protection zones. 
3.2. Protection levels and economic considerations 
The Committee recognizes that air pollution derived 
from the emission of pollutants into ambient air has 
the potential for danger and harm to human and 
animal life and to the environment. 
The Committee believes that there is a threshold of 
pollutant concentration in the air above which dan­
ger can occur. This is the threshold which must not be 
exceeded whatever the economic cost. This thres­
hold should be reflected in air quality limit values 
and harmonized throughout the Community. 
Below this threshold air quality should be related to 
the economic and social consequences of achieving 
it. Clearly total air purity is unachievable, so a value 
judgement has to be made, taking into account both 
the costs from likely damage from failing to act and 
the costs of an effective reduction programme. 
The Committee welcomes the recognition of this 
principle by the Commission in its proposal and 
endorses the reference to 'unreasonable cost' in 
Article 2.4 and to cost in Article 12 and in Article 14 
where existing plants are concerned. 
The Committee emphasizes that it is in the applica­
tion of this proposal to existing plants that the grea­
test likelihood of economic and social difficulties 
exists but acknowledges that the application of this 
Directive to existing plants is the only way of reduc­
ing existing air pollution. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and 
Services has provided a supplementary opinion on 
the costs for industry which this proposal would 
involve, pointing to the need for the individual 
Directives which will follow to be more precise 
about application criteria and the cost/benefit ratio. 
It has stressed that the 'polluter pays' principle must 
be respected whatever happens. This opinion is 
appended. The Committee notes that as things stand at present 
the Commission is not yet able to quantify the dam­
age caused to human health and the environment by 
air pollution, although this damage is clearly consi­
derable. The Committee considers that this short­
coming should be made good as soon as possible. 
3.3. Harmonization of competition 
The Committee recognizes that an objective of this 
proposal is the removal of unfair conditions of com­
petition within the Community by ensuring all 
Member States have an adequate air protection con­
trol system but urges that some possible effects of 
the implementation of this proposal be taken into 
account: 
— within Member States the proportion of energy 
derived from the fuel pattern varies widely so 
differing additional energy costs would be 
imposed, 
— Member States' industrial patterns differ and 
the processes used vary widely. State of the art 
and emission control costs would vary corres­
pondingly, 
— operators might tend to be dissuaded from 
adopting coal as a base fuel in direct contradic­
tion to the Commission initiative to encourage 
the consumption of solid fuels. 
3.4. Emission limits and ambient air quality 
In several Member States with long experience on 
the matter, a certain amount of work has already 
been done on the establishment and application of 
limit values for emissions. 
The state of technology must be taken into account 
when laying down limit values. At the same time, 
there should be an action programme to develop 
and promote new, less polluting technologies. The 
introduction of limit values for emissions should not 
prevent the Member States from having recourse to 
other methods to reduce pollution. Depending on 
the state of technology there would have to be 
special measures to limit socalled 'fugitive' emis­
sions. 
The dispersal of pollutants in the atmosphere may 
be affected by variations of climate and topography 
within the Community, even though emission limit 
No C 23/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
values were the same. It is therefore necessary to lay 
down standards for ambient air in addition to emis­
sion limit values. 
3.5. Flexibility of interpretation 
The Committee recognizes that operators of plants 
in Member States need to have a degree of 'certainty 
in law' to back their operations and in consequence 
in its specific comments on the Articles, it has urged 
the Commission to provide guidelines in certain 
areas. Nevertheless it feels that it is desirable as far 
as possible to give Member States the flexibility to 
operate at national level to achieve the most cost-
effective route to Community air quality targets. 
The experience of certain Member States has proved 
that the introduction of emission limit values pro­
vides greater legal certainty, whereas this is not so 
clearly the case in other Member States. 
3.6. The needs and objectives of research 
The Committee urges the Commission to ensure 
that its survey of current work, its programme of 
research and the wide dissemination of knowledge 
is adequate. The Committee further urges that the 
commitment to support research under the UNECE 
Convention of 1979 dealing with long range trans-
boundary air pollution should not be reduced. 
The Committee calls upon the Commission to 
emphasize the following four points: 
(1) encouragement of research and development on 
the prevention and reduction of the negative 
effects of dangerous and harmful substances; 
(2) encouragement of research into the develop­
ment of less polluting technologies; 
(3) introduction of measuring and calculating sys­
tems which can be used uniformly throughout 
the Community to monitor emissions and air 
quality; 
(4) undertaking of other measures apart from 
research to protect the environment in all cases 
where there is a high risk. 
3.7. International harmonization 
The Committee urges the Commission to examine 
the proposal to ensure that action taken under it takes account of and harmonizes with other interna­
tional action programmes, especially that of 
UNECE, and further to seek guarantees from neigh­
bouring third countries that their attitudes will not 
frustrate Community actions. 
3.8. Clarity of purpose 
The Committee believes that this proposal should 
provide a set of principles which all Member States 
can support and follow. 
They should be clear and practical for the industrial 
operators whom they affect and they should provide 
as far as possible for harmonization throughout the 
Community. 
It is with this in mind that the Committee makes the 
specific comments on the Articles of the proposal. 
4. Specific comments 
4.1. Article 1 — Purpose 
The Committee believes that the purpose of the 
Directive is not to implement measures but to pro­
vide for measures to be implemented by Member 
States. Thus Article 1 should be 'to bring about the 
introduction of general measures and procedures 
designed to control, reduce and prevent air pollu­
tion from industrial plants within the Community'. 
4.2. Article 2 — Definitions 
The Committee: 
— supports the definition of 'air pollution' in line 
with the Geneva Convention on long range 
transboundary air pollution but urges the Com­
mission to ensure that it is indeed used in this 
sense in Articles 3, 4.1 and 7; 
— considers that Article 2.1 should make explicit 
reference to the health of animals; 
— suggests that the definition of 'plant' in Articles 
2.2 and 2.3 should distinguish whole plants and 
specific elements of plants; 
30.1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/29 
suggests that the definition of 'plants' in 
Article 2.2 should (i) be limited to the 'purposes 
of the types indicated in Annex I' and should 
exclude abnormal conditions such as those aris­
ing from Acts of God, force majeure, sabotage 
or accidents, and (ii) be extended to include 
'floating factories'; — if possible the process should be proven on the 
full scale or be at a precisely defined stage of 
development with a guaranteed performance; 
4.4.3. to modify Article 4.1 to 'any significant risk' 
to avoid the misinterpretation of 'any danger' as 
zero risk; 
recommends that Article 2.5 should specify 'air' 
as 'ambient air' and that 'emission' be defined 
in Article 2.6. Articles 2.5 and 2.6 should specify 
measurement by accepted test methods; 
asks the Commission to consider giving a defi­
nition of 'competent authority' as 'the authority 
designated by the Member State to carry out the 
requirements of this Directive'. 4.4.4. to protect employees at the place of work by 
adding a fourth paragraph referring to the frame­
work Directive on protection of workers and other 
relevant Directives and making compliance with 
them mandatory. 
4.5. Articles 6, 7,9 10 — Confidentiality of commer­
cial and technical information 
4.3. Article 3 — Prior authorization of plants 
The Committee urges the Commission to redraft 
Article 3.1 so as to distinguish clearly between the 
authorization of an operation from the point of view 
of air pollution and a planning authorization. At the 
same time, it should not neglect the prime import­
ance of lay-out and design in air pollution preven­
tion (installation of purification apparatus), moni­
toring (installation of monitoring equipment) and 
limitation (height of chimneys, etc). The Committee urges the Commission to reconsider 
the protection of the confidentiality of commercial 
and technical information and to redraft these Arti­
cles in such a way as to safeguard this throughout 
the provisions of the Directive, rather than specifi­
cally in the application for authorization, without 
thereby restricting action to combat pollution. 
The Committee considers that in Article 7 the 
mechanism for information exchange requires clari­
fication. 
4.4. Article 4 — Conditions for authorization 
The Committee recognizes this as a key Article in 
this proposal and urges the Commission: 
4.4.1. to give guidance for the period of author­
ization ; 4.6. Article 8 — Council to fix emission limit values 
The Committee suggests the following wording for 
Article 8: 
'The Council shall, if necessary, acting by quali­
fied majority on a proposal from the Commis­
sion, fix emission limit values and ambient air 
quality limit values, particularly for the pollut­
ing substances listed in Annex II.' 
4.4.2. to lay down guidelines for the identification 
of the state of the art by the competent authority of 
each Member State, for example: 
— if possible the process should be commercially 
available, 4.7. Article 10 — Informing other Member States 
The Committee asks the Commission to consider in 
more detail the procedures for informing other 
Member States at the plant authorization stage and 
the action to be taken in case of protest. 
No C 23/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
4.8. Article 11 — Regular monitoring of emissions 
The Committee considers that this Article should be 
aligned with Article 4.3 to refer both to air quality 
and emission limit values and to state specifically 
whether it refers to total emission or only to stack 
emission (fugitive emission may be significant). 
Since monitoring will entail both capital and operat­
ing cost the Committee asks the Commission to sug­
gest some guidelines concerning the frequency of 
monitoring, the competent authority and the stan­
dardization of the methods of measurement and cal­
culation techniques used. 
4.9. Article 12 — Application of 'state of art' sub­
sequent to authorization 
The Committee urges the Commission to ensure 
that in Article 12 due provision is made for the need 
for timely action in the face of unforeseen events 
involving a change in pollution levels. 
Action must also be taken if the result of research 
shows a new risk. 
4.10. Article 14 — Application to existing plants 
The Committee supports this flexible approach to 
existing plants taking into account the fact that the 
processes in use may not readily be modified to take 
abatement equipment. 
The Committee urges the Commission to establish, 
for the guidance of Member States, criteria for the 
application of these provisions which will take into 
account the economic consequences. 
Furthermore, the Commission should set down 
guidelines for existing plants which will assist Mem­
ber States in their interpretation of 'progressively' 
and ensure harmonization. 
4.11. Article 16 — Derogation 
The Committee recognizes that the wording of this 
Article has been recommended to the Commission by the legal services but nevertheless urges the Com­
mission to ensure that Member States adopt deroga­
tion measures only in exceptional cases and with 
serious justification. 
4.12. Articles 17, 18, 19 — Technical progress 
instrument 
The Committee urges the Commission to limit the 
submission to the Committee by the Commission to 
subjects of a technical nature and to define clearly 
the powers of the Committee. 
4.13. The annexes 
The Committee urges the Commission to reconsider 
Annexes I and II in the light of the following com­
ments. 
Annex I 
The Committee supports the list proposed in the 
Annex, and in particular the inclusion of plants in 
categories 1 to 4 which are major sources of pollu­
tion. 
Annex II 
The Committee urges the Commission to give prior­
ity to those substances which are major pollutants 
and which affect Community-wide trans-frontier 
pollution. 
Substances should be described specifically rather 
than generically. Imprecise terms such as 'sulphur 
compounds' should be avoided. 
Certain pollutants should be added to the list by 
analogy with others already there, and bearing in 
mind that some limit values have already been laid 
down for these pollutants in certain Member States. 
As odours cause considerable harm to the amenity 
value of the environment, they should be mentioned 
explicitly. 
An indication of an acceptable standard method of 
measurement should be given for each substance 
mentioned. 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/31 
If the Commission feels that such revision of the 
Annexes would delay the proposal, the Committee 
believes that it would be appropriate to give the Committee on Adaptation to Technical Progress the 
task of making proposals for the Annexes. 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
A. Rejected amendments 
The following amendment to the Section opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of 
Procedure, was rejected by the Committee during plenary session discussions: 
Paragraph 4.13, Annex I, delete under this heading 
Substitute: 
'The Committee supports the inclusion of plants in categories 1 to 4 (energy, metal 
production and processing, mineral products and chemical industry) and other plants of 
serious polluting power. 
The Committee considers that some other categories of plant especially industrial live­
stock rearing installations and food production plants should be omitted since they may 
constitute a local nuisance rather than a major hazard. 
The Committee considers that local nuisance should remain the responsibility of Mem­
ber States under their national legislation and procedures. 
The Committee urges that the Commission be asked to define categories of plants in 
sufficient detail so that threshold sizes can be allocated. Member States should be free 
to apply appropriate national legislation to smaller plants.' 
Reason 
The long list of categories of plants in Annex I shows signs of having been put together by 
the Commission as a sum total of suggestions made to them. 
A long initial list will defeat the objective of dealing as soon as possible with major polluting 
plants. 
Voting: 
For: 40; against: 79; abstentions: 12. 
No C 23/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
B. Following an amendment to the text of the Section opinion the following sentence has 
been deleted 
Point 3.1, third paragraph: 
'A genuine clean air policy must make use of both instruments, without priority being 
given to one or the other.' 
Opinion on the Commission's annual economic report 1983/84 
(84/C 23/13) 
The text referred to the Committee has not been published in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 24 October 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned report to the Economic 
and Social Comittee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
Procedure 
The preparation of this opinion was entrusted to the Section for Economic and Finan­
cial Questions, which appointed Mr Pfeiffer as rapporteur. 
The Section adopted its opinion unanimously on 15 November 1983. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Committee adopted its opinion at its 212th plenary session on 23 and 24 Novem­
ber 1983 by the majority, with one vote against and two abstentions. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
1. Analysis of the economic situation 1983/84 
1.1. The Commission's forecast 
An analysis of the key data in the Commission's 
annual economic report (setting aside the reviews of 
the economies of the individual Member States) 
leads to the following conclusions: 
As with its forecasts in previous years, the Commis­
sion has had to revise downwards its GDP growth 
forecast for 1983 (1,1 %) made in its 1982/83 annual 
economic report and now expects in increase of 
0,5 % in GDP in 1983. It anticipates 1,5 % growth in 
1984. Whereas private consumption, stockbuilding and house construction were growth factors in some 
countries in 1983, the growth forecast by the Com­
mission for 1984 lies above all in exports ( + 3,6%) 
and investment (+1,8 %), with private and public 
consumption and stockbuilding being expected to 
rise only slightly or stagnate. 
This economic growth in 1984 is expected to go 
hand in hand with a lower inflation rate (5,1 %, as 
compared with 6,3 % in 1983), and a further decline 
in interest rates is also anticipated. The rate of 
increase in the money supply is also to fall off 
(8,7%, as against 10,5% in 1983), as well as the 
increase in compensation per employed person 
(1984: +6,1 %; 1983: +7,2%). The balance of pay­
ments could improve somewhat in 1984 (0,0% of