30. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 204/37 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for a Council  Directive  relating  to the  use  of fuel  oils  with 
the aim  of decreasing  sulphurous  emissions 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  No  C 54 of 
8 March  1976,  page  79. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 21  January  1976  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 
140th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 30 June  and  1 July  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of  the  European  Communities  on 
21 January  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 27 January  1976,  instructing  the Section  for Pro-
tection  of  the  Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up  an opinion  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  at its meeting  on 8 June  1976,  and 
the report  prepared  by Mr Gailey, 
Having  regard  to the  discussion  at its 140th  plenary 
session  held  on 30 June  and  1 July  1976  (meeting  of 
30 June  1976), HAS  UNANIMOUSLY  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING 
OPINION: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee, 
although  recognizing  the  potential  danger  to health 
of sulphur  dioxide  and  suspended  particulate  matter 
in urban  atmospheres,  cannot  give  unqualified 
approval  to the  Commission's  present  proposals  for 
the reasons  given  below. 
1.2. The  Commission's  ultimate  aim  of reducing 
air pollution  by  sulphur  is entirely  desirable.  A 
Directive  on the  sulphur  content  of gas  oil is now 
in force  and  it is a pity  that  results  of this  Directive 
will not  be known  in time  for  consideration  in 
connection  with  the present  proposals. 
1.3. If,  however,  the objective  is clean  air,  it would 
seem  far  more  logical  and  satisfactory  to agree 
standards  for  air quality  rather  than  to deal  with 
the amount  of SO2  emissions  from  fuel  oil which  is 
only  one  factor  in determining  air quality.  Far greater 
pollution  through  SO2  emissions  and  particulate 
matter  arises  in certain  areas  from  coal  burning  which 
is not  yet  the  subject  of a Directive.  Agreed  air 
No C 204/38 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 8. 76 
quality  standards  which  Member  States  could 
enforce  and  check  by monitoring  should  have  come 
first.  Such  action  would  make  it unnecessary  to tackle 
the problem  piecemeal  by trying  to work  out separate 
Directives  for every  form  of potential  pollutant. 
1.4. The  Committee  has  now  seen  the  draft 
Directive  to  establish  standards  for  air  quality 
prepared  by the  Commission.  These  proposals  are 
being  examined  separately  and  simultaneously. 
1.5. The  Committee  notes  that  the  Directive  is 
intended  to apply  to areas  where  it is necessary  to 
have  some  priority.  Modifications  of the  Directive 
should  be  considered  by  1980  in the  light  of 
experience  so that  it can  be decided  whether  it is 
necessary  to proceed  with  a second  stage  of the 
regulations.  The  degree  of flexibility  which  the  Com-
mission  has  introduced  into  the  proposal  is 
appreciated,  but  it is doubtful  whether  this  is entirely 
satisfactory.  Circumstances  differ  greatly  in member 
countries.  Taxation  policy  varies  considerably  and 
meteorological  conditions  have  a significant  influence. 
The fuel  oil itself  has  not  the same  content  of sulphur 
everywhere:  the  increasing  availability  of North  Sea 
oil with  its low  content  of sulphur  will  undoubtedly 
improve  the situation. 
1.6. The  importance  of public  health  is accepted. 
Nevertheless,  the  Directive,  as now  proposed,  seems 
an unnecessarily  complex  method  of achieving  this 
objective.  The  Committee  wonders  whether  the 
considerable  expenditure  which  would  result  from 
the application  of this  Directive  is commensurate 
with  the  likely  improvement  in  public  health. 
Consultation  with  energy  experts  and  with  consumer 
interests  has  clearly  been  perfunctory.  There  should 
in future  be  a special  consultative  committee 
composed  of  representatives  of all  the  relevant 
interests  in the  environmental  field  with  which  the 
ideas  should  be discussed  before  reaching  the  stage 
of drawing  up a proposed  Directive.  This  preliminary 
consultation  could  be  similar  to  the  procedure 
applying  in the  agriculture  field.  It might  then  be 
able to  establish  the  main  sources  of  sulphur 
emissions  and  what  part  these  play  in pollution 
within  the Community. 
1.7. Experience  has  shown  that  pollution  from 
domestic  sources  and  from  small  consumers  with low-level  chimney  stacks  has  a disproportionate 
influence  on ground  level  pollution  in urban  areas  — 
not the  emissions  from  larger  installations  with  tall 
chimneys.  Such  sources  of pollution  originating  from 
solid  fuel  burning  are not  controlled  by the Directive, 
but could  be of far  greater  significance  as regards 
their  effects  on health.  A policy  for  the  optimum 
utilization  of energy,  such  as in district  heating, 
would  itself  result  in a substantial  decrease  in 
pollution. 
1.8. Whilst  welcoming  any  positive  measures 
which  make  for  speedy  progress  towards  agreed  air 
quality  standards,  the  Committee  feels  that  the  costs 
contingent  on  the  introduction  and  subsequent 
enforcement  of this  Directive  seem  disproportionate 
to the  benefits  obtained.  The  existing  distribution 
network  for  oil fuels  would  need  to be substantially 
changed,  requiring  additional  and  alternative  storage 
and distribution  facilities  by  the  oil  suppliers. 
Large  users,  mainly  power  stations,  would  require 
stand-by  alternative  fuels.  It is doubtful  whether  the 
number  of times  when  these  fuels  would  be used 
could  justify  the  cost  and  effort  required,  without 
similar  control  on  coal-fired  stations.  The  Com-
mission  states  that  they  will  be considering  a Directive 
in the future  to control  emissions  from  coal.  If strictly 
enforced,  this  could  add  30%  to the cost  of domestic 
electricity  in some  Member  States.  The  Commission 
accepts  that  for  the  second  stage  fuel  oil desulphur-
ization  could  be required  to provide  the  quality  of 
oil needed.  Such  processes  require  an  energy 
consumption  equivalent  to 6 to 8%  of the  fuel  oil 
throughput.  This  must  react  against  the  current 
policy  for  conservation  of energy  resources.  The 
Committee  believes  that  the  costs  and  benefits  of the 
proposed  measures  need  more  careful  scrutiny  by the 
Commission,  especially  having  regard  to the  contri-
bution  of urban  pollution  by sources  which  are  not 
controlled  by this  Directive. 
1.9. It  is not  certain  that  sufficient  low  sulphur 
fuels  will  be available  to meet  likely  demand.  If, as 
a result  of the  Directive  supplies  of low  sulphur  fuel 
oil were  pre-empted  for  use  in protection  zones,  it 
might  be necessary  to use  a higher  average  sulphur 
content  fuel  in non-protected  zones.  This  would 
increase  the  pollution  in these  zones,  and  thus  give 
rise not  only  to air pollution  but  also  to corrosion  of 
buildings  and  installations  — dependent  of course 
upon  the  size  of the  protected  areas  and  the  amount 
30. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 204/39 
of low  sulphur  oil available.  It is recommended  that 
the Commission  takes  due  note  of this  point. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Preamble•—  first  recital 
2.1.1.  The  adoption  of air  quality  standards  or 
objectives  is a more  realistic  approach  to eliminating 
unequal  conditions  of trade  which  might  even  be 
increased  by the implementation  of some  of the other 
proposals  in the Directive.  This  would  occur  in those 
Member  States  where  the use  of oil fuels,  in relation 
to other  non-controlled  fuels,  is high. 
2.2. Article  1 (c) 
2.2.1.  'Equivalent  fuel'  is based  on sulphur  content 
alone  but must  also  take  account  of calorific  value. 
2.3. Article  2 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  is pleased  to hear  that  a 
review  of the  effectiveness  of the  first  stage  of the 
Directive,  especially  as regards  the effects  of sulphur 
reduction  in the gas  oil Directive,  will  be undertaken 
before  the second  stage  of fuel  oil sulphur  reduction 
is adopted. 
2.4. Article  3 
2.4.1.  The  Directive  gives  no guidance  as to the 
number  of measuring  points  needed  for  proper 
control  and  enforcement.  Whilst  the  Committee 
appreciates  that  this  is a matter  which  Member  States 
must  decide  for themselves,  the legal  enforcement  of 
the Directive  depends  on proper  measurement  and 
unambiguous  interpretation  of the results. 
2.5. Article  5 
2.5.1.  The  definition  of what  constitutes  a zone 
of influence  and  the  maximum  contribution  which 
sources  in these  zones  make  to air quality  inside  the 
protection  zones  are  too  ill-defined.  Models  are 
suggested  as.  a way  to assess  contributions  from outside  sources,  but  at present  these  give  good 
results  only  where  the  areas  over  which  they  are 
applied  are small. 
In general,  the  provisions  of this  Article  seem  to be 
difficult  of interpretation  or application. 
2.6. Article  6 
2.6.1.  This  Article  might  be interpreted  to require 
large  combustion  installations  situated  outside  zones 
of special  protection  to have  separate  or additional 
tanks  and  to hold  two  grades  of fuel,  which  could 
be costly.  It seems  unnecessary  to require  all such 
systems  to have  two  tanks  and  to switch  from  one 
to the other  when  the weather  changes. 
2.6.2.  The  relationship  between  the  contribution 
from  large  sources  of emission  located  outside  the 
zones  of protection  and  the  air quality  within  needs 
to be defined  more  specifically  before  it can  be seen 
whether  the  requirements  in this  Article  are  likely 
to have  the desired  effect. 
2.7. Article  8 
2.7.1.  Paragraph  1 (b) 
Reservations  are made  similar  to those  expressed  on 
Article  6. 
2.7.2.  Paragraph  2 
Reservations  are made  similar  to those  expressed  on 
Article  5. 
2.8. Article  9 
2.8.1.  By  permitting  'other  criteria'  to be taken 
into account  without  defining  them,  ambient  air 
quality  levels  more  rigorous  than  those  set  out  in 
Annex  1 might  be required. 
2.9. Article  10 
2.9.1.  It  is recommended  that  all inspection  records 
required  under  this  Article  should  be periodically 
submitted  to the Commission. 
No C 204/40 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 8. 76 
2.10.  Article  11 this method  and  any  ambiguities  could,  therefore, 
give rise  to considerable  difficulty  in enforcement. 
The Committee  recommends  that  a new  reference 
test method  be developed  by the Commission  as soon 
as possible,  taking  into  account  the  comments  made 
by WHO  of their  report,  'Air  quality  criteria  and 
guides  for urban  air pollutants'. 2.10.1.  Considerable  doubt  exists  as to whether 
the method  proposed  for  spm  (black  smoke)  will 
give unambiguous  results  in all the circumstances  in 
which  it is to be used.  The  Directive  is to be legally 
enforceable  on the  basis  of the  results  obtained  by 
Done  at Brussels,  30 June  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  for  a 12th  amendment  to Council 
Directive  64/54/EEC  on  the  approximation  of the  laws  of the  Member  States 
concerning  the  preservatives  authorized  for  use  in foodstuffs  intended  for  human 
consumption 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  No C 133  of 
14 June  1976,  page  35. 
On 20  May  1976  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 
140th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 30 June  and  1 July  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
24 May  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for  Protection 
of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Consumer 
Affairs  to draw  up an opinion  on the matter, Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the European  Communities  on 20 May 
1976, Having  regard  to the  basic  Council  Directive  64/54; 
EEC  of 5 November  1963,