Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (1) (94/C 195/19)

On 29 October 1993 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 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 5 April 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Boisserée.

At its 315th Plenary Session (meeting of 27 April 1994) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 116 votes to 7, with 9 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The legal basis of the Draft Directive under review is Article 130s of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty. The Draft Directive covers environmental aspects of the official licensing of various types of industrial installations in the following sectors:

- Energy industry

- Production and processing of metals

- Manufacture of non-metallic mineral products

- Chemical industry

- Waste management

- Other industries.

1.2. As distinct from previous EC Directives on environmental protection, the Draft Directive under review has an 'integrated approach', i.e. it covers all emissions to air, water and land, including waste, and other environmental problems (such as noise).

1.3. The purpose of the Draft Directive, namely to prevent and control pollution, is to be achieved by compliance with emission limit values and environmental quality targets. The Draft Directive does not, however, lay down these limit values and quality standards. Instead, it refers to other instruments of EC and Member State law, to local regulations, and to the guidelines recommended by the WHO.

1.4. The Draft Directive does, however, lay down very detailed rules on the licensing procedure, in particular permit applications and requirements.

Further procedural rules concern:

- participation of the public;

- coordination of the authorities involved;

- monitoring of installations, in particular the checking every ten years of all permits issued;

- exchange, between Member States and the Commission, of information on implementation of the Directive.

1.5. The Draft Directive explicitly refers to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme of the Community (see its 4.1).

2. Summary of the findings of the ESC Opinion

- The Committee welcomes the integrated approach although it has some serious misgivings about the Draft Directive and will be proposing a large number of amendments.

- The Committee proposes introduction of a general obligation to limit emissions, on the basis of best available techniques (BAT).

- The Committee considers that the Draft Directive should be combined with a mandate to the Commission to draw up proposals for the enactment of European emission limit values on the basis of environmental priorities. For the technical details, reference can be made to standards issued by European or international standards organizations.

- The Committee nevertheless believes that the Draft Directive could dispense with excessively detailed procedural rules.

- The provisions about the relationship between emission limit values and environmental quality standards give rise to concern.

3. General comments

3.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the Draft Directive's strategy of tackling pollution at source (industrial installations), i.e. the integrated approach to pollution of air, water and land, including the release of noise. [see 4.2.3 of the Opinion on the Fifth Action Programme (2) ...]. Nevertheless the Committee does not consider that the Directive is ready to be adopted in its present form, since it is not in tune with the objectives of Article 130r of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty (prevention principle, high level of protection, combatting of environmental pollution at source).

3.2. The rules laid down in the Draft Directive are incomplete and some groups of emissions (e.g. vibrations, light and other forms of ray emissions) have been left out. A number of environmental media are also insufficiently protected (particularly protection against pollution of the land).

The integrated approach includes the following:

- the impact of industrial installations not only on the environmental media (air, water, land, etc.) but also on the consumption of natural resources (including energy resources);

- not only production installations and processes but also the environmental impact of the substances used and products manufactured;

- closed-circuit systems operating within plants, which can to a large extent prevent pollution of the environment by production processes.

The above aspects are dealt with to some extent in the Draft Directive but they are not regulated comprehensively. Some of the issues are tackled in other Directives which need to be brought into line with state-of-the-art technologies in order to satisfy the requirements for an integrated environmental policy (cf. Fifth Action Programme on environment-friendly and sustainable development).

3.3. Under the Draft Directive, the official licensing procedure is to be central to the integrated assessment of the environmental impact of industrial installations. The ESC considers that although this principle is correct, it has not been applied evenly in the Draft Directive.

3.3.1. According to Article 130r of the EEC Treaty, Community environmental law is based on the principles that preventive action should be taken to protect the environment and that the polluter should pay. It would be consonant with these principles to accordingly lay a basic obligation - based on BAT and covering all environmental media - on all establishments even those not subject to a licensing requirement. Compliance with this obligation, which would be independent of individual licensing procedures, would be the subject of appropriate monitoring by the authorities. Such an obligation forms the basis for the recently adopted Regulation allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (Eco-Audit-Regulation No. 1836/93 of 29 June 1993) (1), and the two instruments - i.e. 'integrated environmental monitoring' and 'eco-audit' - could supplement each other in cases where the eco-audit Regulation is brought into play. The individual licensing obligation can then - as the Draft Directive correctly provides - be limited to relatively large industrial installations. These are the only ones which warrant the costs associated with the licensing procedure.

3.3.2. The Draft Directive correctly postulates that the licensing procedure cannot be implemented unless emission limit values are set. It would, however, be completely impracticable to establish these limit values solely for individual installations. This would make the licensing procedure unpredictable and inconsistent with the rule of law.

3.3.3. According to the Draft Directive these emission limit values are in principle to be established at local or national level; European-level emission limit values are to be the exception.

In contrast, the ESC considers that, in line with the environmental policy pursued by the Community to date, a clear mandate should be given to the Commission to lay before the Council European emission limit values.

- Such limit values, which should aim to achieve integrated environmental protection, can be worked out at Community level if they are based on BAT. The European Environmental Agency (which is starting work at last, now that its site has been decided) can, with the support of the appropriate Member-State agencies, do preliminary work on the fixing of European limit values. The exchange of information between Member States and the Commission, which is provided for by the Draft Directive, can further this process.

- The mandate for the establishment of limit values can be implemented in the medium term on the basis of environmental priorities. It can differentiate between sectors and, possibly, between sizes of installations, as has been the usual practice in EC legislation. To allow for the dynamic approach of BAT, emission limit values should be supplemented by target values phased in over time.

- To facilitate adjustment to technological development, it would be appropriate to use European and international standards - especially with respect to technical details - insofar as they exist and are recognized by the relevant official bodies (see 4.2.3 of the ESC Opinion on the Fifth Action Programme).

3.3.4. In making out its case for not establishing European limit values, the Commission refers among other points to the subsidiarity principle (Art. 3b of the Maastricht Treaty).

3.3.4.1. The ESC does not agree with the Commission's argument; it considers that the subsidiarity principle, properly understood, is not inconsistent with the establishment of limit values at European level.

- If the subsidiarity principle determines the level at which action is taken in the light of coherence and the importance of the issue for the single market, then the establishment of limit values at European level should be given top priority. The high level of protection in the Community called for in the EC Treaty can only be achieved if European limit values are set.

- The Maastricht Treaty states that the subsidiarity principle is not to be allowed to cause distortions of competition or hamper environmentally-compatible growth in the Community (Art. 2 - EC Treaty).

It is to be feared that both might occur in the absence of European limit values.

3.3.4.2. The subsidiarity principle must under no circumstances be allowed to give rise to any abandonment of the idea of introducing and applying uniform integrated environmental protection measures.

3.4. The Committee nevertheless feels that there is a case for not introducing a host of excessively detailed procedural rules insofar as such rules are not necessary to ensure a uniform, integrated approach to environmental protection. This is particularly the case if detailed rules:

- hamper incorporation of the new licensing procedure in the administrative procedures of the Member States, and in the rest of existing and therefore still applicable Community law (e.g. the environmental compatibility Directive and the eco-audit Regulation, which partly overlap in scope with the present Draft Directive);

- impair coordination with building and planning law, as well as with nature conservation law;

- unnecessary duplication of provisions or complicated administrative procedures impose a burden on application firms without achieving tangible improvements for the environment.

3.5. The ESC has serious doubts about the relationship between emission limit values on the one hand and environmental quality standards (emission values) on the other.

3.5.1. It is fundamentally correct to say that measures going beyond BAT should be required for emission limits if environmental quality standards are infringed. However, consideration should be given to applying such measures to existing installations, so as to make it easier for a larger number of firms to locate in conurbations, etc.

3.5.1.1. It is not clear who is to define environmental quality standards under the Draft Directive. The reference to WHO values is not enough on its own, especially as WHO does not lay down uniform environmental yardsticks.

The view of the ESC that European limit values and standards are necessary (see 3.3 of this Opinion) accordingly remains valid. Where necessary, existing quality standards should be improved immediately and regulatory loopholes closed.

3.5.2. The ESC rejects the provision, in Article 9(3) of the Draft Directive, that if environmental quality standards are met, the competent authority may allow more emissions than would result from the application of BAT.

- This provision clashes with the principle that preventive action should be taken to protect the environment (Art. 130r of the EEC Treaty). It will also create locational advantages which will distort industrial competition.

- Nor does the provision take into account the fact that emissions frequently have repercussions in regions other than where they originate, e.g. because of climatic, topographical or geological factors (Art. 16 of the Draft Directive does not make sufficient allowance for this).

- The provision is also economically irrational since plant licensed on such less-stringent conditions will eventually have to be upgraded. Compliance with BAT from the outset (construction and start-up of the plant) will always be technically simpler and less expensive than subsequent upgrading.

- If they are to be practicable, environmental quality standards could merely lay down minimum values. That does not mean, however, that low-pollution areas should be able to level down to 'an average level of pollution'. This would not promote the sustainable, environmentally-friendly growth called for by the Fifth Action Programme.

3.5.2.1. In view of the above, the ESC proposes that this problematic provision be deleted.

4. Comments on the individual provisions

4.1. Article 2

- Emissions due to 'light and vibrations' should be included in Article 2(2) and Article 2(4a).

- Article 2(5) should refer to the quantity of substances... (and not their mass). Moreover, limit values should not be defined in such a way that they can be circumvented by diluting waste gases and waste water.

- The definition of 'substantial change' in Article 2(9) (increase in emissions of 5 % or more) is too rigid. The crucial issue is whether modifications to an installation affect the criteria used when the permit was granted (e.g. dangerousness of emissions) or mean that permit requirements can no longer be satisfied or environmental quality standards met.

Finally, noise and heat emissions fail to be mentioned in discussing 'substantial changes'.

4.2. Article 3

The Draft Directive does not take into account the possibility of issuing limited permits (e.g. for trial runs). It may also be necessary to introduce a simplified procedure for experimental installations. Such situations show that it is inappropriate for the Directive to be concerned with too many procedural details (see 3.4 of the Opinion).

4.3. Article 4

A blanket approach, issuing new permits for all existing installations is not necessary in many cases. Changes to licensing requirements should only be necessary if they can be justified on grounds of environmental protection, and particularly

- modifications to installations;

- improvements of available techniques to reduce emissions;

- need to improve the environment.

4.4. Article 5

- There is a danger that the Directive, coming on top of existing Community laws (which will continue to retain their validity) as well as Member State legislation, will lead to overregulation. We would refer here to point 3.4. of this Opinion. New provisions would nullify the efforts made by Member States to simplify the licensing procedure and make it transparent.

The Directive should nevertheless stipulate that all relevant information and documents must accompany the permit application to make it possible to verify whether the new installation will comply with the emission limit values in force.

- The Committee has misgivings about asking the party applying for a permit to set down those options that 'have been considered and rejected' (Article 5(1) - ninth indent). This provision makes no sense. All that matters is compliance with emission limit values and environmental quality standards; the specific technologies needed to achieve such objectives are not laid down.

- Article 5(2) does not remove the danger of duplication. On the contrary, the inclusion of information from a variety of official procedures makes the licensing procedure even more complicated.

4.5. Article 6

The ESC recognizes the need to coordinate licensing procedures and administrative decisions. The provision designed to achieve this cannot however be implemented in all Member States (particularly those with a federal structure). In keeping with the objectives of the Directive, it is important above all that the authority responsible under national law for processing licensing applications carries out a comprehensive examination of all matters covered by the Directive and takes decisions thereon.

4.6. Article 7

The time allowed under Article 7(2) for processing applications (6 months) is not flexible enough. It should also be remembered that the legislation of some Member States and the environmental compatibility Directive (which has to be complied with in parallel to the present Draft Directive) make provision for widescale public involvement in the process.

Reference is once more made to point 3.4. of this Opinion.

4.7. Article 8

Article 8(6) is too restrictive. Under certain circumstances the issue of permits relating to environmental protection has to be tied in with procedures laid down under building, planning and nature conservation laws; in particular, licensing requirements often interact with measures affecting nature or the landscape. A particularly important role is also played by measures designed to ensure coordination with operating safety requirements and the control of pollution within plants.

Reference is likewise made to point 3.4. of this Opinion.

4.8. A new Article 8a should be inserted, possibly reading as follows:

' The Commission shall propose, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 130s of the Treaty, the adoption of emission limit values for the activities and processes set out in Annex I. The limit values shall be adopted in accordance with environmental priorities and based on best available techniques. As far as the technical details are concerned, reference may be made to recognized international or European standards; they may also contain targets which can be phased in over time.'

Reasons

See point 3.3.3 of this Opinion.

4.9. Article 9

- Article 9(1) should be worded as follows:

' Emission limit values adopted in accordance with Article 8a, and measures taken by Member States, shall aim to ensure that environmental quality standards are not breached.'

Reasons

The change is necessary to ensure consistency with the newly proposed Article 8(a).

- Article 9(3) should be deleted.

Reasons

See point 3.5.2 of the Opinion.

A new Article 9(3) might be inserted reading as follows:

' The Commission shall propose, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 130s, that decisions on environmental quality standards be based on environmental policy priorities. In drawing up environmental quality standards, account should be taken of the World Health Organization guidelines insofar as they are applicable and go far enough. The second and third sentences of Article 8a shall apply accordingly.'

Reasons

See point 3.5.1.1 of the Opinion.

4.10. Article 12

- Articles 12(2) and 12(3) are too schematic. Permits only need to be reconsidered if essential conditions change and adaptations have to be made to best available techniques. A full-scale repetition of the whole licensing process is not needed, especially in view of the fact that it is essential that the installation be monitored by the authorities even before the deadline specified in the Draft Directive.

- The Committee has reservations about Article 12(4). Allowing an operator to continue to operate for a further two years after his permit has run out cannot be justified, especially if there is the possibility of risk to the environment.

4.11. Article 13

An Article 13(a) should be inserted reading as follows:

' Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that emissions caused by activities and processes outside installations subject to a licensing requirement under Article 3, in conjunction with Annex I, are limited as far as possible by use of the best available techniques. Annexes III and IV shall apply accordingly.'

Reasons

See point 3.3.1 of the Opinion.

4.12. Article 14

Steps must be taken to ensure that Member State laws guaranteeing wider involvement of the public remain intact. This likewise applies to the involvement of workers and their representatives in the in-company preparation of the licensing procedure; reference has already been made in point 4.7 of this Opinion to the importance of operating safety and in-company pollution control.

4.13. Article 17

An addition needs to be made to Article 17(1) to make it clear that any decision to revise the Annexes, on a proposal from the Commission and after consultations with the 'Advisory Committee', shall be taken by the Council in cooperation with the Parliament and under the procedure laid down in Article 130s of the Treaty, i.e. with the participation of the Economic and Social Committee. The content of the Annexes in question is so important that a change in the normal Commission procedure cannot be justified, especially since various socio-economic groupings are keen on being involved.

4.14. Article 19

Article 19(4) should be deleted.

Reasons

See point 4.3 of this Opinion. From the point of view of environmental policy, it is unacceptable to allow plants hitherto covered by other EC Directives, and not listed in Annex I of the present Directive, to be fully exempted.

4.15. Annexes I, II and III

4.15.1. The categories of activities and processes listed in Annex I should be brought into line with the environmental compatibility Directive.

With regard to combustion installations exceeding 50MW (see Directive 88/609), the Committee stands by its view that allowing derogations for existing plants is unacceptable.

In subsequent discussion of the draft Directive, consideration should be given to whether, having regard to the nitrates Directive (91/677/EU), the inclusion of intensive livestock production and waste is necessary and practicable for the unit sizes covered. The proposal (new Article 13a) in 4.11 of this Opinion may make Appendix 1 (6.6) redundant.

4.15.2. Annex II should be brought into line with Article 19(3) of the Draft Directive.

Paragraph 8 of Annex II is particularly problematic. All existing municipal waste incineration plants must be subject to the integrated licensing procedure as soon as possible and without exceptions.

4.15.3. Dioxin (PCDD) and furan (PCDF) should be added to the list in Annex III.

Done at Brussels, 27 April 1994.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

(1) OJ No C 311, 17. 11. 1993, p. 6.

(2) OJ No C 287, 4. 11. 1992.

(3) OJ No L 168, 10. 7. 1993.

APPENDIX I to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

(Vote by name on the Opinion)

The following members voted for the Opinion:

Mr/Mrs/Miss: ABEJON RESA, AMATO, ANDRADE, ARENA, ATAÍDE FERREIRA, BAGLIANO, BASTIAN, BELTRAMI, BENTO GONCALVES, BERNS, BLESER, BOISSEREE, BONVICINI, BORDESPAGES, BOTTAZZI, BREDIMA-SAVOPOULOU, BRIESCH, van den BURG, BURNEL, CEBALLO HERRERO, CHRISTIE, COLOMBO, DAVISON, de KNEGT, DECAILLON, d'ELIA, van DIJK, DONCK, DOUVIS, DRAIJER, DRILLEAUD, ETTY, EULEN, FERNANDEZ, FLUM, FRANDI, FRERICHS, GAFO FERNANDEZ, GAUTIER, GERMOZZI, GIACOMELLI, GIESECKE, GIRON, GOMEZ MARTINEZ, GREDAL, GREEN, HAGEN, von HAUS, HOVGAARD JAKOBSEN, JANSSEN, JASCHICK, JENKINS, KAZAZIS, KIELMAN, KIENLE, KORFIATIS, KORYFIDIS, LACA MARTIN, LANDABURU, LAUR, LINSSEN, LIVERANI, LÖW, LYNCH, MADDOCKS, MANTOVANI, MARGALEF, MAYAYO BELLO, McGARRY, MERCE JUSTE, MERCIER, MEYER-HORN, MORALES, MORIZE, MORRIS, MOURGUES, MULLER E., MÜLLER R., MUNIZ GUARDADO, NIELSEN B., NIELSEN P., NIERHAUS, NOORDWAL, OVIDE ETIENNE, PANERO FLOREZ, PARDON, de PAUL de BARCHIFONTAINE, PAVLOPOULOS, PE, PELLARINI, PELLETIER C., PETERSEN, PETROPOULOS, PRICOLO, PROUMENS, QUEVEDO ROJO, RANGONI MACHIAVELLI, REBUFFEL, RODRIGUEZ GARCIA-CARO, ROMOLI, SALA, SANTIAGO, SANTILLAN CABEZA, SAUWENS, SCHLEYER, SEGUY, SILVA A., SOLARI, STOKKERS, STRAUSS, THEONAS, TIXIER, VANDERMEEREN, VASCO CAL, WICK, ZUFIAUR NARVAIZA.

The following members voted against the Opinion:

Mr: ASPINALL, BEALE, BELL, DUNKEL, GARDNER, GROBEN, PEARSON.

The following members abstained:

Mr/Mrs: ATTLEY, Dame Jocelyn BARROW, CARROLL, GHIGONIS, KAFKA, LITTLE, MOBBS, MORELAND, WHITWORTH.

APPENDIX II to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following proposed amendment (Counter-Opinion) was rejected by the Committee in the course of the debate (Amendment 1 - Mr Aspinall):

Delete paragraphs 2, 3 (3.1 to 3.5.2.1 inclusive) and 4 (4.1 to 4.15.3 inclusive) and replace by the following text:

'2. Summary of the findings of the ESC Opinion

- The Committee supports the integrated approach.

- The Committee believes that the Draft Directive could dispense with excessively detailed procedural rules.

- The Committee accepts the provisions about the relationship between emission limit values and environmental quality standards.

- The Committee supports the Draft Directive on the basis of the polluter principle.

- Considering that Member States are responsible for issuing licences, emission limits should be set under the subsidiarity principle at Member State level.

3. General comments

3.1. The Economic and Social Committee supports the Draft Directive's strategy of tackling pollution at source (industrial installations), i.e. the integrated approach to pollution of air, water and land. The ESC considers it can adopt the Draft Directive subject to the following comments, since it is in tune with the objectives of Article 130r of the EU Treaty, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty (prevention principle, high level of protection, combatting of environmental pollution at source) and in line with the Commission and Council definition of subsidiarity COM(93) 545.

3.2. The integrated approach includes the following:

- the impact of industrial installations not only on the environmental media (air, water, land, etc.) but also on the consumption of natural resources (including energy resources);

- not only production installations and processes but also the environmental impact of the substances used and products manufactured;

- closed-circuit systems operating within plants, which can to a large extent prevent pollution of the environment by production processes.

3.3. Under the Draft Directive, the official licensing procedure is to be central to the integrated assessment of the environmental impact of industrial installations. The ESC considers this principle is correct.

3.4. According to Article 130r of the EU Treaty, Community environmental law is based on the principles that preventive action should be taken to protect the environment and that the polluter should pay. It would be consonant with these principles to accordingly lay a basic obligation - based on BAT and covering all environmental media - on all establishments, even those not subject to a licensing requirement. Compliance with this obligation, using licensing procedures, would be subject to appropriate monitoring by the authorities.

3.5. The ESC considers that, in line with the environmental policy pursued by the Community to date, the Commission should coordinate Member States policies on emission limit values by the exchange of information between Member States and the Commission, which is provided for by the Draft Directive.

The limit values should be based on BAT and should take account of environmental circumstances to ensure the least impact on the environment as a whole.

The mandate for the establishment of limit values at Member State level can be implemented in the medium term on the basis of environmental priorities. It can differentiate between sectors and, possibly, between sizes of installations.

3.6. The Directive correctly postulates that the licensing procedure cannot be implemented unless emission limit values are set and established at local or national level. The Committee considers that the subsidiarity principle, properly understood, is consistent with the establishment of limit values at Member State level.

If the subsidiarity principle determines the level at which action is taken in the light of coherence and the importance of the issue for the single market, then the establishment of limit values at Member State level should be given top priority. The high level of protection in the Community called for in the EU Treaty can only be achieved if Member State limit values are set and implemented.

Only in this way can the aim of establishing truly integrated environmental protection measures be achieved.

3.7. The Committee agrees that there is a case for not introducing a host of excessively detailed procedural rules insofar as such rules are not necessary to ensure a uniform, integrated approach to environmental protection. This is particularly the case if detailed rules:

- hamper incorporation of the new licensing procedure in the administrative procedures of the Member States, and in the rest of existing and therefore still applicable Community law (e.g. the environmental compatibility Directive and the eco-audit Regulation, which partly overlap in scope with the present Directive);

- impair coordination with building and planning law, as well as with nature conservation law;

- result in unnecessary duplication of provisions or complicate the administrative procedure, without achieving tangible improvements for the environment, provided that under no circumstances is the use of general rules allowed to undermine the aim of achieving an integrated approach to environmental protection.

3.8. The ESC has serious doubts about the relationship between emission limit values on the one hand and environmental quality standards (emission values) on the other.

3.8.1. It is fundamentally correct to say that measures going beyond BAT should be required for emission limits if environmental quality standards are infringed. However, consideration should be given to applying such measures to existing installations, so as to make it easier for a larger number of firms to locate in conurbations, etc.

3.9. The ESC rejects the provision, in Article 9(3) of the Directive, that if environmental quality standards are met, the competent authority may allow more emissions than would result from the application of BAT.

- This provision clashes with the principle that preventive action should be taken to protect the environment (Article 130r of the EU Treaty). It will also create locational advantages which will distort industrial competition.

- Nor does the provision take into account the fact that emissions frequently have repercussions in regions other than where they originate, e.g. because of climatic, topographical or geological factors.

(Article 16 of the Draft Directive does not make sufficient allowance for this).

- The provision is also economically irrational since plant licensed on such less-stringent conditions will eventually have to be upgraded. Compliance with BAT from the outset (construction and start-up of the plant) will always be technically simpler and less expensive than subsequent upgrading.

- If they are to be practicable, environmental quality standards could merely lay down minimum values. That does not mean, however, that low-pollution areas should be able to level down to 'an average level of pollution'. This would not promote the sustainable, environmentally-friendly growth called for by the Fifth Action Programme.

3.9.1. In view of the above, the ESC proposes that this problematic provision be deleted.

4. Comments on the individual provisions

4.1. Article 2

- Article 2(5) should refer to the quantity of substances ... (and not their mass). Moreover, limit values should not be defined in such a way that they can be circumvented by diluting waste gases and waste water.

- The definition of 'substantial change' in Article 2(9) (increase in emissions of 5 % or more) is too rigid. The crucial issue is whether, because of modifications to an installation, licensing requirements can no longer be satisfied or environmental quality standards no longer met.

4.2. Article 3

The Directive does not take into account the possibility of issuing limited permits (e.g. for trial runs). It may also be necessary to introduce a simplified procedure for experimental installations. Such situations show that it is inappropriate for the Directive to be concerned with too many procedural details (see 3.7 of the Opinion).

4.3. Article 4

A blanket approach, issuing new permits for all existing installations is not necessary in many cases. Changes to licensing requirements should only be necessary if they can be justified on grounds of environmental protection, and particularly

- modifications to installations;

- improvements of available techniques to reduce emissions;

- need to improve the environment.

4.4. Article 5

- The Directive should stipulate that all relevant information and documents must accompany the permit application to make it possible to verify whether the new installation will comply with the emission limit values in force.

- The Committee has misgivings about asking the party applying for a permit to set down those options that 'have been considered and rejected' (Article 5(1) - ninth indent). This provision makes no sense. All that matters is compliance with emission limit values and environmental quality standards; the specific technologies needed to achieve such objectives are not laid down.

4.5. Article 6

The ESC recognizes the need to coordinate licensing procedures and administrative decisions. The provision designed to achieve this must be implemented in all Member States (particularly those with a federal structure). In keeping with the objectives of the Directive, it is important above all that the authority or authorities responsible under national law for processing licensing applications carries out a comprehensive examination of all matters covered by the Directive and takes decisions thereon.

4.6. Article 7

The time allowed under Article 7(2) for processing applications (6 months) is not flexible enough. It should also be remembered that the legislation of some Member States and the environmental compatibility Directive (which has to be complied with in parallel to the present Directive) make provision for widescale public involvement in the process.

Reference is once more made to point 3.7 of this Opinion.

4.7. Article 9

- Article 9(1) should be worded as follows:

' Emission limit values and measures taken by Member States, shall aim to ensure that environmental quality standards are not breached'.

- Article 9(3) should be deleted.

4.8. Article 12

- Articles 12(2) and 12(3) are too schematic. Permits only need to be reconsidered if essential conditions change and adaptations have to be made to best available techniques. A full-scale repetition of the whole licensing process is not needed.

- The Committee has reservations about Article 12(4). Allowing an operator Reasons to continue to operate for a further two years after his permit has run out cannot be justified, especially if there is the possibility of risk to the environment.

4.9. Article 14

Steps must be taken to ensure that Member State laws guaranteeing wider involvement of the public remain intact. This likewise applies to the involvement of workers and their representatives in the in-company preparation of the licensing procedure.

4.10. Article 17

An addition needs to be made to Article 17(1) to make it clear that any decision to revise the Annexes, on a proposal from the Commission and after consultations with the 'Advisory Committee', shall be taken by the Council in cooperation with the Parliament and under the procedure laid down in Article 130s of the Treaty, i.e. after consulting the Economic and Social Committee. The content of the Annexes in question is so important that a change in the normal Commission procedure cannot be justified, especially since various socio-economic groupings are keen on being involved.

4.11. Article 19

Article 19(4) should be deleted.

Reasons

See point 4.3. of this Opinion. From the point of view of environmental policy, it is unacceptable to allow plants hitherto covered by other EC Directives, and not listed in Annex I of the present Directive, to be fully exempted.

4.12. Annexes I, II and III

4.12.1. The categories of activities and processes listed in Annex I should be brought into line with the environmental compatibility Directive.

With regard to combustion installations exceeding 50MW (see Directive 88/609), allowing derogations for existing plants is unacceptable.

4.12.2. Annex II should be brought into line with Article 19(3) of the Draft Directive.

Paragraph 8 of Annex II is particularly problematic. All existing municipal waste incineration plants must be subject to the integrated licensing procedure as soon as possible and without exceptions.

4.12.3. Dioxin (PCDD) and furan (PCDF) should be added to the list in Annex III.'

Reasons for the Counter-Opinion

The Section Opinion maintains that the Commission proposal under discussion is not satisfactory as it does not take sufficient account of the objectives of Article 130 R as amended by the Maastricht Treaty.

The Counter-Opinion maintains that the Commission's proposal is in fact satisfactory in its present form; it is in tune with the Maastricht Treaty and in line with the Council definition of subsidiarity, e.g. setting emission limits at Member State level.

Voting by name on Amendment 1

The following members voted for the Counter-Opinion:

Mr: ASPINALL, GARDNER, LITTLE, MERCE JUSTE, MOBBS, PANERO FLOREZ, RODRIGUEZ GARCIA-CARO, WHITWORTH.

The following members voted against the Counter-Opinion:

Mr/Mrs/Miss: ABEJON RESA, AMATO, ANDRADE, ARENA, ATAÍDE FERREIRA, ATTLEY, BAEZA, BAGLIANO, BASTIAN, BELTRAMI, BENTO GONÇALVES, BERNS, BLESER, BOISSEREE, BORDES-PAGES, BOTTAZZI, BRIESCH, BURNEL, CARROLL, CASSINA, CEBALLO HERRERO, CHRISTIE, COLOMBO, CUNHA, d'ELIA, DAVISON, de KNEGT, de PAUL de BARCHIFONTAINE, DECAILLON, DONCK, DRAIJER, DRILLEAUD, DUNKEL, ETTY, EULEN, FERNANDEZ, FLUM, FORGAS I CABRERA, FRANDI, FRERICHS, GAFO FERNANDEZ, GAUTIER, GERMOZZI, GIESECKE, GIRON, GOMEZ MARTINEZ, GREDAL, GREEN, GROBEN, HAGEN, HOVGAARD JAKOBSEN, JANSSEN, JASCHICK, JENKINS, KAZAZIS, KIELMAN, KIENLE, KORFIATIS, KORYFIDIS, LACA MARTIN, LANDABURU, LAPPAS, LAUR, LINSSEN, LIVERANI, LÖW, LYNCH, MADDOCKS, MASUCCI, MAYAYO BELLO, McGARRY, MERCIER, MEYER-HORN, MORALES, MOLINA VALLEJO, MORIZE, MORRIS, MOURGUES, MULLER E., MÜLLER R., MUNIZ GUARDADO, NIELSEN B., NIELSEN P., NIERHAUS, NOORDWAL, OVIDE ETIENNE, PARDON, PE, PEARSON, PELLARINI, PELLETIER C., PETERSEN, PETROPOULOS, POMPEN, PRICOLO, PROUMENS, QUEVEDO ROJO, RAMAEKERS, RANGONI MACHIAVELLI, REA, REBUFFEL, SANTIAGO, SANTILLAN CABEZA, SAUWENS, SCHLEYER, SEGUY, SILVA A., SPYROUDIS, STOKKERS, THEONAS, TIXIER, van den BURG, van DIJK, VANDERMEEREN, VASCO CAL, von SCHWERIN, von HAUS, WICK, ZUFIAUR NARVAIZA.

The following members abstained:

Mr/Mrs: Dame Jocelyn BARROW, BERNABEI, GHIGONIS, GIACOMELLI, MORELAND, PELLETIER R., ROMOLI, SALA, SOLARI, STRAUSS.

Result of the voting

Votes for: 8, votes against: 118, abstentions: 10.