Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities
Date: 1996-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC Directive, air quality, environmental protection, organic chemical, solvent

'imp 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 06.11.1996 
COM(96) 538  final 

96/0276 (SYN) 

Proposal for a 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 

on limitation  of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to 
the use of organic solvents in certain industrial  activities 

(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

1. 

Introduction 

The Fifth Action Programme 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The proposed Directive aims at reducing emissions of organic compounds due to the 
use of organic solvents within certain processes and industrial installations. Sustainable 
development, the major theme of the Fifth Action Programme, requires the definition 
and  implementation  of  a  policy  fer  continued  economic  and  social  development 
without detriment to the environment  and natural  resources, on which the quality  of 
continued  human  activity  and  further  development  depends.  In  the  past,  industrial 
activities  have  been  considered  a  main  obstacle  to  achieving  a  clean  environment. 
Nowadays, in application of the principles of sustainability  and subsidiarity, industry 
has become a partner in the continuous process of achieving a balance between human 
activity and development and protection of the environment. This implies integration 
of  environmental  considerations  into  all  relevant  industrial  activities.  Therefore, 
industry  is  among  the  five  target  sectors  listed  in  the  Community's  Fifth  Action 
Programme,  and  one of the three pillars on which the relationship  between  industry 
and the environment should be based is Community controls on production processes. 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and hydrocarbons in general, belong to the group 
of  target  substances  mentioned  under  the  "hemes  and  Targets  of  the  Programme", 
subchapter 5.2, due to their contribution to the generation of photochemical oxidants. 
Moreover,  the  management  of  industry-related  risks  covered  by  subchapter  6.1 
calls for the reduction of emissions of noxious  substances into air, among which are 
some  organic  solvents  as  well  as  organic  compounds  associated  with  their  use 
and destruction. 

Scientific basis 

Organic  solvents  are  used  in  a  large  number  of  industrial  processes.  Due  to  their 
volatility,  in  many  of  these  processes  they  are  emitted  either  directly  into  air,  or 
indirectly  -  generally  in  the  form  of  organic  compounds  -  after  having  undergone 
physical  or  chemical  transformation.  A number  of  organic  compounds  are  directly 
harmful  to human health or to the environment, for instance carcinogens, mutagens or 
reprotoxic  substances.  Exposure  to such  solvents  occur mainly  in  certain  industrial 
and urban areas. 

Moreover, many solvents undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere, which cause 
a number of indirect effects, in particular the formation of photochemical oxidants and 
their main constituent, ozone. Ozo ?e in elevated air concentrations can impair human 
health and can damage forests, vegetation and crops, reducing the latter's yield. Ozone 
is also a potent greenhouse gas. VOC-supported  ozone formation  occurs in  episodes 
at local and at regional level. In such episodes, precursors and photochemical  oxidants 
transported  over long distances are involved. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Pollution  by  troposphenc  ozone  in the European  Community 

Pollution  by  tropospheric  ozone  is  a  widespread  and  chronic  problem  within  the 
Community.  Data  submitted  by  the Member  States to the Commission  in  accordance 
with the provisions  of Directive  92/72/EEC,  indicate that  during the  summer  months 
the threshold  level  for  the  protection  of  human  health  (110  ug  per  m"3,  expressed  as 
an  average value  over  eight  hours ) is exceeded  in  all  the Member  States and  that  in 
urban  environments  in  excess  of  40  million  people  are  estimated  to  be  exposed  to 
potentially  harmful  concentrations  of  this  aggressive  pollutant.  With  regard  to  the 
threshold  value  for  the  protection  of  vegetation  (65  ugm"3  expressed  as  an  average 
value over 24 hours ) the monitoring data indicates exceedences in all Member  States: 
in  1995  in  over  27% of  the  Community's  rural  land  area the  threshold  value  for  the 
protection  of  vegetation  was  estimated  to  be  exceeded  during  more  than  150  days 
during  the  year. 

In addition  to the threshold  values for  the protection  of human  health  and  vegetation, 
Directive  92/72/EEC  also  lays  down  concentration  limits  for  ozone  above  which  the 
population  must  either  be  informed  (limit  value  of  180  ug  m"3  expressed  as  the 
average value over  1 hour) or alerted (360  ug m"3) of potential  short term  health  risks. 
During the summer months of  1994 and  1995 there were over 3000 recorded  instances 
of  exceedences  of  the  information  warning  threshold  with  values  in  excess  of 
250  ugm"3 frequently  being  reported. 

The  effects  and  costs  of  ozone  pollution  on  human  health  and  the  environment  are 
difficult  to  quantify.  At the  concentrations  typically  experienced  during  the  summer 
months  in  the  Community,  sensitive  members  of  the  population  can  expect  to 
experience  symptoms  such as sore eyes, sore throats and respiratory  problems:  indeed 
during  ozone  episodes  it  is  advised  that  vulnerable  individuals  and  in  particular  the 
elderly  should  avoid  strenuous exercise.  A study  on the health  costs of road  transport 
in  the  UK  estimated  the  health  impact  of  the  emissions  of  VOCs  from  that  sector 
(850  kilotonnes)  at  1010 premature  mortalities  and  significant  morbidity  effects,  due 
to its contribution  both  to  ozone formation  and  to  particulate  matter. 

With  regard  to  its  impact  upon  the  environment,  ozone  pollution  is  known  to  affect 
photosynthesis producing lesions and discoloration  of leaves.  At the concentrations  of 
ozone which  currently  prevail  during the summer growing  season in the  Community, 
production  losses  may  amount  to  between  5-10%. 

Concern  with  regard  to  tropospheric  ozone  pollution  has  given  rise  to  a  number  of 
initiatives  to  reduce  emissions  of  the  precursors  which  give  rise  to  ozone  formation. 
At  the  international  level,  within  the  framework  of  the  UNECE  Convention  on 
Long  Range  Transboundary  Atmospheric  Pollution,  a protocol  was  adopted  in  1993, 
committing  signatories  (including  14  EU  Member  States  and  the  Community)  to 
reduce  VOC  emissions  by  30% by  1999 as compared  to  1990. 

In May  1996 a meeting  at ministerial  level  of  8 countries  from  north-western  Europe 
(Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and the UK) 
plus the Commission  took place in London to discuss the problem  of ozone  pollution. 
In  the  ministerial  statement  arising  from  the  meeting  the  ministers  asked  that: 

"  the  CLRTAP  [UNECE  Convention  on  Long  Range  Transboundary  Atmospheric 
Pollution]  and  the  EC  to  make  further  rapid  progress  towards  such  a  framework 
[a pan-european  framework  for  the  prevention  and  management  of  ozone  episodes] 
and  to  put  in  place  the  appropriate  measures  to  minimize  emissions  of  ozone 
precursors  at  the  earliest  opportunity  including  where  appropriate: 

reduction 
UNECE  CLRTAP  NOx  protocol; 

schemes  and 

timetables 

for 

implementation  of 

the 

second 

measures within the EC, as appropriate, to reduce emissions of ozone precursors 
from 
the  main  mobile,  stationary  and  household  sources  such  as  the 
Stage II  VOC  directive,  year  2000  vehicle  and  fuel  standards,  a  solvents 
directive,  an acidification  strategy  and  an ozone directive and  an exploration  of 
the use  of  financial  and  fiscal  instruments." 

In  the  same  ministerial  statement  it  was  also  recognized  that  emissions  of  ozone 
precursors  would  probably  need  to  be  reduced  by  significantly  more  than  60%  as 
compared to current levels in order to reach a situation of virtually  no ozone episodes. 

On  18 June  1996, the  Commission  adopted  a Communication  to the  Council  and  the 
Parliament  on  "the  future  strategy  for  the  control  of  atmospheric  emissions  from 
the  Auto-Oil  programme" 
road  transport  taking  into  account  the  results  from 
(COM(96)  248  final).  This  Communication  was  accompanied  by 
two  legislative 
proposals,  one  dealing  with  passenger  car  emissions  and  the  other  with  quality 
standards  for  petrol  and  diesel  fuel.  Further  proposals  on  light  commercial  vehicles, 
heavy duty vehicles and inspection and maintenance  scheduled for  1997 will  complete 
the package of measures derived from  the Auto Oil programme. In its Communication, 
the Commission  indicated  that  one of its major  objectives  in reducing  emissions  from 
road transport was to bring down the levels of NOx and VOCs which are the principal 
precursors  of  ozone  formation.  One  of the  environmental  objectives  upon  which  the 
Commission  has based its future  policy on the control  of vehicle emissions is the need 
to  reduce  man  made  emissions  of  NOx  and  VOCs  by  70%  by  the  year  2010  as 
compared  to  today's  levels.  The  package  of  legislative  proposals  resulting  from  the 
Auto-Oil  programme  will  achieve  this  level  of  emission  reductions  from  the  road 
transport  sector.  However,  without  reductions  of  a  similar  intensity  in  the  emissions 
of  ozone  precursors  produced  by  other  sectors,  the  Community  will  not  achieve 
satisfactory  air  quality  with  respect  to  ozone,  as  shown  by  the  modelling  work  done 
in  preparation  of  the  Auto-Oil  Programme. 

That  work  made  extensive  use  of the EMEP  model  developed  to  support  the  various 
protocols which  have been  established  in the context  of the  1979 Geneva  Convention 
on transboundary  air  pollution.  On the basis  of  data  relating  to  emissions  of  primary 
pollutants, the detailed  chemistry  of ozone formation  and factors  such as temperature, 
wind  speed,  intensity  of  solar  radiation  etc, the  EMEP  model  can  be used  to  predict 
ozone  concentrations  throughout  Europe.  Having  taken  into  account  the  expected 
trends  in  emissions  of  primary  pollutants  the  predicted  air  quality  values  were  then 
compared  with  the  air  quality  objectives  for  tropospheric  ozone  as  laid  down  in 
Directive  92/72/EC  (see  Table  1). 

Some  of  the  results  generated  from  the  EMEP  model  are  given  in  Table  2.  These 
results  are  expressed  as  the  percentage  of  the  Community's  land  area  in  compliance 
with  the  various  air  quality  objectives.  It  can  be  seen  from  this  table  that  further 
measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions from  mobile sources will, on their own, 
have little  effect  on the  problem.  On  the  hypothetical  assumption  that  in  2010  there 
are  no  emissions  from  road  traffic,  the  53%  of  land  area  in  compliance  with  the 
180ug/m3  target  only  increases  to  73%.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  by  2010  the 
percentage  of,  in particular,  VOC  emissions which is due to mobile  sources will  have 
decreased  markedly  (in  1990  58% of  VOCs  came  from  stationary  sources  and  42% 
from  mobile  sources,  whilst  predictions  for  2010  show  73% of the  residual  emission 
coming  from  stationary  sources,  with  only  27% from  mobile  sources. 

The Auto-Oil  team  then  approached  the problem  from  a different  angle.  Rather  than 
make any assumptions about relative decreases in emissions from  various sectors, they 
considered  the  improvements  in  compliance  with  the  health  levels  which  could 
be  expected  as  a  result  of  across-the  board  decreases  from  all  precursor  sources. 
Table  5 thus also indicates the predicted impact of 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% emission 
reductions  in  both  NOx  and  VOCs  from  all  anthropogenic  sources  as  compared 
to  1990. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

The nature of  ozone formation  is such that  dramatic reductions from  all  sources  for 
all precursors are required before complete compliance with air quality  standards can 
be expected.  Indeed it is only when an 80% emission reduction (compared to  1990) 
of  precursors  from  all  sources  is  achieved  that  over  90%  of  the  EU  land  area  is 
predicted  to  have  a  1 hour  maximum  ozone  concentration  below  180ug/m3.  With 
regard  to  the  99  percentile  1  hour  mean  180  ug/m3  standard,  across  the  board 
reductions in ozone precursor emissions of 60% and 70% correspond  to a percentage 
land area compliance of 95 and 99% respectively. On this basis, the overall emission 
reduction target for ozone precursors for the Auto-Oil Programme was set at 70% of 
1990 levels1. 

Table 1 

Comparative  Values: reactive pollutant modelling 

Guidelines 

Directive 
92/72/EEC 
Directive 
92/72/EEC 

WHO Air 
Quality 
Guidelines  1995 

Air Quality 
Standard 
110 ug/m3 
8-hour average 
180 ug/m3 
1-hour average 

120 ug/m3 
8 hour average 

Relevance 

Health protection threshold 

Threshold  level over which 
information  / warnings have 
to be issued by the authorities 
to the general public. 

Protection  of health threshold 

Already  agreed  measures  will  reduce ozone precursor emissions  across the  EU to nearly  a 
half  of  those  in  1990.  Therefore  the  additional  emission  reductions  required  in  2010  to 
achieve the  target  of  70% reductions  compared  to  1990 is equivalent  to  aproximatcly  one 
third  off  the  predicted  2010  emissions. 

Table 2 

EU Compliance with Ozone Air Quality  Standards 

Percentage  of EU Land  Area (measured  in EMEP  grid 
squares) in  Compliance with  Standards 

1  h  mean 
100 
percentile 

%  <  180 
ug/m3 

1 h  mean 
99 
percentile 

%  <  180 
ug/m3 

37 

53 

62 

73 

81 

92 

73 

87 

89 

95 

99 

100 

8  h  mean 
100 
percentile 

%  <  120 
Ug/m3 

not known 

5 

8 

11 

18 

26 

8  h  mean 
99 
percentile 

%  <  120 
ug/m3 

10 

19 

25 

28 

37 

46 

Scenario 

1990  basecase 

2010  Basecase 

1990  basecase 
-50% 

1990 basecase 
-  60% 

1990  basecase 
-  70% 

1990  basecase 
-  80% 

15. 

The  most  important  conclusions  of  the  Auto  Oil  modelling  for  Regional  Ozone 
Pollution  are as  follows: 

that the emission reductions resulting from already agreed measures will by 2010 
bring  about  a  considerable 
regional 
ozone  pollution; 

improvement  with  regard 

to 

that to reduce ozone pollution beyond that achieved by already agreed measures 
will require significant  emission reductions of NOx and VOCs emissions of the 
order of  70-80% as compared to  1990; 

that for  the  purpose  of  the Auto Oil  programme  an emissions  reduction target 
of  at  least  70% compared  to  1990  levels  of  both  total  NOx  and  total  VOCs 
across the EU  would be used. 

that further  emission  reduction  measures applied  to traffic  will,  in the  absence 
of  parallel  measures  applied  to  other  sources  particularly  sources  of  VOCs  , 
have at most  a marginal  impact. 

Environmental  objectives 

The last conclusion  was the crucial  one in determining that measures for the control 
of  VOC  emissions  from  stationary  sources  was  necessary,  and  that  this  initiative, 
which  was already in a high stage of preparation, should be brought forward with all 
speed.  However  this  Proposal  is  only  one  in  a  series  of  measures  to  tackle  the 
problem  of tropospheric  ozone,  which, because  of  its two  presursors,  each  of  which 
has many different  sources, requires action on many different fronts. The Commission 
will  examine carefully  the extent of the remaining problem with a view to  identifying 
the most cost-effective  set of additional measures, whether at local or at national level, 
to resolve it. 

forms  a  part  of 

The  proposed  Directive 
the 
Fifth  Action  Programme and of a series of measures aimed at an overall  reduction of 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in the Union, to extend the reduction  of 
30% between the years  1990 and  1999 to which the Commission is committed under 
the  Geneva  protocol  on  VOC  reduction.  In  the  long  run,  based  on  the  scientific 
evidence currently available, significantly  larger VOC reductions, in the range of 70% 
to  80%,  need  to  be  achieved  in  order  to  reduce  the  severity  and  frequency  of 
ozone episodes. 

implementation  of 

the 

16. 

17. 

18. 

According  to  CORÏNAIR  '90-figures,  the  1990  man-made  emission  of  non-methane 
VOCs in the European Union are of the order of  12 million tonnes per year,  split as 
shown in Figure  1 below  among  different  sectors: 

Figure  1: Total  anthropogenic  VOC emissions  (1990) 

Total  emissions:  12 470  ktonnes 

Total emissions from  Stationary  Sources:  3  793 ktonnes 

Total emissions  from 
mobile  sources: 
5  615  ktonnes 

Total emissions frorn  other  sources:  3  062  ktonnes 

Agriculture 

Products 

Extraction  and  distribution  of 
fossil  fuels 

611  ktonnes 

/  490  ktonnes 

961  ktonnes 

19. 

20. 

It  should  be  noted  that the contribution  to man-made VOC emissions from  organic 
solvent use is in the order of 30%, of which around 20% represents industrial solvent 
use. Industrial solvent use is responsible for around half of industrial VOC emissions. 
Therefore  it is among the most important emitting sectors. 

Some  measures  to  reduce  emissions  of  organic  compounds  at  the  level  of  the 
European Union  have  already  been  taken.  For  example,  a  number  of  Council 
Directives require the control of hydrocarbon emissions from passenger cars and light 
and  heavy  duty  vehicles.  Existing  measures  will  reduce  vehicle  exhaust  and 
evaporative  VOC  emissions  from  road  transport  by  about  44%  by  the  year  2010 
(economic growth included). And as indicated  above the Auto-Oil  Programme will, 
inter  alia,  reduce VOC emissions from  this sector by  around  a further  24% by the 
year 2010. 

21.  Additional  legislative  steps  on  road  traffic  emission  and  the  gasoline  distribution 
system  have  been  put  in  place.  For  example,  the  so-called  "Stage  I"  Directive 
(94/63/EC) aims at reducing VOC emissions over the complex gasoline distribution 
chain; and the "non-road' vehicle Proposal on  which a Common Position has recently 
been reached  aims at reducing, inter alia, hydrocarbon  emissions from  a number of 
types of mobile machinery  and non-road vehicles. 

22.  A  reduction  of  the  emissions  from  stationary  sources  of  solvent  which  is 
commensurate with these but which takes into account the specific  characteristics of 
the  sectors  involved  is  therefore  necessary.  The  57%  reduction  that  this  Proposal 
requires of industry will go beyond its proportionate share of the obligations under the 
UNECE protocol. 

23.  According  to  CORINAIR  '90  figures,  in  the  sector  of  organic  solvent  use,  a large 
number  of  sources  contribute  to  the  total  of  emissions.  The  method  of  practical 
application  of  solvents  within  these  sources  differs  among  the  various  processes. 
Therefore  specific  requirements  have  to  be  laid  down  for  the  different  areas  of 
application.  These  are,  however,  kept  as  simple  as  possible.  Table  3 identifies  the 
sub sectors considered: 

Table  3 

Organic  solvent  consuming  activity 

Relative  importance  of  the  total  emission  of 
the  sector  "Industrial  Solvent  use"  in  % 

Paint  application 

Paint  application:  manufacture  of 
automobiles 
Other  industrial  paint  application 

Degreasing  and  dry  cleaning 

Metal  degreasing 
Dry  cleaning 

Chemical  products  manufacturing 
or  processing 

Rubber  processing 
pharmaceutical  products 
manufacturing 
Paints  and  inks  manufacturing 
Adhesives  manufacturing 

Other  use  of  solvents  and  related  activities 

Printing  industry 
Fat,  edible  and  non-edible  oil 
extraction 
Adhesive  coating 
Preservation  of  woods 

6.3 

32.0 

12.8 
4.1 

2.1 
4.5 
1.4 
3.6 

13.4 
4.3 
10.4 
5.1 

24. 

25. 

These  subsectors  are  responsible  for  about  60%  of  the  total  emissions  of  organic 
compounds  from  the  sector  organic  solvent  use,  equal  to  about  2.2  million  tonnes 
(the  remainder  is  essentially  domestic  use). 

In determining the extent of reduction that was achievable from  this sector, the starting 
point  taken  was  to  determine  what  is  the  Best  Available  Technology  for  the  sectors 
involved  and to calculate what emission  reduction  could be achieved by those values, 
and at what cost.  On this basis the Commission established these values in the  course 
of  1993 and commissioned  a study on their economic impact from  the Franco-German 
Institute  for  Research  on the  Environment  (IFARE)2 ("the  Karlsruhe  report").  It  was 
evident that the result which  could be obtained from  the application  of Best  Available 
Techniques  was in  the region  of  a 67% reduction  in  emissions,  compared  with  1990, 
from  the  installations  covered  by  the  Proposal  taking  the  1990  industrial  profile. 
Factoring  in  growth  over  the  lifetime  of  the  Proposal  would  give  a  reduction  in  the 
final year of operation  of the Proposal  of around 57%, or  1.5 million tonnes reduction. 
Evidence  from  a  study  conducted  for  the UK  Department  of  Trade  and  Industry  by 

"Assessment of the cost involved with the Commission's Draft Proposal for a Directive on 
the  limitation  of  the  organic  solvent  emissions  from  the  industrial  sectors",  J  Hein, 
C Kippelen, F Schultmann, T Zundell, O Rentz, Final  report August  1994. 

0 

ERM economics3 ("the UK DTI  study") indicated  that indeed the marginal  costs for 
reduction  from  the solvent-using  sector increase  significantly  as the reduction  target 
moves  upwards  from  around  55%.  The  modelling  done  so  far  indicates  that  this 
reduction is extremely unlikely to solve the ozone problem across Europe, and further 
measures will  almost certainly be necessary. 

II. 

Costs, benefits  and  effectiveness 

Advantages and costs of the Proposal 

26. 

27. 

28. 

In principle, there is no doubt that the technology exists to control collected waste gas 
emissions  from  processes  covered  by the  proposed  Directive  to very  low  levels. In 
practice,  however,  the  cost  of  the  abatement  equipment  required  to treat  extremely 
high gas flows or very low concentrations to the lowest level is likely to be prohibitive 
in  some  cases.  Thus  in  addition  to  the general  emission  limit  values  laid  down  in 
Article 5 for  special  groups of  organic compounds,  individual  emission  limit values 
to be applied  to  all  organic compounds are laid  down for  the different  processes in 
Annex III(A). In most of the cases, the proposed emission limit values leave a choice 
of technologies.  There are some where values higher than the average have been set 
to allow particular  control  options  (e.g. adsorption  and  solvent  recovery),  and  some 
where  the  values  have  been  set  particularly  low,  for  instance  to  guarantee  the 
destruction  of potentially  harmful  substances. 

It is difficult  to express the benefit  of the measures proposed in terms of money due 
to the lack of appropriate methodologies for transferring  protected values like human 
health and cultural heritage into economic values. However, it is estimated that a 50% 
reduction of ozone precursors would result in an increase in compliance with the one-
hour  mean  concentration  established  under  directive  92/72/EEC  (on  a 99 percentile 
basis)  to  around  90% of  the  Community's  land  area.  This  reduction,  and  progress 
towards the further  goal  of  a reduction  of  70/80% of ozone precursors,  can only be 
achieved by action on all precursor sources, and the Commission is launching or has 
launched  a  number  of  initiatives  tackling  the  main  contributors  to  the  problem. 
However it is not feasible  to achieve a reduction of the full  70-80% magnitude  from 
the solvent-using sector over the timescale of the Proposal.  It therefore sets as a target 
the greatest reduction that can currently be achieved in  a cost-effective  manner, taking 
into account the urgent need to tackle the tropospheric ozone problem. 

It  is  not  possible  to  make  a  very  accurate  and  exhaustive  assessment  of  the  cost 
involved  in  implementing  the  proposed  Directive  owing  to  the  many  uncertainties 
regarding  developments  in  this  sector,  e.g.  the  great  variety  of  the  installations 
concerned, the gaps in knowledge about the technologies in place, and constraints on 
the choice of operators with regard to the different  reduction options given.  The costs 
involved  with  the  implementation  of  the  measures  proposed  can  thus  only  be 
estimated.  A  detailed  sector  by  sector  cost  study,  carried  out  in  cooperation  with 
industry,  came  to  the  conclusions  set  out  in  Table  4  below  (figures  assume  a 
depreciation  period  of ten years): 

Department  of Trade  and  Industry,  'Costs and  benefits  of the  reduction  of VOC  emissions 
from  Industry',  ERM  Economics,  May  1996 

11 

Table 4 

Sector 

EU total  annual  sector  costs in 
Mecu/annum 

Printing 
Surface  Cleaning 
New Car Coating 
New Truck Cabins and New Trucks 
Coating 
New Buses coating 
Vehicle Refinishing 
Coil  Coating 
Other coating 
Wood coating 
Coating of textiles 
Dry cleaning 
Wood impregnation 
Leather coating 
Adhesive coating 
Manufacture  of coatings 
Rubber Products 
Vegetable Oil Extraction 
Pharmaceutical  industry 

124 
725 
688 
484 

80 
40.5 
5.5 
726 
120 

102 
26 
44 
31 
12 
438 
23 
120 

4.5 (estimate) 

29. 

30. 

To check that the reduction  of around  57% was indeed a reasonable reduction to ask 
of the sectors concerned, the obvious benchmark was the Auto-Oil Programme itself. 
The  detailed  marginal  cost  data  used  to  determine  the  Auto-Oil  controls  was  not 
available for  this Proposal  for all  sectors.  For this reason neither an optimisation of 
the pollution  control  measures taken based  on marginal  cost analysis, nor  a detailed 
marginal  cost  comparison  with  Auto  Oil,  was  possible. 
In  any  event,  a  'pure' 
economic analysis of that kind conducted across such  a range of sectors would raise 
other questions, particularly  that of an equitable distribution  of the costs involved in 
making the reductions, in which the average cost per tonne reduced compared with the 
value added for  the sector would  also be a factor,  which  industry  itself would  press 
to be considered.  Thus the main benchmark which has been taken in comparison with 
Auto-Oil  is an aggregated  average cost comparison. 

In total, the  annual  costs of the Proposal  are around ECU 4 billion,  equal to around 
ECU  10 per person per year in Europe. However this figure represents cash costs, and 
in order to conduct a comparison  with Auto-Oil it is necessary to take the ratio of the 
average annual  cost, in net present value terms (ECU 3 billion/a), and the abatement 
achieved  in  the  final  year  of  operation  of  the  Proposal  (1 500  ktonnes).  This  is 
equivalent  to  a  cost  per  tonne  of  VOC  abated  of  ECU 2/ktonne  which  compares 
favourably  with  the  costs  of  measures being  taken  by  other  sectors  to  combat  the 
ozone problem. In summary, the Auto-Oil Programme produces a reduction of ozone 
precursors of 2 million tonnes at a cost of ECU 3/ktonne, whereas the current Proposal 
produces a reduction  of  1.5  million  tonnes at a cost of around  ECU 2/ktonne. 

12 

31.  However  it  must  be  recognised  that  the  industry  covered  by 

this  Proposal  is  in 
general  of a very different  character to the large industrial  organizations involved in 
the Auto-Oil  Programme.  As shown in the Business Impact Assessment  annexed to 
this Proposal, in the region of 400 000 enterprises are covered by this initiative, many 
of them  SMEs, for  whom  cost burdens of this magnitude are significantly  harder to 
bear than for  large conglomerates.  Therefore  every  effort  has been made in  drafting 
the  Proposal  to  allow  as  much  flexibility  as  possible  to  enable  the  avoidance  of 
high marginal  cost  measures.  An  example  is  the  introduction  of  an  "investment 
protection" clause in paragraph  5.1 of the Proposal which  allows installations which 
have already installed abatement equipment the option to make a reduction equivalent 
required  by  the  Proposal  from  their 
to  the  additional  abatement  reduction 
fugitive  emissions, rather than having to reinvest in new process equipment to achieve 
exactly  the  same environmental  benefit.  Further such measures are described  under 
Section III  "Subsidiarity". 

Justification of the instrument chosen 

32.  A Directive is more appropriate than a Regulation because it is appropriate to allow 
flexibility  to the Member States in the implementation of the measures to achieve the 
desired result, for reasons of economic efficiency  and in order to allow them to build 
on  existing  measures  taken.  A  Directive  is  more  appropriate  than  a  Decision  or 
Recommendation  as legislation  is required to amend existing national laws. 

III. 

Subsidiarity 

33. 

The proposed Directive is fully  in line with the principle of subsidiarity, and its wider 
concept of shared responsibility, by mixing actors and instruments at the appropriate 
levels.  It  establishes  a  target  for  VOC  reduction  based  on  the  technically  and 
economically  feasible reductions in each sector, and Member States are then required 
to  achieve  this,  either  by  implementing  emission  limit  values  or  by  establishing 
national plans containing other measures which will achieve the same reduction.  Thus 
whereas a European approach to reducing emissions of ozone precursors is necessary 
given  the  transboundary  nature  of  the  problem,  the  intention  of  the  Proposal  is  to 
allow as much flexibility  as is compatible with  achieving the overall  aim.  With the 
national plans Member States would have the following options: to set emission limit 
values in legislation which are different  from  those established under the Proposal; to 
achieve the reduction by means of  a negotiated  agreement  with industry;  to achieve 
the reduction by means of a system of tradeable permits; or to achieve it by a system 
of  taxation.  In  addition,  the  Member  State  can  use  the  national  plan  to  tailor  the 
distribution  of  reductions  required  to  match  is  own  industrial  profile.  Any 
combination  of these measures which achieves the desired  result is permissible. 

34.  Moreover,  for  the  individual  operator,  the  Proposal's  emission  limits  allow  the 
achievement  of  the  reduction  in  the  most  cost  effective  way:  either  by  the  use  of 
abatement  technology,  or by  substituting  high  solvent  products  with  low-solvent  or 
solvent-free products.  The practical implementation, including the identification  of the 
most cost effective  measures, is therefore,  to a very large extent, left  in the hands of 
Member  States  and the operators  of the installations  concerned.  This  also holds  for 
many aspects of implementation  of the proposed Directive. 

35. 

The principle of proportionality has been incorporated in a number of ways. The types 
of installations selected and the setting of thresholds mean that installations which, due 
to the processes they carry out or their relatively small size, emit only small quantities 
of organic compounds,  or which  would be very  difficult  to control because they  are 
so large in number, have been left  out from  the scope of the Proposal. Proportionality 
is also applied in the settings of the emission limits which take into account, as far as 
possible  in  the  frame  of  a Directive,  differences  among  organic  solvent  consuming 
processes  when  determining  technically  and  economically  feasible  reductions.  A 
process of long consultation with the interested parties has resulted in controls worked 

13 

up over a period of time which, whilst rightly ambitious, are certainly achievable and 
coincide with the direction in which industry is moving.  In addition, there are add-on 
benefits for the operator.  A switch to low-solvent coatings, for example, would reduce 
the need for costly health and safety  or accident prevention measures.  Further, it has 
time  and  again  been  demonstrated  that  industry  which- invests  in  the  newest 
(and cleanest) technology  reaps a benefit  in productivity  and in competitiveness. 

IV.  Results of consultations with  stakeholders 

36. 

In  October  1991  consultation  began,  in  the  form  of  a  discussion  paper,  with  the 
Member  States  and  industry.  The  first  draft  of  a  Proposal  was  prepared  in  the 
beginning  of  1992  and  distributed  to  all  parties  concerned.  In  total  eight  formal 
meetings were held with representatives of the Member States, six of which were joint 
meetings with  industrial  representatives4.  ïnaddition,  many  informal  meetings  with 
individual Member  States, industrial associations and other interested parties have also 
been held in order to exchange views on the Proposal. 

The following industrial associations, firms and consultants, representing the interests of 
industry, were involved in the consultations. 

ACEA  - European  Automobile  Manufacturers  Association 
BDI - Bundesverband  der  Deutschen  Industrie  e.V. 
Becker  Industrial  Coatings  Ltd 
BFM  - British  Furniture  Manufacturers 
BLIC - Bureau  de  Liaison  des  Industries  du  Caoutchouc  des  Communautés  Européennes 
BP  Chemicals 
BPIF - British  Printing Industries  Federation 
BVD - Bundesverband  Druck 
CEAPLI 
CEFIC - European  Chemical  Industry  Council 
CEFIC  - Hydrocarbon  Solvents  Sector  Group  (a  Sector Group  of  CEFIC) 
CEIB - European  Confederation  of  Woodworking  Industries 
CEPE  - European  Confederation  of  Paint,  Printing,  Ink  and  Artist's  Colours  Manufacturers  Associations 
GETS  - Comité  Européen  des  Traitements  de  Surface 
CITEN - International  Commitee  of  Dyeing  and  Dry  Cleaning 
COMITEXTTL  - Coordination  Committee  for  the  Textile  Industries  in the  EEC 
COTANCE  - Confederation  des  Associations  Nationales  de Tanneurs  et  Megissiers  de  la  Communauté  Européenne 
Dollamar  & Co. 
ECCA  - European  Coil  Coating  Association 
ECSA  - European  Chlorinated  Solvent  Association 
EFPIA  - European  Federation  of  Pharmaceutical  Industries'  Associations 
ENVICON  - Environmental  Consultancy 
ERA  - European  Rotogravure  Association 
ETE -  Environmental  &  Thermal  Engineering  Ltd. 
EWPM  - European  Wood  Preservative  Manufacturers  Group 
FEICA - Federation  Européenne  d'Industries  de  Colles  et  Adhésifs 
FEDES  - European  Federation  for  the  Flexible  Packaging  Industry 
FEDIOL  -  EC  Seed  Crushers'  and  Oil  Processors'  Federation 
FIN AT - Federation Internationale des Fabricants et Transformateurs  d'Adhésifs  et Thermocliant sur papier et autres supports 
FPA  - Flexible  Packaging  Association 
INTERGRAF  - International  Confederation  for  Printing  and  Allied  Industries 
KWL-Verein  -  Verein  der  Kohlenwasserstofflôsungsmittel-Textil-  und  Lederreiniger 
ORGALIME  - Organizme  de  Liaison  des  Industries  Métalliques  Européennes 
SEFA  - Syndicat  Européen  de  l'industrie  des  Fûts  et  Acier 
SEFEL - European  Secretariat  of Manufacturers  of  Light  Metal  Packaging 
TSA - Textile  Services  Association  Limited 
UEA  - European  Furniture  Manufacturers 
UEAPME  - European  Association  of  Croff,  Small  and  Medium-Sized  Enterprises 
UEDA  - Union  Européenne  de  l'ameublement 
UNICE  - Union  of  Industrial  and  Employer's  Confederation  of  Europe 
UNITES  - Federation  des  Industries  de  Transformation  pour  Emballages  Souples 
Verband  der  Lackindustrie  e.V./  Verband  der  Druckfarbenindustrie 
W.E.I.  - Western-European  Institute  for  Woodpreservation 

14 

37. 

The Proposal  has evolved during the course of these discussions. The major  changes 
that  have  been  made  include:  greater  clarification  of  the  scope  of  the  proposed 
Directive,  improvement  of  the  cost  efficiency  due  to  the  selection  of  appropriate 
sectors  and  sectorial  thresholds,  incorporation  of  national  plans,  more  detailed 
definition  of  requirements  for  individual  sectors,  and  incorporation  of  alternative 
sectorial emission reduction systems which provide incentives for other measures than 
waste gas cleaning.  More detailed discussion  of the results of the consultation with 
individual  industrial  sectors,  and  in  particular  of  those  points  where  there  remain 
disagreements  between  industry  and the Commission,  can be found  in the Business 
Impact Assessment. 

V. 

Description  of the legislative situation  in the Member States 

38.  More  or  less  legally  binding  legislation  on  processes  responsible  for  emissions  of 
organic compounds, or parts of this sector relevant for the proposed Directive, are laid 
down in nine countries: Denmark, F.R.Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, 
United  Kingdom,  Finland,  Austria  and  Sweden.  In  the  other  countries  most  of  the 
installations  and  processes  covered  by  the proposed  Directive  require  authorization 
prior to operation.  Emission  limits are laid  down  in  such cases individually  in each 
permit. 

39. 

limitation  principle  expressed 

In Denmark the Danish Environmental  Protection  Agency  published  guidelines  for 
the control  of  air  pollution  from  industrial  enterprises,  specifying  in  more  detail 
the general  pollution 
the 
Environmental  Protection Act. They apply to all installations included in the list given 
under Section  5 of the Act. However, the guidelines are not legally binding for local 
authorities so that they can deviate from the emission limits given as well as from the 
list  of  classified  installations.  It  is  therefore  not  clear  whether  and  to  what  extent 
processes  and  industrial  installations  which  fall  under  the  proposed  Directive  are 
actually  treated  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines.  Moreover,  the  guidelines  are 
substance-orientated  and  do  not  fix  emission  limits  for  specific  industrial  or 
commercial  activities. The emission limit value to be applied  mainly  depends on the 
emitted  substance  and its  mass flow.  The  substances  are grouped  into three  classes 
(I, II, III) and there are some organic solvents in all three. 

in  Section  3.3  of 

40. 

In the F.R. Germany, the Fourth Order implementing the Federal Immission Control 
Law (Order on Installations Subject to Licensing) contains a list of installations which 
have to go through  a licensing procedure. Many  of the installations  covered by this 
Proposal  also fall  under the Fourth Order. 

For  these  installations,  emission  limits relevant  for  this report  are laid  down  in the 
Technical  Instruction  on  Clean  Air,  TA.  Luft.  TA.  Luft  distinguishes  between 
carcinogenic  and  non-carcinogenic  substances,  and  within  each  group  defines  three 
classes according to the potential hazard of the substances. Different  sets of emission 
limits apply  for  the groups and classes: 

For carcinogenic substances: 

if mass flow is > 0.5 g/h, the emission  limit is 0.1 mg/m3 
Substances of  Class I: 
Substances of Class II: 
if mass flow is > 5 g/h, the emission limit is  1 mg/nr 
Substances of Class III:  if mass flow is > 25 g/h, the emission  limit is 5 mg/m3 

For non-carcinogenic  substances: 

if mass flow is > 0.1 kg/h, the emission  limit is 20 mg/m3 
Substances  of Class I: 
if mass flow is > 2.0 kg/h, the emission  limit is  100 mg/m3 
Substances of  Class II: 
Substances of Class III:  if  mass  flow  is  >  3.0  kg/h,  the  emission  limit  value  is 

150 mg/m3 

15 

Where  mixtures  of  classes  of  solvents  are  present,  the  more  restrictive  limits  are 
applied.  Manual  spray  painting  is excluded  from  compliance  with  the limits  set  for 
classes  II  and  III,  but  in  practice  these  limits  are  considered  as  target  values  by 
local authorities. 

These limits apply to new facilities from  1986, and pre-existing facilities must comply 
since March  1991. Existing facilities  in the former  GDR have been-allowed an extra 
year to comply. 

Continuous monitoring of VOC emissions is required  for  installations which  exceed 
the following  mass  flows: 

Substances of Class I: 
Mixtures of  Substances of Class I and III: 

1  kg/h 
10 kg/h 

Emissions  of  VOC are  expressed  as sum  of total  organic compounds.  In  addition, 
specific requirements are made for certain activities such  as vehicle coating, printing, 
dry  cleaning and surface  cleaning. 

41. 

In France, the  act of  19 July  1976 lists  some 400  "classified  installations",  divided 
into two main categories: installations in class I are subject to authorizations and have 
to  meet  certain  requirements  governed  by  prefectural  decrees.  Notification  by  the 
owner or operator of installations suffices for the other class. Some of the installations 
in the act are relevant for the proposed Directive. 

No legally binding  and generally  applicable emission  limits for  the whole  sector of 
industrial  installations  using  organic  solvents  are  laid  down.  However,  there  are 
emission  limits  defined  for  some  of  the  installations  and  processes  regarded  in 
the proposed Directive,  such  as car-coating, printing,  dry cleaning, coil coating and 
varnishing.  Different  emission  limits  can  be  laid  down  by  local  authorities  in 
cases where  water-based  inks  are  used.  For  installations  which  emit  more  than 
500 kg per day, continuous monitoring is required. 

In  addition  to  the  provisions  outlined  above  an  agreement  was  signed  on 
19 February  1986 between  the  French  Government  and  the  coating  and  varnishing 
manufacturers  to  reduce  the  average  content  of  hydrocarbon  solvents  in  their 
products and  to encourage  their  use by  advertising  aimed  at the general  public and 
professionals  alike. 

42. 

In Italy,  trade  and industrial  processes which  cause air pollution  are classified  into 
two groups.  The  first  relates  to  industrial  installations  which  must  be  located  far 
away from  residential  areas;  the  second  relates  to  trade  activities.  As  a  rule,  the 
Ministry  of Health issues a new list of classified  installations every three years. This 
list contains some installations and cases relevant for the proposed Directive. 

Law 203, published in 1988, states that guidelines set by the central government apply 
to  all  areas within  a region.  Regions may produce tighter  controls only  for  specific 
areas  with  specific  problems.  In  July  1990 the Italian  Minister  of  the Environment 
produced guidelines for the control of emissions from  a range of industrial  processes 
including  some of those falling  under the proposed Directive. 

As in the case of German TA-Luft  the substances are grouped into carcinogenic and 
non-carcinogenic  ones and  split  into several  subclasses. The emission limits depend 
on the characteristics  of  substances. For carcinogenic  substances the emission  limits 
are as in TA Luft.  For non-carcinogenic substances, there are five classes (I to V) foi 
which the following  emission  limits are laid down: 

16 

43. 

44. 

45. 

Substances  of  Class  I: 

if  mass  flow  is  >  25  g/h,  the  emission  limit  value  is 
5  mg/m3 
if  mass  flow  is >  0.1  kg/h,  the  emission  limit  is 20  mg/m3 
Substances  of  Class  II: 
Substances  of  Class  III:  if  mass  flow  is >  2.0  kg/h,  the  emission  limit  is  150mg/m3 
Substances  of  Class  IV:  if  mass  flow  is >  3.0  kg/h,  the  emission  limit  is  300mg/m3 
Substances  of  Class  V  :  if  mass  flow  is > 4.0  kg/h,  the  emission  limit  is  600mg/m3 

These general  requirements  apply  to all installations  of the proposed  Directive which 
are  covered  by  Law  203.  More  specific  requirements  are  laid  down  for  certain 
activities,  such  as car  coating  and  surface  coating. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  Air  Pollution  Act  of  1972  requires  that  no  establishment 
belonging  to  a  list  of  about  400  installations  may  be  set  up  or  operated  without 
permission  to  be  issued  by  the  provincial  authorities.  The  information  required  to 
accompany  an  application  is  set  out  in  the  1988  Decree  on  Air  Polluting  Plants. 
Guidelines  on  emission  limits  to  be  set  by  provincial  authorities  are  given  in  the 
"Nederlandse  Emissie Richtlijnen  - Lucht"  (NeR),  a paper which  is in its concepts  in 
principle  identical  to  the  German  T.A.  Luft.  However,  the  NeR  has  no  legal  status 
licence  applicants  and 
but  serves  only  as  a  basis  for  consultations  between 
licensing  authorities,  although  binding  emission  limit  values  are  set  out  for  such 
sectors  as dry  cleaning. 

The outcome of these consultations is a set of legally binding requirements on industry 
set out in the programme KWS-2000, which includes emission reduction measures  for 
many  of the  source  categories  covered  by  the  proposed  Directive. 

In  Portugal  all  installations  covered  by  the proposed  Directive  are  subject  to  autho 
rization  procedures.  Since  12 March  1993, new  installations  have  to  comply  with  an 
emission  limit  value  for  stack  gas  emissions  of  organic  compounds  of  50  mgC/m3. 
Existing  installations  shall  have to  comply  with  this  limit  value by  1 January  1999. 

In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Environmental  Protection  Act  1990  has  introduced 
Integrated  Pollution  Control  (IPC)  for  industrial  processes  with  major  potential  to 
pollute  all  three  media:  air,  land  and  water.  Part  A  processes  are  enforced  by  the 
Environment  Agency.  A  second  tier  of industrial  processes  (Part  B)  where the  major 
potential  to pollute is to the  air,  are  subject  to Local  Authority  Air Pollution  Control 
(LAAPC).  The  industrial  sectors  controlled  by  this  legislation  are  defined  by  the 
Environmental  Protection  (Prescribed  Processes  and  Substances)  Regulations  1991. 

Industrial  operations using solvents covered by the proposed Directive fall mainly  into 
Part  B.  Secretary  of  State's  guidance  notes  are  issued  to  local  authorities  on  the 
detailed  standards  (including  emission  limits)  which  should  apply  to  each  Part  B 
sector.  A  final  deadline  is  given  in  each  note  by  which  existing  processes  should  be 
upgraded  to the  full  standards  of  the note.  The  upgrading  deadlines  for  these  sectors 
vary,  ranging  from  1996 to  1999, with  the exception  of  car manufacturing  which  has 
a  final  date  of  2001  for  existing  plants  to  reach  the  full  new  plant  standards  and  an 
interim  date of  1996 for  some of the standards to be reached.  Nearly  all of the  sectors 
under  the  proposed  directive  are  covered  by  such  a guidance  note. 

46. 

In  Finland,  installations  with  a  solvent  consumption  of  more  than  50 tonnes/year  or 
where  the  peak  consumption  is  more  than  100 kg/hr  must  be  permitted  under  the 
Air  Pollution  Control  Act  and  Air Pollution  Control  Decree  1982.  Permits  are  given 
on a case-by-case basis, with emission requirements and monitoring provisions tailored 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  individual  site.  No  general  regulations  or  other 
requirements  for  any  solvent-using  sector  have  yet  been  issued. 

17 

47. 

48. 

In Sweden, the basic statute is the Environmental  Protection  Act  1969, which  controls 
air  pollution  activities.The  basis  of  this  act  is  an  individual  assessment  of 
environmentally  hazardous  activities;  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  sets  out 
general  guidelines, not legally  binding, which  are taken into account in the permitting 
process.  Activities  causing  VOC  emissions  are  regulated  above  thresholds  based  on 
a  number  of  factors,  depending  on the  sector:  the  consumption  of  VOC, the  amount 
of  raw  material  used,  or  the  production.  Some  particularly  hazardous  sectors  are 
regulated without any threshold.  For activities where the consumption  of VOCs is the 
trigger, permits are required  for installations consuming more than five tonnes/year of 
halogenated  organic  solvent,  or  more  than  ten  tonnes/year  of  other  organic  solvent. 
Notification  to  the  local  environmental  authority  is  required  for  consumption  of  one 
to  five  tonnes  halogenated  organic  solvent  per  year,  or  three  to  ten  tonnes  other 
organic  solvent  per  year.  The  operator  is  obliged  to  monitor  the  operation  of  the 
activity,  and  the  enforcement  authority  can  specify  in  detail  the  monitoring  required 
in  the  form  of  an  inspection  programme.  Again  the  EPA  sets general  guidelines  for 
the  content  of  such  programmes. 

limit  values 

In  Austria,  there  are  two  regulations  in  place  dealing  with  emissions  of  solvents. 
One limits  the  solvent  content  in  products  for  domestic  and  commercial  use, 
and  the  other sets emission limit values for emissions from  solvent-using  installations. 
capacity  of 
The  emission 
>  two  tonnes/annum  but  less  than  five  tonnes/annum  are  50  mgC/m 
for  new 
installations  and  75  mgC/m3  for  existing  installations.  For  installations  with  a 
consumption  capacity  >  five  tonnes/annum  the  corresponding  values  are  20  mgC/m3 
for  new  plants  and  30  mgC/m3  for  existing  plants.  The  products  regulation  has  been 
in force  since January  1996. The emission control regulation  will  apply from  1999 for 
new  installations  and  from  2001  for  existing  installations.  It  covers  installations  for 
the  coating  of  wood,  metal  and  plastic. 

for  plants  with  a  consumption 

VI. 

Choice  and justification  of  legal  basis 

49. 

The legal  basis  of  the  proposed  Directive  is Article  130s of  the EEC  Treaty  because 
its  main  effect  is to  reduce  the  emissions  of volatile  organic compounds  with  a view 
to improving environmental  protection.  The provisions of the Proposal  do not  achieve 
a complete harmonisation:  although  emission limits are included  in the directive, they 
are  included  in  order  to  define  implicitly  the  reduction  to  be  achieved,  and 
Member  States  are  not  bound  to  implement  those  particular  values  so  long  as  the 
reduction  is  achieved.  The  proposed  action  is  therefore  to  be  considered  principally 
as an environmental  action  taken  at Community  level,  in  application  of  Article  130s 
of the  Treaty. 

VII.  Explanation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Proposal 

50. 

51. 

Following  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  the  proposed  Directive  is  designed  to  set  a 
context  for  reduction  of  emissions  of  volatile  organic  compounds  from  the  solvent 
using sector, with the reductions to be achieved by  specific  measures taken at national 
level.  It  covers  twenty  four  main  types of  installations  and  processes,  some  of them 
covering  a large  number  of  subtypes. 

the  drafting  of  a  large  number  of 

The  installations  and  processes  covered  by  the proposed  Directive  are numerous  and 
diverse,  and not  all  Member  States operate all the processes  listed.  However,  in  order 
to  avoid 
the 
different  solvent-using  processes,  and  because  only  one  aspect  of  the  activities 
(namely,  VOC emissions)  was being considered,  it was decided to incorporate  several 
different  types  of  activities  into  one  Proposal.  To tfîat extent  the  proposed  Directive 
can  be  considered  as  a  substances-orientated  regulation.  It  defines  the  reduction 
required  implicitly,  by  means  of  emission  limits  linked  to the  reductions  technically 
and economically  achievable  in particular  sectors. It then  requires that Member  States 

individual  Directives  for 

meet  that  reduction,  either  by  implementing  the  emission  limits,  or  by  establishing  a 
network  of  other  controls  (a  national  plan). 

52. 

The proposed  Directive  also establishes  controls on solvents which  are a risk because 
of their  direct  effects  on  human  health.  In particular,  VOCs which  are  carcinogenic, 
mutagenic  or  toxic  to  reproduction  must  be  controlled  by  means  of  emission  limit 
standards.  The  national  plan  alternative  cannot  apply  for  these  substances  given  the 
nature  of  their  potential  effects  -  they  must  be  controlled  on  an  installation  by 
installation  basis. 

53.  With  regard  to  the  general  aspects,  the  following  items  are  of  relevance  for 

all  processes: 

(i) 

the  definition  of  all  relevant  terms  used  in  the proposed  Directive; 

(ii)  general  obligations  for  new  and  existing  installations,  those  undergoing  major 
modifications,  and  those  where  several  processes  considered  by  the  proposed 
Directive  are  carried  out  in  parallel; 

(iii) 

the  laying  down  of  general  emission  limitations  and  of  special  provisions  for 
toxic and environmentally  relevant substances including stringent emission  limit 
values; 

(iv)  an  exchange  of  information  on the  possibilities  for  substitution; 

(v)  general  monitoring  requirements; 

(vi) 

the  detailed  definition  of  the  emission  limitations  and  the  way  they  have  to 
be  calculated; 

(vii)  provisions  on  compliance  with  the  given  limitations; 

(viii)  obligations  regarding  the  drafting  of  national  programmes; 

(ix) 

the dates of coming into force and coming into effect  of the proposed  Directive. 

54. 

The  following  items  are  regulated  for  each  process  or  installation  separately: 

(i) 

the  size  and  type  of  the  installations  and  processes  for  which  specific 
requirements  of  the  proposed  Directive  apply; 

(ii) 

limitations  for  emissions  of  organic  solvents  and/or  organic  compounds; 

(iii)  certain  special  provisions  which take into  account  circumstances  particular  to a 

given  sector. 

55. 

The  proposed  Directive  is addressed  to Member  States which  shall  take  all  measures 
necessary  for  its  implementation. 

56. 

Article  1 

The  aim  of  the  proposed  Directive  is  to  protect  public  health  and  the  environment 
from  direct and indirect effects  of emissions of organic solvents, or organic  substances 
generated  due to the use of organic solvents, e.g. due to the abatement measures taken. 
It  does  not  apply  to  occupational  health  conditions.  The  installations  and  processes 
which  are  covered  are  listed  in  Annex  I:  in  order  for  a process  within  an  installation 
to  come  under  the  proposed  Directive,  it  must  fall  both  within  the  definition  of  a 
process  and  within  the  threshold  set  out  for  that  process  in  Annex  III. 

19 

57. 

Article  2 and  Annex  II 

The principal  definitions  relevant to the main text of the proposed Directive are given. 
Most  of  these  are  self  explanatory. 

Of  special  importance  is  the  definition  of  organic  solvents.  Organic  solvents  are 
defined  by  their  chemical  character  (organic  compounds  as  defined  in  the  Article), 
their  volatility,  and  their  characteristics  of  application.  It is  assumed  that  all  relevant 
organic  solvents  are  covered  by  this  definition,  including  those  which  are  heated 
before  use. 

Attention  should  also  be  drawn  to  the  definition  of  consumption,  which  excludes 
organic solvents which are recovered for re-use. Therefore,  it provides an incentive  for 
the  use  of  recycling  which  is  in  general  accompanied  by  substantial  emission 
reductions.  The  consumption  is  expressed  as  total  input  of  organic  solvents  into  an 
installation  or process per  12-month  period  and is, therefore,  an  appropriate  indicator 
of the potential environmental problem caused by the installation. For new installations 
it  will  be  necessary  to  estimate  the  consumption,  taking  into  account  the  nominal 
capacity,  which  is  an indicator  of the  designed  size  of  the  installation. 

The  definition  of  "Installation" 
the  Directive  on 
Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control.  As given,  it  covers  all  processes  which 
take place at the same site. Special provisions are made in Article 6 for the case where 
two  or  more  processes  operated  at the  same  site  fall  under  the  directive. 

the  same  as 

that 

in 

is 

Finally,  the  definition  of  emission  limit  value  requires  the  operator  to  reduce 
air  volumes  as  much  as  possible,  taking  into  account  occupational  health  and  safety 
requirements,  and  states  that  the  air  volumes  added  for  cooling  or  dilution  shall  not 
be  considered  when  determining  the  emission  limit.  This  definition  makes  clear  that 
all  unnecessary  air  volumes  should  be  avoided  or  deducted  so  that  compliance  with 
the emission  limit value, expressed  as mass per volume,  cannot be obtained  by  unfair 
manipulation.  In  addition  to  the  emission  limit  value,  which  relates  to  stack  gas 
emissions,  two  other  types  of  emission  limitations  are  defined,  "Fugitive  Emission 
Limit  Value"  and  "Emission  Requirement".  These  are  used  in  order  to  limit  the 
emission  of  the  process  as  a  whole,  rather  than  simply  those  from  the  stack,  thus 
taking  into  account  those  emissions which  are not  captured,  and  which  are  normally 
not  regulated,  but  which  make  up  a  significant  proportion  of  the total  emission. 

58. 

Article  3 

This  Article  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  that  all  new  installations  are  either 
registered  or  authorized  and  meet  the  requirements  of  the  proposed  Directive. 
Installations  which  are  required  to  obtain  a  permit  under  Directive  96/61/EC  on 
integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control  ("the  IPPC  Directive")  do  not  of  course 
have  to  apply  again  for  authorization  to  operate.  In  Annex  I  of  the  that  Directive,  a 
threshold of  150 kg/hour consumption capacity  of organic solvents, or 200 tonnes/year 
consumption  capacity, is laid  down.  Installations below that threshold  must at least be 
subject  to a registration  procedure under the present Proposal.  In accordance  with  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity,  it  is  left  to  Member  States  to  determine  which  installations 
outside the  scope of the IPPC Directive  should be  subject  to  authorization,  and  which 
to  registration. 

59. 

Article 4 

This Article requires that, as a rule, existing installations have to meet the requirement 
set for  new installations as far  as authorization  to operate and  emission  limitations  are 
concerned,  but  within  a transition  period  from  the date of  coming  into force  until  the 
date  of  compliance  with  Directive  96/61/EC  of  24  October  1996  on  integrated 
pollution  prevention  and  control.  In  a  few  cases  (e.g.  concerning  the  coating  of 

20 

vehicles)  the  requirements  for  existing  installations  are  less  stringent  then  those  for 
new  ones. 

It can be  safely  assumed that there are, in principle,  no technical  obstacles to meeting 
the emission requirements  set out in this Proposal  because the techniques to do so are 
available.  Cost is the limiting  factor.  Taking  into  account  the fact  that  in  many  cases 
investment  in  new  production  technology  will  be  necessary  in  any  case  within  the 
transition  period  given,  for  instance  to  maintain  a high  level  of  competitiveness,  the 
timetable  for  compliance  for  existing  installations  is  a reasonable  one. 

Paragraph  3  treats  those  cases  where  an  installation  undergoes  a  substantial  change, 
including the case where one comes under the proposed  Directive for the first time as 
a  result  of  a  substantial  change.  In  these  cases,  that  part  of  the  installation  which 
undergoes  a  substantial  change  must  satisfy  the  requirements  for  a  new  installation. 
This  formulation  is  chosen  to  ensure  that  when  an  operator  upgrades,  he  does  so  to 
the level  required  of new installations. The requirement  applies only to the part of the 
plant  which  is being  upgraded  (which  is undergoing  the  substantial  change)  in  order 
to  avoid  a  perverse  disincentive  to  upgrade  which  might  result  if  investment  in  one 
part  were  to  trigger  complete  reinvestment  in  the whole  installation. 

60. 

Article  5 

This  Article  sets  out  the  requirements  regarding  emission  limitations  under  the 
proposed  Directive. 

Paragraph  1 sets out the obligations for individual installations.  They must either meet 
the emission  limits  set out in Annex III(A), or meet the requirements  in the  reduction 
scheme  set  out  in  Annex  111(B)  which  are  designed  to  produce  a  reduction  in 
emissions equivalent to that which would result from  application  of the emission  limit 
values.  However  as stated  previously,  the reduction  scheme  does not  apply  for  those 
substances  with  direct  health  effects,  for  which  emission  limit values must  always  be 
established,  regardless  of  the  reduction  option 
taken  under  the  proposed  Directive. 
However  to  take  account  of  the  situation  where  an  installation  has  recently  invested 
in  abatement  equipment  and  would  otherwise  be  required  to  reinvest  precipitately, 
a  provision  is  included  that,  so  long  as  the  emissions  will  be  no  higher  than 
would  otherwise  have  been  the  case,  an  installation  can  derogate  from  the  values  in 
Annex  III(A). 

In  paragraph  2,  special  provisions  are made  for  the  case that  two  or  more  processes, 
which  exceed  individually  the  thresholds  of  the  annex,  are  carried  out  at  the  same 
installation,  in  order to  make  clear which  controls apply.  The provisions  made  allow 
the  operator  to  adopt  the  most  cost  efficient  emission  reduction  option  which  meets 
the  requirements  for  the  total  emissions  of  the  installation. 

Paragraph  3  provides  that  fugitive  emission  guide  values  are  respected  in  so  far  as 
technically  and  economically  feasible.  These have been  established  for  certain  sectors 
where,  because  of  the  nature  of  the  process,  there  is  insufficient  confidence  that 
installations  can  meet  the  requirements  to justify  their  being  made  mandatory. 

Paragraph  4  provides  that  those  installations  not  using  the  reduction  scheme  should 
operate  under  containment  where  possible,  in order  that they  can capture  and  destroy 
the largest  proportion  of  their  emissions.  It  also provides  that the  residual  emissions 
from  installations  are  released  in  such  a way  that  public  health  and  the  environment 
are  safeguarded. 

Paragraph  5  requires  that  the  use  of  solvents  containing  substances  with  a  high 
potential  to cause very  serious effects  to public health  should be avoided, and that they 
should  be  replaced,  as far  as possible,  by  less  harmful  substances  within  the  shortest 
possible  delay.  Criteria to identify  these substances are laid  down in Directive 67/548. 

21 

Paragraph  6  sets  down  stringent  emission  limits  for  these  substances.  However, 
compliance  with  these  limits  can  in  many  cases be  avoided  by  substitution,  because 
in most of the processes covered their use is not essential.  Setting provisions for  these 
solvents is, therefore,  partly a precautionary  measure which should prevent their being 
introduced.  Since  trace  amounts  may  exist  in  some  of  the  solvents,  the  Proposal 
specifies  volume  flows  below  which  the  emission  limits  do not  apply. 

Paragraph  7  lays  down  general  emission  limit  values  for  halogenated  substances 
suspected  of  being  a direct  threat  to public health  or the environment  in general,  and 
for  which  more  stringent  requirements  are  appropriate. 

Paragraph  8  requires  that  all  appropriate  measures  are  taken  to  minimise  emissions 
during  startup  and  shutdown. 

Paragraph  9  deals  with  the  eventuality  that  the  controls  established  by  the  proposed 
Directive  are  shown  by  a  risk  assessment  to  be  inappropriate,  and  provides  for  the 
revision  of  the  limit,  in  such  a  case, by  a comitology  procedure. 

61. 

Article  6 

This  Article  provides  for  an  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  and 
industry  on the potential  for  substitution  of organic solvents.  The crucial  criteria here 
are  fitness  for  use  and  environmental  profiling,  and  a  discussion  on  these  matters  at 
European  level  is  necessary  to  deal  with  the  complexity  of  the  issues  and  to  ensure 
comparability  of  approach  across  the  Community. 

62. 

Articled 

This  Article  lays  down  requirements  for  the  monitoring  of  emissions,  requiring 
adequate  demonstration  of  compliance  with  all  the  provisions  of  the  proposed 
Directive.  In  general,  the  monitoring  methods  and,  where  necessary,  sampling  and 
measurement  procedures  should  be  defined  by  Member  States.  To  give  this 
responsibility  back to  Member  States  is in  line with  the principle  of  subsidiarity  and 
the provisions of the IPPC Directive.  However for  installations with  a large pollution 
load it is appropriate that continuous monitoring of the emissions takes place, and  the 
Article  makes  provision  for  this. 

63. 

Article  8 

This Article  specifies  the way  in  which  compliance with the  emission limitations  has 
to  be  checked.  Firstly,  paragraph  1 makes  clear  that  the  emission  limit  value  refers 
either  to the total  mass of  organic  carbon  or to the  sum  of the mass  of the  individual 
compounds.  To  limit  the  mass  of  individual  compounds  has  the  advantage  that  the 
emission  limits are of  comparable  stringency,  irrespective  of the compound,  and  has, 
therefore,  been  chosen  to  check  compliance  with  emission  limit  values  of  organic 
substances  which  fall  under  Article  5(5)  and  5(7).  However,  this  requirement 
substantially  complicates monitoring, so that in most cases monitoring by measurement 
of  total  organic  carbon  is  sufficient. 

Secondly,  paragraph  2 defines  the statistical  rule to be  applied  within the  compliance 
check  in  the  case  of  continuous  measurements.  In  general,  the  emission  limit  value 
should  not  be  exceeded  within  eight  hours  of  actual  operation.  Since  many  of  the 
processes  are  of  discontinuous  nature  the  moving  average  over  eight  hours  has  been 
chosen  as indicator.  Moreover,  under  item  (ii), the  rule provides  some  flexibility  for 
the  operator  to  deal  with  unexpected  short-term  changes  in  the  operating  conditions 
of  the  installation  or  the  process. 

Paragraph  3  lays  down  compliance  rules  for  periodic  measurements,  including  a 
minimum  number  of  individual  readings  per  measurement campaign. 

22 

Paragraph  4  sets  out  those  parameters  with  respect  to  which  a  solvent  management 
plan  is useful  to determine  compliance,  and  refers  to the guidance  on the use of  such 
a  plan  set  out  in  Annex  IV.  No  statistical  evaluation  is  proposed,  but  rather  that 
compliance  must  be  demonstrated  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  competent  authority. 
Annex IV itself  sets out in detail the way  in which the plan  can be used in each case. 
The  methodology  is  provided  as  guidance  rather  than  made  mandatory  because  of 
the newness  of  the  concept.  Paragraph  5  provides  for  the  amendment  of  these 
provisions  by  comitology  in  the  light  of  the  exchange  of  information  on  the  solvent 
management  plan. 

64. 

Article  9 

This Article defines in a general way the actions necessary in case of non-compliance. 
In particular, it provides that the operation of the installation is prohibited if necessary, 
that is, if compliance cannot be restored within an acceptable time frame.  It  provides 
also that sectors which do not achieve their targets under a. National Plan  are  required 
to  comply  with  the  emission  limit values  of the  proposed  Directive. 

65. 

Article  10 

This  Article  obliges  Member  States  to  collect  the  information  necessary  to  monitor 
implementation of the proposed Directive. In the light of the complexity  of the sectors 
covered,  more than  in  many  other Directives, the  submission  of detailed  information 
is  necessary  in  order  to  guarantee  a harmonized  implementation  by  Member  States. 
The obligation to publish the reports prepared is a significant  addition to transparency. 

66. 

Article  11 

This  Article  sets  out  standard  provisions  regarding  access  to  information. 

67. 

Article  12 

This  Article  provides  Member  States  with  the  option  to  achieve  the  same  goal  as 
would be achieved by implementation  of the emission limit values of the Proposal, but 
by  means tailored  to their  own  national  circumstances  and  set  out  in  a national  plan. 
The plan also allows the option to use alternative instruments to achieve the Proposal's 
goal;  such  instruments  would  of  course  have  to  be  compatible  with  any  general 
European-level  requirements on their use, and the Member State must demonstrate that 
they would produce the required reduction.  Member States would also have the option 
of  varying  the  reduction  required  between  sectors  to  achieve  the  most  economically 
efficient  reduction profile for their industrial circumstances.  In this sense, the national 
plan  allows  a  potential  disharmonisation  of  conditions  of  competition  (although  to  a 
far  lesser  extent  than  quality  objective  legislation,  for  instance,  due  to  the  fact  that 
very  similar  reductions  have  to  be made by  all).  But  this  slight  disharmonisation  is 
justified  in  view  of  the  increased  efficiency  which  national  plans  would  allow. 

Member  States which choose to take the option  of applying national  plans are exempt 
from  applying the ozone-related  emission reductions in the Proposal.  However all the 
other  requirements,  relating  for  example to  permitting,  monitoring  and  enforcement, 
continue  to  apply.  The  requirements  relating  to  control  of  emissions  responsible  for 
direct  health  effects  also  continue  to  apply. 

Member  States  making  use  of  the  provisions  of  the  paragraphs  1 and  2 also  have  to 
meet a number of supplementary  obligations.  They must establish a national  authority 
which  collects  and  evaluates  the  information  relevant  for  the  verification  of  the 
national  plans.  The  plans  must  also  identify  and  meet  interim  reduction  targets  to 
ensure  that  adequate  progress  is  being  made  towards  achievement  of  the  goals  set. 
Finally,  the reports on implementation  of the national  plan submitted  under Article  10 
of  this  Proposal  will  be  assessed  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  intends  to 

23 

convene a forum  of experts drawn from  Member States to assist it with this task.  In 
case of an identified  violation of the provisions laid down in paragraph  1, the Council 
shall  be informed  and  the Member  State concerned  must  take  corrective measures. 
In the case of the original design of the plan, if the Member State fails after the period 
required to correct  the plan in  such  a way  as to make it demonstrably  viable,  that 
Member  State  shall  be  required  to  implement  the  emission  limits  of  the  proposed 
Directive on the same timetable as all other Member States. 

68.  Article 13 

The Article lays down the establishment of an advisory Committee which  shall assist 
the Commission in the following tasks: 

(i)  modification  to the  directive to take account  of risk assessment  of  any  of  the 

substances controlled under the proposed Directive according to Article 5(9); 

(ii)  modifications  to  the  directive  consequent  on  the  exchange  of  information  on 

experience with the solvent management plan under Article 8(5). 

69.  Articles  14. 15 and  16 

Standard  text  concerning  the  coming  into  force  of  the  proposed  Directive  and  its 
transposition  into national law. 

70.  Annex I 

This defines  the activities which come under the proposed Directive. 

71.  Annex II 

This defines the terms used in  the proposed Directive. See commentary on Article 2. 

72.  Annex III 

This sets out the basic reduction requirements of the proposed Directive. These are of 
three kinds: 

emission  requirements  expressed in solvent emissions related to the amount of 
product produced;  this approach has a number of advantages, in particular that 
it can be met either by  substitution  or by abatement; 

traditional  emission limits, which can only be met by abatement; and 

a reduction  plan  designed  to allow every  installation  the option  of making its 
reductions by other means than abatement,  and particularly  by  substitution. 

These are considered  separately below. 

73.  Annex m(A) 

This  sets  out  emission  controls  for  the  sectors  covered  by 
the  directive,  varied 
according  to  the  size  of  installation  where  appropriate,  and  according  to  new  and 
existing installations if necessary.  Where possible, the emission controls are expressed 
in terms of mass of  solvent  emitted  per unit product, because this value can be met 
either by substitution  or by abatement, and it is a principle of the proposed Directive 
that the operator should be able to choose the cheapest option.  This kind of emission 
control also automatically accords credit to those operators who have made a previous 
effort to control emissions, which a straightforward  percentage reduction in emissions, 
for  instance,  would  not  do.  These kinds  of emission  controls  are  provided  for  dry 

24 

cleaning,  for  wood  impregnation,  for  leather  coating,  for  footware  manufacture,  for 
wood  and  plastic  lamination,  for  vegetable  oil  extraction  and  for  vehicle  coating. 

For  all  other  sectors,  limits  are expressed  in terms  of  stack  emission  limit values  and 
fugitive  emission  limit  or  guide  values.  These  values  must  both  be  met,  but  the 
meeting  of  a  stack  emission  limit  value,  which  is  expressed  as  a  concentration  of 
solvent  and  not  as  a  solvent  load  (total  quantity  emitted)  can  only  be  met  in  general 
by  abatement.  This is because  substitution,  in  reducing the quantity  of  solvent  used, 
drastically  reduces the initial  concentration  of solvent  in the waste gases and the total 
amount emitted, but the concentration in the waste gases will  still in general be higher 
than  the  emission  limit  value.  For  this  reason,  a  means  had  to  be  found  by  which 
those  installations  subject  to  these  controls  could  make  an  equivalent  reduction  by 
substitution.  This  is the  aim  of  the  reduction  scheme  which  forms  Annex  III(B). 

74. 

Annex  IIIfB) 

The  main  aim  of  the  emission  reduction  scheme  is to  allow  an  operator  to  make  the 
same reduction  as would  be  made by  applying the  emission  limit  values, but to do it 
by  substitution.  Accordingly,  the reference point for reduction  must be the amount of 
solvents which  would be emitted were no abatement  to be done and were  full-solvent 
applications  used;  and  the  reduction  required  of  the  operator  must  be  the  same 
percentage  reduction  as  would  be  achieved  by  applying  the  emission  limits  to  that 
starting  scenario.  Such  an  approach  should  also  take  account  of  progress  already 
made  by 
In  addition,  a  transitional 
period  should be given over which the operator reduces his emissions, to take account 
of  the  fact  that  in  some  cases  substitutes  may  still  be  under  development. 

the  operator  towards  reducing  his  emissions. 

Practice 

The  first  point  concerns  the  time  frame  for  making  the  reductions.  They  are  to  be 
made  in  two  stages:  the  reduction  to the  final  target  emission  has to be  made  within 
six  years  for  new  installations  and  7 years  for  existing  installations;  with  an  interim 
reduction  target, where the installation has to get down to within  1 5x target  emission, 
within  two  and  a half  and  five  years  respectively. 

Point  (ii)  concerns the  calculation  of the reference  emission,  which  must  correspond 
as  closely  as  possible  to  the  emission  which  would  have  resulted  had  normal  high-
solvent  coatings  been  used  to  do  the  same  job  under  non-abated  conditions.  The 
assumption  used  to make the calculation  is that the solid transferred  onto the product 
would  be  the  same  in  a  high-solvent  and  in  a  low-solvent  application,  which  is 
reasonable.  Thus  if  the  current  solid  content  of  materials  is  known,  and  the 
solid/solvent  ratio  of  standard  coatings  in  the  field  is  known,  the  "annual  reference 
emission"  of  solvents  can  be  calculated  by  multiplying  them  together. 

Point  (iii)  concerns  the  calculation  of  the  target  emission.  This  involves  multiplying 
the  annual  reference  emission  by  the  reduction  factor  which  would  be  achieved  by 
applying  the  emission  limits  of  Annex  III(A).  This  reduction  factor  would  be  the 
unabated  proportion  of emissions - that is, the fugitive  emission  (which  by  definition 
is unabated) together  with the residual  solvent  emitted  from  the stack after  complying 
with  the  stack  emission  limit.  This  is  calculated  as  follows: 

The  fugitive  emission  is  expressed  simply  by  the  fugitive  emission  limit  value.  The 
calculation  of  the  unabated  proportion  of  the  stack  emission  limit  requires  an 
estimation  of the abatement  efficiency  corresponding  to the emission  limit value. For 
most  installations  that  value  is around  95% (leaving  around  5% unabated  emissions) 
but  for  some  smaller  installations  the  efficiency  is  lower,  at  around  85%  (15%  of 
unabated  emissions).  The emissions that would  have resulted  from  application  of the 
emission  limits  are  thus  the  fugitive  emission  limit  value  (already  expressed  as  a 
percentage)  plus  the  5% (or  15%) unabated  stack  emissions. 

25 

75.  Annex  IV 

This Annex provides detailed  definitions  and requirements to be met by the solvent 
management  plan.  The  purpose  of  the  plan  is  explained.  Inputs  and  outputs  are 
defined.  Guidance  is  then  given  on  the  use  of  the  solvent  management  plan  in 
determining  compliance  with  the  four  elements  of  the  proposed  Directive  listed  in 
paragraph 8(4): fugitive  emission and guide values;product-based  emission limits; the 
reduction  scheme;  and the requirements of Article 5(2)(ii)(b).  In addition, the plan 
can enable the operator to identify  reduction options; this is a useful by-product of the 
solvent management plan, but it is not proportionate to require the effort  and expense 
of  conducting  one  simply  for  this  reason,  hence  the  fact  that  the  obligation  of  the 
Directive relates to expressing compliance, and the solvent management plan is simply 
one way of doing so. 

VIII.  Fiche PME:  The impact  of the Proposal  on business, with special  reference  to 

Small  and Medium-Sized  Enterprises 

Title of Proposal:  Limitations  of  emission  of organic  compounds due to the use of 
organic solvents in certain processes and industrial installations. 

Reference Number (Repertoire): 

1. 

Taking account of  the principle  of  subsidiarity,  why  is  Community  legislation 
necessary  in this area and what are its main  aims? 

Community legislation is necessary in this area in order to contribute to the protection 
of public health, in particular with regard to the exposure to photochemical  oxidants 
and  toxic  organic  compounds.  For  this  purpose  significant  reductions  of  emissions 
of organic compounds have to be achieved. These reductions are required particularly 
for  that  proportion  of  the  solvent-emitting  sector  which  is  outside  the  scope  of the 
IPPC Directive. 

2. 

Who  will be affected by the Proposal? 

Sectors 

The Proposal  affects  professional,  mainly  industrial,  consumers  of  organic solvents. 
Organic  solvents are volatile  and evaporate into the environment  if no measures are 
taken.  These  emissions  contribute  significantly  to  total  emissions  of  organic  com 
pounds  within  the EC.  Since organic  solvents  are used  in many  different  industrial 
sectors, the number of installations affected  is considerable. However,  after  intensive 
discussion with industry  and Member States, thresholds for the different  sectors have 
been  selected  so that only the most relevant  sizes of installations are covered. 

In  determining  the thresholds,  the Commission  looked  in  particular  for  evidence of 
diminishing returns of reduction as the size of the installations affected  decreased on 
the basis of the cost-benefit  study done on the Commission's first set of Proposals by 
Karlsruhe University. 

26 

Sizes 

The  size  of  installations  affected  varies  depending  on  the  sector.  The  thresholds  are 
expressed  in  terms  of  solvent  consumption  and  the  relationship  between  that  figure 
and the size of an installation  in  socio-economic terms is very  much  a function  of the 
characteristics of  each particular  sector.  However  a rough  calculation  of the  number 
of  SMEs  affected  can  be  done  assuming  that  the  cutoff  point  in  Annex  I  of  the 
IPPC  Directive  (a  consumption  capacity  of  organic  solvents  of  200  tonnes  a  year) 
separates  large  installations  from  small  and  medium  size  ones.  On  that  assumption, 
the number of small and medium size businesses affected  is of the order of  magnitude 
of  several  hundreds  of  thousands. 

A more detailed  discussion  of the implications of the Proposal  for  each  of the  sectors 
covered  is  given  below. 

Car  coating 

ACE A  submitted  that  the  emission  limits  for  vehicle  coating  discriminate  against 
expressed  in  terms  of  g/m2.  The 
producers  of  small  cars,  because  they  are 
discrimination  is due partly to the fact that solvent consumption for cleaning is a fixed 
amount  per  vehicle,  regardless  of  its  size,  and  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  ratio  of 
painted coat to electrocoat is larger for smaller vehicles.  However our position,  which 
ACEA  appreciates,  is that  it  is  appropriate  in  an  instrument  of this  kind  to  adopt  the 
same approach  to emission  controls for  all  car manufacturers.  On this basis we  have 
explored  with  ACEA the possibility  of using  for  all  processes the  Swedish  approach, 
where the limit is partly  a fixed amount per vehicle  and partly  a surface-area  -related 
emission.  In principle this formula  gives an equitable basis on  which to calculate the 
emissions  for  any  car,  whatever  its type.  However  the point  at which  equivalence  is 
determined  between  the  existing  limits  and  the  new  approach  is  a  vexed  one.  The 
Commission  was  and  is  prepared  to  consider  a  more  equitable  means  of  calculating 
the emission  reduction  required  of each category  of car manufacture,  but whilst  as an 
absolute imperative retaining the contribution of the car coating sector to the  emission 
reduction  achieved  by  the  Proposal  at  its  current  level.  However  in  discussions,  no 
agreement  could be  achieved  on proposals to this effect,  and the  previous limits  have 
therefore been retained.  It should be noted, however,  that systems of exactly the same 
form  as the  current  one  are  applied  at the moment  over the whole range  of  car  sizes, 
for  instance  in  the  UK.  Therefore  the  current  approach  is  perfectly  workable 
in  practice. 

Wood  impregnation 

In  the  course  of  consultations  with  Protim  Solignum  and  CEI  Bois,  they  raised  a 
number  of  points,  principally: 

the  fugitive  emission  limit  for  wood  impregnation; 

the  threshold  for  the  industry; 

the  inclusion  of  creosote  within  the  definition  of  solvent; 

the  addition  of  new  factors  for  wood  and  plastic  lamination. 

On the fugitive  emission limit for wood impregnation, we have accepted the  industry's 
argument  that due to the technical  specificities  of the sector  a limit comparable  to the 
20-30% asked of most other  sectors effectively  implies zero fugitive  emissions.  It has 
thus  been  raised  to 45%. 

27 

The  threshold  for  the  industry  was  lowered  from  45  tonnes/year  to  25  tonnes/year. 
Evidence  from  the  Karlsruhe  report  demonstrates  that  a  decrease  in  the  threshold  to 
this level  would  abate 21.3% more tonnes of VOC  at a cost increase  of  21.7%.  Thus 
according  to  this  data,  which  was  based  on  information  provided  by  the  industrial 
sectors  concerned  and  singled  out  for  particular  praise  for  its  completeness,  the 
average  cost  per  tonne  abated  is  no  higher  for  these  plant  than  for  large  plant.  On 
those grounds  it  was  concluded  that the  firms  caught  by  a 25 tonne  threshold  would 
not  find  the  controls  significantly  harder  to  cope  with  than  their  larger  counterparts, 
and  no  convincing  evidence  has  been  put  forward  to  contradict  this  opinion. 

Both  Protim  Solignum  and  CEI  Bois  raised  the  issue  of  the  inclusion  of  the  volatile 
component  of  creosote within  the definition  of  "solvent".  The volatile  component  of 
creosote  is  not  technically  a  solvent,  but  as  a  volatile  emission  it  is  as  much  an 
environmental  problem  as any  other  VOC emission.  Its technical  role  in the  product 
is  in  that  sense  irrelevant.  Accordingly,  there  is  no  reason  why  creosote  should  not 
be  subject  to the  same controls  as any  other wood  impregnation  material.  In  order  to 
ensure  that  these  controls  do  not  penalise  the  use  of  low-volatility  creosotes, 
the Proposal  provides  an  alternative  control  in  the  form  of  an  emission  factor 
(emission  of  solvent  per  tonne  of  product)  to  cover  the  case  of  substitution  by  low-
solvent  substitutes. 

The rubber  industry 

The  consultations  with  BLIC  concentrated  on  the  thresholds  for  the  industry.  BLIC 
proposed  in  discussions  to  raise  the  threshold  to  at  least  15  tonnes/year.  The  data 
provided  on  the  effect  that  this  would  have  on the  emissions  from  and  costs  to  their 
industry  showed that  the  additional  solvent  emissions would total  7550 tonnes,  while 
the  costs  saved  would  total  UKL  41  250  000  capital  costs  and  UKL  4 262  000  in 
annual running costs. Calculating the costs per tonne abated for this section of industry 
(by  using the Net Present  Value final year costs divided  by the reduction  achieved,  as 
for  all  other  such  calculations  in  this  Memorandum)  yields  ECU  1.17/ktonne,  which 
is  considerably  lower  than  the  average  annual  costs  of  abatement  for  the  Proposal. 
However  subsequent  evidence  provided  by  the  sector  showed  convincingly  that  the 
costs  for  small  companies  within  the  sector  were  at  least  twice  as  high  as  those  for 
larger  companies.  For this  reason  it was decided  to raise the threshold  for  this  sector 
from  five  to  ten  tonnes  of  solvent  consumption  per  year. 

Dry  cleaning 

The Commission  received  representations  on the dry-cleaning  sector  from  UEAPME, 
CINET  and  TNO  Cleaning  Techniques  Research  Institute. 

The Karlsruhe  report  stated  that  observance  of  a limit  value of 20 g/kg would  reduce 
the  emissions  of  the  sector  by  37  000  tonnes  to  31  000  tonnes,  by  the  use  of 
closed-circuit  machine  technology.  A limit  of  10 g/kg,  implying  the  use  of  so-called 
"new  generation  closed-circuit  machines"  would  increase  the  costs  induced  by  the 
Proposal  by  150%. By  moving  to  an  emission  of  10 g/kg  from  20  g/kg,  the  residual 
emission  will  be  halved,  therefore  the  extra  reduction  would  be  in  the  region  of 
15 000  tonnes,  or  an  increase  over  the  previous  reduction  (37  000  tonnes)  of 
around  40%. 

The Commission  recognises the significant  extra cost burden of the new controls.  For 
this  reason  it  has  moved  to  a  uniform  emission  limit  of  20g/kg  for  all  dry  cleaning 
installations  under  the  Proposal,  which  can  be  met  by  closed  circuit  machines  at  a 
reasonable  level  of  capital  expenditure. 

A  further  change  which  has  been  made  concerns  the  provision  that  a  more  lax 
emission  limit  should  apply  for  machines  once  they  are  more  than  three  years  old. 
The  continued  high  performance  of  an  installation  is  dependent  on  careful  operation 

28 

and  maintenance,  and  not  on  capital  expenditure.  Therefore  it  seems  reasonable  to 
require  that  any  installation  should  be  able  to  maintain  its  initial  performance  for 
considerably  longer than three years.  For this reason, the Commission  considered that 
a  requirement  to  operate  at  the  initial  emission  limit  for  the  whole  lifetime  of  the 
installation  was  reasonable,  and  the  option  to  operate  at  a lower  emission  limit  after 
a  given  period  of  time  has been  removed. 

Wood coating 

UEA  has made  a number  of  submissions  concerning the  furniture  industry,  the  main 
one  being  a  request  to  move  the  threshold  for  the  industry  from  15  tonnes  to 
25 tonnes.  They  state that this would result in a reduction  of costs of around 25% and 
an  increase  in  emissions  of  20%. The ratio between  these  is  close to  one,  indicating 
that  there  is  no  significant  increase  in  costs  per  tonne  abated  below  the  25-tonne 
threshold  that  would  justify  the  proposed  alteration.  This  is  also  shown  by  the 
almost  linear  nature  of  the  graph  of  costs/emissions  versus  threshold  size  in  UEA's 
second  submission. 

UEA  state that  for  medium-sized  companies the  costs  of  compliance  as a  proportion 
of  turnover  are  twice  those  for  large  companies.  However,  it  is  not  clear  why  this 
should be so given the above evidence that the costs per tonne abated  are comparable. 
In that case, the discrepancy  must result from  variation in profit  per unit, which might 
have  been  expected  to  be  also  broadly  comparable  from  a  medium  installation  to  a 
large  installation.  It  is  certainly  difficult  to  see why  that  should  vary  so markedly  as 
is implied  by  the  figures  cited  by  UEA. 

It is interesting to compare this  situation with the earlier  adjustment  that DGXI made 
to the threshold  for this industry,  the move from  5 tonnes to  15 tonnes consequent  on 
the  Karlsruhe  report.  The  report  showed  that  the  move  would  reduce  costs  by  some 
40%  for  an  increase  in  emissions  of  13%, a ratio  of  3:1  rather  than  the  1:1  ratio  for 
the current alteration. Those figures were dramatic evidence of diminishing returns and 
the threshold  was  altered  accordingly. 

Vehicle  refinishing 

The initial  investigation  done in the Karlsruhe report on the impact of the Proposal  on 
the vehicle  refinishing  sector  found  that  for  both  small  and  medium  installations  the 
measures  were  likely  to  result  in  net  savings,  of  around  ECU  18 000/a  for  a  small 
installation  and  around  ECU  62  000/a  for  a medium  installation.  The  savings  result 
from  reduced  paint/solvent consumption  due to three compliance  measures -  enclosed 
gunwash,  the  introduction  of  high  volume  low  pressure  (HVLP)  spray  guns  and 
switching  from  conventional  coatings  to  high  solid  coatings.  It  should  be  noted  that 
these three measure achieve compliance with the Proposal, on the basis of all  available 
data,  given  the  provision  in  the  reduction  scheme  that  reductions  in  total  solvent 
emissions  due  to  improvements  in  housekeeping  and  application  efficiency  (such  as 
those from  the gunwash and HVLP) can count towards the reduction  required.  On this 
basis, there is obviously  no question of introducing a threshold for the sector,  as every 
element  of  it  reaps  a net  financial  benefit. 

However  the UK  DTI  study  came forward  with  slightly  different  figures  for  the  cost 
impact  on  the  sector,  amounting  to  costs  per  tonne  reduced  of  ECU  350/tonne 
(calculated,  as for  all  other  such costs, on an NPV basis).  This is slightly  inaccurate, 
as the  study  on which  it was based5  ("the  UK  DOE  study")  shows.  That  study  states 
that  the  capital  cost  of  compliance  with  the  Proposal  (gunwash  plus  HVLP  plus 
high-solids)  amounts to ECU  5 250 one-off  cost,  and the annual  savings resulting  for 

Aspinwalls and NERA, "Evaluating the costs of implementing  the proposed  EU solvents 
directive and the scope for using economic instruments",  1996 

29 

the  installation  total  ECU  4  100.  Therefore  the  investment-will  almost  pay  for  itself 
in  the  first  year,  with  net  savings  accruing  thereafter. 

Most  of  the  cost  savings  result  from  the  introduction  of  HVLP;  the  switch  to 
high-solids  paint  is  cost-neutral  apart  from  retraining  (around  ECU  1  000  one-off 
cost). Given the significant  cost gain to the installations from  the first element it seems 
reasonable  to  require  the  essentially  cost-neutral  product  switch,  which  will  produce 
an  additional  reduction  of  emissions  in  the  region  of  30%.  The  net  savings  accruing 
from  the  measures  as  a  whole  continue  to  justify  the  decision  not  to  introduce 
a  threshold. 

Printing 

Several  international  printing  federations,  coordinated  by  INTERGRAF,  have  made 
substantial  representations  on  the  Proposal.  The  main  representations  concerned  the 
threshold  for  small  printing  installations,  the  stack  emission  limits  and  the  fugitive 
emission  limit  values  for  installations  other  than  publication  rotogravure. 

On  the threshold  issue,  the  Karlsruhe  report  showed  that  with  the  original  threshold 
of  five  tonnes/a  solvent  consumption,  the  control  costs  for  small  installations 
(in  general,  those  lying  between  5  and  15  tonnes/a  consumption)  ranged  from 
three times  to  eight  times  those  of  the  larger  installations,  depending  on  the  type  of 
technology  considered.  For  this  reason  the threshold  for  application  of  the  Proposal 
to  printing  installations  was  shifted  to  15  tonnes/annum. 

As  regards  fugitive  emissions,  the  problem  is that  a  large  proportion  of  the  fugitive 
emissions  came  from  the  isopropanol  used  in  the  fountain  solution,  and  from  the 
cleaning  emissions, both  of which  are very  difficult  to  capture.  A number  of  options 
for  meeting  the  fugitive  emission  limits  under  the  proposal  were  investigated, 
including  encapsulation,  substitution  and  waterless  offset,  but  it  was  concluded  that 
none  offered  sufficient  guarantee  of  reductions  in  emissions  in  the  time  period 
specified  by the Proposal  to justify  the setting of a mandatory  fugitive  emission  limit 
value. For  heatset  web offset  there is the additional  problem  that  low  solvent  content 
inks  are used,  only  a proportion  of  which  is evaporated  (all  evaporated  solvent  from 
the ink being  100% captured). The rest remains in the product,  is not volatile at  room 
temperature,  and  is  not  considered  a  fugitive  emission.  Therefore  the  fugitive 
emissions  (comprising  part  of  the  isopropanol  and  the  cleaning  solvent  emissions) 
although not disproportionately  high in absolute terms, forms a large percentage of the 
total  emissions.  For  these  reasons,  guide  values  were  adopted  for  all  sectors  except 
publication  rotogravure,  which  as  a  homogeneous  sector  of  large-scale,  enclosed 
installations  is  in  a different  position  to  the  others. 

As regards the  stack emission  limits, the comment was made that the reduction  of the 
stack  emission  limit  from  150  mgC/m3  to  100  mgC/m3  would  prejudice  solvent 
recovery  abatement  options  with  respect  to  incineration,  and  that  the  greater  energy 
consumption  of  incineration  relative  to  recovery  made  this  a dubious  environmental 
decision.  This point has been taken on board by the provision that existing  equipment 
meeting  an  emission  limit  of  150  mgC/m3  can  be  derogated  from  the  new  emission 
limits  so  long  as  the  total  emissions  of  the  installation  are  no  greater  than  would 
otherwise  have been  the  case  (Article  5(1)). 

Coatings  manufacture 

CEPE  made  representations  to  the  Commission  on  a  number  of  matters,  mainly  the 
concentration  emission limit for the sector. The essence of their argument was that due 
to  the fact  that  very  low  airstream  rates  were used  in  order  to  minimise  evaporation 
and retain as much  solvent as possible, the mass emission of solvent from  the coatings 
sector  for  a  given  concentration  emission  limit  would  be  low  compared  to  that  of  a 
coating  user.  Focus  in  reducing  solvent  emissions  is  in  any  case  on  containment 

30 

rather  than  abatement,  because  abatement  requires  collecting  emissions  in  an  air 
stream  of positive flow  rate, and the mere act of passing  such  an air  stream  over a 
process  increases  evaporation  and the  potential  emission.  In  addition,  the  costs of 
abating very low flow rates increase steeply for  abatement below  150 mgC/m3, up to 
seven-fold,  and  the industry  quoted  an example  of  an installation  where the  capital 
cost  of  emissions  reduction  below  that  level  worked  out  as  ECU  346  000/tonne. 
Given this evidence of the unacceptable nature of the effects  of a tighter limit, it was 
decided to retain the limit for this sector at  150 mgC/m3. 

FEICA, the association  of  european  adhesive  manufacturers,  has commented  not so 
much on the values they are asked to meet as on the need to specify  at European level 
the accuracy to which the value should be measured. On that point, it became obvious 
in  the  course  of  development  of  the  proposal  that  the  novelty  of  the  concept  of 
fugitive  emission  limit value and of methods of  determining them  was such that no 
accuracy  constraints  could  be  established  at  European  level  at  this  stage,  and  that 
adequate  demonstration  of  compliance in that  respect must be left  to the competent 
authority to decide. 

Adhesive coating 

The main comments received from FINAT on adhesive coating concerned the fact that 
the original  emission limit specified  for the sector of 50 mgC/m3 would prejudice the 
option of  solvent recovery  in favour  of incineration.  The products from  the industry 
and  the  production  processes  which  are used  differ  from  plant  to  plant,  as  do the 
abatement  options  favoured.  An  emission  limit  value  of  50  mgC/m3  would  make 
solvent recovery in many cases impossible, or at least very unattractive. It was agreed 
that  solvent  recovery  was a solution to be preferred  to incineration,  and therefore  a 
dual  emission  limit was introduced,  which allows a choice of options. 

Certain  sub-sectors  initially  included  in  the adhesive  coating  sector  have now been 
singled  out  in  Annex  III(A),  namely  footware  manufacture  and  wood  and  plastic 
lamination (discussed above under wood impregnation). The reason for this is that for 
these subsectors an emission factor can be specified, ie, an emission control expressed 
in terms of solvent emission per unit product. The advantage of controls expressed in 
this way is that they can be met either by substitution or by abatement, thus removing 
the  need  for  a  reduction  scheme  and  the  associated  problem  of  determining  the 
equivalence of the reduction.  The values were derived from the controls currently in 
place in the UK and we are confident  that they  are strict but achievable. 

Coil coating 

The Karlsruhe report concluded in its investigation on the emission controls proposed 
for  the  coil  coating  sector  that  the  overall  costs  imposed  by  the  thresholds  and 
emission limits in Annex III(A) of the Proposal are low due to the technology already 
installed  in  most  of  the  coil  coating  installations,  and  that  compliance  should  not 
create major  problems for  the industry.  The industry  organization  ECCA has in the 
past  accepted  this,  and  the  controls  on  that  industry  have  not  changed  since  the 
Karlsruhe study was done.  The industry has recently made representations regarding 
the requirement  for  continuous  monitoring  for  stacks emitting  a mass flow of more 
than  10kg/hour and to which abatement equipment is connected.  This is a very large 
mass flow, and it is reasonable that where potentially very high emissions could result 
from  non-compliance  with  the  emission  limit  value  of  the  Proposal  the  installation 
should monitor compliance  continuously. 

Coating of winding wire 

This  sector  was  initially  included  in  other  coating  and  given  a  stack  and  fugitive 
emission  limit,  but  the  industrial  organization  representing  the  sector,  Europacable, 
approached the Commission with evidence that an emission factor  could be specified 

31 

for  the  sector  which  would  be  considerably  tighter  than  the  effect  of  the  emission 
limits.  The emission  limits  which  would  otherwise  have applied  (50  mgC/m3 stack 
limit and 20% fugitive  limit) are equivalent to an emission factor  of around  19 g/kg 
product.  The newly  introduced controls are considerably  tighter than this, at  10 g/kg 
product for installations producing thin wire and 5 g/kg for all other installations.  The 
difference for different  wire dimensions is due to the fact that the smaller the diameter 
of a wire, the larger the proportion of its weight a coating of a constant thickness will 
represent,  and therefore  the more  solvent will  be used  relative to the weight  of the 
final product,  in applying that coating. 

Other coating 

This sector is something of a catch-all, covering as it does any coating activity within 
the  scope  of  the  Proposal  not  otherwise  dealt  with  in  Annex  III(A).  The  only 
representation that the Commission has received on this issue was from  the aerospace 
industry,  which  intends  to  use  the  exemption  scheme  under  Annex  III(B)  of  the 
Proposal  but  was concerned  that  in that  scheme the solvent  content  of  the  coatings 
concerned  was  not  accurately  stated.  Their  concern  has  been  taken  on  board  by 
changing  the  assumed  solvent  content  of  aerospace  coatings  from  60%  to  70% 
(equivalent to a solvent:solid ratio of  1:2.33 rather than  1:1.5  as previously). 

Leather coating 

The  values  applicable  to  the  leather  coating  industry  were  modified  in  the  course 
of discussion  to  take  into  account  the  potential  difficulties  of  medium-sized 
enterprises.  Small installations are excluded by the lower threshold of  10 tonnes/year. 
For the medium-sized enterprises the emission factor to be observed is 85 g/m2 rather 
than the 75 g/m2 applicable for large installations (above 25 tonnes/year consumption). 
We believe that this suitably takes account of the specificities  of SMEs. 

Surface cleaning 

ECSA  has  commented  on  the  implications  of  the  controls  in  the  Proposal  on 
installations using R40 chlorinated  solvents for  surface cleaning. 

ECSA raise the issue of the rationale for applying tighter controls for these solvents. 
The  rationale  is  that  the  solvents  carry  the risk phrase  R40  and  are  thus  potential 
carcinogens,  and that the more potentially hazardous the substance is, the tighter the 
controls that  should  apply  to  it.  ECSA refer  to  epidemiological  studies  which they 
consider  show  that  the  solvents  in  question  are controlled  under  the Proposal  with 
unreasonable  strictness.  However  it  is  precisely  to  allow  for  such  developments  in 
epidemiology  that the link between  the controls and the application  of the R40 risk 
phrase was made. If the epidemiological  data is sufficiently  convincing to merit the 
removal  of  the  R40  risk  phrase,  the  tighter  controls  will  no  longer  apply  to  the 
substances in question. 

ECSA further  comment on the marginal  costs of achieving the emission limits under 
the Proposal.  However they do not propose altering the limits, but rather adjusting the 
threshold,  reintroducing  the  1 kg/hr  threshold  present  in  early  drafts  which  would 
effectively  raise the tonnage threshold  from  1 tonne/annum  to 2 tonnes/annum.  The 
rationale  for  this would  appear to be that  in this way  a larger proportion  of  surface 
cleaning installations would be able to reduce their solvent consumption to the point 
where they fell  out of the scope of the Proposal by the simple expedient of installing 
a  collection  chamber  system.  However  it  should  be noted  that  the  threshold  of the 
Proposal is already higher than in many Member States.  Only installations using more 
that  1 tonne  solvent  per  year  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  Proposal,  and  a  large 
proportion  of the small  surface  cleaning installations are thus excluded. 

32 

In  addition,  the  emission  limit  values  in  the Proposal  do not  require  the  extremely 
high marginal  cost  solution  (single  sealed  chamber)  which  ECSA  identifies.  The 
UK DTI study  provides data  showing that substitution  by aqueous cleaning  systems 
(with  100% reduction in solvent emissions) can be effected  at a third of the marginal 
cost of the single sealed chamber, for those installations which would be affected  by 
ECSA's proposed threshold  change.  And it must also be remembered  that even that 
marginal  cost  is  based  on  a whole  process  switch,  whereas  in  many  cases  a more 
effective,  and  still  cheaper,  option would be to switch  a sufficient  proportion  of the 
process  to  aqueous  cleaning  to  bring  the  installation  out  of  the  scope  of  the 
Proposal  altogether.  For  these  reasons,  we  consider  the  current  threshold  to  be  a 
reasonable one. 

The pharmaceutical industry 

The pharmaceutical industry is responsible for significant emissions of solvents.  The 
Karlsruhe study identified  emissions of the sector at 60 tonnes/year, comparable with 
the majority  of other sectors covered by the Proposal.  This is a significant  emission 
and it cannot simply be ignored. 

However in  discussions with  the industry,  the Commission  appreciated  its concerns 
that  the form  of  the  emission  controls  applied  to it  (in  particular  the  concentration 
limits to be met from  stacks) were perhaps not appropriate to the specificities  of the 
sector.  This is because a pharmaceutical  installation typically has a large number of 
stacks each of which emits discontinuously.  Thus a control geared more towards the 
mass of emissions from a particular installation than towards their concentration would 
be  the  most  appropriate  methodology.  The  Commission  therefore  requested  the 
industry at the beginning of July to propose an alternative methodology based on mass 
emission limits, as the Commission  did not have the expertise to do so. To date the 
industry  has  not  submitted  any  such  proposal,  and  thus  the  admittedly  imperfect 
concentration  controls have had to be retained. 

Vegetable  oil extraction and fat  and oil refining 

FEDIOL is broadly content with the values in the current Annex III of the Proposal, 
but has commented  on the status of installations  consuming more than  600 tonnes/a 
solvent, requesting that these be considered  as small  installations.  The Commission 
considers at present that there is no real justification  for this. 

A  further  point  raised  by  FEDIOL  concerned  the  situation  of  small  installations 
engaging in batch extraction of,  generally, speciality oils, which cannot for technical 
reasons meet the emission limit values specified  for the bulk processing installations. 
The Commission  has accepted  the industry's representation  that batch  processing of 
exotic  seeds  requires  a  higher  emission  limit  than  other  processes,  and  has  thus 
increased  the  emission  limit  for  the  extraction  of  oil  from  "other  seeds"  (i.e.  seeds 
other than those separately  identified  in Annex III) from  1.5  kg/tonne to 3 kg/tonne. 

3. 

What will business have to do to comply with the Proposal? 

As far  as new installations are concerned, business will  either have to: 

apply  environmentally  friendly  processes; or 

use low-polluting  preparations; or 

use available abatement  technology. 

33 

The techniques necessary  for compliance with the provisions of the Proposal  are either 
already  marketed  or  are  scheduled  to  appear  on  the market  within  the  coming years. 
Wherever the latter situation obtains, additional time periods for compliance have been 
provided  in the  Proposal.  In  principle,  existing  installations  have to  comply  with  the 
same requirements  as new  installations;  however,  in  some cases the requirements  are 
somewhat  less stringent  in order to take  into account the  special  situation  of  a  sector. 

A further  requirement is that all installations have to demonstrate compliance with the 
limit  values  of  the  Proposal,  which  implies  monitoring  of  emissions.  Monitoring  of 
emissions  from  stacks which  at the final point  of discharge  emit more than  10kgC/hr 
after  abatement  has  to  be  done  continuously.  Monitoring  of  emissions  from  other 
releases  can  be  done  periodically. 

In  practical  terms,  operators  of  installations  falling  under  this Proposal  will  have to: 

select,  taking  into  account  guidance  on  substitution,  the  reduction  option  most 
suitable  for  their  installations; 

implement  this  option,  whether  in  the  design  stage  or by  retrofitting; 

quantify  the  flow  of  organic  solvents  within  the  installation,  in  order  to 
determine  whether  they  exceed  the  thresholds  for 
the 
Proposal  and,  where  appropriate,  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  emission 
controls  proposed; 

inclusion  within 

maintain  the equipment  and verify  the quality  of preparation  in  such  a way  that 
permanent  compliance  witrh  the  requirements  of  the Proposal  is  achieved. 

4. 

What economic  effects  is  the  Proposal  likely  to  have? 

Employment 

The  measures  should  stimulate  job  creation  in  industrial  sectors  dealing  with  the 
design  and  manufacturing  of  environmentally-friendly  technology  and  products,  as 
well  as  in  those  dealing  with  the  verification  of  their  proper  use.  The  exchange  of 
information  on  substitution  should  promote  the  adoption  of  innovative  VOC  control 
options. Every  effort  has been  made to adjust  the thresholds  and controls from  sector 
to  sector  and by  size of installation  in order  to avoid  major  direct  negative  effects  on 
the employment  in the  sectors  covered  by the Proposal.  For  all the  sectors under  the 
proposed  Directive  the  additional  costs  are  reasonable  and  proportionate  taking  into 
account the measures being required of other sectors in relation to the ozone problem. 

Investment  and  creation  of  new  business 

The  Proposal  requires  operators  of  existing  installations  to  invest  in  process 
modification,  new  preparations  or  abatement  technology.  For  the  same  reasons  the 
operators  of  new  installations  will  have  to  bear  additional  investment  and  running 
costs  compared  to  an  uncontrolled  situation.The  estimated  annual  costs  of  the 
implementation  of the proposed  Directive  of  about ECU  3 to 4 billion  per year,  to be 
shared  by  several  ten  thousands  of  installations,  will  in  practical  terms  all  be 
reinvested  in  this  sense.  A  significant  proportion  of  these  costs  will  represent 
additional  business  opportunity  for  suppl/ers  of  abatement  and  control  techniques  as 
well  as producers of  substitute products, and therefore  will  simply  represent  a  transfer 
from  one  sector  of  economic  activity  to  another.  The  quantification  of  this  positive 
effect  can  only  be  done  on the  basis  of  a  set  of wide  ranging  assumptions  which  are 
extremely  difficult  to  verify.  The  effect  on  the  industry  directly  affected  by  the 
proposal  is also difficult  to determine in  any  concrete  fashion.  It is possible that by 
adopting  process-integrated  solutions  which  have  a  positive  effect  on  both 
environmental  emissions and process efficiency  certain sectors will reap a benefit  from 

34 

implementing the Proposal's requirements. A first mover advantage over installations 
in  other parts  of the world which later become subject  to  similar  constraints  is also 
possible.  However it cannot be discounted that the offsetting benefits will not balance 
the costs for  certain installations and sectors, leading to a net cost burden.  It should 
be  remembered,  however,  that  the  effects  on  competiveness,  even  in  this  case, 
are likely  to  be  very  minor  compared  with  other  factors  such  as  labour  costs 
and productivity. 

The timetable  for  the investment  has been  designed  in  such  a way  that  in  practical 
terms it stretches over a period of about 7 years, avoiding peak investments. It can be 
expected  that  most  of  the  costs,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  operator,  will  be 
covered by higher prices. However, for most of the sectors the potential price increase 
will be very  small given that the additional  costs are in general in the range of a few 
per,cent,  if  that,  of  the total  costs  of  a product.  In  addition  experience  shows that 
industry which invests early  in new technology  can achieve a significant  first-mover 
advantage.  There  are  also  knock-on  benefits  of  solvent  limitation  measures,  for 
instance in reduced health and safety costs, reduced insurance premiums for industrial 
accident. The Proposal as such should not, therefore,  have negative repercussions on 
the generation  of new businesses in the sectors concerned, and may well have positive 
effects  with  regard  to  the  establishment  of  new  businesses  in  the  environmental 
"clean technology"  sector. 

Competitive position of businesses 

As  stated  above,  great  efforts  have been  made to adjust  the  controls  in  the light of 
evidence on how they will affect  the competitive position of industry. The additional 
costs represented by the current Proposal as a proportion of the costs of the products 
manufactured  by the  sectors covered  is estimated to be low  enough  that  few  if any 
negative  effects  on  the  competitive  position  of  businesses  should  arise,  whether  at 
local,  national  or  international  level.  On  the  contrary,  the  development  of 
environmentally friendly  processes and preparations should in the long run strengthen 
the  position  of  the  sectors  covered,  as  well  as  that  of  their4 suppliers,  given  that 
environmental  protection  is becoming a major  policy  all  over the world. 

5. 

Does the Proposal contain measures to take into account the specific situation of 
small and medium-size  firms? 

The  above  discussion  identifies  several  ways  in  which,  in  close  cooperation  with 
industry  and  Member  States  and  in  consultation  with  small  business  fora,  general 
provisions  have been  incorporated  which  take into  account  the  specific  situation  of 
small  and medium-size firms. In particular: 

(i)  wherever appropriate, thresholds for the applications of the Proposal have been 

laid  down in order to avoid the inclusion  of very  small  installations, 

(ii) 

in most cases the requirements laid down for new and existing small installations 
are less stringent than those fixed for medium  size installations. 

These  provisions  either  exclude  small  or  medium-sized  installations  or  reduce  the 
investments  required  from  operators  of  such  installations  and  stretch  them  over 
significantly  longer time periods. 

35 

Proposal  for  a 
COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 

on  limitation  of  emissions  of volatile  organic  compounds  due  to 
the use  of  organic  solvents  in  certain  industrial  activities 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in  particular 
Article  I30s(l)  thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission6, 

Having  regard  to  the  Opinion  of  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee7, 

Acting  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  189c  of  the  Treaty8,  and  in 
cooperation  with  the  European  Parliament, 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Whereas  the  the  European  Community  Action  Programme  on  the  Environment 
approved  by  the  Council  and  the  Representatives  of  the  Governments  of  the 
Member  States  meeting  within  the  Council  by  resolutions  of  22 November  19739 
17 May  197710, 7 February  198311,  19 October  198712 and  1 February  199313 stress the 
importance  of the prevention  and  reduction  of  air  pollution; 

Whereas  in  the  resolution  of  19 October  1987  the  importance  of  Community  action 
to  concentrate,  inter alia,  on  implementation  of  appropriate  standards  in  order  to 
ensure  a high  level  of  public  health  and  environmental  protection  is  emphasized; 

Whereas the  European  Community  and  its Member  States  are parties  to the  Protocol 
to the  1979  Convention  on Long-Range  Transboundary  Air Pollution  concerning  the 
control  of  emissions  of  volatile  organic  compounds  in  order  to  reduce  their 
transboundary  fluxes  and the fluxes of the resulting  secondary  photochemical  oxidant 
products  so  as to  protect  human  health  and  the  environment  from  adverse  effects; 

Whereas  pollution  due to  volatile  organic  compounds  (VOCs)  in  one  Member  State 
often  influences  the air and water of other Member States; whereas in accordance with 
Article  130R  of  the  Treaty  action  at  Community  level  is  necessary;. 

Whereas,  because  of  their  characteristics,  the  use  of  organic  solvents  in  certain 
processes and industrial installations gives rise to emissions of organic compounds into 
the  air  which  can  be  harmful  for  public  health;  and/or  contributes  to  the  local  and 
transboundary  formation  of  photochemical  oxidants  in  the  boundary  layer  of  the 
troposphere  which  cause  damage  to  natural  resources  of  vital  environmental  and 
economic  importance  and,  under  certain  exposure  conditions,  has harmful  effects  on 
human  health; 

OJNo 
OJNo 
Opinion of the European  Parliament of 
... and Decision of the European Parliament of 
OJNoC  112 ,20.12.1973, p. 1. 
OJNo  C 139, 13.6.1977, p. 1. 
OJNo  C46,  17.2.1983, p. 1. 
OJ No C 328 , 7.12.1987, p. 1. 
OJNoC  138,  1.2.1993, p. 1. 

(OJ No 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

36 

).  Council  Common Position of 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Whereas  the  high  incidence  of  high  tropospheric  ozone  concentrations  in  recent 
years has  triggered  widespread  concern  regarding  the  impact  on  public  health  and 
the  environment; 

Whereas,  therefore,  preventive  action  is  required  to  protect  public  health  and  the 
environment  against  the  consequences  of  particularly  harmful  emissions  from  the 
use  of  organic  solvents  and  to  guarantee  citizens  the  right  to  a  clean  and 
healthy  environment; 

Whereas  emissions  of  organic  compounds  can  be  avoided  or  reduced  in  many 
processes  and  installations  because  potentially  less  harmful  substitutes  are  available 
or  will  become  available  within  the  coming  years;  whereas,  where  appropriate 
substitutes  are  not  available,  other  technical  measures  should  be  taken  to  reduce 
emissions  into  the  environment  as much  as  economically  and  technically  feasible; 

Whereas  the  use  of  organic  solvents  and the emissions  of  organic  compounds  which 
have, the  most  serious  effects  on  public  health  should  be  reduced  as  much  as 
technically  feasible; 

10.  Whereas  installations  and  processes  which  fall  under  this  Directive  should  at  least 
to  authorization  under  Community  or 

they  are  not  subject 

be  registered 
national  legislation; 

if 

11.  Whereas  organic  solvents  are  used  by  many  different  types  of  installations  and 
processes so that - in addition to general requirements - specific requirements must be 
defined,  and  at the  same time,  thresholds  for  the  size  of  the installations  which  have 
to  comply  with  this  Directive; 

12.  Whereas a high level  of environmental protection requires the setting and  achievement 
of  emission  limits  for  organic  compounds  and  appropriate  operating  conditions  -  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  best  available  techniques  -  for  certain  industrial 
installations  and  processes  using  organic  solvents  within  the  Community; 

13.  Whereas  operators  should  reduce  emissions  of  organic  solvents,  including  fugitive 
emissions,  and  of  organic  compounds;  whereas  a  solvent  management  plan  is  an 
important  tool  to  verify  this;  whereas,  although  guidance  may  be  given,  the  solvent 
management  plan  is not developed to the stage where a Community  methodology  can 
be  established;  whereas  the  Commission  should  take  account  of  developments  in  the 
use  of  such  plans  to  establish  such  a methodology  where  appropriate; 

14.  Whereas in some cases Member States may exempt operators from  complying with  the 
emission 
the  use  of 
low-olvent  or  solvent-free  products, provide alternative means of achieving  qeuivalent 
emission  reductions; 

limit  values  because  other  measures, 

such 

as 

15.  Whereas  existing  processes  and  installations  should  adapted  so  that,  within  an 
appropriate  period;  they  meet  the  emission  limit  values  established  for  new 
installations and processes; whereas thiat period should be consistentwith the timetable 
for  compliance  with  Council  Directive  96/61/EC  of  24  September  1996  concerning 
integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control14; 

16.  Whereas  emission  limiting  measures  adapted  before  entry  into force  of  this  Directive 

should  be  taken  into  account  in  an  appropriate  way; 

14 

OJNoL257,  10.10.1996, p. 26. 

37 

17.  Whereas in many  cases small and  medium-sizez, new and  existing installations may 
be  allowed  to  comply  with  somewhat  less  stringent  requirements  to  maintain 
their competitiveness; 

18.  Whereas the relevant parts of existing installations which undergo substantial  change 

must meet the new installation  standards for  the substantially  changed  equipment; 

19.  Whereas  monitoring  of  emissions  is  required, 

including  the  application  of 
measurement  techniques,  to  assess  the  mass  concentrations  or  the  quantity  of  the 
pollutants whose release into the environment permitted; 

20.  Whereas Member  States have to establish  a procedure to be followed  and  measures 

to be taken in case of exceedance of the emission limitations; 

21.  Whereas  Member  States  should 

take  appropriate  measures  to  promote  the 
developments of best available techniques to minimize emissions of organic solvents 
and organic compounds into the environment; 

22.  Whereas Member  States should  report to the Commission  on the implementation of 

this Directive; 

23.  Whereas certain Member States have already adopted measures to reduce VOCs which 
may  not  be  compatible  with  the  measures  in  this  Directive;  whereas  alternative 
approaches  to  reduction  may  allow  the  objectives  of  this  Directive  to  be  achieved 
more  effectively  than  by  implementing  uniform  emission  limit  values;  whereas, 
therefore, Member States may be exempted from compliance with the emission limits, 
if they implement a national plan, which will, within the timetable for implementation 
of  this  Directive,  lead  to  an  at  least  equal  reduction  in  emissions  of  organic 
compounds from  these processes and industrial installations; 

24.  Whereas the Commission and the Member States should collaborate in order to ensure 
that  information  on  the  implementation  of  this  Directive  and  on  the  progress  of 
substitution  options is exchanged, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Aim  and  Scope 

The aim of this Directive is to prevent or reduce the direct and indirect effects  of emissions 
of volatile organic compounds to the environment, in particular to air, and the potential  risks 
to public health, by providing measures and procedures to be implemented for the industrial 
activities defined  in Annex I, in so far as they are operated within the thresholds bands listed 
in Annex III(A). 

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purposes of this Directive the following  definitions  shall apply: 

Authorization 

means a procedure by which the competent  authority  grants authorization to operate 
all or part  of an installation,  by means of a written  decision  or decisions. 

38 

Competent  authorities 

means  the  authorities  or  bodies  responsible  under  the  legal  provisions  of  the 
Member  States for  carrying out the obligations arising from  this Directive; 

Contained  conditions 

means an installation operated in such  a way that the emissions can be collected, and 
are therefore  not entirely  fugitive. 

Emission 

means any discharge of substances or preparations from  an installation or process into 
the environment. 

Emissions. Fugitive 

means any uncaptured emissions of volatile organic compounds into air, soil and water 
as well as, unless otherwise stated in Annex III, solvents contained in the product. It 
includes uncaptured emissions released to the outside environment via windows, doors, 
vents and similar openings. 

Emission Guide Value 

means  an  emission  control  which  should  not be exceeded  as far  as technically  and 
economically  feasible. 

Emission limit value 

means the maximum  quantity  of a gaseous organic compound or a group of gaseous 
organic compounds contained in the waste gases from  an installation, which is not to 
be exceeded under normal operating conditions. If not specified  differently  in Annex 
III, it shall be calculated in terms either of mass of total organic carbon or of mass of 
individual  organic  compounds  per  volume  of  the  waste  gases,  assuming  standard 
conditions for  temperature and pressure.  Gas volumes which are added to the waste 
gas for  cooling  or  dilution  purposes,  shall  not be considered  when  determining  the 
mass concentration  of the pollutant in the waste gas. 

Emission  requirement 

means any type of numerical  emission requirement other than emission limit values, 
fugitive  emission limit values or fugitive  emission guide values. 

Fugitive Emission  Limit Value 

means  the  limit,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  solvent  input  to  the  installation, 
which  the  quantity  of  volatile  organic  compounds  emitted  in  the  form  of  fugitive 
emissions is not to exceed. 

Fugitive Emission  Guide Value 

means  the  limit,  expressed  as  a percentage  of  the  solvent  input  to  the  installation, 
which  the  quantity  of  volatile  organic  compounds  emitted  in  the  form  of  fugitive 
emissions is not to exceed  as far  as technically  and economically  feasible. 

39 

Installation 

means a stationary  establishment  operating one or more of the activities  specified  in 
Annex I.  It includes the production machines and all auxiliary  equipment necessary 
for the operation of the process or processes which is located  at the same site. 

Installation. Existing 

means an installation which is in operation or, in accordance with legislation existing 
before the date on which this Directive is brought into effect,  an installation authorized 
or  in  the  view  of  the  competent  authority  the  subject  of  a  full  request  for 
authorization, provided that the installation is put into operation no later than one year 
after  the date on which this Directive is brought into  effect. 

Installation. New 

means an installation which makes its first full  request for authorization after the date 
on which this Directive is brought into effect  or which is brought into operation more 
than one year after  the Directive comes into  effect. 

Operator 

means any natural or legal person who operates or controls the installation^, where 
this is provided for in national legislation, to whom decisive economic power over the 
technical  functioning  of the installation  has  been delegated. 

Organic compound 

means  any  compound  containing  at  least  the  element  carbon  and  one  or  more  of 
hydrogen,  halogens,  oxygen,  sulphur,  phosphorus,  silicon  or  nitrogen,  with  the 
exception  of carbon oxides and inorganic carbonates and bicarbonates. 

Organic solvent 

means  any  volatile  organic  compound  which  is used  alone  or  in  combination  with 
other  agents,  and without undergoing  a chemical  change, to dissolve raw materials, 
products or waste materials, or is used as cleaning agent to dissolve contaminants, or 
as a dissolver,  or as a dispersion medium,  or as a viscosity  adjuster,  or as a  surface 
tension adjuster,  or a plasticiser, or as a preservative. For the purpose of this Directive 
the  fraction  of  creosote which  exceeds the  threshold  given  for  the  vapour  pressure 
under the particular  condition of use shall be considered  as an organic solvent. 

Registration 

means a procedure,  specified  in  a legal  act,  involving  notification  to  the competent 
authority by the operator of the intention to operate an installation  or process coming 
under the scope of this Directive.  The competent authority must acknowledge receipt 
of the  notification. 

Substances 

means chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur in the natural state or as 
produced by industry, whether in solid or liquid form in the form  of a gas or vapour. 

Substantial  Change 

for a small installation, means an increase in the nominal capacity  of more than 25%. 

40 

for  an  installation  falling  within  the  scope  of  Council  Directive  96/61/EC  of  on 
integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control,  means  the  definition  specified  within 
that  Directive 

for  all  other  installations,  means  an  increase  in  the  nominal  capacity  of  more 
than  10%. 

Volatile  Organic  Compound  (VOC) 

means  any  organic  compound  having  at  293.15K  a  vapour  pressure  of  O.OlkPa  or 
more,  or  having  a corresponding  volatility  under  the  particular  conditions  of use. 

Certain  technical  terms  defined  in  Annex  II. 

Article  3 

Obligations  applying  to  new  installations 

Member  States  shall  adoptthe  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that,  before  being  put  into 
operation,  all  new  installations  which  are  not  already  permitted  under  Directive  96/61/EC 
undergo  registration  or  authorization  so  far  as  the  activities  within  the  scope  defined  in 
Article  1 are  concerned  and  that  new  installations  comply  with  the  requirements  set  out  in 
Articles  5 to  9  of  this  Directive. 

Article  4 

Obligations  for  existing  installations 

Member  States  shall  adopt  the  necessary  measures to  ensure  that: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

All  existing  installations  which  are  not  already  permitted  under  Directive  96/61/EC 
undergo  registration  or  authorization  by  the  time  of  the  first  compliance  date  in 
Annex  111(B) to  this  Directive; 

Existing installations  comply  with the requirements  set out in Articles  5 to 9 not later 
than  30  October  2007; 

Where  an  installation  undergoes  a  substantial  change,  or  comes  within  the  scope  of 
this  Directive  for  the  first  time  as  a  result  of  a  substantial  change,  that  part  of  the 
installation  which  undergoes  the  substantial  change  shall  be  treated  either  as  a  new 
installation  or  as  an  existing  installation  provided  that  the  total  emissions  of  the 
installation  do  not  exceed  those  that  would  have  resulted  if  it  had  been  treated  as a 
new  installation. 

Article  5 

Emission  Limits 

Member  States  shall  take  the  appropriate  measures,  either  by  specification  in  the 
conditions of the  authorization  or, for  installations  subject  to a registration  procedure, 
by  general  binding  rules,  to  ensure  that  paragraphs  2 to  9 are  complied  with. 

All  installations  shall  comply  with  the  emission  limit  values,  fugitive  emission  limit 
values  and  other  emission  requirements  laid  down  in  Annex  III(A),  or  the 
requirements  of  the 
reduction  scheme  specified  in  Annex  III(B).  The  reduction 
scheme does not exempt installations discharging substances specified in paragraphs  6, 
7 and 8 from  fulfilling  the requirements of these paragraphs. Certain installations with 
abatement  equipment  already  in  operation  on  the  date prescribed  for  transposition  of 
this Directive  shall enjoy  a derogation from  the emission limit values in Annex III(A), 

41 

provided  that  the  total  emissions  of  the  installation  do  not  exceed  those  that  would 
have resulted  if all the requirements  of Annex  III(A) were met.  The  scope and  nature 
of this exemption is specified  in Annex III(A). However, for installations not using the 
reduction  scheme,  any  abatement  equipment  installed  after  the  date  prescribed  for 
transposition  of  this Directive  shall  meet  all  the  requirements  of  Annex  III(A). 

3. 

Installations  where two  or  more  activities  are  carried  out,  each  of which  exceeds  the 
thresholds  in  Annex  III(A)  shall: 

(a) 

as regards the substances specified  in paragraphs 6 and 8, meet the  requirements 
of  those  paragraphs  for  each  process  individually; 

(b) 

as regards  all  other  substances,  either. 

(i)  meet  the  requirements  of  paragraph  2 for  each  process  individually:  or 

(ii)  have  total  emissions  not  exceeding  those  that  would  have  resulted  if 

point  (i) had  been  applied. 

The fugitive  emission  guide values given  in Annex III(A)  shall  be  complied  with,  as 
far  as technically  and  economically  feasible. 

Those  processes  and  installations  not  making  use  of  the  reduction  scheme  under 
Annex  III(B)  shall  operated  under  contained  conditions  unless  this  is  technically  or 
economically  not  feasible,  and  emissions  arising  from  all  processes  and  installations 
under  this  Directive  shall  be  discharged  in  such  a way  as to  safeguard  public  health 
and  the  environment. 

Substances  or  preparations  which,  because  of  their  content  of  volatile  organic 
compounds  classified  as  carcinogens,  mutagens,  or  toxic  to  reproduction  under 
Directive  67/548/EEC15,  have  labels  containing  the  R  phrases  R45,  R46,  R49,  R60, 
R61,  are replaced  as far  as possible by less harmful  substances or preparations  within 
the  shortest  possible  time. 

For  significant  discharges  of  the  organic  compounds  referred  to  in  paragraph  6,  that 
is, discharges where the mass flow of the sum of the compounds causing  the iabelling 
referred  to in  paragraph  6 is  greater  than  or  equal  to  10 g/h,  an  emission  limit  value 
of  2 mg/m3  shall  be complied  with.  The emission  limit value  refers  to the  mass  sum 
of  the  individual  compounds. 

For  significant  discharges  of  halogenated  organic  solvents  which  have  labels 
containing  the risk phrase R40, that is, discharges where the mass flow of the  sum  of 
the  compounds  causing  the  labelling  R40  is  greater  than  or  equal  to  100  g/h,  an 
emission  limit  value  of  20  mg/m3  shall  be  complied  with.  The  emission  limit  value 
refers  to the  mass  sum  of  the  individual  compounds. 

All  appropriate  precautions  shall  be  taken  to  minimize  emissions  during  start-up 
and  shut-down. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10.  Where  a  risk  assessment  is  carried  out  in  accordance  with  Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  793/9316  or  Council  Directive  88/379/EEC17  of  any  of  the  substances 
causing the  labelling  R40, R60  or R61 which  are controlled  under  this Directive,  the 
Commission,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  13  of  this 

OJNo  196,  16.8.1967, p. 1. 
OJNo  L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1. 
OJNo  L  187,  16.7.1988, p. 14. 

42 

Directive,  shall  consider  the  conclusions  of  the  risk  assessment  and  shall  modify  the 
controls  on those  substances  as  appropriate. 

Article  6 

Substitution 

1. 

The Commission  shall ensure that an exchange of information  between Member  States 
and  the  sectors  concerned  on  the  use  of  organic  substances  and  their  potential 
substitutes takes place, in an  administratively  efficient  way, to consider  the  questions 
of  fitness  for  use,  potential  environmental  effects  and  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the 
options  available,  with  a view  to  providing  guidance  on  the  use  of'materials  which 
have the least  potential  effects  on air, water,  soil,  ecosystems  and  public health.  The 
Commission  shall  publish  the results  of the  exchange  of  information  for  each  sector. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that: 

(a) 

installations  undergoing  authorization, 

for 
in 
paragraph  1 is taken  into  account  during  authorization  so that  materials  which 
have  the  least  potential  effects  on  air,  water,  soil  and  public  health  are  used; 

the  guidance  referred 

to 

(b) 

those  installations  subject  to  registration  are  issued  with  the  guidance  referred 
to  in  paragraph  1. 

Article  7 

Monitoring 

Member  States  shall  specify  appropriate  release-monitoring  requirements, 
including 
measurement  methodology  and  frequency,  evaluation  procedure  and  an  obligation  to  supply 
the  competent  authority  with  data  required  for  checking  compliance  with  this  Directive. 
However, emissions from  stacks to which abatement equipment has been connected and which 
at the final point  of  discharge  emit  more than  10kg/h  of total  organic  carbon  (determined  as 
an  eight-hour  moving  average)  shall  be  measured  continuously. 

Article 8 

Verification  of  compliance  with  emission  limitations 

1. 

2. 

Compliance  with  the provisions  of  Article5(7)  and  (8)  shall  be  verified  on  the  basis 
of the sum of the mass concentrations c<f the individual organic compounds  concerned. 
For  all  other  cases,  compliance  shall  be  verified  on  the  basis  of  the  total  mass  of 
organic  carbon  emitted. 

In  the  case  of  continuous  measurements,  the  emission  limit  values  laid  down  in 
Article  5 and  in  Annex  III(A)  shall  be  considered  to be  complied  with  if: 

(a) 

none  of  the  moving  averages  over  8  hours  of  normal  operation  exceeds  the 
emission  limit  values; 

(b)  none of the one-hourly  averages exceeds the established  emission limit value by 

more  than  a factor  of  1.5. 

For the purpose of calculating the values referred  to in the first subparagraph,  only the 
periods  in  which  the  installations  or  the  processes  are  actually  in  normal  operation 
shall  be  taken  into  account. 

3. 

For periodic measurements, three readings shall be obtained during each  measurement 
exercise,  and  the  measurement  exercises  shall  not  be  more  than  24  months  apart. 

43 

Compliance with the emission limit values laid down in Article 5 and in Annex  III(A) 
shall  bè  considered  to  be  achieved  if  none  of  the  valid,  randomly  measured  values 
exceeds  the  emission  limit  value.  Compliance  shall  be  reverified  following  a 
substantial  change. 

4. 

Compliance  with  the  following  shall  be  demonstrated  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
competent  authority: 

fugitive  emission  limit  and  guide values; 

the  requirements  of  the  reduction  scheme  under  Annex 111(B); 

the  provisions  of  Article  5(3);  and 

-

emission requirements expressed  in terms of solvent emissions per unit  product. 

Guidance  is  provided  in  Annex  IV  on  solvent  management  plans  seving  to 
demonstrate  compliance  with  these  parameters. 

5. 

The  Commission  shall  organize  an  exchange  of  information  on  the  use  of  solvent 
management  plans in Member  States based on the data for  the implementation  of this 
Directive in the three years following  the date prescribed  for  its transposition.  On the 
basis  of  the  results  of  the  exchange  of  information,  the  Commission,  in  accordance 
with  the  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  13,  shall  if  appropriate  amend  this  Article 
and  Annex  IV. 

Article  9 

Non-compliance 

1. 

Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that,  if  it  is  found  that  the 
requirements  of  this Directive  have been  breached: 

(a) 

the  operator  informs  the  competent  authority  and  takes measures  to  ensure that 
compliance  is restored  within  the  shortest  possible  time; 

(b) 

if  necessary,  the  operation  of the  installation  is  prohibited. 

Where the targets of an agreed national  plan are not achieved,  the Member  State shall 
ensure  that  those  industry  sectors  which  fail  to  achieve  their  commitments  and 
obligations under  the  plan  are required  to comply  with  emission  controls  in the  form 
specified  in  Article  5(2),  (3)  and  (4)  and  Annex  III  which  ensure  that  those 
commitments  and  obligations  are  achieved  and  which  at  least  meet  the  provisions  of 
Article  5(2),  (3)  and  (4)  and  Annex  III.  This  compliance  must  be  achieved  on  the 
same timescale  as for  any  other  installation  of the  same type,  or within  two years  of 
the  establishment  of  non-compliance,  whichever  is the  later. 

Article  10 

Information  systems  and  reporting 

At  intervals  of  three  years Member  States  shall  send  information  to  the  Commission 
on the  implementation  of  this Directive,  in  the  form  of  a  sectoral  report  which  shall 
also cover other pertinent  Community  Directives. The report shall  be drawn up on the 
basis  of  a questionnaire  or outline  drafted  by  the Commission  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure laid down in Article 6 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC18. The questionnaire 

2. 

1. 

18 

OJNoL377,  31.12.1991, p. 48. 

44 

or outline  shall be sent to the Member  States six months before  the  start of the period 
covred by the report. The report  shall be made to the Commission  within  nine months 
of  the  end  of  the  three-year  period  covered  by  it.  Member  States  shall  publish  the 
reports produced  at the same time as they  are transmitted  to the Commission,  subject 
to the restrictions laid down in Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC19. 
The  first  report  shall  cover  the  period  2000  to  2003. 

The  information  submitted  under  paragraph  1 shall,  in  particular,  include: 

(a) 

details  of  authorizations  and  registrations  issued  under  this  Directive; 

(b)  details  of  the  extent  of  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  Article  5(2),  (3) 

and  (4)  and  Annex  III,  or  with  the  requirements  of  Article  12; 

(c) 

compliance  with  the  requirements  of  Article  5(6)  and  (8). 

Article  11 

Public  access  to  information 

Without  prejudice  to Directive  90/313/EEC,  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary 
measures  to  ensure  that  applications  for  authorization  for  new  installations  or  for 
substantial  changes are made available for  an appropriate period  of time to the public, 
to  enable  it  to  comment  on them  before  the  competent  authority  reaches  a  decision. 
Without prejudice to Directive 96/61/EC, no obligation to reformat the information  for 
public  consumption  is  implied. 

That  decision,  including  at  least  a  copy  of  the  authorization,  and  any  subsequent 
updates,  must  also be  made  available  to the  public. 

For  installations  undergoing  registration,  the register  and the  general  rules  applicable 
shall  be  made  available  to the  public. 

The results of  emission  monitoring  as required  under the authorization  or  registration 
conditions referred  to in  Article  7 and  held  by  the competent  authority  must be  made 
available  to  the  public. 

Paragraphs  1 and 2 shall  apply  subject to the restrictions regarding grounds for  refusal 
by  public  authorities  to  provide  information,  including  commercial  and  industrial 
confidentiality,  laid  down  in  Article  3(2)  and  (3)  of  Directive  90/313/EEC. 

Article  12 

National  plans 

Member  States may  define  and implement  national  plans for  reducing emissions  from 
the processes and industrial  installations covered by Article  1. These plans shall  result 
in a reduction of the annual emissions of volatile organic compounds from  installations 
covered  by  this  Directive  by  at  least  the  same  amount  as would  have  been  achieved 
by  applying  the  emission  limits  under  Article  5(2),  (3)  and  (4)  and  Annex  III  by 
30  October  2007. 

A Member  State which  does so shall be exempt from  implementation  of the emission 
limit  values  laid  down  in  Article  5(2),  (3)  and  (4)  and  Annex  III. 

19 

OJNoL  158, 23.6.1990, p. 56. 

45 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

The plan shall include a list of the legal measures taken or to be taken to ensure that 
the aim  specified  in paragraph  1 will be achieved,  including details of the proposed 
plan  monitoring  mechanism.  It  shall  also include binding  interim  reduction  targets 
against which progress towards the aim can be measured. 

The Member  State  shall  supply  to the Commission  a copy  of  the plan  by  the  date 
prescribed  for  the transposition  of this Directive. The plan must be accompanied by 
supporting  documentation  sufficient  to  verify  that  the  aim  of  paragraph  1 will  be 
achieved, including any documentation  specifically  requested by the Commission. 

The Member State shall designate a national authority for the collection and evaluation 
of the information  required by paragraph 3, as well as for the implementation  of the 
national  plan. 

If  the  Commission,  in  considering  the plan,  or  in  considering  the  progress  reports 
submitted  by the Member  State under Article  10, is not  satisfied  that the  objectives 
of the programme will  be achieved  within the prescribed  period,  it  shall inform  the 
Member  State and the Committee refered  to in  Article  13 of its opinion  and of the 
reasons for reaching such an opinion. It shall do so within six months of receipt of the 
plan  or  report.  The  Member  State  shall  then  notify  the  Commission,  within 
three months,  of  the  corrective  measures  it  will  take  in  order  to  ensure  that  the 
objectives  are achieved. 

As  regards  the  original  plan,  if  the  Commission  decides  within  six  months  of  the 
notification  of the corrective measures that those measures are insufficient  to ensure 
that the  objective  of the plan  is achieved  within the prescribed  period,  the Member 
State  shall  be  obliged  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  Article  5(2),  (3)  and (4)  and 
Annex  III  within  the  period  specified  in  the  Directive  in  the  case  of  existing 
installations,  and  within  12 months of the date of the Commission's  decision  in the 
case of new installations. 

Article 13 

Advisory  Committee 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  Committee  established  under  the 
first paragraph  of  Article  19  of  Directive  96/61/EC  (hereinafter  "the  Committee") 
operating according to a consultative procedure . 

The representative  of the Commission  shall  submit to the Committee  a draft  of the 
measures  to  be  taken.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  its  opinion  on  the  draft  of  the 
measures to be taken within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according 
to the urgency  of the matter,  if necessary by taking a vote. 

The opinion  shall  be recorded  in the minutes; in  addition,  each Member  State shall 
have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes. 

The  Commission  shall  take  the  utmost  account  of  the  opinion  delivered  by  the 
Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been 
taken into account. 

Article 14 

Sanctions 

Member States shall determine the sanctions applicable to breachs of the national provisions 
adopted  pursuant  to  this  Directive  and  shall  take  all  necessary  measures  for  their 
implementation.  The  sanctions  determined  must be effective,  proportionate  and dissuasive. 
Member  States  shall  notify  these  provisions  to  the  Commission  at  the  latest  by  the 

46 

date mentioned  in  Article  15, and  shall  notify  any  subsequent  modification  of  them  as  soon 
as possible. 

Article  15 

Transposition 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  31  December  1999  at  the  latest.  They  shall 
forthwith  inform  the  Commission  thereof. 

These  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  shall  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication.  The  methods  of  making  such  a  reference  shall  be  laid  down  by  the 
Member  States. 

Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the  provisions  of  national 
law which  they  adopt  in the  field  covered  by  this Directive. 

Article  16 

Entry  into  force 

This Directive  shall  enter into force  on  the twentieth  day  following  that  of  its publication  in 
the  Official  Journal  of  the European  Communities. 

Article  17 

Addressees 

This Directive  is  addressed  to the Member  States. 

Done  at  Brussels, 

For  the  Council 
The  President 

47 

ANNEX  I 

SCOPE 

Categories of industrial activity referred to in Article 1.  In each case the process includes the 
cleaning of the process equipment but not the cleaning of work. 

Adhesive coating: 

any process in which an adhesive is applied to a surface, with the exception of adhesive 
coating and laminating  associated to printing processes. 

Coating processes: 

any process in which a single or multiple application of a continuous film of a coating 
is laid onto: 

vehicles as listed below: 

new cars, defined  as vehicles of category Ml  in Directive 70/156/EEC, and 
of  category  Nl  in  so  far  as  they  are  coated  at  the  same  installation  as 
Ml  vehicles; 

truck cabins, defined as the housing for the driver, and all integrated housing 
for  the  technical  equipment,  of  vehicles  of  category  N2  and  N3  in 
Directive 70/156/EEC; 

vans  and  trucks,  defined  as  vehicles  of  categories  Nl,  N2  and  N3  in 
Directive 70/156/EEC, but not including truck cabins; 

buses, defined as vehicles of category M2 and M3 in Directive 70/156/EEC; 

metallic  and plastic  surfaces; 

wooden  surfaces; 

textile,  fabric, film and paper  surfaces; 

leather. 

It  does  not  include  the  coating  of  substrates  with  metals  by  electrophoretic  and  chemical 
spraying techniques. If the coating process includes a step in which the same article is printed, 
that  printing  step  is  considered  part  of  the  coating  process.  However  prinfng  processes 
operated as a separate process are not included. 

Coil coating: 

any process where coiled steel, stainless steel, coated steel, copper alloys or aluminium 
strip is coated  with either a film forming  or laminate coating in a continuous process. 

48 

Conversion  of natural  or synthetic rubber: 

the  mixing,  milling,  blending,  calendering,  extrusion  and vulcanization  of  natural  or 
synthetic rubber and any ancillary operations for converting natural or synthetic rubber 
into a finished product. 

Drv Cleaning 

any  process  using  volatile  organic  compounds  to  remove  contamination  from  the 
following  manufactured  consumer goods: furs,  leather, down feathers, textiles or other 
objects made of  fibres. 

Impregnation  of wooden  surfaces 

any process giving a loading of preservative in the timber. 

Manufacturing  of coatings, varnishes, ink and adhesives 

the  manufacture  of  the  above final products,  and  of  intermediates  where  carried  out 
at the  same  installation,  by  mixing  of  pigments,  resins  and  adhesives  materials  with 
organic  solvent  or  other  carrier,  including  dispersion  and  predispersion  activities, 
viscosity  and  tint  adjustments  and  operations  for  filling  the  final  product  into 
its container. 

Manufacturing  of pharmaceutical products: 

the  chemical  synthesis,  fermentation,  extraction,  formulation  and  finishing  of 
pharmaceutical  products or intermediates. 

Printing 

a reproduction process of text and/or images in which, with the use of an image carrier, 
ink  is  transferred  onto  whatever  type  of  surface.  It  includes  associated  varnishing, 
coating  and  laminating  techniques.  Only  the  following  sub-processes  are  subject  to 
this Directive: 

flexography  -  a  printing  process  using  an  image  carrier  of  rubber  or  elastic 
photopolymers on which the printing inks are above the non-printing areas, using liquid 
inks which  dry through  evaporation. 

heatset  web  offset  -  a web-fed  printing  process  using  an  image  carrier  in  which  the 
printing  and  non-printing  area  are  in  the  same plane,  where web-fed  means  that  the 
material to be printed is fed to the machine from a reel as distinct from  separate sheets. 
The non-printing  area is treated to attract water  and thus reject  ink.  The printing area 
is treated  to  receive  and  transmit  ink to the  surface  to  be printed.  Evaporation  takes 
place in an oven where hot air is used to heat the printed material. 

laminating  associated  to  a  printing  process  -  the  adhering  together  of  two  or  more 
flexible  materials to produce laminates. 

publication rotogravure - rotogravure used for printing paper for magazines, brochures, 
catalogues or  similar products, using toluene-based inks. 

rotogravure - a printing process using a cylindrical image carrier in which the printing 
area  is below the non-printing  area, using liquid  inks which  dry through  evaporation. 
The  recesses  are filled with  ink  and  the  surplus  is  cleaned  off  the  non-printing  area 
before the surface to be printed contacts the cylinder and lifts the ink from the recesses. 

49 

rotary  screen printing - a web-fed  printing process in which the ink is passed onto the 
surface to be printed by forcing it through a porous image carrier, in which the printing 
area is open and the non-printing area is  sealed  off,  using liquid  inks which  dry only 
through  evaporation.  Web-fed  means  that  the  material  to  be  printed  is  fed  to  the 
machine from  a reel  as distinct from  separate sheets. 

varnishing - a process by which a varnish or an adhesive coating for the purpose of later 
sealing the packaging material  is applied to a flexible material. 

Surface  Cleaning: 

any process except dry cleaning using organic solvents to remove contamination  from 
the surface of material including degreasing. A cleaning process consisting of more than 
one  step before  or  after  any  other processing  step  shall  be  considered  as one  surface 
cleaning process.  This process refers to the cleaning of  work and not to the cleaning 
of process equipment. 

Vegetable oil  extraction  and  fit  and vegetable oil refining  processes. 

the extraction of vegetable oil from  seeds and other vegetable matter, the processing of 
dry residues to produce animal feed, the purification  of fats and vegetable oils derived 
from  seeds, vegetable matter and/or animal matter. 

Vehicle  refinishing20 

all coating processes of a road vehicle as defined in Directive 70/156/EEC, or a part of 
it,  carried  out  as  part  of  vehicle  repair,  conservation  or  decoration  outside  of 
manufacturing  installations,  and  the  original  coating  of  vehicle  with  refmishing-type 
materials, where this is carried out away from  the original  manufacturing  line. 

Winding wire coating: 

coating of metallic conductors used for winding the coils in transformers and motors etc. 

Wood  and plastic lamination 

the adhering together of wood and/or plastic to produce laminates. 

20  The  Commission  shall  consider  approaches  to the regulation  of this  sector by  control  of the 
products  it uses, and  may consequently  remove the  sector from  the scope of this proposal  in 
order to  control  it  by  other  means. 

50 

ANNEX II 

DEFINITIONS 

For the purpose of this Directive: 

Adhesive 

merns  any  preparation,  including  all  the  organic  solvents  or  preparations  containing 
organic solvents necessary  for  its proper application, which is used to.adhere separate 
pans of a manufactured  article. 

Halogenated  organic solvent 

means'an organic solvent which contains at least one halogen  atom per molecule. 

Coating 

means  any  preparation,  including  all  the  organic  solvents  or  preparations  containing 
organic  solvents  necessary  for  its  proper  application,  which  is  used  to  provide  a 
decorative, protective or other functional  effect  on a surface. 

Consumption 

means the total  input of organic solvents into an installation  or a process per calendar 
yea?*,  or  any  other  12  month  period,  less  any  volatile  organic  compounds  that  are 
recovered for re-use. 

Ink 

means  a  preparation,  including  all  the  organic  solvents  or  preparations  containing 
organic solvents necessary for its proper application, which is used in a printing process 
to impress text or images onto a surface. 

Moving average over  8 hours 

means the  calculation,  once per  hour,  of the  arithmetic  average  of  all  valid  readings 
taken during the preceding 8 hours period of normal operating conditions and calculated 
after  each period  of 8 hours of normal  operating conditions. 

Nominal  capacity 

means the maximum mass use of organic solvents by an installation averaged over one 
day, if the installation is operated under normal operating conditions at its design output. 

Normal  operation 

means all periods of operation of an installation  or a process except  start-up and shut 
down operation!» and maintenance of equipment. 

Preparation 

means mixtures or solutions composed  of two or more substances. 

51 

Re-use of organic solvents 

means the use of  organic  solvents recovered  from  an installation  for  any technical  or 
commercial  purpose  including  use  as  a  fuel  where  this  is  demonstrated  to  the 
satisfaction  of the competent  authority, but excluding the treatment  of  such recovered 
organic solvent as waste. 

Standard  conditions 

means a temperature of 273.15 Kelvin and a pressure of  101.3 KPa. 

Start-up and shut-down  operations 

means operations whilst bringing a process, an equipment item or a tank into or out of 
service or into or out of an idling state. Regularly oscillating process phases are not to 
be considered  as start-ups and shut-downs. 

Small  installation 

means an installation  which falls  within  items 6,  11 or  12 of  Annex III(A), or within 
the lower threshold band of items  1, 3, 4,  5, 8,  10,  13, 16, or  18 of Annex III(A). 

Varnish 

means a transparent coating. 

Waste gases 

means the final gaseous  discharge  containing  organic  compounds  or  other pollutants, 
from  a chimney, a stack or an abatement equipment into air. The volumetric flow rates 
shall be expressed  in [m3/h] at standard conditions. 

52 

ANNEX  in 

A:  THRESHOLDS AND EMISSION CONTROLS 

Process 
(Solvent 
consumption 
threshold  in 
tonnes/year)  ' 

Threshold 
(Solvent 
consumption 
threshold  in 
tonnes/yr) 

Emission 
Limit 
(mgC/m3) 

Fugitive/Total* 
Emission  Limit 
(percentage  of 
solvent  input) 

New 

Existing 

Special  provisions 

15-25 
>25 

100 
20 

301 

'Solvent  residue  in  finished 
product  is not  to  be  considered 
as part  of  fugitive  emissions. 
Guide  value. 

>25 

75 

10 

15 

15-25 
>25 

100 
100 

201 
201 

'Guide  value 

1 

2. 

3 

Heatset  web 
offset* 
printing 
. 
(>15) 

Publication 
rotogravure 
(>25) 

Other 
rotogravure, 
flexography, 
rotary  screen 
printing, 
laminating  or 
varnishing 
units 
(>15) 

'Using  qpmpounds  specified  in 
Article  5 paras  5 and  7 
2Limit  refers  to  mass  of 
compounds  in  mg/m3,  and  not 
to  total  carbon.  If  average 
content  of  dichloromethane  in 
all  cleaning  agents  used  over 
12 month  period  is  >  50% by 
weight,  an  emission  limit  of  50 
shall  apply. 

'Installations  which 
demonstrate  to  the  competent 
authority  that  the  average 
solvent  content  of  all  products 
used  does  not  exceed  30%  by 
weight  are  exempt  from 
application  of  these  values. 

4 

Surface 
cleaning1 
(>D 

1-5 
>5 

202 
202 

15 
10 

5 

6 

Other 
surface 
cleaning 
(>2) 

Vehicle 
coating 
(<15)and 
vehicle 
refinishing 

2-10 
>10 

751 
751 

20' 
151 

50 

. 

25 

53 

7 

Coil coating 
(>25) 

501 

5 

10 

5-15 
>15 

100' 
50/752-3 

25 
20 

8 

Other 
coating, 
including 
metal, 
plastic, 
textile, film 
and paper 
coating 
(>5) 

9 

Coating of 
winding wire 
(>5) 

lOg/kg1 
5g/kg2 

10 

Wood 
coating 
(>15) 

15-25 
>25 

100' 
50/752 

25 
20 

11 

Dry 
cleaning 

20 g/kg* '-2 

12 

Wood 
impregnation 
(>  25) 

100' 

45 
or 
11 kg/m3  2-# 

54 

'For installations using 
nitrogenated  solvents which 
use techniques which allow 
reuse of recovered solvents, 
the emission limit shall be 
150. 

'Emission limit applies to 
coating application and drying 
processes operated  under 
contained conditions. 
2The first value applies to 
drying processes, the  second to 
coating application processes. 
Contained conditions are 
assumed. 
3For installations using 
nitrogenated solvents which 
use techniques which allow 
reuse of recovered solvents, 
the emission limit applied  to 
coating application  and  drying 
processes taken together  shall 
be  150. 

'Applies for  installations  where 
average diameter of wire  s 
0.1mm. 
2Applies for all other 
installations. 
Emission limits are expressed 
in grammes of solvent  emitted 
per kilogramme  of product 
produced. 

'Emission limit  applies to 
coating application and  drying 
processes operated under 
contained conditions. 
2The first  value applies to 
drying processes, the  second to 
coating application processes. 
Contained conditions are 
assumed. 

'Expressed  in mass of  solvent 
emitted per kilogramme  of 
product  cleaned. 
2The emission limit  in Article 
5 pararaph  7 does not apply 
for this sector. 

'Does not apply  for 
impregnation with creosote, 
expressed  in mass of  solvent 
per m3 of timber treated. 
Stack emission  limit does not 
apply  if this option is chosen. 

Leather 
coating 
(>10) 

10-25 
>25 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Footware 
manufacture 
(>5) 

Wood and 
plastic 
lamination 
(>5) 

Adhesive 
coating 
(>5) 

Manufacture 
of coatings, 
varnishes, 
inks and 
adhesives 
(>100) 

18 

19 

Rubber 
conversion 
(>10) 

Vegetable oil 
extraction 
(>10) 

85 g/m2 * 
75 g/m2 * 

20g per pair* 

30 g/m2 * 

5-15 
>15 

501 
50l 

100-1000 
>1000 

150 
150 

25 
20 

5' 
3' 

10-15 

>15 

20' 
20' 

30 
25 

olives - 2.5 
kg/tonne(')* 
castor - 3.0 kg/tonne 
rape  seed -1.0 
kg/tonne * 
sunflower  seed - 1.0 
kg/tonne 
soya beans  (normal 
crush) - 0.8 kg/tonne 
soya beans  (white 
flakes) -.1.2  kg/tonne 
other seeds - 3 
kg/tonne 
1.5 kg/tonne  (2)  * 
4 kg/tonne (3)  * 

Emission limits are expressed 
in grammes of solvent  emitted 
per square metre of product 
produced. 

Emission limits are expressed 
in grammes of solvent emitted 
per pair of footwear  produced. 

Emission limits are expressed 
in grammes of solvent emitted 
per square metre of product 
produced. 

'If techniques are used which 
allow reuse of recovered 
solvent, the emission limit 
shall be  150. 

'Installations which achieve 
total emission limit values of 5 
and 3 respectively  are exempt 
from  application of the 
relevant emission  limit. 
The fugitive  emission  limit 
does not include  solvent sold 
as part of a coatings 
preparation in  a sealed 
container. 

'If techniques are used which 
allow reuse of recovered 
solvent, the emission limit 
shall be  150. 

1 Applies to extraction of oil 
from the material  specified. 
2Applies to all  fractionation 
processes  excluding 
degumming  (the removal of 
gums from  the oil). 
3Applies to degumming. 

20 

Manufacture 
of 
pharmaceutic 
als (>50) 

20' 

5 

15 

'If  techniques are used which 
allow reuse of recovered 
solvent, the emission  limit 
shall be  150. 

Emission requirements  in this column marked with this sign are product-based  emission requirements 
referring to total emissions, including solvents used for the cleaning of process equipment, averaged over 
one year.  Otherwise the requirements  refer  simply to fugitive  emissions. 

55 

Article 5(2) derogation 

Those installations which are identified  in the above table as having to meet emission limits 
of 75 mgC/m3 or 100 mgC/m3, and which operate existing abatement equipment which meets 
an emission  limit  value  of  150 mgC/m3  and which  was  put  into  operation  no  earlier  than 
1994,  are  derogated  from  the  emission  limit  values  in  the  above  table,  provided  the  total 
emissions  of  the  installation  do  not  exceed  those  that  would  have  resulted  if  all  the 
requirements of the above table were met. 

The vehicle coating industry 

The emission limits are expressed in  terms of grammes of solvent emitted in relation to the 
surface  area of product in square metres. 

The surface  area of any product dealt with in  the  table below is defined  as follows: 

the  surface  area  calculated  from  the total  electrophorectic  coating  area,  and the 
surface area of any parts that might be added in successive phases of the coating 
process which are coated with the same coatings as those used for the product in 
question^ or the total  surface  area of the product coated in  the installation. 

The surface  of the electrophoretic coating area is calculated using the  formula: 

2 x total weight of product shell 

average thickness of metal  sheet x density of metal sheet 

This method  shall also be applied for  other coated parts made out of sheets. 

Computer  Aided  Design  or  other  equivalent  methods  shall  be  used  to  calculate  the 
surface area of the other parts added, or the total surface area coated in the installation. 

The total emission limit in the table below refers to all process stages carried out at the 
same installation  from  electrophoretic  coating,  or  any  other  kind  of  coating  process, 
through to the final  wax and polish of topcoating inclusive, as well as solvent used in 
cleaning  of  process  equipment.  The  limit  is  expressed  as  the  mass  sum  of  organic 
compounds per m2 of the total  surface  area of coated product. 

Process 
(Solvent  consumption 
threshold  in tonnes/year) 

Production threshold 
(Refers  to annual production  of coated  item) 

Total emission limit 
(g/m2) 

New car coating (>15) 

>5000 

<5000 monocoque  or >3500 chassis-built 

New truck  cabins 
(>15) 

New vans and trucks 
(>15) 

New  buses 
(>15) 

<5000 
>5000 

<2500 
>2500 

<500 
>500 

New 

Existing 

45 

90 

65 
55 

90 
70 

210 
150 

60 

90 

85 
75 

120 
90 

290 
225 

Vehicle  coating  installations  below  the  solvent  consumption  thresholds  in  the  table 
above shall meet the requirements for the vehicle refinishing  sector in Annex III(A). 

56 

B: REDUCTION SCHEME 

Principles 

The  purpose  of  the  reduction  scheme  is  to  allow  the  possibility  to  achieve 
emission reductions, equivalent to those achieved  if the limit values were to be 
applied,  by  other  means.  The  design  of  the  scheme  takes  into  account  the 
following  facts: 

(i)  where substitutes containing little or no solvent are still under development, 
a time extension must be given to the operator to implement his emission 
reduction plans; 

(ii) 

the reference point for emission reductions should correspond as closely as 
possible  to  the  emissions  which  would  have  resulted  had  no  reduction 
action been taken. 

The following  scheme shall  operate for  installations for which  a constant  solid 
content  of  product  can  be  assumed  and  used  to  define  the  reference  point  for 
emission reductions. Where the following method is inappropriate the competent 
authority  may  operate  any  alternative  exemption  scheme  which  it  is  satisfied 
fulfils  the principles outlined here. 

Practice 

(i)  The operator  shall  forward  an emission  reduction plan which includes in 
particular decreases in the average solvent content of the total input and/or 
increased efficiency  in the use of solids to achieve a reduction of the total 
emissions  from  the  installation  to  a  given  percentage  of  the  annual 
reference emissions, termed the target emission. This must be done on the 
following  time frame: 

Time period 

1 

New installations 

Existing installations 

by 30.10.2001 
by 30.10.2004 

by 30.10.2005 
by 30.10.2007 

Maximum 
allowed total 
annual 
emissions 

target emission 
*  1.5 
target emission 

(ii)  The annual  reference  emission  is calculated  as follows: 

(a)  The total mass of solids in the quantity of coating and/or ink, varnish 

or adhesive consumed  in a year is determined. 

(b)  The  annual  reference  emissions  are  calculated  by  multiplying  the 
mass  determined  in  (a)  by  the  appropriate  factor  listed  in  the 
table below.  Competent  authorities  may  adjust  these  factors  for 
individual  installations to reflect  documented increased efficiency  in 
the use of solids. 

57 

Process 

Multiplication  factor  for use 
in item (ii)(b) 

Rotogravure printing; flexography 
printing; laminating as part of a printing 
process; varnishing as part of a printing 
process; wood coating; coating of textiles, 
fabric film or paper; adhesive coating 

4 

coil coating, vehicle refinishing 

food  contact coating, aerospace coatings 

other coatings and rotary  screen printing 

3 

2.33 

1.5 

(iii)  The target emission is equal to the annual reference emission multiplied by 

a percentage equal to 

(the  fugitive  emission  limit  value  +  15),  for  installations  falling 
within  item  6  and the lower  threshold  band of  items  8  and  10 of 
Annex III(A); 

(the fugitive  emission limit value + 5) for all other installations. 

(iv)  Compliance is achieved if the actual solvent consumption determined from 
the Solvent Management Plan is less than or equal to the target emission. 

^ 

SOLVENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

ANNEX IV 

1. 

Introduction 

This Annex provides guidance on carrying out a solvent management plan.  It identifies 
the  principles  to  be  applied  (item  2),  provides  a  framework  for  the  mass  balance 
(item 3) and provides an indication of the requirements for verification  of compliance 
(item 4). 

2. 

Principles 

The solvent management plan serves the following  purposes: 

(i) 

verification  of compliance as specified  in Article 8(4); 

(ii) 

identification  of future  reduction  options 

(iii)  enabling  of  the  provision  of  information  on  solvent  consumption,  solvent 

emissions and compliance with this Directive to the public. 

3.  Definitions 

The following  definitions  provide a framework  for the mass balance exercise. 

Inputs of organic solvents: 

11.  The  quantity  of  organic  solvents  or  their  quantity  in  preparations  purchased  which 
are used  as  input  into  the  process  in  the  timeframe  over  whicn the  mass  balance is 
being calculated. 

12.  The quantity of organic solvents or their quantity in preparations recovered and re-used 
as solvent input into the process.  (The recycled solvent is counted every time it enters 
the process.) 

Outputs of organic solvents: 

01.  Captured  emissions  of  organic  solvents  and/or  organic  compounds,due  to  solvent 

consumption,  emitted  at the outlet of stacks or after  abatement equipment. 

02.  Organic solvents lost in water, if appropriate taking into account waste water treatment 

when calculating 05. 

03.  The quantity of organic solvents which remains as contamination or residue in products 

output from  the process. 

04.  Uncaptured  emissions of organic solvents to air. This includes the general  ventilation 
of rooms, where air is released to the outside environment via windows, doors, vents 
and  similar openings. 

05.  Organic solvents and/or organic compounds lost due to chemical or physical reactions 
(including for example those which are destroyed, eg by incineration or other waste gas 
or  waste  water  treatments,  or  captured,  eg  by  adsorption,  as  long  as  they  are  not 
counted  under 06,07 or 08). 

06.  Organic solvents contained  in collected waste. 

59 

07.  Organic  solvents,  or organic  solvents contained  in  preparations,  which  are  sold  or  are 

intended  to be  sold  as a commercially  valuable  article. 

08.  Organic  solvents  contained  in  preparations  recovered  for  re-use but  not  as input  into 

the  process,  as long  as not  counted  under 07. 

09  Organic  solvents  disposed  of  to  soil. 

4.  Guidance  on  use  of  solvent  management  plan  for  verification  of  compliance 

The  use  made  of  the  solvent  management  plan  will  be  determined  by  the  particular 
requirement  which  is to be verified,  as  follows: 

(i)  Verification  of compliance with the reduction option in Annex 111(B), with an emission 
limit  expressed  in  solvent  emissions  per  unit  product,  and  with  the  requirements  of 
Article  5(2)(ii). 

(a)  For  all  processes  using  Annex  111(B) the  solvent  management  plan  should  be 
done  annually  to  determine  consumption.  Consumption  can  be  calculated 
according  to the following  equation: 

C  =  II  -  08 

A parallel  exercise should also be undertaken  to determine solids used in coating 
in  order  to  derive  the  annual  reference  emission  and  the  target  emission 
each  year. 

(b)  For  assessing  compliance  with  an emission  limit  expressed  in  solvent  emissions 
per  unit  product  the  solvent  management  plan  should  be  done  annually  to 
the 
determine  emissions.  Emissions  can  be  calculated  according 
following  equation: 

to 

E  = F  +  01 

where  F  is  the  fugitive  emission  as  defined  in  section  (ii)(a)  below.  The 
emission  figure  should  then  be  divided  by  the  relevant  product  parameter. 

(c)  For  assessing  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  Article  5(2)(ii),  the  solvent 
management  plan  should  be done annually  to determine total  emissions  from  all 
processes  concerned,  and  that  figure  should  then  be  compared  with  the  total 
emissions that would  have resulted  had the  requirements  of  Annex  III been  met 
for  each  process  separately. 

(ii)  Determination  of fugitive  emissions for  comparison with the guide and limit values in 

Annex  III(A): 

(a)  Methodology 

The  fugitive  emissions  can  be  calculated  according  to the  following  equation: 

F  =  Il  -  01  - 05  - 06  - 07  -  08 

This  quantity  can  be  determined  by  direct  measurement  of  the  quantities. 
Alternatively,  an equivalent calculation can be made by other means, for instance 
by  using  the  capture  efficiency  of  the  process. 

60 

The fugitive  emission limit is expressed  as a proportion of the input,  which can 
be calculated  according to the following  equation: 

I =  II  + 12 

(b)  Frequency 

Determination  of fugitive  emissions for a piece of  plant can be done by  a short 
but comprehensive set of measurements.  It need not then be done again until the 
equipment is modified.  However unless each piece of  plant meets the  fugitive 
emission limit values individually, an annual solvent management plan should be 
done for the installation  as a whole,  to ensure that it complies with the  fugitive 
emission  limit value. 

61 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 538  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

. 

14 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-96-565-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-11380-8 

Office  for  Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg 

62