Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on limitation of emissions of organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities'
Date: 1997-05-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC Directive, air quality, environmental protection, organic chemical, solvent













EUR-Lex - 51997AC0597 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AC0597

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on limitation of emissions of organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities'  


Official Journal C 287 , 22/09/1997 P. 0055 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on limitation of emissions of organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities` () (97/C 287/11)On 17 March 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 May 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Gafo-Fernandez.At its 346th plenary session (meeting of 28 May 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes to one with 14 abstentions.1. Introduction1.1. The proposed directive seeks to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of organic solvents in certain processes and industrial installations. In 1990, these accounted for 20 % of all emissions of such compounds in the European Union.1.2. These VOC are one of the precursors of tropospheric ozone formation, which is a serious problem in a wide area of the European Union and, at very high concentrations in some industrial and urban areas, can have a harmful effect on public health.1.3. This proposal for a directive applies both to sectors not specifically covered by Directive 96/61/EC () on integrated pollution prevention and control and SMEs in sectors covered by the directive. The purpose therefore mainly covers SMEs, including micro-enterprises, employing fewer than ten people.1.4. Finally, the aim of the Commission proposal is to achieve reductions based on the implementation of the BAT (Best Available Techniques) defined in the directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. Average emission reduction per product unit is estimated at 69 %. Assuming an overall increase in production levels, the net reduction in emissions in 2007 would be 57 %. This is expected to be achieved at a total annual cost of ECU 4 billion (i.e. about ECU 10/person or ECU 2 000/mt of VOC - less, in any event, than the ECU 3 000/mt anticipated for reductions under the Auto-Oil programme).1.5. In order to meet this objective, the Commission has put forward three options. The first, provided for in Article 5 and Annex III A, is to set individual emission limit values by sector. These values would be applied to all new installations and put into effect gradually in existing installations which will be allowed a grace period up to 2007. The second is the reduction system provided for in Annex III B and the third is the one set out in Article 12 which allows Member States to submit national emission reduction plans. The same reduction levels as those achieved by implementation of the emission limit values would be obtained, but Member States would have greater flexibility for varying the reduction required between sectors.1.6. Additional measures provided for in the proposed directive concern: authorization for new installations and the criteria for changing existing ones (Articles 3 and 4 respectively), the procedures for pooling information among Member States (Article 6), the criteria for emission measurement and monitoring (Article 8), public access to information (Articles 10 and 11), and the establishment of an advisory committee (Article 13). The proposal also contains an annex providing guidelines to ensure compliance in the event of solvent management techniques being used. Finally, stricter emission limit values are set for a small number of solvents that are potentially harmful to health.2. General comments2.1. Subject to the provisos set out below, the Economic and Social Committee supports the proposal for a directive aiming to replace hazardous solvents gradually by less hazardous solvents or the use of alternative techniques. The proposal which seeks to complement other measures, especially those designed to reduce emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors from land transport and Directive 94/63/EC () on the control of VOC emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution (Stage I). It also supports the ozone precursor control measures set out in Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control. This directive is particularly relevant as it currently regulates the VOC emissions from many of the installations covered by this proposal.2.2. However, because of the complementary nature of these measures, particularly the directives based on the Auto-Oil Programme, the Committee, as in similar opinions (), would like to draw attention to the fact that the European Commission has not made an overall assessment of the combined effect of all these measures on air quality, in terms of precursors of tropospheric ozone formation, in the various regions of the European Union. It may be that proposals are being drawn up which are not justified in cost-benefit terms (including social costs), or else that additional measures are needed. The Committee therefore feels that an assessment of this kind is urgently needed.2.3. One of the difficulties for the implementation of the proposed directive is the large number of industrial sectors and companies involved (about 400 000, many of which are SMEs and microenterprises). As each one has its own problems and the cost of reducing emissions will differ, it will be difficult to develop a uniform reduction methodology for each individual sector and strike a balance, in cost-benefit terms, when setting individual reduction levels for each sector.2.4. The draft directive is highly technical and complex. Although both Commission and industry representatives maintain for the reasons stated above that this complexity is unavoidable, this could pose problems in terms of implementation in national law and subsequent monitoring of compliance. It is therefore vital to ensure that the directive is correctly implemented throughout the European Union. It may also be worthwhile to simplify the criteria for the subsequent monitoring of compliance.2.5. The Committee feels that insufficient detail has been provided about the criteria on which the definitions of minimum solvent use thresholds and emission levels for each sector are based. It therefore recommends that in national plans, described in Article 12, national authorities use the sectoral limit values, based on air quality characteristics in each individual area.2.6. Many industrial sectors seem to feel that the economic cost will, in some cases, be very high and the risk of losing competitiveness, and possibly jobs, considerable. Moreover, the Commission has been unable to show how the cost of the measures will differ from region to region or whether the harmonization criterion are justified by differences in air quality from one region to another, particularly as the legal basis of this draft directive is Article 130s.2.6.1. Where a sector is entirely covered by Directive 96/61/EC, and its emission problems are truly integrated, then its control should be left to that directive (e.g. pharmaceutical primary manufacture).2.7. The option provided for in Article 12 whereby Member States may draw up and implement their own national emission reduction plans instead of applying the reduced limit values set for each sector seems appropriate from the point of view of subsidiarity and the Committee would welcome its adoption by all Member States. However, the Committee feels that, in practice, it would raise certain questions:2.7.1. Excessive use of this principle could distort competition if, for instance, the required reduction were achieved through the closure of high-emission installations, whilst emissions from the remaining installations remained unchanged, or if certain sectors only, e.g. those with lower compliance costs, were required to reduce their emissions.2.7.2. The national plans are not required to take air quality in various parts of a country as a basic criterion for determining the reduction measures needed in each of the affected sectors or firms.2.8. The national plans should therefore specify 1) the overall reduction to be achieved, which should be equivalent to that obtainable via individual limits, and 2) the reductions to be achieved by sector, comparing these to the reductions required under the individual limits and relating them to their impact in terms of improved air quality in the various regions of the country.2.9. The directive's emission reduction objectives and measures should remain a common concern so that all Member States, regardless of the volume of emissions from industries sited within their borders, contribute to such reduction.3. Specific comments3.1. The definitions of substantial change (Article 2) and small installation (Annex II) are confusing as no increase in capacity is stipulated for firms not considered as small installations under this Directive and not covered by Directive 96/61/EC (large installations). It must be stressed that most of the affected firms are either microenterprises or SMEs and that large firms are subject to the substantial change rules contained in Directive 96/61/EC. Generally speaking, therefore, increase in capacity should be 25 % for microenterprises or, alternatively, at least 20 % of a plant's nominal capacity, in line with normal engineering practice.3.2. For installations not covered by Directive 96/61/EC the system for authorization or registration should normally enter into force on 30 October 2007, which is the date by which the new emission-limiting equipment will have to be installed.3.3. Article 5(2) is complex, in that it puts forward three different approaches: individual limit values for each sector, alternative reduction schemes and the compatibility of abatement equipment installed before the entry into force of the directive. It might be appropriate to deal with each of these approaches separately so as not to complicate the implementation and monitoring of the directive.3.4. The monitoring requirements set out in Article 7, which allow individual Member States considerable freedom in line with the principle of subsidiarity should be extended and Member States should be allowed to determine whether such monitoring is justified in technical and economic terms; care must, however, be taken to ensure that the data are reliable.3.5. The definition of fugitive emissions in Article 2 should be changed: there should be a general exception, instead of the case-by-case exceptions stipulated in the special provisions contained in Annex IIIA for solvents incorporated into the product during manufacture which by nature do not give rise to fugitive emissions.Brussels, 28 May 1997.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ C 99, 26. 3. 1997, p. 32.() OJ L 257, 10. 10. 1996 - ESC opinion: OJ C 195, 18. 7. 1994.() OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994 - ESC opinion OJ C 73, 15. 3. 1993.() Opinions on the Community strategy to improve fuel-efficiency in passenger cars and proposals for directives stemming from the auto-oil programme.APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Amendments defeated In the course of the debate the following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated:Point 2.3 Delete.ReasonCost-benefit analyses can be an excellent tool but seldom include social costs resulting from lack of legislation. Further, such analyses cannot be carried out in the immediate future.Result of the voteFor: 33, against: 47, abstentions: 10.Point 3.2 Delete.ReasonDeadlines should not generally be postponed until the year 2007. Uniform time-limits should be maintained for individual sectors/installations so as to avoid distortion of competition among the Member States.Result of the voteFor: 33, against: 49, abstentions: 10.