Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the landfill of waste'
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental protection, storage of waste, waste disposal, waste management













EUR-Lex - 51997AC0980 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AC0980

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the landfill of waste'  


Official Journal C 355 , 21/11/1997 P. 0004 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the landfill of waste` () (97/C 355/02)On 10 April 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 July 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Colombo (co-rapporteurs: Mr Boisserée and Mr Gauder).At its 348th plenary session (meeting of 1 October) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 69 votes to one, with one abstention.1. Introduction1.1. The proposal under review is a new version of the one submitted in 1991 (), on which the Committee delivered an opinion, setting out a number of critical comments (), and the Council adopted a common position () which was rejected by the European Parliament on 22 May 1996.1.2. Main points of the Committee's 1991 opinion1.2.1. The Committee stressed the importance of an overall preventive approach to waste, involving action at every stage of production, distribution and consumption in order to reduce the amount of waste for disposal by landfill (1.3 and 2.2). It asked the Commission to tighten its prevention policies by clearly setting out reduction deadlines and targets and by gradually disseminating recovery and recycling technologies. The Committee also stressed the need for pre-treatment of waste in order to reduce its quantity and toxicity (1.3).1.2.2. The Committee regretted the failure to mention initial and in-service training of landfill personnel (2.8) and recommended that public information and consultation mechanisms be established (2.9). Finally, it stressed the need for a data bank of the volume and types of waste produced in the Community, and was relying on the European Environment Agency to help collate such data (2.4 and 2.5).1.2.3. In its specific comments, the ESC called for extreme caution in view of the risks involved in mixing different types of waste (3.4.1), stressed the need for qualified inspection and monitoring staff (3.4.2), considered that civil liability fell within the scope of the draft directive on civil liability for damage caused by waste (), which was then in the course of adoption, and acknowledged the impossibility of achieving harmonization of costs. It hoped, nevertheless, that approximation of costs would be achieved through the harmonization of standards and urged the Commission to collect aggregate national data on disposal costs so as to build up a detailed statistical picture (3.8).1.3. The Council's common position1.3.1. Following its review of the common position adopted by the Council on 6 October 1995, the Committee, in a memo dated 14 February 1996, noted the change in the legal basis (Article 130s instead of 100a) approved by the European Parliament, and welcomed the clearer definition of the preventive approach contained in the recitals and the references to training in the recitals and in Article 9(1). It endorsed the stricter approach to mixed disposal, which took on board some of the ESC and EP recommendations. Finally, it noted with some concern the deletion of the articles on and references to civil liability and the closed landfill site management fund. This was because the Commission was preparing proposals on the entire issue of civil liability for damage to the environment. In this connection the Committee undertook to monitor these efforts, which have so far failed to produce satisfactory results.1.4. The European Parliament's position at the second reading1.4.1. In May 1996, the Parliament rejected the Council's common position. It was particularly dissatisfied with a number of exceptions and additional measures granted to the Member States on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, and with the excessive leeway allowed in matters concerning mixed disposal.1.5. The most important new features of the Commission's new proposal1.5.1. As clearly shown in the section on background, the Commission took into account the developments in waste management policy, recently reviewed by a communication on which the Committee has issued an opinion () and the Council has adopted a resolution ().1.5.2. Reduction at source heads a list of recently confirmed priorities, with landfilling used only as a last resort. The new proposal contains quantitive provisions limiting the disposal of biodegradable waste and banning the disposal of used tyres (Article 5).1.5.3. The proposal acknowledges the Committee's concern that waste should be pre-treated in order to reduce its quantity and toxicity (Article 6), and provides for gases generated by waste to be collected, treated and utilized.1.5.4. Member States are asked to ensure that the rates for waste disposal in landfill cover the estimated costs of aftercare operations following site closure (Article 10), in line with the Committee's wishes.1.5.5. Mixed disposal, no longer practised in most Member States, is now banned, as recommended by the Parliament and the Council (deletion of Article 7 of the Council's common position).1.5.6. General requirements are tightened (Annex I), with the introduction of a minimum distance between landfill sites and residential areas, plus other measures to protect the surrounding environment.1.5.7. The provisions applicable to existing landfills are stricter and the number of exceptions allowed under the common position of the Council (Article 3.3), which had triggered the opposition of the European Parliament, scaled down considerably.2. General comments2.1. The Committee welcomes the main thrust and declared objectives of the proposal. These objectives (stimulation of waste prevention, recycling and recovery of waste, landfilling as a last resort, high levels of environmental protection around the sites, internalization of environmental costs and promotion of a level playing field for costs in the Member States) are in keeping with the consistent implementation of Community waste management strategy, recently upheld in the Council resolution on waste policy.2.2. The Committee is pleased to see that the current version of the proposal has taken on board many of the recommendations and comments made by the Committee and the European Parliament on the first version of the directive; however, some important points have been overlooked, and the Committee feels these should most definitely be included.2.2.1. Firstly, there is a need for programme guidelines for landfill technicians and managers. Landfills do not just require careful planning; they also need to be carefully managed by informed operators throughout their lifetime. Those in charge of technical and monitoring operations must receive adequate technical and managerial training, and be fully aware of their remit and responsibilities. It is not enough to insist on professional competence when granting the permit; national and regional authorities must also set up ongoing training/updating programmes for technicians and those in charge of running and monitoring the sites. Exchanges of experience could help with the establishment of career briefs at Community level.2.2.2. Secondly, the proposal needs to reflect the environmental-information access criteria specified by the relevant directive (), and to provide for adequate levels of public participation in the decisions on disposal operations. Informed citizen participation in the decisions the public authorities have to make can only be achieved through transparency and information on environmental impact and safety guarantees. The Committee urges an addition to Article 8 of a clause calling on the competent authorities to inform the public of any steps taken to ensure the landfill complies with authorization requirements.2.2.3. Finally, given that the proposal also aims to encourage waste pre-treatment and recovery techniques, the Committee calls on the Commission to provide fresh impetus for the following:- research to collate reliable statistics on waste production and types of waste, particularly for industrial waste;- specific directives and regulations on priority waste-flow management, starting with the recovery of used tyres;- Community regulations on civil liability for environmental damage.3. Specific comments3.1. The Committee feels that some aspects of the proposal need further clarification, particularly as regards:- a clear definition of sludge, pending the results of the current review of the sludge directive;- application of the directive to waste producers' in-house landfill facilities, to which the regulations on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) ought to apply.3.2. The Committee welcomes the aim to reduce the landfilling of biodegradable waste, as this is in line with the policy of cutting 'greenhouse-gas` emissions, of which methane from landfills is a major culprit. It would point out, however, that only urban waste, and not industrial waste, is targeted. In this respect, the Committee regrets that the declared lack of reliable statistics concerning industrial waste flows and types of waste makes it impossible to set credible reduction targets for the landfilling of biodegradable waste. It feels that, given the circumstances, the directive should entrust the European Environment Agency and Eurostat with the task of rapidly producing reliable statistics and computations in order to frame a suitable policy for industrial waste.3.3. The Committee believes the Commission was right to ensure that existing landfills are covered by the new proposal, by specifying a fixed-period conditioning plan to be agreed with the competent authorities. The proposal does not, however, address the problem of landfill sites which will be closed without a conditioning plan within the five years provided for under Article 14. It can reasonably be assumed that some landfills built and run according to technical criteria which did not comply with the new directive might, in the future, require conditioning and remediation action.3.3.1. Considerable funding is often needed for this type of remediation. The Committee is of the opinion that the 'polluter pays` principle should be adopted. Additional and complementary measures will have to be framed for cases where the culprits cannot be found, though it will be particularly difficult to find a solution because the various member countries have enacted very different legislation, and because attempts to frame a common policy on civil liability have not yet produced the desired results.3.3.2. The adoption of a new landfills directive provides the incentive to look again at this problem and to reflect on the case for national funds for the remediation of landfills which have closed down before the new standards become mandatory. Since they will be operating for several years without having to bear the costs of compliance, the possibility of internalizing an additional fund quota in the disposal tariffs should be assessed.3.4. Whilst the Committee endorses the proposal to ensure an adequate aftercare phase following closure of the landfill, it feels that, further to guaranteeing financial security for at least 50 years, the operator should always be required [Article 13(3)] to guarantee a minimum maintenance, monitoring and control period; this would avoid any widely differing practice in the various Member States which would eventually be reflected in greatly differing running costs.3.5. During the construction phase, continuous quality control operations carried out by independent third parties must be compulsory [Article 7 and Article 8(2)]. A risk analysis should also be included in Article 7(5).3.6. The Committee feels the proposal seriously underestimates the environmental impact and potential risks from the dispersion of landfill gas in the subsoil. The proposal should devote more space to this problem, and establish clear planning and management standards, particularly as regards the need to build artificial barriers in sites where the geological make-up of the terrain is such as to facilitate migration of gas in the ground. The first point of Annex I (4) (Gas control) should at least specify that 'landfill gas migration` covers dispersal into the atmosphere as well as dispersion in the subsoil. Similarly, for control and monitoring procedures, the third indent of Annex III (3) (Emission data: water, leachate and gas control) should require gas monitoring to be representative not just for each section of the landfill, but also for the surrounding subsoil.3.7. On landfill requirements and monitoring procedures, the following should be included in the review of the Annexes:3.7.1. The standards and methods used in calculating the K permeability factor [Annex I (3)] should be specified, even though this falls within the remit of the Committee referred to in Article 16. Alternatively, it might help to specify that the landfill base must protect against seepage for at least ten years.3.7.2. The leachate chemical analysis (Annex III (4) footnote 17) should also include: iron, magnesium, ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrites and nitrates, electric conductivity, chlorides, Redox potential, and an ecotoxicity estimate.3.7.3. Groundwater sampling [Annex III (4)] should be carried out over a sufficient period of time to establish seasonal and local variations in the quality and quantity of groundwater.3.7.4. Finally, in line with the measures promoted by the Commission for the introduction of eco-management systems and satisfactory eco-audit methods in disposal plants, it would be useful if the directive were to recommend and encourage (but not require) the adoption of certified or registered environmental management systems (Re. 1836/93) (), to improve and incorporate traditional systems for the monitoring and surveillance of the various stages of operation.Brussels, 1 October 1997.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ C 156, 24. 5. 1997, p. 10.() OJ C 190, 22. 7. 1991.() OJ C 40, 17. 2. 1992.() OJ C 59, 28. 2. 1996.() That directive was never adopted by the Council and discussions on the question of civil liability for environmental damages are still under way and have not yet resulted in legislative proposals.() OJ C 89, 19. 3. 1997.() OJ C 76, 11. 3. 1997.() OJ L 158, 23. 6. 1990.() OJ L 168, 10. 7. 1993.