Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, environmental protection, pollutant, quality of the environment

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in
ambient air’ (1)

(98/C 214/01)

On 12 December 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
31 March 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Boisserée.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 104 votes in favour and two votes against, with three
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The fifth Environment Action Programme,
1.1.
adopted by the Council on 1 February 1993, provides
for Community legislation on measures to combat
air pollution,
including air quality limits and their
monitoring. The response to this was Council Directive
96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality
assessment and management (2) (the Air Quality Frame-
work Directive). Article 4 of this Directive calls on the
Commission to propose limit values and alert thresholds
for certain air pollutants.

The Commission has fulfilled this mandate by

1.2.
submitting a draft directive on limit values for:

— sulphur dioxide;

— oxides of nitrogen;

— particulate matter;

— lead.

(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

1.3.
Similar proposals covering the other air pol-
lutants referred to in the Framework Directive 96/62/EC
are expected in the near future.

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

2.1.
The draft directive amends existing Community
legislation on air quality limit values and alert thresholds
for SO2, NOx, particulate matter and lead.

The proposed provisions are supported by scien-

2.2.
tific and technical findings concerning

— the effects of all these pollutants on human health;

— the effects on vegetation of SO2 and NOx.

The limit values proposed by the Commission are based
on the internationally agreed 1996 guide values of the
World Health Organization (WHO) which, in turn, are
based on an assessment of the effects of pollutants on
human health. The WHO has not established any guide
values in the case of particulate matter;
it merely
demonstrates the relationship between exposure and
effect, and this has been taken into account in the
Commission proposal.

C 214/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

All in all, the Commission wishes to achieve a high level
of protection.

The proposed limit values are to be met by 2005

2.3.
or 2010.

The table in point 2.6 of this opinion shows the
individual limit values in comparison to the current
regulations.

working groups, which included representatives from
the Member States, industry and environmental organ-
izations.

An independent team of consultants drew up a cost/bene-
fit study to determine what additional action would be
needed in order to meet proposed limit values and to
estimate the cost of such action using cost effective
solutions. This is set against the benefits likely to accrue
if the limit values were met.

2.4.
The Commission’s proposed limit values for
each type of pollutant were drawn up on the basis of
consultations and expert opinions from four different

2.5.
Lastly, the proposal contains rules concerning the
method of measurement and the structure of monitoring
networks.

2.6. Table showing limit values for SO2, NOx, particulate matter and lead in the air

Limit value type

Reference time

Current limit value

Proposed new limit value
and timetable

Comments

SO2 — human health

1 hour

—

24 hours

250-350 (cid:237)g/m3,
(not to be exceeded more
than 7 times per year)

350 (cid:237)g/m3 (not to be
exceeded for more than
24 hours per year)
125 (cid:237)g/m3 (not to be
exceeded for more than
3 days per year)

both from 1.1.2005

SO2 — vegetation
(Ecosystems)

Annual average —

20 (cid:237)g/m3

2 years after the directive
comes into force

NO2 — human health

1 hour

200 (cid:237)g/m3 (not to be
exceeded for more than
175 hours per year)

200 (cid:237)g/m3 (not to be
exceeded for more than
8 hours per year)

If the new limit value could
be exceeded for 175 hours
as before, this would be
roughly
to
100 (cid:237)g/m3.

equivalent

Annual average —

NOx (NO + NO2 = NOx)
vegetation

Annual average —

40 (cid:237)g/m3

both from 1.1.2010

30 (cid:237)g/m3, NOx (NO +
NO2)
2 years after the directive
comes into force

Particulate matter (PM10)
human health
Stage 1 from 2005

24 hours

as

No comparison pos-
sible,
a different
method of measurement
has been used so far

Annual average —

Particulate matter (PM10)
human health
Stage 2 from 2010

24 hours

as

No comparison pos-
sible,
a different
method of measurement
has been used so far

Annual average —

Lead — human health

Annual average

2 (cid:237)g/m3

(not

50 (cid:237)g/m3
exceeded for more than
25 days per year)

to be These are uniform limit
values for all particulate
matter of up to 10 (cid:237)m in
size.

30(cid:237)g/m3

both from 1.1.2005

(not

50 (cid:237)g/m3
exceeded for more than
7 days per year)

to be These are uniform limit
values for all particulate
matter of up to 10 (cid:237)m in
size.

20 (cid:237)g/m3

both from 1.1.2010

0,5 (cid:237)g/m3

from 1.1.2005

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/3

3. General comments

The ESC agrees in principle with the proposed

3.1.
directive, subject to the following observations.

3.1.1.
The Commission proposal is to be seen as part
of the overall approach on the environment (and
particularly clean air policy) in which limit values
for environmental quality (air quality) and emission
reductions complement one another. This ‘twin strategy’
has been favourably received by the ESC on a number
of occasions (e.g. opinion on the IPPC directive) (1).

3.1.2.
The Commission proposal should also be seen
in conjunction with other measures to improve the
quality of the environment, such as the Community
strategy to combat acidification (2).

3.2.
The procedure used in preparing the scientific
and technical groundwork for the Commission proposal
is to be welcomed. The use of working groups made up
of experts from all interested parties proved to be very
successful. This procedure could also serve as a model
for the drafting of similar Community provisions, with
the experts and NGOs involved varying according to
the object of the provisions.

3.3.
The cost-benefit analysis presented in the Com-
mission’s explanatory memorandum is not yet satisfac-
tory. In particular, the definition and assessment of the
benefits (i.e. damage prevention or damage reduction
to be achieved from observing the limit values) is
incomplete:

— only part of the damage to human health attributable
to air pollution is taken into account. The evaluation
of damage to human health in monetary terms is
also problematic;

— material damage (e.g. corrosion) is not quantified in
all cases even though relatively good data are
available;

— on the subject of ecosystems, only damage to
vegetation is accounted for although ‘ecosystems’
are mentioned in connection with the limit values.
There are no data or evaluation criteria for recording
damage to the ecosystem as a whole;

— lastly, there is no consideration given to deterioration
in ‘the quality of life’ (including any deterioration
caused by nuisance or annoyance), although it is
difficult to produce quantifying data on this point.

According to the Commission study, the benefits of
implementing the proposed directive are expected to

(1) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on
integrated pollution prevention and control: OJ C 195,
18.7.1994.

(2) Commission Communication of 12.3.1997 — COM(97)
88 final. Cf. also ESC opinion of 1.10.1997 — OJ C 355,
21.11.1997.

outweigh the costs. This is true even bearing in mind
that it was impossible to make a complete evaluation
of the costs involved in implementing the proposed
measures; the same applies to a far greater degree to the
establishment and evaluation of the benefits to be
achieved.

In this connection, the ESC would reiterate the view
expressed on previous occasions [cf. opinions on the 4th
and 5th environmental action programmes (3)], namely
that the tools for drawing up comprehensible cost-benefit
analyses on which a consensus can be reached are
not yet available. The ESC has repeatedly called for
appropriate evaluation methods to be drawn up [most
recently in its opinion on the review of the 5th action
programme (4)].

3.4.
The ESC feels it is impossible to expect 100 %
certainty in the technical justification for decisions on
environment policy. In cases of doubt recourse should
be had to the environment policy principles enshrined
in the EC Treaty, especially the high level of protection
and the precautionary principle advocated in Article 130r
(2) [cf. the ESC opinion on the review of the 5th action
programme (4)].

3.5.
The said Treaty provisions refer to Community-
level regulations. The powers of the Member States to
introduce more stringent protective measures under
Article 130t of the EC Treaty can be no substitute for
adequate precautionary and protective measures at
Community level, especially since air pollution knows
no national boundaries. It is therefore essential to lay
down Community-level limit values in the directive, in
accordance with Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty, which
ensure a high level of protection.

3.6.
The ESC welcomes the fact that Article 1 of the
draft directive states the twofold objective of maintaining
air quality where it is good, as well as improving it. This
should prevent a deterioration in conditions even in
cases where the air quality readings are below the limit
values.

The ESC welcomes the fact that human health
3.7.
takes priority in the definition of what is to be protected,
and that some of the limit values also refer to the
protection of vegetation. When the Commission refers
in places to ‘the protection of ecosystems’, this clearly
means vegetation.

When setting the limit values no account is taken of
material damage through air pollution even though it
has already been well documented in some Member
States and can have considerable economic implications.

(3) OJ C 180, 8.7.1987 and OJ C 287, 4.11.1992.
(4) OJ C 212, 22.7.1996.

C 214/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

3.8.
Establishing the limit values on the basis of the
work done by the WHO follows the line taken in the
5th action programme and specifically in the ESC
opinion (1). The WHO values are agreed internationally;
they are recommendations which should not be exceeded
if damage to human health is to be prevented.

4. Comments on individual provisions

4.1. Limit values in detail

4.1.1. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r S O 2

The Commission’s proposal to transpose the
3.8.1.
WHO recommendations into Community law in line
with the framework directive is endorsed by the ESC
for the following reasons:

— Transposition into Community law is consistent
with the EU’s basic thinking on environment policy,
which the ESC has repeatedly endorsed (see point
3.1.1 of this opinion).

— The Member States can only be obliged to take a
uniform approach under comparable conditions if
the WHO recommendations are adopted as legally-
binding standards; this will harmonize the level of
protection afforded by the measures taken to protect
health and the environment in line with the precepts
of the EC Treaty.

— Only legal provisions can form a basis for adminis-
trative decisions according to Article 10 of the
directive concerning integrated pollution prevention
and control (2).

The provisions on limit values for pollutants
3.8.2.
in ambient air are to serve as a basis for improvement
plans within the meaning of Article 8 of the framework
directive. This article requires the Member States to
draw up (a) a list of zones and agglomerations in which
the levels of one or more pollutants are higher than the
limit value plus the margin of tolerance, and (b) an
improvement plan for such areas to ensure that the limit
value can be attained within the specific time limit. The
ESC assumes that such improvement plans can also be
implemented by way of an environmental agreement (3).

3.9.
As regards the limit values to protect vegetation,
a distinction is rightly made between agglomerations
and other areas. But the Commission proposal does not
provide a clear delineation. Under the subsidiarity
principle, the Member States have responsibility for
fleshing this out, but it is doubtful whether this will be
adequate. The ESC suggests drawing up recommen-
dations for the Member States.

The fact that the new limit values are to be
3.10.
phased in over time should be seen as a compromise.
For some areas, consideration should be given to whether
the grace periods allowed are appropriate.

(1) See point 5.3 of the ESC opinion on the 5th Action

Programme — OJ C 287, 4.11.1992.

(2) Directive 96/61/EC of 24 9.1996 — OJ L 257, p. 26.
(3) Commission communication of 27.11.1996 (COM(96) 561

final).

The ESC would ask that consideration be given to
whether the limit values should be made more stringent:

— The values aimed at protecting human health are
to significantly reduce health risks,

insufficient
especially in agglomerations.

— Limit values as proposed by the ESC for protection
against material damage (e.g. corrosion, damage to
outside paintwork etc.), which refer to SO2 and
particulate matter, would in some cases be more
stringent than those for the protection of human
health, making a cost-benefit evaluation particularly
important.

4.1.2. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r N O 2

For health and economic reasons, the ESC would ask
that consideration be given to whether these values,
which serve to protect human health, could not come
into effect in 2005 along with the values for other
pollutants, rather than in 2010 as provided for in the
draft directive.

4.1.3. L i m i t

v a l u e s

f o r

p a r t i c u l a t e

m a t t e r

— The ESC feels it is correct to apply the limit values
to particles with a diameter of up to 10(cid:237)m in the
first instance and to indicate only ‘action levels’
for smaller particles (2.5 (cid:237)m), as no Europe-wide
measurements are yet available for smaller particles.
These reference variables should be revised once
more refined measuring techniques are available,
providing data for urban, industrial and rural areas.
The Commission should report on this no later than
two years after the directive has come into force.
This aspect is particularly important as WHO and
American studies show that smaller particles are an
especially serious health risk.

— The time periods for implementation of the limit
values and for frequency distribution also need to
be reviewed. In some Member States, the values
envisaged for 2010 in the draft directive will already
apply in 2005.

— The lack of limit values for material damage (with
a possible differentiation between agglomerations
and other areas) is of particular concern in the case
of particulate matter, especially as SO2 and particles
have a cumulative effect and the limit values for
human health do not entirely rule out material
damage.

— Guide values based on empirical and scientific
findings, or recommendations for appropriate pro-
tection measures, should be drawn up which the
Member States could implement to protect historic
city centres, buildings or monuments forming part of
the European, national or regional cultural heritage.

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/5

4.1.4. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r l e a d

The Commission’s proposals should be seen as just a
first step towards protecting human health; Article 10
rightly provides for a review of the effect of lead
depositions on surfaces for the progress report due in
2003. Such depositions could damage human health via
the food chain.

4.2. Other provisions in the draft directive

Under Article 7(6) of the draft in conjunction
4.2.1.
with Article 12 of the framework directive, the technical
details concerning measurement and sampling are to be
adapted to progress by the Commission using the
so-called comitology procedure. But according to the
second sentence of Article 12(1) of the framework
directive, amendments which result in a direct or indirect
modification of limit values or alarm thresholds must
be dealt with under the normal legislative procedure.
This will be the case for amendments to Annexes VI
and VII of the draft insofar as they have a direct bearing
on the limit values.

4.2.2.
Article 8 of the draft requires the Member
States to inform the public; the ESC is particularly
pleased to see that environmental organizations, con-
sumer associations and other relevant bodies are to be
involved in this process. The information should be
provided in a generally understandable form. Naturally,
this does not affect the rights of everyone to information

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

under Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access
to information on the environment. (1)

5. Concluding remarks

5.1.
The Commission proposal contains limit values
for only a few pollutants; the ESC would suggest that
work on drawing up limit values for the other substances
included in the programme of the framework directive
be completed soon and the relevant draft directives
submitted. When extending the directive as regards limit
values for pollutants, the provisions concerning alarm
thresholds should also be extended, because at this stage
the thresholds refer only to SO2.

5.2.
Conformity with EU air quality values will be a
challenge for new states coming into the Union. The
adoption of air quality limit values — if necessary over
a certain period of time — should be included in
accession negotiations at an early stage.

5.3.
The progress reports to be presented by the
Commission (Article 10 of the draft), which the European
Environment Agency will also be involved in drafting
(Article 11(3) of the framework directive), should also
be submitted to the ESC.

Consideration could be given to combining the progress
report with proposals for revision or expansion of
the directive. This is the procedure used with other
environment policy legislation.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS