Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 94/67/EC on Incineration of hazardous waste'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: combustion gases, dangerous substance, waste incineration, wastewater, water pollution

C 214/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
amending Directive 94/67/EC on Incineration of hazardous waste’ (1)

(98/C 214/02)

On 2 February 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 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 Gardner; co-rapporteurs were Mr Ceballo Herrero
and Mr Colombo.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 and 30 April 1998), the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 110 votes with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This proposal introduces the concept of Inte-
grated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), as
recently adopted by the Council (Directive 96/61/EC) (2),
into Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous
waste (3). The aim of the proposed directive is to prevent
the transfer of pollutants from air to water by introducing
controls on waste water resulting from hazardous waste
incineration facilities, particularly in relation to scrubber
effluent
liquor. The proposal does so by revising
completely Article 8 of the existing Directive (94/67/EC)
and adding a new annex.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Economic and Social Committee welcomes
the Commission’s intention to control the release of
dangerous pollutants and approves the proposal subject
to the comments below.

The Committee agrees there is a need to prevent
2.2.
the transfer of pollution and hence considers the incor-
poration of relevant measures into Directive 94/67/EC
as a necessary contribution to environmental control.
Many Member States already impose restrictions to
discharges of waste water from hazardous waste inciner-
ation facilities. It is appreciated that there is considerable
disparity in the limits currently set ranging from no
limits at all to the stringent discharge permits in at least
one Member State.

2.3.
The proposal aims at limiting aquatic pollution
through the setting of the same uniform limits for all
discharges throughout the EU. The Committee believes
that a number of the proposed limit values appear to
have been culled from some national legislations, and

(1) OJ C 13, 17.1.1998, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

has reservations on whether sufficient research has been
performed, and whether adequate data on practical
operational situations has been gathered, to ensure the
proposed values are the most appropriate for EU-wide
use.

2.3.1.
Furthermore, the Committee considers that,
for some of the pollutants included in the Annex,
uniform emission values, are ‘minimum’ values so each
Member State can set more stringent limits where
necessary, taking into consideration the quantity of the
pollutant mass released, receptor sensitivity and the local
environment (e.g. natural variation in the composition of
water).

2.3.2.
In this connection, the Committee notes that
the Commission has currently started legal action against
no fewer that six Member States concerning their
transposition of the base Directive 94/67/EC. This
indicates that there may be real implementation prob-
lems and makes it all the more important to base this
amendment on sound facts applicable throughout the
EU.

2.3.3.
In the opinion of the Committee, the proposal
is at variance with some of the principles agreed under
the recent IPPC Directive, in particular Article 9(4),
which states that discharge limits should be appropriate
to a particular site and be set as part of the permit for
that site. This takes into account the local environment
and is also in line with subsidiarity.

2.3.4.
The Commission, however, appears to present
the proposal only in accordance with Article 18(1) of
the IPPC Directive: Community emission limit values.
Clarification is, therefore, required over the conflict
between these Articles of the IPPC Directive, and
confirmation over which is the dominant Article, within
the context of this proposal, is vital to prevent any
confusion among Member States.

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/7

2.4.
The Committee is concerned that the full costs
and impact of this proposal have not been worked out
because of the lack of information on numbers of
non-commercial in-house hazardous waste incineration
facilities (e.g. a small hazardous waste incinerator
located in a research facility), and lack of clarity among
Member States and individual plant operators of what
does and does not constitute hazardous waste.

2.4.1.
Recent proposals for additions to the EU
Hazardous Waste List (94/904/EC) (1) and the European
Waste Catalogue (94/3/EC) (2) identify sewage sludge
and effluent treatment plant residues, among other items,
as being potentially hazardous. Proposed additions and
revisions of these documents could greatly increase the
number of installations affected.

2.4.2.
Equally there is a grey area as to where clinical
waste may become classed as hazardous due to the
presence of cytotoxic wastes and other potentially
hazardous wastes within the waste stream. This could
greatly increase the number of installations affected;
hence the borderlines need to be clearly defined.

3.2.2.
Since an incineration plant’s infrastructure for
collecting and piping rainwater will intercept such water,
preventing it from entering the plant and possibly
becoming contaminated by contact with equipment, the
draft directive should not apply to this intercepted
rainwater.

3.2.3.
Irrespective of the water pretreatment, treat-
ment and cleaning systems, registers should be kept for
samples taken before and after such treatments and,
automatically, before they are finally discharged into
rivers or sewer systems.

3.2.4.
As they stand, these paragraphs infer that
rainwater and/or cooling water which may also be
discharged from a ‘plant’ would be considered as
contaminated and also be subject to a permit. However,
it is understood that only the effluent from the scrubber
itself will be subject to the limits set in Annex IV. This
is far from clear in the text of Article 8 and clarification
should be provided.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Explanatory memorandum — VI Benefits and

costs of action or lack of action

3.1.1.
A cost-benefit analysis may have been done on
the base Directive (94/67/EC), however, the number of
installations and scope of installations covered may
have substantially changed since 1994. In addition, the
proposed requirement for separate effluent treatment
might incur significant additional costs, particularly
where such treatment is not easily incorporated into an
existing facility. The Committee, therefore, expresses its
reservations on the proposal not including a cost-benefit
analysis of these additions.

3.2.

(Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraphs 1 and 3

This should be changed to ‘any waste water
3.2.1.
with a risk of contamination discharged from an
incineration plant shall be subject to a permit granted
by the competent authorities’.

(1) Council Decision of 22 December 1994, OJ L 356,

31.12.1994.

(2) Commission Decision of 20 December 1993, OJ L 5,

7.1.1994.

3.2.5.
There is also a need to clarify within Article 8,
how this paragraph applies in those cases when there is
no wet-scrubbing due to use of dry techniques (i.e.
where a wet scrubber is not used, a permit is still
required for wastewater discharges, however, the limits
in Annex IV should not apply).

3.3.

(Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 4

Clarification is required as to what is con-
3.3.1.
sidered the point of discharge from the incineration
plant to reduce confusion. It should also be made clear
that
the Article applies regardless of whether the
discharge enters the aquatic environment and/or sewer-
age system.

3.3.2.
There may be situations where the discharge
from an incinerator enters a large and complex waste
water treatment works. Further treatment is then carried
out and a permit is complied with for the site as a whole.
Such a site could have one or more incineration facilities
feeding effluent into the inlet of the combined treatment
works. Other wastes from rainwater, bin washing, etc.
may also enter. Clarity is, therefore, required on how
the limits would be enforced. Mass balances would
prove difficult due to the natural presence of some of
the pollutants in water and the complex dilution effects;
which would be difficult to calculate and enforce.

C 214/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

In complex arrangements (1) it would not be
3.3.3.
feasible to carry out any mass balances due to the
fluctuations in composition and flow attributed to such
a facility. The monitoring points would also be excessive
and unnecessary. Flexibility should be allowed to use an
alternative method.

3.3.4.
Also this article does not consider the sensitivity
of the receptor and whether it is foul drainage, where
further treatment will be carried out by the sewerage
company, inland water or tidal water. The conflict
between Articles 9(4) and 18(1) of the IPPC Directive,
within the context of this proposal, requires clarification.

3.4.

(Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 6

3.4.1.
Clarification is required on where the so called
‘operational control parameters’ apply. Temperature
can determine likelihood of further reactions. For
intermediate discharges, the parameters need not include
turbidity as this would change after subsequent treat-
ment. Flow is important with regard to the inlet,
final discharge and at pollutant sampling points for
correction. The pH is the crucial control parameter in
relation to the waste water discharge.

3.5.

(Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 7

Sampling and analysis requirements should be
3.5.1.
appropriate to the likely emissions in the effluent.
Further comment is provided below.

3.6.

(Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 8

uncontaminated rainwater should not need to be stored
(see comments made in relation to Article 8 para-
graph 1).

3.7.2.

The paragraph should be reworded to state:

‘Storage capacity shall be provided for potentially
contaminated rainwater run-off from the inciner-
ation plant site or for contaminated water arising
from spillages or fire fighting operations, allowing
for any volume of contaminated rainwater run-off
which may occur during the incident.’

3.8.

(Article 1 = new) Annex IV

3.8.1.
The IPPC Directive states in Article 9(4):
‘geographical and local environmental conditions must
be taken into account’ for authorization conditions. As
discussed earlier and within the context of this proposal,
this Article is in conflict with Article 18(1) which calls
for the setting of Community-wide emission limit values
for hazardous waste incineration facilities.

3.8.2.
For suspended solids, the highly toxic metals
(polluting substances 2-4 of Annex IV) and for dioxins
and furans (polluting substance 15 of Annex IV), the
Committee agrees with the setting of EU-wide emission
limit values. However, for the other metals (polluting
substances 5-14 of Annex IV) natural background levels
can vary widely. Taking as an example figures for only
one UK region, ranges in receptors for some metals were
found to be in (cid:237)g/l:

3.6.1.
The Committee agrees with the proposed
sampling frequencies for polluting substances 1-4 of
Annex IV, but considers that monthly measurement
should prove sufficient for polluting substances 5-14.
Again it should be left to Member States and/or the
regulatory authority to impose more stringent control
where considered necessary.

Copper: River < 1 - 12,6,

Estuary <1 - 297.

Zinc: River < 4 - 103,

Estuary <4 - 105.

Nickel: River < 5 - 30,

Estuary <3 - 72.

3.7.

(Article 1 = new) Article 8 paragraph 10

3.7.1.
The way the article is worded suggests that
storage capacity is required for all rainwater even if it
Intercepted and hence
could be uncontaminated.

(1) Re-circulation of effluent liquor, multi-stage scrubbing or

a multi-incineration facility.

3.8.3.
The effluents from some installations with very
small volumes will only be of negligible environmental
significance, in relation to metals 5-14, given the back-
ground variations, relative flows and dilution effects.

3.8.4.
For metals 5-14, the present Annex prescribes
EU-wide limits which do not take needs of the local
environment into account. The Committee considers
that control of these pollutants would best be achieved
by changing the present limit values to benchmark
values for achieving environmental quality standards.

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/9

3.9. Article 2

3.9.1.
This proposal is under the cooperation pro-
cedure which is always lengthy and where the total

timing is unpredictable. [January 1998] therefore must
be replaced by:

‘x months after adoption of the directive’.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on
the limitation of the emission of oxides of nitrogen from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes’

(98/C 214/03)

On 13 February 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 84(2) 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 Gafo Ferna´ndez and the co-rapporteurs were Mrs
Ström and Mr Tsirimokos.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 119 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The aim of this proposal for a directive is to slow
down the rate of increase in NOx emissions from
subsonic jet aircraft; it endeavours to offset the projected
rapid growth in air traffic over the coming years by
improving the emission efficiency of new engines on
aircraft operating in the EU.

1.2.
To this end, new NOx emission limits are laid
down for engines, based on two different levels of thrust.
At the same time it is prohibited to register aircraft in
the Member States with engines which do not meet the
directive’s requirements.

1.3.
To give engine manufacturers and airlines suf-
ficient time to implement these provisions, two reference
dates are laid down. The first, 31 December 1999, is the
deadline for new engine models to comply with these
new limitations; the second, 31 December 2007, is the
cut-off date for the installation in aircraft of engines
whose first model was manufactured before the entry
into force of this directive.

The above-mentioned ban applies only to aircraft
1.4.
registered in an EU country so as not to affect the
operation of aircraft registered in third countries overfly-
ing or landing in the EU.

The proposal

1.5.
incorporates and supports the
resolution of the third meeting of the Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP/3), which is
part of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO).

2. General comments

The Committee approves the proposed directive
2.1.
which should help to improve the environment as
regards both the formation of ozone in the upper
troposphere and the reduction of greenhouse gas emis-
sions (effect of N2O).

2.2.
Precisely because of the greenhouse effect of the
N2O, the Committee feels a mention should be made of
the contribution which this measure will make to
meeting the commitments entered into at the Kyoto
Conference.