Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants'
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, air quality, chemical industry, chemical process, pollution control measures

12.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/55

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
amending Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the
air from large combustion plants’ (1)

(1999/C 101/13)

On 23 October 1998 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 Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 January 1999.
The rapporteur was Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez.

At its 360th plenary session (meeting of 27 January 1999) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to 25 with 20 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The proposal contains a major revision of Direc-
tive 88/609/EEC, although most of the text remains in
force.

1.2.

The revision is based on five main considerations:

— The 1988 directive provided for its revision ten years

after its entry into force.

— Changes in the Community energy scene, with
greater use of natural gas for electricity generation
and a continuous decline in Community coal pro-
duction.

pollution

— The adoption of other environmental protection
legislation, most importantly Directive 96/61/EC on
integrated
control
(IPPC) (2) and Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air
quality (3) , and the growing importance of the
combating of acidification (4) and tropospheric
ozone, which directly affect the area to which this
directive applies.

prevention

and

— The accession to the Community of three new
Member States and international agreements on
transboundary pollution.

— Technical progress which could increase the econ-
omically attractive ways of reducing SO2, NOx and
particulate emissions.

The proposal for a directive contains a number

1.3.
of amendments to Directive 88/609/EEC:

— It broadens the scope of the directive to include
under the heading of fuel certain other classes of
safe, non-toxic wastes (for example biomass); the
directive’s scope is also extended to gas turbines as
power generation systems.

— It places emphasis on combined heat and power
(CHP) generation where technologically and econ-
omically feasible, in line with the recent Council
recommendation.

— It reduces the discretion allowed to the competent
national authorities to apply temporary derogations
in the event of abnormal operating conditions.

— It lays down daily emission limit values for combus-
tion plants put into operation after 1 January 2000.

1.4. However, the most important amendments are
those which refer to the annexes:

— The SO2 and NOx emission limit values for new
combustion plants are roughly half those applied to
plants authorized since 1 July 1987.

— New emission limit values are laid down for gas

turbines.

— The desulphurization requirements are substantially

tightened up for new plants.

— Measuring systems are reinforced, both for existing
plants of above 300 MW (thermal input) and new
plants of above 100 MW (thermal
input), with
priority to continuous measurement.

(1) OJ C 300, 29.9.1998, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(3) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.
(4) Communication from the Commission on a Community
strategy to combat acidification (COM(97) 88 final,
12.3.1997).

— The exception applied under the previous version of
the directive to plants of 400 MW (thermal input) or
greater, provided that their annual operation level is
less than 2 200 hours, will not apply to plants
authorized from 1 January 2000.

C 101/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.4.1999

2. General and specific comments

2.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s
submission of this revision of the Directive on Large
combustion plants, which the Committee called for in
its Opinion on the Proposal on the Sulphur content of
fuel (1).

The Committee is also pleased that the recitals
2.2.
of the draft directive make specific reference to the
directive’s interaction with other Community activities,
in particular Directive 96/61 (IPPC), the directives on
the internal market in electricity and natural gas, and
the strategies for waste management, especially the use
of biomass and combined heat and power.

The Committee is also glad that the recitals refer
2.3.
to the health risks caused by atmospheric pollution and
to the contribution which combined heat and power
generation can make to the achievement of the Com-
munity’s commitment to stabilize CO2 emissions.

2.4. However, here the Committee would express its
first comments on some of the proposals put forward in
the directive:

2.4.1.
The Directive on Integrated Pollution Preven-
tion and Control lays down a specific criterion for the
analysis of each plant in accordance with the best
available technology (BAT) criterion, specifically tail-
ored to the situation of that particular plant in relation
to its environment. Some of the proposals which will be
discussed below, however, are very rigorous, so that in
some cases their application might prove too rigid and
lacking in flexibility, going beyond the recommendations
of the above directive.

2.5.
The Committee is glad that the targets set in the
1988 directive have been retained, both for plants
existing at the date in question and for those authorized
or commissioned after the date in question but before
the current directive entered into force. The Committee
would like to point out, however, that the vast majority
of plants of this kind have had to reduce their emission
levels substantially during this period, as a result of the
application of stricter national or local standards, the
imminent entry into force of the Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control Directive and the commitments
entered into under the 1979 UNECE Convention on
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

2.6.
The Committee endorses and supports the Com-
mission’s approach of requiring provision to be made
for the combined generation of heat and electricity
where this is technically and economically feasible.

The Committee does not approve of the new
2.7.
wording of Article 8 (malfunction of abatement equip-
ment). This is a clear case of interference in a problem,
the assessment and resolution of which is, in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity, the exclusive preserve
of the competent authorities of the Member States,
particularly given the abolition of the ‘force majeure’
provisions of the original directive, whereby the use of
fuels with a higher sulphur content was permitted in
exceptional circumstances for a strictly limited period.

2.8.
But the Committee’s main criticism of the current
proposal relates to the new emission levels for the
various categories of fuel set out in Annexes III to VII,
and by extension in Article 9(3). The Committee is
aware that these levels have been strongly criticized by
all the energy producing sectors as disproportionate to
the intended objectives and impossible to achieve using
economically viable technologies. The criticisms can be
analysed as follows:

These very strict limits in many cases go much
2.8.1.
further than those applicable to individual plants under
the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Direc-
tive, which, the Committee would reiterate, takes
account of the specific characteristics of each plant in
relation to its environment and thus regulates each new
plant before it is authorized for commissioning.

The new limits laid down in Annexes III to VI
2.8.2.
amount to a 50 % reduction in SO2 emissions and
between 30 and 50 % for NOx and suspended particu-
lates, compared with the values laid down only ten years
ago, although, in the Committee’s opinion, economically
viable technologies have not progressed at the same rate.

2.8.3.
The minimum desulphurization limits for
plants using solid fuel laid down in Annex VIII seem
disproportionate, particularly those applying to plants
with a rated thermal input of between 50 and 100 MW.

2.9.
The proposed directive defines biomass as fuel,
even when it is of waste origin (as long as it is
untreated). The Committee supports this approach as
being conducive to increasing the level of waste recovery.
On the same lines, the Committee would ask the
Commission to investigate the possibility of extending
in future the definition of ‘fuel’
to include other
well-defined, clean substances — that have been scientifi-
cally certified as harmless — which are now treated as
waste.

12.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/57

2.10.
The Committee considers that the economic
assessments referred to in the explanatory memorandum
should have been the subject of more profound and
detailed study, as many of the organizations consulted
are highly critical of them and regard the proposal as
very damaging to the competitiveness of the Community
economy.

2.11.
The Committee also has reservations with
regard to the term ‘new plants’ which is frequently used
in the proposal. The Committee would have preferred
Article 2 to define as ‘new plants’ all plants authorized
between 1 July 1987 and the entry into force of the new
directive (so as to leave the current text substantially
unchanged), and as ‘second-generation plants’ those
authorized after 1 January 2000. This would have made
the directive — and particularly its annexes — easier to
understand than does the revision currently proposed.

2.12.
The Committee calls on the Commission to
carry out, as a matter of urgency, a specific study into
the impact of this revision on the Community’s most
remote regions, where geographic and atmospheric
conditions make it worthwhile considering exempting
them from some of the current proposals.

Brussels, 27 January 1999.

2.13.
The Committee also has serious doubts as to
the practical applicability of the new proposal to the
applicant countries for EU accession. As the Committee
has recently pointed out, a suitable transitional period
is needed to enable these countries to comply fully with
the proposal.

Finally, in view of the economic and strategic
2.14.
importance of the proposal and of the complexity of
the changes it entails, the Committee feels that a
consolidated version of the original directive should
have been submitted.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
Insert a new recital 11(b) as follows: ‘Whereas
the situation of the Community’s most remote regions
makes it desirable that specific studies should be carried
out to assess the impact of this directive on, and its
suitability for, these regions, possibly pointing to the
adoption of alternative measures producing equivalent
results in terms of air quality’.

3.2.
Insert a new definition in Article 2 as follows:
‘Second-generation plants: Plants authorized after
1 January 2000’.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

C 101/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.4.1999

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Amendments defeated

During the debate, the following amendments, which received more than 25 % of the votes cast, were
defeated.

Points 2.4 and 2.4.1

Replace with a new point 2.4:

‘The Committee welcomes the Commission’s initiative, inter alia in the light of Article 18 of the IPPC
Directive, to draw up new uniform minimum standards for large combustion plants in the Community.
These specific measures and this harmonization will at the same time create uniform conditions of
competition.’

Reason

Contrary to the assertion of the rapporteur, there is no conflict between the IPPC Directive and the
Commission’s proposal for a directive. If the rapporteur’s argument were to be followed, then logically
the whole text of the draft directive should be rejected. Under Article 18 of the IPPC directive, harmonized
minimum standards may be laid down where this is considered necessary. The Committee might of
course conclude that there is no need for minimum standards. But if the approach adopted in the
proposal is in general accepted, the statements contained in point 2.4 make no sense.

Result of the vote

For: 56, against: 58, abstentions: 18.

Point 2.5

Reword as follows:

‘The Committee notes that existing plants are not intended to fall within the scope of this directive. It
suggests that the directive should be extended to cover these plants in order to achieve stringent emission
reductions.’

Reason

Implementation of the draft directive will reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from large combustion plants
(LCPs) by only 3 % and 6 % respectively by 2010. Reason: the exclusion of existing plants from the
scope of the directive. If, however, the proposed limit values were also to apply to existing plants, SO2
emissions from LCPs would be reduced by 78 % and NOx by 40 %. The EU intends to achieve reductions
of toxic SO2 and NOx emissions, as these are partly responsible for acidification (EU acidification
strategy, COM(97) 88 final). However, the proposal will make only a very minor contribution to this. If
the Committee really attaches high priority to environmental protection, it should at the very least not
be ‘glad’ that emissions from existing plants are not to be reduced.

Result of the vote

For: 54, against: 72, abstentions: 7.

12.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/59

Points 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.8.2 and 2.8.3

Delete.

Reason

The conflict alleged by the rapporteur in point 2.8.1 does not exist. The IPPC directive does not lay
down limit values but merely uses the flexible phrase ‘best available technology’.

Nor is it true that the limit values chosen ‘have been strongly criticized by all the energy producing
sectors’, that they are ‘disproportionate’ or ‘impossible to achieve using economically viable technologies’.
The Commission believes that new plants can easily comply with these limit values.

Result of the vote

For: 56, against: 65, abstentions: 16.

Point 2.10

Delete.

Reason

The Commission’s account (see p. 9 of the draft) of reactions from the industry differs greatly from that
of the rapporteur.

Result of the vote

For: 54, against: 70, abstentions: 10.

Point 2.14

Delete this point.

Reason

The principle of prevention underlying EU environment policy must apply equally in all regions of the
EU.

Result of the vote

For: 49, against: 69, abstentions: 14.