Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste'
Date: 1999-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, waste incineration

C 116/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.4.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the
incineration of waste’

(1999/ C 116/10)

On 30 November 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 4 February 1999. The rapporteur
was Mrs Sirkeinen.

At its 361st plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 85 votes in favour, 17 against and 12 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The proposed directive is intended to replace two previous
directives adopted by the Council:

— Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the
prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste
generation plants;

— Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the
reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-
incineration plants.

The EU’s waste management policy framework was revised in
1997 by the Council Resolution of 24.2.1997 on a Com-
munity strategy for waste management (97/C 76/01). This
states that (paragraph 22):

‘The Council “recognizes, as regards recovery operation,
that the choice of option in any particular case must
have regard to environmental and economic effects, but
considers that at present, and until scientific and techno-
logical progress is made and life cycle analyses are
further developed, reuse and material recovery should be
considered preferable where and insofar as they are the
best environmental option”.’

Any examination of how the waste incineration directive
relates to other EU legislation, should take into account the
other directives which have been adopted(1).

The Commission argues that a new directive is needed to
replace the existing directives on incineration of municipal
waste because of, inter alia, the following shortcomings in
these directives:

— Current EU legislation only covers the incineration of

certain wastes.

— The requirements relating to co-incineration of wastes may
be less stringent, with the result that increasing amounts
of waste go to co-incineration.

— The EU has sought, in a number of contexts, to limit
emissions of heavy metals, dioxins and furans. However,
emission limit values for dioxins and furans are only
addressed in the directive on hazardous waste incineration.

— Imposition of more stringent controls on air emissions for
incineration plants can lead to the transfer of pollutants
from air to water.

— The proposed directive is designed to remedy shortcomings
in the existing legislation on incineration, by imposing
more stringent air emission limits for incineration plants;
it also seeks to introduce uniform provisions governing
co-incineration throughout the EEA.

— The Commission feels that it is extremely important to use
the energy recovered by incineration as effectively as
possible.

— The Commission has elsewhere drawn attention to the
worrying increase in the quantity of waste across the EU.
Indeed, one of the priorities of the EU’s waste management
policy is to reverse this trend to one of waste reduction.

2. General comments

(1) Council Directive of 18.3.1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC
on waste; Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988
on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air
from large combustion plants (LCP) and the Commission proposal
for amending this Directive of September 1998 (98/C 300/04);
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20
December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste; Council
Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 on Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC); Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16
December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste.

2.1. The need for a Directive on waste incineration

2.1.1.
Efficient sorting of waste at source can help in the
implementation of the waste management hierarchy. The first
priority of this hierarchy is to prevent the creation of waste. If
this is not possible, waste must be recovered first, as material,
and secondly, as energy. The final alternative is appropriate

28.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/41

handling at landfill sites. Waste materials must be sorted so
that different waste types can be treated in the most suitable
manner.

2.1.2. Waste incineration can reduce pressure on landfill
sites and, according to current thinking, also reduce green-
house-gas emissions which accelerate climate change, while
saving on non-renewable fossil fuels. The Committee shares
the Commission’s view that waste incineration without energy
recovery in the form of heat or electricity generation should
be restricted.

The Directive(1) on packaging and packaging waste
2.1.3.
requires a reduction in the quantity of packaging waste, its
effective recovery and recycling. The forthcoming product-
specific priority waste stream directives are expected to contain
similar aims. According to the new Community Strategy for
waste management(2), the first priority remains recycling of
waste. However, the fact is that, because of limited demand,
recycling can only partially meet the requirements laid down
in the directive. Moreover, as the collection of waste increases
so,
is not
technically possible to recycle. Incineration is then the only
way in which this surplus waste can be recovered.

too, does the recovery of materials which it

2.1.4.
The Economic and Social Committee supports the
Commission’s intent to monitor waste incineration emissions
and endorses the Commission proposal which argues that
sustainable development is achievable. The objective must be
to ensure a high level of health and environmental protection,
as well as the restriction of unwelcome cross-border waste
shipments. The draft directive is on the right lines, but it has
certain shortcomings. The Committee therefore proposes the
following comments and revisions.

2.2. Uniform legislation and procedures will reinforce the internal

market

2.2.1.
The Committee agrees with the Commission on the
need to prevent the release of pollutants into the environment
and therefore considers that the adoption of appropriate
provisions is essential from the point of view of the environ-
ment and human health. Uniform provisions are needed in
order to harmonize the provisions for, and monitoring of
waste incineration and to prevent unfair competition in the
European Economic Area. The Committee would nevertheless
point out that the introduction of new provisions does not in
itself always lead to the required level of harmonization. A
precondition for harmonization in practice is that the pro-
visions be implemented and their application monitored.

The interpretation of the definition(3) of waste used
2.2.2.
in the Waste Framework Directive is deplorably inconsistent
and efforts to clarify this interpretation have not had the
desired effect. High hopes were set on the guidelines(4) drawn
up by the OECD, but they have proved to be of little help in
distinguishing clearly between waste and non-waste products
in ambiguous cases. In the absence of coherent guidelines,
Member States apply different methods in borderline cases to
determine whether a given material is waste or not.

2.2.3.
The Committee strongly endorses the Commission’s
proposal for an integrated permit scheme for incineration
plants, which would enable the competent authorities to
control both dedicated incineration plants and co-incineration
plants.

2.3. Coherence with IPPC- and LCP-directives must be ensured

2.3.1.
According to the Fifth Environment Action Pro-
gramme, the aim of the IPPC Directive is to ensure that the
permit procedure for emissions of industrial pollutants and its
control is harmonized throughout the Member States at the
latest by 30 October 1999. The objective is to ensure, over
the long-term, a high level of environmental protection
throughout the EU, by making environmental permits con-
ditional upon the best available technology, while nevertheless
taking into account the technical characteristics of the instal-
lation concerned, its geographical location and local environ-
mental conditions.

In the LCP Directive 88/609/EEC, emission require-
2.3.2.
ments are differentiated according to whether a combustion
plant is a new or existing installation. By contrast, in the
proposed directive on waste incineration, the formula for the
determination of emission limit values for co-incineration
takes no account of differences in the technologies employed
by new plants and existing plants, i.e. plants for which the
original operating licence was granted before 1 July 1987 on
the basis of the LCP directive, which is still in force. The
Committee supports the objective of developing the tech-
nologies employed by older existing plants for the protection
of air quality so that they meet the technical specifications of
new plants as soon as possible.

2.3.3.
The emission limits in the draft directive appear to
be based on a cost-benefit assessment rather than the best
available technology (BAT). The accuracy and scope of the
assessment are therefore important. The description of the
assessment included in the Explanatory Memorandum does
not clearly explain the criteria for this assessment, nor its
scope. For example,
the figures provided only apply to
plants based in exceptionally large European cities in densely
populated areas.

(1) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20

(3) Article 1(a) of Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991

December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste.

amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste.

(2) Council Resolution of 24 February 1997 on a Community

(4) OECD Guidance document for distinguishing waste from non-

Strategy for waste management.

waste, 1998.

C 116/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.4.1999

2.4. Sorting waste to ensure that different waste types are treated by

the most suitable plants

2.4.1.
The Committee would stress that, where necessary,
waste intended for incineration should always be sorted and
pre-treated before being sent to an incineration plant so as to
ensure safe incineration and protection of the environment
and human health. Wherever possible, material classified as
non-hazardous waste should be sorted from waste which is
non-hazardous in itself but likely to give rise to harmful
emissions, as well as from hazardous waste. Industrial waste,
in particular, can generally be clearly sorted. Producers and
holders of waste must provide incineration plants and co-
incineration plants, in particular, with precise information on
the quality and characteristics of waste so that they can assess
the suitability of the waste for incineration in the plant
concerned. Strict emission limits are appropriate for the
incineration of non-hazardous waste which might, conceiv-
ably, give rise to harmful emissions, such as dioxins, furans or
environmentally-undesirable heavy metals.

2.4.2.
Agriculture and forest residues and wood, with
the exception of those that may contain halogenic organic
compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment, are
excluded from the scope of the draft directive. The Committee
asks the Commission to study whether other non-recyclable
materials classified as wastes, but not causing harmful emis-
sions when incinerated, could also be excluded from the scope
of the proposed directive. Such materials are for instance
non-halogenated plastic materials, paper, cardboard and tex-
tiles.

2.5. Restricting dioxin and furan emissions is essential

2.5.1.
Dioxins and furans are particularly harmful sub-
stances, and the incineration of non-hazardous mixed waste,
particularly household waste has been identified as one of the
major sources of such emissions. Since even low-level emis-
sions of dioxins and furans are a potential hazard to human
health and the environment, the Committee feels that preven-
tion of these emissions must be a priority. This is best done by
encouraging separation of waste at source. In the Committee’s
view, incineration of waste containing halogens and particu-
larly chlorine should be restricted in incineration plants where
outdated or otherwise deficient technology does not adequately
prevent emissions of dioxins and furans into the surrounding
environment in flue gases.

2.6.2.
Incineration conditions in modern cement kilns and
power and heat-generation plants may be even better than
those in the newest incineration plants. The temperature in
cement kilns is about 1 450 (cid:176) C. Furthermore, many new power
and heat-generation plants and the technology they use are of
such a high standard that the stringent requirements set for
waste incineration are easily achievable.

The Committee considers that the Commission’s
2.6.3.
proposal to allow co-incineration is appropriate but that it
does not go far enough. In particular,
it will probably be
impossible to meet the requirements laid down in the packag-
ing waste directive, in the case of chlorine-free plastics and
fibre-based packaging waste unsuitable for recovery without
recourse to incineration. In Member States such as Ireland,
Austria, greece, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom,
where there are only a few, if any, dedicated incineration
plants, compliance with the recovery targets set out
in
the packaging waste directive requires co-incineration on a
considerable scale. The alternative is for packaging waste
unsuitable for recovery to be shipped to landfill sites or to
other Member States for incineration. The Committee does
not consider this option to be recommendable from the point
of view of life cycle assessments (LCA).

2.6.4.
Power and heat generation plants and some industrial
installations suited for the purpose have expressed an interest
in principle in co-incinerating hazardous waste. The Com-
the Commission proposals on co-
mittee thinks
incineration serve this interest without undermining the need
to protect the environment and public health.

that

2.6.5.
In the case of co-incineration of non-hazardous
wastes which complies with the existing stringent emission
limit values applied to the flue gases of the regular fuel, there
seems to be a need to further study possibilities of developing
the directive proposals on co-incineration in order to meet
both strict health and environmental protection levels and the
optimal use of existing incineration capacity.

2.6. Co-incineration as a requirement

for achieving the waste

recovery objectives

2.6.1.
The Committee feels that existing infrastructure
should be used in waste management in order to ensure cost
efficiency and to maximise the competitive requirements of
EU companies. The construction of new dedicated waste
incinerators should be avoided if appropriate and safe inciner-
ation capacity is available in existing industrial, power and
heat-generation plants.

The economic life of many power and heat-
2.6.6.
generation plants and cement kilns can run into tens of years,
and there is no economic justification for their replacement by
new plants. The Committee suggests that, during a sufficiently
long transition period, existing or old plants involved in the
co-incineration of non-hazardous waste giving rise to harmless
emissions should use the emission limit value laid down in the
permit of the plant concerned as the Cproc value in the
formula set out in Annex II of the Commission proposal. By
contrast, in the case of new incineration plants, as defined in
the LCP directive,
there is justification for applying the
emission limit values laid down in the Commission proposal.

28.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/43

2.7. The monitoring requirement should involve a risk assessment

2.7.1.
In many dedicated waste incineration plants, the
material fed into incinerators is not homogeneous, and may in
some cases be of undefined composition. The Committee
supports the Commission’s proposal for fairly extensive con-
trol and monitoring.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Article 4, Application and permit

As the Commission suggests in its draft proposal, the monitor-
ing of incineration requires a permit system. It is extremely
important when permits are issued that waste qualifying for
incineration is defined in a genuinely unambiguous way, in
accordance with Article 4(4)1.

3.2. Article 7, Annex II, Air-Emission Limit Values

To achieve the hierarchical objectives of
the EU’s waste
management strategy, the Committee proposes that, in accord-
ance with the LCP directive, in the case of combustion plants
and kilns classified as existing plants, less stringent emission
values should be applied for the incineration of non-hazardous
waste giving rise to harmless emissions, in accordance with
the directive in question, than for new plants. In practice this
could be done, for example over a ten year transition period,
by using the emission value defined in the environmental
permit for the particular plant in question as the Cproc term
in the formula given in Annex II.

3.3. Article 13, Abnormal Operating Conditions

Abnormal operating conditions aggravate incineration emis-
sions. The Committee endorses the Commission proposal to

Brussels, 25 February 1999.

set tough restrictions on incineration in cases where the
requirements for good incineration are not met.

4. Conclusions

4.1.
The harmful effects of incineration on the environment
and public health must be minimised and the energy produced
during incineration must be put to the best possible use. This
can be achieved by setting up a uniform permit procedure and
through careful monitoring by authorities.

4.2.
Incineration is beneficial for environmental protection
because it dramatically reduces the volume of waste and
almost without exception the energy released can be recovered.
Furthermore, most studies indicate that waste incineration
indirectly reduces the release of greenhouse gases more
harmful than carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and this
helps to slow down climate change.

4.3.
The incineration of unsorted waste and incineration
carried out under otherwise imperfect conditions can neverthe-
less result in the release of harmful emissions, which may
result in damage to the environment and human health. The
Committee therefore feels that it is extremely important for
waste incineration in the EU to be properly monitored in a
uniform manner, and in line with the requirements of the
IPPC Directive, to ensure sustainable development and the
protection of health and the environment. The Committee
would stress the value of separating waste at source. However,
unclear definitions of waste and subsequently divergent
interpretations by Member States may lead to discrepancies
between EU Member States.

4.4.
The co-incineration of waste in heat and power
generation plants, as well as in industrial furnaces, reduces the
need for investment in new incineration plants. The Committee
recommends that this consideration be taken into account in
subsequent stages of the legislative procedure.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI