Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste'
Date: 1999-03-10
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: waste disposal, waste incineration, waste management

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/37

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Commission proposal for a Council Directive
on the incineration of waste’

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(1999/C 198/08)

having regard to the proposal for a Council directive on the incineration of waste (COM(1998) 558 —
98/0289 SYN) (1);

having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 7 October 1998, under the first paragraph of
Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the
Regions on the matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its bureau on 15 July 1998 to instruct Commission 4 for Spatial
Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 447/98 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 4 on 4 February 1999
(rapporteur: Mr Mikkelsen),

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 28th plenary session on 10 and 11 March 1999
(meeting of 10 March).

Introduction

1.
The Commission’s final proposal for a Council directive
on the incineration of waste, presented on 7 October 1998,
has been referred to the Committee of the Regions.

2.
The above Commission proposal covers both waste
incinerated in conventional waste incineration plants and
installations for the co-incineration of waste, such as cement
kilns or combustion plants.

General comments

3.
The COR welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a
Council directive on the incineration of waste. This directive
meets a major need and the proposal seems well thought-out.

4.
The purpose of the proposed Council directive is to
help ensure that waste incineration takes due account of
environmental and health considerations. However, it does not
solve problems arising out of the strong resistance in many
areas of Europe to the use of incineration plants as an element
in waste disposal policy which means that landfilling large
quantities of waste is the preferred option in such areas. Here
the risks include pollution of groundwater, the sea, lakes and
watercourses; further, the disposal of biodegradable waste
generates methane emissions, which are a major contributor
to the greenhouse effect.

5.
In the COR’s view, energy-generating waste incineration
can be one component of a modern waste processing system
with the proviso that it must form part of a coherent waste
disposal programme and that waste incineration does not hold
back recycling or waste reduction schemes.
In addition,
far-reaching rules on air, water and other forms of pollution
must be respected in such operations.

The Council’s resolution on a Community strategy for
6.
waste management (2) stresses the need to promote utilization
of waste, e.g. for energy purposes. The Commission’s proposal
for a Council directive on the landfill of waste (3) also
lays down requirements for a reduction in the volume of
biodegradable waste going to landfills. In its opinion of 11
June 1997(4) on the above directive on the landfill of waste,
the Committee of the Regions endorsed these requirements. In
this connection, the COR would point out that an increase in
waste incineration must be expected during the years ahead.

7.
The COR feels that a high level of environment protec-
tion should be the guiding principle for the operation of
incineration plants and that the level of transparency in the
planning, setting up and management of such plants should
also be high. This would help alleviate problems connected
with suitable location and establishment of future plants —
the ‘NIMBY’ (Not in My Back Yard) syndrome. The COR would
stress that local and regional authorities are often the main
organizers and paymasters for waste management and play a
decisive role in communicating with the general public; close
involvement of these authorities is therefore a prerequisite for
the framing of a sound waste management system.

(1) OJ C 372, 2.12.1998, p. 11.

(2) OJ C 76, 11.3.1997, p. 1.
(3) COM(97) 105 final — OJ C 156, 24.5.1997, p. 10.
(4) CdR 112/97 fin — OJ C 244, 11.8.1997, p. 15.

C 198/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.1999

8.
Here it is most important that the setting up of waste
incineration plants should form part of a consistent waste/ener-
gy programme to ensure optimum environmental impact and
credibility as an environmentally friendly option.

Directive 75/442/EEC) and the incineration of waste as
a waste-disposal process (see D10, Annex IIA, Directive
75/442/EEC).

9.
The COR considers that the draft directive on inciner-
ation of waste needs to be backed by provisions requiring the
sorting of waste prior to incineration so as to remove any
unwanted waste components. In this connection, it would
stress the importance of effective sorting at source before
waste is transported to the incineration plant.

10.
Uniform waste incineration guidelines are needed in
the Member States, e.g. to avoid unnecessary transport of
waste from country to country. The COR feels that it is vital
to limit this problem.

The COR disagrees with the proposed provisions
16.
industrial plants to use waste
allowing certain types of
incineration processes which result in pollutant waste com-
ponents being incorporated into products in view of the
potential harm to the environment and/or human health.

17.
The cement industry is one case in point: heavy metal
components of waste are incorporated into cement and
hence into building materials. This dissemination of noxious
substances via cement industry products can ultimately cause
problems when the building materials are used and especially
when they are processed as waste in an uncontrolled way. In
the COR’s view, such processes amount to dilution of waste.

11.
However, the COR considers that realistic transitional
arrangements will be necessary to cover the time-gap between
the draft directive’s entry into force and its transposition
by the individual Member States into national
legislation.
Concurrently steps must be taken to prevent waste being
transported from countries which have implemented the
directive to other countries which do not yet comply fully
with its guidelines.

18.
The COR is opposed to waste incineration processes
which dilute waste and incorporate pollutants (e.g. heavy
metals) into products which are subsequently disseminated in
the environment in the shape of building materials. That
would seem incompatible with the draft directive’s aim (see
fifteenth paragraph of the preamble) of achieving a high level
of environmental protection.

12.
The COR regards the draft directive as particularly
important for local and regional authorities since they are
largely responsible for the setting up and operation of
incineration plants and, in many cases, also for monitoring of
the environmental impact of such plants.

19.
The COR feels that co-incineration of waste should be
permitted only in the case of homogeneous and well-defined
waste components of carefully determined origin and on
condition that it is consistent with an approved waste manage-
ment programme.

The COR is pleased to observe that the sixth paragraph
13.
of the preamble refers to the Council’s Resolution (1) on a
Community strategy for waste management which, among
other things, stresses the need to prevent the transport of
waste for incineration. The COR agrees that transport of waste
should be avoided wherever possible.

The COR notes with satisfaction that this directive is
14.
framed as a minimum set of provisions (see fifth paragraph of
the preamble), thereby allowing the individual Member States
to fix more stringent requirements for the regulation of waste
incineration plants.

15.
The COR welcomes the directive’s guidelines on co-
incineration of waste. Hitherto regulation in this area has been
sadly lacking. In the Committee’s view there is, however, an
urgent need to make a distinction between the co-incineration
of waste as a waste-recovery process (see R1; Annex IIB of

(1) OJ C 76, 11.3.1997, p. 1.

20.
The COR would point out that local and regional
authorities are largely responsible for the establishment of a
sufficient number of efficient waste treatment and disposal
facilities. These facilities should be designed to support sus-
tainable solid waste management, and to reduce amounts of
waste generated and to improve recycling and recovery. In this
connection it should be underlined that the removal of highly
combustible, non-recyclable waste components, will make
it technically, economically and environmentally extremely
to run dedicated waste incineration plants in a
difficult
sustainable way.

Annex II of

the draft directive contains a ‘co-
21.
incineration formula’ for purposes of determining limit values
for air pollution caused by waste co-incineration. A corre-
sponding formula is used in directive 94/67/EC on the
incineration of hazardous waste.

22.
The formula is used to calculate limit values for air
emissions and is based on the percentage of exhaust gases
produced from waste incineration and the percentage pro-
duced from fossil fuels.

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/39

The COR feels that,

23.
in some cases, use of the co-
incineration formula can mean that the limit values for air
emissions of pollutants produced by co-incineration of waste
are not as stringent as those applicable to conventional
incineration plants.

24.
Differing rules for co-incineration and dedicated incin-
eration plants would also seem incompatible with the Com-
mission’s Communication to the Council and the European
Parliament on the review of the Community’s waste manage-
ment strategy, which states: ‘The environmental impact of a
given emission has the same potential
irrespective of the
emitting process. Consequently, there is no reason to set up
different standards for different sectors (industry and waste
treatment facilities) as long as the input material and process
is comparable. The same strict standards should, in principle,
apply for waste whether it is treated in industrial installations
or in waste treatment installation (recovery of disposal).’ The
practical arguments for such an alignment of standards can be
found in the ‘Blokland’ report drawn up for the European
Parliament by MEP Blokland.

Earlier,

in its opinion of 16 January 1997 on the
25.
above strategy, the COR expressed its satisfaction over the
Commission’s drive to ensure that the same standards applied
to waste, regardless of whether treatment was undertaken in
industrial or waste processing plants.

Given the implications described above,

26.
the COR
underlines that the Annex II co-incineration formula must be
written in such a way that uniform limit values for incineration
and co-incineration plant will be set, and uniform conditions
for incineration and co-incineration thereby achieved. If this
can not be achieved by the use of the co-incineration formula,
the COR are of the opinion, that the formula should be
rewritten or replaced by limit values for total air emissions of
pollutants so that the same requirements apply to both waste
incineration and co-incineration plants.

Specific comments on individual articles of the draft
directive

30.
The COR is pleased to note that the definition given in
Article 3 of an incineration plant applies to the entire
process, covering waste reception, storage and sorting prior to
incineration, exhaust gas, waste water, storage of residues at
the plant, etc. In the Committee’s view, there is also a need to
stipulate that the combustion heat generated in the course of
the operation of waste-incineration plants should be recovered,
using state-of-the-art technology, with the aim of cutting
greenhouse gas emissions in line with the commitments
entered into by the EU (Kyoto Protocol).

31.
The COR also observes with satisfaction that the same
definition underpins the definition of waste co-incineration
activities covered by this directive.

32.
The COR agrees with Article 4’s requirement that
energy generated during the incineration process be recovered
as far as possible and that residues be prevented, reduced or
recycled wherever possible.

Here it should be stressed that the development of
33.
methods to reduce and recycle waste incineration residues
needs to be speeded up to curb residue disposal problems. It is
the opinion of the COR that more research is needed in this
area.

34.
In addition, the COR supports the minimum require-
ments indicated in Article 4 regarding the investigations to be
undertaken by the competent authority in connection with the
preparation of waste incineration permits.

27.
However, the COR would stress that care must be
taken, in setting limit values for co-incineration of waste, to
heed the best available technology principle (see also Directive
on Integrated Prevention and Control of Pollution — IPPC
Directive 96/61/EC). Unnecessary emissions must therefore be
avoided.

35. With regard to Article 5 of the draft directive, the
Committee of the Regions feels it must emphasize the absolute
need to implement appropriate monitoring systems to avoid
accidental incorporation of harmful waste.

In the COR’s view,

28.
future work must ensure that
co-incineration and dedicated waste incineration plants are
subject to uniform requirements.

36.
In the COR’s view, with Article 5 needs to be amplified
by an obligation to sort waste prior to incineration, preferably
at source, so as to improve the incineration process and
thereby reduce the volume of unwanted substances in residues
and exhaust gas emissions.

29.
The Committee recommends that Council Directive
No 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste and the
present draft directive on the incineration of waste be inte-
grated into a common Directive in order to make the EU rules
more readily understandable and easier to implement.

37.
Article 6 provides that the volume of total organic
carbon (TOC) of the slag must be less than 3 %. In its view,
modern incineration plants can now meet this 3 % TOC ceiling
without difficulty, and indeed by a comfortable margin. It
therefore endorses this requirement.

C 198/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.1999

38.
Article 6 also requires that incineration plants be built
and operated in such a way as to ensure that exhaust gases
remain at a level of at least 850°C for no less than 2 seconds.
This requirement has the COR’s support.

In the COR’s view, a mandatory temperature of 850°C
39.
for operation of
the incineration plant helps to prevent
dioxin formation. Since Article 11 also requires continuous
measurement of the furnace temperature, the temperature can
be monitored constantly, thereby preventing dioxin formation.

Article 6 would therefore seem conducive to achieving

40.
a high quality of incineration.

Article 6 also provides that all incineration plants must
41.
be equipped with auxiliary burners so that the temperature
can quickly be raised to the desired level when waste is burned.
The compulsory installation of auxiliary burners is necessary
to ensure that the incineration plant starts up rapidly and that
the temperature inside it does not fall below the minimum as
long as some waste still remains which is not incinerated.

42.
Article 7 specifies that incineration plants must be built
and operated in such a way that the air emission limit values
set out in Annex V are not exceeded.

43.
In the COR’s view, the limit values specified in Annex
5 are readily attainable, by a comfortable margin, using
technology. If the existing proposal for a directive is to be
merged with Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of
hazardous waste, unified emission limit values should apply to
all types of waste incineration plants.

The COR recommends a limit value for ammonia (NH3)
44.
since the nitrogen filtre cleaning process normally involves
the addition of ammonia to the exhaust gases. Excessive
concentrations of ammonia can cause foul smells and nitrogen
residues in the soil.

45.
Article 7 of the draft directive refers to Annex II as
regards limit values for air pollution caused by co-incineration
of waste. Annex II specifies the ‘co-incineration formula’ to be
used to determine limit values for air emissions of pollutants.
The limit value for such emissions in the case of co-incineration
of waste (e.g. in industrial plants) is calculated as an average of
the limit value specified in the directive on incineration of
waste and the limit value applicable to incineration of fossil
fuels, which is usually higher. This results in different con-
ditions applying to co-incineration and waste incineration in

dedicated incineration plants. As already mentioned, the COR
considers that the same guidelines should hold good for both
types of plant and feels that, whatever happens, the level of
emissions should not be higher than those from traditional
fuels or raw materials. In the course of the proposed merging
with Directive 94/67/EC the co-incineration of non-hazardous
waste should be limited to no more than 40 % waste, with
reference to the heat released.

46.
Further, the COR advocates the fixing of a limit value
for nitrogen discharges since waste water from incineration
plants typically contains nitrogen, which can cause increased
eutrophy in the recipient.

47.
Article 8 also requires that steps be taken to avoid
dilution of waste water by mixing different waste water streams
from the plant. The COR agrees with the principle that dilution
must be avoided. One option could be joint treatment of slag
cooling water and waste water from exhaust gas cleaning at
the plant but other waste water streams (e.g. rainwater) should
not be used for purposes of dilution to meet limit values. The
best technologies available for the case in question must be
used to deal with this problem.

48.
Article 10 specifies that the measurement equipment
shall be tested once a year. The COR considers that the
wording of this requirement is too broad since there are many
different measurement methods, not to mention different
the third
manufacturers of such equipment.
paragraph should require that measurement equipment is
tested in accordance with the supplier’s instructions, but at
least once a year.

In its view,

49.
Annex III also specifies that sampling and analysis of
all pollutants shall be carried out in compliance with CEN
standards. In those areas where CEN standards do not yet exist,
national standards are to be observed.

50.
The COR would stress the need to frame CEN standards
in these remaining areas as speedily as possible so that no
doubts can arise as to whether the draft directive’s limit values
for incineration of waste are respected. Hence references to
national standards are not a sustainable solution in the long
term since these do not necessarily exist yet in all relevant
areas.

51.
Article 11 refers to the measuring requirements set out
in Annex III. The current wording of the Annex III rules would
seem too vague. The COR would stress the need for clear and
specific rules on this matter so as to ensure the introduction,
at national, regional and local level, of uniform guidelines in
the respective Member States.

14.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 198/41

52.
The requirement that heavy metals, dioxins and furans
in exhaust gases must be measured at least twice a year (see
Article 11) seems undemanding compared with the strict
requirements governing measurement of waste water. Given
the wide differences in waste incineration operating conditions,
the COR feels that the measurement requirements for exhaust
air and waste water should be clarified further by an expert
group.

Lastly, the COR would highlight the positive aspects of
53.
the Commission’s proposal and would point out
that a
generally applicable directive on the incineration of hazardous
and non-hazardous waste should be adopted as quickly as
possible. It would point out that the draft directive’s more
stringent environmental requirements imply higher financial
costs for local and regional authorities, insofar as they bear
responsibility for both setting up and operating incineration
plants, as well as monitoring the environmental impact of
such plants.

Brussels, 10 March 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions — Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological
development and innovation’

(1999/C 198/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to ‘Reinforcing cohesion and competitiveness through research, technological development
and innovation’ (COM(1998) 275 final);

having regard to the Commission decision of 8 June 1998 to consult the Committee of the Regions on
the matter;

having regard to the COR Bureau decisions of 15 July 1998 and 18 November 1998, in accordance with
Article 198c(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to instruct Commission 5 — Social
Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism — to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the 1998 Annual Report: Research and technological development activities of the
European Union (COM(1998) 439 final);

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programmes implementing
the fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technical development and
demonstration activities (1998-2002) (COM(1998) 305 final);

having regard to the COR Opinion on the First action plan for innovation in Europe — Innovation for
growth and employment (CdR 68/97 fin) (1);

(1) OJ C 244, 11.8.1997, p. 9.