1. IPPC recast and air emissions Gergely Simon 2008-11-21 Lisbon

2. -December 2007 the Commission adopted the new proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions: IPPC integrated pollution prevention and control. - After a 2 year review a recast: 7 Directives (related to industrial emissions) into one - Aim: how it can be improved to offer the highest level of protection for the environment and human health while simplifying the existing legislation and cutting unnecessary administrative costs. Codecision: EP and Council – since may 2007 IPPC recast

3. Main elements of IPPC Make the BREFs ’binding’ –techniques at EU level would become harmonised –Current rules: state that "technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions" can be "taken into account" by member-state authorities when permits are drawn up. Requirements for soil and groundwater Enlarging the scope New ELVs

4. Discussion in the EP Krahmer’s report Krahmer: need for „better regulation” –„current IPPC is badly implemented” good implementation model needed Krahmer: European Safety net instead of binding BREFs (ELVs) –Nobody knows how to be determined, where will be the safety net above the limit values – problem: industry can block BREFs Thurmes (Greens) proposed: 1st binding BREFs then minimum requirements

5. Discussion in the EP Krahmer’s report – safety net Hegyi (PSE): general minimum requirements for ELVs –keep strong BREFs –stricter derrogations from BREFs –local residents and NGOs could have role in the derogations –BREFs shall be based on exchange of information with MS and all stakeholders –clarifie the definition to handle peaks (normal operating conditions)

6. Discussion in the EP Derrogations EEB The competent authority shall set ELVs that do not exceed the BATael as described in the BREFs. This shall be the rule, EBB would favour that no derogation should be granted to this principle. The cases of “local conditions” (geographical location, technical characteristics and the local environmental conditions) are too broad, it should not be possible to derogate from BAT because of environmental conditions! IN CASE OF DEROGATION, STRICT CRITERIA ARE NEEDED FROM THE COMMISSION AS EARLY AS FEASIBLE.

7. EP: reports and inspections PSE proposal, new compromise Frequency of reports and inspections Reporting period can only be increased if installations meet every permit conditions –Inspections are necessary for implementation (18 months) –in case of breach of permit conditions the frequency of inspections shall be increased (12) –In complience possibilty for less inspections (24)

8. EP: soil & information to the public Krahmer and EPP proposed to delete provisions regarding soil protection and monitoring –Compromise: lightening a little bit the requirements, when needed to monitor soil and groundwater and when to include in baseline report in accordance with the Aarhus Convention, public involvement is ensured in the processes of issuing and updating permits or granting derogations In order to promote public access to information, the reports will have to be accessible on the Internet.

9. IPPC and LCPs LCP directive is incorporated into the IPPC recast Commission is proposing stricter values as part of this revision than were laid down by the previous directive Greens and some PSE propose more stringent values (unaccaptable for EPP, ALDE) LCPs contribute to ~ 90% of total industrial emissions –EEA published a study on the theoretical emission reduction that would have been achieved if LCPs would have fully implemented BAT as described in the LCP BREF in 2004. - 87% of NOx - 97% of SO2 BAT’s would deliver significant health and environmental benefits

10. IPPC and LCPs costs and benefits (EEB) Total annual EU abatement annual costs: € 2.1 (less strict level of BAT) and 6.4 billion (most strict level of BAT) Total annual EU health benefits: € 9,4-29 billion (less strict level of BAT) and € 20,4-65,2 billion (most strict level of BAT). without wider positive impacts total annual EU nets benefits: –€ 7.27-27 billion (less strict level of BAT) –€ 13.9-58,7 billion (most strict level of BAT) The CAFE study suggested that 22.823 premature deaths could have been avoided (243.657 life years gained) if the 200 highest emitters would have applied BAT. Also BAT implementation leads to significant environmental benefits which could not be quantified (e.g. acid deposition and reduction of eutrophication).

11. IPPC and LCPs Main resistance in Council /EP: against new aggregation rule, tightening of Emission Limit Values all MS are against lowering to 20MW threshold (instead of 50) reintroduction of National Emission Reduction plan

12. IPPC and LCPs UK is heading the „dirty coal front” with Spain, Italy, Czech Republic, Poland aiming looser provisions for LCP EEB: condemns some governments’ resistance to cleaning up the power sector which contributes to about 90% of total industrial emissions. It is morally irresponsible and technically unfounded that it is those countries hosting the top 20 emitters on their territory that raise concerns regarding the strengthening of the existing Emission Limit Values

13. IPPC and LCPs EEB: In our opinion the COM proposal did not go far enough since the proposal will only tighten up the ELVs for LCPs as from 2016. The COM proposes to set the less strict emissions ranges although much better performances could already have been achieved before 2006. UK PSE MEP Willmott amendment –Introduction of a limited life derogation for certain large combustion plants (LCP) –exemptions for certain 'peak load' plants (exempt plants which operate less than 1500 hours per year) –EEB: extension of the "opt-out" provision for old plants needs to be firmly rejected & –EEB: the unacceptable“limited hours opt-out” provision provides a possibility for exemption for the old existing plants to comply with the ELVs

14. IPPC and LCPs UK PSE MEP Willmott: Introduction of a National Emission Reduction Programme –UK's Impact Assessment on the IPPC: emission reductions under the NERP is lower then the Commission's proposal: 39-52% less effective –The rules of the NERP are unclear and do not lead to a consistent approach in the Member States The allocation of allowances is left entirely to the discretion of Member States. This leads to significant distortion between operators within the same sector. EEB: reject NERP There can be no justification for protecting these old plants indefinitely. Those plants had more than 14 years to comply! If -because of economic reasons- the operator wishes not to invest in abatement techniques, then those old plants have to close.

15. Further information: www.europarl.europa.eu ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/statio nary/ippc/index.htm