1. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu1 Towards effective Industrial Emission Prevention & Reduction: -Views of NGO on state of play IED- (with focus on BAT and LCP) Christian Schaible

2. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu2 Outline EEB involvement in IPPC Lessons learned from current IPPC Directive (EEB comments to) EP and Council position on “key” issues: –IPPC (stronger role for BREFs / derogations from BAT) –LCP (major trouble as expected)

3. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu3 EEB involvement in IPPC Sevilla Process (BREFs review, IEF) Advisory group member during the review of IPPC involved in co-decision process involved in HLG administrative burden reduction (“Stoiber group”)

4. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu4 Lessons learned from IPPC (I) shortcomings Main findings of ENTEC 2007 Implementation Study: - from the 30 permits assessed 50% are out of touch with BAT (factor 2-500 for certain pollutants) - no justifications for derogation from BAT were provided Similar findings of VROM + IVW 2007: 54-77% of permits checked were based on BAT (despite NL implementing IPPC through GBR) Findings of other studies (Entec, Oekopol, IFO): MS apply “by default” the minimal binding requirements (ELVs) of sector directives => Widespread divergence in implementation of IPPC in EU => Unlevel playing field for industry + uneven level of environmental protection for EU citizens (who pay the prize)

5. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu5 Lessons learned from IPPC (II) “Drivers of the problem” Current status of BREFs (not binding) Too much flexibility allowed in IPPC (no clarification on derogations based on 3 local conditions) “as a result, a number of competent authorities and operators take a different legal interpretation of the provision on BAT-based permitting and a lenient approach to BAT implementation clearly focussing more on local considerations” (COM Impact Assessment, 2007)

6. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu6 Stronger role for BAT? Some “good” elements: Translation of BREFs (BAT conclusions) in official languages of the EU Quality assurance of BREFs (content and format) Compliance report to be done by operators at least annually, to help inspectors to verify compliance GBR to be “up to date” with BAT differentiated inspection regime with minimal frequencies, report to be made public

7. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu7 Stronger role for BAT? Proposal Art.16.2 + 16.3 COM: The competent authority shall set emission limit values that do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in the BAT reference documents …BUT “By derogation […] the competent authority may, in specific cases, on the basis of an assessment of the environmental and economic costs and benefits taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions, set emission limit values that exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in the BAT reference

8. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu8 Stronger role for BAT? COUNCIL (Presidency Proposal) (new BREFs): […] The competent authority shall set emission limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the BATAEL (a)ELVs not to exceed BATAEL…]. Those ELVs shall be expressed for the same or shorter periods of time and the same reference conditions as those BATAEL; or (b) […] setting different emission limit values than those referred to under point (a) in terms of values, periods of time and reference conditions. the competent authority shall, at least annually, assess […] the results of emission monitoring in order to ensure that emissions under normal operating conditions have not exceeded the BATAEL Prefer variant a

9. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu9 Stronger role for BAT? COUNCIL (Presidency Proposal): (For existing BREFs awaiting adoption through comitology) “BAT conclusions shall be the reference for setting the permit conditions.” = BAU (MS keep flexibility)

10. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu10 Problem: Derogations from BAT (COM proposal / EP position / Council position Derogations possible: in “specific cases” (COM/Council) / “exceptional cases” based on assessment of environmental and economic costs + benefits because of technical characteristics, or geographical location, or local environmental conditions COM may set criteria for derogation / COM may establish guidance specifying the criteria to be taken into account for the application of this paragraph Reasons and conditions imposed to be made public / reasons should be documented, justified and annexed to permits, made available on the internet without delay effective public participation procedure in the granting of derogation Derogations to be re-assessed during permit review

11. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu11 Derogations to BAT (some MS positions) DE/DK/BE/AT/IE/Sl/SE/ (FR) (NL) consider that this text would give CA too much flexibility to deviate from BAT-AEL BG/IT/LV/MT/POL/UK (FI/HU) would prefer that CA have more flexibility

12. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu12 Problem: Unresolved issues derogations only in “specific cases” => which ones??? assessment of environmental and economic costs + benefits => second round of cost considerations at the local level? => Which methodology and how to put a value on ecosystems? What would be the basis of derogation based on a) technical characteristics (old and new installations?) b) geographical location c) local environmental conditions (permit to fill up with pollution?)..and how are these applied by the different MS so far? Against derogations, if, then strict criteria and clarification needed now on the specific cases when these may be justified (in legal text)

13. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu13 Derogations to BAT All institutions agree: Derogations from “safety net” (e.g.ELVs in ANNEX V-VIII) not possible - Support EP NEW Extension of “safety net” to other sectors through comitology, to be proposed by COM within one year after BREF review, based on BATAEL - Support (make use of Art 19 of IPPC)

14. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu14 Changes to LCP Binding ELVs for key pollutants that reflect the higher end of BAT-AELs in the LCP BREF of 2006 (Annex V) to apply from 2016 (new and existing plants) opposition from major coal economies with old plants not complying with BAT (UK, Poland, Spain, new Member States…) Council agrees with anticipation of tighter conditions for “new plants” as from mid 2012

15. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu15 What can be gained? Emission reduction potential BAT (LCP) Source EEA Technical report No 4/2008

16. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu16 What can be gained? Emission reduction potential (ex LCP) BAT - LCP BREF LCP Directive ELVs Upper end of BAT Lower end of BAT NO x -59 %-87 %-20 % SO 2 -80 %-97 % - 61 % Source EEA Technical report No 4/2008

17. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu17 Changes to LCP Option of pursuing Nation Emissions Reduction Plan at MS level (TNP) –Support deletion ELV approach proposed by COM will achieve significantly higher emission reductions than any NERP option by a factor of 1.4 to 2.6 for NOx and SO2 and 3.6 for dust (critique to ENTEC study)

18. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu18 Changes to LCP Council proposal: MS want “flexibility” for existing plants : -Reintroduced NERP (TNP) limited up to 2021 for plants < 27/11/2002 -Reintroduced opt out 20.000 hours derogation up to 2023 in regards to “new plants” ELVs -Desulphurisation rates for indigenous solid fuels -“Special arrangements” for refineries, pulp, district heating plants… BE/DK/DE/FR/NL/AT/SE concerned about downgrading of environmental ambition and too much flexibility BG/EE/EL/CY/PL/PT/RO/Sl/UK (ES/IT/FIN) flexibility did not go far enough, could have “undue” economic impact and threaten security of energy supply

19. 24 Sept. 2009, Sibiu19 Thank you for your attention ! European Environmental Bureau Bureau Européen de l’Environnement Boulevard de Waterloo B- 1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: + 32 2 289 10 90 Fax: + 32 2 289 10 99 E-mail: christian.schaible@eeb.orgchristian.schaible@eeb.org Site Web: www.eeb.orgwww.eeb.org An international non-profit association Association Internationale sans but lucratif