1. Results of the Phase II study
Assessment of the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC)
IPPC Experts Group meeting, 11 February 2010
Caspar Corden, Entec UK Limited

2. Overview of presentation
Objectives of the project
The project team
Study approach
Key findings
Quantitative results
Sector level
Refineries

3. Objectives of the project
Assess implementation at specific installations against the requirements of the IPPC Directive
Three main tasks:
Individual installations selected by the Commission on the basis of complaints received
Individual installations selected by the contractor and the Commission
State of implementation in the mineral oil and gas refinery sector
Not a legal check on compliance – details of installations and companies not reported

4. The project team Entec Overall project lead Methodology development
Delivery of case studies
Arcadis Belgium
Refineries general sector evaluation
REC
Support in Central and Eastern European Member States

5. Study approach

6. Installation case studies
Detailed proforma used for the assessment
Aim was to answer two main questions:
Have existing and new permits been issued or updated in accordance with the IPPC Directive?
Are the installations selected currently operating in accordance with their permits and with BAT?
Selection of installations – discussed at IEG in March 2008
Assessments undertaken April 08 to January 09

7. Selected installations
Task 2 – Selection of sectors / installations
Environmental impacts of the sectors, including emissions reported in EPER
Sectors with clear conclusions in the BREFs
Sectors where previous studies have indicated differences between permit conditions and BAT as established in the BREFs
Sectors not previously studied
Coverage of range of IPPC processes
Selection of installations will be based primarily on emissions and the availability of a permit
Task 2 – Selection of Member States
The desire to include a geographical balance of Member States
Significance of overall sectoral emissions/discharges at a Member State level
Estimated number of IPPC installations
Member States not previously covered
Consideration of different competent authorities involved in the process
Presence of national guidance for determining BAT

8. Method for each installation
Contact with Member States (DG Env letter and follow-up)
Contact with Competent Authorities and operators
Collection, review and assessment of permit, application, operating conditions, monitoring data
Site visits with Competent Authority and operator
Draft reports issued to CA and operator for comment before finalising
Identity of installations to be kept confidential (not a legal compliance check)

9. Refineries general sector evaluation
Sector selected on the basis of:
2004 study by PDC (on progress with implementation)
Commission's previous announcement of a follow-up assessment
Potential for significant environmental impacts
12 installations selected (11 assessed)
General sectoral evaluation:
Literature review.
Workshop in July 2008 (industry, authorities and others)
Assessment of data in EPER

10. Challenges and limitations for case study installations
Time availability in CAs'/operators' busy schedules (though much achieved in typically 2 hour meeting)
Complexity of some installations and permits applied
Several CAs for some integrated permits
Availability, transparency and quality of data:
Permit applications and 'decision documents'
Emissions monitoring data – comparability issues (e.g. averaging periods)
Level of detail in permits, including use of GBRs
Insufficient numbers to draw statistically significant conclusions at MS/sector level
POINT 2: the more complex sites often are covered by more than 1 permit, some having up to 17 separate permits. Assessment of all in the given time was impossible therefore lesson learned for next study was that we needed to work with the CA and operator more closely to identify the most relevant permits (pertaining to the main activity under investigation).

11. Key findings – overall quantitative results

12. Permitting process (1)
Does permit include ELVs, equivalent parameters or reference to GBRs (Art. 9)?
Yes – 27 out of 31 installations
No – 0 out of 31 installations
Mixed – 4 out of 31 installations (e.g. N2O in nitric acid manufacture)
Have the relevant BREF documents been used in setting permit conditions?
Yes – 16 out of 31 installations
No – 6 out of 31 installations
Mixed – 4 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 5 out of 31 installations
In cases where the inclusion of ELVs is assessed as mixed, examples of the gaps include:
ELVs or equivalent parameters were set in all cases but in four cases they had not been set for certain key parameters (e.g. nitrous oxide emissions from nitric acid manufacture, as indicated above).
All permits contained at least some ELVs in line with the corresponding BAT-AELs (either for emissions to air, water or both) with three installations having all ELVs in line with BAT-AELs.
In one case, ELVs were not set for one pollutant because no monitoring data were available.
In one case, ELVs were not set for certain parts of the plant where these are due to close in the future (and operating hours are limited under the large combustion plants directive; the installation also has a temporary derogation from the requirement to operate in accordance with ELVs based on BAT under the relevant Accession treaty).
For two of the nitric acid plants, no emission limit values were set for emissions of nitrous oxide (in one case because the emissions of this pollutant are considered to be low and in the other because testing of abatement techniques for this pollutant was ongoing).
_____________________________________________________________________________
For the majority of installations (20), the BREFs have either been used to set all or some of the permit conditions. For those where it is unclear, this generally relates to cases where there is no information from the relevant documentation or site visits/interviews that shows how the BREFs have been taken into account. However, whilst the BREFs have been used, this does not necessarily mean that all of the ELVs set in the permit are commensurate with the BAT-AELs as indicated in the relevant BREF.
In some cases where the BREFs have not been used in setting permit conditions, national guidance or legislation has been used. Such guidance or legislation has, in some cases at least, been developed taking into account (though not necessarily transposing the main elements of) the BREFs.

13. Permitting process (2)
Technical characteristics, location or local environmental conditions considered in setting ELVs (Art. 9)?
Yes – 25 out of 31 installations
No – 5 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 1 out of 31 installations
Different interpretation of what this means in practice
Evidence of factors influencing permit conditions not compatible with the Directive (e.g. operator’s economic circumstances)?
Yes – 5 out of 31 installations
No – 26 out of 31 installations
There are examples of where this has led to permit ELVs that are less strict than the BAT-AELs and where there has been, for example, reliance on minimum standards in national or Community sectoral legislation. There were also cases where ELVs have been set stricter than the upper end of the BAT-AEL ranges due, for example, to local air quality problems to which the installation contributes (where the default approach would otherwise have been to set ELVs at the upper end of the BAT-AEL range).
appears to be interpreted in different ways for different installations. For example, the lack of an expected significant impact of an installation on the local environment was seen in some cases as a basis for setting permit ELVs that are less stringent than those achievable through use of BAT as set out in the BREFs. Conversely, a potentially significant impact on the local environment, taking into account other sources of emissions, was used in some cases as a basis for setting permit ELVs or other conditions that are more stringent that the techniques and BAT-AELs set out in the BREFs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Examples of where such factors appear to have influenced permit conditions include:
• Allowing a less stringent permit ELV to be implemented if the operator of an installation provides a technical-economic study to demonstrate that a tighter ELV cannot be met for technical and/or economic reasons.
• Setting a less stringent permit ELV for NOx emissions than originally proposed by the competent authority for one refinery on the basis of such factors.
• Setting less stringent ELVs on the basis of high sulphur concentrations in local fuel where the operator deems such fuels are necessary to operate economically.

14. Permitting process (3)
Monitoring requirements take into account details concerning monitoring within the BREFs?
Yes – 9 out of 31 installations
No – 5 out of 31 installations
Mixed – 6 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 11 out of 31 installations
Any GBRs implementing IPPC Directive that govern control?
Yes – 26 out of 31 installations
Relevant EQSs that required stricter conditions than those achievable by the use of BAT (Art. 10)?
Yes – 3 out of 31 installations
No – 26 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 2 out of 31 installations
Examples: BREF BAT but at a larger scale (to meet Community EQS); stricter ELV for water (local water quality and national EQS)
It is evident that, for the majority of the installations covered, GBRs apply to at least some aspects governing control of the installation. These take a variety of forms and in some cases include specific ELVs that apply directly to the installations and in others the GBRs apply to more procedural aspects (such as monitoring requirements).
The installations where no GBRs were identified that govern control of the installation were located in the UK, France and Spain (one installation).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Examples of cases where EQSs have led to setting stricter conditions include one installation required to use the techniques mentioned in the BREFs but at a larger scale/capacity than set out in the BREF and one installation where a stricter limit was set for emissions to water to protect local river quality (the former relates to achieving a Community EQS and the latter a national EQS).

15. Permitting process (4)
Are/were the application/decision document and permit available on a public register (Art. 15)?
Yes – 30 out of 31 installations
No – 1 out of 31 installations
In the cases where the compliance with permit ELVs is “mixed”, this generally relates to monitoring data suggesting that emissions of a small number of pollutants/sources are or have exceeded permit ELVs. In some cases, the monitoring data provided does not actually show breaches of these ELVs, such as where improvements have been made to achieve compliance with the ELVs. In the majority of these cases, most of the ELVs are met.
Cases where the results are mixed cover the majority of sectors covered, including fertilisers (2 installations), nitric acid (1), iron and steel (1), LCPs (3) and refineries (5).

16. Comparison of permit ELVs with BAT-AELs
Permit ELVs consistent with BAT-AELs (where defined) in the BREFs?
Yes – 2 out of 31 installations (all permit ELVs at or below the upper end of the BAT-AEL range)
No – 0 out of 31 installations
Mixed – 29 out of 31 installations (at least one permit ELV within the BAT-AEL range)
Some sectors where differences are more common e.g.
Dust for iron and steel installations
Coal-fired power plants (LCP Directive)
Fewer divergences apparent in some MS (e.g. NL)
General lack of information on justification for not setting permit ELVs consistent with BAT AELs
Examples of reasons include lack of transparent conclusions (e.g. split views) in some BREFs
In several cases, data were not provided on the averaging periods that apply to permit ELVs and/or monitoring data. Whilst the data provided have been used in this comparison, there are obviously inherent uncertainties given the lack of information on averaging periods.
The only two installations where – based on the information provided – all permit ELVs were in line with the corresponding BAT-AELs were the coal-fired LCP and nitric acid plant in the Netherlands.
Emissions monitoring data from the majority of installations shows that emissions for some pollutants at least are in line with the BAT-AELs (26 installations “yes” or “mixed”). However, only a small number of installations appear to have emissions that are all within the BAT-AELs. There is substantial variability amongst the installations falling into the mixed category (this includes installations where only one of several pollutant/source emissions are in line with the BAT-AELs and others where the majority are in line). However, as indicated earlier, four installations had no permit ELVs for certain key pollutants even though BAT-AELs are included in the BREFs.

17. Installation performance
Do emissions comply with the permit ELVs (Art. 14)?
Yes or appear to – 16 out of 31 installations
No – 0 out of 31 installations
Mixed (yes for some pollutants/data, no for others) – 12 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 3 out of 31 installations
Emissions consistent with BAT-AELs in the BREFs?
Yes or appear to be – 6 out of 31 installations
Mixed – 20 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 5 out of 31 installations
In several cases, data were not provided on the averaging periods that apply to permit ELVs and/or monitoring data. Whilst the data provided have been used in this comparison, there are obviously inherent uncertainties given the lack of information on averaging periods.
The only two installations where – based on the information provided – all permit ELVs were in line with the corresponding BAT-AELs were the coal-fired LCP and nitric acid plant in the Netherlands.
Emissions monitoring data from the majority of installations shows that emissions for some pollutants at least are in line with the BAT-AELs (26 installations “yes” or “mixed”). However, only a small number of installations appear to have emissions that are all within the BAT-AELs. There is substantial variability amongst the installations falling into the mixed category (this includes installations where only one of several pollutant/source emissions are in line with the BAT-AELs and others where the majority are in line). However, as indicated earlier, four installations had no permit ELVs for certain key pollutants even though BAT-AELs are included in the BREFs.

18. Inspections and sanctions
Does the competent authority conduct on-site inspections?
Yes – 28 out of 31 installations
No – 0 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 3 out of 31 installations
Number of inspections in preceding 12 months
No inspections – 10 out of 31 installations (including two where not clear or not applicable)
One to three inspections – 11 out of 31 installations
Four or more inspections – 10 out of 31 installations
Have sanctions or other measures been applied in cases of non compliance with the permit conditions?
Yes – 6 out of 31 installations
No – 5 out of 31 installations
Not applicable – 14 out of 31 installations
Unclear – 6 out of 31 installations
The range of sanctions applied varies significantly and some of those included in the figures above relate, for example, to fines levied for breaches of permit ELVs, but others relate to less stringent measures such as official warning letters (the latter have been used in the majority of cases). The mechanisms that exist or are available are generally fairly similar across the Member States.

19. Discussion points on quantitative results
Use of BREFs in setting permit conditions and challenges in setting permit ELVs consistent with BAT-AELs
Taking into account local criteria (Art. 9(4)) – differences in interpretation?
Widespread use of GBRs – often for separate environmental media (implications for integrated approach)
Inspections widely undertaken – differences in types of inspections
Local criteria – includes examples of situations where operators' own economic circumstances were taken into account.

20. Key findings – case study installations

21. Sector level conclusions
Surface treatment of metals and plastic (printed circuit board manufacture)
Combustion installations (coal and lignite-fired power plants)
Iron and steel manufacture (blast furnace and sinter plant)
Production of basic inorganic chemicals (nitric acid)
Manufacture of NPK/CN fertilisers

22. Surface treatment – PCB manufacture
Key environmental issues:
Emissions to water
VOCs, metals, ammonia
Consumption of raw materials, energy, water
Wastes (e.g. metal-containing sludge, process solns)
Two installations, only one with permit ELVs for air emissions
Emissions all within permit ELV and BAT-AEL range for that installation (air and water)

23. Coal and lignite power plants
Key environmental issues: air pollutants (SO2, NOx CO, dust, GHGs, metals, dioxins)
Seven installations, all also covered by the LCP Directive
LCP Directive a key factor in determining permit ELVs for five installations
Permit ELVs for water emissions more closely aligned with BAT-AELs
Most appear to comply with permit ELVs based on emissions data provided (though some exceedances)
But variability and uncertainty on averaging periods makes comparison difficult in some cases
One installation with all reported emissions within BAT-AEL ranges
Some permit ELVs and reported emissions in units not comparable with BAT-AELs (e.g. mass emissions)
Include elaboration on non-comparability of units.

24. Iron and steel (sinter plant/blast furnace)
Key environmental issues: dust, heavy metals, SO2, HCl, HF, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins, energy
Four case study installations
All had permit ELVs for key pollutants, mainly set by GBRs
Three have permit ELVs above BAT-AELs
Several emissions sources exceed BAT-AELs and permit ELVs – dust is a particular issue
Lack of information on averaging periods making robust comparison difficult (in monitored data, permit ELVs and BREF)
POINT 3: This mirrors the conclusions reached in the BREF and has been also shown in Phase I to be an issue with this sector.

25. Nitric acid manufacture
Key environmental impacts: N2O, NOx, ammonia
All three installations included permit ELVs
However, only one had permit ELV for N2O (set at upper end of the BAT-AEL range)
NOx permit ELVs below upper end of BAT-AEL range for two installations
Reported emissions generally in line with permit ELVs
Note: lack of averaging periods in the LVIC-AAF BREF
Note: On averaging periods, there is a split view on averaging period for N2O (based on lifetime of the de-n2o catalyst). No averaging period for NOx.

26. NPK/CN fertiliser manufacture
Key environmental issues: NH3, NOx, HF, HCl, dust
Four installations
Permit ELVs set for emissions to water from two installations (within BAT-AEL range)
Lack of information on averaging periods (monitoring, permit ELVs, BREF) causing some uncertainty for operators
Actual emissions:
Generally within permit ELVs and BAT-AEL ranges
Exceptions for some emission points/installations for ammonia and particulates
Where ELVs for water were not included, this was because the installation units under assessment produced only very limited quantities of general sanitation water and recycled all process water into the system.

27. Discussion points on sector-level conclusions
Use of sectoral legislation in setting permit ELVs (especially LCP Directive)
Challenges in setting permit conditions, monitoring and enforcement related to averaging periods, units, etc.

28. Key findings – refineries

29. Refineries conclusions – installation specific findings
Significant progress in IPPC permitting only made relatively late ( )
Around half of the permit ELVs for case studies consistent with BAT-AELs (72 out of 145)
GBRs widely used – including transposition of other legislation (e.g. LCP Directive)
Technical and economic limitations used as justification for ELVs not consistent with BAT-AELs
Seven installations reported some emissions consistent with BAT-AELs
Five had all emissions in line with permit ELVs and five mixed
Comparisons limited by relative lack of BAT-AELs in refineries BREF (e.g. use of 'benchmarks')

30. Refineries conclusions – general sector evaluation
'Load bubbles' for emissions of key pollutants were considered (EPER and other published information)
Wide variability in load bubbles at installation and Member State level (influenced by permit conditions amongst other factors)
Apparent progress in lowering emissions of NOx/SO2 to air over 2001 to 2006
More installations met BAT-based load emissions to water than met BAT-AELs for air

31. Country wide average SO2 load bubble (t/Mtthroughput)

32. Country wide average NOx load bubble (t/Mtthroughput)

33. Benefits of the study
Sharing of experience in implementation of the Directive on BREFs, BAT and an integrated approach
Facilitating continuing discussions on CA/operator perspectives
Identifying potential means of improving implementation
Independent view on process of implementation
Generally seen as a positive process by CAs and operators

34. Acknowledgements
Study would not have been possible without valuable contributions from operators, competent authorities and national experts
We hope the results will be useful in ongoing implementation of the Directive

35. Thank you for your attention
Caspar Corden
Entec UK Limited