Objectives of the WT BREF review

Download Report

Transcript Objectives of the WT BREF review

European IPPC Bureau
1 - The Industrial Emissions
Directive (2010/75/EU)
1
1
European IPPC Bureau
Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED)
Key instrument for minimising consumption and the
emissions of industrial activities in Europe
General framework:
prevent and, if not feasible, reduce pollution
high level of protection for the environment as a whole
permit based on Best Available Techniques (BAT)
BAT are determined by a Technical
Working Group steered by the JRC
(EIPPCB) and documented in BREFs
‘BAT conclusions’ are secondary legislation
2
2
European IPPC Bureau
Annex I to IPPC and IED Directive
Wide range of industrial activities listed:
• Energy industries
• Production and processing of metals
• Mineral industries
cement, lime, glass, ceramics
• Production of chemicals
• Waste management industries
Several recovery or disposal operations
Incineration
• ‘Other’ industries:
Pulp and paper, textile processing
Tanning of hides and skins
Intensive farming of pigs and poultry, slaughterhouses and animal by-product
processing, food drink and milk processing, surface treatment using solvents
~ 50 000 IPPC installations in Europe
3
3
European IPPC Bureau
Environmental scope of the IED
emissions
to air
prevention
and control
of accidents
emissions
to water
waste prevention
and recovery
vibration
noise
heat
energy &
water use
odour
4
4
European IPPC Bureau
Definition of BAT in the IED
Best
Available
Techniques
Most effective in achieving a high general level
of protection of the environment as a whole
Developed on a scale which allows
implementation in the relevant industrial sector,
under economically and technically viable
conditions
Both the technology used and the way in which
the installation is designed, built, maintained,
operated and decommissioned
Note: in determining BAT, special consideration should
be given to the criteria listed in Annex III of the IED5
5
European IPPC Bureau
Role of BAT conclusions in IED
permitting
BAT conclusions are the reference for
setting permit conditions
Permits to contain emission limit
values (ELVs) to ensure that, under
normal operating conditions, emissions
do not exceed BAT-associated
emission levels (BAT-AELs)
Derogation from BAT-AELs is only allowed in
specific and justified cases
•
Need to demonstrate that costs are disproportionately
higher than benefits due to local/installation-specific
situations
•
Member States report to the public/Commission on use of
derogations
6
6
European IPPC Bureau
Reconsidering / updating permit
conditions (IED Article 21)
• "Within four years of publication of decisions on BAT
conclusions in accordance with Article 13(5) relating to the main
activity of an installation, the competent authority shall ensure
that:
(a) all the permit conditions for the installation
concerned are reconsidered and, if necessary, updated to
ensure compliance with this Directive [the IED];
(b) the installation complies with those permit conditions.
• The reconsideration shall take into account all the new or
updated BAT conclusions applicable to the installation and
adopted since the permit was granted or last reconsidered."
7
7
7
European IPPC Bureau
2 - The Sevilla process
A complex consensus-building exchange of
information with numerous stakeholders and
underpinned by sound techno-economic
information that has been enshrined into law by:
Commission Implementing Decision 2012/119/EU
8
8
European IPPC Bureau
The legal basis for the exchange of information on BAT
Article 13(1) of the Industrial Emissions Directive
2010/75/EC:
‘In order to draw up, review and, where necessary, update
BAT reference documents, the Commission shall organise
an exchange of information between Member States, the
industries concerned, non-governmental organisations
promoting environmental protection and the Commission’
The exchange of information should address:
the performance of installations and techniques in terms
of emissions and consumptions, etc.
the techniques used, associated monitoring, economic and
technical viability, etc.
best available techniques and emerging techniques identified
after considering all the issues concerned
9
9
European IPPC Bureau
Exchange of information on BAT: actors
EU Member States Committee (IED Article 75)
‘Forum’ (IED Article 13)
lead by the Commission:
industry, Member States, environmental NGOs
European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB)
GLS
I&S
WT
(Glass)
(Iron and Steel)
(Waste Treatment)
• Industry
• Member States
• NGOs
• Commission
• Industry
• Member States
• NGOs
• Commission
• Industry
• Member States
• NGOs
• Commission
35 Technical Working Groups (TWGs)
Members of the
Committee:
• vote the BAT conclusions
Forum members:
• guidance to COM
• nominate in TWGs
• formal opinion on
BREFs
BREF authors team:
• lead TWGs
• validate/check
information
• draft BREFs
• present BREF to Forum
TWG members:
• research information
• peer review draft BREFs
10
10
European IPPC Bureau
The ‘Sevilla process’
TWG
Industry
kick-off meeting
EU Member States
+ EFTA and Accession Countries
Draft 1 (D1)
Bulk of info. needed
(incl. questionnaires)
Comments
Draft 2 (D2) *
Final TWG meeting
* D2 optional
Total duration:
• 24 – 29 months (without D2)
• 29 – 39 months (with D2)
Final draft
BREF
BAT
conclusions
• Forum opinion on
BREF
• Adoption of BAT
conclusions through
the IED Art. 75
Committee
BAT
11
conclusions
11
European IPPC Bureau
Exchange of information on BAT: BREFs
Standard BREF structure:
• Preface
• General information about the sector …… Chapter
• Process/techniques used……………………… Chapter
• Consumption and emission levels………… Chapter
• Candidate BAT …………………………………… Chapter
• BAT conclusions ………………………………… Chapter
• Emerging techniques…………………………… Chapter
• Concluding remarks and recommendation
for future works (including suggestions for R&D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
200 to 1000
pages
12
12
European IPPC Bureau
Data collection step is crucial for determining BAT
The information on key environmental issues is
obtained
through
plant-specific
questionnaires
covering:
emissions to air and water
generation of solid by-products, residues and wastes
efficient energy use
techniques that are potential BAT candidates
Importance of contextual information:
details on the techniques used (characteristics, historical data)
other than normal operating conditions
link between the fuel characteristics and generated pollutants
consumptions (e.g. raw water, energy, chemicals)
13
13
European IPPC Bureau
How is a BAT-AEL defined ?
•
… Standard introduction to Chapter 5
•
Where emission and consumption levels “associated with best available
techniques” are presented, this is to be understood as meaning that those
levels represent the environmental performance that could be anticipated
as a result of the application, in this sector, of the techniques described,
bearing in mind the balance of costs and advantages inherent within the
definition of BAT.
•
However, they are neither emission nor consumption limit values and
should not be understood as such. In some cases, it may be technically
possible to achieve better emission or consumption levels but due to the
costs involved or cross- media considerations, they are not considered to
be appropriate as BAT for the sector as a whole. However, such levels may
be considered to be justified in more specific cases where there are special
driving forces…
14
14
European IPPC Bureau
Cont.
• …The concept of ‘levels associated with BAT’ described
above is to be distinguished from the term ‘achievable level’
used elsewhere in this document. Where a level is
described as ‘achievable’ using a particular technique or
combination of techniques, this should be understood to
mean that the level may be expected to be achieved over a
substantial period of time in a well maintained and operated
installation or process using those techniques…
15
15
European IPPC Bureau
Cont.
•
……The BAT (including the associated emission and consumption levels)
given in this chapter are ‘BAT in a general sense’ (i.e. considered to be
appropriate to the sector as a whole). It is intended that they are a
reference point against which to judge the current performance of an
existing installation or to judge a proposal for a new installation…
•
…It is foreseen that new installations can be designed to perform at or
even better than the BAT levels presented in this chapter. It is also
considered that existing installations could move towards the BAT levels
presented in this chapter or do better, subject to the technical and
economic applicability of the techniques in each case
16
16
European IPPC Bureau
17
17
European IPPC Bureau
How is a BAT AEL defined ?
No formula/theory exist to derive a BAT AEL
• BAT AELs are not ‘statistically based’, however
they can be ‘statistically-informed’ (provided the
necessary data is available)
• BAT AELs are derived based on expert judgement
=> empirical determination
• The upper-end of the BAT AEL may be the most
difficult to set (even more now with the IED)
18
18
01
Sed.1+Sed.2+Filt.
Sed.1+Sed.2
0
34
Meca.+Flot.1+Filt.
0
042 69
Filt.
10
03
61
67
07
#36: MBR: <detection limit for TSS
54
41
64
19
Meca.
50
44
39
65
60
Meca.+Sed.2
Flot.1
63
Sed.2+Filt.
27
Meca.+OWS+Sed.1+Sed.2
62
Sed.2+Flot.2
38
Sed.2+Pond/lag.
09 041 43
Sed.1+Filt.
53
Meca.+OWS+Sed.1+Sed.2
45
Sed.2
30
Sed.1+Sed.2
OWS+Sed.1+Sed.2+Filt.
35
OWS+Air+flot.+Flot.1
32
CMAS_MBR
40
33
Only part of the effluent passes through the MBR - Data from 2007, in 2009 <10 mg/l
Meca.+OWS+Sed.1+Flot.2
02
59
Sed.1+Sed.2
40
Sed.+Air_flot.
50
Air_flot.
60
Air_flot.
70
Sed.2
29
49
#08: MBR: 1.1 mg/l (average of 150 measurements)
48
OWS+Air+flot.
Sed.2
37
Air+flot.
30
Lag.+Sed.2
90
influent 20-430
#48: LVOC, Direct
Pretreatment: Settling+bio. treat.
17
Sed.1+Sed.2
#40: OFC+POL, Direct
Pretreatment: floc+filtration
80
Sed.1
<5
Sed.1
BAT-AEL: 10 – 20 mg/l (monthly average)
46
Flot.2
100
Sed.1+Sed.2
20
Filt.+Pond/lag.
Meca.+Sed.
TSS (mg/l)
European IPPC Bureau
BAT is about real plant performance
TSS concentration in the influent and effluent of central WWTPs (detail)
51
40
Number of central WWTPs
19
19
European IPPC Bureau
20
20
European IPPC Bureau
BREFs are available to the world
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/
21
21
European IPPC Bureau
Progress on the review of BREFs under the IED
4 BAT conclusions already adopted:
Iron and Steel; Glass; Tanning of Hides and Skins; Cement,
Lime and Magnesium Oxide
3 BAT conclusions soon to be adopted:
Chlor-Alkali; Pulp, Paper and Board; Refining of Mineral Oil and
Gas
9 (B)REFs being worked upon:
Common Waste Water/Waste Gas; Non-Ferrous Metals;
Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs; Large Volume Organic
Chemicals; Large Combustion Plants; Wood-Based Panels;
Waste Treatments; Food, Drink and Milk; Monitoring
Work on 3 more BREFs to start in 2014:
Waste Incineration; Surface Treatment using Organic Solvents;
22
Wood-Preservation with Chemicals
22
European IPPC Bureau
3 - Challenges for the review of
BREFs under the IED
23
23
European IPPC Bureau
35 BREFs
8-year review cycle
24
24
European IPPC Bureau
Challenges and constraints of a BREF review
 The delivery of BREFs and BAT conclusions is a prerequisite for
the updating of IPPC permits  time is a critical factor in the
implementation of the IED, there is now the need to speed up
the Sevilla process
 The time allowed for a BREF review is 2-3 years maximum
 Resources are scarce among stakeholders involved in the
Sevilla process, including the EIPPCB
 Increased importance of BREFs/BATC requires the acquisition
of better and more data (contextual information,
applicability, monitoring, costs), which may not be readily
available
25
25
European IPPC Bureau
General strategy to shorten the time to delivery
 Adopt a more focused approach (shorter BREFs, focus on
BAT conclusions, target key environmental issues)
 Anticipate further and prepare input before the BREF review
starts: anticipation of the structure of the BAT and identification
of the data needs are crucial to devise appropriate
questionnaires
 ‘single draft’ route is the standard for BREF reviews not
involving major changes in the scope
 Possibilities for e.g. extending commenting periods and holding
additional TWG or subgroup meetings are necessarily limited
 Deliver the best quality with (limited) available time and
resources
26
26
European IPPC Bureau
Conditions to reach useful BAT conclusions
 All stakeholders should contribute to the
exchange of information, including representatives
from institutions/associations who are not directly
represented in the TWG (e.g. competent authorities,
equipment suppliers, representatives of industrial
installations)
 The applicability of the identified BAT and any
potential restrictions need to be carefully assessed
 A transparent exchange of information needs to be
ensured
 BAT conclusions are based on clear facts and sound
techno-economic information
27
27
European IPPC Bureau
Thank you for your attention
Serge Roudier
Head of the European IPPC Bureau
[email protected]
+34 954 488 308
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
28
28