Regulatory Impact Analysis
Industrial Emissions Directive
June 2012
Comments Received
1
Name
Gráinne O’Brien
Organisation
Bord Iascaigh
Mhara
Date Rec’d
19/06/2012
Comments
BIM welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. Due to the heavy industry focus of the IED
which simplifies and recasts 7 existing directives. Their scope and application is not relevant to much of the
seafood sector in Ireland. Operations in the seafood sector are not generally of the scale or intensity to
require IPPC licensing. However, as with all food producing sectors, the seafood sector is contending with
ever increasing production costs including the treatment and disposal of by-products.
In-house incineration and combustion with heat recovery within the context of directive 1069/2009/EC is
currently being examined by some seafood processors for the treatment of by-products. This would
provide an alternative to transport and treatment at rendering plants with associated environmental
impacts and costs. Such developments would typically be of small scale and use only a single feedstock, i.e.
the by-products from processing. Realising this potential however requires a system of permitting,
associated fees and monitoring requirements that is appropriate to the scale of the operations under
application, associated feedstocks and environmental risks.
2
Andrew
Cartright
Certification
Europe
25/06/2012
BIM request that the DECLG will take into consideration the variety of scales under which industrial
emissions can be generated and the IED and associated derogations allow, apply pragmatic procedures
relative to the type and scale of operation to facilitate rather than inhibit their development as
appropriate.
Certification Europe has been providing AIC inspections on the Solvent Regulations 2002 and the Decopaints Regulations since 2007. We have developed an approach that supports enforcement activities of the
Local Authorities and also delivers high quality, independent and respected inspections. With the
Department’s decision to review the legislation, Certification Europe welcomes the opportunity to draw
upon our extensive experience in this area to recommend improvements to the current inspection model.
Proposed Inspection Framework
Under the current review of the Solvent Regulations, Certification Europe submits that the scheme should
be refined so that the inspection requirements associated with the Regulations are delivered under a
‘Framework Agreement’ issued by the EPA.
We would submit that the Framework Agreement should cover all aspects of inspection associated with
1
the Solvent and Deco-paints Regulations and should be issued for a period of three to four years in
duration.
A Framework Agreement will deliver a number of significant benefits;
 It will ensure competition and value for money through the competitive tendering process
 The Department can place explicit responsibility on those tasked with delivering the contract for
activities which may otherwise fall outside of the current inspection process (examples include;
 promotion of the inspection scheme, pursuing non-compliant facilities, supporting Local
Authorities in enforcement actions and maintaining inspection data in a prescribed manner).
 If it was deemed beneficial, work could be allotted under the Framework approach on a
geographical and/or sectoral basis.
 A Framework Agreement can require tendering bodies to stipulate as part of the tendering
conditions an appropriate risk-based inspection programme, one which takes into account the
relative environmental impact of facilities over time, while delivering the inspection requirements
of the Regulations.
 The awarding body for the Framework Agreement is free to set the required level of competence
required by an operator under the scheme, and can make such requirements a contractual
condition for the delivery of the service.
 A Framework Agreement can ensure independence, impartiality and full transparency in
undertaking and delivering the inspection requirements.
A Framework Agreement can be developed either as a Single Operator Agreement or as a Multi-operator
Agreement. Certification Europe would submit that in this case the Multi-operator approach is fraught with
difficulties and problems which would simply make it unworkable in relation to this scheme, and is not a
viable option (see the section on challenges for greater detail). Certification Europe would submit that
there are a number of significant benefits which would accrue under the Single Operator Approach which
would make this option the preferred model;
The Single Operator should be held contractually responsible for the issuing and reissuing of certificates of
conformity/approval. Under a Single Operator this process would eliminate unintended extensions to the
inspection period. A problem which already afflicts the current scheme, and which could be exploited by
less scrupulous facilities by ‘switching’ between inspection bodies under a Multi-operators model.
With a Single Operator there is complete clarity on responsibilities for responding to complaints on illegal
installations and verifying that all scheduled activities are brought under the inspection scheme. Such
accountability is lost under a scheme constructed around Multi-operators.
A single, centralised nationwide database would be created and managed under a Single Operator. We
2
would propose that the Framework Agreement should specify a specific requirement to create a national
database and define that its format and structure must support the national reporting requirements under
the Regulations. Reporting on the levels of compliance to each Local Authority and nationally can be better
achieved by having a Single Operator maintaining and collating all the information. Statistical analysis of
waste generated, solvents consumed and overall performance of the scheme can be managed and
delivered efficiently including the production of reports required by the European Union.
In any competitive inspection process involving Multi-operators the 80/20 rule would apply, whereby
panels/multi-operators would not consider the 20% of illegal installations as commercially viable options
and these would not be targeted for compliance. Under a Single Operator Framework non-compliance of
any section of the market can be held accountable directly to the contracted Operator.
Certification Europe would submit that the Single Operator Framework will deliver a robust and efficient
mechanism for ensuring conformity with the Solvent Regulations and Deco-paints Regulations. Funding of
the scheme would remain unchanged and the spirit of the PRI will remain. Crucially the Single
Operator proposal requires no additional funding from the tax payer, and if the proposal to require
Installations to issue certificates rather than place this onus on the Local Authorities is accepted, then an
administrative burden is removed, with subsequent cost savings to the exchequer.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Single operator Framework proposal is the potential cost saving
such a scheme would have for the activities covered by the Regulations. Certification Europe would
maintain that with a reduced inspection requirement arising from a risk-based sampling inspection regime,
the cost savings to the facilities current subject to inspection would be in excess of 50% of the current
costs.
Summary
In summary, Certification Europe would submit that the benefits of a Single Operator Framework
Agreement for the delivery of the inspection services required under the Solvent Regulations would
include:

A significant reduction in the cost of inspection to the facilities covered by the Solvent Regulations
2002. A properly designed risk-based inspection scheme should achieve costs saving to industry in
excess of 50% of current costs.

The proposal would free Local Authorities from the administrative cost and bureaucratic burden
of issuing certificates of compliance to facilities, which in turn will also remove a loop-hole in the
current inspection scheme which has be exploited by less scrupulous operators. The result would
be cost saving to the exchequer.
3

Providing the Department and the EPA with a single body fully responsible for and accountable for
ensuring compliance with the inspection requirements, while also ensuring a central, standardised
means of recording and presenting data.
Other single operator frameworks that are already operating effectively include the NCT inspection
scheme, the National Trans-frontier Shipment of Waste Office, Bord Bia’s Food quality assurance schemes
and Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council’s operation of waste inspection/enforcement activities.
Transition Period
With any amendments to the current Regulations, a period of transition will be required. The new
requirements will need to be articulated and communicated to the existing facilities and representative
bodies. Certification Europe would submit that the promotion and awareness measures necessary to
implement the new scheme should be a responsibility assigned to any Installations under the Framework
Agreement.
Certification Europe would propose that the AIC scheme is maintained for a transition period of 12 months
in 2013 prior to the full implementation of the new requirements.
It is also recognised that with the announcement of change to the current Inspection process, there is an in
evitable danger that facilities will disengage for the current inspection process. The Department should
consider measures to ensure that those who maintain inspections under the current AIC process are at an
advantage after the period of transition has expired, while those who have failed to engage or have
avoided inspections are at a disadvantage.
Difficulties with a Multi-operator/Panel based Model in Inspection
A Multi-operator or Panel Based approach cannot work in a mandatory inspection environment. The
fundamental issue is that an installation does not choose or want to have an inspection, they do not place
a value on the process, and will always gravitate to the cheapest price regardless of how the service is
delivered. Therefore competition has no place in a mandatory inspection regime.
A Multi-operator or Panel Based approach also brings a number of significant additional challenges which
detract from the inspection process. These include;

Having a Multi-operators/Panel framework would generate an opportunity for opportunistic
installations to continue switching from supplier to supplier adding to the number of installation
avoiding conformance.

In a Multi-operator/Panel model the requirement for on-going audit and governance of the panel
4
of inspectors will increase, adding additional resource costs and complexity to the overall scheme.

By definition a Multi-operator model will involve duplication of resources and skills across
different installations, which in turn, will add to the overall cost base of the scheme. Any increase
in costs will have to be bourn by the industry.

It would not be possible to have the same level of centralised information relating to the scheme.

Administration of the scheme would increase for each Local Authority having to review and
approve and number of different suppliers report.

The majority of the benefits and operational efficiencies would not be attainable should this
approach be considered.

3
Neil O’Carroll
Phillips 66
Whitegate
Refinery
Limited
25/06/2012
Finally, the most significant problem of a Multi-operator/Panel model is that if an environment of
competing inspection bodies (regulatory) is created, it will ultimately create a race to the bottom
in terms of integrity and creditability of the inspection process, with corners being cut for profit,
and ultimately bringing the entire scheme into disrepute.
Phillips 66 Whitegate Refinery provides its comments in the context of the transposition of the IED but also
in the context of the development, in parallel of a new DRAFT BREF for our sector which was issued in
March 2012.
We believe there could be risks of competitive disadvantage to Irish business in transposing the Directive
into Irish legislation. This could occur if Ireland were to fail to take advantage of the potential for the
flexibilities provided for in the Directive while other MS did transpose the flexibility options.
We are concerned that the Commission may change the definition of combustion plant. Were this to result
in a lowering of the threshold of what constitutes a major combustion plant this could impact on
Whitegate and many other industries in Ireland.
Our recommendation would be that the Department adopts Option 3 and that Ireland should transpose all
the available flexibilities provided for in the Directive.
We note that the IED has now recast the IPPC Directive and rolled into a single Directive a total of seven
existing EU Directives. There are two of the Directives whose incorporation into the IED, and the methods
by which the Directive will be transposed in Ireland, could potentially be of concern to the owners of the
Whitegate Refinery.
5
Example of the crucial importance of Competent Authorities retaining flexibility to apply allowable
derogations in Directives.
We had a recent case where it was crucial in Ireland’s interest that the country applied for a derogation
which was provided for in Directive 98/70/EC and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC relating to the
quality of petrol and diesel.
This Fuel Quality Directive contained a list of “low ambient summer temperature” countries which included
Ireland. These MS could optionally apply for derogation from a new vapour pressue specification for
summer grade petrol. The derogation was granted by way of Decisions C(2011) 3771 dated 15 June 2011.
The derogation applies to 2020. The estimated cost to Ireland and Irish motorists had the derogation not
been granted was €18million per year or €162million from 2012 to 2020 inclusive.
We feel the above example amply demonstrates the crucial importance of fully transposing all derogations
available to MS in protecting the Irish enterprise sector in the longer term from costs which are not
disproportionate to the environmental improvements which the new Directive seeks to achieve.
It also demonstrates the importance of applying the findings of the BREFs for different sectors in a
proportionate manner and using the flexibility provided in the wording of relevant Directives and the
BREFs.
Implications for boilers and furnaces at Whitegate
Great care in the transposition of the Directive into Irish law is needed if Ireland is to avoid
disproportionate cost burdens on the operation of our industry and possibly other sectors e.g. the power
sector.
We note that the ESB has already indicated some of its concerns to the Department and has requested that
Ireland would use the provision in the Directive to register a TNP (under Article 32). Whilst Whitegate
Refinery does not currently have any individual furnaces > 50 MWth we would see that the flexibility that
such a plan might afford Ireland could in the future be a very valuable means of avoiding disproportionate
burden on the power sector and other energy intensive industries.
At present the provisions concerning PCPs > 50 MW do not apply to the Whitegate site but we must look to
the future also. This could be especially important if the Commission were to consider lowering the
threshold for what constitutes a “combustion plant” to which the requirements of Annex V apply. We note
the concern already raised by Bórd na Mona in this regard and would add our concern about the impact of
any such development.
6
Were this to happen it could have significant implications for this site which has many older, smaller
furnaces currently operating well and without any adverse environmental impact. Recent dispersion
modeling results submitted to the EPA as part of a licence review process has confirmed this. The grantinf
of the revised IPPC licence for the site in May 2012 follows an assessment by the Agency and confirms that
Whitegate is not adversely impacting on air quality in Whitegate or its environs.
We would be obliged if the Department could keep us informed of the current thinking of the Commission
in relation to this aspect of the IED i.e. amending the scope of Annex V to cover smaller combustion units
and to clarify what the mechanics would be for changing the IED as currently framed and adopted to
accommodate such a change were it to be proposed.
IED and new Draft Refinery BREF interlinked
We believe that the new Directive also requires that equal care be taken in the final drafting of a new BREF
for the sector before its adoption. This is required to ensure the flexibilities in licensing which we believe
are offered by the wording of the new IED to avoid disproportionate costs are lost either in the
transposition in Ireland or are negated by contradictory provisions in the wording of the new refinery BREF.
Recasting of IPPC Directive & BAT Conclusion from new BREFs
We note that licensing under the IPPC type format will continue to operate in the recast IPPC section of the
IED. In particular
We note form the consultation circular recently issued by the DECL on the transposition of the IED, that
emission limit values will continue to be based on the concept of BAT and emission limits associated with
BAT conclusions – the so-called BAT-AELs. We have a concern that some BAT conclusions may not be
applicable without incurring disproportionate costs in Ireland in respect of a relatively small scale hydro
skimming refinery such as Whitegate. We suspect that the BAT conclusions are more likely to be influenced
by the performance of much larger, complex refineries in Europe. Some of these refineries which are
informing the draft BREF may be located inland in Continental Europe where, for example, the effluents
are discharged to rivers or municipal treatment works thereby requiring very low pollutant concentration
levels and polluting loads leading to low ELV concentrations. We have a concern that the BAT-ELVs derived
from such plants may result in a disproportionate burden on a refinery such as ours located in the lower
Cork harbour near the open sea. This is especially relevant in the situation where, as part of the recent
licence review process, recent monitoring requested by the EPA has shown that the Environmental
Objectives are being met in the harbour.
We would also be concerned that BAT-ELVs for combustion plants in the IED (applicable > 50 MWth) might
be inadvertently used as reference concentration limits in any future licence reviews of Whitegate even
though no furnace or boiler at Whitegate has a thermal input > 50 MWth.
7
One of the key arguments we made in the review was that a one size fits all set of concentration limits for
emissions to water is not logical. Refineries, such as Whitegate, which has followed a path of minimizing
water consumption can potentially end up being penalized when their conservation efforts result in an
increased concentration of an emission parameter and a possible breach of an ELV as dictated by a revised
BREF BAT-AEL. This is despite Whitegate discharging far less mass of a pollutant that its larger counterparts
located on the European mainland. It should also be noted that many of these larger refineries discharge to
rivers which are more sensitive and have greatly reduced attenuation for pollutants than the open sea and
cross one or more national boundaries where there are trans-boundary issues and concerns for
downstream water abstraction.
As an example of our concern regarding the development of a new BREF which we discussed in our
submission to the EPA on the Draft BREF, the fact that it is still unclear from Table 5.3 of the Draft BREF on
refining what the short term BAT-AELs for effluents will be. We therefore are not in a position to assess
how these BAT-AELs when finally published might impact on Whitegate. We note the date in Table 5.3
suggests BAT-AELs for long term average (yearly average values) but states that the BAT-Short Term values
have yet to be determined.
We also note that there is a factor of 10 in the BAT-AEL range from the lowest to the highest BAT-AELs for
some effluent parameters. This again references our concerns that different refinery circumstances may
demand very different levels of effluent treatment to meet environmental objectives at different sites.
Our views on the variability of effluent volumes per tonne of crude processed, and the wide variation in
the quality and sensitivity of receiving waters have been provided to the EPA in the course of the recent
licence review and in our comments on the draft BREF. We have thus already flagged some concerns as to
what basis might be used when settling ELVs in any future licence reviews at Whitegate.
Importance of Article 15.4
We would request that the Department ensures full transposition of Artcle 15.4 of the IED. As we interpret
this, it will allow the Competent Authority the flexibility to apply different (less stringent) ELVs from the
BREF BAT-AELs if there are sound environmental grounds for doing so and if disproportionate costs be
incurred from not availing of the derogation.
We are satisfied that this provision will offer a degree of protection from the potentialfor disproportionate
costs in meeting BAT-AELs in the future. Our main concern is that some BAT-AELs may well be derived for
completely different local environmental conditions of the installation concerned or the technical
characteristics of the installation concerned.
8
Frequency of Licence Reviews
You should be aware a full licence review for a complex industrial facility can take an extended period of
time between initial review request and final determination with significant information gathering
exercise, responding to Agency requests for clarifications, possible third party objections etc. We have just
been through a full review of our site’s IPPC licence concluding in May 2012.
We would be very anxious that the Department and the EPA would, when transposing the IED (required
before January 2013), ensure that any future licence reviews are undertaken on a realistic time cycle which
reflects the timescales for investments in our industry. We strongly submit that the transposition of the IED
should be so worded that operators of existing plant and equipment (in all sectors) would be afforded
sufficient lead time to examine how any new relevant BREF (once adopted) would impact on the licensed
activities.
For a major industrial plant such as ours, a review of emissions and the feasibility of further reductions
require investigation of alternative technical solutions which can be practically retrofitted on a particular
plant. These studies need to take into account space limitations between existing units, the need to seek
conceptual designs and costs from specialist plant designers for the retrofit and costing of any changes in
operations. We then need to compare the cost of retrofitting with the environmental benefits and submit
such a comparison to the EPA.
In a plant as complex as a refinery, with its interdependent energy and abatement systems, it would not be
unrealistic to require at least an 18 month to 2 year period from adoption of a new refinery BREF to be in a
position to discuss with the Competent Authority what the implications of moving to the new BAT-AELs
might be and a further two years for applying and achieving approval for the spend required to meet a
lower ELV (BAT-AEL) and permitting and construction of any agreed retrofitting measures which do not
involve disproportionate costs.
In transposing the Directive it should be made very clear that the 4 years is for re-examination of the
licence and that this is not to be construed as an elapsed time by which any mitigating measures (not
involving disproportionate costs) will be installed and operational. It is important for certainty in
operations and future planning that there is clarity on when the clock would start in the event of a new
BREF being adopted.
Concept of Bubble Emissions vs Individual ELVs
We note that the D2 DRAFT BREF has considered the possibility of licencing emissions to atmosphere by
means of bubble mass emission limits (or a bubble concentration limit averaged over all emission points)
for NOx and SO2. This is similar to the arrangements in the original IPPC licence for our site which dates
from 2000.
9
We believe such an approach would provide added flexibility at Whitegate as it would allow for some
variations across different types of emission points without compromising air quality. It could be a very
appropriate approach where there are individual plants of different vintages present on the same site. We
could support the concept of bubble emission limits and the future licensing decisions by the EPA could be
backed up by dispersion modeling.
Once a final version of the BREF is adopted we will examine how the concept of a bubble emission limit
would impact on Whitegate in any future reconsideration of our licence.
Transposition of Flexibility to exclude Energy Efficiency for site in Emissions Trading
Phillips 66 Whitegate Refinery is a site in the emissions trading scheme. Furthermore, it is an activity which
is deemed by the Commission to be in a sector at risk of Carbon Leakage. Therefore it would important in
transposing the IED and as a means of reducing the licensing burden on our industry to transpose this
derogation on conditions regarding energy efficiency in future IPPC licences. This seems logical as the EU
ETS and emissions trading have already set a market price for CO2 emissions which is the same for all
refineries in Europe and therefore ensure a level playing field in this aspect of licensing.
4
5
Ciara McMahon
Andrew
O’Meara
RPII
Medite
Europe
Limited
27/06/2012
28/06/2012
We would request that this flexibility provided for in the IED be adopted for sites in emissions trading in
Ireland.
In reviewing the Directive, it is clear that the principles underlying the new Industrial Emissions Directive
are generally consistent with those that apply in the regulatory regime applying to the disposal of
radioactivity. These include, inter alia, the need to demonstrate use of Best Available Technique, the
conduct of transboundary assessment where appropriate, and the application of maximum regulatory
limits.
While the same general principles apply, it is noted that the provisions of the Industrial Emissions Directive
(Directive 2010/75/EU) speciallly excludes emissions of radioactive substances and plants treating only
radioactive waste, as these fall under the jurisdiction of the Basic Safety Standards Directive, BSS (Directive
96/29/EURATOM). Thus, the RPII does not have particular comments to submit, but we did welcome the
opportunity to review the Directive and the Regulatory Impact Analysis paper.
Medite Europe Limited supports Option 3 – transposition of the Industrial Emission Directive (IED) by
applying some or all of the derogations / flexibilities contained in the Directive.
Medite Europe Limited supports the transposition of the Industrial Emission Directive by applying the
following derogations / flexibilities contained in the Directive.
Article 15(4) which provides that the competent authority may grant derogations, in specific cases, to set
less strict emission limit values associated with the best available techniques as described in the BAT
10
reference documents. Such derogations may only apply where an assessment shows that the achievement
of emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in BAT conclusions would lead
to disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits due to:
* The geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or
* The technical characteristics of the installation concerned
Article 15(5) which provides that the competent authority may grant temporary derogations for the testing
and use of emerging techniques for a total period of time not exceeding 9 months, provided that after the
period specified, either the technique is stopped or the activity achieves at least the emission levels
associated with the best available techniques.
Applying revised BAT conclusions within a four year time frame could be onerous for industrial operators
particularly for those who have just received a licence prior to the revision of the BAT conclusion. It will
also have implications for the EPA who develop national BAT guidance based on EU BREFs and BAT
conclusions. Recital 22 of the IED indicates that flexibility is available in specific cases – ‘In specific cases
where permit reconsideration and updating identifies that a longer period than 4 years after the publication
of a decision on BAT conclusions might be needed to introduce new best available techniques, competent
authorities may set a longer time period in permit conditions where this is justified on the basis of the
criteria laid down in this Directive.’
6
Brian Armstrong
ESB Energy
International
28/06/2012
Medite Europe Ltd would like to thank the Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government for the opportunity to comment on the transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive
(2010/75/EU). Transposition of the IED into Irish legislation by applying none of the derogations/flexibilities
identified would have a direct impact on:
 National competitiveness
 Operator costs
 Regulatory costs
 Replication of the licensing process
 Research and development – placing a unnecessary barrier against emerging techniques
 Prevent a smooth transition period for both regulator and operator.
ESB welcome the opportunity to provide its comments to the DECLG on the transposition of the IED and
the associated RIA. This legislation is of major significance for the energy sector in Ireland and poses new
challenging issues from an administrative, technical and economic perspective. While the Directive’s
primary aims is the reduction of overall emissions from industry and the simplification and streamlining of
administrative burden on both regulators and operators, ESB acknowledges the requirement for this
legislation and is of the opinion that should the Directive be transposed with all the flexibilities available
then this Directive will provide a solid legal framework for continued emissions reduction over the coming
decade and beyond.
11
ESB’s preferred option for transposing of the IED is option 3: Transposition by applying some or all of the
derogations/flexibilities contained in the IED. ESB would further clarify this point by indicating an electricity
sector need for transposition of all the derogations/flexibilities contained in the IED to ensure a
sustainable, cost effective (for operators, competent authorities and consumers) and secure electricity
sector in Ireland.
The IED has been developed in part as a mechanism for simplifying, reducing administrative burden and
regularizing environmental legislation across the EU. ESB welcome’s this approach and would further
encourage consolidation of the existing environmental legislation such as the LCP Regulations, EPA act,
Waste management Act and Waste Incineration Regulations.
Interpretation and application of the directive consistently across Europe is critical. ESB understands that
the UK and Northern Ireland generators are likely to be able to avail of all the derogations and flexibilities
applicable to the Large Combustion Plant sector. Similar derogations and flexibilities in Ireland will allow
generators in Ireland to compete on a par with generators in Northern Ireland through the Single Electricity
Market and with other Member States upon the formation of a Regional Electricity Market.
The IED should be transposed to allow for a simpler environmental permit review process. This
revised/new methodology should have more flexibility than the existing technical amendment approach
and should be structured to allow a quicker review process for both operators and the competent
authority.
The current total installed capacity of thermal power plants in the Republic of Ireland is 5950MW.
Transposition of the directive by selecting option 2 or option 3 (without all the relevant large combustion
plant derogation/flexibilities) could potentially result in the closure of up to an estimated 1650MW of
generation capacity or 28% by 2015. The plants that would be expected to be affected provide the majority
of mid merit and peaking capacity generation in Ireland. Investment in these plants to meet full IED
compliance would be significant and in the absence of derogations or flexibilities may not be cost effective.
Loss of this quantity of mid-merit and peaking generation will also impose significant difficulties on the
electricity transmission system both in terms of meeting expected peak demand (5064MW in 2016 –
reference EirGrid All-Island Generation capacity Statement (2012-2021) and in the provision of ancillary
services which are critical for maintaining system stability during periods of high renewable generation.
It should be noted that in the event that the directive is transposed per option 3 and all
flexibilities/derogations are included; significant investment will still be required for certain plants to
maintain their ongoing ability to operate under license post 2015. In general, the adoption of the
derogations outlined in the RIA and IED would afford the operators of activities to which such derogations
12
would apply, additional time in which to comply with the new obligations under IED, thereby spreading the
costs over time of upgrading certain plant / equipment.
Compliance with IED requires the complex analysis of all the flexibilities/derogations possible under the
directive and associated assessment of technical upgrades and investment costs. This technical and
commercial analysis needs to be completed in the very near future to allow time for the installation of any
required upgrades in advance of the various decision dates and licence revisions under IED. It is therefore
critical that clarification on what options will be available to operators and a clear interpretation of those
options is provided as soon as is possible.
With further reference to the technical and commercial analysis required for IED. The requirement to
implement BAT conclusions within four years of the issue of the revised BAT reference documents could
impose additional compliance limits and therefore costs on operators over and above those required for
IED compliance. ESB strongly supports the inclusion of a BAT conclusion derogation process in the event
that BAT conclusions impose disproportionately higher cost compared to environmental benefit due the
technical characteristics and expected running regime of the installation concerned.
With reference to section 3.3 of the RIA “Option 3: Transposition by applying some or all of the
derogations/flexibilities contained in the IED, ESB has the following comments in respect of the options
with implications for the Large Combustion Plant Sector;
o Article 6 – general binding rules (common provision). ESB has no objection or requirements for the
inclusion of this article. However ESB is of the opinion that this article is unsuited for application in the case
of Large Combustion Plants.
o Article 9 - emission of greenhouse gases (common provision). ESB supports the non-inclusion of emission
limit values for greenhouse gasses already covered by the EU-ETS and the non inclusion of requirements on
energy efficiency in respect of combustion units emitting carbon dioxide on site.
o Article 14 - permit conditions (IPPC). ESB supports the provisions and flexibilities contained within this
article.
o Article 15 - emission limit values, equivalent parameters and technical measures (ippc). ESB strongly
supports the inclusion of a BAT conclusion derogation process in the event that BAT conclusions impose
disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefit, due the technical characteristics and
expected running regime of the installation concerned.
o Article 30 - emission limit values (combustion plants). ESB supports the derogations and flexibilities
13
provided under this article and in the corresponding Annex V. In particular the 1500hr and 500hr ELV
options which reflect discussions in the current BAT (Best Available Technology) review process (with
reference to BAT application for plants providing peaking and emergency operation).
o Article 30 – emission limit values (combustion plants) ELV limits and associated 1500hr and 500hr ELV
options should be transposed and applied separately to dual fuel units based on operating fuel for
combustions plants which are required by law to comply with the CER secondary fuel requirements.
o Article 31 – desulphurisation rate (combustion plants). ESB has no comments or objections to the
inclusion of the flexibilities provided for by this article.
o Article 32 - transitional national plan (combustion plants). ESB considers that allowance should be
provided to operators in this Member State to work in participation with the DECLG and EPA in developing
a TNP that provides a demonstrable environmental benefit on a national level but will also allow
generators in Ireland to compete on a par with generators in Northern Ireland through the Single Electricity
Market and with other Member States upon the formation of a Regional Electricity Market. Availability of a
TNP would provide valuable flexibility to solid fuel plant operators in determining their IED compliance
strategy and in maximising plant availability in operation in the event of abatement equipment malfunction
(a key concern given the high national dependence on gas pant operation). ESB suggests that the DECLG
seek applications from the power generation industry for participation in a TNP in line with the IED and the
Commission Implementing Decision (2012/115/EU) of February 10th 2012.
o Article 33 - limited life time derogation (combustion plants). The transposition of this article should be
included and as indicated in the RIA should be explicit in so far as any plant that declares under this article
should not need to upgrade. The current environmental license ELV values applicable to the plant in
question should be maintained through completion of the LLTD period in 2023.
o Article 34 – small isolated system (combustion plants) – ESB has no comments or objections to the
inclusion of the flexibilities provided for by this article.
o Article 35 – district heating plants (combustion plants) – ESB has no comments or objections to the
inclusion of the flexibilities provided for by this article.
o Article 37 - malfunction or breakdown of the abatement equipment (combustion plants). Allowance
needs to be provided to plants where emissions abatement is still provided but due to either malfunction
or partial breakdown of the abatement equipment full ELV compliance is not achieved. ESB supports the
provisions in the IED that allow the competent authority to grant a temporary derogation on license
compliance, provided the operator is demonstrating clear intent to resolve
14
the malfunction or breakdown as soon as is possible.
o Article 40 – multi-fuel firing combustion plants (combustion plants) – ESB supports the inclusion of this
article in full and support the calculation methodology proposed for determining the ELV for multi-fuel
firing combustion plants.
Provision should be made in the transposition of the IED that allow the continued use of a documented
Emergency Response procedure in the respective environmental licences, addressing plant operation in
times of a National System Emergency.
• ESB is concerned that future air emissions limit ceilings to be set under the revised National Emissions
Ceiling Directive for 2020 and beyond may impose more onerous limits than those that can be achieved
under IED.
• ESB suggests that the transposed legislation place a requirement on the competent authority responsible
for delivering IED to develop an overall guidance document clarifying the application of IED to the various
industrial sectors and in particular provide clarity on interpretational issues inherent in the legislation. It is
also suggested that the competent authority consult with industry in the development of such a guidance
document.
Specific comments on articles
Common Provisions – Chapter I (Articles 1 to 9)
Article 7 – Incidents and accidents. Clear guidance and protocols should be developed to manage the
requirements of this article.
Article 8 – Non-compliance – Clear guidance and protocols should be developed to manage the
requirements of this article
Article 9 – Emission of Greenhouse gasses. ESB supports the non-inclusion of emission limit values for
greenhouse gasses already covered by the EU-ETS and requirements on energy efficiency in respect of
combustion units emitting carbon dioxide on site.
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) – Chapter II (Articles 10 to 27) and Annexes I to IV
Articles 12 and 14 – Application for permits and Permit Conditions
The IED should be transposed to allow for a simpler environmental permit review process. This
revised/new methodology should have more flexibility than the existing technical amendment approach
and should be structured to allow a quicker review process for both operators and the competent
authority. In particular for Large Combustion Plants for which the provisions of Chapter III do not apply
until 2016, the legislation should allow the competent authority amend currently licences in a
straightforward manner in advance of the commencement date for the IPPC and General provision
15
requirements of IED in 2014, followed by a full permit review in advance of 2016.
Articles 13-16 and 21 - BAT reference documents and BAT conclusions.
The current review and update of the Large Combustion Plant BAT reference documents is not expected to
conclude until 2014 or possibly as late as 2015. The output of this review may have significant implications
for installations currently in operation. Compliance with IED requires the complex analysis of all the
flexibilities/derogations possible under the directive and associated assessment of investment costs, this
technical and commercial analysis needs to be completed in the very near future to allow time for any
required upgrades in advance of the various decision dates under IED (e.g. Transitional National Plan,
Limited Lifetime Derogation and reduced operational hour ELVs should these options be transposed). The
further requirement to implement BAT within four years of the issue of the revised BAT conclusions could
impose additional compliance limits and therefore costs on operators over and above those required for
IED compliance.
The application of BAT conclusions must take the operating regime of mid-merit and peaking plant in
consideration when setting the associated Emission Limit Value (ELV) for the plant under review. ESB
strongly supports the inclusion of a BAT conclusion derogation process in the event that BAT conclusions
impose disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefit due the technical
characteristics and expected running regime the installation concerned. The legislation should also be clear
in explaining the difference between the BAT conclusion AELs (Associated Emission Levels) and the
Emission Limit Values (ELVs) in so far as ELVs will be a legal compliance requirement and so must take
account of short-term fluctuations and monitoring uncertainty in emission levels above the long term
average under normal operating conditions. Both these issues are addressed as part of Annex V of IED in
respect of ELVs and should be reflected in the application of BAT conclusions.
Article 17 General binding rules for activities listed in Annex I
ESB suggests that general binding rules are not suited to Large Combustion Plant installations and the
current licensing process on an individual station basis should be maintained.
Article 21 Updating permit conditions
ESB would like to see a more clear and simplistic option/method for updating of permits.
Large Combustion Plants – Chapter III (Articles 28 to 41) and Annex V
Article 30 – Emission Limit values
Article 30(4) related to treatment of combustion plant with a common stack. This clause prescribes
emission monitoring at an overall common stack level as opposed to current monitoring installations at an
individual plant level. ESB suggests that this clause should be transposed so that ELV measurement can
continue on an individual plant basis (allowing transparent application of Start-Up-Shut-Down (SUSD)
periods and/or periods of abatement equipment malfunction) and any reporting on a common stack basis
16
to be addressed by an agreed calculation methodology.
Article 32 – Transitional National Plan. & Commission Implementing Decision (2012/115/EU)
ESB supports the transposition and development of a Transitional National Plan (TNP) in line with the
Commission implementing decision of 10 February 2012. Availability of a TNP would provide valuable
flexibility to solid fuel plant operators in determining their IED compliance strategy and in maximising plant
availability in operation in the event of abatement equipment malfunction (a key concern given the high
national dependence on gas plant operation).
ESB considers that allowance should be provided to operators in this Member State to work in
participation with the DECLG and EPA in developing a TNP that provides a demonstrable environmental
benefit on a national level but will also allow generators in Ireland to compete on a par with generators in
Northern Ireland through the Single Electricity Market and with other Member States upon the formation
of a Regional Electricity Market. For plants participating in a TNP, Article 32 states “The emission limit
values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust set out in the permit for the combustion plant
applicable on 31 December 2015, pursuant in particular to the requirements of Directives 2001/80/EC and
2008/1/EC, shall at least be maintained”. ESB suggests that this wording means current license ELV values
for combustion plants should be maintained through the period of the TNP. ESB recommends the
clarification of this particular point in the transposition of the legislation or in the provision of a subsequent
guidance document. TNP exit compliance measures in 2020 should be clarified in the transposition. ESB
supports the ability to exit a TNP into Annex V ELVs (including Annex V 1500/500 hr options) or closure of a
plant should be allowed. ESB suggests that the DECLG seek applications from the power generation
industry for participation in a TNP in line with the IED and the Commission Implementing Decision
(2012/115/EU) of February 10th 2012.
Article 33 – Limited life time derogation
ESB supports the transposition of this Limited Life Time Derogation (LLTD) article and support the limit of
17,500 operational hours over the period of 2016 to 2023. The inclusion of this article will give the power
generation sector in Ireland clear dates on which plants will close and signal clear dates in which new
capacity will be required. This new replacement generation will invariably produce lower emissions than
the plant in which it replaces. The transposition of this article should be explicit in so far as any plant that
declares under this article should not need to upgrade and the current environmental license ELV values
applicable to the plant in question should be maintain through completion of the LLTD period in 2023. The
inclusion of this derogation is of particular importance for gas thermal plant as they are excluded under
article 30 and Annex V of availing of the 1500hr 5 year rolling average option.
Article 37 – Malfunction or breakdown of the abatement equipment
The cumulative duration of unabated operation is 120 hours– this poses potentially difficult compliance
17
issues in particular for solid fuel fired plants. Allowance needs to be provided to plants where emissions
abatement is still provided but due to either malfunction or partial breakdown of the abatement
equipment full ELV compliance is not achieved. ESB suggests that in these circumstances the competent
authority may grant a temporary derogation on license compliance, provided the operator is
demonstrating clear intent to resolve the malfunction or breakdown as soon as is possible.
Article 38 – Monitoring of emissions into air
In respect of this article and Annex V Part 3 & 4, detailed monitoring and compliance methodologies will
need to be defined for all fuels such that compliance may be determined against the appropriate ELVs and
should form part of permit/license details. The application of confidence intervals as outlines in Part 3
section 9 should be applied to all plants and this article and the associated annex should be transposed in
full.
Article 41 – Implementing Rules
ESB notes the establishment of implementing rules associated with Commission implementing decision of
7 May 2012 concerning the determination of start-up and shut-down periods for the purposes of the IED.
(2012/249/EU). ESB notes the application of this implementing decision in respect of the determination of
plant operating hours under various IED provisions. Commission implementing decision of 10 February
2012 laying down rules concerning the transitional national plans referred to in the IED. (2012/115/EU).
Annex V – Technical provisions relating to combustion plants
With reference to Annex V Part 1 sections (2) (4) and (6), ESB supports the transposition of the application
of the prescribed SO2 and NOx ELVs for plants that operate less than 1,500 hours per year as a rolling
average over a period of 5 years. The application of this ELV rule should be further clarified where less than
5 years of operation have been completed during the early years of operation under this provision. The
plant may operate for more than 1,500 hours in an individual year, subject to: the cumulative rolling annual average always remaining less than 1500 hours,
 compliance with the BAT conclusions that apply to this category of operation,
 protection of the local environment (e.g. air quality standards).
With reference to Annex V Part 1 sections (5) and (6), ESB supports the transposition of the non application
of ELVs detailed in IED for Gas Turbines operating less than 500 operating hours per year. ESB is of the
opinion that in the case of gas turbines operating less than 500hrs per year the ELVs currently in the plant
environmental licenses will continue to apply, which satisfy local ambient air conditions.
With reference to Annex V Part 1 section (5) and the associated ELVs for Gas Turbines (including combined
cycle gas turbines (CCGT)) using light and middle distillates as liquid fuel. These ELVs should only apply to
plants that utilize liquid fuel as the primary fuel. For plants which are required to maintain liquid fuel back-
18
up capability to meet the requirements of the Commission for Energy Regulation Secondary Fuel
Obligations and plant operation under a National System Emergency the non application of IED ELVs for
plants operating for less than 500hrs on back-up fuel (liquid fuel in most cases) should be facilitated. From
analysis of forward fuel prices provided by the likes of Poyry, Gas Turbine commercial operation on liquid
fuel instead of gas is extremely unlikely in both short and long term predictions; operation on liquid fuel is
only foreseen under system emergency conditions or major disruption to the gas transmission
infrastructure. Compelling plants to upgrade to ensure full ELV compliance on distillate operation will
impose disproportionate costs on operators. In this respect ESB suggest the application of IED ELV options
for dual fuel units to be based on a combination of expected operational hours per fuel and the associated
ELV levels or ELV option (i.e. 500hr limit on liquid fuel).
With reference to Annex V Part 1 section (6) ESB supports the application of ELVs for gas turbines
(including CCGT) for NOx and CO limits only above 70% load. The majority of gas turbines comprise of
complex combustion systems design to provide low emissions levels for NOx and CO at the expected range
of plant operation (greater than 70% load). This operational characteristic is a carry over from the LCPD
and should be maintained in the IED transposition.
With reference to Annex V Part 3 section 2. The continuous measurements exceptions outlined in this
section should be transposed in full which reflect the current status of installed monitoring equipment on
most plants. In particular plants where low levels of operation are expected over future years, predictive
emission monitoring systems should be allowed.
7
Stephen
Douglas
NEAI
29/06/2012
Committee, Transitional and Final Provisions – Chapter VII (Articles 71 to 83)
Article 71 – Competent Authorities
ESB supports the proposal that the EPA continue in the role as competent authority for the purposes of
implementing the IED.
NEAI welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the forthcoming
Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). NEAI reaches the conclusion, and formally advocates that the most
beneficial approach to IED transposition is a variation of that cited in the RIA as Option 3.
NEAI is primarily focussed on how the ‘new’ directive modifies aspects of Irish law which were previously
transposed from the Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC) and the Integrated Pollution
Prevention Control Directive (2008/1/EC); referred to as the LCP and IPPC Directives respectively.
Competitiveness
NEAI is of the belief that affording Irish generators the maximum amount of regulatory latitude provided
for under European law, while simultaneously strengthening compliance and enforcement of
environmental standards is a win-win scenario for the country. Irish generators are now competing in an
19
evolving European Target Model for a single Europe-wide Electricity market – the impact of the uncertainty
(for Ireland in particular on account of the distinctive structure of SEM and its unique location) associated
with this transition has been acknowledged by Europe and a temporal derogation has been secured for the
Irish Electricity Market. This derogation will assist in ensuring that Irish participants are not disadvantaged
in terms of additional costs when compared with European competitors.
Similarly, there is now a need to ensure that operationally Irish electricity generators have access to the
same level playing field as our European competitors. Transposing and implementing the discretionary
measures in the IED, see below, will contribute towards national competitiveness and provide the Irish
power system with enhanced operational flexibility necessary to ensure the achievement of our RES
targets primarily from non-synchronous intermittent renewable sources, i.e. wind. Further, a facility such
as the TNP can ensure that environmental performance is not compromised as outlined in Appendix 2 of
the RIA.
Flexibility
Thermal generation in Ireland is necessary for security of supply and facilitating a greater penetration of
renewable generation. Implementing the IED without flexibilities could threaten the viability of some
plants, with the resulting adverse effects for RES targets and system security. Thermal plants provide the
flexibility when wind generation is unavailable. By way of illustration, the NEAI refers to the situation in the
UK where a large proportion of generation capacity is due to close in the coming years. The UK’s
Department of Environment and Climate Change plan to introduce a number of mechanisms to try to
encourage the development of new capacity (Note 1); these will increase the cost of electricity for
customers and thus damage competitiveness. Ireland has the opportunity to avoid such a scenario by
implementing the IED in a manner which provides the maximum amount of flexibility to operators. In this
respect, and avoiding too technical a description – thermal generating stations i.e. those that fall under the
IED (and including plant who wish to avail of a TNP) provide more than just megawatts (MW) to the grid,
they also provide ancillary system services which are essential for system (grid) security and flexibility.
Eirgrid, the Transmission System Operator (TSO) has succinctly summarised this challenge as follows (Note
2) – “It was found that the behaviour of the power system will change with increasing levels of variable
nonsynchronous generation. In particular, the core operational functions of frequency control and voltage
control will become more challenging, and a number of specific issues were identified that, if not mitigated,
will limit the penetration of renewable generation. Maintaining system security in the context of these
issues will require the provision of enhanced system services, which will therefore become a key enabler of a
more sustainable power system”
Recommendations
The original drafters of the IED acknowledged the wide range of different circumstances and plant mixes
(in terms of fuel type, plant operating regimes and technologies) operating in the EU and subsequently
20
made provisions for Member States (MS) to exercise discretion in certain specific circumstances.
Specific provisions for transposition
Article 30 – Emission Limit Values (ELVs)
NEAI supports the inclusion of the various ELV options referenced in Article 30 and Annex V. In particular
the 1500hr – 5 year rolling average and the 500hr emergency generation option should be transposed in
full.
Article 32 – Transitional National Plan (TNP)
The TNP is the natural successor to the National Emissions Reduction Plan (NERP). The NERP delivered
emission reductions, at least cost to the operators (and ultimately final consumers) without compromising
local air quality. NEAI is confident that an analogous TNP, properly designed (Note 3) will prove equally
beneficial.
NEAI is acutely aware that the both the Irish and European electricity industry has changed dramatically
since the NERP was designed and implemented, and that further changes are imminent such as the impact
of the revision of the LCP BREF. Availability of a TNP would provide valuable flexibility to operators in
determining their IED compliance strategy. However, NEAI and its members appreciate that ‘constructing’
a TNP, in the available timelines, will be challenging. NEAI also recognise that the development of a TNP
will have to take account of the Commission Implementing Decision (2012/115/EU) of February 10th 2012.
NEAI would be of the opinion that current Licence ELV values applicable to the plant in question should be
maintained for the period leading up to and for the duration of the TNP.
NEAI and its members will proactively engage and support the Department to ensure that a functioning
TNP can be delivered before the end of year deadline. NEAI acknowledges that preparing the TNP may
incur once-off costs but the resulting benefits, as described above, that will accrue will ensure that this
investment is demonstrably beneficial.
Article 33 – Limited Life Time Derogation (LLTD)
Although this provision appears on its face not to require an approval step from the Commission (cf Article
32) and given that the formal steps are less onerous for MS, competent authorities and permit holders,
NEAI is expressly requesting that provision be included in the transposing legislation to allow qualifying
plant the opportunity of availing of the LLTD. NEAI also support the transposition of this article as indicated
in the RIA which is explicit in so far as any plant that declares under this article should not need to upgrade.
The current environmental license ELV values applicable to the plant in question should be maintained
through completion of the LLTD period in 2023.
Notwithstanding the discretionary element of Article 32 (TNP) as described above, where there is an
21
obligation to seek formal Commission approval prior to implementation. It is assumed in general, that the
default position for transposing the Directive will be that of inclusiveness, i.e. reproducing all the
Directive’s provisions in the relevant enabling Irish legislation. This is particular pertinent where
discretionary provisions are aimed at permit holders and/or the competent authority (EPA). For example, it
is assumed that Article 15 (Emission limit values, equivalent parameters and technical measures) will be
transposed in toto, albeit that there are discretionary powers of derogation (e.g. the application of BAT
conclusions) afforded to the competent authority (EPA).
However, for the avoidance of doubt, the NEAI would advocate the following derogations / flexibilities
being expressly provided for in the forthcoming transposing and subsequent commencing legislation:
Article 4 – Obligation to hold a permit
Article 6 – General Binding Rules
Article 9 – Emission of greenhouse gases
Article 14 - permit conditions
Article 15 – Emission limit values, equivalent parameters, and technical measures
Article 30 – ELVs
Article 31 – Desulphurisation Rates
Article 32 – TNP
Article 33 – Limited lifetime derogation
Article 34 – Small Isolated Systems
Article 37 – Malfunction or breakdown of abatement equipment
Article 40 – Multi-fuel combustion plants
NEAI would be of the opinion that the marginal operational cost to the exchequer (post transposition and
implementation) of these flexibilities/derogations will be negligible, as the underlying compliance
monitoring, assessments and reporting by the competent authority are already incorporated into the day
to day management of licence holders in the electricity sector.
NEAI supports the transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive by adopting all of the
derogations/flexibilities contained in the IED.
8
Marian Troy
Endesa
Ireland
29/06/2012
The take away message from this submission is that flexibilities / derogations are an essential ‘win – win’
for Ireland, in terms of providing system flexibility (to support increasing wind penetration) while also
ensuring that environmental emission targets are met at least cost to operators and final consumers.
Endesa welcome the publication of the RIA on the IED. Endesa Ireland supports the NEAI response to this
RIA consultation and reaffirms and highlights some specific points below.
22
Endesa Ireland notes the deadline of January 2013 for transposition of the Directive and acknowledges the
challenges that this presents for all parties concerned. The standards set by the Directive are also
challenging and Endesa Ireland submits that the policy and regulatory regime must be made clear for
participants at the earliest opportunity. In addition, pragmatic flexibility mechanisms should be afforded so
as to facilitate compliance by industry.
Endesa Ireland considers that Option 1, non-transposition of the Directive, is not a valid option as Ireland
would be in breach of European requirements and consequently open to actions for infringement. Of the
two options involving transposition, Endesa Ireland is in favour of Option 3, transposition by applying all
of the derogations/flexibility contained in the IED, rather than Option 2 as we consider that the flexibility
provided for in the Directive is necessary for Ireland. Although Option 2 may be easier to implement, it
could have a devastating effect on the energy industry and consequently security of supply in Ireland.
Were the Directive to be transposed without providing for a Transitional National Plan and limited life time
derogation it is Endesa Ireland’s view that a number of thermal electricity generation stations, including
Tarbert, would be required to cease operations. The Transitional National Plan can ensure that emissions
targets are met at least cost to operators and final customers.
At this point in time, it is generally considered that there is sufficient generation capacity on the island of
Ireland, although there were some concerns with the cold spell in late 2010/early 2011 and it must be
borne in mind from the perspective of network stability that generators must be located in the ‘right’
areas, particularly if other generators or parts of the grid are on outage (Note 4). This is a relatively
luxurious position to be in, by comparison, there is a forecasted shortfall of capacity in Great Britain in
coming years and the Department of Energy and Climate change have been working on a number of
strategies to try encourage new generators to enter the market, all of which result in increased costs to
customers and/or taxpayers (Note 5). It must be acknowledged that there are also significant benefits in
having a diversity of fuels used for electricity generation, for security of supply and possibly cushion against
fuel price volatility. Ireland is currently very reliant on gas powered thermal generation and other types of
thermal generation provide comfort in case of a shortage of gas; the station at Tarbert will be the only
Heavy Fuel Oil burning station in Ireland from 2014, this fuel is more capable of storage than others and
there is a considerable storage facility at Tarbert (the Great Island station is to be decommissioned to be
replaced by a CCGT in 2014). In this regard we refer to a recent consultation by the CER (CER/12/058)
which highlights the necessity of non-gas powered thermal generation to respond to a possible constraint
on importing gas at Moffat from 2013-14. The value of Ireland’s current generation stock to customers
should thus not be underestimated or jeopardized by the implementation of the IED without providing for
flexibility.
The Irish generation portfolio is currently in a state of flux given the Government’s target to achieve 40% of
23
renewable generation by 2020. As a result, conventional thermal stations are being operated less
frequently, at lower output levels or cycling, which involves turning on and off as needed, which in turn
results in higher emissions per unit of electricity generated. However these thermal stations remain
necessary for the system if wind generation is at a low level (which is part and parcel of that technology), if
there are outages on the networks and in order to provide Ancillary Services to facilitate renewable
generation. The reduced running of conventional stations results in lower income for thermal generators
and puts the viability of stations under pressure. Indeed this type of running regime is operationally and
technically more demanding on stations, resulting in greater ‘wear and tear’ on plant and equipment. The
future design of the Irish energy market is also uncertain, due to requirements to implement the European
Target Model energy market. Endesa Ireland considers that in these circumstances the economic case for
significant capital investment to meet the imposition of lower emissions limits is becoming more difficult to
justify, and consequently stations, such as Tarbert, will be forced to close if the IED is implemented without
flexibility. As there is less revenue available for thermal generation, replacement new entrants are less
likely to be attracted to Ireland and we may face capacity shortfalls and possible blackouts – thus security
of supply would be threatened.
As the Department is aware, the hi-tech sector which Ireland has been successful in attracting is extremely
sensitive to the quality of electricity supply. Thus, even the threat of electricity supply interruptions could
be damaging to Ireland’s economy and future Foreign Direct Investment.
For these reasons, Endesa Ireland believes that it is necessary to include all possible flexibility options in
the transposition of the Directive in Ireland, particularly as to do so does not undermine the environmental
aims of the Directive, as outlined in the benefits analysis of the RIA. We consider that the NERP, which was
designed in response to the Large Combustion Plants Directive, has shown that flexibility can enable
emissions targets to be achieved in a cost effective way, and may even deliver better environmental
results, as outlined in Appendix 2 of the Department’s paper. We consider that providing for the
Transitional National Plan and limited life time derogation flexibility mechanisms presented in the Directive
in transposition is necessary if the Irish energy sector and Irish energy customers are not to be
disadvantaged and national competitiveness compromised.
Endesa Ireland is keen to engage with the Department and other stakeholders on the formulation of a
Transitional National Plan (TNP) and devising and implementing a system whereby operators may apply for
limited life time derogations. Endesa Ireland was not involved in the design of the NERP but understands
that the process did take some time, highlighting the need for clarity on transposition to be given as soon
as possible if the TNP is to be notified to the Commission by 1st January 2013. Even if the Department has
not made a final formal decision on whether a TNP will be devised, Endesa Ireland believes that it would be
wise to begin discussions on what form the TNP might take.
24
9
Marie O’Connor
EPA
29/06/2012
Endesa Ireland is satisfied that the EPA would become the competent authority for the purposes of
implementing, ensuring compliance with and enforcing the Industrial Emissions Directive. We believe that
the EPA’s familiarity with the energy sector will be of assistance in implementation.
The Agency welcomes the opportunity to comment as the transposition of this directive will influence the
efficiency and effectiveness of the environmental licensing and enforcement of large scale activities but
notes that this will significantly impact on the operation of the Agency over the next decade.
The transposition date for the IED is 7 January 2013 and the Agency is currently providing assistance to the
Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG), on the various EC committees
and working groups and the national Transposition Working Group.
Regulatory Framework and Administrative Burden:
Previously, the transposition of the IPPC Directive was completed through the Protection of the
Environment (PoE) Act 2003, which amended the EPA Act and the Waste Management Act 1996 (WMA)
and placed the requirements of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) on all activities in the Schedules of those Acts
regardless of whether or not they fell within the remit of the IPPC Directive. It is noted that although the
IPPC Directive does not preclude Member States from applying its requirements to below threshold
activities, compliance with IPPC Directive requirements places a significant administrative burden on these
industries and leads to administrative difficulties for both the Agency and other Stakeholders regarding a
range of issues including implementation reporting and e-PRTR reporting.
When the proposed new IED was published in 2007, the DECLG carried out a screening Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA). Some of the points raised by Industry and Enterprise Development Agencies were:



Compliance requirements of environmental legislation should be proportionate to expected
benefit for the environment, particularly regarding Small and Medium sized enterprises.
BAT and BREF’s – mandatory limits not acceptable to industry.
IPPC should apply as a level playing field with the thresholds the same across the EU, and
therefore the Schedule(s) to the National Act(s) should more accurately reflect the requirements
of the Annexes to the Directives, and pulling in sub-threshold activities should be avoided.
In addition, submissions to the ‘Review of the EPA’, by Industry and Enterprise Development Agencies,
called for a more streamlined regulatory framework with reduced administrative burden and the need for
proportionality in the costs of licensing and compliance.
Indeed, the Report of the Review Group (May 2011) recommends that:
“7.6.1 The legislation governing the EPA, water related legislation and nature protection
25
legislation should be consolidated and should be subject to periodic review. The IPPC and waste
licensing regulations should be consolidated at an early opportunity”.
There is now the opportunity to remove sub threshold activities from IPPC or IED requirements and allow
for these activities to be covered by an alternative permitting regime either by the Local Authorities or the
Agency and to reduce the administrative burden on these businesses.
Section 2.2.5 of the RIA outlines that one of the aims of the IED is to ‘cut all identified unnecessary
administrative burdens and simplify current legislation’ but it is not clear from the RIA how this will be
undertaken. The Agency would welcome an opportunity to review the current legislation with the DECLG
with a view to achieving this aim through the transposition of the IED.
Transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive:
It is the Agency’s view that the transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive is an opportunity to
ensure fully conformity of associated Directives with EC legislation, simplify and clarify their
implementation, and reduce the administrative burden on Stakeholders. It is an opportunity to simplify
the existing legislation governing the permitting of installations and facilities and remove the onerous
additional requirements of the IED Directive from sub-threshold activities.
This view was formed in the context of the stated purpose of the IED in the Preamble:
(4) ‘it is appropriate to revise the legislation to industrial installations in order to simplify and
clarify existing provisions, reduce unnecessary administrative burden and implement the
conclusions of the Commission Communications’ on various Thematic Strategies (air, waste and
soil protection).
The Agency considers that a single piece of legislation to address permitting of activities under the IED
would;
 ensure that all activities in Annex 1 of the IED are licensed and controlled as required by the
Directive;
 allow sub- IED threshold activities to be permitted in a more appropriate manner by the Agency
and Local Authorities;
 allow sub- IPPC Directive threshold activities, currently requiring licences from the EPA under the
EPA Act and Waste Management Act, to be permitted in a more appropriate manner;
 be consistent with the other licensing regimes administered by the Agency and thus allow for the
development of a more streamlined approach to the licensing and enforcement of all the
installations within our remit using the new information technology being developed and;
 allow for flexibility in the type and quantity of information that the Agency would require to be
submitted with an application;
26


allow flexibility in managing relatively minor alterations to the site and the licence by having
limited public participation e.g. a process between a technical amendment and a full review;
benefit industry in that the increased costs associated with compliance with the IED would not be
imposed on the sub-threshold sites.
The process of transposing the IED Directive into Irish law may provide an opportunity to amend the
licensing regulations to provide the Agency with greater flexibility on the scope and extent of information
to be submitted by applicants. Currently the regulations (for waste and IPPC applications) are quite
prescriptive on the types and scope of information that must be submitted by applicants. For example the
informational requirements in the licensing regulations for all IPPC applicants specify under Article 10(2) a
long list of information that is required ((b) to (x)). The provision of some flexibility for the Agency in
seeking less, or more information from the applicant could be built in in the process of rewriting the
legislation required under IED.
Given the short time-frame for the transposition of the IED it is imperative that the transposition of the
Directive is prioritised and progressed to allow sufficient time to progress the necessary legislation. The
transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive in a manner that facilitates the efficient licensing and
enforcement of industrial installations is of significant interest to the Agency.
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
The RIA discusses 3 policy options for transposition of the IED:Option 1 - No policy change
Option 2 - Transpose the IED by adopting none of the derogations/flexibilities
Option 3 - Transpose the IED by adopting some or all of the derogations/flexibilities.
The Agency would be of the view that Option 3 should be taken and that national legislation should avail of
the derogations/flexibilities so as to ensure efficient and effective compliance with the requirements of the
IED by the Competent Authorities and the business community.
However, the RIA does not address how the IED will be transposed, i.e., by amending the Environmental
Protection Agency Act 1992, Waste Management Act 1996, Large Combustion Plant Regulation, Waste
Incineration Regulation, Solvents Emissions Regulation and several other Waste and EPA Licensing
Regulations or by a single act or regulation.
The transposition of the IPPC Directive was done through the Protection of the Environment (PoE) Act,
2003 which amended the EPA Act and the Waste Management Act, 1996 (WMA) and placed the
requirements of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) on all activities in the Schedules of those Acts regardless of
27
whether or not they fell within the remit of the Annex I to the IPPC Directive. The IPPC Directive does not
preclude Member States from applying its requirements to below threshold activities.
No official consolidated version of the relevant acts was produced which leads to difficulties for both the
Agency and other Stakeholders. Indeed, there are now at least 15 pieces of legislation governing the
licensing of the waste sector. In addition, for the purposes of implementation reporting and the
identification of appropriate BAT in relation to the IPPC Directive and EC Decisions, e.g. e-PRTR reporting,
the identification of IPPC Directive sites is difficult as a result of the way that Annex 1 is transposed
incrementally by the various Schedules in the PoE Act and WMA.
The Agency notes in the ‘Statement of Common Purpose’ of the Government that enacting of EU
legislation by statutory instrument is not favoured and given the short time-frame for the transposition of
the IED it would be imperative that the Regulatory Impact Analysis was completed before the end July
2012 to allow sufficient time to progress the legislation through the Oireachtas.
RIA Section 4.4.1 and Section 4.4.7
The manner in which the IED is transposed will have an impact on ‘national competitiveness’ and the
‘significance of the compliance burden’ as mentioned in the RIA. It should be noted that a proportion of
the activities licensed under the EPA Act and WMA are not activities under the IED. However, if the IED is
transposed such that it applies to all activities in those Acts it will have significant cost implications for
those smaller activities (which are sub-threshold to the Annexes to the Directive).
The Directive explicitly sets out the scale of industrial activities that the IED should apply to and the
application of even the BAT requirements alone to sub-threshold activities would impose disproportionate
costs on those smaller installations. The BAT and emission control requirements of the IED are specifically
designed to deal with large scale industrial activities and the imposition of these on smaller scale activities
would be impractical. Unlike the IPPC Directive, the IED sets out mandatory BAT requirements which will
take the form of Implementing Decisions and the Competent Authority has very little leeway in granting
derogations from these requirements.
As mentioned above there are a significant number of installations that are licensed in accordance with the
IPPC Directive requirements which are sub-threshold to the IED. If the additional requirements of the IED
are placed on these sub-threshold activities it puts an additional burden on the Office of Environmental
Enforcement at a time of decreasing resources. The transposition of the IED should consider a more
targeted approach which would allow the Agency to have a tiered, risk based approach to the enforcement
of the sub-threshold activities whilst ensuring that the IED activities are subjected to the full compliance
requirements of the directive.
28
The IED provides the Irish regulatory system with an opportunity to look towards ways of better regulation,
with appropriate levels of enforcement aimed where they can have the greatest impact. It could allow,
with appropriate transposition, for proportionate levels of enforcement for specific sectors, which still
provides environmental protection, but does not put the Irish industrial sector at a competitive
disadvantage in the European market. In addition this would allow the OEE to place resources where they
can have the greatest impact.
Comments on some specific derogations which should be considered in the transposition:
 Article 4 – due to changes in the definition of activities specified in the annexes and in the
changing nature of the management of installations it would be useful to have this flexibility
included in national legislation.

Article 6 -The provision for General Binding Rules should be retained in the transposition. The UK
EA system of ‘standard rules’ appears to be effective and could be considered as an alternative to
the significant administrative burden associated with licensing and the enforcement of a licence.
Further details are available on the UK Environment Agency website http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/32334.aspx.

Article 15- derogations should be considered particularly those related to emerging techniques.
However, the administration of this by the Competent Authority needs to be as simplified as
possible and the legislation should reflect that.

Article 79 - The provision of fixed payment notices should be considered to allow for the
enforcement of smaller activities such as the dry cleaners under Chapter V.
Further reflections by EPA on evolution of the relevent EU and national legislation.
Background
The IED revises and merges seven directives four of which are relevant to Ireland; IPPC Directive
1996/61/EC recast as 2008/1/EC, Solvent Emissions Directive 1999/13/EC; Waste Incineration Directive
2000/76/EC and Large Combustion Plant Directive 2001/80/EC. The history of Ireland’s transposition of
these Directives needs to be revisited to understand the difficulties with the current legislation in terms of
implementation.
Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and Waste Management Act 1996
Prior to the EPA Act 1992 environmental permitting of industrial activities was carried out by Local
Authorities under several pieces of legislation e.g. Planning Acts, Air Pollution Act (1981) and Water
29
Pollution Acts (1977).
At the time when the EPA Act (1992) became law in Ireland the IPPC Directive 96/61/EC was still in a draft
format and this draft Directive proposed an integrated system of permitting. In a progressive move the
Department of Environment placed the expected requirements of the Directive into national legislation
when the EPA Act 1992 was being finalised. The EPA Act set down the framework for a single Competent
Authority (the Agency) to issue operating permits for certain installations carrying on industrial activities
described in the First Schedule.
The EPA Act and subsequent regulations was very prescriptive in relation to the process for issuing the
permits and the conditions that could be imposed in that permit. A high level of public participation and
transparency of decision making was required and it also specified that BATNEEC (Best Available
Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost) was to be used on the sites and guidance notes for most industrial
sectors were developed. In addition, the types and thresholds for activities that were to be licensed were
lower than those that emerged in the IPPC Directive.
Although specified in the IPPC Directive, the permitting of waste facilities was not included in the EPA Act
unless the waste activity was associated with another industrial activity in the First Schedule. The Waste
Management Act 1996 was enacted, which tasked the Agency with the permitting of prescribed waste
activities in a manner similar to that in the EPA Act. However, the WMA was enacted prior to the
finalization of the IPPC directive and thus it also did not fully reflect the requirements of the Directive.
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC)
The IPPC Directive (96/61/EC recast as 2008/1/EC) entered into force in October 1996 and applied to new
or substantially changed installations with effect from October 1999 and no later than October 2007 for
existing installations.
The aim of the Directive was to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution from activities
whose potential for pollution was deemed significant and the types and thresholds of activity were listed in
Annex I to the Directive.
The Schedules of licensable activities in the EPA Act and WMA were, for the most part, inclusive of the
activities mentioned above and in many cases the thresholds specified in the national legislation were
below the requirements of the IPPC directive. The Agency had regard to the Directive in its licensing
process until the transposition was effected with the Protection of the Environment Act 2003.
Protection of the Environment Act 2003
The PoE Act amended the EPA Act and the WMA and placed the requirements of the IPPC Directive on all
30
activities in the Schedules of those Acts regardless of whether they fell within the remit of the IPPC
Directive. The IPPC Directive does not preclude Member States from applying its requirements to below
threshold activities and in general, this was accepted by Irish industry and the Agency has enforced the
requirements of the IPPC Directive on sites which are not subject to that Directive.
No official consolidated version of the relevant acts was produced and this leads to difficulties for both the
Agency and other Stakeholders. In addition, for the purposes of implementation reporting and the
identification of appropriate BAT in relation to the IPPC Directive and EC Decisions e.g. e-PRTR reporting,
the identification of IPPC Directive sites is difficult as a result of the way that Annex 1 is transposed by the
various Schedules in the PoE Act and WMA. Also, definitions within the IPPC Directive are not fully
transposed into the legislation particularly the WMA where the definition of ‘facility’ differs significantly
from the IPPC Directive ‘installation’.
Large Combustion Plant (LCP) Directive (2001/80/EC)
The LCP Directive is a revision of the older LCP Directive (1988/609/EEC) which was transposed into Irish
legislation by the Air Pollution Act, 1987 (Combustion Plant) Regulations, 1992. The 2001 LCP Directive was
then transposed as the LCP Regulations, S.I.No. 644 of 2003. Since the LCP Directive applies to plant which
is greater than 50MW thermal input these are all permitted within the remit of the IPPC Directive and the
PoE Act.
Waste Incineration Directive (WID) (2000/76/EC)
The WID was enacted by the EC to bring together the various existing directives on incineration of nonhazardous and hazardous waste so as to improve legal clarity and enforceability and provide for more
stringent control and emission limit values. The WMA and EPA Act requires that the facility has a licence to
carry out these activities and following the transposition of the WID by SI. No. 275 of 2003 the Agency
reviewed all relevant licences. The transposition was done by direct reference to the Directive and section
3 of the EC Act 1972.
In 2010 the EC has issued written observations to Ireland in relation to a conformity study on the WID
transposition. Several points were raised including the method of transposition and were responded to in
May 2010. No further action has been taken by the EC todate. However, DECLG have committed to
amending certain matters within the EPA Act and WMA to address some of the issues.
It should be noted that there is no threshold in WID whereas the IPPC and IE Directive only apply to
incineration/co-incineration facilities for non-hazardous waste >3tonnes/hour and hazardous waste
>10tonnes/day. The WMA and PoE also have no threshold specified and thus IPPC Directive requirements
apply to all sites which is not what was intended in the IPPC or IE Directives.
Solvent Emissions Directive (SED) (1999/13/EC)
31
The SED has the aim of preventing or reducing the direct or indirect effects of emissions of volatile organic
compounds into the environment and sets out emission limit values from specified activities. In the
transposition of the SED (S.I. No. 543 of 2002) the Agency and Local Authorities are the Competent
Authorities for the activities specified. The list of activities includes those that are not within the remit of
the IPPC Directive or the PoE Act and these installations only require ‘registration’ and annual
inspections/reports.
The compliance requirements for a site that is not in the IPPC Directive but is in the First Schedule of the
PoE Act are significantly more onerous than is required by the SED. This will be further exacerbated if the
IED is applied to all EPA Act First Schedule activities.
Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU)
In 2005, the European Commission launched a review of the EU industrial emissions legislation with a view
to ensuring its environmental and cost effectiveness. The review involved an extensive programme of
studies and continuous and structured consultation with stakeholders around the EC.
Based on a detailed analysis of the current situation and the outcome of the review process, the
Commission identified five specific problems:
insufficient implementation of Best Available Techniques (BATs) leading to limited progress in the
prevention and reduction of industrial emissions and to distortion of competition due to large
differences in environmental standards;
limitations with regard to compliance, enforcement and environmental improvements that hinder
environmental effectiveness and the stimulation of innovation;
unnecessary administrative burdens due to the complexity and inconsistency of parts of the
current legal framework; and
insufficient scope and unclear provisions of the current IPPC Directive that could hinder the
achievement of the objectives set in the Commission's Thematic Strategies (Air Pollution, Soil
Protection, and Prevention and Recycling of Waste).
A proposed new directive was published in 2007 and a Screening Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of
the proposal was carried out in Ireland in 2008 with some of the main points raised being:
 compliance requirements of environmental legislation should be proportionate to expected
benefit for the environment particularly regarding Small and Medium sized enterprises.

BAT and BREF’s – mandatory limits not acceptable to industry

IPPC should apply as a level playing field with the thresholds the same across the EU.
32
The Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) was published in December 2010 which aims to update
and simplify existing legislation related to industrial emissions which applies minimum standards for the
prevention and control of industrial emissions across the whole Community.
The purpose of the IED as stated in the Preamble is set out as follows:
(4) ‘it is appropriate to revise the legislation to industrial installations in order to simplify and clarify existing
provisions, reduce unnecessary administrative burden and implement the conclusions of the Commission
Communications’ on various Thematic Strategies (air, waste and soil protection).
However, (46) ‘the obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those
provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the earlier Directives. The obligation to
transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under earlier Directives.’
MS are also (47) ‘encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Union, their own tables,
which will as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition
measures, and to make those tables public.’
The EC prepared a correlation table for MS to use as a checklist for transposition and this appears to
indicate that there is not a ‘substantive change’ needed if all the Directives had been transposed fully
initially.
The DEHLG have undertaken an exercise to determine the level of conformity of Irish legislation with the
various Directives and also with the IED. Recent communications from the EC in relation to the LCP and
WID transposition indicates that there are at least some areas which require attention.
10
Colm O’Gormain
CER
29/06/20102
The Agency is looking at areas within the existing legislation where difficulties exist in implementation and
enforcement and will communicate this to the DEHLG Working Group on implementation.
CER welcome the opportunity to respond to the Department’s consultation on the regulatory impact
assessment of transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive.
The CER favours the transposition of the Directive by way of Option 3, i.e. the provision of derogations and
flexibilities as provided for in the Direction. From the CER’s perspective, there are four main areas where
transposition is likely to have an impact.
Security of Supply and Competitively priced Electricity
A primary concern for the CER is to ensure that electricity generation is both secure and safe. A reliable
electricity system is essential for economic competitiveness and social development. The CER monitors the
security of supply situation in Ireland to achieve this goal. An integral component to achieve supply security
33
is to diversify sources of generation, i.e. the fuel mix. The fuel mix in Ireland is changing and with fuel mix
portfolio changes comes the need to ensure that each fuel type is readily available.
The fuel mix for 2011 illustrates that natural gas fired generation provides 55% of Ireland’s electricity
requirements, wind 17%, coal 15% peat 8% and other small generators 5%. Although wind generation has
increased substantially in the last decade the primary source of electricity is from fossil fuelled generation.
These generators jointly provide a secure supply of electricity through a diverse fuel mix that also ensures
that Ireland’s electricity remains competitively priced.
In responding to the RIA the CER is of the view that all flexibilities and derogations provided in the Directive
should be transposed. The inclusion of such flexibilities and derogations ensure security of supply by
allowing adequate time for generators to achieve compliance levels where they do not already meet the
emissions levels allowed under the Directive or for such plant to be replaced where compliance is not
economically feasible. Given the current economic climate as much flexibility as possible should be
provided during the transition period.
Natural gas fired power plants in Ireland must also be capable of running on a second type of fuel and must
hold specified reserves. These secondary fuel obligations are required primarily to protect against the
consequence of an interruption to the supply of natural gas network. The CER submits that the flexibilities
of transposition should include reference to the emergency nature of these requirements and do not
unduly impose emission restrictions for these strictly emergency scenarios.
Facilitation of Renewables
The type of plant and its availability is an important factor In supply security in particular to facilitate
ongoing connection of renewables. Although wind is increasing in importance it must be securely backed
up by power plants that can generate quickly as demand dictates. Where transposition is completed
without certain derogations and flexibilities this may result in certain categories of plants being required to
shut down or have their operations significantly curtailed. This would have the adverse effect on the
attainment of Ireland’s renewable targets by not providing generation which has the necessary technical
characteristics to support additional wind generation.
Single Electricity Market & Regional Integration
As of November 2007, Ireland and Northern Ireland operate as a Single Electricity Market (SEM). This all
island market brings together the two jurisdictions electricity systems. Transposition of the Directive is at
an advanced stage in the United Kingdom. We understand that the UK has taken the position that
flexibilities and derogations will be transposed. This directly connects Ireland to the British electricity
system and allows for bi-directional flows. The CER submits that the ongoing regional integration of
electricity markets between the island of Ireland and Britain necessitates a transposition approach that is
34
regionally coherent.
11
Ciaran O’Brien
Bord Gáis
Energy
29/06/2012
Given the complexity of the Directive, the many options allowed in the transposition and the lack of clarity
in certain areas, the CER suggests that a meeting with power plant owners is warranted to tease through
the detail and ensure there is a common understanding of the requirements and the approach Ireland will
take to achieve compliance. The CER is happy is facilitate any such meetings.
Bord Gáis Energy (BG Energy) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Regulatory Impact Analysis
published by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government concerning the
transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive.
BG Energy is well placed to meet the emissions requirements demanded by the IED. On that basis, BG
Energy’s concerns, and thus the details of this response, largely relate to the approach taken by the
department to the transposition of the Directive. Nonetheless, BG Energy believes that the derogations
and flexibilities included in the IED should be retained in Irish legislation and to this end recommend that
Option 3 as cited in the RIA should be pursued.
BG Energy recognises that the objective of the IED is to limit the impact of damaging emissions on the
environment across the EU and to do so while minimising the administrative burden for both the
stakeholders that are subject to and those that manage emissions limits. To attain this goal, the IED has
been written to amend and simplify legislation across 7 existing directives concerning industrial emissions.
The existing European emissions legislation included the IPPC Directive, the Large Combustion Plants
Directive, the Waste Incineration Directive and the VOC Solvents Directive which was transposed into Irish
legislation through primary legislation including the EPA Act (1992), the Waste Management Act (1996)
and the Protection of the Environment Act (2003) and relevant secondary legislation. This legislation
currently applies to approximately 800 industrial installations in Ireland ranging from power plants to large
agricultural facilities to waste incinerators and is enforced by the competent authority in Ireland, the EPA.
The large number of applicable sites indicates the substantial administrative overhead that currently sits
with the EPA. It also indicates the potential benefits that may accrue if efficiencies are introduced through
the transposition of the IED into Irish legislation. BG Energy requests that the department bear in mind this
opportunity when deciding on how existing emissions legislation will be reformed. The introduction of new
legislation that is clear, easy to understand and consolidates all industrial emissions legislation through a
new Act as opposed to amending and repealing existing legislation presents such an opportunity for
effective reform. This would deliver an industrial emissions management regime that is both easier to
understand for all industry participants and delivers administration efficiencies for both participants and
the EPA.
35
BG Energy supports the third option that is being considered by the department in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This option proposes that the Directive be transposed to include the relevant
derogations/flexibilities included in the IED. Given the need to facilitate a wide variety of industrial
installations of varying age, type and emissions profile, and, in particular, the need to retain a mix of power
generation technologies for security of supply purposes it is appropriate that the ability to facilitate these
installations through flexibilities and derogations should be retained.
12
John McNamara
Bord na
Móna
Powergen
29/06/2012
In conclusion, BG Energy thanks the department for the opportunity to respond on this issue and hopes
that its suggestions will be considered for the transposition of the IED into Irish law by the deadline of
January 2013. BG Energy urges the department to keep in mind the primary objective of the Directive to
simplify existing legislation for industrial emissions when deciding on the method of transposition. There
exists the opportunity to achieve efficiencies through the amalgamation of existing emissions legislation,
which is to the benefit of all stakeholders, from industrial installations to the competent authority
administering emissions licensing.
BnM welcomes the opportunity to respond to the RIA examining the forthcoming IED.
While the IED updates and ‘recasts’ seven existing directives in a single consolidated legislative instrument,
BnM is primarily focussed on how the ‘new’ directive modifies aspects of Irish law which were previously
transposed from the Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC) and the Integrated Pollution
Prevention Control Directive (2008/1/EC); referred to as the LCP and IPPC Directives respectively.
BnM previously made a submission during the screening RIA consultation (2008) outlining the company’s
concern (which was also echoed by other stakeholders) that appropriate de minis thresholds for
combustion plants were necessary. BnM acknowledges that such a threshold is now enshrined in the IED
and appreciates the original opportunity to highlight this matter. As a result, the focus of this submission is
centred on how thermal electricity plants are impacted by the IED.
In terms of a formal response to the consultation - BnM’s ‘Preferred Option’ is that cited in the RIA as
Option 3 “Transpose the Directive by adopting some or all of the derogations / flexibilities contained in the
IED”. Bord na Móna believes that such an approach (Option 3) will ensure a sustainable balance between
enhancing environmental protection, maintaining national competitiveness and providing flexibility and
system security to the national electrical power infrastructure as it progresses to world leading levels of
intermittent RES penetration.
The conclusion which has been reached by BnM suggests that that industry, the consumer, and the country
as a whole, is best served by availing of the full spectrum of derogations and flexibilities (including the
implementation of a TNP) provided for in the legislation.
36
Environmental Protection
In the first instance, Bord na Móna are four square behind the underlying principle behind the IED to
“reduce and as far as possible eliminate pollution arising from industrial activities” (Note 6). In addition,
BnM are also playing an active role in contributing towards the state’s mandatory target of 20% share of
energy from renewable sources by 2020 (Note 7). Bord na Móna’s thermal power station at Edenderry is
committed to a 30% biomass co-firing rate by 2015 from a standing start in 2009. This co-firing trajectory,
has been expressly included in the Department of Energy, Communication & Natural Resource’s May 2012
publication “Strategy for Renewable Energy 2012-2020” (Note 8).
International Competitiveness
Fundamentally, Bord na Móna is of the belief that affording Irish generators, the maximum amount of
latitude provided for under European law, while simultaneously strengthening compliance and
enforcement of environmental standards is a win-win scenario for the country.
While it has been true for many years that Irish industry in general has been competing against
international players, recent developments at a European level has begun the process of internationalising
the electricity market in the EU (and beyond). Irish generators are now competing in an evolving European
Target Model designed to deliver a single Europe-wide Electricity market. The uncertainty associated with
this transition, noting that there may be a disproportionately larger impact in Ireland, has been
acknowledged by Europe and a temporal derogation has been secured for the Irish Electricity Market. This
derogation, until 2016, helps ensure that Irish participants are not disadvantaged in terms of additional
costs, for market compliance, when compared with other European competitors.
Similarly, there is now an analogous need to ensure that operationally Irish electricity generators have
access to the same level playing field as our European competitors. This is best achieved by ensuring that
Irish generators are regulated by the same overarching legislative instruments available to our European
competitors. Transposing and implementing the discretionary measures in the IED, advances
environmental protection and will contribute towards national competitiveness and provide the Irish
power system with enhanced operational flexibility necessary to ensure the achievement of our RES
targets primarily from non-synchronous intermittent renewable sources, i.e. wind.
System Flexibility and RES Compliance
In regard to the operational flexibility requirement, and avoiding too technical a description – thermal
generating stations i.e. those that fall under the IED (and including plant who wish to avail of a TNP)
provide more than just megawatts (MW) to the grid, they also provide ancillary system services which are
essential for system (grid) security and flexibility. Eirgrid, the Transmission System Operator (TSO) has
succinctly summarised this challenge as follows - “It was found that the behaviour of the power system will
change with increasing levels of variable nonsynchronous generation. In particular, the core operational
37
functions of frequency control and voltage control will become more challenging, and a number of specific
issues were identified that, if not mitigated, will limit the penetration of renewable generation. Maintaining
system security in the context of these issues will require the provision of enhanced system services, which
will therefore become a key enabler of a more sustainable power system. “ (Note 9)
Transposition of Provisions
A reading of the IED suggests that there is a hierarchy of ‘discretionary’ measures providing flexibilities and
derogations. At the apex, are discretions afforded to Member States, as to whether or not they implement
a specific provision in the Directive, e.g. Article 32 – Transitional National Plans. Cascading down, discretion
is also afforded to competent authorities e.g. Article 30(5) – derogation in the event of fuel shortages; and
finally discretion granted to operators to ‘opt in / opt out’ of specific provisions e.g. Article 32 – LLTD. This
construction suggests that the original drafters of the IED acknowledged the
wide range of different plant types (in terms of fuel type and technologies) and the evolving spectrum of
operational regimes and constraints such plants now operate under. Bord na Móna would advocate that
the default position for transposing the Directive should be that of inclusiveness, i.e. reproducing all the
Directive’s provisions in the relevant enabling Irish legislation. However, for the avoidance of doubt, and in
keeping with the spirit and transparency of this consultative process, Bord na Móna recommends the
following derogations/flexibilities (listed numerically) being expressly provided for in the forthcoming
transposing and subsequent commencing legislation:
Article 4 – Obligation to hold a permit
This Article has the potential to reduce and streamline administrative costs and procedures.
Article 9(2) – Emission of GHGs
Bord na Móna believes that there should not be a double obligation on facilities registered under the EUETS
Article 14 – Permit Conditions
In particular, Article 14(2), this discretion afforded to the EPA should be transposed. At present Bord na
Móna does not have any specific suggestions what ‘equivalent parameters or technical measures’ might be
applicable but believes that this futureproofing provision should be incorporated into Irish Law.
Article 15 – Emission limit values, equivalent parameters, and technical measures
Of interest, is the provision contained in Article 15(4); it must be remembered that Irish peat, and the
specific plants capable of firing peat and co-firing peat with biomass continue to play a role in contributing
to Ireland’s security of supply.
Article 30 – ELVs
The rationale behind this discretionary provision appears reasonable.
Article 31 – Desulphurisation Rates
There are a number of plants in Ireland which could potentially avail of this alternate to a SOx ELV – Bord
na Móna formally requests that this provision be transposed into the enabling legislation.
38
Article 32 – Transitional National Plan (TNP)
The TNP is the natural successor to the National Emissions Reduction Plan (NERP). The NERP delivered
emission reductions, at least cost to the operators (and ultimately final consumers) without compromising
local air quality. Bord na Móna is confident that an analogous TNP, properly designed (Note 10) will prove
equally beneficial. In this regard, the need for a TNP, to provide stability for operators and security to the
system, is critical. This requirement for stability and certainty manifests itself in a need for potential
participants in the TNP to be assured that current IPPC ELVs will be maintained for the period leading up to
and for the duration of the TNP. BnM appreciate that ‘constructing’ a TNP, in the available timelines, will be
challenging, but wish to confirm that we will proactively engage with the Department to ensure that a
functioning TNP can be delivered before the end of year deadline.
Article 33 – Limited Life Time Derogation (LLTD)
Although this provision appears on its face not to require an approval step from the Commission (cf Article
32) and given that the formal steps are less onerous for MS, competent authorities and permit holders,
Bord na Móna is expressly requesting that provision be included in the transposing legislation to allow
qualifying plant the opportunity of availing of the LLTD.
Article 34 – Small Isolated Systems
This provision seems practical.
Article 37 – Malfunction or breakdown of abatement equipment
This provides for a reasonable and measured response during specific and defined periods.
Administrative Costs
Although Bord na Móna have not carried out a formal cost benefit analysis we would be of the opinion that
the marginal administrative cost to the exchequer (post transposition and implementation) of the
flexibilities/derogations contained in the IED will be negligible. The underlying compliance monitoring,
assessments and reporting by the competent authority is already incorporated into the day to day
management of licence holders in the electricity sector. Bord na Móna’s opinion regarding the modest cost
associated with these ‘discretionary’ provisions is aligned with findings reached by DEFRA/AMEC in the UK,
who concluded that “the annual administrative/permitting costs for the competent authorities and
operators were estimated to be approximately £3k per plant6” Bord na Móna are aware that preparing the
TNP may incur once-off costs but the resulting benefits, as described above, are demonstrably positive.
Bord na Móna supports the development of a Transitional National Plan to continue the success of the
NERP and is committed to work in partnership with the Department in delivering a viable plan.
In summary Bord na Móna’s ‘take away’ message from this submission is that flexibilities / derogations are
essentially a ‘win – win’ for Ireland, in terms of retaining international competitiveness, providing system
flexibility (to support increasing wind penetration) and also ensuring that environmental emission targets
are met at least cost to operators and final consumers.
39
13
Liam Fleming
Rusal
Aughinish
Alumina
29/06/2012
Rusal Aughinish Alumina appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the assessment and look forward to
working with the Department and Competent Authority to implementing the requirements of the
Directive.
RAA’s primary concern is that the full flexibility provided for in the IED is afforded to Irish large combustion
installations. We support Option 3 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment as the preferred strategy for
implementation of the IED.
In particular it is important that Articles 32 and 33 are utilised fully to the benefit of Irish large combustion
installations so that optimal long-term decisions can be made. For instance it would be fallacious to
provide flexibility under Article 33 while requiring that plant availing of the option would still have to
achieve the LCP ELVs. Retention of the pre-2016 IPPC permit ELVs is the appropriate permitting strategy for
the limited number of facilities that will seek to avail of this phase-out option.
The IED has significant implications for Rusal Aughinish Alumina and for all operators of large combustion
plant.
At present the Aughinish facility is over-achieving with respect to the NERP commitments due primarily to
the CHP investment that the NERP facilitated. However the HFO boilers are still available to supply top-up
steam to the alumina plant. These boilers have not been retro-fitted for LCP compliance.
The question that arises now for Rusal Aughinish Alumina is how to configure itself for environmental
compliance of its energy plant from 2016 onwards. There are three options:
1. Install abatement equipment on the existing HFO boilers for compliance with the IED and continue to
operate them.
2. a. Convert the HFO boilers to natural gas or 2 b. Install new gas fired boilers …and decommission the
HFO boilers.
3. Expand the CHP facility and de-commission the HFO boilers.
From an environmental perspective options 2 and 3 are clearly favourable and should be encouraged and
facilitated by the Regulatory System. This is where the benefit of flexibility under the IED can help.
At present natural gas is extremely cost effective compared to heavy fuel oil due to a number of technical
and geo-political factors. This provides an incentive to convert to natural gas. However over the next
number of years there is a risk that the reverse will hold, at least for a period of time. There is also the
question of security of supply of gas. So from a risk management perspective there is a requirement to
maintain HFO back-up capability. Rusal Aughinish Alumina would prefer to invest in clean gas capacity than
in HFO upgrades but it still must provide some form of hedge against excessively expensive gas or loss of
40
gas supply. In this particular situation the use of Article 33 would provide the required hedge by permitting
the HFO boilers to be mothballed but still retained as a strategic short-term back-up. The available funds
can instead be used to exploit option 2 or option 3 above to replace the HFO boiler based steam.
14
Anne Lucey
SmartPly
29/06/2012
If however the HFO boilers have to be modified to enable them avail of the Article 33 limited life
derogation then that option will have little value in real terms due to the excessive cost required to secure
it. So in Rusal Aughinish Alumina’s case, flexibility under the IED will facilitate investment in new gas fired
plant ahead of 2016. Without this flexibility Rusal Aughinish Alumina will be forced to invest sub-optimally
in less desirable HFO boilers in order to comply with the IED. Investment in HFO boilers over the next two
years will waste an opportunity to invest in gas fired plant and will invariably lead to greater use of less
desirable HFO in the following years. We hope to avoid such a scenario.
SmartPly supports Option 3 in relation to transposition of the Directive - transposition of the Industrial
Emission Directive (IED) by applying some or all of the derogations/flexibilities contained in the Directive.
SmartPly supports in particular the following;
Emission of greenhouse gases (Article 9(2))
Article 9(2) provides Member States with the option not to impose requirements relating to energy
efficiency in respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide on the site.
Emission limit values, equivalent parameters and technical measures (Article 15(4), (5))
Article 15(4) provides that the competent authority may grant derogations, in specific cases, to set less
strict emission limit values. Such derogations may only apply where an assessment shows that the
achievement of emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in BAT
conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned;
or
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.
Article 15(5) provides that the competent authority may grant temporary derogations for the testing and
use of emerging techniques for a total period of time not exceeding 9 months, provided that after the
period specified, either the technique is stopped or the activity achieves at least the emission levels
associated with the best available techniques.
Control of Emissions (Article 59(2), (3), (4))
Article 59(1)(a) provides that Member States should take measures to insure that each installation either
meets the emissions limit values and other requirements laid down in Parts 2 and 3 of Annex VII or 59(1)(b)
the requirements of the reduction scheme set out in Part 5 of Annex VII provided that an equivalent
41
emission reduction is achieved compared to that achieved through the application of the emission limit
values referred to in Article 59(1)(a).
Article 59(2) provides that the competent authority may, by way of derogation from Article 59(1)(a), where
the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that for an individual installation the emission limit
value for fugitive emissions is not technically and economically feasible, allow emissions to exceed that
emission limit value provided that significant risks to human health or the environment are not to be
expected and that the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that the best available
techniques are being used.
Article 59(3) provides that the competent authority may for coating activities covered by item 8 of the
table in Part 2 of Annex VII which cannot be carried out under contained conditions, by way of derogation
from Article 59(1), allow the emissions of the installation not to comply with the requirements set out in
that paragraph if the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that such compliance is not
technically and economically feasible and that the best available techniques are being used.
Comments and conclusions
Article 14(4) provides that the competent authority may set stricter permit conditions than those
achievable by the use of the best available techniques as described in the BAT conclusions. The reasons
and circumstances why this would be required should be clarified.
Article 21(3) requires that the installation complies with BAT conclusions within 4 years of publication. This
may be particularly onerous and costly for installations to comply with and in particular for installations
who may have received new or revised licences prior to BAT publications. Item (22) of the IED states that
competent authorities may set a longer time period than 4 years where required and this flexibility should
be applied to ease the economic and operational difficulties which may result from the implementation of
BAT conclusions.
In relation to the transposition of the IED through Option 3, the mandatory requirements and derogations
/flexibilities should be transposed into regulation at the same time, unlike the Environmental Liabilities
Directive whereby the discretionary provisions have not yet proceeded through legislation.
15
Iain Wright
SSE
Renewables
30/06/2012
In conclusion to the options provided for the transposition of the IED, it is SmartPly’s preference that the
directive is transposed through Option 3 and allowing the derogations /flexibilities as outlined above. This
will ensure that the requirements of the directive can be implemented in industry in the most cost
effective and sustainable manner.
Airtricity and its parent SSE plc welcome the Department’s provision of an opportunity to comment on
transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU). This is an important piece of legislation
42
(Airtricity)
that is of crucial importance to the electricity industry in Ireland and therefore for the entire economy.
SSE/Airtricity fully endorses the submission by the National Electricity Association of Ireland,, of which the
Company is an active member.
In order to ensure continuing technical stability of the Irish electricity system, at a time of increasing
renewable generation being connected to meet the State’s international commitments on carbon
reduction, the Transmission System Operator, Eirgrid, is engaged in a significant programme of work to
deliver the technical capability to absorb this non‐synchronous power. In the context of supporting
renewable generation delivery and allowing time for development of solutions required to meet the
technical challenges this entails, we believe that it is essential to provide the greatest possible flexibility in
use of thermal, synchronous generation in the period during which this process takes place.
16
17
Michael Murray
Frank Groome
Department
of Health
EirGrid plc
02/07/2012
04/07/2012
SSE/Airtricity therefore strongly supports inclusion of the maximum flexibility allowed by Articles 32 and 33
of the Directive in the transposition. In particular, we believe that inclusion of the limited lifetime
derogation is an essential part of the framework needed to ensure the electricity system remains fit for
purpose while the system evolves towards our lower‐carbon future.
The objective of IED is to be welcomed in that it will lead to greater protection of human health and the
environment. The overall effect on human health of transposing this Directive would be beneficial.
Implementing the IED will require licensing a number of additional activities. One specific one that is
mentioned relates to installations producing food stuffs from a mixture of animal and vegetable material.
This matter is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (D/AFM). This
Department would request that you get observations from D/AFM regarding this proposed additional
activity for licencing purposes.
EirGrid welcomes the opportunity to provide a brief response on the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) currently being undertaken by the Department of
Environment, Community and Local Government. As Transmission System Operator (TSO), EirGrid has a
central role in the implementation of all policies that relate to the integration and operation of renewable
generation on the power system and the development of the electricity network in Ireland.
In the context of aiming to reduce overall emissions in Ireland and with a particular focus on the impact of
the provisions of the Industrial Emissions Directive, EirGrid believes it is important that the Department of
Environment, Community and Local Government is made aware of the interaction between our work and
the IED.
The electricity power system of Ireland is evolving. The deployment of renewable generation in the Irish
electricity sector has increased considerably in recent years. Today there is approximately 1900 MW of
renewable generation installed on the power system. The majority (1620 MW) of this installed figure is
43
wind generation. Indeed, at particular time intervals, wind has produced enough power to meet 50% of
instantaneous electricity demand, and has even reached a high of 37% of total daily electricity demand.
EirGrid are now managing instantaneous penetration levels of variable wind generation above 40% more
often than ever before, putting us in a world-leading position for managing high levels of wind generation
on a synchronous power system. By 2020, Ireland will have one of the highest penetrations of renewable
generation, as a percentage of system size, in the world.
Against the background of this development, Ireland will experience many of the operational challenges
associated with integrating high levels of variable renewable generation before many other power systems
in Europe or around the world. Over the next eight years it is expected that an additional 2500-3000 MW
of wind generation will need to be installed in Ireland to meet the 40% renewable electricity targets. The
impact of this level of variable renewable generation on the power system will materially impact on the
way the electricity system is operated. Even today we are experiencing a more complex operating
environment due the addition of increasing amounts variable renewable generation.
In order to facilitate the successful transition toward increasing amounts of renewable generation on the
power system, EirGrid has already undertaken a number of technical studies in order to understand the
operating challenges. These associated challenges have been analysed in the work that EirGrid has
completed over the last few years and the results from this are being implemented through the
programme ‘Delivering a Secure, Sustainable Electricity System’ (DS3). This programme aims to ensure the
power system, including the generation portfolio, is developed and operated so that it can meet the policy
objectives and national targets.
From EirGrid’s work to integrate renewable generation, there is now evidence that the running hours on
efficient combined cycle gas turbines are reducing as they are more regularly being cycled on and off. In an
operating environment were greater flexibility from generating plant is need to maintain system security, it
is important that the generation portfolio evolves in a way that is complementary to the renewable
generation required to deliver the 2020 renewable targets. In this new operating context, it would seem
appropriate that the Industrial Emission Directive allows for derogations for some high emitting plants. It
should be noted that having available fast acting conventional generation (which in some cases may be
classified as ‘high emitting plant’) is necessary to ensure the system operator has the flexibility required to
integrate increasing amounts of variable renewable more effectively, and thus helping to reduce overall
emissions.
18
IBEC
Robert
O’Shea
06/07/2012
EirGrid would be happy to discuss these issues in greater detail with the Department of Environment,
Community & Local Government if it is deemed necessary.
IBEC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the RIA on the IED. IBEC is supportive of the overall
objective of the Directive to reduce and as far as possible eliminate pollution arising from industrial
44
activities, in an integrate manner, while striking a commercial balance for businesses. The focus in the
Directive on the need to provide greater clarity in certain areas, to reduce distortions of competition, and
to cut all unnecessary administrative burdens and simplify current legislation, is particularly welcome.
The IED is a significant piece of legislation and its transposition into domestic law will be complex. IBEC
believes, therefore, that it is vital that the transposition is clear and the spirit of the Directive is maintained
in the process and form of its transposition. IBEC welcomes the stated objective of the Department in the
RIA, to achieve, through the transposition of the IED, “a high level of protection of human health and the
environment; and to achieve this in the most cost-effective and efficient way while ensuring the reduction
of unnecessary administrative burdens”.
The transposition of the IED, which will require the amendment of existing domestic legislation, offers an
opportunity for the consolidation and simplification of legislation in this area, which would be a welcome
development from the point of view of operators in particular. Consolidation of legislation governing the
EPA, as well as IPPC and Waste licensing, was recommended in the Review of the EPA. It is welcome that
the Department acknowledges in the RIA that “the requirements of the IED and the legislation provisions
of the existing Directives unchanged by the IED should, where possible and desirable, be aligned to
promote ease of understanding and operation for operators.
IBEC favours the adoption of Option 3: transposition by applying some or all of the derogations/flexibilities
contained in the IED” on the basis that Option 1 is not feasible and Option 3 is a more cost-effective
approach than Option 2, which would ignore the consequences for competitiveness and security of energy
supply of prematurely implementing many of the IED’s flexible provisions. The lead-in time for investment
in many of the installations to which the flexible provisions apply are lengthy, and as such, additional time
in which to comply with the new obligations under the IED which may require the upgrading of plant and
equipment, is required.
In relation to the specific flexibilities, IBEC considers that it makes sense in regulatory terms, to transpose
those in relation to the obligation to hold a permit [Article 4(2), 4 (3)] and the emission of greenhouse
gases [Article 9(2)]. In relation to the flexibility for competent authorities to set stricter permit conditions
than those achievable by the use of BAT [Article 14(4)], it is not clear why or in what circumstances this
provision would be required to be used.
IBEC considers that it is essential that the flexibilities in relation to emission limit values, equivalent
parameters and technical measures [Article 15(4), 15(5)] are transposed in Ireland and that the EPA will
have the power to grant derogations to set less strict emission limit values than those association with the
use of BAT, in specific cases. There are likely to be some genuine cases, where an assessment would show
that the achievement of BAT would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental
45
benefits due to the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation
concerned; or the technical characteristics and degree of operation of the installation concerned. Article
15(5) also provides an important opportunity to actively promote emerging techniques.
In terms of the available flexibilities under each of the sectoral chapters, IBEC believes that it is critical that
those for LCPs, specifically in relation to emission limit values [Articles 30(5), (6)], a minimum
desulphurization rate [Article 31(2)], a TNP (Article 32), limited lifetime derogation (Article 33) and in
relation to malfunction or breakdown of the abatement equipment [Article 37(2)] are transposed. Similarly
the available flexibilities for waste incineration/co-incineration plants and installations and activities using
organic solvents are practical and should be transposed so the option to use them is available if necessary.
For example, the threshold for solvent consumption levels under Article 59(2), (3), (4) is low. IBEC believes
that it is critical that in transposing the IED, the Department does not repeat the experience with the
transposition of the Environmental Liabilities Directive, whereby the mandatory provisions of the Directive
were transposed through the use of regulations under the European Communities Act 1973, and the
discretionary provisions were included in a Bill, which has not yet proceeded through the legislative
process.
The EPA Act 1992, as amended, imposed integrated pollution prevention and control requirements on a
number of industrial activities other than those expressly included within the scope of the original IPPC
Directive. Where those activities do not fall within the scope of the activities covered by the IED, IBEC
believes that they should not be subjected to the requirements imposed by the Directive under
transposition.
On foot of the experience of member companies with EPA licensed facilities, IBEC has previously
highlighted to both the Department and the EPA, the need for a mechanism to provide for amendments to
IPPC licences and waste licences in certain circumstances, where a clerical or technical amendment is not
possible or suitable, without the need to trigger a full licence review. The Review of the EPA also
recommended giving consideration to such a change. IBEC believes that it would be possible to introduce a
mechanism that would facilitate environmental improvements, innovation and investment and which
would be less of a strain on the resources of the EPA and operators, while incorporating requirements in
relation to public participation in decision-making. While such a move would require legislative change, it
could be incorporated as part of the IED transposition process.
While the RIA is a comprehensive document, it is regrettable that not even rough costings have been
included in the analysis.
46
Note 1
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Electricity Market Reform White Paper
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/white_papers/emr_wp_2011/emr_wp_2011.aspx
Note 2
Eirgrid System Services Consultation (June 2012) http://www.eirgrid.com/media/System_Services_Consultation_Products.pdf
Note 3
In February this year, the Commission published Decision (2012/115/EU) laying down rules concerning the implementation of TNPs, and outlining the
mechanism for calculating emissions ceiling (for the TNP) for the years 2016 – 2020
Note 4
See EirGrid, All-island Generation Capacity Statement, 2012-2021 http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island%20GCS%202012-2021.pdf and 2011-2020
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/GCS%202011-2020%20as%20published%2022%20Dec.pdf
Note 5
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Electricity Market Reform White Paper
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/white_papers/emr_wp_2011/emr_wp_2011.aspx
Note 6
2010/75/EU recital 2
Note 7
2009/28/EU
Note 8
Retrieved (26/6/2012) from http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/9472D68A-40F4-41B8-B8FD-F5F88D4207A/0/RenewableEnergyStrategy2012_2020.pdf at
pp 17
Note 9
Eirgrid DS3: System Services Consultation retrieved from pp 4 http://www.eirgrid.com/media/System_Services_Consultation_Products.pdf
Note 10
In February this year, the Commission published Decision (2012/115/EU) laying down rules concerning the implementation of TNPs, and outlining the
mechanism for calculating emissions ceiling (for the TNP) for the years 2016 – 2020
47