Brussels, April 2008
Cefic Position Paper
on
DIRECTIVE ON INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS (IPPC) (Recast)
Proposal COM(2007)844 final – 2007/0286 (COD)
Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, represents national federations and
companies with around 29,000 large, medium and small companies in Europe, which employ
about 2 million people and account for more than 30% of world chemicals production.
The chemical industry plays an important role in moving towards a more sustainable society
by innovative developments and optimised materials that reduce the environmental impact of
products during the whole life-cycle. To accomplish this, industry needs legal certainty, which
takes its investment cycles into account and the encouragement for innovation and
investment in Europe.
On 21 December 2007, the European Commission published its proposal for a revision of the
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. While fully acknowledging the
important task of reducing environmental pollution, Cefic is seriously concerned that this
proposal would dismantle the current IPPC system and threaten EU productivity and
competitiveness, while additional benefits to environment and health are not fully
substantiated. The IPPC is, and must remain, an integrated approach based on the
environmental impacts on all media, technical feasibility, cross-media effects and cost
effectiveness.
The most important issues of concern in the Commission proposal are the following:
1. Rules for setting emission limit values (art.16.2):
a. The principles of flexibility and integrated approach should be taken
systematically into account i.e. the technical characteristics of the installation,
its geographical location and the local environmental conditions
b. Emission limit values should be based on emission levels associated with
Best Available Techniques taking into account the fluctuations of these
emissions.
2. The Commission alone should not select the BATs but this should be the task of the
groups of experts in charge of the drafting of the BAT reference documents (art.
29.b).
3. When an installation is not covered by a specific BREF document, the operator
should cooperate with the Competent Authority to determine BAT (art.15)
4. The requirements regarding soil and groundwater monitoring should be determined
by the Competent Authority including the type and frequency of monitoring (art. 17.2)
5. Upon definitive cessation of the activities, the Competent Authority should ensure that
the site does not pose any significant risk to human health and the environment.
Accordingly, the Competent Authority shall determine if remediation is necessary and,
687294949
Page 1 de 7
if so, apply national liability regulations for the remediation, taking into account the
intended future use (art.23.3)
6. The chapter and annexes regarding the sectoral directives, in particular the solvent
and the titanium dioxide directives, should maintain the original emission limit values,
definitions and guidance of the sectoral directives or be based on realistic
improvements developed in conjunction with the relevant industries.
7. Comitology: due to the adaptation of the technical sections, the Committee should not
neglect the expert contribution of other stakeholders. Cefic therefore suggests the colegislators consider a consultation prior to the release of the proposal by the
Committee (art. 69.1)
Conclusions
Cefic confirms its full support for the fundamental principles of the existing IPPC Directive as
an efficient tool to reduce emissions in a balanced way, by applying Best Available
Techniques or equivalent while taking economic considerations into account. The changes of
the IPPC Directive have been the result of conclusions of a study dated 2005-2006 on the
implementation process, where shortcomings were identified. However the Directive was
only fully implemented as of 30 October 2007. The final BREFs, and in particular the BREFs
concerning the chemical industry, were only actually adopted by the Commission in 20052006 and no translations were provided.
We believe that the study is based on too short an experience to justify such a radical
revision of the IPPC Directive. In fact any change should be carefully considered given the
time needed to assess their effectiveness.
We therefore ask the Commission to reconsider and accept some modifications, in particular
the recognition of the principle of flexibility and a need for stakeholder involvement. Industry
needs a measure of stability concerning regulations, legal certainty and an understanding of
the importance of investment cycles, in order to effectively face global competition.
For any question, please contact:
Jean-Marie Demoulin
jm.demoulin@skynet.be
Tel: 02 676 74 94
687294949
Page 2 de 7
DIRECTIVE ON INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS (IPPC) (Recast)
Proposal COM(2007)844 final – 2007/0286 (COD)
TECHNICAL ANNEX
BACKGROUND
Cefic would first like to recall the key principles of the original 1996 Directive on Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC), whose full implementation date for both new and existing installations was
fixed at 30 October 2007. Its objective is to reach a high level of environmental protection following those
principles:

An integrated approach by considering the emissions from an installation to the different
environmental media (air, water and land).

The setting of the permit conditions (essentially Emission Limit Values) based on the
performance that can be achieved when applying the Best Available Techniques (BATs).

Flexibility by taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its
geographical location and the local environmental conditions.
KEY DEFINITIONS



Emission Limit Values (ELVs):
Best Available Techniques (BATs): they are the most effective techniques in achieving a high
level of global environmental protection; they can be implemented in the relevant sector under
economically and technically viable conditions, taking into account costs and advantages.
BAT reference documents (BREFs): they indicate what is regarded as BATs for each industrial
sector at EU level and, in the case of the chemical industry, for each sub-sector. The fundamental
purpose of the BREFs is to document the emission levels that result from the application of BATs,
so these can be used as a reference to establish the ELVs in permits.
Preliminary considerations
Cefic supported the original principles of IPPC and is very concerned by the new proposal
published by the Commission for the recast of the IPPC Directive, which modifies the key
principles of the original Directive as described above. In this context, Cefic would like to
submit our major concerns and proposals for improvement.
Cefic’s seven key priorities
1. DETERMINATION OF EMISSION LIMIT VALUES (ELVS)
a. The principle of flexibility (art.16.2)
The existing IPPC Directive requires that ELVs should respect the principle of flexibility (art.9
of the original 1996 Directive)1. It is therefore recognized that BREFs are not exhaustive and
cannot take into account all the different cases that may exist across Europe. In particular for
the chemical industry, all installations are different, even when producing the same
substance, and they can be integrated into large complexes in various ways.
1
"Emission limit values shall be based on best available techniques, taking into account the technical
characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions".
687294949
Page 3 de 7
The new proposal replaces art.16.2 with a provision for derogation but under strict conditions
and with criteria to be designed by the Commission without Industry’s participation. We
strongly object to consider local circumstances as being an exception.
For these reasons, Cefic urges the European Parliament and the Council to revert to
the original intention and text of the IPPC Directive 96/611.
b. Difference between an ELV and a BAT associated emission level (art.16.2)
The proposal requires that ELVs do not exceed the emission levels associated with BAT as
described in the BREFs. This requirement does not take into account the difference that
exists between an ELV and a BAT associated emission level. BREFs do not specify ELVs
but provide emission levels that an operator can expect to achieve when using the BATs
(see chart below).
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE AND ELV
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
ELV
MARGIN
UPPER
LIMIT
AVERAGE
EMISSION
LOWER
LIMIT
Istantaneous Value
TIME
ELV is a limit any instantaneous emission value may not exceed at any time. Instantaneous
emission values are the dots on the chart. When taking the average of the instantaneous
values we have the average emission level (in blue). This average emission level
corresponds to the total quantity of pollutants released over a period of time. Instantaneous
emission values vary between a lower limit and an upper limit. The operator has to make
sure that the upper limit is always lower than the ELV which has been fixed in the permit. In
other words the ELVs take into account the fluctuations inherent to any process.
In the BAT reference document, the BATs are described and associated emission levels are
provided. These correspond to the average emission level (in blue) in the chart.
687294949
Page 4 de 7
Emission patterns can look very different according to the characteristics of the specific
process (see graphics below).
For cost effective or technical reasons a product can be manufactured in different ways (e.g.
continuously, semi-continuously, batch-wise or in a multi-pupose unit) and, therefore the
emission profiles (blue) are different.
Consequently their emission ranges (red) have to be different.
This will not change the impact on the environment, because the overall emissions of all
processes (A in black) are the same.
1
2
A
A
4
3
A
A
With the overall intent to apply BATs and as a result achieving BAT emission levels,
Cefic proposes the following amendment: "the competent authority shall set ELVs
resulting in emission levels that do not exceed the emission levels associated with
BAT".
2. OBJECT OF THE INFORMATION EXCHANGE (ART.29(b))
In art.16.2 of the existing IPPC Directive, the information exchange is "on best available
techniques, associated monitoring, and development of them". In the new proposal however,
the information exchange will not be on BATs but on "the techniques used, associated
monitoring and their development" (art. 29 b).
It is essential that BATs are selected and defined by the group of experts in charge of the
information exchange. Consequently art.29(b) should be changed into "The best
available techniques used, associated monitoring and their development".
687294949
Page 5 de 7
3. INDUSTRY’S INVOLVEMENT FOR AN INSTALLATION NOT COVERED BY A BREF (ART.15)
Where an installation is not covered by a BREF, the new proposal requires that the
Competent Authority (CA) alone determines the BAT. Cefic believes that the CA needs the
technical expertise and the collaboration of the relevant industry stakeholders.
Therefore Cefic proposes that the operator and the CA agree on the emission levels
corresponding to the BAT.
4. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING (ART.17.2)
Regarding requirements on soil and groundwater monitoring, the type and frequency of
monitoring should be determined locally by the Competent Authority (CA) in cooperation with
Industry in order to ensure that the local conditions are taken into account.
Considering the importance and variability of local conditions, it would not be appropriate for
the Commission to determine EU criteria for a standard monitoring frequency.
Cefic thus proposes to delete the reference to a fixed period of 7 years in art.17.2.
5. OPERATOR’S RESPONSABILITY (ART. 23)
Cefic cannot support the current Art. 23 (3) “…the operator shall remediate the site
and return it to the initial state” but propose "The Competent Authority shall ensure
that the site does not pose any significant risk to human health and the environment.
Accordingly, the Competent Authority shall determine if remediation is necessary and,
if so, apply national liability regulations for the remediation, taking into account the
intended future use ". The Competent Authority shall ensure that the appropriate
responsible operator (or owner or landlord) is designated at local level and according to
national laws.
With regard to the requirement to draw up a “baseline report” as part of the application for a
permit, a substantial amount of drilling in a square grid through concrete or other fortified
pavements is necessary to establish a meaningful baseline report. In the new proposal such
a report would have to be drawn up each time there is a change in the permit. Therefore,
the requirement in Art. 23 (2) of the operator to prepare a baseline report for every
update, should be deleted. When starting operation however, "a soil and groundwater
characterisation" report should be prepared, containing information necessary to
characterize the soil and the groundwater and determine the associated risks.
6. IMPACT OF THE RECAST
The recast of the IPPC directive as proposed will seriously impact the industries concerned:
o Titanium Dioxide:
The changes of ELVs and how they are to be applied have been made without
proper industry consultation. As a consequence, they result in either unrealistic
requirements which would damage the Titanium Dioxide industry, ambiguity or
conditions that may not be technically feasible. The loss of the scope/definition for
certain emissions will result in different requirements for different installations with
687294949
Page 6 de 7
o
o
a risk of distortion of the competition.
The cost benefit assessment carried out to support the proposed reduction in
emission limit values, overstates the claimed benefits to a considerable degree
since they are not based on current performance. The environmental monitoring
requirements in the proposed directive have not been updated in line with current
industry and member state expertise.
.
Large combustion plant: The cost benefit analysis overstates the benefits and
fails to consider incremental costs versus incremental environmental benefits. The
changes of ELVs and applicability range will require significant investment on
items that were already affected by recent legislation (2001/80/EC), thereby
undermining the long term planning basis that is needed for industry. The
proposed ELVs are derived from the Large Combustion Plant BREF. This is an
example illustrating that confusing BAT associated emission levels with ELVs
leads to ELVs that are beyond what is economically justifiable and even
technically feasible.
Solvent Emissions: Definitions have been changed, clarifications have been
removed and ‘guidance’ has been changed into mandatory requirements, without
industry consultation. As a result it is no longer clear which ELV (waste gas or
fugitive) should apply to what part of the installation, operators are no longer free
to decide themselves whether to use the ‘reduction scheme’ (they have thus lost
the fundamental freedom to reduce emission in the manner best fitting and cost
effective to their installation) and the reporting is now restricted to one single
format that does not fit all the different installations in the scope of Annex 7, part 4
of the proposed directive.
With regard to Annex 7, part 4 of the proposed directive, the original definition of
fugitive emissions needs to be reinstated, and the deleted clarifications and the
characterisation as guidance of the solvent management plan should be
reintroduced.
Cefic proposes to keep the original ELVs, definitions, clarifications and guidance of
the sectoral directives.
7. COMITOLOGY
The proposal introduces several issues, which will be covered by a Comitology procedure
with scrutiny, such as criteria for derogations, measures related to monitoring requirements,
site closure and remediation, inspections, emerging techniques and adaptation of Annex V
to VIII.
CEFIC takes the view that, irrespective of the procedure applied for the implementation of
any such technical proposals - comitology or other - the structured and continuous dialogue
with stakeholders that is so important for the IPPC directive today must not be stopped. If
comitology procedure is the route chosen by the European institutions, industry calls
for a systematic consultation of stakeholders.
687294949
Page 7 de 7