10 November 2008
FNADE is the French Federation which represents the French waste management industry. Our members are waste management and environmental services companies, which treat 81 million tons of waste in 2 750 installations with a turnover of more than 10,4 billion €/year. FNADE represents 360 private companies with activities in all forms of waste management. These companies employ over 75 000 employees in France who operate recycling and sorting centres, waste-to-energy plants, composting sites and controlled landfills, and play an important role in the legislative and technical determination of the sound management of waste.
Preliminary question:
How does the present text of the proposed Industrial Emissions Directive really provide
“better regulation” as it is expected since the beginning of the recast procedure?
1. WHAT FOR A EUROPEAN SAFETY NET (ESN)?
1.1. Is the ESN aiming at tackling the setting-up of minimum requirements sector by sector / for all sectors together? What are the practical goals (advantages / disadvantages) of the ESN?
1.2.
Will the “minimum requirements” of ESN modify the existing stringent Emission
Limit Values (ELVs) and other provisions of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID)?
1.3. What do the “minimum requirements” of ESN include?
1.3.1. Maximum Emission Limit Values (ELVs) with accompanying measures as it is the case for instance in the Waste Incineration Directive and the Large
Combustion Plants (LCP) Directive?
1.3.2. Other requirements?
1.4. How will the “minimum requirements” of ESN be elaborated and revised?
1.4.1. Through the Sevilla process?
1.4.2. Through a Brussels process? By Comitology procedure? By codecision? By involving the concerned industry?
1.4.3. Through the Sevilla and a Brussels processes?
1
F rench F ederation of W aste M anagement and E nvironmental S ervices
Rue Philippe le Bon 15
– BE 1000 Brussels – Tel.: +32 (0)2 230 65 50 – Fax: +32 (0)2 230 73 79
Head office: 33 rue de Naples
– FR 75008 Paris – Tel.: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 90 – Fax: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 99 www.fnade.com – fnade@fnade.com

1.5.
Do the “minimum requirements” of ESN take into account emission irregularities that normally occur in operation? Will the ESN include measures accompanying
ELVs as it is done in the WID and the LCP Directive?
1.6. Will the “minimum requirements” of ESN end in strengthening ELVs at mid-/longterm?
For FNADE, the ESN concept, as it appears in some proposed amendments, remains too vague and unclear. We question a new system that seems us to possibly be in contradiction with the
Waste Incineration Directive (WID) that currently lays down very stringent Emission Limit Values
(ELVs). A set of “super ceilings”, as the ESN appears, must in any case not end in automatically reducing ELVs that are clearly set in the WID. We ask at least for the ESN not to impact the WID system. Due to a lack of clarity of the ESN concept so far, we call for rejection of tabled amendments. A satisfactory clarification would be essential to envisage supporting the ESN.
YES to amendments tabled in ENVI: 66 , 90, 95, 96, 193, 195, 201, and 202.
NO to amendments tabled in ENVI: 147, 17 , 148 , 22, 210, 211, 24, and 533.
2. NO CONFUSION BETWEEN EMISSION LIMIT VALUES (ELVs) AND BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES ASSOCIATED EMISSION LEVELS (BAT-AELs)!
2.1.
Could you explain the difference between emission “limits” (ELVs) and emission
“levels” (BAT-AELs)?
2.2. Aren’t there parameters other than ELVs and BAT-AELs ensuring an environmentally sound management of waste (e.g.: admissibility criteria)?
2.3. How do you see the deviation of ELVs from BAT-AELs?
2.4. Is the setting of ELVs:
2.4.1. A political task?
2.4.2. A technical task?
2.4.3. A political and a technical task?
2.5. How will derogations ensure a level playing field in Europe?
FNADE asks that a clear distinction be kept between ELVs and BAT-AELs. In fact, these are of different natures which do not have to be confused. ELVs are ceiling values not to be exceeded.
BAT-AELs are average values obtained in operation when best available techniques are implemented; by definition of the average value, half of the operation values are above the BAT-
AELs (and the other half are below). The wording such as “ELVs do not exceed BAT-AELs” must definitely be rejected.
YES to amendments tabled in ENVI: 186,193,195.
3. THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF THE INTEGRATED APPROACH!
2
F rench F ederation of W aste M anagement and E nvironmental S ervices
Rue Philippe le Bon 15
– BE 1000 Brussels – Tel.: +32 (0)2 230 65 50 – Fax: +32 (0)2 230 73 79
Head office: 33 rue de Naples
– FR 75008 Paris – Tel.: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 90 – Fax: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 99 www.fnade.com – fnade@fnade.com

3.1. Do you think that BREFs give instructions directly applicable?
3.2.
Don’t you think that the integrated approach is needed for using a BREF for a particular installation?
3.3.
Is the “integrated approach” really kept in the future Industrial Emissions Directive, if it is not defined?
3.4. Do you think that the integrated approach requires to reduce the emissions to the lowest possible value without giving importance to the entirety of environmental aspects (use of natural resources, energy consumption, emission of pollutants, etc.), to the technical feasibility, to the local conditions, and to the cross-effects medias on the environment?
For FNADE, the integrated approach principle of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
(IPPC) Directive needs to be safeguarded including when using a BREF for the determination of
ELVs to be set in the permit. Taking into account the overall protection of the environment, technical feasibilities, local conditions, cost-effectiveness and cross-effects media on the environment, implies arbitrations between emissions levels and other parameters. A method exclusively based on unique limit values with derogations would block up the integrated approach.
The integrated approach needs a case-by-case analysis; for each installation a permit is the result of a trade-off between the criteria given in Annex VI, taking into account costs and benefits under the local conditions.
YES to amendments tabled in ENVI: 66 , 94 , 6 , 115 , 11 , 153 , 155 1a) & 1b),
156 1a) & 1b), 158, 159, 163 , 176 , 182 , 183 , 184, 186, 193 , 195, 201, 202, 25,
225, 226 , 26, 231 , 27 , and 28.
NO to amendments tabled in ENVI: 59 , 154, 155 1c), 156 1c), 172, 177 , 178 ,
179, 19, 20, 185, 188, 189 , 190 , 191 , 21 , 192 , 22, 196 to 200, 203, 210, 211, 24,
224, 240, and 306.
4. BAT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (BREFs) ARE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS!
4.1. Can you accept that BREFs become legally binding? Will BREFs remain reference documents?
4.2. Why are BREFs foreseen to become alternative legislation in particular for the issuing of permits?
4.3. How will local conditions (i.e. geographical and local environmental conditions) be taken into consideration without the integrated approach to use the BREF?
4.4. What will be the rules of implementation in absence of a finalised BREF?
3
F rench F ederation of W aste M anagement and E nvironmental S ervices
Rue Philippe le Bon 15
– BE 1000 Brussels – Tel.: +32 (0)2 230 65 50 – Fax: +32 (0)2 230 73 79
Head office: 33 rue de Naples
– FR 75008 Paris – Tel.: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 90 – Fax: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 99 www.fnade.com – fnade@fnade.com

For FNADE, the elaboration of BAT reference documents (BREFs) should remain under the Sevilla process, with a few improvements. The Sevilla process should in any case not be transformed into a comitology procedure, undermining the expertise of the industry.
On the other hand, we clearly oppose to a legally binding status for BREFs which have to remain information and reference documents and must be used according to the integrated approach.
5. BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS OF THE WASTE INCINERATION DIRECTIVE (WID)!
5.1. Are all provisions of the WID kept in the future Industrial Emissions Directive?
5.2. Which new provisions will be added to the ones of the WID by merging into the
Industrial emissions Directive?
5.3. How will the integration of the WID provisions into the future Industrial Emissions
Directive affect the implementation of the WID?
5.4. Why recasting the WID, while it is known that the WID delivers a real success in implementation by various stakeholders?
FNADE considers the implementation of the WID as a success and therefore asks that this text be integrated into the new Industrial Emissions Directive without substantial changes. The integration of the WID into the new proposal should not affect the material content of the current WID.
Measures adopted in the WID for particular situations (start-ups, incidents) have to be maintained.
YES to amendments tabled in ENVI: 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 10, 108, 109, 110, 12 , 311,
312, 333, 392 to 394 , 496 , 507 to 510 , 513 to 516 , 519 , and 524 to 526 .
NO to amendments tabled in ENVI: 335 to 344, 349, 350, 370 , 391 , 395 to
405 , 477 to 495 , 497 to 506 , 511 , 512 , 517 , 518 , 520 to 523 , and 527 .
6. KEEPING AN EFFECTIVE AND HARMONISED MONITORING AND CONTROLLING
SYSTEM!
6.1. Who do you think to be in a better position to efficiently monitor and control the installations?
6.1.1. National authorities?
6.1.2. Operator of the installations himself?
6.1.3. Auditors of certification schemes (EMAS, ISO, etc.)?
6.1.4. Others?
6.2. Is the level playing field guaranteed?
6.3. Will the protection of the environment and of the public health really be improved?
4
F rench F ederation of W aste M anagement and E nvironmental S ervices
Rue Philippe le Bon 15
– BE 1000 Brussels – Tel.: +32 (0)2 230 65 50 – Fax: +32 (0)2 230 73 79
Head office: 33 rue de Naples
– FR 75008 Paris – Tel.: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 90 – Fax: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 99 www.fnade.com – fnade@fnade.com

The waste management sector is particularly attached to an efficient monitoring and controlling system by national authorities. “Better regulation” does not mean that Member States weaken their control tools. They are the only guarantee for the protection of the environment and the level playing field.
YES to amendments tabled in ENVI: 1, 2, 72, 14 , 214, 218, 219, 248, 254, 32,
270, 276 , 283 , 36 , 37 , 286 , 38, 289, 293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 345 , and 347.
NO to amendments tabled in ENVI: 70, 124, 13, 125 to 129, 216, 217, 29, 247,
255 to 269, 34, 272, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284, 285, 287 , 288, 39, 292, 40, 296,
297, 300 to 303, 345, 347, and 48.
5
F rench F ederation of W aste M anagement and E nvironmental S ervices
Rue Philippe le Bon 15
– BE 1000 Brussels – Tel.: +32 (0)2 230 65 50 – Fax: +32 (0)2 230 73 79
Head office: 33 rue de Naples
– FR 75008 Paris – Tel.: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 90 – Fax: +33 (0)1 53 04 32 99 www.fnade.com – fnade@fnade.com