1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre
The role of BAT conclusions and BREFs in the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)
Conference on Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental legislation
01 – 04 October 2013
Floriana, Malta
Serge Roudier
European Commission, Joint Research Centre

2. IPTS in the context of the Joint Research Centre (JRC)
European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB)
~22 staff within the Sustainable Production and Consumption (SPC) Unit of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)

3. Outline of this presentation
1 - The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)
2 - The Sevilla process
3 - Challenges for the review of BREFs under the IED

4. 1 - The Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU)

5. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED)
Key instrument for minimising consumption and the emissions of industrial activities in Europe
General framework:
prevent and, if not feasible, reduce pollution
high level of protection for the environment as a whole
permit based on Best Available Techniques (BAT)
BAT are determined by a Technical Working Group steered by the JRC (EIPPCB) and documented in BREFs
‘BAT conclusions’ are secondary legislation 5

6. Annex I to IPPC and IED Directive
Wide range of industrial activities listed:
Energy industries
Production and processing of metals
Mineral industries
cement, lime, glass, ceramics
Production of chemicals
Waste management industries
Several recovery or disposal operations
Incineration
‘Other’ industries:
Pulp and paper, textile processing
Tanning of hides and skins
Intensive farming of pigs and poultry, slaughterhouses and animal by-product processing, food drink and milk processing, surface treatment using solvents
IPPC requires permits to be based on BAT and this is defined within the Directive itself. The IPPC concept of BAT is quite complex seeking to find the best overall environmental option with regards to emissions which cannot be prevented. Inherent to BAT is a balance of likely costs and advantages and here it can be seen that BAT may be represented by an environmental optimum for energy or waste minimisation which goes beyond the normal economically attractive option for the companies. Cost neutral options for energy efficiency or waste minimisation are unlikely to be adopted by companies unless there is some external driver for them to do so. Often the most cost effective measures are not end of pipe but process integrated measures and here it can be seen that BAT focuses on the way in which activities are carried on, not just the emissions themselves.
The way in which BAT is defined in the Directive and the way in which the information exchange on BAT works out - BAT usually reflects good current practice observed somewhere in the world - this is how we gather evidence that it is indeed both technically and economically viable - by examining how the best environmental performance is achieved.
~ IPPC installations in Europe 6

7. Environmental scope of the IED prevention and control of accidents
waste prevention
and recovery
energy &
water use
prevention and control of accidents
noise
vibration
heat
emissions
to water
odour
to air 7

8. Definition of BAT in the IED
Best Most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole
Available Developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions
Techniques Both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned
Note: in determining BAT, special consideration should be given to the criteria listed in Annex III of the IED 8

9. Role of BAT conclusions in IED permitting
BAT conclusions are the reference for setting permit conditions
Permits to contain emission limit values (ELVs) to ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed BAT-associated emission levels (BAT-AELs)
Derogation from BAT-AELs is only allowed in specific and justified cases
Need to demonstrate that costs are disproportionately higher than benefits due to local/installation-specific situations
Member States report to the public/Commission on use of derogations
The BAT conclusions play a central role in the implementation of the IED.
They shall be the reference for authorities when setting permit conditions.
In particular, the emission limit values in the permits have to ensure that the levels of emissions as defined in the BAT conclusions are not exceeded.
Derogations from this key principle, which would allow to higher (less strict) emission limits in specific cases are only possible where it is shown that meeting the levels set out in the BAT Conclusions is not feasible as this would lead to disproportionate costs vs benefits.
Within 4 years after publication of BAT conclusions, all permits for installations for which those BAT conclusions cover the main activities shall be reconsidered and, where necessary, updated to bring them in line with the new BAT conclusions. 9

10. Reconsidering / updating permit conditions (IED Article 21)
"Within four years of publication of decisions on BAT conclusions in accordance with Article 13(5) relating to the main activity of an installation, the competent authority shall ensure that:
(a) all the permit conditions for the installation concerned are reconsidered and, if necessary, updated to ensure compliance with this Directive [the IED];
(b) the installation complies with those permit conditions.
The reconsideration shall take into account all the new or updated BAT conclusions applicable to the installation and adopted since the permit was granted or last reconsidered."

11. Commission Implementing Decision 2012/119/EU
2 - The Sevilla process
A complex consensus-building exchange of information with numerous stakeholders and underpinned by sound techno-economic information that has been enshrined into law by:
Commission Implementing Decision 2012/119/EU

12. The legal basis for the exchange of information on BAT
Article 13(1) of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EC:
‘In order to draw up, review and, where necessary, update BAT reference documents, the Commission shall organise an exchange of information between Member States, the industries concerned, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and the Commission’
The exchange of information should address:
the performance of installations and techniques in terms of emissions and consumptions, etc.
the techniques used, associated monitoring, economic and technical viability, etc.
best available techniques and emerging techniques identified after considering all the issues concerned 12

13. Exchange of information on BAT: actors
Members of the Committee:
vote the BAT conclusions
EU Member States Committee (IED Article 75)
‘Forum’ (IED Article 13) lead by the Commission:
industry, Member States, environmental NGOs
Forum members:
guidance to COM
nominate in TWGs
formal opinion on
BREFs
European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB)
GLS
(Glass)
Industry
Member States
NGOs
Commission
I&S
(Iron and Steel)
Industry
Member States
NGOs
Commission WT
(Waste Treatment)
Industry
Member States
NGOs
Commission
BREF authors team:
lead TWGs
validate/check information
draft BREFs
present BREF to Forum
TWG members:
research information
peer review draft BREFs
35 Technical Working Groups (TWGs) 13 13

14. TWG kick-off meeting Final TWG meeting The ‘Sevilla process’
Industry
EU Member States + EFTA and Accession Countries
Environmental
NGOs
European Commission/ EIPPCB
Draft 1 (D1)
Bulk of info. needed
(incl. questionnaires)
Draft 2 (D2) *
Comments
Final TWG meeting
Forum opinion on BREF
Adoption of BAT conclusions through the IED Art. 75 Committee
BREF
Final draft
* D2 optional
Total duration:
24 – 29 months (without D2)
29 – 39 months (with D2)
BAT
conclu-
sions
BAT
conclu-
sions

15. Exchange of information on BAT: BREFs
Standard BREF structure:
Preface
General information about the sector …… Chapter 1
Process/techniques used……………………… Chapter 2
Consumption and emission levels………… Chapter 3
Candidate BAT …………………………………… Chapter 4
BAT conclusions ………………………………… Chapter 5
Emerging techniques…………………………… Chapter 6
Concluding remarks and recommendation
for future works (including suggestions for R&D)
200 to 1000 pages 15

16. Data collection step is crucial for determining BAT
The information on key environmental issues is obtained through plant-specific questionnaires covering:
emissions to air and water
generation of solid by-products, residues and wastes
efficient energy use
techniques that are potential BAT candidates
Importance of contextual information:
details on the techniques used (characteristics, historical data)
other than normal operating conditions
link between the fuel characteristics and generated pollutants
consumptions (e.g. raw water, energy, chemicals)

17. BAT is about real plant performance
BAT-AEL: 10 – 20 mg/l (monthly average)
Pretreatment: floc+filtration
#40: OFC+POL, Direct
Pretreatment: Settling+bio. treat.
#48: LVOC, Direct
Only part of the effluent passes through the MBR - Data from 2007, in 2009 <10 mg/l
#36: MBR: <detection limit for TSS
#08: MBR: 1.1 mg/l (average of 150 measurements)

18. BREFs are available to the world

19. Progress on the review of BREFs under the IED
4 BAT conclusions already adopted:
Iron and Steel; Glass; Tanning of Hides and Skins; Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide
3 BAT conclusions soon to be adopted:
Chlor-Alkali; Pulp, Paper and Board; Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas
9 (B)REFs being worked upon:
Common Waste Water/Waste Gas; Non-Ferrous Metals; Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs; Large Volume Organic Chemicals; Large Combustion Plants; Wood-Based Panels; Waste Treatments; Food, Drink and Milk; Monitoring
Work on 3 more BREFs to start in 2014:
Waste Incineration; Surface Treatment using Organic Solvents; Wood-Preservation with Chemicals

20. 3 - Challenges for the review of BREFs under the IED

21. 35 BREFs
8-year review cycle

22. Challenges and constraints of a BREF review
The delivery of BREFs and BAT conclusions is a prerequisite for the updating of IPPC permits  time is a critical factor in the implementation of the IED, there is now the need to speed up the Sevilla process
The time allowed for a BREF review is 2-3 years maximum
Resources are scarce among stakeholders involved in the Sevilla process, including the EIPPCB
Increased importance of BREFs/BATC requires the acquisition of better and more data (contextual information, applicability, monitoring, costs), which may not be readily available

23. General strategy to shorten the time to delivery
Adopt a more focused approach (shorter BREFs, focus on BAT conclusions, target key environmental issues)
Anticipate further and prepare input before the BREF review starts: anticipation of the structure of the BAT and identification of the data needs are crucial to devise appropriate questionnaires
‘single draft’ route is the standard for BREF reviews not involving major changes in the scope
Possibilities for e.g. extending commenting periods and holding additional TWG or subgroup meetings are necessarily limited
Deliver the best quality with (limited) available time and resources

24. Conditions to reach useful BAT conclusions
All stakeholders should contribute to the exchange of information, including representatives from institutions/associations who are not directly represented in the TWG (e.g. competent authorities, equipment suppliers, representatives of industrial installations)
The applicability of the identified BAT and any potential restrictions need to be carefully assessed
A transparent exchange of information needs to be ensured
BAT conclusions are based on clear facts and sound techno-economic information 24

25. Thank you for your attention
Serge Roudier
Head of the European IPPC Bureau