1. First position of the Belgian industry about the
proposal for a directive on industrial emissions
Stakeholders meeting CCPIE/CCIM
17 April 2008

2. The actual IPPC directive is a good , efficient and balanced tool for the protection of the environment but it has not yet delivered its full potential because the implementation is not as it should be everywhere in Europe.
This is a problem of enforcement

3. The industry strongly supports the actual pillars of the IPPC directive:
Obligation to have a permit
BAT based permit conditions
Integrated approach (cross media ….)
Take the technical characteristics of the local installation , its geographical location and the local environmental conditions into account (actual art 9.4)
Exchange of information between the experts of the Members States , the industry , the green NGO’s and the commission about BAT and continuous improvement

4. The industry devoted considerable human resources in the “process” of Seville which led to the publication of the actual BREF documents.
The input of the experts of the industry is key for the continuous improvement of the BAT’s

5. In the new proposal the ELV’s would have to be inside the BAT AEL’s
the actual article 9.4 which takes the local circumstances into account would become a « deviation » and require a derogation

6. Emission limit values (ELV’s) within the range of BAT-associated emission levels (BAT AEL’s from the BREF), as in the new proposal, do not reflect the industrial reality and will only lead to many non compliance without improvement of the protection of the environment.

7. b. ELV’s are short term values that may never be exceeded
1. Because they do not take into account the fluctuations that are inherent in many production process:
a. BAT AEL represent averages achievable during substantial period of time in normal operating conditions
b. ELV’s are short term values that may never be exceeded

9. 2. Because they cannot integrate the local circumstances:
None of the installations manufacturing the same product are identical
b. It is impossible to fully address in a BREF all different local conditions and cross media effect scenarios.

10. E M I S O N
VALUE
MARGIN 1
AVERAGE EMISSION PLANT 1
TIME
ELV 2
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCES FOR TWO INSTALLATIONS APPLYING THE SAME TECHNIQUE WITH DIFFERENT RAW MATERIALS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ELVs
AVERAGE EMISSION PLANT 2
ELV 1
INSTALLATION 1
INSTALLATION 2
BAT AEL
AVERAGE EMISSION PLANT X
AVERAGE EMISSION PLANT Y
MARGIN 2

11. BREF are documents suitable to derive ELV’s but not to provide them:
1.The proposal completely changes the status of the BREF: from technical background document they would move to quasi binding documents providing the ELV’s for the local authorities
2. The upper value of the BATAEL range would de facto become a European wide ELV

12. The exchange of information would not anymore only be focused on BAT
The proposal deviates considerably from the actual Seville process
BAT AEL in the BREF would become ELV: it would also mean that all the existing BREF would have to be revisited in that perspective because they have never been drafted with that intention
The exchange of information would not anymore only be focused on BAT
The exchange would move from a multilateral and consensual process to separate bilateral exchanges between the commission and the different stakeholders
The commission would make the final decision not the relevant technical working group .
When a BREF will be reviewed : no exchange of information will have to take place and the commission may adapt the document on her own.

13. Soil: We propose to promote the philosophy of our regional legislations (risk based and distinction between historical and new contaminations) . The best place would be in the specific EU directive (blocked for the moment) and not in the IPPC.
“Committology”: a lot of provisions refer to decisions in a committee in areas which are essential for the industry .It gives too much power to the commission and makes it impossible to take local specificity of the MS or the installation into account. Moreover industry experts would not have to be consulted.

14. Scope: the combustion plants from 20 to 50 MWth should be left outside the IPPC heavy constraints , it would avoid a lot of administrative burden for many SME’s . As far as the environment is concerned, those installation already require a permit in our regional legislations

15. The proposal merges several “sector” directives (solvents, TiO2, incineration of waste, large combustion plants) but at the same time many “sector” ELV’s have been strengthened without any consultation of the industry under focus and cancelling the notion of existing plant.
The LCP for instance would have to implement the BAT AEL without any possibility of derogation, knowing that in addition there was no consensus within the relevant BREF.
The content of the existing LCP directive should be left unchanged , the existing ELV’s being the « safety net » .

16. Many new administrative constraints have been added which is contrary to the simplification and better regulation commitment of the commission and will put a more burden on the Member States and the industry

17. The recast process allows only co-decision (amendments) in the grey shaded parts of the proposal: in our opinion some substantive changes that are essential for the industry are not grey shaded!
In order to safeguard democracy , we ask the « consultative working party » between the Parliament, the council and the commission to first take those on board in their opinion .