Sevilla Process - E.NGO (EEB) perspective. Christian Schaible European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Joint DG ENV/BMU Workshop, 16 October 2014, Berlin

Transcription

1 Sevilla Process - E.NGO (EEB) perspective Christian Schaible European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Joint DG ENV/BMU Workshop, 16 October 2014, Berlin 1

2 Outline Some experience / suggestions: Issue 1: inclusive governance (3 angles) Issue 2: Frontloading / prioritisation (same pollutant, same process but different standards) Issue 3: BAT determination: where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Issue 4: reality check emerging techniques 2

3 Issue 1: inclusive governance (a) MS nominate operators as part of the official MS TWG Illustration LCP review Industry Member States E. NGO COM AT 6, BE12, BG4, CY6, CZ8, DK8,EST4, FIN8, FR5, DE10, EL7, HU5,IRL3,IT6, LV2,LT1, LUX1, MT6, NL9, POL4, PT9, RO5, SK4, SL3, ES11,SWE6, UK10 Iceland 1, Turkey 4, Serbia 1, Norway Industry

4 Issue 1 : inclusive governance (a) Number of operators in TWG Member States delegation MS Who (co) represents them? Number of operators CEZ Group 1 Eesti Energia 1 Finnish Energy Industries 1 Hellenic Petroleum Public Power Corporation (DEI) 1 6 Hungarian Power Companies Ltd. (MVM Zrt) 2 Assoelectrica.it (Italian Energy industry) 1 Enemalta Corporation 3 4

5 Issue 1 : inclusive governance (a) MS Who (co)represents them? Number of operators Polish Energy Partners (Mondigroup) PGE Gornictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna S.A EDF Polska 3 Turbogas Tejo Energia SA EDP Energia SA Gasnatural.com Elcogas Endesa IBERDROLA HCEnergia.com UNESA Chemical Industry Association E.ON New Build&Tech RWE Power EDF Energy Stanlow refinery

6 Issue 1: inclusive governance (a) proposal operators should not be part of the official MS TWG delegation industry concerned should not be able to represent a Member State in official TWG meetings Way forward: 1) amend/clarify the BREF review rules (section 4.4.1) 2) EIPPCB prevent industry to attend on behalf of Member States concerned in official TWG meetings 3) Member States concerned to revoke these persons from their official delegation 6

7 Issue 1: inclusive governance (a) rationale Principle (Art 13 (1) IED what is the Sevilla Process?: an exchange of information between Member States, Industries concerned, NGOs promoting environmental protection and the European Commission 4 distinct stakeholder groups IED Article 3(15) defines operator which de jure / de facto cannot be a Member State Need balance of interest (and public servants to act free of private interests) Clear conflict of interest for operators to jointly determine MS input on future standards subject to comitology vote 7

8 Issue 1: inclusive governance (B) issue In certain MS national BREF TWG mirror groups exchange information to determine national (MS) position. However only in few cases E.NGO are effectively part of these groups, but industry concerned is: Illustrations: E.NGOs involved: DK, FIN, NL E.NGOs not involved / case by case: ES, DE, FR, IT... 8

9 Issue 1: inclusive governance (B) proposal /rationale/ way forward If MS establish national mirror groups, then E.NGOs need to be invited and consulted systematically as well Rationale: Art 13(1) IED applied to the national level Balance of interest organisation (in public interest) MS positioning determinant (Art 75 comitology vote) Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental decision making Way forward: 1) MS with BREF mirror groups to ensure systematically E.NGOs involvement (wish list, BAT candidates, formal comments, Final TWG / IED Forum) 2) MS to establish RoP to ensure balance of interest representation 9

10 Issue 1: inclusive governance (C) issue In Final TWG / IED Forum seek to have consensus on the way forward. Realistic? As a result compromises which weaken ambition level in order to avoid split views Illustrations: Ex 1: CWW BREF footnotes approach Ex 2: at IED Forum it suffices one opposing voice without technical rationale to stop further consideration 10

11 Issue 1: inclusive governance (C) proposal /rationale/ way forward Consensus ideal solution but not exclude majority positioning among 4 stakeholder groups Provide for voting with balanced weighting of votes across 4 stakeholder groups, split the industry concerned group (operators, technique providers, competing sectors) Rationale: Industry concerned may have diverging interests Current setting is unbalanced Way forward: 1) Consider majority system based on fair weighting of votes among 4 main interest groups: equal weight of Industry and E.NGO 2) Agree attribution of votes MS (Council system?) and COM 11

12 Issue 2: Frontloading / key environmental issues integrated pollution prevention and control of pollution arising from industrial activities... (Art 1(1) IED)... in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole (Art 1(1) IED) pollution prevention in compliance with the polluter pays and the principle of pollution prevention (recital 2) limit imbalances in the Union as regards the level of emissions from industrial activities (recital 13) shall serve as a driver towards improved environmental performance (BREF review rules) ELVs for polluting substances listed in Annex II, and for other polluting substances [...] shall be included in permits (Art 14(1)a) 12

13 Illustration: Dust BAT-AELs in combustion processes (same pollutant, process.. but different standards) Yearly average of continuous Daily average values Daily ordaily Yearly average of periodic average values average of continuous values periodic or of periodic average values average Daily average values values (GLS: or periodic twice/y) Monthly average values Daily average values (proposal Draft 2013) Lower BATAEL (mg/nm3) Upper BATAEL (mg/nm3) Exceptional cases (mg/nm3) - Graph by Oekopol, C. Tebert-

14 E-PRTR 2010 data: 98, 7 % = 11.1Mill Tonnes (9c) Surface treatment with organic solvents 50% (62.4Kt) 11, 2% 8,6% 5,8 % 4,1% 3,9% 2,6% 14

15 Issue 2: key environmental issues / prioritisation proposal /rationale/ way forward Key environmental issues to consider as minimum list of Annex II pollutants and other substances of concern Assessment on how scoping + D1 could lead to environmental improvement in quantitative and qualitative terms (e.g. resources saved, emissions prevented) in light of 7 th EAP / EQS objectives, level playing field industry, fitness check for future implementation Rationale: Aim of the BREF as per IED (+ Annex III BAT criteria) and implementing rules Coherence with EU Environmental protection acquis Way forward: 1) Assessment of relevant agencies (EEA, ECHA) in collaboration with DG ENV. Framing of scope in relation to objectives to be achieved 2) Ex post external audit on improvements linked to BAT conclusions 15

16 Issue 3: BAT determination: where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Ex 1: P&P (draft BAT conclusions lime kiln) BATAEL for lime kilns: Long term average concentration or annual load Ex 2: P&P (BAT conclusions, p. 24), recovery boilers 16

17 Issue 3: where to cut the (true) best, from the rest? Ex 3 Lime kilns dust BAT-AEL (P&P BREF) (annual mean) mg/nm 3 at 6% O 2 Out of 42 plants 27 (are already in the BATAEL, despite 5 dead ref installations ) BATAEL

18 Issue 3: where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Ex 4 Illustration Dust (D1 LCP BREF (BAT 20)) Plant applying Data base: Continuous measurements in 2011 (?) BAT? Half hour variation instead of daily mean variations EU proposal for existing plants: 4-20 mg/nm 3 = BATAEL daily average EU proposal for existing plants: < 1-10 mg/nm 3 = BATAEL yearly average

19 Issue 3: BAT determination where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Ex 5 Illustration (BAT conclusions I&S, Sinter plants Air Emissions (BAT 20) Factor 20! Factor 2,5! 19

20 Issue 3: BAT determination where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Ex 6 Illustration (BAT conclusions CWW water pollutants) Parameter Draft BAT-AEL compliance rate CEFIC 3/12/2013 (input to final meeting): (current proposed status, BATAEL 96 sets) ranges TOC must be wrong since 63% of >50% (all installations covered by questionnaires supplied) of WWTP would not comply for proposed COD BAT-AELs on at least one >63% parameter (11). TSS >60% TN >77% Ninorg+AOX >80% P >72% Cr >82 Cu >76% Ni >90% Zn >85% 20

21 Issue 3: B.A.U.T determination where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Reminder: best means most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole Rigorous first level filter in BAT reference listing E.g. Emissions data linked to permit limit or what the technique can deliver? Compliance with previous BREF BAT conclusions? Cut at top runner level and check cross-media impacts Cost-(dis)proportionality (retrofit) is a matter for Art 15(4), not the BAT assessment. Key selection criteria is outcome (to be) achieved More transparency and justification on technical applicability issues raised 21

22 Issue 3: B.A.U.T determination where to cut the (true) best from the rest? Reminder: best means most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole Way forward: 1) Robust first level filter for BAT reference listing 2) Clear and transparent BAT selection / cut-off criteria for setting the range: Top runner should set the range, consider [max 10%] cut-off for validated BAT candidates 3) Technical applicability constraints to be transparent. Explicit reference to installation concerned and rationale which justifies technical restrictions to be reported in Annex of the BREF 22

23 Issue 4: Reality check emerging technique issue Average duration of BREF review >3 years + Date Forum opinion + BAT adoption + ~1 year + >5 months translation / publication 4,5 years + max 4 years compliance deadline (with derogation) Example Pulp And Paper: Review started 15/11/2006, FD July 2013,IEDF 20/09/2013/ Publication BAT conclusion OJEU 30/09/2014 compliance deadline 30/09/2018 (12 years) BAT conclusions are out of date when implemented (+9,5 years) (linked to definition of existing plant ) Reality check still emerging after 9,5 years of experience? Illustrations: Ex 1: CLM BREF: SCR on cement kilns (Rohrdorf + Mergelstetten) Ex 2: LCP BREF: membrane filtration WWT (ion exchange) 23

24 Issue 4: Reality check emerging technique proposal /rationale/ way forward Prior to draft BAT conclusions make reality check on whether technique emerged in the meantime, if yes shift to BAT conclusions chapter Ensure emerging techniques section fit for BAT conclusions chapter (BAT-AELs / BAT-AE(P)Ls are included) Prior to implementation deadline [1 year] enable update (amendment) of BAT conclusions to integrate latest findings Rationale: Aim of the BREF as per IED Reflect true state of the art when about to implement standards Avoid regret investments Way forward: 1) (prior to BATC publication). E.g. Online updating tool 2) (after BAT C publication). Emerging techniques focus group. Amend Art 75 RoP to allow fast track updating procedure (shifting of sections) without altering BATC 24

25 Thank you for your attention! European Environmental Bureau Bureau Européen de l Environnement Boulevard de Waterloo B Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: christian.schaible@eeb.org Site Web: An international non-profit association Association Internationale sans but lucratif 25