UK written comments on the reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs

Transcription

1 Mr Christopher Allen European Commission Directorate General Environment Directorate C Quality of life, water and air ENV.C.3 Air and Industrial Emissions BU-29 07/28 B-1049 Brussels (sent by ) If telephoning ask for: Iain Clenahan 17 October 2014 Dear Mr Allen UK written comments on the reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs Following the preliminary discussions during the recent Article 13 Forum regarding the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs, please find enclosed the UK s initial response to the various questions in the Working Document: Reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs of September Yours sincerely pp Iain Clenahan on behalf of the UK members of the Article 13 Forum Enc: UK comments on the Reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs cc: Ms Nicola Leeds, DEFRA Mr Rob Morris, Scottish Government Mr Jonathan Williams, Welsh Government Mr Keith Bradley, Department of Environment, Northern Ireland Dr Les Thomas, EA Mr Paul Nash, NRW Ms Leighanne Moir, SEPA

2 UK comments on the Reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BRefs The UK encourages the Commission to respond favourably to SE s suggestion made during the most recent Article 13 Forum by organising a workshop in the very near future to further discuss and develop a new Strategy to review the chemical BREFs, as significant deliberations are evidently still necessary, and these would be more efficiently conducted in such a way, certainly when compared with relying solely on written submissions. In order to assist the deliberations of the workshop participants, the UK welcomes the opportunity to offer an initial view on the questions posed in the Commission working document Reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs of September The UK notes that the BREFs currently being reviewed were written under the IPPCD, and that in some respects these may not be the most appropriate basis for BREFs and BATCs for use under the IED. Consequently, if the existing BREFs are to be used as the basis for revised BREFs with BAT-AELs that must be used in accordance with Article 15 of the IED, the reviews need to be undertaken robustly, and with this enhanced purpose fully in mind. Although this may have resource implications for this review round, it should result in usable BREFs that suitably reflect their changed status under the IED, and allow a quicker review during the next review round. The UK believes resource and time savings can be made instead by changing the methods used to review each BREF, including the use of electronic meetings (webinar etc). Questions on the general principles above and the long-term objectives: A. In light of the IED and experiences from chemical BREF reviews to date, does the IED Article 13 forum agree that there is a need to update the Strategy? The UK agrees that it is necessary to update the chemicals strategy. The current strategy to review the chemical BREFs dates from 2007 and was thus developed under the IPPC framework. The questions that continue to arise in respect of the interfaces between the various BREFs (including during the Article 13 Forum on 24 September), and the fact that different approaches have been taken in respect of recent BREF reviews, suggest that the update could have been usefully undertaken in 2012 when the need was identified. However, the UK welcomes the opportunity to contribute now. B. Does the IED Article 13 forum agree with the general principles listed above? The UK would offer the following comments on the principles that have been proposed: i. Targeted effort: Ensure that the outputs from information exchanges are commensurate with the resource inputs by focussing TWG efforts, especially the collection of highquality data, on BAT (and BAT-AELs) for the key environmental issues. The key environmental issues will vary from process to process, due to the different pollutants that may be emitted, and their relative amounts. The ability to address only the key environmental issues may therefore only be possible on a process-by-process basis. Consequently if generic issues are pursued then there is a possibility that many pollutants may still have to be addressed, as each potential pollutant may be a key issue for at least one process. It is also important to acknowledge that the primary or only significant impact in terms of (direct) emissions of a pollutant may arise during other than normal operating conditions, in respect of which BAT-AELs are not appropriate, and competent authorities will therefore need to continue to make site-specific judgements in respect of these scenarios when writing permits. Page 3 of 9

3 It is not possible to determine the details of which BAT-AELs should receive targeted effort for derivation, or the nature of that effort, without first determining whether generic or process specific BAT-AELs are desired. Indeed, how effort should be targeted is inextricably linked to the type of BAT-AELs to be derived, and the number and nature of process specific chapters. ii. Generic BAT: Derive and define BAT and BAT-AELs at the most generic level possible (i.e. for the whole chemical sector or, where not possible, for an entire sub-sector, e.g. organic chemicals) before considering how to deal with specific illustrative processes or products. By definition, generic BAT-AELs cannot be expressed as specific mass emissions, and this could therefore interfere with the ability to properly compare the cleanliness of different plants and processes. This is particularly important for the chemicals sector, where there is scope for significant variations in design and process configurations, factors that could have a material influence on actual emission levels. The fact that permits, in accordance with Article 15(2), cannot prescribe the use of specific techniques therefore means that the lack of BAT-AELs expressed as specific mass emissions may in turn result in the BAT Conclusions being unable to properly define BAT as envisaged by the IED (ie in terms of actual emissions). Generic BAT-AELs would appear to be realistically possible expressed only as emission concentrations (or abatement efficiency in some cases). Within the chemicals sector, although such BAT-AELs would probably serve as an indicator of final abatement plant performance, as already discussed they may fail to address overall cleanliness plants that achieve the same emission concentrations could have dramatically different specific mass emissions eg due to differences in the number and/or volume of the emissions. Emission concentrations are therefore likely to deliver a one dimensional measure in the chemicals sector. Compliance with emission concentration BAT-AELs is therefore no guarantee that a plant is employing BAT to reduce actual emissions. Competent authorities would therefore need to continue to make judgements about process design and configuration when granting and reviewing permits in order to deliver against the IED s objectives. However, given the drafting of Article 15(2), it is doubtful they would be able to require an operator to adopt a particular design route or process configuration. Permit writers may therefore be tempted to make judgements in terms of (specific) mass emissions, and include ELVs on this basis, or site-specific equivalents expressed as concentrations (as these may be easier to assess against) converting specific mass emissions into concentration ELVs is possible (and potentially sensible), but trying to convert a concentration-based BAT-AEL in BATCs into a specific mass emission ELV, or as a basis for site-specific concentration ELV that defines BAT, is not valid. The possibility of generic BAT-AELs expressed as concentrations must inevitably prompt consideration of how these BAT-AELs may differ from the achievable levels set out in engineering design texts and available standards, and whether they would realistically be any more useful to permit writers and process operators. Performing extensive data collection exercises to simply confirm peer-reviewed design expectations may therefore be questionable, and a more focused approach may therefore be desirable. By contrast, the generation of BAT-AELs expressed as specific mass emissions can reasonably only be arrived at through an extensive (and comprehensive) data collection exercise, as texts and standards are unlikely to contain such specific data, and where they do they may well be out of date, or based on an unacceptably incomplete analysis. A frequent area of significant contention when discussing BAT-AELs is exemptions. These have traditionally been by reference to specific processes or configurations. The UK has expressed concerns that this approach is far from ideal. Firstly, it relies on a 100% knowledge of all existing plants in order to ensure that the exclusions are comprehensive Page 4 of 9

4 enough. Secondly, it doesn t address situations where new or modified processes would also benefit from such exemptions, ie it is not future-proofed. Where generic BAT-AELs are expressed as concentrations, it will normally be possible to define exemptions to these using to defined engineering criteria that reflect what is reasonably achievable by various abatement techniques, and this is what the UK has been arguing for in the CWW BREF. Where BAT-AELs are expressed as specific mass emissions, exceptions would by necessity have to focus on specific design features or configurations, and this may require scenario analysis to determine the appropriate BAT-AELs. The CWW BREF, as a generic BREF, has necessarily generic BAT-AELs expressed in terms of concentrations for emissions to water. To express the BAT-AELs otherwise in the CWW would have needed significant numbers of process specific BAT-AELs, which is against the raison d être of the CWW BREF, and where there is more than one process contributing to the WWTP process specific BAT-AELs become impossible to define. However, the UK believes in the chemical BREFs it may be possible to include process specific BAT-AELs as specific mass emissions (rather than concentrations), but the derivation of these would require consideration of the activities dealt with by the CWW BREF, and not by the chemical BREFs. This raises the questions of whether generic and specific BAT-AELs can co-exist, and if so what their relationship would need to be. The UK is therefore concerned about the practical consequences of attempting to include BAT- AELs in the chemical BREFs for emissions to water, as the emission to the environment occurs after waste water treatment, the BATC for which are included in the CWW. iii. Fewer Illustrative Chapters: Limit the number of illustrative processes or products for which specific BAT conclusions are defined and select them according to defined criteria based on e.g. their environmental relevance, the potential for emission reduction and the number/distribution of installations in the EU. The term illustrative infers that something more generally applicable can be derived from these chapters. However, experience has shown that this is not a credible assumption, and it is therefore probably a misnomer. Rather than using the term Illustrative Chapter, it may therefore be more correct to use a term along the lines of Process Specific Chapter. If all BAT-AELs are generic, Process Specific Chapters may not be required (at least for BAT-AELs). The need for process specific chapters depends on the perceived need for specific mass emission BAT-AELs, as these can be delivered only in such chapters. If there are significant differences in specific pollutant emissions across plants manufacturing the same product, and therefore the potential for actual emissions reduction for some plants may exist, this would tend to indicate that a process specific chapter could be useful. If not, the need for a process specific chapter may therefore be doubtful. iv. Transparency: Enhance transparency to ensure that it is at the heart of the information exchange. The use of process specific BAT-AELs and BAT-AELs expressed as specific mass emissions inherently requires specific contextual information in order to appropriately understand differences, and justify potential exemptions. Such contextual information is often commercially sensitive, particularly where there are only a small number of processes in a sub-sector. As detailed in Biii above, the need for a process specific chapter needs to be assessed after the collection of some data on each process. However it is likely to be during the collection of the more detailed data required once a need for a process specific chapter has been identified that potentially sensitive contextual information may be required. The problems with any resulting lack of transparency may drive towards potentially non ideal generic BAT-AELs. Page 5 of 9

5 v. Efficiency: Ensure that the efforts made so far are not lost and avoid further delays to the ongoing BREF reviews. Notwithstanding the current strategy, the reviews of the chemicals BREFs have resulted in inconsistencies, and the current published or almost completed reviewed BREFs may have to be re-reviewed in order to fit into a new strategy. There are still uncertainties about the interfaces between the BREFs, as highlighted during the Article 13 Forum meeting on 24 September, and the UK believes the failure to review the chemicals strategy at an earlier stage may result in some of the BREF review work, either completed or on-going, no longer being valid. If there is a desire to have more genuinely generic (ie concentration) BAT-AELs, then the need for extensive data collection could be reduced, as available performance standards (for example, in existing engineering design texts or national standards) may have a direct relevance, although defining the exemption criteria may still present a challenge. Developing some way of addressing this may therefore be valid, and reducing the data collection and analysis requirements should allow this to be the focus of much of the TWG effort. If there is a desire to produce (arguably more useful) specific mass emission BAT-AELs, this will inevitably involve significantly more work, although the outputs have the chance of being more useful for permit writers in delivering against the IED s primary objective. BAT Conclusions and BREF documents are still too large, and stray into areas that fall legitimately within the remit of the competent authorities. BAT Conclusions should not be viewed as permitting manuals, but as a basis for competent authorities to continue to exercise their judgement, particularly in the context of other than normal operating conditions. If this is rigorously embraced, then its effect on the efficiency of BREF reviews can only but be positive. This would involve removing information from existing BREFs, and this should not be viewed as a retrograde step, but rather as an essential modernising one. C. What is considered to be a long-term, sustainable picture for the number and scope of BREFs covering the chemical sector and, if changes are needed compared to the current situation, by when do we want to achieve that goal? In the UK s opinion, until the details of question B are agreed, it is not possible to fully answer this question. The future number and scope of BREFs will be determined by the extent to which generic BAT-AELs are to be pursued. Where concentrations are the preferred form of expression, then it would appear possible to reduce the number of BREFs. However, the cost of such an approach may be that the principle objectives of the IED are not fully pursued, and in particular, BAT will not be adequately defined for processes. If there is a desire to provide a robust way of differentiating between processes and plants, and to be able to define BAT for each process, there will be a need for less generic BAT-AELs, or rather more specific BAT-AELs. These will inevitably be via some form of process specific chapter and process specific BAT-AELs expressed as specific mass emissions. As there is already a considerable range of processes included in each BREF, merging BREFs is unlikely to lead to resource or time savings, and may require significant increases in the length of each BREF, and the size of each TWG and consequent attendance at meetings. Merging of BREFs will also take effort and is not a no cost option with regard resources. It is also likely to delay the publication of at least the LVOC BREF. Page 6 of 9

6 Questions on CWW BREF review: D. How should the recognised gaps in the revised CWW BREF be best addressed and when should this happen? With regard the CWW perceived gaps: A lack of BAT-AELs for emissions to air - The UK does not necessarily see this as a gap in the CWW, and is only an omission if a decision is now taken that generic BAT-AELs are to be pursued for air, rather than having potentially specific mass emission BAT-AELs for emission to air in the chemical BREFs. Specific exceptions for a number of BAT-AELs for emissions to water (see above) - The UK believes these should be generically written based on the characteristics of the effluent, rather than being process specific. Generic BAT-AELs must logically be accompanied by generic exemption criteria (see above). A lack of BAT-associated environmental performance levels (BAT-AEPLs) for indirect emissions to water (e.g. for metals and volatile compounds after pretreatment) - The UK does not believe it is appropriate to specify BAT-AEL for indirect emissions. In referring to indirect emissions, the paper appears to be referring to releases of effluents into a site s collection system, in respect of which BAT-(non-AEL)AEPLs may be valid, but a BAT-AEL would not be valid as there is no emission from the installation this is therefore not seeking to address the scenario envisaged by Article 15(1) of the IED, which already allows for the relevance of the BAT-AELs where, for example, emission to sewer are involved. Indicative performance standards may help competent authorities make appropriate judgements during permitting, but the competent authority would still need to make a site-specific judgement. A lack of short-term averages for the BAT-AELs for emissions to water (expressed only as yearly averages) - BAT is generally meaningfully characterised only in terms of long term BAT- AELs. Short term ELVs would certainly normally be included within permits by competent authorities in discharging their duty to address other than normal operating conditions, and such ELVs may play the greatest role of all in promoting practices and precautions that are designed to protect the environment. These ELVs would therefore not be based on BAT-AELs. The timing of any further review of the CWW BREF will depend on the revised strategy regarding question B above. E. Is there a need to complement the CWW BREF with a new, targeted information exchange on emissions to air? In the UK s opinion, until the details of question B, particularly the strategy for Bii and iii, are agreed, it is not possible to fully answer this question. For example, the data collection required for generic BAT-AELs may be considerable less than that needed for process specific BAT-AELs. The meaning of complement is unclear from the question, and in particular whether this would be undertaken before the CWW BREF is finalised, or be a separate addendum review of part of the CWW BREF that was agreed at a separate time and appended to the BREF. Page 7 of 9

7 Questions on LVOC BREF review: F. Should more efforts be made to define generic BAT conclusions for emissions to air and, if so, on which emissions should this focus and why? In the UK s opinion, until the details of question B are agreed, it is not possible to answer this question. See also response to E. G. If a CWW information exchange on emissions to air was re-opened (see Question E), how should this affect the on-going LVOC BREF review? In the UK s opinion, until the details of question B are agreed, it is not possible to answer this question. H. Are there any illustrative processes that could be dropped from the revised LVOC BREF (BAT conclusions) and why? In the UK s opinion, until the details of question B are agreed, it is not possible to answer this question. I. Is there a benefit in enlarging the scope of the current information exchange with a view to a consolidated BREF covering: i. all large-scale organic chemical production (i.e. LVOC + POL)? or ii. all organic chemical production (i.e. LVOC + POL + OFC)? The fact that many of the POL BREF s BAT-AELs are expressed as specific mass emissions reveals the need to establish a position about the extent to which generic (concentration) BAT- AELs should be pursued. In the UK s view, whether BREFs should be combined and the precise processes that should be included in any combined BREF depends upon what the objective is in terms of the types of BAT-AELs (see comments above in Bii). The structure and nature of the content of the OFC is very different to the structures and contents of the LVOC and POL BREFs. As such it is written in a more generic way, perhaps reflecting the considerable diversity of processes that are already covered in the OFC BREF. Questions on remaining chemical BREF reviews: J. Should more effort be made in the remaining BREF reviews to define generic BAT conclusions for emissions to air and, if so, for which pollutants and why? If there is a desire for generic BAT-AELs, these may not vary much across the various BREFs if expressed as concentrations. Any exemptions should also be expressed generically using appropriate characteristics, so there may not be a massive need for work to be repeated across various BREFs. However, there may still be a desire for potentially more useful specific mass emissions, and this is obviously a key matter that will need to be resolved and should be a matter that is discussed at the proposed workshop. Due to the differences in the processes covered by each BREF, it is unlikely merging BREFs will be useful in terms of the number of pages in the resulting BREF, and the complexity of undertaking the review. K. For which chemical sub-sectors or illustrative processes or products should there be an information exchange and, if so, which key issues this should focus on and why? Page 8 of 9

8 The UK has not yet had time to consider this level of detail, however the answer is dependent on whether the BAT-AELs should be generic or process specific (as detailed in Bii and iii above). Consideration of this may be a matter that is relevant during the proposed workshop, which may wish to explore specific examples in order to arrive at a set of practical solutions. Page 9 of 9

9 L. Is there benefit in enlarging the scope of the currently proposed information exchanges with a view to a consolidated BREF covering: i. all large-scale inorganic chemical production (i.e. LVIC-S + LVIC-AAF + CAK)? or ii. all inorganic chemical production (i.e. LVIC-S + LVIC-AAF + SIC + CAK)? or iii. all batch/speciality chemical production (i.e. OFC + SIC)? In the UK s view, this depends upon what the objective is in terms of the types of BAT-AELs (see comments above in Bii). Option iii is unlikely to produce a workable solution as the issues to be addressed by that combination of processes and the techniques used will tend to be different, and will therefore not provide any efficiencies in drafting that combined BREF. Due to the differences in the processes covered by each BREF, it is unlikely merging BREFs will be useful in terms of the number of pages in the resulting BREF, and the complexity of undertaking the review. Page 10 of 9