Cefic position on Strategy to review the chemical BREFs

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Cefic position on Strategy to review the chemical BREFs"

Cathleen Watson
5 years ago
Views:

2014-10-15 Cefic position on Strategy to review the chemical BREFs Introduction The Commission has recently issued a working document on Reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs.

1 Cefic position on Strategy to review the chemical BREFs Introduction The Commission has recently issued a working document on Reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs. Cefic believes that this document contains some very interesting proposals that deserve further discussion. Cefic therefore welcomes the opportunity to comment on this document and would like to answer the questions on pages 17 and 18. However, Cefic needs to emphasise that the topic is quite complex and would therefore ask the Commission to organise a workshop for further exchange of thoughts rather than relying solely on a written procedure. Such a workshop could have the additional benefit of involving experts with a specific technical or legal background that would be required for in-depth discussions. Questions on the general principles 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 current strategy to review the chemical BREFs dates from 2007 and was thus issued under the IPPC framework. Since the entry into force of IED, boundary conditions have significantly changed which would already justify a revision of the strategy. Cefic believes that there needs to be a clear distinction between the general BREF process and the strategy for the chemical BREFs. The issues observed during recent revisions of chemical BREFs are not necessarily linked to an improper strategy for the chemical BREFs but are rather the consequence of a general BREF process that would benefit from further optimisation. Nevertheless, a review of the strategy will certainly be an essential complementary initiative to improve the BREF revision process and the quality of the resulting BREFs. Cefic believes that it is quite challenging to already look back and compile an assessment on how experiences from chemical BREFs can be taken into account when reviewing the strategy for chemical BREFs. So far, the CAK BREF is the only vertical chemical BREF that has been finalised under IED. The CAK BREF has a rather limited scope and may therefore not be fully suitable to derive recommendations for the review of other chemical BREFs. The understanding of how a vertical chemical BREF should be reviewed will very much broaden once the review of the LVOC BREF has been completed. Additional experience has been gained during revision of the CWW BREF; however, the impact of lessons learnt from this horizontal BREF may be limited for vertical chemical BREFs. Overall, Cefic welcomes the initiative to update the strategy for chemical BREFs as long as efforts made during ongoing revisions of chemical BREFs are not lost. 1

2 B. Does the IED Article 13 forum agree with the general principles listed above? Cefic would like to comment on the general principles as follows: i. Targeted effort: Cefic agrees that efforts of the TWG should focus on BAT Conclusions (including BAT-AEL ranges) for the key environmental issues based on a solid assessment of the associated environmental impact. However, the following additional aspects need to be taken into account when identifying a targeted effort: ii. a. Any emission sources other than those from chemical industry need to be taken into account (e.g. transport, agriculture, energy generation). Coverage of emissions in a chemical BREF would only be justified if the contribution of emissions from chemical industry to the overall emissions is significant b. The size of BREFs should be kept to a reasonable limit that nevertheless provides sufficient information for derivation of BAT Conclusions. The amount of information that is available elsewhere should be reduced and unnecessary repetitions should be avoided. BREFs should not be written as textbooks on production techniques c. It should be avoided to set up chemical BREFs as blueprints for permits. It should neither be intended to replace national regulations nor to reflect all specificities in local permits; however, an effort should be made to harmonise common elements Generic BAT if possible: Cefic would in principle agree that BAT Conclusions (including BAT-AEL ranges) could be derived at the most generic level possible before addressing individual issues on a more specific level. However, the following concerns need to be taken into account when deriving generic BAT Conclusions: a. Generic BAT Conclusions may cover a multitude of plants which will be much more difficult to identify compared to specific BAT Conclusions. Thus, it needs to be very clear what impact generic BAT Conclusions may have on chemical industry b. Generic BAT Conclusions may make it more challenging for permit writers to translate BAT Conclusions into national permits as they would first have to determine which plants in their jurisdiction are affected. The situation is significantly more straightforward for specific BAT Conclusions that are typically based on illustrative processes c. The derivation of generic BAT Conclusions will need to take into account data from a multitude of plants. This may lead to data sets that are broader and more heterogeneous than datasets for illustrative processes. It will thus require an indepth assessment to derive meaningful BAT Conclusions from such a data base d. Generic BAT Conclusions will more often result in a need for applicability restrictions as it may often be neither possible nor desirable to include specific aspects in generic BAT Conclusions. Cefic could not accept that derogation is identified as a suitable means to provide an escape clause from flawed generic BAT Conclusions. BAT Conclusions always need to based on all data from plants that employ BAT 2

3 iii. iv. Fewer illustrative processes: Cefic agrees that fewer illustrative processes should be covered by future revisions of chemical BREFs. Available resources at EIPPCB, member states, NGOs, and chemical industry are not sufficient to cope with a continuous increase of the number of illustrative processes. There is thus a requirement for better selection criteria as the selection has not been rigorous enough in the past (especially with respect to the number of installations). In any case, resources need to be based on minimum requirements of IED and/or BREF Guidance which are often interpreted in a different way. Illustrative processes need to be selected in a more targeted approach based on environmental relevance, potential emission reduction and number/distribution of installations in the EU. Furthermore, illustrative processes have to be identified early in the process e.g. at the kick-off meeting in order to avoid wasting the scarce resources of TWG members Transparency: Cefic is fully committed to a transparent process that safeguards the viable commercial interests of chemical industry v. Efficiency: Cefic agrees that efforts made so far should not be lost and further delays should be avoided. The revision of the strategy should not delay the future revisions of chemical BREFs; however, the reviews should only be initiated if there is a clear concept on the scope of the respective BREF, especially regarding interfaces between individual vertical chemical BREFs and also between vertical chemical BREFs and the CWW BREF 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? Cefic realises that the chemical sector is covered by more BREFs than any other industrial sector. Cefic agrees with the Commission that this is due to the large number of chemical substances produced and the heterogeneity of production processes. Cefic would also tend to agree with the Commission that it is rather doubtful that eight BREFs should be required to cover emissions from chemical installations. Cefic could imagine a significant reduction of chemical BREFs and provides further rationale in its replies to the following questions. A general principle to meet this objective would be that the horizontal CWW BREF should be considered as the default BREF for emissions to air and water. Only emissions that cannot be included in the CWW BREF should be covered by vertical chemical BREFs. However, it should be considered to postpone reducing the number of chemical BREFs until all chemical BREFs have been revised under IED. This would guarantee a solid basis for the next revision cycle where merging of individual BREFs could be done more efficiently than based on documents that were issued under IPPC. It remains to be seen to what extent the number of vertical chemical BREFs can be reduced without jeopardising the ultimate objective of ensuring a high level of protection for the environment. This decision and the respective timeline will certainly need to be at the core of any subsequent discussion amongst Article 13 Forum members. 3

4 Questions on CWW BREF review: D. How should the recognised gaps in the revised CWW BREF be best addressed and when should this happen? Cefic does not agree that the BAT Conclusions of the CWW BREF contain any gaps. The working document elaborates on some of the recommendations for future work but does not justify why a subset of only 6 out of 13 recommendations for future work is discussed. In any case, recommendations for future work only reflect the opinion of some TWG members. Cefic would like to emphasise that the CWW BREF should be considered as a well-written and comprehensive document for which a high degree of consensus was apparent at the Article 13 Forum meeting on Cefic does also not agree with the assumption in the working document that the lack of BAT- AEL ranges for emissions to air is the main gap (if there are any gaps) as there was no agreement in the TWG to derive BAT-AEL ranges for emissions to air. In fact, the TWG agreed at the kick-off meeting that no questionnaire on emissions to air should be issued. Also, any data that eventually became available was not collected according to the BREF Guidance. In this respect, Cefic would like to stress that any BAT-AEL ranges need to be based on data collected according to the requirements of IED and BREF Guidance. Cefic trusts that the procedure established under IED allows the proper processing of all recommendations for future work, i.e. not only the subset identified in the working document. It should be decided by the CWW TWG in the early stages of the next revision process (preferably at the kick-off meeting) if and how those recommendations for future work should be addressed. E. Is there a need to complement the CWW BREF with a new, targeted information exchange on emissions to air? Cefic proposes to initiate a targeted information exchange on emissions to air during the next revision cycle of the CWW BREF. However, Cefic suggests preparing the information collection during the ongoing revision of the LVOC BREF. A key component of this information would be an overview on how waste gas streams are processed; in fact, this information was already provided in many questionnaires submitted for the LVOC BREF. This overview could then trigger the following actions: If waste gas streams are processed in LCP installations then there is no further need for action as those emissions are covered by the LCP BREF If waste gas streams are processed in waste gas treatment facilities that employ specific techniques then they should be covered during the ongoing revision of the LVOC BREF If waste gas streams are processed in common waste gas treatment facilities then they should be covered during the next revision of the CWW BREF. In this respect, there needs to be agreement on the definition of common waste gas treatment. In Cefic s opinion, common should not be understood as combined in the sense that waste gas streams are processed by one central installation. Cefic rather believes that 4

5 common should cover any techniques that are commonly applied by chemical industry Comparable overviews could be compiled throughout the upcoming revisions of other vertical chemical BREFs. This would be an excellent basis for the next revision of the CWW BREF. This approach is well in line with the general idea that generic topics should be covered in horizontal BREFs while vertical BREFs should be limited to any issues that are too specific for horizontal BREFs. Furthermore, this proposal takes into account concerns in the working document that common/combined treatment of waste gases arising from different chemical processes may not be properly covered if the focus is on illustrative processes only (especially for integrated sites). The approach proposed above would also be beneficial for operators and permitting authorities that face the problem that individual plants are covered by multiple BREFs. This frequently leads to a situation where the scope of permits and BREFs is not fully consistent. A clear connection between individual waste gas pathways and the respective BREFs will certainly reduce the challenges during the permitting process. This will also reduce repetition of information between individual BREFs, especially when adequate cross-references are used. 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? Cefic agrees with the Commission that it will be difficult to derive generic BAT-AEL ranges for emissions to air from a limited number of illustrative processes. Consequently, Cefic does not support the derivation of additional generic BAT Conclusions for emissions to air. This would require an additional data collection and further delay the process. In any case, such additional BAT Conclusions would interfere with the proposal to include generic BAT Conclusions for emissions to air in the CWW BREF (see answer to question 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 accordance with the answer given on question E, Cefic proposes to finalise the LVOC BREF. During this review additional information should be collected for LVOC installations on how waste gas streams are processed. Independent of the collection of information on emissions to air, Cefic is convinced that the further revision of the LVOC BREF will continue to improve the mutual understanding on how vertical chemical BREFs can be revised in the most efficient way. H. Are there any illustrative processes that could be dropped from the revised LVOC BREF (BAT conclusions) and why? The TWG and especially EIPPCB have already invested significant resources in the description of illustrative processes of the LVOC BREF. However, Cefic could envisage the removal of the illustrative processes for ethanolamines and SMPO as there is serious doubt that EU wide regulation is required for five (ethanolamines) or three (SMPO) plants in the EU. 5

6 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 review of the LVOC BREF has been initiated more than five years ago and the release of the first draft in April 2014 has been an important milestone in this process. In Cefic s opinion, the work on the LVOC BREF is too far advanced to enlarge the scope. Any modification of the scope would certainly result in further delay and potentially result in a loss of efforts made so far. Cefic would therefore not support any enlargement of the scope of the LVOC BREF. Although an enlargement of the scope for the LVOC BREF review process is not reasonable, Cefic believes that the merging of organic chemical BREFs could be a possibility for future reviews. However, this would require further detailed evaluation with a clear definition of scope, a focus on the key environmental issues and a manageable number of illustrative processes. A more detailed evaluation of this topic is provided under the answer to question L. 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? Cefic agrees that there is more flexibility for the upcoming BREF revisions to define generic BAT Conclusions as only preparatory work has been done so far. In accordance with the answers to questions D and E, Cefic supports the derivation of generic BAT Conclusions for emissions to air. However, it seems very likely that the majority of emissions to air can be covered either in the CWW BREF or in the LCP BREF. The remaining chemical BREF reviews should only cover waste gas streams that are processed in waste gas treatment facilities that employ specific techniques. The identification of generic BAT Conclusions will need to be done by the respective TWG but should rely on a modular approach to cover the entirety of key environmental aspects. A suitable basis for this assessment was already discussed in the answer to question E where an overview on waste gas streams from chemical industry was proposed. 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? The current content of chemical BREFs largely follows Annex I of IED. In Cefic s opinion the content of Annex I could still be the basis for a revised strategy of chemical BREFs as long as there is no need to develop BAT Conclusions for all processes covered by Annex I. Otherwise, the number of BAT Conclusions would become too large to be covered by a reduced number of chemical BREFs. In any case, BAT Conclusions should only be required if there is an environmental impact across the EU. The Commission is more and more promoting subsidiarity as a general principle and there is no need to establish BAT Conclusions for only a few installations; regulation is then clearly a task for local authorities. 6

7 The decision to include an illustrative process has to weigh the required efforts against the resulting benefit for the environment (see answer to question B iii). Cefic believes that a decision on illustrative processes needs to be taken at the kick-off meeting for the respective BREF and that it would be premature to already make suggestions. 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)? Cefic cannot support a combination of existing BREF without prior reduction of scope and complexity. Any merging of BREFs needs to be preceded by a significant reduction of the number of substances/processes and the level of detail. Only key emission sources and key environmental issues should be assessed and this assessment should take into account the contribution from chemical industry in comparison to other emission sources. Cefic believes that merging of BREFs would only be beneficial if the final document covers common techniques that are applicable across the respective sectors of chemical industry. In fact, there may be limited synergies for merging small/large or organic/inorganic BREFs as installations and processes can be very different. A simple combination of BREFs will also not be reasonable due to the unmanageable size of the resulting TWGs. Cefic is also concerned that merging of BREFs would be challenging when taking into account the current initiative to derive more generic BAT Conclusions. Merging BREF would result in a more diverse set of substances/process that requires more exemptions for BAT Conclusions as specific aspects cannot be covered by generic BAT Conclusions. Cefic has long since been worried about the interfaces between chemical BREFs as a multitude of overlaps has been identified. The merging of BREFs would be an excellent occasion to revisit this issue and seek a sustainable solution, e.g. by drafting an interface map including the interfaces with non-chemical BREFs. Obviously, this work would have to be done before a decision on merging BREFs can be taken. Regarding the inorganic BREFs, Cefic could imagine the merging of BREFs if the concerns raised in the previous paragraphs are duly addressed. Nevertheless, such a decision will require a detailed evaluation of any assets and drawbacks at Article 13 Forum level. However, any merging should exclude the CAK BREF which has only recently been revised and should not be immediately re-opened. Dr. Bernd Sojka - BREF Manager - 7

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

UK written comments on the reconsideration of the Strategy to review the chemical BREFs 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 e-mail) If