Case Study 1: Amcor Flexibles, Flanders, Belgium - Europa · Case Study 1: Amcor Flexibles, Flanders, Belgium ... e.g. waste incineration and landfill. ... June 2006 waste gas management

Appendix F – Page 1

c:\documents and settings\woodt\desktop\16470ca010i6 app f - case studies.doc © Entec UK Limited June 2006

Case Study 1: Amcor Flexibles, Flanders, Belgium Background: Environmental Law in Flanders Flanders does not have a tradition of ‘copy out’ for the transposition of EU environmental law. As new EU laws are adopted, these are integrated into the existing legal framework in Flanders. As a result issues such as inconsistency between definitions, etc, are addressed (usually) during this stage. Thus legislators (with relevant input from others) address the problem (such as between IPPC and other Directives). These problems are not usually left for industry and regulators to tackle during regulatory discussions.

From the end of the 1980s and early 1990s Flanders developed strict environmental legislation. This incorporated the concept of integrated permitting and BAT, so that, for example, the regulators do not talk of ‘IPPC permits’, but ‘environmental permits’, as originally developed in the Flemish context. Thus in 1985 a Decree on environmental permitting was adopted, which can into effect in 1991 with the adoption of VLAREM 1, which indicated when permits are required and the procedures to be followed. IPPC required minor changes. For example, VLAREM 1 covers a very wide range of categories of activities, of which IPPC Annex I forms a sub-set. (VLAREM is an acronym for VLA – Flemish, RE – regulation, M – environmental licence).

VLAREM 2 was adopted in 1995 and this sets out the operating conditions for activities covered in VLAREM 1. It also incorporated requirements from a number of EU Directives, such as a chapter on waste licensing. However, this again went beyond the requirements from the EU, with chapters such as on incineration of biomass and non-treated wood.

VLAREM 2 also includes prescriptions of general emission limit values (which apply to all relevant activities). There are also stricter requirements for certain specified sectors. However, permit conditions can also set special conditions which go beyond these prescribed emission limits. These ‘special norms’ are proposed by the administration, such as through examination of BAT. However, they must be justified and industry can appeal against them. It is the prescription of such norms that includes the requirements under SED.

To administer issues under VLAREM 2, two sections of the Flanders general environmental administration (LNE Department) are responsible: one advises on licences (local authorities ath the provincial and municipal level issue licences) and the second deals with inspection and enforcement.

The administrative aspects of environmental protection under VLAREM are complemented by the Grand Quality Decree of 1995 and VLAREBO (Soil) 1996 which establishes approaches to environmental quality, such as a major assessment every five years. This can inform some regulatory decisions. This work is overseen by OVAM.

VLAREM 1 and 2 are not the only legislation affecting industrial related activities. Parallel to this is OVAM – the Flemish waste administration, which, for example, addresses waste licensing and leads on transposing waste Directives. The original Waste Decree was in 1981, which established general waste management principles (such as seen in the waste framework Directive). During the 1980s this was supplemented by nearly 100 executive decisions. Eventually this was all brought into a coherent whole in 1996 with the adoption of VLAREA (acronym like VLAREM, where ‘A’ is waste). The authority to administer this is OVAM.



For EU waste legislation, some are transposed within VLAREM and some within VLAREA. VLAREM includes those Directives which are ‘site based’, e.g. waste incineration and landfill. VLAREA includes those which direct wider policy issues, such as waste framework, packaging, ELV, WEEE and transboundary movement. The inclusion of site based Directives within VLAREM shows the potential for greater integration with overall site based licensing (including application of IPPC).

Thus when an activity applies for a licence it first considers VLAREM legislation for the procedures to be followed. For a typical IPPC process, this would include informing other relevant authorities. These come together to formulate advice to the local authority which issues the permit, such as the mayor of a town. In most cases the advice is followed. There is the possibility to issue a provisional licence which establishes emission limits, but can be linked to a study to examine their practicality and then revised if necessary.

Introduction, installation and legislative coverage Amcor Flexibles is an installation located in Ghent (Belgium, Flanders Region) that undertakes a variety of plastic extrusion, printing and laminating processes. It comes within the scope of the IPPC Directive and, due to its consumption of organic solvents, it also falls within the scope of the Solvent Emissions (SED). Due to its emissions of VOCs, it is also relevant for the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive. This case was chosen because the installation illustrates a number of the issues relating to the interactions between IPPC and SED and NECD.

Method The installation was visited on 24 July 2006 where discussions were held with a representative of the installation and with a representative of FETRA (Belgian flexible packaging association). This enabled the issues relating to the installation and Directive interactions in general to be discussed not only in terms of the specific consequences for the installation, but in the wider context of regulation in Flanders. The meeting concluded with a tour of the installation to increase familiarity with the process and issues. Following the meeting discussions were held with the regulator (LNE Department, previously AMINAL), to examine installation specific issues and wider Flemish regulation.

The Installation Amcor Flexibles is a helio-solvent based surface printing installation. The installation has been operating since before the war, with increasing production, modernisation and changed ownership. It is now part of a larger multi-national company, with operations in countries within and outside of the EU. Thus issues of competitiveness concern not only the general market, but also allocation within the company itself.

Its operation consists of a range of printing and laminating machines. The need for very rapid printing of high volume product requires that solvent-based inks are used. In the process, the printed inks are dried immediately, which results in the evaporation of the solvent base. Many of the machines are connected to solvent extraction systems, whereby the solvents are removed to an incinerator on the site. However, some older machines are not connected to the extraction system. This type of mixed set-up forms a particular category in the relevant BREF (see below). Ultimately, it is the older machines not connected to solvent extraction which result in issues relating to NECD and questions of cost.



IPPC/NECD Interaction Table 1 provides information on the emission reductions required by SED, Flemish legislation and action Flanders in proposing to meet the requirements of NECD. Flemish legislation (VLAREM 2) is now fully aligned with that of SED. However, the legislation also applies to activities with a lower threshold than that covered by SED (0-15 T). It should be noted that this legislation has replaced older Flemish legislation to control VOCs that was in place prior to adoption of SED. This set requirements for ELVs of 50, 100 and 150 mg/Nm3 depending upon the installation, but no overall reduction scheme. Thus installations such as Amcor Flexibles were already used to regulation controlling VOC emissions.

Under IPPC Amcor Flexibles is one of a category of installations for which a final BREF has not been published. However, the proposals for requirements to be included in the BREF include the following for installations like Amcor Flexibles where there is abatement equipment, but not all production machines are connected to such equipment (‘situation 2’ of the four situations identified in the draft BREF):

• BAT emission range for the total of the machines that are connected to the abatement equipment. In the case of incineration total emissions 7.5% - 12.5% of reference emission. In the case of solvent recovery total emissions 10.0 – 15.0% of reference emission.

• BAT emission range for the whole plant: conformity with the reduction scheme of SED (maximum 25% of reference emission).

• Where non-connected machines are replaced, it is BAT to assure that the new machine are connected to the abatement equipment where there is capacity, or use low solvent or solvent free products on these machines or run high solvent content work on machines connected to waste gas abatement.

Amcor Flexibles is able to meet the requirements set out in the BREF proposal. It does not, therefore, consider the requirements of IPPC to be a particular problem.

However, Flanders also has a particular challenge in meeting the obligations of NECD in relation to VOCs (it has a regional target of 71 kT VOC as part of the overall Belgian target of 139 kT). This has resulted in a proposal for controls on emissions which are stricter than found in SED. Table 1 identifies the proposals that have been made to control VOC emissions in order to meet the ceiling. Amcor Flexibles comes under the category of helio solvent based and, therefore, the proposal is for emissions (by 1/1/2010) to be 10% of the reference emission for the entire process. This proposal was made in 2005 and negotiations and submissions made. It is now in its final stages of deliberation, with a final outcome expected relatively soon.

It can be seen that the proposed limit under Flemish implementation of NECD is significantly stricter than either SED or the BREF proposal. Indeed, it presents a significant problem for Amcor Flexibles. This relates to the operation of the older machines not connected to the solvent extraction system and solvent incineration control equipment. Connecting the older equipment has a number of problems:

• Connection is a costly process requiring a re-build of driers, etc, costing around €1 million per machine.

• Extraction of additional waste gases affects the concentration in the waste gases to the incinerator. This is currently at capacity, so presenting a major challenge in



waste gas management or even enhanced incinerator capacity. This would be very costly also.

• Total replacement of the machines with new equipment would cost around €5 million each.

Thus implementation of NECD in Flanders would require significant additional action by Amcor Flexibles, with significant additional costs, compared to SED and proposed BREF. BAT under IPPC is, however, not simply implementation of BREF recommendations, but also requires the local environment, for example, to be taken into account. The particular emissions of VOCs, however, do not contribute to a local air quality problem, but a wider issue.

The choice of approaches developed for implementation of NECD in Flanders has been developed following an extensive study initiated by the authorities and examining the various sources of VOCs in the region and the costs associated with tackling them. The study examined important sectors, including surface printing, examining marginal costs. Across all sectors, the overall costs were considered to be, on average, around €3,000/T. The regulator considers that Amcor’s costs are of the region of €500/T, hence the focus on this sector in the overall strategy for meeting NECD targets. However, given the total quantity of emissions, this still does result in a sizeable cost to the installation. It is also important to note that the VOC reduction strategy in Flanders is not only addressing the need to meet a 71 kT VOC target for 2010, but also the implications of meeting further reductions beyond this point.

IPPC/SED Interaction There is, in fact, a limited interaction between IPPC and SED in relation to Amcor Flexibles. Table 1 shows that the relevant emission limits established in SED are transposed into Flemish legislation. However, as noted above, these are made ‘academic’ by the legal obligations in Flanders due to the requirements of NECD and some additional requirements in the draft BREF. Thus the operator does not view any additional obligations arising under IPPC as an issue – that lies under the implementation of NECD.

It is also important to note that some problems identified in the examination of Directives within the project are not translated into the Flemish context. In particular the difference in approach in defining the size of an installation under IPPC (solvent capacity) and SED (VOC emissions) is overcome through the use of the SED definition in Flemish law. The practicality of this is evident in the case of Amcor. Each printing run results in only a proportion (sometimes a small proportion) of the surface of the material receiving printing, being printed. Amcor has the ‘capacity’ to print over the entire surface and this for each colour, but this is, of course, not done. Thus its actual operation is significantly below its theoretical solvent use capacity, thus making the SED definition of greater practical use in determining the size of the operation and its regulation under Flemish law.

This case, therefore, suggests that harmonisation of IPPC and SED would be best supported by following the definition within SED (rather than the other way round). The reductions, etc, identified in the BREF would also meeting this requirement.

Conclusions The critical interaction in this case is between IPPC and NECD, due to the fact that implementation of requirements under IPPC (draft BREF) (and under SED) are insufficient to meet the obligations that have been placed upon the sector through regional decisions on the implementation of NECD. Thus the interaction is not one of the procedures or definitions, etc,



of the two Directives, but of their fundamental environmental objectives. In developing a BREF a number of comparative cost issues will be considered. However, in implementing NECD in Flanders, costs have been considered to a wider number of sectors than is undertaken in the BREF process.

The interaction between SED and IPPC in this case is of minimal interest at the installation level, as any potential concerns that could arise have either been removed in Flemish law or are overshadowed by the NECD interaction. Thus it is the approach taken in Flemish law which is of relevance to the review process.

The consequences of this interaction between IPPCD, SED and NECD mean that there can be very different consequences for companies in different environmental situations (such as the level of a tropospheric ozone problem). Thus the costs will vary (given that the obligations within IPPC and SED are not necessarily the main driver) and, for companies with plants across the EU (and beyond), it could be very easy to move production if costs are too high. SED was developed prior to the BREF and there is a case for examining in further detail the consequences of the Directives in terms of their overall economic impact and how this interacts with the needs of competition within the single market.

Acknowledgements • Frank DeMoerloose – Amcor Flexibles

• Ilse Vervloet – FETRA

• David Knight – LNE Department (previously AMINAL)

Comparison of legislative requirements on VOC emissions

SE Directive, NEC Directive and Flemish legislation controls relating to VOCs in Flanders. The NECD actions in italics are under negotiation and not yet finalised

Consumption SE Directive (activity 3 in Annex IIA)

Flemish legislation Action to achieve NECD VOC ceilings in Flanders

0-15 T - ELV 100 mg/Nm3 Diffuse 25% Or Reduction scheme 30% of reference emission

ELV 100 mg/Nm3 Diffuse 25% Or Reduction scheme 30% of reference emission

15-25 T ELV 100 mg/Nm3 Diffuse 25% Or Reduction scheme 30% of reference emission



25-150 T ELV 100 mg/Nm3 Diffuse 20% Or Reduction scheme 25% of reference emission





Consumption SE Directive (activity 3 in Annex IIA)

Flemish legislation Action to achieve NECD VOC ceilings in Flanders

>150 T ELV 100 mg/Nm3 Diffuse 20% Or Reduction scheme 25% of reference emission


ELV 50 mg/Nm3

a) Flexo, rotative screenprinting Diffuse 20% Reduction scheme 25% of reference emission b) Helio solvent based Reduction scheme 10% of reference emission by 1/1/2010

>200 T ELV 100 mg/Nm3 Diffuse 20% Or Reduction scheme 25% of reference emission


ELV 50 mg/Nm3

a) Flexo, rotative screenprinting Diffuse 20% Reduction scheme 25% of reference emission b) Helio solvent based Reduction scheme 10% of reference emission by 1/1/2010

Note ‘diffuse’ emissions in this table actually refer to ‘fugitive’ emissions as set out in the SE Directive.



Case Study 2: Indaver, Antwerp, Belgium Introduction This case study was chosen to consider the interaction between IPPC and two waste Directives – WID and the landfill Directive. The installation is a major waste management operation with a wide range of waste activities (including a landfill site and incinerator kilns), all subject to a single environmental permit.

The Installation Indaver is a complex installation which includes a wide range of waste management activities. It was constructed in 1985 to manage and treat hazardous waste, servicing the large range of industrial in the Antwerp area (and beyond). The concept underlying Indaver is that industry is able to deliver its waste to the site where it is subject to all of the necessary activities for its management – recycling, incineration, landfill, etc. This makes waste management easier for the industry and integration of activities allows for a more holistic and optimised approach to the waste management.

The installation is 55% owned by the Flemish authorities and 45% by private industry (although the percentage in public ownership is to decline to 25%). Having a public origin, Indaver operates according to a number of principles and objectives:

• It should make a profit.

• It is there to provide a service to society by solving waste problems.

• It should not be involved in any non-BAT activities (e.g. poor landfills, mixing hazardous and non-hazardous waste, spreading on land, etc).

Bringing these elements together has only been possible because of the implementation of strict waste legislation – which requires industry to seek the solutions that Indaver offers.

The installation has, inter alia, the following activities:

• Two rotary kilns for hazardous waste incineration, treating all types of waste (except explosives and radioactive waste), including that with high sulphur or high heavy metal content. They have a capacity of 100,000 T.

• A static kiln. This incinerates chlorinated waste (built in the early 1990s when such incineration from ships was banned).

• Waste water treatment plant.

• Solvent recycling. This operates at around 2,000 T/year, but has a capacity of 8,000T.

• Landfill site for hazardous waste. There is an old section not consistent with all EU legal requirements (to close in 2009) and a new section that is fully consistent.

• Pre-treatment facilities for solid and liquid waste prior to landfilling (such as mixing with cement and chemical treatment to form sludge).

Next to the site is another landfill which is for non-hazardous waste. It is not owned by Indaver.



Currently Indaver receives around 200,000t of hazardous waste per year. Nothing leaves the site except emissions to air and water and some specific recycled products (e.g. solvents). All solid matter is landfilled. The landfill site currently has another ten years of life, with a possible extension for a further 30 years. The incineration activity results in electricity production. This is used on the site.

The company has an additional site across the Schelde which is more focused on energy recovery and recycling. This has the following activities:

• A grate incinerator with a capacity of about 500,000t which incinerates hazardous and municipal solid waste. It provides steam, sold to neighbouring industries, and electricity, sold to the public grid.

• Three fluidised bed incinerators, also of about 500,000t capacity, for non-hazardous waste, RDF and sewage sludge.

• Recycling facility for fluorescent lamps and batteries.

• Production facility for RDF for the cement industry and other thermal industrial processes..

• A landfill site for non-hazardous waste.

• Further recycling facility.

• A plant to treat bottom ash to convert these to secondary building materials, such as for road construction.

There are two further sites in Flanders and a waste transfer station. The company also has international interests with plants in the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Poland and the Czech Republic. 75% of the turnover is in Benelux and 12.5% in Ireland. Thus the other activities are, comparatively, minor.

Overall, the company’s main clients are the top 100 industries in Benelux, waste collectors and communities.

Legislative issues The Antwerp site is regulated through a single VLAREM permit which addresses all of the activities on the site. The company has no general problems with IPPC or how the Flemish authorities are implementing the Directive. However, the company considers that there could be further benefits from considering wider issues. This is illustrated by considering the waste management BREF. In early discussion, it became clear that the BREF would focus on activities within Annex I of IPPC, such as pre-treatment for disposal and recovery of hazardous waste. It did not include recovery of non-hazardous waste, composting, etc. The BREF could include biological pre-treatment if this took place on the site of a landfill, but if there is separate collection of organic waste and composting, this is not covered. Thus such treatment is only addressed to ensure that it is good enough for landfilling and does not include the best practice examples.

The definition of norms and related measuring procedures can be a problem. Some legislation simply defines the norm, but not how this is to be determined. Thus identification of non-compliance can be problematic, specifically if the measuring methods evolve in time and change. For example, there is a strict requirement of the concentration of fluorine in water. This has been tackled by treatment with calcium to produce insoluble calcium fluoride. This still



leaves about 10mg/l F in ionic form in the water, but also some in non-ionic form (less harmful). In the past only ionic fluorine was measured, however, a new method of analysis was adopted which focused on total fluorine, thus automatically producing compliance problems, without a new environmental impact. It could be considered as a good practise if the measuring method changes also the norm is re-evaluated.

In implementing the waste incineration Directive and landfill Directive authorities either use CEN norms or adopt national ones. The latter vary between countries and so can result in competitiveness issues.

There is, therefore, a critical need to ensure that all norms are linked to measurement requirements to ensure consistency.

Landfill classification In Flanders there were three types of landfill. Class 1 included industrial waste, which was inorganic (organic content <10%) and could be hazardous or non-hazardous. Class 2 was domestic waste, organic and only non-hazardous. Class 3 was inert waste. All hazardous organic waste was incinerated. This approach was considered as good as it focused on the processes necessary for after-care. Thus Class 1 landfills required physico-chemical waste water treatment, but no gas evacuation. Class 2 landfills required biological waste water treatment and gas evacuation. However, EU law distinguishes hazardous and no-hazardous waste, so that now there are Class 1a and 1b landfills. The company does not consider that this represents a division based on the techniques used and questions whether this is BAT, therefore.

The Decision on acceptance criteria does allow pre-treated hazardous waste to go to a non-hazardous waste landfill. However, the strict standards applied mean that this is not practicable.

Co-incineration In practice the only industry treating waste in Flanders that has to invest in flue gas cleaning are dedicated incinerators. Those co-incinerating waste, such as the cement industry, do not need to do so due to the different obligations imposed on them under the waste incineration Directive. However, both can have the same objective of producing energy.

In Flanders hazardous waste is taken by intermediate companies, mixed with non-hazardous waste and sent to cement kilns. Thus some very contaminated waste (e.g. with sulphur and chlorine) is remove from the waste management sector. Overall, the company considers that co-incineration of about 80% of waste is probably BAT, but for 10-20% of hazardous waste, it is not BAT as such kilns are not sufficiently equipped to deal with this waste at the same level of environmental protection. The question is, therefore, why is BAT different depending upon where one burns the waste?

The company considers, therefore, that the current EU legislative framework is not a level playing field. It did make a formal complaint to the Commission on this issue and did argue that the BREF process should consider BAT for individual waste streams, but this was rejected. The dedicated incineration sector developed as a result of strict emission values being established. It is important to note that even with equal ELVs there is no evidence that co-incinerators would be able to take all the different types of hazardous waste without detriment either to their facilities or to their products. The co-incineration of hazardous waste could result in pollutants being introduced into the final product, for example.

This issue is important, not only in terms of the impact on the market and the environment, but also in understanding the nature of BAT (thus interpreting IPPC and its relation with WID) and



in considering the requirements on mixing, etc, being considered in the proposed new waste framework Directive.

IPPC and WID Ultimately, WID is the reason that the industrial sector, of which Indaver is a part, exists (or still exists, given the original origin in Flemish law). If all waste incineration at any location were to require much stricter ELVs, there would be probably no, or less, need for dedicated incinerators. Thus the company is in favour of the WI Directive remaining a separate Directive and fears that if all installations were to be covered by IPPC alone, then less strict ELVs would result for all installations and the dedicated incinerators would lose profitability.

Carbon Monoxide and PICs The incinerators have an ELV of 50 mg/m3 of CO. Over a year the total emissions are relatively small (equivalent to about 1km of road). Usually the emissions are far below the ELV, but there can be occasional peaks above this, such as then there is a change over between waste types and a lack of oxygen in the incineration process occurs. However, with a daily average limit value of 50mg/m3, there is no problem with compliance. Note that such an ELV is in contrast to much higher ELVs required for cement kilns and power stations.

CO is a good indicator of overall combustion conditions. It can, therefore, be used as a proxy for other products of incomplete combustion (PICs), such as dioxins and PCBs, which used to be problematic to monitor continuously. However, PICs can now both be monitored directly and can be removed through end of pipe techniques. Thus CO is taken into account state of the art techniques no longer the useful tracer in the same way as in the past. Thus when there is a CO peak, this no longer means that a PIC peak is occurring. Continuous sampling of dioxins as applied in Flanders proves this and goes further than current BAT requirements. This is not rewarded or stimulated at EU level. A possible approach could be: if continuous sampling is applied a less strict approach to the process-parameter CO is applicable.

Under the WI Directive, not only must the average ELV be 50mg/m3, but also either all half-hour values must be less than 100 mg/m3 in a 24 hour period or 95% of 10 minute values be less that 150 mg/m3. The latter period not explicitly defined in the WID. This poses two problems:

• As a general rule the monitoring instruments are set at a sensitivity scale of zero to three times the ELV, e.g. 0-300 mg/m3 (based on the half hour values). If the concentration goes above 300 mg/m3, this results in a record of 300mg/m3. However, there has been a demand for greater information on peaks, so an extra instrumentation is applied for peak monitoring and set to 0-2500 mg/m3. This is in contrast to some other Member States, so that data are no longer comparable.

• The installation has chosen to meet the requirement for 95% of 10 minute values to be less that 150 mg/m3 on a monthly basis. This is disputed by the controlling authorities which rather see it on a 24h period (and this has been confirmed by the Commission). However, using a 24h averaging period does not reflect operational conditions. This condition allows 7 peaks above 150 mg/m3. However, waste changes mean that the number of peaks can be lower or higher than this. Over a month (210 peaks), compliance is no problem, but it can be so on a daily basis. Indeed, the temptation is that, if there has been a ‘good’ day with few peaks, poor waste can be put in at the end of the day to ‘get it out of the way’, potentially leading to even higher CO emissions.



In Flanders continuous dioxin monitoring is required. This costs around €100,000 per kiln (plus €400,000 for the laboratory monitoring the other parameters), with €25,000 per year for analysis. This compares to an overall kiln cost of about €50 million. However, such monitoring is not accepted as being a requirement for BAT in the BREF, which retains the use of CO as a tracer. This results in competitiveness questions between Member States.

Conclusion The installation’s operation depends upon the maintenance of strict environmental standards. The fundamental approach of IPPC is not problematic. However, the key issues are:

• That some requirements for EU waste policy regarding landfilling are not necessarily BAT.

• That Directives are not sufficiently prescriptive in terms of requirements, such as defining measurement conditions alongside ELVs. A norm and a measuring method are always linked to each other. If one changes the other also has to be re-evaluated.

• That the political context underlying what is considered to be ‘waste incineration’ under WID is not necessarily consistent with BAT under IPPC and results in possible competitiveness consequences.

• That IPPC/BREFs do not taken account of changes in monitoring opportunities to allow for older ELV/monitoring requirements to be dropped when no longer of operational or environmental use.

Acknowledgements • Guido Wauters – Indaver

• Guy Roosenbroeck – Indaver



Case Study 3: Boliden Harjavalta Oy, Harjavalta, Finland About the installation The Boliden Harjavalta Oy has operations in both Harjavalta and Pori (less than 30 km apart); at the Harjavalta site, copper and nickel concentrates are smelted and copper is refined and the copper anodes produced are then refined into copper cathodes at the copper refinery at the Pori site.

The production chain for these two sites is summarised in the diagram below.

Figure Production chain for Harjavalta and Pori sites

The Harjavalta site is situated in the ‘Suurteollisuuspuisto’ industrial park (see below); several other companies are also located on this site. Boliden Harjavalta operations include a copper smelter producing copper anodes, a nickel smelter producing nickel matte and a sulphuric acid plant producing sulphuric acid and liquid sulphur dioxide. In 2005, 521.5 kt of copper concentrate was smelted and 157.9 kt of blister copper and 566.4 kt of sulphuric acid were produced. The sulphuric acid produced on site is sold for example to the paper industry (~40% of sulphuric acid production across Europe comes from the non-ferrous metals sector). In the nickel smelter Boliden is treating concentrates of OMG Harjavalta Nickel Oy and Inco Ltd.



Site photo of ‘Suurteollisuuspuisto’ industrial park

Anode furnace

Emissions of SO2 from the smelters and sulphuric acid plants were 2.85 kt in 2005 with 16 kg of SO2 emitted for every tonne of metal produced. The emissions limit for SO2 has been 4.5 kt since 1997. Emissions of particulates from the smelters was 25 t in 2005 compared to a limit of



90 t since 1997. Emissions of both SO2 and particulates have declined significantly over the past 10 years whereas production has increased massively.

Metal and arsenic discharges to the local river have also declined significantly from 50 t in 1985 to 3 t in 2005.

Legislative coverage The Directives that cover the installation include the IPPC, Landfill and Waste Incineration (when using waste oils) Directives. In Finland permitting is implemented via a single IPPC permit which covers all environmental aspects. The installation applied for its permit in 2002 and received it on the 8th July 2004 (permit number 49/2004/1). However, the Boliden installation felt that some of the requirements in the permit were too stringent and would be very difficult, if not impossible, to meet so an appeal was placed to the regulatory authorities. The matter has now been referred to the courts and Boliden is awaiting the outcome.

One issue relates to the limits that have been set for metal emissions from the site to the nearby Kokemäenjoki River which would require significant reductions from current levels (approximately 66%). Boliden Harjavalta Oy delivered the authorities a detailed plan relating to water treatment and proposed limits (June 2005). Other issues relate to the limits set for particulate emissions and requirements for a new landfill site.

Also included in the permit is a requirement for the installation to stop burning waste oils by 28th December 2005. However, a variation is included to allow for the co-incineration of waste oils but only if the requirements of WID are met. Additional monitoring would have to be established in order to demonstrate compliance.

Problematic interactions identified

Waste incineration Directive The installation has historically used relatively small amounts of waste oils for co-incineration in a number of areas of the plant where additional energy is required (beyond that provided by the metal concentrate itself)1. Virgin and/or waste oils are used in the smelting operations at a number of different stages:

• Copper and nickel flash smelting furnaces to reduce metal loss to slag and further complications with the processing of the matte;

• Anode furnaces to keep the copper molten and to regulate the casting temperature (see above);

• Nickel concentrate drying plant to generate heat for drying; and,

• Submerged evaporator in the sulphuric acid plant to increase the concentration of the weak acid to 75%.

The installation was required by the regulatory authorities to cease the use of waste oils by 28th December 2005 unless the requirements of the WID are complied with which is not possible in relation to emission limits. Virgin light and heavy oil now has to be purchased and used on site instead. This is estimated to cost the installation approximately €0.5 million extra a year.

1 Approximately 14,200 tonnes in 2004 (92% of total oil consumption)



In 2005 approximately 14.2 kt of oil was consumed in the processes described above, of which 75% was recycled waste oil (average usage over the past 5 years is approximately 80%). Waste oils used on site were purchased from a group of companies in Finland who guarantee minimum standards for the waste oils thus ensuring they are of a particular quality.

A temporary licence was granted to the installation in April 2006 which allowed them to burn waste rather than virgin oils and carry out a series of measurements to monitor emissions in order to provide a comparison with emissions using virgin oil. Emissions from the copper and nickel flash smelters, anode furnace, nickel drying plant and sulphuric acid plants were monitored in accordance with national regulations relating to waste incineration between 25th April and 11th May 2006 in two stages: using only virgin fuel oil and then using only recycled waste oils. Measurements were taken in three stacks in order to monitor all emissions related to oil usage. These measurements are presented in the table below.

Table Emission measurements

The results show that the use of waste oils does not lead to any clear increase in emissions relative to emissions from the use of virgin fuel oils. However, emissions of SO2 from all sources and heavy metals (sum of Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni and V) in the smelter ventilation gas stack exceed the limits set out in national waste incineration legislation (similar to those in the Waste Incineration Directive) when burning virgin or waste oils (ie. limits exceeded regardless of quality of oil). The exceedence of the particulates limit in the acid plant was deemed to be inaccurate due to issues related to the formation of acid droplets.

Metal emissions into the water were not included in the testing programme as wet scrubbers are not used for gas treatment. However, some waste water is produced from the sulphuric acid plants and is released to the local river after treatment at the onsite waste water treatment plant. The table below summarises 2006 wastewater emissions from the site relative to the limit values in the WID.

Table Wastewater emissions in 2006 relative to WID limit values

Western sewer Eastern sewer WID limit

Cu (mg/l) 0.10 0.02 0.50

Ni (mg/l) 0.10 0.01 0.50

Zn (mg/l) 0.04 0.01 1.50



Western sewer Eastern sewer WID limit

Pb (mg/l) 0.01 0.004 0.20

As (mg/l) 0.06 0.005 0.15

Hg (ug/l) 0.2 0.07 30

Cd (ug/l) 2 0.5 50

Boliden currently monitor air and water quality around the site at a cost of approximately €250-300k. Investments would be required in order to comply with the IPPC Directive and WID if waste oils were to be co-incinerated on site. These are summarised in the table below.

Table Estimated investment and monitoring costs associated with IPPC and WID

Requirements Investment costs Monitoring costs per annum

Present situation - - €250-300k

IPPC Continuous automated PM monitoring

€200k €300k

WID Three monitoring devices required to continuously

monitor PM, CO, TOC, HCl and HF. Additional

maintenance and quality assurance

€350k €500k

The results of this study have shown that virgin oil could be replaced by waste recycled oil without any negative impact on the environment; in fact the use of recycled oil would benefit the environment as a whole. Emissions from the site originate predominantly from the concentrates that are processed rather than any oils that are used and it is not possible to disaggregate the emissions solely from the use of oils. Boliden Harjavalta Oy (and Eurometaux) hold the view that the WID is tailored to power plants and specific types of waste and therefore cannot be applied to oil usage in smelter operations.

See Boliden report - ‘The use of the recycling oil in the Boliden Harjavalta smelter operations and the results of the testing period’ - for further details (11/9/2006).

Landfill Directive Boliden are currently in the process of constructing a new landfill site adjacent to the site and existing landfill at the request of the regulatory authorities. This is estimated to cost approximately €5 million. However, it was discussed and agreed that this was not in itself a problematic interaction but a requirement of the Landfill Directive.

Monitoring and reporting As Boliden have not yet received their final permit and finalised the site requirements there have not yet been any issues related to monitoring and reporting as these are yet to be agreed.



Discussions with regulatory authority The regulatory and monitoring authorities have been contacted and invited to contribute towards the case study but to date (26th September 2006) they have not yet provided any input. Contact details for the relevant authorities are presented below:

Regulatory authority

Erkki Kantola

Environmental Counsellor, Northern Finland Environmental Permit Authority

Tel: +358-8-5348517

E-mail: [email protected]

Monitoring authority

Marja-Terttu Parsama

Head of Department, M.Sc, Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centre

Tel: +358 (0)2 525 3567

E-mail: [email protected]

Summary of main problematic interactions The main problematic interaction identified for this installation relates to the Waste Incineration Directive and the use of waste oils for co-incineration. The firm has had to cease burning waste oils as they cannot comply with all of the emission limit values in the WID and is now using virgin fuel oils which incur additional costs. However, monitoring has shown that burning waste oils has no impact on emissions relative to virgin oils (ie. emission limits in the WID are exceeded even if virgin oil is used).

The monitoring requirements under WID are also a deterrent for the use of waste oils due to the costs associated with purchasing and operating monitoring equipment with no apparent environmental benefit.

Issues for streamlining of legislation The firm (and Eurometaux) are of the opinion that the WID requirements are deemed to be too strict for the non-ferrous metal sector and should not apply as they cannot be complied with. It is felt that either the WID requirements should be removed and more reliance placed on BAT or the definition of waste co-incineration needed to be clarified so that it did not apply in this case.

The firm is sceptical about emissions trading based on experiences of other installations with GHG emissions trading. For example, SO2 emissions at the installation per unit output are already very low relative to other installations outside of the EU. Therefore to cut emissions any further would be very expensive. Anything that could impact upon a company’s transfer and treatment costs could have major economic implications as concentrate producing companies could send its concentrate to installations for treatment outside of the EU (where costs may be cheaper).

Acknowledgements Vesa Törölä (Boliden Harjavalta Oy)



Pekka Österman (Outokumpu Research Oy)

Lynette Chung & Mark Mistry (Eurometaux)



Case study 4: AVG Koeln, Koeln, Germany About the installation The installation began operating in 1998. It is permitted to receive 590,000 t/yr of waste by a reference heating value (Bezugsheizwert) of 11,300 KJ/kg (actual tonnage of waste incinerated will vary from year to year depending on the calorific value of the waste) which is incinerated in 4 furnaces to produce energy in the form of steam and electricity. In 2005 the installation incinerated approximately 680,000 tonnes of waste. Other than energy, the main (waste) products from the incineration process are bottom ash (“Rostasche”; 150,000 tonnes in 2005), fly ash (“Kesselasche, Filterstaeube, Mischsalze”; 20,000 tonnes in 2005), gypsum (3,000 tonnes in 2005) and resin (9 tonnes in 2005).



The main features of the works include:

• Container railway station, via which the majority of waste is transported to the site; the remaining waste arrives via truck;

• Reception bunker in which household waste, bulky waste and residual parts of the commercial waste are received and stored separately in order to subsequently prepare them specifically for incineration;

• Sorting plant in which reusable materials are separated from the remaining waste;

• A waste bunker for intermediate storage of the homogenised remaining waste;

• The main furnace in which the waste is incinerated (subject to a permit under the Federal Immission Control Act (Bundes-Immissionschutzgesetz – BImSchG), incorporating all the requirements of the IPPC Directive and the WID).



There are four furnaces, each of which operates continuously throughout the year (98%). Waste is incinerated in the furnaces under conditions that guarantee that after the last addition of combustion air, the combustion gases resulting from the incineration of the waste are raised to a temperature of not less than 850°C (minimum temperature). The incineration process takes approximately one hour and the waste is conveyed across six turning rolls. After cooling the ash is conveyed underground to the adjacently situated recycling plant (different operator and not included in installation boundary). The hot waste gas is taken past heat exchangers to produce steam. The majority of steam is exported to the local energy provider Rhein Energie AG to produce electricity which is fed into the local grid, while some steam may also be diverted directly to the neighbouring Ford plant upon demand.

The waste gas is abated in five stages, namely:

• Spray drier and subsequent fabric filter for particulate abatement;

• Washer 1 for HCl abatement;

• Washer 2 for SO2 abatement;

• SCR for NOx and dioxin abatement;

• Activated carbon filter which serves as final abatement unit in case one of the previous stages break down.

Legislative coverage The Directives that cover the installation include: IPPC, WID and EIA Directives. See BImSchG and WHG permits for details of conditions covering all Directives’ requirements.

AVG applied for its permit in 1994 and received the permit in 1996. Due to public concern in the neighbourhood, the operator offered stricter emission limit values than foreseen in the 17 BImSchV which he considered appropriate and reasonable for his plant. The techniques proposed for the plant were subsequently used as a BAT case for the European BREF document.

Based on a discussion process and subsequent agreement between the Competent Authority (CA; Bezirksregierung Koeln for Nordrhein Westfalen) and the Operator, the CA imposed ELVs in the permit that went, for certain substances, beyond the minimum requirements set in the Community Directives (further information on transposition of the Directives into German legislation is provided below).

The following table presents a summary of the ELVs set in AVG’s permit as well as the legal ELVs and the actual emissions achieved by the installation for comparison.



Table 1 – Summary of the installation’s performance against statutory ELVs (daily averages)

Substance ELV from 17. BImSchV

ELV from permit Installation Emissions

CO 50 mg/m3 50 mg/m3 7.9 mg/m3

Ctotal 10 mg/m3 5 mg/m3 0.8 mg/m3

Gaseous inorganic chlorine compounds, expressed as hydrogen chloride (HCl)

10 mg/m3 5 mg/m3 0.2 mg/m3

Sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide, expressed as sulphur dioxide (SO2)

50 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 0.3 mg/m3

Nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

200 mg/m3 70 mg/m3 43 mg/m3

Ammonia None (but 30 mg/m3 based on TA Luft)

3 mg/m3 0.1 mg/m3

Total dust 10 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 0.7 mg/m3

Gaseous inorganic fluorine compounds, expressed as hydrogen fluoride (HF)

1 mg/m3 0.1 mg/m3 0.027 mg/m3

Cd, Tl, As, BaP, Co (water soluble)

0.05 mg/m3 0.0045 mg/m3 bd

Hg and its compounds 0.03 mg/m3 0.01 mg/m3 <0.0021 mg/m3

Other heavy metals and their compounds

0.5 mg/m3 0.22 mg/m3 <0.0001 mg/m3

Dioxins + Furans 0.1 ng/m3 0.05 ng/m3 <0.0004 ng/m3

Notes: bd – below detection [1]

The original permitting process was costly for the operator, involving significant expenditure for expert evaluations. These studies were necessary primarily for the EIA documentation. The installation, located in one of the biggest cities of Germany, had to contribute to the necessary general emission reduction in order to meet the EQSs. In addition, there was public concern in the neighbourhood; therefore, the operator tried to gain confidence and acceptance by the public which motivated the operator to offer stricter emissions reductions.

1 million Euros was spent for the permit charge. The capital cost for this state-of-the art plant was in the order of 400 million Euros.

Many measures implemented at the plant were subsequently introduced as BAT into the BREF document.




Interactions between Directives In Germany all European Directives related to emission regulations of industrial installations are implemented via the BImSchG and Water Management Act (WHG) (with regard to landfills the KrW-/AbfG is also relevant; see below). As a result there is only one law in Germany under which a permit is issued, covering all requirements of an installation except emissions to water. If relevant, installations additionall need a permit for emissions to water according the WHG. No problematic interactions between Directives were considered by the operator to occur once the Directives have been transposed into German law.

The IPPC Directive as well as the sector Directives such as the WI Directive were introduced into the existing German BImSchG and its various Statutory Orders (Bundes-Immissionsschutzverordnungen – BImSchVs) as well as non-statutory orders (e.g. Technische Anleitungen such as the TA Luft and TA Lärm). With regard to emissions to water, this implementation was performed by modification of the WHG, the AbwV and Länder-specific legislation.

With regard to landfills the Community requirements were implemented via the Federal Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management and Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal (KrW-/AbfG) and its orders (such as Deponieverordnung and TA Siedlungsabfall).

The WI Directive, which sets only minimum requirements, was transposed into German law via the 17 BImSchV taking into account the requirements of the IPPC Directive as well as the existing draft (at the time) of the BREF on Waste Incineration.

The German authorities indicated that the European Commission has emphasised in several documents that the minimum requirements of the sector Directives (such as the LCP and WI Directives) do not necessarily represent the BAT requirements of the IPPC Directive. Therefore, it is considered to be the obligation of the Member State to take the sector Directives as well as the IPPC Directive into account when transposing them into the national legislation and guaranteeing that all installations meet the BAT requirements of the IPPC Directive. Therefore, aiming at a full transposition of the Community legislation, Germany implemented the minimum requirements of the sector Directives (such as the WI and LCP Directives) in parallel with the BAT requirements of the IPPC Directive which often resulted in requirements that go beyond the minimum requirements of the sector Directives.

The German BAT approach for the installation subject to licensing was in force some decades before the introduction of the IPPC Directive. The German legislation has also been regularly updated according to technical developments. The German authorities indicate that the leading concepts behind this dynamic approach are not only environmental aspects but also economic ones, based on the view that environmentally sound installations are also economically more viable and can have a ‘first mover advantage’. Therefore, the German BAT requirements are often already as stringent as EU Directives subsequently introduced or even more so, with installations permitted under the German legislation often already complying with the new requirements introduced.

The monitoring and reporting obligations are set in accordance with the European and German legislation. The monitoring and reporting requirements are dependent on factors such as the type and quantity of emissions, operator compliance and EMAS certification.



The introduction of the Landfill Directive, implemented in Germany via the TA Siedlungsabfall, brought about limits on the amount of organic waste that was allowed to be landfilled. This resulted in landfill operators having to replace the fraction of organic waste now excluded from landfilling with inert waste. This resulted in additional costs for ‘inertising’ the waste. Inertising the waste is considered to be BAT and also avoids tremendous emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from landfills. AVG operates a landfill site 20 km outside of Koeln where they dispose of some of their incinerator ash as inert waste. This has helped AVG to keep the cost of operation of their landfill site down .

Other issues An accredited independent assessment body carries out annual checks of the functionality and calibration of monitoring equipment (every three years), as well as taking spot samples of emissions to test for substances not included in the continuous monitoring and electronic data transmission system, EFU. This costs the operator in the order of 20,000 – 150,000 Euros per source and year2.

The operator is subject to intensive monitoring requirements which have become more involved over the years since permit issue, specific examples of which are discussed in more detail below. For dioxins and furans for example, emissions have always been below detection and nevertheless monitoring by the accredited independent assessment body is still carried out for these substances on an annual basis.

The operator would advocate a regular re-evaluation of monitoring and reporting requirements in line with an installation’s performance, i.e. a risk based approach to regulation as has been introduced in the UK.

However, the German authorities indicate that, the monitoring and reporting obligations are set in accordance with the European and German legislation. The monitoring and reporting requirements are dependent on e.g. type and quantity of emissions, operator compliance and EMAS certification. The monitoring of an installation has the aim to ensure that the permit requirements with regard to the reduction of emissions are met. However, it is not necessary to measure all substances individually; if it can be guaranteed that the installation properly operates and meets the ELVs by measuring appropriate alternative parameters, this is accepted by the German legislation. The German authorities indicate that these procedures ensure on one hand meeting the requirements of the European and German legislation and on the other hand giving sufficient flexibility to consider the emissions and performance of a specific installation.

Significant effort and money had to be spent by the company to put forward a case for not having to implement continuous monitoring of Hg, as is required by the WID (incorporated into the German law via the 17 BImSchV). The process of proving that the requirement for continuous monitoring of Hg was not applicable to the installation took four years. ELVs set out in the installation permit as received in 1996 were already more stringent than those set out in the WI Directive and the installation has consistently been achieving emissions well below the ELVs set in their permit (see Table 1 above).

Another additional monitoring requirement introduced via the 17 BImSchV (i.e. WI Directive and IPPC Directive) is for the combustion temperature at a certain distance above the flame to be measured every three years to ensure that this meets the minimum combustion temperature of

2 The operator quoted a value of €100-150,000 per year; the German authorities quoted a

value of €20-25,000 per source per year (the latter based on data from TUV Koeln).



850°C for 2 seconds during the combustion process. This has cost the operator approximately 60,000 Euros to have this test carried out by an accredited independent assessment body every three years. The logic behind this repeated exercise cannot be seen by AVG, since combustion conditions generally do not change in the incinerator and this can be demonstrated via a range of proxy parameters without the need for this costly temperature measuring exercise. However, as pointed out by the German authorities, according to the German legislation the temperature and time of duration of the waste in the combustion process is one such equivalent parameter that can be used to reduce the monitoring requirements for individual substances. It is a parameter for controlling the general quality of the combustion process and is dependent on the operation procedures as well as technical properties. Therefore, this alternative parameter has to be controlled. The decision to measure the parameter only once in three years is set based on a consideration of the appropriateness (cost/effectiveness).

Significant additional requirements for monitoring and reporting are placed on the operator by the recently introduced German Industry Norm DIN 14181, which is a German version of the European Norm EN 14181:2004. This sets strict minimum standards for the control, calibration and functionality of monitoring equipment. Monitoring equipment has to be calibrated to a certain range of conditions. Every time minor changes are made to the process leading to a change of the conditions, the monitoring equipment needs to be recalibrated. This process has proved costly and has caused the operator problems with meeting the strict requirements of the Norm3.

In Germany, legal requirements for industrial emissions are generally introduced as General Binding Rules without consideration of site-specific conditions. While a site-specific assessment is carried out to evaluate not just an installation’s emissions but also its impact on the environment and associated environmental benchmarks, the ELVs set in the German legislation will always remain the minimum emission standards that have to be achieved, and the site specific assessment against environmental benchmarks may only lead to a tightening of the ELVs, but not to a weakening.

Discussions with regulatory authority The German Federal Environment Agency has commented on a draft of the case study report and their views, as well as those of the Lander contacted by the Umweltbundesamt, are taken into account in the above text.

Contact for the Bezirksregierung is H. Iven (Tel: +49 221 147 3296)

Contact for the StUA Koeln is H. Wolff (Tel: +49 221 774 0564)

Summary of main problematic interactions Since in Germany industrial emissions legislation is already streamlined via the transposition of relevant Community Directives into one German law (described above), no problematic interactions have been identified with regard to the interaction of the various applicable legislation. The main concerns identified by the operator related to requirements for monitoring and reporting placed on the operator through requirements of the BImSchG.

3 It is noted that the existence of the Norm helps to harmonise measuring conditions in

Europe.



Issues for streamlining of legislation In Germany industrial emissions legislation is already streamlined via the transposition of relevant Community Directives into one German law (described above). Further streamlining of industrial emission legislation is not considered necessary by the operator.

The example of the BImSchG may be seen as a model for a potential EU single umbrella directive, a Directive combining the current requirements of the sector Directives with the IPPC Directive, where there is an overlap, to reduce uncertainty regarding which approaches have precedence and to reduce the potential for different regulatory regimes to apply differently to a single site. However, the German authorities (Umweltbundesamt) does not necessarily see a need for such a change of the European legislation (and believes that it would be very time consuming) because it is up to the Member States to implement the various Directives in a streamlined approach.

Some streamlining would be advocated by the operator with regard to reporting requirements. At present, the operator needs to produce various separate annual reports to different authorities and bodies, some of which have an overlapping scope but with differing reporting formats. For example AVG has to report to the StUA on their main annual emission for inclusion in the EPER database. This data is also reported on via the EFU system (Elektronische Fernuebertragung; a system that facilitates the direct electronic transmission of continuous emissions monitoring data from the main point sources to the StUA), albeit in a different format and on a continuous basis. The German government is aware of this problem which they consider to be caused to a large extent by the non-harmonised European monitoring and reporting requirements in different pieces of European legislation. The government advocates harmonising the European reporting obligations, e.g. one set of reporting obligations for all / most of the industrial installations.

AVG would not advocate an inclusion of the sector in a potential emissions trading scheme for NOx and SO2. The sector had been excluded from the ETS for CO2 since these emissions cannot easily be influenced for a waste incinerator. The installation is considered by the Regulator to perform to the very highest emission standards in Germany and counts as one of the best performing plants. Hence there would be no incentive for the plant to participate in a trading scheme as there would be no benefits gained. In addition, operator suggests that significant monitoring and reporting requirements would be needed for such an ETS and that these would be associated with high additional costs with no clear benefits for the installation.



Case study 5: Budapest Power Plant, Hungary About the installation The installation first began operating in 1906. It was privatised in 1996 to Fortum-Tomen, and has been owned by EdF since 2001.

The company operates power plants at four sites in Budapest: in Kelenföld, Újpest, Kispest and Kőbánya districts. The case study is focused on the biggest site, where the company headquarters are located: Kelenföld, in the 11th district of Budapest. In some cases, examples from other sites are also quoted.

The installation produces electricity, heat and industrial steam; it operates with combined cycle cogeneration gas turbines installed in 1995 almost 100% on natural gas. The gross efficiency of energy delivery is above 75%.

The installation produces around 3,000 TJ hot water heat and around 580 GWh of electricity annually.

Regarding the emissions of air pollutants, all total and relative emissions of SO2 and NOx show an improving trend in the last 3 years due to continuous technical developments.

Atmospheric emissions (kg) 2003 2004 2005

NOx 1,557,715 1,111,750 922,872

SO2 922,706 268,729 6,294

CO 123,890 155,506 187,994

CO2 (t) 1,111,317 1,028,168 1,013,640

Solid 94,176 26,023 208

Relative atmospheric emissions (kg/TJ) 2003 2004 2005

NOx 94 71 78

SO2 55 17 1

CO 7 10 16

CO2 (t/TJ) 67 66 69



Figure Budapest Power Plant, Kelenföld site

Figure Installation of the chimney for the HCP gas turbine in November 2005

Legislative coverage The European Directives and their transposed Hungarian legislation that cover the installation include most importantly the IPPC, LCP, GHG-ET and Seveso II Directives.



The sites have been preparing their applications for IPPC permits since 2003, and have received permits for the Kispest site in 2004 and for the Kelenföld site in 2006. Two additional IPPC permits are being processed at the moment.

LCP permits are always issued by the Regional Technical Safety Inspectorate, when setting up individual combustion units.

The operators fulfilled the reporting requirements under Seveso II in 2005.

A carbon emission permit for the installation was issued in December 2004, while quotas were set in March 2006.

Problematic interactions identified The operators could not identify major interactions reflecting direct conflicts between the directives in the context of this study prior to the site visit and personal meeting. The site visit therefore focused upon exploring the potential issues in more detail.

Due to the size and characteristics of the installation, most of the related environmental legislation has an effect on its operation. However, after a number of technological development projects in the 1990s, the installation complies with all the related legislation and thus problems of different emission targets have not been manifested as real life problems. The Managers of the installation have reported a few minor problems but have mentioned some potential future conflicts and possible theoretical interactions. These are listed below.

Large Combustion Plant Directive The definition of ‘installations’ or ‘plants’ differs between the IPPC and the LCP Directives. For the first, it is not related to the combustion work itself, but the total combustion works discharging through one smokestack. The performance limit is 50 MW, but if the same installation operates with two smokestacks the two separated installations will not be handled as a “large combustion plant”. At the same time BREF LCP covers combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW. The main concern relates to the LCP Directive and this conflict did not cause any serious practical problem to the operator.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading The operators have mentioned that the limit of installations covered by greenhouse gas emission trading is 20 MW, while BREF covers installations exceeding 50 MW. They suggest that these definitions be harmonised.

The environmental managers have raised the issue of the way CO2 emissions are calculated. Basically, the emissions from the Power Plant are determined from the amount of fuel used by using a mass balance. This method has been found to be more reliable than direct measurements; however, if the emission is higher than 1 million tonnes per site, a direct measurement is also required. The sites are below this threshold value, but would suggest using rather calculations then CO2 measurements. This is not strictly an issue of interaction between the two Directives but highlights the level of administrative burden associated with this Directive (and the cumulative burden of several Directives).

Seveso II Directive The installation has reported that complying with the Seveso II Directive implies extra reporting requirements since permitting is not managed by the Environmental Inspectorates, but the local Anti-Catastrophe Inspectorate. Some reporting requirements are slightly different from the documents required by the IPPC.



For example oil tanks have to be reported based on their gross containing capacity and not the actual amount of fuel stored. In addition, the operators have reported, that it was not fully clear whether they fall under the Directive or not. Otherwise, for the Budapest Power Plant, Seveso II is binding in terms of fuel storage capacity, while IPPC and LCP is relevant in terms of firing capacity. This difference in what is covered by the Directives due to differences in definitions did not cause any serious practical problem for the operators.

Discussions with regulatory authority

Large Combustion Plant Directive Regarding the problems in the way the site or units are defined in the two directives (LCP and IPPC), the Inspectorate has reported that the Hungarian regulation orders sites to sum the thermal capacity of the combustion units: the inspectorate always counts the total capacity of the combustion plants and whether this sum is above or below 50 MW determines the legislative coverage of the installation.

On the other hand, for determining monitoring requirements, for combustion units between 140 kW and 50 MW, the Inspectorate sets limits for each emitter separately.

GHG-ET Regarding the GHG trading Directive, the carbon emissions are declared to National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water (OKTVF) and also declared separately to the Inspectorates. Therefore the Inspectorate agrees that this is a multiple reporting effort for the company.

Seveso II Directive Regarding the double reporting and lack of cooperation, the Inspectorate has agreed, that they have no formal and informal communication with the authorities responsible for the safety documents required under Seveso.

Summary of main problematic interactions As mentioned earlier the operator has not experienced major problematic interactions with most of the issues identified either minor or theoretical.

A group of issues have been the differences in definitions: e.g. of what constitutes the installation in the case of IPPC, LCP and GHG-ET. Extra reporting requirements have been found in case of the Seveso II and GHG-ET directives (due to the need to report to different authorities with slightly different information); however the firm was not able to provide an estimate of the additional costs and resources associated with this.

A problem very often mentioned is that some permits are not part of the IPPC permit, but handled separately with different expiry dates, though IPPC permit has the precondition that those permits will be valid whilst the IPPC permit is valid (e.g. in the case of the permit for operation of monitoring wells, which the operator is required to use under IPPC).

Issues for streamlining of legislation Mainly the suggestions the operators made did not relate directly to the European legislation, but the way it is transposed to the national legislation.

In their opinion, it is advisable to integrate all necessary permits which are related to IPPC into the IPPC permit itself (e.g. the operational permit of monitoring wells, which the operator is required to use under IPPC) in order to make the requirements of different Directives fully clear



to an operator. The position of the Power Plant was that it would significantly help the operators if communication procedures between the various authorities were improved and thus permitting could be better harmonised for the different requirements and the administrative burden for the operator could be lowered while having all current requirements fulfilled. They have suggested setting up a more efficient communication system between the authorities responsible for the enforcement of different legislation originating from the directives.

As a whole, NOx and SO2 trading is not supported by the operators, since the current emission limits are considered so low that complying with these would mean that the tradable amounts would be too little for an ET market to function well.

Acknowledgements

Operators Balázs Major, Environmental Manager, Budapest Power Plant

Balázs Horváth EMS Manager, Budapest Power Plant

Local authorities Károly Ladányi, executive, Central Danube Valley Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water Protection

Dr. Szilvia Pungor, executive, Central Danube Valley Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water Protection

National Authorities Balázs Horváth, Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Water, Hungarian Member of IPPC Review Advisory Group



Case study 6: Cement Works4, Hungary About the installation The Installation began operating in 1975. The works includes two kilns and produces around 4,200 tonnes of cement per day, around 35% of Hungary’s total.

The cement factory is connected by a 6km long conveyor to a quarry where limestone is extracted. Clay is extracted in the quarry 5km from the site and is transported by trucks. The site process covers raw materials preparation, kiln processing and cement milling.

In 2004 the site used 27,792 tonnes of coal, 5,500 m3 of natural gas and 30,472 tonnes of petroleum coke as the main fuels. In addition, 32,816 tonnes/year of fly ash (from a power plant) and 181 tons/year of plastic wastes are co-incinerated.

Emissions of SO2 and NOx were as follows in 2005:

• 27t SO2 from the two kilns;

• 842t NOx from the two kilns (selective non-catalytic reduction – SNCR – was installed in 2004).

Legislative coverage The Directives that cover the installation include: IPPC, LCP, WID and GHG-ET. The operators applied for and received the following permits:

• IPPC permit in January 2004, received November 2005 (varied once since). This permit covers all but co-incineration and groundwater monitoring permits.

• WID (variation for tyres) in 1996, received in December 2005.

• WID (variation for plastic waste) in 2002, received in 2003.

Problematic interactions identified Initially, the Operators have reported only minor interactions and only general concerns in relation to interactions between the Directives. The site visit and personal interviews have raised some points where minor interactions were identified and some general points addressing the IPPC permitting in practice. Note that the latter are not strictly the subject of this study and only issues that provide relevant context for the issue of problematic interactions are included here.

Waste Incineration Directive (co-incineration of wastes) The operator has received an IPPC permit expiring on 31 January 2010. This permit refers to the permit on co-incineration as a recognized process. This latter permit will expire on 31 March 2007. The operator is uncertain weather this latter permit should be re-issued after this date or will be valid until the IPPC permit expires.

The installation has experimented with burning additional alternative waste types (e.g. polluted biomass). Although, when burning this waste current emissions would not rise, they cannot start co-incinerating alternative fuels, because this would exceed the ELV set for one pollutant in the

4 The Installation did not authorize REC to report the name.



WID5. The operator has carried out an analytical process and has found that this pollutant is above the ELV not due to the waste incinerated but the stone quarried and recognized under the IPPC permit. This prevents the installation from using waste for co-generation, although current emission values would not increase. One issue is that polluted biomass would be recognized as carbon-neutral, but due to this non-compliance the operators have decided to keep the business as usual. The issue therefore is that the WID imposes additional requirements above IPPC that may actually limit the environmental benefit realised through limiting the types of fuel (or waste) that can be burned.

The installation has also considered starting burning used tyres, approximately 44 tons per day.

The environmental manager has reported that the co-incineration process has put significant financial burdens on the site: PM, CO, NOx, SO2, HCl, HF and TOC monitoring had to be set up for approximately HUF 80 Million. The IPPC permit requires the operator to report emission values on PM and NOx. This costs approximately HUF 2 Million per year (investment and operating costs). In installing SNCR to comply with the NOx limits, the operator had to invest of HUF 63 Million6.

Coverage of the site/installation The process of identification of the “site” subject to permitting was subject to some confusion (as experienced in several other Member States): the quarry and the site (attached by a conveyor) should be considered as one single site under the legislation. When the installation applied for the permit, an assessment of impacts on local flora and fauna was requested by the neighbouring nature protected area (as a stakeholder authority involved in the permitting process). However, it was later concluded that only the cement works would be covered in the IPPC permit. This change in the request for permit had a cost of HUF 3 Million and highlights the potential difficulties where the definition of the IPPC installation in the Directive does not necessarily cover the whole of a site.

Discussions with regulatory authority Regarding the decision on what a “site” is under IPPC, the inspectorate has indicated that there is no formal agreement, therefore a mine and a processing site connected by a conveyor may be handled as two separate sites or one single site. There are examples where both approaches have been adopted.

The Inspectorate has indicated that a mutual conversation and meeting with the operators prior to assembling the documentation for requesting IPPC permit and other permits required by additional Directives generally improves the quality of documentation and results in a smoother and quicker permitting.

While operators have indicated that documentation is often required by the Inspectorate, which is actually already available at the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate suggests that in these cases the proper identification of relevant records and documents should be enclosed with the request (they prefer to have all documents completely attached to the requests). This issue is not one of problematic interactions between Directives but an area where the operator has identified that administrative burdens could potentially be reduced at the Member State level.

5 The Installation did not authorize REC to report the pollutant. 6 1 EUR = appox 275 HUF (August, 2006)



In order to avoid cases of multiple permitting, the Inspectorate suggests to fully transform the Hungarian IPPC permits into a practically integrated permit. This would result in one single permit addressing all relevant permits subject to emission limit values in annexes.

Summary of main problematic interactions As mentioned earlier the operator has not experienced major problems due to the interactions of the various Directives. Some recent technological development projects (installation of SNCR) have driven the installation to comply with all the related legislation, thus in the process of acquiring permits for firing additional alternative fuels, the operators have ran into some potential conflicts in the legislation.

However in some cases these interactions have only been possible to identify theoretically; in other cases relatively minor problems have occurred. Most importantly, the installation has reported, that using additional waste types (e.g. polluted biomass) has not started due to the fact that this would exceed the ELV set for one pollutant. This prevents the Installation from utilising waste for co-generation, although current emission values would not increase because the main source of emissions is the basic materials used for cement production.

Issues for streamlining of legislation The Installation urges the authorities to transform the IPPC permit to a fully integrated permit that covers all environment related permits and requirements in a single document. The installation has urged the Inspectorates to include all permits in the IPPC permit, including monitoring of groundwater for example.

The Installation indicated that it took a long time to obtain their permit (which may cause delays in the technological developments and investments). They recommend, that IPPC BREF documents should incorporate ELVs with some minor technology-specific flexibility: e.g. when the basic technology (which is actually recognized as BAT) has higher emissions then the limits set in other affecting Directives: e.g. co-incineration of alternative fuels should be permitted when the emissions are not rising due to the alternative fuel, but originating from other technology specific parameters.

The installation has also recommended that the Inspectorates should warn the operators in case of any changes in ELVs required by different pieces of legislation; existing permits should be automatically updated in cases where the operators comply with the legislation. The operators believe that these changes should be simple to implement and should thus have a very low administration fee.

The firm would not advocate SO2/NOx trading. They have reported that the low level of current emissions from cement plants and the requirements to implement BAT and WID has already resulted in a very significant reductions of SO2 and NOx emissions. The experience of EU-ETS, they claim, has already shown that there is a significant cost and bureaucracy associated with the emission verification process with questionable benefits.



Acknowledgements

Operators Environment manager of the Installation7

Local authorities8 Károly Ladányi, executive, Central Danube Valley Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water Protection

Dr. Szilvia Pungor, executive, Central Danube Valley Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water Protection

National Authorities Balázs Horváth, Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Water, IPPC Department

7 The Installation did not authorize REC to report the name. 8 The Installation did not authorize REC to report difficulties to the local Inspectorate.

Therefore issues were raised to another local Inspectorate as point made by an installation out of the territorial scope of the Inspectorate.



Case study 7: Essent Amercentrale power station, Netherlands Introduction This and the following sections provide details of the case studies undertaken in the Netherlands. Discussions were also held with the authorities regarding their views on problematic interactions between different pieces of legislation and the NOx trading scheme in operation in the Netherlands. The outputs of these are reported in this section, though they also apply to the next two case studies.

The following detailed discussions were held:

• A meeting to discuss views on challenging interactions and the Dutch NOx trading scheme with national authorities and industry representatives (10 April 2006).

• Site visit to explore legislative interactions at Shell Chemicals Moerdijk site (11 April 2006), Essent Amercentrale power station (11 April) and Esso’s refinery (2 May).

• Preparatory and follow-up discussions with the national authorities, particularly VROM.

• Telephone and face-to-face discussions with the permitting authorities (Brabant and Rotterdam Environmental Protection Agency).

The text in this section includes information relevant to the NOx trading scheme from the perspective of central government, as well as their views on challenging interactions between different pieces of legislation. Following this, detailed consideration is given to the specific installations considered.

Central government views on problem interactions

Introduction VROM presented their draft position related to the review of the IPPC Directive. An updated position is being prepared by the Dutch Government but the main highlights of the draft position include:

• The principles and goals of the IPPC Directive should be maintained, however the innovation potential of the IPPC Directive should be improved.

• Eco-efficient innovations are necessary to meet the European environmental goals (f.e. NEC Directive, Water Framework Directive):the IPPC Directive should be an important driver and instrument to promote innovation and innovative solutions to industrial emissions;

• Co-ordination and integration between the IPPC and related Directives and more possibilities for regulating installation via general binding rules should be a major consideration to improve legislation quality and regulatory certainty to enhance investments in innovation;

• Introducing the possibility in the IPPC Directive of applying national system(s) of emissions trading in order to promote cost-effective and innovative solutions for



ambitious emission reductions necessary to meet the European and national environmental targets;

• The monitoring requirements on industrial installations imposed by the various directives should be streamlined, simplified and brought to a higher quality level in line with the principles of good governance, e.g. transparancy, accountability and integrity;

• Enforcement requirements could be introduced into the Directive. For example, this could build on the existing Recommendation on minimum criteria for inspections and include an information exchange between Member States. Such an approach is set out in Dutch legislation but an EU approach could help to promote a level playing field ;

The following sections focus on specific issues raised in relation to individual Directives.

Definition of facility, installation, etc. The “facility” definition used in the Netherlands includes all installations as well as administrative buildings, etc. on the site. There is a rather long history of integrated permitting at the site or facility level. This has been long considered as an efficient and effective tool for regulating emissions at facility or site level, as most if not all emissions at an industrial site, e.g. refinery, chemical plant etc, are somehow connected, be it through the fuel system, sewage, cooling water etc. Morover, this approach implies that only one permit and one permit procedure is needed to regulate a group of installations. However, a consequence of this approach is that sometimes a facility will party fall under the IPPC-Directive and partly under national regulations which can cause discussion whether and how to the BREF should be applied

Environmental Impact Assessment VROM commented that the EIA process typically introduces around one year of delay in the Netherlands in obtaining an environmental permit. There are some requirements under the EIA Directive and IPPC Directive that are common to both and it was argued that this could lead to unnecessary delays.

However, in the chemical industry, the EIA and environmental permitting processes are often started at the same time and undertaken together, reducing the potential delays and ensuring consistency of approach. This is essentially an issue of how the legislation is implemented in the Netherlands and how firms respond to the legislation. It was argued that more could potentially be done to promote consistency and removal of overlaps at the EU level.

It was suggested that the requirements of EIA could be removed where a facility is covered by the IPPC Directive. However, it was pointed out that the EIA Directive generally requires a wider consideration of alternatives (sites, processes, etc.). An alternative approach would be to use EIA only for the spatial planning aspects of the process, relying on IPPC to cover the remaining environmental aspects of both current regimes.

Waste Framework Directive An issue was raised in relation to the reference to ‘recovery activities’ as defined in Annex I of the IPPC Directive and that updating of the operations referred to (e.g. R1) has taken place. A concern was expressed that this causes problems for the legislators and regulators in determining whether an installation should be covered by the IPPC Directive. This is an issue related to the text of the Directive in question and ensuring an up-to-date understanding; a



possible change that could be of value would be to make the links and potential for updates clearer in the IPPC Directive.

The waste thematic strategy was discussed and it was highlighted that this will include various initiatives to ensure coherence of legislation and streamlining of relevant requirements (in particular, clarifying that if an IPPC permit is held, no additional waste permit is necessary).

Large combustion plants and waste incineration directives In the Netherlands, general binding rules are in place related to combustion installations and the limit values that should be complied with. GBRs have been in place since the 1980s. The standards prior to introduction of the LCP Directive were at a comparable level, though reportedly more flexibility was allowed. The ELVs for new combustion plants are in general more demanding then the ELVs in the LCP.

The requirements of Waste Incineration Directive were introduced through a 2004 decree9, as were the requirements of the LCP Directive10 (setting out general binding rules). However, the Dutch State Council has recently ruled that the BAT-AELs set out in the BREF Notes should take precedence over the LCP and WI Directive limit values.

The GBRs for combustion and incineration installations will be amended in 2006 to clarify that these should be seen as minimum requirements for emissions to air.

It was suggested that more could potentially be done at the EU level to ensure that the position is clear and consistent regarding the IPPC Directive (Article 9(8)) and the BAT-AELs set out in the BREF Notes.

The electricity industry questioned the value of the ‘safety net’ approach of the LCP and WI Directives and would prefer the regulatory certainty of just one approach (or even just clarification of the position through implementing the requirements into the same Directive).

Emissions trading in CO2, NOx In relation to emission ceilings set under the NEC Directive, for example, there is an issue in the Netherlands regarding how permit conditions can be set for individual installations in order to meet that ceiling. This is particularly an issue in relation to start-up of new plants and the potential need for redistribution of the contribution of emissions to the overall national target.

The main issue raised in relation to potential conflicts between the Dutch NOx trading scheme and IPPC relates to how the BAT-AELs are interpreted. Based on a recent judicial conclusion11, the competent authority has to justify that emissions trading will achieve the emission reductions needed, and must elaborate how the BREFs have been taken into consideration to reflect what should be implemented at a sector level and the installation-specific issues have been considered less relevant. This procedure has not always been taken into account and hence, in some cases, operators of existing installations had to go to significant expense to introduce techniques regardless of site-specific factors.

If an installation exceeds the BAT-AELs for NOx, they will not be allowed to purchase additional emissions allowances to compensate. This reduces the extent to which the most cost-

9 Besluit verbranding afvalstoffen (BVA). 10 Besluit emissie eisen grote stookinstallaties BEES. 11 Reference 200405315/1 of 20 April 2005.



effective reductions in emissions can be achieved through emissions trading. It was suggested that a mechanism to improve the cost-effectiveness of the system would be to exclude installations participating in NOx or SO2 emissions trading from the BAT requirements of the IPPC Directive (as was done for CO2).

Monitoring and reporting requirements Much of the reporting at the national level is co-ordinated by Infomil. They suggested that the streamlining of information requests could be achieved by, for example:

• Using common definitions across Directives, particularly in relation to the activity, installation, facility, etc.

• Avoiding duplicative information requests from installations.

• Co-ordinating the frequencies and time periods over which the information is requested.

• Avoiding changes in the formats for information requested (which has led to significant costs for redevelopment of information collation systems for the second IPPC implementation reports).

• Giving consideration, for each question asked, to how the information requested will be used and questioning whether that information is really needed.

Legal issues in potential streamlining of legislation It was generally agreed that greater integration of the requirements under different Directives would be beneficial. In particular, the legislators view the current structure of emissions legislation as lacking in structure and integration.

One of the key differences in definitions relates to the ‘installation’ defined under IPPC with different terms used in other Directives. Whilst such issues can be solved in national legislation and implementation, the differences cause practical problems with delays (e.g. 5 years) in gaining an interpretation from the national courts. This causes uncertainty for regulators and for industry during the implementation phase, potentially leading to unnecessary costs.

In general, the definitions in the Directives have been interpreted in order to make the system work consistently across the various national and EU legislation.

About the installation (Essent Amercentrale) The installation has been in operation since 1952, with redundant units being replaced over time. Currently two units (numbers 8 and 9) are operative. Together, these have a total capacity of around 1,300MW. They can generate electricity for around three million households.

The Province of Brabant issued a permit for the entire Essent site at Geertruidenberg in 2002. Though the permit applies to the entire site, it contains specific and different emission limits for the different individual installations on the site.



Essent Amercentrale Power Station

The primary fuel used at the power station is coal though biomass is also burned directly (olive pits, wood chips, etc.) and can also be gasified to produce fuel gas for the station. Around 3 million tonnes of coal is burned per year. In 2005, over 0.5 million tonnes of biomass was used. Currently up to 30% of the fuel is co-combusted biomass.

Essent Amercentrale power station is one of the single largest sources of NOx in the Netherlands and is covered by the NOx trading scheme. Of the two units, emissions controls for NOx were fitted on one in 199612 and controls on the second will be fitted in 2007/08. Emissions controls in place are summarised in the table below.

Emission controls in place at Essent Amercentrale

Pollutant Emissions controls

NOx Unit 8: Low-NOx burners, overfire air ports, selective catalytic reduction (fitted 1996; 80% reduction in emissions). Unit 9: Low-NOx burners, overfire air ports, enlarged boiler (for better burn out), flue gas recirculation, selective catalytic reduction to be installed in 2007/2008.

SO2 Wet flue gas desulphurisation with limestone (efficiency of 91% - 92%). The gypsum produced is utilised in anhydrite production.

PM10 Four field electrostatic precipitator (efficiency 99.9%).

12 At the time (though not at present), Government subsidies were offered for the

implementation of NOx emission reduction measures.



Emissions from unit 8 were 2,000 - 2,500 tonnes (150 - 200 mg/Nm3) and from unit 9 were 4,200 - 5,000 (300 - 400 mg/Nm3). The fitting of SCR on unit 9 will, it is understood, significantly reduce emissions of NOx. The cost of installing SCR on unit 9 is estimated at around €30 million capital cost plus €1-2 million per year operational costs.

Legislative coverage The power station is covered by a number of different industrial emissions legislative regimes, including:

• IPPC Directive;

• GHG-ET Directive;

• Dutch NOx trading scheme;

• Waste Incineration Directive;

• Large Combustion Plant Directive.

Issues in relation to NOx emissions trading The operator indicated that, when initial discussions regarding NOx emissions trading took place, it was suggested to them by Central Government that there would be more flexiblity in applying emission limit values for NOx (and SO2) under IPPC when emissions trading would have started. This would have allowed the company flexibility in terms of emissions trading (i.e. the opportunity to purchase emissions allowances instead of installing SCR).

As a result, Essent delayed the installation of further de-NOx measures and it was only decided in November 2005 that the abatement equipment would be installed. Whilst the equipment will not be operational by October 2007, Essent considers that this will reduce emissions of NOx to the levels set out in the current BREF13.

The operator asserts that the issue of regulatory uncertainty has almost certainly meant that there has been a delay in the reduction of emissions of NOx in the Netherlands, with possible consequent implications for environmental protection.

The company also raised the issue of the interaction between IPPC and emissions trading in NOx. As evidenced by the above discussion, under IPPC, the installation will be required to install abatement equipment that will leave little room for further reductions. They questioned, therefore, whether any real trading could take place if installations are required to implement BAT in any case.

IPPC and the Waste Incineration Directive There is a gasification plant on site which was developed for the gasification of lightly contaminated wood (from demolition) into “syngas” which can be burned in the coal-fired plant. The waste gasification unit has a capacity of 150,000 tonnes and cost around €50 million to install. The Syngas produced from waste wood is considered by the operator to be clean and to have a similar quality to gas from clean biomass that is gasified (i.e. non-waste). The process of installation began in 1998 and was completed in 2005 (though originally planned for 2000).

13 The emission levels associated with BAT are given as 50-200 mg/Nm3 in the May 2005

BREF for large combustion plants.



Under WID and its implementation in the Netherlands, the whole of the installation is covered by the environmental permit.

One of the key issues raised in relation to the WID was in relation to the extent of additional costs imposed in addition to IPPC that, according to the operator, relate to issues that are not relevant. For example, there is no requirement to monitor for mercury emissions under IPPC in relation to gasification of wood (i.e. contaminants such as this are not present in the Syngas), whereas under WID, there is a requirement to comply with emission limits for mercury.

The company estimates that the cost of the monitoring equipment would be €1-2 million (plus ongoing operating and reporting costs). In addition, the WID creates a requirement for the process to be stopped if emission limits are not met for a period of more than 4 hours14 as compared to the existing requirement which only applies after 24 hours.

Furthermore, given that the WID emission limit values relate to emissions in waste gas from the installation as a whole (only around 5% of fuel use may be gas at any one time), emissions of mercury from coal may lead to the emission limits being exceeded though not as a result of the use of waste wood.

Concerns were also raised regarding the cost associated with monitoring other pollutants (such as dioxins) which are not specifically required under IPPC, but are under WID. In relation to emissions of pollutants also covered by specific emission limits under other Directives, the emission abatement equipment already in place would be sufficient to meet those associated with the LCP Directive. In addition, fitting of SCR on unit 9 (planned for 2007/08) would allow the NOx emission limits under the WID to be met (if any future gasification of waste wood takes place).

In addition to the concerns related to the additional requirements imposed by WID over what is required under IPPC, the operator raised a concern in relation to advice provided by the authorities. They were reportedly originally informed that the requirements of the WID would not apply to the gasification of waste wood and that only the LCPD and IPPC needed to be met (this informed their investment decisions). They have now decided that it is too costly to comply with the monitoring and shut-down requirements of the WID and so have ceased burning Syngas from demolition wood (and are testing waste food products, which are significantly more costly than demolition wood).

Concerns with the NEC Directive At an EU-level the NEC Directive does not place requirements upon specific installations and it is up to the Member State to decide how the emission ceiling for the Member State is to be met. In the Netherlands, the overall national emission ceiling for NOx to be met by 2010 is 260 kt. In the Netherlands, this national ceiling has been divided in sub-ceilings for the three main sectors of the economy, and the emission ceiling for industry (sources above 20 MWth) has been set at 55 kt to be achieved through a system of emissions trading.

It is considered possible15 that this emission ceiling will lead to the introduction of stricter emission limits in Essent’s permit and that the techniques required to meet those emission limits

14 Under Article 13(3), the plant can be operated for no more than four hours where the

emission limit values are not being met. 15 By the operator and the authorities.



could be prohibitively expensive or could either take away the focus from other pollutants (or even be detrimental to other pollutants).

Whilst this concern emanates from a Community Directive, we consider that any such problems that may arise are related to how the NEC Directive has been implemented in the Netherlands. However, it raises an issue regarding the extent to which installation-specific permits can be (or should be) used to deliver transboundary requirements.

Concerns with the GHG-ET Directive At the Essent power station, one unit was mothballed in 1978. Recently, the company considered bringing this unit back on line.

Under the GHG-ET Directive, the emissions allocated to the power station are set for the facility as a whole (by grandfathering) and not for the separate units. Therefore, bringing the mothballed unit back on line would increase emissions from the site significantly given that it would not be counted as a ‘new entrant’ to the emissions trading scheme. This would have significant cost implications for the installation due to the need to purchase additional emissions allowances.

Other concerns related to industrial emissions legislation The company in question also raised a number of other issues that have caused problems in implementation (though not necessarily as a result of interactions between Directives). These include:

• The direct effectiveness of IPPC. In the past, the Dutch Government based permitting decisions on the basis of the ALARA16 principle. This provided for the prevention of pollution or, if not possible, to apply the highest level of protection against environmental pollution unless considered unreasonable. This is essentially similar to BAT under IPPC. However, the Dutch courts ruled that, since the Dutch legislation did not specifically refer to BAT, then the Community-level legislation should take precedence. The Dutch legislation has subsequently been amended.

• One issue related to the interaction of different legislation relates to the frequency with which permits are revisited. The permit for Essent was revised in 2000 and then again in 2002. In the Netherlands, all of the permit conditions are re-considered each time a new Directive is introduced. The company highlighted the need for stability of regulation in relation to investment decisions for new and existing plant and the potential implications for security of supply in electricity generation. It was suggested that, whilst the Community-level Directives generally allow sufficient time for existing permits to be amended in the context of normal permitting (and investment cycles), making the revision periods more explicit in Community and national legislation could significantly reduce resource requirements and improve regulatory certainty from the point of view of the operator.

• There was some confusion regarding the legal status of BREF Notes in the Netherlands. Several sources (Essent and others) indicated that the Dutch courts have suggested that the techniques referred to in the BREF Notes should be

16 As Low As Reasonably Acceptable.



expected across a sector as a whole. Industry and others have claimed that this has led to permitting decisions being made without taking into account issues of cost-effectiveness. It was, however, clarified that the Netherlands has implemented Annex IV of the IPPC Directive into its national law.

Discussions held with Brabant permitting authority No EU Directive has been directly integrated in the permit. In general EU Directives are first transposed into national law, decrees, regulations and gudelines. In this case the permit was partly based on a guideline from the Ministry of Environment as far as the emission limits are concerned for biomass application as a fuel in power generation – the biomassa emissie richtlijn. In this letter the Ministry anticipated on EU Directives still under development at the time, such as LCPD and WID (these Directives override the Dutch BEES A directive). No special regulation exists with respect to NEC since this Directive does not pose emission limits on individual installations.

Implementing IPPC and LCPD has resulted in the (ongoing) installation of the SCR on Unit 9. Apart from this addition to the gas cleaning system on Unit 9, both power plants are considered by the authority to meet BAT standards for power plants.

In practice, actual emission concentrations are well below the required limit values17. This fact has reportedly been used by NGOs to demand adjustment of the present permit by adjusting the emission limits in the permit to values closer to the actual values. Because the permitting authorities saw no reason to adjust the emission limits, the NGOs took their demand before the Council of State (Raad van State) , the highest Dutch administrative court.

The permitting procedure has not involved discussions between the permitting authority and the Essent power station, though both parties are familiar with the Directives. There has, however, been some confusion and discussion regarding which Directive has precedence where more than one Directive applies. The permitting authorities in Brabant have (correctly) interpreted the situation as that IPPC precedes over other regulations. However, this was reportedly not clear to all parties and a suggestion has been made to make this clearer in the BREF Notes.

The issue of more stringent monitoring and operating requirements under WID was discussed with the permitting authority. A facility will come under BVA18 for an entire year, even if only 1 kg of waste is incinerated. The Essent power station has requested a more flexible approach whereby the facility would fall under BVA only when waste is actually incinerated.

17 An example from an other source than this interview:

BAT standard for a coal fired power plant > 300 MWe requires emission concentrations for e.g. PM10 of 5 – 20 mg/Nm3 (6 vol% O2). The actual concentration found in the off gases from Amer 9 has been below 1 mg/Nm3 ever since 1998.

For SO2 concentrations with values of approximately 100 – 110 mg/Nm3 (6 vol% O2) lay approximately at the centre of the range defined in BAT of 20 – 200 mg/Nm3

For NOx concentrations in the off gases of Amer 8 are 150 mmg/Nm3 and fall within the BAT range of 90 – 200 mg/Nm3. For Amer 9 current emission concentrations are 300 – 350 mg/Nm3 but will reduce to levels lower than the BAT range (60 – 70 mg/Nm3) after the SCR DeNOx has been integrated.

18 Besluit Verbranden Afval, the Dutch implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive



Although the BREF’s are extensive and require significant time for studying, the thoroughness of the BREF’s has the advantage that the permit authorities now have more information to substantiate their decisions. This not only applies to IPPC assessments but also to other permit procedures.



Case study 8: Esso Refinery, Rotterdam, Netherlands About the installation The ExxonMobil Rotterdam refinery processes approximately 10 Mtonnes of heavy crude per year. Realized and put into operation in 1960, the refinery was designed for processing heavy Arabian crude (Arab heavy) and similar sources. In response to increasing demands from environmental policy and changes in market demands, the refinery has been upgraded several times with processing facilities for heavy fractions (hydrocracker – early 90’s, Flexicoker – mid 80’s) and for transformation of petrol (Powerformer). The refinery employs about 600 persons.

Located next to the refinery are two chemical plants, one processing aromatics into plasticizers, the other producing aromatics. These installations are owned by another ExxonMobil entity, each with a separate permit. Nearby is a lubricants blending plant, also operated as a separate production facility with its own permit.

A simplified overview of the refinery is given below.

Flowchart of ExxonMobil Botlek refinery

Heavy crude is completely processed into high value products. Incoming crude is distilled in two steps (atmospheric and vacuum). Atmospheric distillation yields:

atmospheric distillation

vacuum distillation

Hydro- treating jet fuel

diesel

Crude

Powerformer (reforming)

naphtapetrolaromatics

cracking gas

gasoil

naphta hydrofiner(hydrotreating)

gofiner(severe hydrotreating)

Hydrocrackerlight gas oil

heavy gas oil

to Antwerp

naphta jet fuel diesel steam cracker feed

diesel

naphta

Flexicoker

low joule gas



• Refinery gas (not shown), utilized as a fuel within the refinery and surrounding ExxonMobil chemical plants;

• light products that are reformed (converted into high octane hydrocarbons) in the ‘Powerformer’;

• transportation fuels, supplied to the fuel market after hydrotreatment;

• a residue for vacuum distillation.

Vacuum distillation produces 1) hydrocracker feed, 2) a heavy gasoil fraction and exported to Antwerp and 3) a bottom, cracked by coking in the first reactor of the Flexicoker into lighter products (gas, gasoil, naphta) and coke. These lighter products are hydrotreated for desulphurization and denitrogenized. The produced gas can be delivered as synthetic high calorific natural gas to the national Dutch transfer pipeline grid, but is mostly consumed as fuel gas within the refinery.

The remaining coke is gasified with air in the second reactor to low heating value (low joule) syngas, applied within the refinery as fuel gas.



All fuel gas flows generated within the refinery are desulphurised with either amines or with a caustic scrubber (Flexicoker Low Joule Gas).

Utility facilities include:

• steam boilers, supplying a 9 bar and a 40 bar steam net;

• a cogeneration facility consisting of a 45 MWe gasturbine with heat recovery boiler with cofiring facilities in the waste heat boiler;

• a hydrogen plant, producing 2 – 2,5 tonnes/hour of 97% pure H2 by steam reforming of high joule.

Minor process emission points are flares, desulphurisation absorbents regeneration, Powerformer catalyst regeneration furnace, gas compressors and Claus plant incinerator. The refinery has its own products tank park.

Approximately 4 PJ/year of refinery gas and low joule gas from cokes gasification are exported to the nearby chemical plants. The 40 bar and 9 bar steam nets are shared by refinery and surrounding chemical plants.

Energy consumption

An overview of the main processes and corresponding energy consumption and NOx and CO2 emissions is given in the Table below.

Installed capacity per source

MWinput

Atmospheric distillation 179

Vacuum distsillation 51

Powerformer 179

Hydrocracker 18

Flexicoker 8

Co-finer

Hydrofiner

other hydrotreaters

Claus plant incinerator 7

H2-plant 71

Cogen 120 / 192

Steam boilers 242

Back up boiler 107

Super heater 21

Off sites + flares



The refinery is energy efficient with almost every furnace and boiler being equipped with an economizer and air preheater and part of the required steam being produced by a cogen facility or produced from furnace off gases (Powerformer furnaces). Level of heat integration and further options for cogeneration are part of a study.

The refinery is almost completely self supplying as fuels are concerned. The bulk of the fuel requirement is covered by refinery gas and low joule gas (80%), with cracking gas and imported natural gas each covering approximately 10% of fuel consumption. Electricity consumption is covered largely by the production from the cogen facility.

Emissions

An abridged overview of the main pollutant emissions for the entire refinery is given in the table below.

Overview of total yearly air emissions from ExxonMobil Rotterdam refinery

Tonne/year

CO2 ±2.300.000

NOx 900 – 1.000

SO2 2.900 – 3.100

PM10 ±70

Heavy metals ±0,6 - ±0,7

NMVOC ±1.000

Bubble concentration19 for NOx and SO2 amount to approximately 36 g/GJ and 120 g/GJ (or approximately 460 mg/Nm3) respectively. With respect to NOx-emissions the refinery the specific emissions are lower than the 2010 PSR limit considered in Dutch NOx-trading system. SO2 bubble concentration is far below the agreed levels for refineries in the Netherlands (1.000 mg/Nm3) and also low compared to the bubble concentrations proposed in the BAT-REF document for refineries.

SO2-emissions stem to a very large extent from low joule gas utilisation. Although virtually every flow and volume of combustible gas is desulphurised prior to application, H2S and COS concentrations in cleaned low joule gas are still that high (several hundreds of ppmv) that a significant SO2 emission results from gas utilisation. On the other hand, further reduction of H2S and COS concentrations is according to the operator not cost effective.

Legislative coverage EU directives and other forms of environmental legislation of interest to the refinery are:

19 Bubble concentration refers to the average concentration in the entire off gas volume

produced by the refinery.



• On EU level:

- Large Combustion Plant Directive;

- Waste incineration Directive;

- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Directive;

- Environmental Impact Assessment Directive;

- Seveso II Directive;

- Water Framework Directive;

- Air Quality Directive;

- Several horizontal Directives (cooling systems, handling of bulk products, energy efficiency, off gas and water treatment, etc.)

• On a national level:

- BEES A, Dutch version of LCP;

- NeR;

- Emission limits for emissions to water;

- NRB, the Netherlands Soil protection guideline;

- NOx trading system;

- Benchmark covenant for energy efficiency;

- Covenant for SO2-emissions between refinery sector and government;

- BMP and MJV – monitoring reports on current environmental impacts and plans for reducing these.

The refinery is assessed by permit authorities to fulfil BAT-REF requirements.

Input by ExxonMobil, reaction of ExxonMobil on the BAT-Ref Directive The operator presented a methodology for assessing up to what level an installation fulfils IPPC requirements. The methodology boils down to constructing a four column table with a line for every process. The line is filled from left to right with:

• A description of the considered process (e.g. atmospheric distillation);

• The relevant BREF’s applying to the considered process;

• The description of and requirements (e.g. emission limits) that need to be met to fulfil best available technology (BAT) standards for this process in the various BREF documents;

• An analysis of and argumentation of up to what extent the specific process fulfils BAT requirements.



The methodology produces an abridged document made up primarily by the table mentioned above that can be presented to the competent authorities. The methodology requires some 3 – 5 working days for one person to apply. Approximately 60% of the requirements can be analyzed by relatively lay men, another 30% - 35% of the requirements can be checked by more specialized personnel while the company feels that some 10% - 5% of the requirements are not understandable.

The methodology was developed in cooperation with the regional permit authorities responsible for the industry in the Botlek (DCMR and Rijkswaterstaat ) and has since been accepted by major Dutch trade and industrial organizations such VNPI, VNCI and VNO-NCW.

The methodology was developed in order to give ExxonMobil a way of handling the different BREFs. According to ExxonMobil the drawback of the IPPC Directive lie especially in:

• The large size of the BAT REF documents and the time required to study them;

• The large number of BREF’s applying to a facility;

• The sometimes difficult to interpret guidelines and requirements included in the BAT REF documents – especially when these are qualitatively.

Suggestions from ExoonMobil for improving BREF’s and BAT REF documents are:

• Produce smaller, more legible BAT REF documents.

• Make clear what objective c.q. goal is behind the various guidelines and requirements, especially when these are qualitatively so that enterprise and permit authorities have more grip assessing whether a process or facility meets BAT standards.

Input by the permit authorities (DCMR) The permit authority described how they assess whether a facility is BAT proof. The information provided in the BAT evaluation form drawn up according to the ExxonMobil methodology by the company is checked and compared with information from other sources available at DCMR about the specific facility, e.g.:

• Company environmental improvement plan, that has to be drawn up every four years;

• The obligated annual emission and incidents report;

• The number of complaints received by DCMR.

In addition the permit manager or specialists at the permit authority office often have enough understanding of the facility to validate the supplied BAT REF assessment.

If deviations are found in information or if the facility does not meet BAT standards this will be communicated back to the company and permit manager and company will discuss the deviations in information or will discuss what measures can and should be taken to meet BAT standards.

Besides the BAT evaluation DCMR also requires companies to assess their contribution to local emissions of NOx and PM10, two substances of which the concentrations are often critically close to air quality standards. Companies that have a significant contribution to imission levels



may also be obliged to take reduction measures. According to Mr. Okkerse courts of law tend to interpret significant as being contribution levels of 0,1% of local concentrations or even 0,01%.

According to the permit authority implementation of the IPPC directive requires significant man power effort, which is already limitedly available at DCMR. A settled in staff member can assess whether a company applies with IPPC within approximately 3 days.

Secondly, according to the permit authority BAT often does not set a clear limit, but gives a range for emission concentrations to be met or gives a rather unclear qualitative standard. This creates uncertainty with both permit authorities and enterprise, because it is unclear how to assess a specific facility. Should the facility meet the most stringent emission limits or the most broad limits? According to the authority, the BREF’s unfortunately do not include pointers for permit authorities how to deal with this issue.

Implementation of qualitative standards is even more problematic. Unclear is for example how a guideline ‘apply liquid tight floor’ to prevent emissions to soil’ should be implemented. Other examples of difficult to interpret qualitative statements are (extracted from a IPPC review for one of the chemical plants, not the refinery):

• Fugitive emissions:

- Replace existing equipment with higher performance equipment for large leaks that cannot otherwise be controlled.

- Install new facilities built to tight specifications for fugitive emissions.

• Water pollutants

- water-free techniques for vacuum generation and cleaning;

- counter-current washing systems in preference to co-current systems;

• Energy efficiency

- optimise heat integration at the inter-process and intra-process levels (and where possible beyond the site boundary) by reconciling heat sources and sinks;

One example of problematic interactions was mentioned for the Esso refinery during the presentation. ExxonMobil combusts a methanol containing wastewater stream in one of the refinery boilers. This is a cheap way of disposal, yields no increased emissions to air and is in line with the Dutch policy on waste disposal that states that burning of not recycable waste is preferred. However, according to EU policy the boiler should be classified as waste incineration plant, resulting in numerous additional requirements for the boiler (see also Essent discussion), making co-combustion of this wastewater stream unattractive.



Case study 9: Shell Chemicals Moerdijk, Netherlands About the installation Construction of this installation began in 1970. Shell Chemicals occupies around 500ha of the 1,200ha site which is built on reclaimed land. The site involves manufacture of a range of base chemicals20 from the petroleum fractions naphtha, gasoil and LPG21 which are transported from the Shell refinery at Pernis, Rotterdam.

Around 750 employees plus 350 contractors are employed on the site. The site has a €3 billion replacement value. Energy consumption is approximately 2000 MW.

Figure Shell Chemicals Moerdijk

Legislative coverage The main interactions investigated were in relation to the following legislative requirements:

• IPPC and BAT;

• The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading (GHG-ET) Directive - this directive will apply for the chemical plant from 2008 onwards, as the chemical plants opted out of the trading scheme for the first trading period;

• The Dutch NOx trading scheme.

20 Ethylene, propylene, cracked gasoil, hydrogen, ethylene cracked residue, acetylene,

butadiene, butene, dicyclopentadiene (DCPD), benzene, IP-feed, pyrolysis gasoline, ethylene oxide (EO), ethylene glycols, ethylbenzene, styrene monomer (SM) propylene oxide (PO) (see www.shell.nl, accessed 21/04/2006).

21 Liquefied petroleum gas, a mixture of propane and butane.



• The Large Combustion Plant Directive;

• The National Emission Ceilings Directive;

• European air quality standards (derived from the air quality framework directive)

Issues in relation to NOx emissions trading Overall, Shell is supportive of the trading scheme, including the performance standard rate approach as compared to grandfathering. However, a concern was expressed that the scheme has the potential to create an uneven playing field across Europe because different requirements are placed on NOx emissions in different Member States.

The regime also creates an additional monitoring burden as compared to the emissions control legislation previously in place under Dutch law, though the company was unable to provide any quantitative information to support this. The main additional burden associated with this is reportedly in keeping the monitoring protocol up to date.

However, the Dutch NOx trading scheme has not created a direct additional monitoring burden beyond that specified in the LCP Directive i.e. it is the additional monitoring requirements under the LCP Directive that have most of the associated additional cost directly, aside from developing the monitoring protocol. However, the monitoring and reporting and also the verification of the emission report requires in a system of emissions trading additional safeguards and more stringent adherence to the requirements than in a command & control environment.

Issues in relation to the GHG-ET Directive Under the present rules in the Netherlands, the cracker on the site is not covered by the GHG-ET Directive under Phase I of the trading scheme (though if it were present at the refinery it would be covered). It is understood that the cracker will be covered during Phase II of the scheme (during 2008-2012).

The operators of the installation have experienced difficulties in defining what is covered by the Directive and referred to difficulties in interpreting the definitions of activity and installation in the context of the various Directives that apply. This has raised a real practical problem for Shell Chemicals in that the GHG-ET Directive does not cover the whole of the site and only relates to the relevant “installation”. Under the emissions trading scheme, the measurement accuracy is required to be 1.5% for metering of fuel used22. The Shell Chemicals site uses its own feedstock as fuel and historically this has not been well metered and costed (e.g. a 10% accuracy has been held to be sufficient).

For liquid fuels in particular, measurement is undertaken using orifice plates with an accuracy of around 3%. There are also lots of small, irregular streams of gaseous fuels which are routed to a single tank for fuel use and not all of these are measured.

Thus, whilst fuel use can be accurately measured for the site as a whole, it is problematic to measure for the activities covered by the GHG-ET Directive, given the definition in the Directive. The plant runs on a four year cycle between planned maintenance periods and it would cost several million Euros per day to stop operations in order to install the measuring

22 This is set out in the guidelines for combustion emissions in Commission Decision

C(2004)130 Final of 29/01/2004.



equipment necessary to achieve the accuracy required. If, as expected, the cracker falls within the scope of the GHG-ET Directive from 2008, there will be a significant number of additional monitoring points that will need to upgraded to turbine (impeller) type monitoring devices

A concern was also expressed in relation to the differences amongst Member States in terms of the definition of installation and how this is interpreted.

Other concerns related to industrial emissions legislation A general concern was expressed in relation to the share of the burden placed upon industry in meeting air quality limits. The Shell refinery at Pernis was used as an example whereby - reportedly - the installation contributes only 2% to concentrations of NOx in the local area and the installation is being required to fit a taller stack and to investigate the potential for further reductions. Their concern is that industry is faced with too great a share of the burden in complying with the standards for local air quality and with the NEC Directive.

A representative of Dow Chemical was also present. They provided an example of the recent construction of a new cracker for which the vendor specified but would not guarantee that an emission of 100 mg/m3 NOx could be achieved. This may reportedly cause problems with the permitting authority given that the BAT-AEL is 60-100 mg/m3.

A concern was also expressed in relation to the requirement in the Netherlands to install floating roof tanks for inventories of materials over 50m3 with a vapour pressure above 1kPa. The associated cost for one such inventory where Shell has estimated that emissions of VOCs from a 75m3 inventory are around 25kg per year would be around €150,000 for a floating roof tank. The issue was raised regarding whether BAT is interpreted in a proportionate manner. A concern was also raised regarding the lifetimes for equipment assumed by the authorities in determining whether the installation of abatement equipment should be required23.

For example, an incinerator was installed on the site in 2000. This met the 150 mg/m3 limit value for hydrocarbons that was in place at the time. The limit value that is now required to be in place is 50 mg/m3 based on the Dutch guidance, which also suggests that the equipment should be replaced sooner than the 25 or more years over which the incinerator was intended to operate.

Overall, the company expressed a significant concern that regulators generally decide that the most stringent techniques mentioned in the BREF Notes should apply, with very little discretion given. Their view is that this approach is also advocated by the courts.24

23 The authorities reportedly assumed a lifetime of 10 years whereas some of the equipment on

this site is intended to last 25-40 years. 24 Mr. Okkerse gave following additional information: According to the VOC mitigation

project in the Netherlands (KWS 2000) all tanks > 50 m3 have to be equipped with a floating roof. In the case of Shell however an exception was made on the basis of cost effectiveness arguments requiring Shell to retrofit tanks and install floating roofs only for tanks > 2.500 m3 intended for storage of fluids with a vapor pressure > 1 kPa. vanaf 50 cuub voorzien zijn van floating roofs. In other words exactly in the case of Shell much 'discretion' has been exercised.



Discussions held with Brabant permitting authority The Province of Brabant issued an updated permit for the entire Shell site at Moerdijk in 2003. For several hydrocarbons, NOx and SO2 concentration restrictions have been included.

No EU Directive has been directly integrated in the permit. The permit was ‘instead’ based on BEES A – Dutch LCP avant le lettre - and the Dutch Emission Guideline (NeR). NeR in its turn proves to have been one of the basis of various BREF documents as it is a frequently mentioned reference document. Emissions standards in IPPC are often similar to those in NeR. Though officially a guideline, NeR is according to the permit authority used and considered by permit authority and company as more or less compulsory. A comparison between the different emission concentration limits and the (estimated) actual levels are given in the table below, all values in mg/Nm3 at 3 vol% O2 and in SI-notation.

The following table is being checked and may need to be revised in the updated draft final report.

BEES A NeR IPPC (LVOC) for process furnace!

LCP (45 MW liquid fuel fired furnace)

NOx 120 200 50 - 10025 (BAT = gas firing)

150 - 450

SO2 1.700 50 or > 95% reduction 0 (BAT = gas firing) 100 – 350

PM10 50 5 0 (BAT = gas firing) 5 – 30

At this moment the Province of Brabant permit authority is in the process of evaluating the installations within the province in relation to IPPC. This is largely done according to the scheme developed by Exxon26. In this scheme a company will provide the permit authority with the required information and the permit authority will check the supplied information for consistency and evaluate on the basis of information regarded to be consistent with other information available to the permit authority whether or not IPPC requirements are met.

For Shell Moerdijk the permit authority experiences difficulties regarding affiliation of Dutch and EU environmental legislation. The main source of SO2 (700 tonnes/year27) and other emissions (NOx and PM10) are the boilers, fuelled with heavy naphtha cracker residue – containing 0.5% sulphur27. According to the permit authority the Council of State (Raad van State) ruled that permit authorities have to use both Dutch and EU legislation in maintaining the environmental permit as long as the IPPC-Directive is not fully implemented. (However, the IPPC-Directive is fully implemented since December 1995, so this problem is solved). This raises the question which guideline or legislation should be applied:

25 BAT for process furnaces = gasfiring and low NOx burners. ‘In exceptional situations, with

little possibilities for retrofit, emissions up to 200 mg/Nm3 may occasionally represent BAT.’

26 See Exxon visit account 27 Taken from ECN and NMP – Appendices to ‘Optiondocument emissionreductions

2010/2020 – industrial SO2-emissions, 13 maart 2006, page 7 – 9.



• Relevant Dutch emission legislation is the rather aging BEES A, implementation of the LCP, but which does not fully reflect BAT in all situations. BEES A allows relatively wide emission limits for this source and applies only to NOx and SO2

Limits for existing installations are range for stringent to rather lenient for combustion plants of old age.

• LCP would also apply and is said to allow similarly wide emission concentrations as BEES A.

• According to the permit authority IPPC doesn’t apply to the furnace because the furnace is fired with a non-commercial fuel. If IPPC is considered to apply the furnace would have to switch to natural gas for fuel and the cracker residue would have to be sold as a low quality secondary fuel. This would require an investment of M€ 1,6 and annual purchase costs for natural gas of €1.5m, but would also yield approximately €0.4m proceeds from the sale of NOx and CO2 emission rights27 – although these prove to be very unpredictable.

• The same remark concerning costs applies to implementing NeR. As NeR is a guideline, not a law and can therefore not be imposed by the permit authority as a set of emission concentration limits without entering in a permit revision process.

• Because Shell Moerdijk is an important SO2-source in the Netherlands and the NEC ceiling for SO2 can be met by the Netherlands only by reducing emissions from major sources – voluntarily - beyond the limits in the permits, implementation of emission reduction measures at Shell Moerdijk are desirable.

In summary, whilst there exists some potential for flexibilities in the Dutch and EU legislation on emissions (IPPC and national implementation), the requirement to meet the NEC ceiling and the NeR would require extensive investments or operational costs though the legal status of these is not binding in the same way.

The company does not seem to be willing to make the extra costs involved with switching to natural gas and the permit authority does not seem to have the legal instruments to impose this measure.

In general the position of the Brabant permit authority is to apply the most stringent emission guideline or legislation, this in accordance with the advice of the Ministry of Environment on issues where two or more contrasting Directives apply.

In this particular case the permit authority feels that responsibility for reaching consensus with the company on reducing emissions – particularly SO2 – has been laid down by the Ministry of Environment with the permit authority – who has no legal instruments. The permit authority feel that the Ministry should also put pressure on Shell on the highest management level to persuade the company into cooperating on the reduction of cracker furnace emissions

The advice to the EU by the permit authority would be to translate the BREF documents in Dutch and to make them more compact and accessible. They are very extensive and require quite some time to study in the present form. On the other hand, they contain much relevant information.

The Dutch Ministry of Environment is advised to keep a better view on the EU developments in environmental legislation and affiliation with existing Dutch legislation. BEES A will be actualized within short time and brought more in accordance with current LCP and IPPC Directives. This could have been done earlier.



Current time consumption with respect to Shell Moerdijk amounts to half a day per week. Because of the complexity of the industrial site it is difficult for the permit authority to evaluate whether the site is IPPC prove. In this specific case the permit authority feels a relative arrears in knowledge compared to the company.



Case study 10: Polifarb Cieszyn-Wroclaw S.A., Wroclaw, Poland About the installation Polifarb Cieszyn-Wrocław S.A. is the biggest manufacturer of lacquer products for industry. Its products include lacquers for automotive industry, furniture-making, millboard industry, coil-coating, joinery, as well as paints for roads, electric insulation lacquers, lacquers for sheet metal packaging and powder paints. The company has been a member of SIGMAKALON international organization since 1999.

The company has two main sites in Cieszyn (Slaskie region) and in Wroclaw (Dolnoslaskie region). The current company Polifarb Cieszyn Wroclaw was formed as a result of the merger in 1997 of two separate plants - paint and lacquers producing plant in Cieszyn and paints and lacquers producing plant in Wroclaw, which both existed since 1945 and 1947 (respectively).

This case study focused on the installation located in Wroclaw complex.

The site is located in the northern-eastern part of the Wroclaw city, in the district Wroclaw-Psie Pole at Kwidzynska Street, No. 8.

The plant produces:

• Solvent based coatings;

• Water based coatings.

In particular, the company produces paints, lacquers, and semi-manufactured solvent and water based products. Additional activities are the following: storage of raw materials, recovery of the solvent, heat production, surface water and groundwater abstraction, water and wastewater treatment, waste management.

In general, the company activities are based on chemical synthesis of resins and polyurethane lacquers, and mixing of different substances (including solvents). Therefore the part in which the chemical synthesis takes place falls under IPPC requirements, while the part where mixing takes place must comply with VOC requirements.

Total annual consumption of hazardous substances used for the production of paints and lacquers is 17398 tons, in particular the following substances:

substance Amount (tons/year)

resins in solvents 1099

solvents 9912

monomers 5233

auxiliary substances 781

biocides 372



The main emissions related to the plants activities are presented below:

substance Amount (kg/ton of the product)

SO2 0.25

NO2 0.14

CO 0.13

CO2 8.08

dust 0.31

Aromatic hydrocarbons 0.09

Aliphatic hydrocarbons 0.16

Alcohols, ketones, ether esters, esters and organic acids 0.10

Water form WWTP Amount (mg/dm3)

COD 42.10

Nitrogen 2.49

Phosphor 0.81

Sulphates 223.70

Iron 0.22

Metals total 1.19

Cooling water and storm water Amount (mg/dm3)

COD 18.7

Nitrogen -

Phosphor -

Sulphates 65.90

Iron 0.5

Metals total 1.60



Polifarb Cieszyn-Wroclaw, the headquarters

Legislative coverage Directives that cover the installation include the IPPC Directive and VOC Directive i.e. the company has to comply with the national legislation reflecting the requirements of these directives. According to the requirements of Polish Environmental Protection Act the deadline for receiving the integrated permit is 31 December 2006 and deadline for meeting the VOC standards is 31 October 2007.

The company has several sites and needs to obtain environmental permits for all of them. Due to the nature of its activities the company falls under requirements of integrated permit (IPPC) and VOC emission standards (VOC Directive) covered by the air permit.

Problematic interactions identified The company already received integrated permit for the installations in Cieszyn, but reported problems related to receiving the integrated permit for the installation in Wroclaw, which are described below.

The company took part in the Danish pilot project for IPPC in Poland (2000-2002) and prepared an application for an IPPC permit at that time; however, the permit was not issued, as some parts of the national legislation were still missing. In 2005 two applications for air permit and IPPC permit were submitted to the regional authority (Dolnoslaski Urzad Wojewodzki). The environmental manager of this company indicated that only part of the company falls under the IPPC requirements (that related to chemical synthesis) and the rest of the company performs mixing only therefore the chemical IPPC requirements do not apply there (this is at least how the regulations were interpreted) and media based permits have to be obtained for this part (in this case the air permit, reflecting the SE Directive). Therefore two applications were submitted: IPPC permit and air permit. The air permit (for the mixing part) was issued for 22 months only (application was for 10 years). It did not include the VOC emission levels and



additional requirements for additional measurements at 60 air emitters were given. These are required to be done twice a year (this was justified by requirements of VOC Directive). The company does not agree with these requirements and appealed against this decision in February 2006 and the issue is now investigated by the MoE. At the same time the regional authority decided to suspend the procedure of IPPC permit issue until the air permit problem is resolved. Therefore for the moment the company still does not have the IPPC permit. The operator is awaiting a response from the MoE on this appeal and no action is being undertaken regarding the IPPC permit. According to the Polish environmental legislation the IPPC permit must be obtained by the end of this year, otherwise the installation must be closed down. However, in this case the main problem seems to be the way of interpretation of VOC requirements in Polish legislation – whether they refer to this company or not.

The specific problems related to the IPPC and VOC directive are described below.

IPPC Directive The company identified the following problems related to IPPC Directive:

• problem with interpretation of relation of IPPC and VOC directive (IPPC permitting was stopped because of air permit);

• interpretation of the definition of “installation”. What is better for the plant operator: to identify the whole plant as one installation or to separate it? How to deliminate the IPPC installation properly? Where it ends? Maybe the whole company should go under the IPPC permit?

• long and complex IPPC permitting procedure.

The national legislation transposing the requirements of IPPC Directive gives some flexibility to define the installation. The definition of installation can be found in Polish law and on its basis operator is obliged to determine the installation that is subject of IPPC permit. In Polish law, there is also a possibility to include (on the operator’s request) in the IPPC permit installations which do not need IPPC permit but are located at the same site. In this case the company decided to limit the installation only to the part where the chemical synthesis takes place, and for the rest of the plant to continue with media-based permits. The company preferred this arrangement also due to the fact that IPPC permitting procedure is long and very complex, while media based permits are already exercised well and easier to handle, so where possible they try to avoid the integrated permit procedure. However, in this case, this solution seemed to be problematic, as the IPPC permit procedure was stopped because of the problems with the air permit. On the other hand the IPPC permitting procedure was already done by the company (they received IPPC permit for another part) and inadequate preparation of the IPPC permit should not create problems. There is a question how to solve this problem? Should the company go for the option of having one IPPC permit covering the whole plant? It seems that there is a lack of mechanisms, guidance and proper procedures which could help to prevent such problems in the future.

VOC Directive The company identified the following problems related to VOC Directive:

• Problems with interpretation of Polish legislation – in particular the ordinance of the Minister of Environment dated 20 December 2005 on emission standards from installations – which transposes the requirements of the VOC directive;



• the air permit was issued for 22 months only and did not include the VOC levels;

• a need of additional (unnecessary) costs of monitoring – measurements at 60 emitters;

• suspension of the integrated permit procedure because of the problems with air permit (including requirements for VOC levels).

From the company’s perspective it is not clear why the air permit was issued for 22 months only, VOC limits were not included and additional measurements were imposed. The company wanted to monitor the most significant sources only, but not all of them, as monitoring twice a year 60 emitters is an important cost for the company. It is also not clear how the requirements resulting from VOC directive refer to the IPPC permitting and why the integrated permit procedure has been suspended, however officially the procedure was suspended because of “interpretation doubts” for VOC. No further explanation was given by the authorities in fact and at the moment of preparation of this case study the problem still remained unsolved.

Greenhouse gas emissions trading Directive With the entry into force of the Act on Trading of Allowance for Emission into Air of Greenhouse Gases and other Substances (Ustawa o handlu uprawnieniami do emisji do powietrza gazów cieplarnianych i innych substancji) on 1 January 2005, Poland implemented the Directive 2003/87/EC into Polish legal system (the Emission Allowance Trading Act).

Polish National Allocation Plan (NAP) for 2005-2007 was approved in December 2005. At the moment the Ministry of Environment prepared a draft of National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for the period of 2008 – 2012 was approved in June 2006.

The company’s environmental manager informed that gas emission trading scheme is not relevant for Polifarb Wroclaw- Cieszyn i.e. is not in the list of installations with the annual average amount of allowances allocated in the REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS of 27 December 2005 concerning the adoption of the National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for the years 2005-2007 and the list of installations temporarily excluded, from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2007, from the European Community scheme for emission allowance trading. Therefore the company does not deal with this system.

The emissions of SO2, NO2, CO and CO2 are presented in the paragraph 1 of this case study.

Discussions with regulatory authority In order to reflect the opinion of regional and national authorities both MoE and Dolnoslaski Urzad Wojewodzki (regional governmental authority responsible for issuing permits to Polifarb Cieszyn-Wroclaw) were consulted during the preparation of the case study. Their opinions are summarized below.

Ministry of Environment According to the representative of the MoE, the company’s appeal against air permit was submitted to the MoE in February 2006, and was investigated by MoE. The investigation is almost finished and the results most probably soon will be passed on to authority.

On 16 August 2006 (letter number: DOOŚ-oa- 4591/51/06/ar) MoE answered to the authority letter concerning interpretation on volatile organic compounds. In this answer MoE also informed authority that lack of answer to the appeal cannot be the reason for suspending the procedure of issuing IPPC permit.



Regional authority According to the representative of the regional authority, the main problem is the “dispute” between the company and the authority if the company falls under the requirements of VOC requirements in the ordinance of the MoE. The authority is of the opinion that this company falls under these requirements and issued an air permit till October 2007 in order to give the time for clarifying this problem. While the company does not agree with this position and appealed against the decision of the authority. The problem occurred because of unclear wording in the Polish legislation transposing the VOC directive – one of the paragraphs may imply that the company does not have to comply with these standards. In fact the main issue lies in the method of monitoring – in case of falling under VOC requirements in the ordinance the company has to measure the VOC concentration, which is more costly to the usual monitoring in kg/h.

Regarding the unclear wording in the ordinance the authority has received the reply from MoE saying that this problem should be solved by negotiations with the company, so they (authority and company) have to find the consensus for this case. It seems that unclear wording of the legislation was the main cause of problems and intervention of the MoE would be needed (clear interpretation of the legislation for example). The authority agreed that this is a problem also for administrative staff and more training is needed in order to address this problem – for example training on VOC Directive requirements organized by TAIEX office is planned in October 2006 in order to increase the capacity of the administration.

Regarding the separation of IPPC installation from the site and submission two applications: for integrated permit and for air permit, the authority agreed that there is certain flexibility in the Polish legislation for the plant operator to choose between the option of including under IPPC “installation” the installation falling under IPPC requirements and also other installations on the same site or to go for separate permitting procedures. The usual approach is not to include other installations under IPPC and to keep as many sectoral permits as possible, because IPPC permitting involves higher costs and efforts when preparing the IPPC permit application.

Summary of main problematic interactions As mentioned earlier the operator faces problems with receiving IPPC permit due to the air permit appeal and is facing the risk of closing down the facilities in Wroclaw.

In addition, the company was asked for additional measurements for VOC, which are significant cost for them and no negotiation on this issue took place.

According to the operator, the problem is caused by a lack of understanding and cooperation from regional and national authorities and because of the unclear wording of the Polish legislation transposing EU requirements. The problem seems to be also caused by the fact that company decided to apply for two separate permits for the same site, rather than having one integrated permit. Obviously there are also problems with interpretation IPPC and VOC directive by the public administration representatives and no mechanisms in place to manage the problems.

Issues for streamlining of legislation It would be advisable to clarify the definition of “installation” in the IPPC and clarify the flexibility in interpretation of it by the company. One, uniform interpretation of the legislation should be elaborated by the MoE.



It is advisable to clarify the requirements of VOC Directive and how they can interfere with other directives – clear interpretation of the legislation by the MoE should be prepared.

It would also assist operators significantly if the IPPC permit procedure would be improved and simplified, as at the moment long procedure is complex and still very difficult to go through.

Also it seems that coordination and communication between authorities could be better harmonised for the different requirements and administrative burden, as well as other problems (such as closing down the plant) for the operator could be lowered.

The company is in the difficult position and has no tools to accelerate solving the problem. It seems that the specific mechanisms supporting solution of such cases should exist and be implemented.

Acknowledgements

Operators Ms Grazyna Lisewska – head of the Environmental Protection Department of Polifarb Cieszyn-Wroclaw S.A.

Local authorities Ms Malgorzata Malec, and Ms Krystyna Pankowska (head of the department), Department of Air Protection, Dolnoslaski Urzad Wojewodzki (regional governmental authority)

National Authorities Department of Environmental Impact Assessment, Ministry of Environment (e-mail communication)



Case study 11: Central Termoeléctrica do Pego, Portugal About the installation (background, emissions, controls in place) There are two 314 MWe pulverised coal fired boilers, burning international steam coal. This is currently sourced from Columbia and South Africa at 1.0% sulphur maximum. No wastes are burned, just coal.

The first unit started in 1993, with the second in 1995, although the site received its ‘industrial licence’ (from General Directorate of Energy) in 1986 so were deemed to qualify as an ‘existing’ plant under LCPD (ie pre- 1 July 1987).

The environmental requirements were appended to that licence.

Current emission limits according to the Central Termoeléctrica do Pego (CTP) IPPC Environmental Permit are shown in the following table.

Parameter Emission Limit Value (1) Results Expression Monitoring

Frequency

NOx 800 (2)

200 (3) as NO2 mg/Nm3

Dust 95 (2)

50 (3)

SO2 1600 (2)

200 (3)

Continuous

CO 1000

COV 50

Fluorine and inorganic compounds 50

Chlorine and inorganic compounds 250

Total Heavy Metals 8

mg/Nm3

Twice a year

(1) 6% O2 (2) Until 31 December 2007. (3) From the 1st of January 2008. Note: It was established in the environment permit that the dust emission limit value would be revised in three years, after the implementation of FGD and SCR, as it was expected that evolution of dust emissions removal techniques would allow a more cost-effective solution.

The Industrial Licence Requirements are as follows:

• Dust: 115 mg/Nm3;

• SO2: 1,2 % (max.) sulphur coal;

• NOx: 800 mg/Nm3. Low NOx burners are fitted, and overfire air was fitted in 1996/8, achieving 750 to 780mg/Nm3

Under the LCPD, the ELVs applicable to the combustion plant (implemented through a National Emission Reduction Plan (NERP)) from 1/1/08 are:



• SO2 – 400mg/Nm3

• NOx – 500mg/Nm3, and 200mg/Nm3 from 2016

• Dust – 50mg/Nm3

The NERP imposes an annual mass emissions limit on the combustion plant, with the limit based on application of these ELVs according to the rules of the NERP in the LCPD.

Under the LCP BREF, the BAT-AELs are:

• SO2 – 20 to 200mg/Nm3 (low sulphur coal and / or FGD)

• NOx – 90 to 200mg/Nm3 (primary measures in combination with SCR)

• Dust – 5 to 20mg/Nm3 (ESP or FF, plus FGD)

Abatement being fitted to comply with above requirements includes:

• SO2 – FGD will be fitted by June / July 2008 – it was originally designed for 90% abatement and was re-designed for 94% abatement (by fitting new spray banks) (reasons for change are explained later)

• NOx – SCR will be fitted by June /July 2008 – the delay vs the IPPCD deadline is due to changes in what ELVs apply (see later)

• Dust – the ESPs are being upgraded but according to the operator the abatement suppliers can only guarantee 50mg/Nm3 (by 2008) and not 20mg/Nm3. Achieving 20mg/Nm3 is regarded by the operators as being a big problem, which might need fabric filters. However, it was considered that there would be insufficient space for fabric filters. It should be noted that the techniques proposed for dust (ESP plus FGD) are the BAT techniques in the LCP BREF, so either the expected performance at this site is being underestimated, the efficiency of the measures are not high enough or the BAT-AELs in the BREF are not realistic.

Due to arrangements with the electricity grid company, the cost of emissions abatement is passed through to the customer, rather than being a cost for the operator (including both capital and operating costs).

Legislative coverage

IPPCD The site has a permit under IPPCD, with an improvement condition to meet BAT-based ELVs. The installation includes the power station, landfill and sludge area.

When setting BAT-based permit conditions, it is up to the operator to propose the ELVs that can be met. The Institute for the Environment (IE) may accept any value as long it is within the BAT-AEL range. However, it is possible that because of local conditions, the IE might have to set a specific value, within the range or even lower, although that has not yet occurred.

IE’s approach is that BAT-based permit conditions must achieve the value in the BREF unless the MS can prove that such techniques cannot be economically or technically applied. The IE believe that the ECM-BREF needs to be followed by the competent authority in these instances. In this case IE’s analysis of ‘economically’ involves using cost-effectiveness analysis. IE used the definition of BAT in article 2(11), taking into consideration the concept of “available techniques”.



The BAT-AEL for dust emissions was not followed because:

• it was not considered by IE as cost-effective (the approach took into consideration external costs considered for Portugal in the CAFÉ study - damage costs per tonne emission of the pollutants concerned); and

• implementation of the dust removal technique, according a market consultation made by the installation, could not assure the fulfilment of the BAT-AEL.

Where ELVs in the (proposed) permit conditions are not the same as in the BREF, the operator needs to provide a timescale to adapt to BAT-EALs in the BREF. It was established in the environment permit that the dust emission limit value would be revised in three years, after the implementation of FGD and SCR, as it is expected that evolution of dust emissions removal techniques will allow a more cost-effective implementation.

IE’s view is that the operator can only challenge the decision of the MS competent authority by use of sectoral economic viability assessment methodology, as also set out in the ECM-BREF.

Monitoring requirements in the permit that go beyond requirements of the LCPD are based on Portuguese general legislation and include:

• VOCs need monitoring every 6 months

• Chlorides and fluorides need monitoring continuously if they are above a specified mass emission threshold, which they are in this instance (although may be below the threshold after FGD). As the concentrations are very low (in the huge volumes of exhaust gas) and near the limit of detection, the operator claims that such continuous monitoring is very difficult.

LCPD See above section.

Landfill Directive There is an existing landfill on site, with the permit obtained from the waste regulatory institution. This is integrated within the IPPC permit. Under the Landfill Directive, they have been required to line the landfill so they can put more ash in it as well as FGD gypsum (no market yet for sales).

EU ETS The installation received an allocation equivalent to 80% utilisation (based on historic performance). Actual utilisation last year was 95%, which required purchase of 400,000 tonnes of CO2 allowances.

Emissions are calculated based on the weight of coal consumed, and the analysis of its carbon content. This is audited by an independent organisation, and the company also has an accredited lab.

Problematic interactions identified One issue was that the operator was initially focussing on the requirements of the LCPD in determining what improvement measures were required to emissions. This identified the need for FGD and SCR (even to meet the 2008 NOx ELV of 500mg/Nm3, which they can’t guarantee meeting with LNB and OFA – which gives 750 to 780mg/Nm3). For SCR, they specified a ‘partial’ SCR with less catalyst, with additional layers of catalyst to be fitted by 2016 in response to the tighter ELVs from then.



Mid-way through the licensing phase they were required to meet the tighter ELVs in the LCP BREF (upper range figures):

• SO2 – 200mg/Nm3

• NOx – 200mg/Nm3

• Dust – 20mg/Nm3 (to be met by 2011)

As such, the IPPCD overtook the LCPD as a driver for emissions abatement, and the change in abatement requirements created problems for the project, due to the need to re-design equipment.

A related issue, although based on national implementation rather than EU Directives, is that the approvals for the site are based on different ELVs, with the EIA being based on LCPD ELVs; the NECD implementation being based on LCPD ELVs; whilst IPPCD implementation is based on LCP BREF BAT-AELs. This has created confusion for the operator. If things were clearer, it would be easier for the operator to know which direction to go in. IE has confirmed that the EIA and NERP were issued before the environmental licensing took place and so were considered indicative. The values to be complied with by the installation are the ones referred in the environmental permit.

A major issue, according to IE, is concerned with what justifications are necessary to support permit conditions less stringent than BREF BAT-AELs. IE concluded, based on a cost-benefit analysis, that the achievement of the BREF BAT-AEL for dust was not cost-effective, taking into account the investment and operating costs of abatement technologies. Additionally, the operator stated, based on information from the abatement equipment supplier, that it was not technically possible to assure the achievement of the BREF BAT-AEL for dust. For this reason, a 3-year time plan was established, after the implementation of SCR and FGD, in order to review the ELV for dust, taking into account the evolution of dust abatement technology.

They seek assurance about whether the approach they have followed to assess cost-effectiveness (a methodology based on that set out in the ECM BREF) is a correct approach; and they are concerned that approaches being adopted in other MSs are not consistent. For example, they understand that the UK and Spain are not adopting the BREF BAT-AELs for similar LCPs.

The methodology that was followed by IE involved:

• Cost effectiveness analysis to determine €/tonne abatement costs for the 3 key pollutants

• Identification of damage costs in €/tonne for the same pollutant, based on reference values in CAFÉ documents

• Comparison of abatement costs and damage costs

• If abatement costs are higher than damage costs it is concluded that the measure is not BAT

• This was found to be the case for dust, and BAT was determined to equate to compliance with the LCPD (as a minimum standard) rather than the BAT-AELs in the BREF



• Scenarios for this analysis included a reference scenario (historical – excluding effect of LCPD and IPPCD); an LCPD (NERP) scenario; and an IPPCD (BREF) scenario.

It is noted that the ECM-BREF states that “For application by policy makers, it is recommended that ranges are used and sensitivities explored, because of excessive uncertainties that affect external costs analysis.” And “Although there is likely to be a need for some professional judgement when identifying the option that represents the best alternative, the methodologies discussed in this chapter should help the user make an objective judgement as to how to balance costs and benefits”.

Portugal and Spain are in the same electricity market, so the differences in IPPCD implementation in these countries for the LCP sector create potential impacts on competitiveness. In particular, the company understand that Spain imposes a BAT-based ELV for NOx for similar plants of 500mg/Nm3 (based on LCPD), whereas Portugal has a BAT-based ELV of 200mg/Nm3. In Entec’s experience, the cost difference between achieving these two levels can be significant. For example, they believe that no power plant in Spain will be fitted with SCR by the IPPCD compliance date.

These effects are more significant where differences in standards result in different techniques (eg OFA vs SCR), rather than simply pushing a certain technique harder.

They also believe there is duplication between CO2 reporting under PRTR and reporting for EU ETS.

See elsewhere in this document for comments regarding monitoring.

There is another coal fired power station in Portugal which will be in a similar situation to the one at Pego.

Potential for streamlining The operator believes it is important to go in the direction of greater harmonisation of the various Directives.

They don’t see the problem with having IPPC as well as the sector directives as they recognise the sector directives as being minimum standards and the IPPC Directive should prevail over these. However they believe this message has not got through to some MSs. They would like minimum standards as a safety net (although this potentially conflicts with other comments that one of the main problems is due to Spain taking these minimum standards as BAT).

They believe that there should be a shift towards a greater legal focus on EU-wide ELVs.

The installation considers that there is insufficient experience of the ETS and thus the implementation of a NOx and SO2 market should not take place yet.

Issues for streamlining of legislation and conclusions A key factor in the use of the ECM-BREF methodology was that dust abatement measures (ESP and, indirectly, FGD) were not forecast to be able to comply with the BAT-AEL for dust in the LCP BREF of 20mg/Nm3.

Judgements on whether or not BAT-AELs in the BREF documents are possible to be met are likely to be inconsistent across a range of companies / Member States. In particular, it will depend on the basis on which expected performance is assessed (e.g. supplier guaranteed



performance vs best estimate performance) and the evidence base used to come to this conclusion (e.g. the numbers and types of suppliers contacted).

It is noted that the techniques proposed at this site are consistent with BAT techniques in the LCP BREF so either the expected performance at this site is being underestimated, the efficiency of the measures is not high enough or the BAT-AELs in the BREF are not realistic. It raises a question as to what should take precedence: BAT-AELs or BAT-techniques / efficiencies?

Potential issues arise in the use of the ECM BREF – based methodology in making decisions on BAT. If the decision on BAT is underpinned by the comparison between abatement costs and damage costs, then:

• BAT-AELs that are technically achievable may not be selected as BAT – is this acceptable?

• The BAT conclusions in one country may be different to another country (e.g. NOx damage costs28 in Germany of €9,600/t compare to costs in Greece of €840/t) – is this acceptable?

• Where the assessment uses reference damage costs, they are very unlikely to be applicable to any one specific installation due to differences in emissions characteristics, ‘stock at risk’ (e.g. population density) and meteorological conditions – is this acceptable?

• The assessment using reference damage costs may give a different answer to an assessment using site specific damage costs – is this acceptable?

• Even when a site specific damage cost is derived it is subject to huge uncertainty (eg in impact modelling and willingness to pay estimates for human health effects) - how should this be taken into account in decision making regarding BAT?

• The damage costs do not include the full costs of health and environmental impacts as some impacts have not been quantified / monetised. As such, the estimates could not be deemed comparable with abatement cost estimates – is this acceptable?

• The derivation of damage costs is complex – what level of checking is necessary before the estimates are deemed adequate for use in an assessment of BAT?

A wider and related question is how should cost-effectiveness be taken into account in making decisions about BAT?

IE believe that the only way a MS can implement anything less stringent than the BREFs is via the ECM-BREF, but they want a clearer protocol from the EC on what needs to be considered so that they can be sure that:

• They are implementing the IPPCD in the correct way; and

• Other MSs are taking a consistent approach. They consider that the ECM-BREF is a good instrument but consider that more work is required on it.

28 VOLY – median, Annex 12, ECM-BREF



IE believes that the ECM-BREF should be applied more often in different member states to check its applicability EU wide, as it is a tool developed by EIPPCB, to support IPPC directive implementation.

IE believes that the BAT-AELs in the BREF should not be applicable both when they are evaluated as being not cost effective, based on article 2 (11) of the IPPC directive, but also whenever there are proven technical constraints. They advocate the use of the ECM BREF in undertaking the associated cost-effectiveness analysis.

The IE is concerned about ‘abuse’ of IPPCD in other MSs and they want a consistent approach across MSs, including imposition of the same ELVs.

The above issues support:

• A scenario that considers a more consistent application of BAT-based ELVs across the EU (which are tested for achievability)

• A scenario that removes the risk that sector specific directive ELVs are interpreted as BAT

• Inspection by European Commission of BAT justifications

• More streamlined monitoring, reporting and permitting

• Avoidance of two separate ‘industrial emissions’ directives setting different requirements



Case study 12: Slovnaft, Bratislava, Slovakia About the installation The installation started to operate in the mid 1950s. Slovnaft is a downstream refining and petrochemical company. Scope of activities includes processing crude oil, distribution, wholesale and retail of oil-based and petrochemical products. It is one of the most modern European refineries.

It processes around 5.7 million tonnes of crude oil per year. Slovnaft processes Russian crude oil imported via pipeline. The site also operates a power plant for electricity and steam generation.

In 2004 the total volume of pollutant emissions from point and fugitive sources decreased by 13% compared to 2003. The most significant decrease has occurred in case of SO2 emissions: SO2 emissions have decreased by 20%, mainly due to reliable run of the Residue hydro-cracking unit. This contributed to the fact that Slovnaft utilised just above 50% of SO2 emission allowance allocated by the state authorities.

Slovnaft has significantly contributed to reduction of SO2 emissions from motor fuel combustion and so to reduction of SO2 air concentration by putting of the HRP 7 – Deep hydro-desulphurisation production unit into the operation.

Site view



Tanks


• 10,000 t SO2 and 4,000 t NOx,

Emissions are reported on the firm’s website.

Legislative coverage Basically, all the Directives in scope of the case studies cover the installation. The different production units fall under the IPPC, LCP, Seveso II, VOC, SCLF, WID, GHG-ET directives. In addition, the site is also covered by the Slovak SO2 emission trading scheme. In the frame of the company’s EMS, a register of legislative coverage was provided.

Slovnaft has been continuously preparing the 18 separate IPPC requests for permission for 18 technological units since April 2004. Eleven units have already received the permission, and the last one is scheduled for February 2007.


Slovnaft approach to interactions Initially, Slovnaft did not report any particular problems with interactions of the legislation. Therefore, the interview was intended to follow up the types of potentially problematic interactions identified during the course of the earlier stages of this study. The following points are to summarise their views and remarks on the particular issues raised by other organisations.



VOC Directive Slovnaft has indicated that the definition of VOC’s in the IPPC Directive is not clear. Earlier definition of VOCs (1013 kPa vapour pressure at 20˚C) however is still applicable in their opinion, so this has caused no practical problem for the installation. Slovnaft has highlighted that in these cases Slovak authorities are helpful in clarifying these problematic questions.

Waste Incineration Directive The site has operated a waste incinerator and sludge incinerator. The waste incinerator will be closed in 2006, and the sludge incinerator will be reconstructed. This is due to the fact that the waste incinerator could not meet the ELVs set in the WI Directive.

SEVESO II Directive Under the Slovak legislative framework, Slovnaft has to prepare the documentation required by the Seveso II Directive. This documentation serves also as an attachment to the IPPC request for permission. The same district authority is responsible for giving permission; Slovnaft has reported no specific difficulties in the requirements.

Greenhouse gas emissions trading Directive In 2005 the National Allocation Plan (NAP) for CO2 emissions were approved. On the basis of the NAP agreed between the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic and the European Commission, the quota amounting to 6,872 kt of CO2 was allocated to Slovnaft for installations included in Directive 2003/87/EC for the period of 2005-2007. Slovnaft’s task is to provide sufficient emission quotas for covering its own CO2 emissions produced in such installations.

Slovnaft has its carbon emissions calculated based on the standard set of emission factors, calculated from the mass balance and stoichiometric equations.

Other issues Though, the operators have felt that the competence of authorities is limited in certain professional issues, due to the lack of experience in IPPC, they have not encountered serious delays or problems in the process of obtaining the IPPC permits (these are usually issued within six months).

Discussions with regulatory authority The Head of the District Environmental Inspectorate Bratislava basically agreed the study findings. He had explained that air legislation had had already very strict emission limits before IPPC was introduced and thus the old emission levels could be integrated into the IPPC requirements. A smooth implementation has been ensured by the already existing practical experience both from the operators and authorities.

According to inspectorate there are some problematic definition issues, e.g. the definition of VOC, where usually the old Slovak definition is applied. Also the inspectorate has generally mentioned that defining where building permits need to be given is difficult due to the large possible variety of building and changes on site. Another general comment has been that instead of strict, specified threshold limit, limits could be more logically defined as equivalent environmental loads from various activities.

Discussion with national authority The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic has made the following statement regarding the case study:



“Our opinion regarding the result of this activity is that it is in the consequence of close co-operation among several experts from competent authorities and industry involved in the past during the time period in the preparation of the transposition of the IPPC Directive into national legislation.

There were a lot of mutual consultations with several possibilities to explain an uncertainty in the definitions.”

Summary of main problematic interactions

Interactions identified Slovnaft could not report any problamatic interaction they have identified during normal operations. Minor comments were made on the problem of definitions regarding VOCs.

Issues for streamlining of legislation Slovnaft reported that IPPC permits cover the whole legislation on different environmental media (except for the permission of wastewater discharge to surface water or CO2 emission permission) therefore they consider the permission almost “fully integrated” and satisfied with the way the different directives are transposed to the Slovak legislation. Slovnaft has indicated that they have actually not encountered any serious conflict or interaction due to multiple directives.

Many directives were discussed, but Slovnaft has reported that the current Slovak legislation makes the use of the directives very clear. In their opinion, the Slovak transposition of the IPPC directive has led to a practically transparent regime: virtually the IPPC permit is fully integrated, which addresses the underlying Slovak legislation on the different environmental media. As the operators have described, BREFs are rather used as a proposed or preferred solution, while the authorities are rather stringent for the enforcement on e.g. ELVs set in acts on air protection. Where an uncertainty in the definitions was reported (e.g. installations in IPPC vs. combustion units under LCPD) by other countries, Slovnaft has indicated, that the Slovak legislation was clear in these terms. They would recommend this approach as a way to be followed at European level as well.

Slovak emission trading act covers CO2 and SO2. However trading in SO2 will start only in 2007, and no trading in CO2 was done by the operator yet. Further experience might be gained from 2007.

Acknowledgements

Operators Slovnaft had three HSE experts present at the site visit to Bratislava on 17 August, 2006.

Dusan Ronec, Group HSE Expert – key contact person, interview and electronic review

Dipl. Ing. Klátik Jaroslav, HSE Slovnaft Petrochemicals, s.r.o. – interview

Ing. Koudela Drahos, HSE Refining – interview

Regional authorities Ing. Andrej Verčimák, Head of the District Environmental Inspectorate Bratislava

National authorities The statement has been



Prepared by Ing. Marta Fratričová from the Department of the IPPC at the MoE of the SR

Approved by Ing. Silvia Uličná, Head of the Department of the IPPC at the MoE of the SR



Case Study 13: Castle Cement, Ketton, United Kingdom About the installation The installation began operating in 1928. It produces around 1.2 million tonnes of cement per year, around 10% of the UK’s total.

The main features of the Ketton works include:

• A quarry where limestone and clay are extracted, with a 1 mile long conveyor to the main works from the crushing plant;

• The main works, including raw materials preparation, kiln processing, cement milling and despatch offsite (subject to a main IPPC permit, plus recent variation for the WID and a separate permit for the GHG-ET Directive);

• An on-site landfill (subject to a landfill Directive permit).

There works includes two kilns:

• Kiln 7 is a 4-stage pre-heater type, built in 1976.

• Kiln 8 is a 4-stage pre-calciner type, built in 1986 (was the newest in the UK until around 2000). It produces around 3,000 tonnes per day.

In addition to using coal and petroleum coke, around 30-40% of fuel use is alternatives, including:

• Whole tyres (kiln 7 only). Between 1997 and 2003, almost 14,000 tonnes of tyres were burned, offsetting 15,500 tonnes of coal use.

• “Cemfuel” (residues from solvent recovery from printing inks, paints, pharmaceuticals).

• “Profuel” (mainly post consumer shredded paper and plastics that would otherwise have been sent to landfill).

• Meat and bone meal (MBM) is currently in use on a trial basis on kiln 8 only.



Kiln 8, showing tertiary air duct, calciner



Storage of “Cemfuel” (solvent waste)



Tyres used as fuel in Kiln 7 (adjacent)


• 9t and 55t SO2 from Kilns 7 and 8 respectively;

• 860t (900 mg/m3) and 2300t (1040 mg/m3) NOx from Kilns 7 and 8 respectively (this was prior to introduction of selective non-catalytic reduction – SNCR – which came on line at the end of 2005).

Emissions are reported on the firm’s website.

Legislative coverage The Directives that cover the installation include: IPPC, Landfill, WID, GHG-ET and EIA Directives. See permits for details of progressive introduction of different requirements.

Castle applied for and received the following permits:

• PPC permit in August 2001, received December 2002 (varied three times since).

• WID (variation) in March 2005, received December 2005.

• GHG-ET in December 2003, received February 2004, varied December 2004, December 2005, March 2006.

Various improvement conditions have been included in the permits.




Waste incineration Directive The Environment Agency operates a substitute fuel protocol (SFP) under the PPC Regulations. Castle Cement have suggested that this causes significant delays and costs in obtaining PPC variations to permit the use of alternative fuels (there are several substitute fuels used on site). The site (and other cement plants) have been permitted as WID installations and the firm sees the SFP as an unnecessary burden on the cement industry. The costs associated with the application of the SFP include:

• £200,000 associated with additional monitoring, including compliance with the substitute fuels protocol;

• Costs associated with permit variations;

• Delays.

NOx emissions are a particular issue for Castle Cement. A higher silica ratio in the raw materials requires a higher temperature and hence leads to greater thermal NOx emissions. At Castle’s Ribblesdale works, they can achieve 500-800 mg/m3 without SNCR installed. The Ketton works requires harder burning and thus could only achieve 900-1100 mg/m3 without SNCR. If they were not burning waste, they would have argued that there is no need for SNCR (on the basis of determining what BAT is for the installation) and had been successful in doing so in the past (on the basis of air quality and dispersion modelling, the installation makes a small contribution to local environmental concentrations). However, in order comply with the Waste Incineration Directive, SNCR has been installed at Ketton in order to meet the 800 mg/m3 limit. Similarly at the Padeswood site, the multi-stage combustion approach would lead to 800-900 mg/m3 for the new kiln but SNCR has been introduced in order to meet 500 mg/m3 for this (new) plant under the WID.

The cost of installing SNCR at the Ketton works was £680,000 and the ongoing costs (mainly ammonia) are significant. They generally control emissions to around 700 mg/m3 – though they could potentially reduce this further with the introduction of more NH3. They have an improvement condition to examine what could be done to reduce further but are currently minded not to reduce further on the grounds of cost of ammonia (particularly given that the works already makes only a small contribution to ambient NOx levels in the vicinity of the site).

A reduction in NOx emissions was achieved when they started burning waste. The WID requires plant to stop burning waste if the emission limit is breached29. This creates what is seen as a perverse effect, especially for their Ribblesdale plant: when burning waste, NOx emissions are generally below the 800 mg/m3 limit value; however, if these emissions increase marginally and exceed this limit value, the firm will need to stop burning waste; this increase in waste will increase NOx emissions more significantly above the 800 mg/m3 level, leading to a lower environmental benefit. This does not apply at the Ketton works as SNCR is in place to control emissions.

In order to comply with the WID changes were also needed in relation to gas distribution and changes to the electrostatic precipitators (costing a few hundred thousand pounds). Average

29 For more than four hours continuously or 60 hours over the course of a year (for a single

flue gas cleaning device) (Article 13(3)).



emissions of dust were around 30 mg/m3 (as with the WID) but there were daily breaches of this figure (20-30d per year). They improved the water and gas distribution in the gas conditioning towers, etc. improved ESP collection efficiency by using skewed flow distribution (introduction of V-shaped baffles) – total cost of around £10-15,000 for installation plus design costs. The overall reduction was fairly small but enough to meet the 30 mg/m3 limit on most or all days. Again, without the WID, they would have argued for not introducing these emissions controls.

The WID requires continuous monitoring of hydrogen chloride yet Castle Cement’s emissions are consistently below 1 mg/m3 as compared to the limit value of 10 mg/m3. There should be very little in the way of acid gases given the alkali process so it has been questioned why this element of the WID is necessary if there is no environmental need (any environmental need would presumably be picked up by IPPC). Similarly, there is no change in VOC emissions with fuel use for virgin fuels or wastes (temperature is 2000ºC in the kiln, 900ºC in the calciner). The firm needs to comply with all of the additional requirements for pollutant monitoring yet they believe that many will not be relevant. The firm spent £20,000 on VOC monitoring equipment plus £5,000 per year maintenance contract, plus Castle Cement’s time, plus external verification every 3 years.

However, it is worth noting that the hazardous waste incineration directive already applied so not all of the additional costs relate to WID versus IPPC.

Castle Cement also believes that the requirements for monitoring of PCBs and PAHs are excessive, along with the requirement for monitoring CO emissions (WID is not prescriptive for the latter so this is an issue related to national implementation). CO, SO2 and metals emissions are all much lower than the limits but monitoring is still required.

There was also an issue of which takes precedence when the permit was varied to take account of the WID. For example, under WID, for each waste stream, there are limits on how much waste can be burned. The firm stated approximately how much waste was to be burned and this has now been placed in the permit as a condition which can’t be exceeded. The firm has questioned why these limits have been put in place when they are not specifically required in the WID or IPPC permit.

Thus, the strict ELVs imposed by the WID have forced a reduction in emissions for their installations. There are a number of disbenefits for the installation in terms of increased monitoring requirements and potential need for changing fuels. However, the benefits of burning waste fuel provide sufficient financial incentive to install the necessary abatement equipment in the cases described above.

Whilst it initially seemed as though there was lots of reporting required under the WID, the firm has now been able to automate much of this so it is less of a burden.

Environmental impact assessment Directive At the firm’s Padeswood site, a new kiln was introduced recently (they had 3 old kilns at this site and 2 at Ribblesdale and would have needed SNCR and wet scrubbers on each). The PPC application was used as the basis for providing information to the planning authority (PA). Based on discussions with Castle Cement, the PA wanted to set conditions that, Castle Cement believe, should be in the PPC permit (e.g. continuous air quality monitoring 2 miles downwind). The PA also requests information in different formats to the PPC regulator (Environment Agency) although the firm has suggested that the reasons for this duplication is often based on the public (and local councillor) perception of a luck of trust in the Environment Agency. The



landfill at the Padeswood site may also be required to have in place additional monitoring requirements beyond what is specified in the Landfill Directive – this is to go to a planning enquiry.

Greenhouse gas emissions trading Directive and costs of multiple permitting regimes This Directive has placed lots of new monitoring requirements upon the installation. The verifiers spend 12 days per year on the three sites; the company has approximately one FTE working on emissions trading but much of this is external liaison. Changes were also needed to weighbridges, etc.

The additional costs of the GHG-ET Directive in terms of monitoring and verification are around £10,000 per year plus one FTE of their time. These are in addition to the actual costs of participating.

Under the GHG-ET Directive, there are also further monitoring costs, particularly associated with e.g. measuring carbonate content of materials (the firm does this themselves but need to have it verified by certified laboratories, costing around £2,000 per year; they also need to have fuels and raw waste materials tested though there are no accredited laboratories for some of these). These are additional cost burdens that do not result in any more accuracy in the assessment of GHG emissions.

Data were collected by Castle Cement on the costs of obtaining/maintaining permits and associated monitoring (estimated at £69,000 per year – data have been provided). This compares to another of the Heidelberg group’s installations in Germany where the equivalent costs are around £12,000 per year.

Costs of external emissions monitoring for the two kilns (twice per year) is around £60k.

Also, at Ribblesdale, Castle Cement originally wanted a variation to the existing permit for a new landfill (rather than a new permit). However, the regulator’s approach of applying standard conditions for landfills would in effect have applied to the entire installation if this had been the case (so the firm understands). This would have introduced unachievable requirements (such as a requirement for there to be no visible emissions – this is achievable for a landfill but not for the cement works).

The firm reports separately on emissions from the landfill and the works at Ketton for the EPER/PRTR. This is potentially not clear because waste from the works is counted as an output and waste coming in to the landfill is counted as an input though it never leaves the site as a whole.

Implications of definitions of ‘new’ and ‘existing’ plant If the Ketton works had not burned waste before 2005, they would now need to meet the 500 mg/m3 WID limit instead of the 800 mg/m3 limit for NOx. The company has questioned why this occurs when there is no actual difference in the plant. In practice, the installation would have needed to install SNCR in any case.

By comparison, if their Ribblesdale plant had not previously burned waste, this issue would have required them to introduce SNCR in order to comply with the WID as a new plant. In fact, they are currently able to comply with the WID without SNCR given that it is are classed as an existing plant (emissions are between 500 and 800 mg/m3 without SNCR).



Other issues Castle Cement set specification limits on alternative fuels for process control reasons such as minimum calorific value and maximum chlorine in MBM. These limits have been translated into a permit condition. This potentially limits the types of waste they can use and they would question why such a condition is put in place. (The Environment Agency states that the specifications are translated into permit conditions so that the operator cannot make any changes to the fuel and introduce components that have not be tested during the trials period nor consulted on during the consultation stages of the application.)

Summary of main problematic interactions The main problematic interaction identified for this installation relates to the additional requirements imposed through the Waste Incineration Directive. One aspect of this relates to the emission limit values applied: these have improved the level of environmental protection and allowed the firm to benefit financially as compared to the burning of virgin fuel.

However, there are some aspects of the WID that impose additional monitoring requirements with no apparent environmental benefit.

Other issues identified include the presence of multiple permitting regimes (IPPC, GHG-ET, Landfill Directive) and additional requirements of the EIA Directive as compared to IPPC.

In addition, the differences in requirements for new and existing plant under the WID may have had the potential (in the past) for different decisions to be made on the techniques to be used under IPPC for plant that are essentially the same (but e.g. decided to start burning waste at different times).

Issues for streamlining of legislation The firm would not advocate SO2/NOx trading, nor would the industry as a whole (see the Cembureau response to the questionnaire). The main reason for this is considered to be the currently the low level of emissions from cement plants, the requirement to implement BAT and the fact that WID has already resulted in significant reductions in these emissions. The experience of EU-ETS, they claim, has already shown that there is a significant cost and bureaucracy associated with the emission verification process.

There is potential for combination of permit requirements in some cases, given that several permits apply. However, this would have to be done in a manner that does not introduce additional requirements unnecessarily (such as introduction of requirements for landfills for other parts of the site).

There is some potential for combining of inspections. The regulator inspects approximately monthly for the main works; inspections were previously done monthly for the landfill but that has now been reduced as a result of the risk-based approach used in the UK. The regulator is the same in both cases, though the individuals are different.

The additional requirements for monitoring and other aspects associated with WID appear to be the main issue relevant to this installation. There is, however, an example of how such problems can be avoided where there is flexibility applied: There are some occasions when the HCl emission limit is exceeded. This occurs when the raw mill is not operating (less chloride is absorbed). This is not related to the burning of waste. This issue has been addressed in the permit with a higher limit used when waste is not being burned.



Overall, the main opportunity for streamlining appears to relate to the potential for removing additional requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive where there does not appear to be any environmental benefit (or indeed a potential disbenefit).

Within the single IPPC permit, a separate boundary was drawn for the incineration plant which is different to that included within the main IPPC permit. There is nothing to stop this being done under the permitting regime and this has avoided problems of the interpretation of definitions (such as the ‘installation’). Thus, it is spelled out in the permit that dust emission limits only apply to cement millsand are not based on the WID, except for the kilns). However, the fact that there is no consolidated permit from the regulator does cause some difficulties (such as different inspectors, timing of inspections).



Case study 14: Drax power, UK About the Installation Drax is the largest coal-fired power station in the UK, with a capacity of 3.9GW. It includes six boilers, with units 1, 2 and 3 built in the 1970s and 4, 5 and 6 built in the 1980s. All are considered to be ‘existing’ plant under LCPD (and existing installations under the IPPC Directive).

Legislative Coverage The key industrial emissions Directives covering the installation are IPC30, IPPC, LCPD, GHG-ET and Landfill Directives. Permitting is currently done separately for integrated control (PPC, LCP Directives), the Landfill Directive and the GHG-ET Directive.

FGD was fitted at Drax in 1990 (the first in UK). In the UK coal power sector there is now 18GW built or committed with FGD and 8GW opted out under LCPD.

No installations in the UK coal power sector have SCR fitted; the decision point as to whether to continue operation with SCR fitted under the LCPD is 2016 for those installations adopting the ELV route to compliance rather than the NERP route31 – the industry expects some plant closures but this will depend in part on the future of LCPD and IPPC. Only 3 coal fired power

30 The precursor to IPPC in the UK; the permit application is currently being determined and a

draft was provided for the purpose of the case study. 31 SCR is not currently required by LCPD or under the sector-specific BAT.



stations have opted to take part in the National Plan under the LCPD, with the remainder opting for compliance with ELVs.

SO2 and NOX ELVs Under LCPD and IPPCD

JEP and Sector BAT The UK electricity industry set up a ‘Joint Environmental Programme’ to negotiate with the regulator (Environment Agency) on environmental and R & D issues affecting England and Wales coal power industry. In negotiation with the regulator, a definition of sector-specific BAT was developed – saving on local negotiations on many aspects and giving the regulator one organisation to negotiate with. This ensures level playing field but does not cover local issues which are considered on a site-by-site basis.

Emissions transfer in SO2 and NOx A system has been set up in the England & Wales for emissions transfer within the coal power sector. This is being done in two phases:

• Phase 1, the non LCP period, prior to the deadline for compliance with IPPC (1/10/05 – 31/12/07)32.

• Phase 2, where both the LCP and IPPC requirements apply during 2008 – 2015 (ref 2 for SO2)33.

The first phase includes a system for transfer of SO2 emissions between coal-fired power stations through setting of two limits:

• An “A limit” which is site specific, calculated in 2000 and is effectively a ‘harm’ limit in relation to local and national air quality standards. For Drax and two neighbouring power stations this is based on data from six monitoring stations. This emission limit cannot be exceeded.

• A “B limit” which is industry-wide and is the total that can be emitted from all power stations in the sector, with allocation to individual installations. Up until the most recent variation to Drax’s permit 34, the B limit was distributed amongst plant on the basis of commercial negotiations (not necessary reflecting plant capability). Originally the total sector limit was 365 kt – based on a UK Government target for 2005. However this was determined when several coal power stations were expected to close; there has actually been increased activity in the sector and the total was increased to 399.2 kt to account for security of supply.

For Drax, both the A and B limits are 47 kt. Prior to October 2005, B limits could be transferred within companies but can now be transferred between companies.

32 A regulatory framework for the coal and oil-fired power stations. Summary of transitional

phase 1/10/05 to 31/12/07, Draft 2, 28th May 2004. 33 A framework for the regulation of existing large coal-fired and oil-fired combustion plant at

power stations in England and Wales: 2008-2015, version 12.2, 26 January 2006 (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0706BLBI-e-e.pdf?lang=_e).

34 EPA (1990) – Variation notice and introductory note, 18/04/2005.



Since the start of Phase 1 in October 2005, two transfers have been made both from Drax to another installation in Nov 2005: they transferred 2.5kt; now Drax’s B limit for the period 2005-06 is 44.5kt. The transfer system is a simple one and involves notifying the regulator. The financial transactions are kept confidential between the firms involved. The regulator maintains a record of emissions transfers and the resulting changes to B limits35.

The system is considered by the operator to be considerably less bureaucratic than EU ETS for CO2 emissions and also preserves confidentiality. However such a system is most appropriate where there are relatively few trades.

A similar system for SOx, NOx and dust is expected to be introduced in the UK for the National Plan under the LCP Directive where a “NERP Register” will be maintained by the Environment Agency as the definitive source of the NERP allowance allocations for each participating plant36.

The potential for emissions trading in this manner is solely dependent upon there being a difference between the A and B limits. The B limits are expected to change under NERP/LCPD but the A limits will not – the 2008 value for SO2 will be 32kt for Drax (compared to 27kt in 2006). Sector-wide BAT for SO2 emissions is defined as 1.8 t/kWh. The mass limits are equivalent to the NERP; ELVs are equivalent to concentration and performance limits.

For NOX, the emission limit will reduce from 87 kt to around 45 kt per year. Drax currently achieves c. 55 kt with first generation low NOx burners and is investing in boosted overfire air to meet the 45 kt limit (500 mg/m3 equivalent) between 2004 and 2008. At this stage, emissions will be close to the limit so there will be a trade-off between generation and emissions (and potentially purchase/sale of further allowances) across the sector

The industry is not planning to reduce NOx emissions further – it would have a security of supply issue by 2008 if SCR were required, but the Environment Agency concluded that SCR was not BAT for the sector. It was argued that many stations would not have fitted FGD to comply with the SO2 emission limits in the LCP Directive if SCR had been required as sector specific BAT (and instead would have opted to close).

A key issue is what happens after 2016. Plant must either comply with the NOx limit or shut down. The installation will need to decide in 2007 whether to fit SCR due to the time required to commission the equipment. The installation highlighted the importance of certainty in the legislative regime in order for appropriate decisions to be made regarding future operators.

Questions were raised in relation to any possible NOx/SO2 trading across the EU (compared to within a Member State) as you would need consistency in BAT application – otherwise deciding on allocations will be very problematic.

Overall the operator considers that the LCP Directive is too prescriptive and a move to IPPC or (preferably) a sector-specific approach is advocated. They suggest that the Community

35 SO2 and NOx controls 2005-7, Environment Agency for England and Wales,

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444304/444367/972464/972510/ ?version=1&lang=_e.

36 Operation of the UK National emission reduction plan under the Large Combustion Plants Directive (draft), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (personal communication), 29 September 2006.



legislation should focus on environmental outcomes, not the detailed requirements (e.g. LCPD and WID).

Significant time has been spent on agreement on LCP protocols/definitions with the regulator (around 10% of one person’s time on behalf of the industry sector for 3 years plus various other staff inputs) and it is argued that few of these would be required if the LCP Directive were not so prescriptive. This would potentially not be required if they were not included within the LCP Directive. The operator considers that there could have been included e.g. rolling monthly values or mass ELVs which include start-up and shut-down but don’t require all of these protocols to be put in place.

Potentially problematic interactions

GHG-ET Directive The installation has a separate permit for the GHG-ET Directive. The regulator is the same as for IPPC but the individuals concerned differ. Whilst that regulator does not visit the site, the system requires independent auditors (and this is considered to duplicate what is done under the PPC regime). This doubled their internal and external auditing bill (from 6 days per year for ISO 14001 to 14-15 for the annual CO2 audit – plus significantly more than these for internal time).

The operator considers the monitoring and reporting guidelines for the GHG-ET Directive to be burdensome, though acknowledging that there is a need to be precise and prescriptive due to the nature of the emissions trading market.

IPPC and LCP Directives PPC is the considered by the operator to be the principal piece of legislation and they would like to see all emissions requirements incorporated into this. They have a draft PPC permit (provided) which incorporates LCP, waste framework, etc (but not the landfill and GHG-ET Directives).

The operator is concerned that the LCP Directive tries to micromanage the plant e.g. defining stack, plant – they think this should be decided at sector-specific level. Some firms’ generating capacity will be reduced to 25% by use of the plant = windshield definition (e.g. with 4 boilers) – and the operator has questioned whether this was really intended. The operator has suggested that the ELVs from the LCP Directive could be incorporated into the IPPC without the other site-specific issues being included.

Other issues that LCPD defines make it more problematic (e.g. ‘start up’, ‘valid hour’) as does managing continuous monitoring. This takes away flexibility at the plant level – every plant is different. There is an LCPD compliance ELV and a total ELV (includes start-up and shut down). They need continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for all of this – these are difficult to manage and calculate (have to ensure CEMS working during start-up/shut-down; this is difficult especially for peak shaving plant and less so for base-load plant). They consider this significant administrative cost to be unnecessary. Two man years input per year is required to manage the CEMS, though the interpretation of data is automated.

EIA Directive One potential problem is that separate requirements can be laid down by the regulator for IPPC (the Environment Agency for Drax ) and that for EIA (local planning authority). Whilst this can create an additional burden, the operator could not see how the two regimes could be combined (though information should be used for both where possible). For example, whilst both require



public consultation, it would be difficult in practice to have a single consultation process given that EIA is done early on in the design process so you would need to consult again anyway once equipment, emissions, etc have been decided upon. The operator considered that there is no need for additional legislation.

Summary of main problematic interactions and issues for streamlining The main problematic interactions identified in this case study are as follows:

• The additional requirements of the LCP and GHG-ET Directives where those Directives are prescriptive pose a significant administrative burden for the operator. These issues are considered to warrant further investigation in the impact assessment for this study.

• The ‘emissions transfer’ scheme in England and Wales for SO2 highlights some significant issues in relation to the potential for emissions trading. It also highlights the potential for a ‘minimal’ emissions trading scheme whereby the benefits of a cost-effective approach to achieving emissions reductions for the sector can potentially be achieved whilst imposing relatively little administrative burden upon operators and regulators.



Case study 15: New Albion Landfill Introduction Some landfills covered by the Landfill Directive also fall within the scope of the IPPC Directive. The Directive provides procedures and definition targeted to the landfill installations only, but the technical requirements of the IPPC Directive shall be deemed to be fulfilled if the requirements of the Landfill Directive are complied with. The Landfill Directive is applicable to any landfill, although some activities shall be excluded form the Directive scope, namely (Article 3):

• the spreading of sludges, including sewage sludges, and sludges resulting from dredging operations, and similar matter on the soil for the purposes of fertilisation or improvement,

• the use of inert waste which is suitable, in redevelopment/restoration and filling-in work, or for construction purposes, in landfills,

• the deposit of non-hazardous dredging sludges alongside small waterways from where they have been dredged out and of non-hazardous sludges in surface water (…)

• the deposit of unpolluted soil or of non-hazardous inert waste resulting from prospecting and extraction, treatment, and storage of mineral resources as well as from the operation of quarries.

The regulation of many landfills does, therefore, fall under both the IPPC and Landfill Directives. Therefore, the case of the New Albion landfill site in the UK was chosen in order to explore these. The case also raises issues of interaction with the groundwater Directive.

In considering this case it is important to note specific aspects of UK implementation of the relevant Directives. In this case the competent authority for determination of IPPC permits is the Environment Agency. The relevant transposing legislation referred to in the case are:

• The Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (IPPC Directive).

• The Landfill Regulations (Landfill Directive).

• Groundwater Regulations (Groundwater Directive).

The installation New Albion Landfill is a landfill site in NW Leicestershire, England. The installation is operated by Veolia Environmental Services (United Kingdom). The installation consists of the following activities:

• Landfill of non-hazardous waste.

• Storage and treatment of leachate pre-discharge.

• Management of landfill gas.

• Discharge to sewer from leachate management system.

• Discharge of site drainage from the installation.



The application for a permit for New Albion Landfill fell within a transitional period. The site had applied for a waste management licence on 18/12/2000, but before it was determined the landfill Regulations were brought in. The licence was issued. However, operation did not commence before the deadline in 2002 under the PPC Regulations. Thus it was not able to activate the authorisation and it had to apply for a PPC permit. The PPC permit was issued on 27/8/2004 (following provision of much additional information on stability and groundwater protection), but a judicial review in 2005 (initiated by a member of the general public) meant that it did not become immediately active. The company has also appealed against the conditions (as have many landfill operators for similar permits) and the Environment Agency is reviewing these.

Directly associated activities

These mostly concern various gas and leachate related activities. For example, gas collected must either be used or flared. Flared gas must be undertaken according to BAT. The permit specifies the requirements for each directly associated activity in its own right and whether these are included within a single PPC permit or not is not an issue for the operator.

Variation of permit conditions

The operator has not yet applied for a variation of the PPC permit. However, it will apply for such a variation in order to change the method of leachate treatment (Section 5.3 of Landfill Regulations). This will reduce energy use, raw material use and water use. The Environment Agency is examining whether this might be a ‘standard’ variation to make the permit change easier. Currently, therefore, variation in permit conditions is not an issue for the operator.

Legal issues There are a number of possible issues of legal interaction and/or implementation which are potentially relevant in considering a landfill case. There have been a number of issues of interpretation between the operator and regulator. Some of these have involved issues specific to UK interpretation (such as defining what is BAT for ‘nuisance’ and the details of monitoring obligations). However, others have wider potential significance.

Defining the ‘installation’

Under the landfill regulations a previously closed area needs to be included in a permit application unless it is subject to specific conditions separating it from a new/existing landfill operation. The operator has a particular problem it that it argues that the Environment Agency only considers such separation at a two-dimensional, ground surface viewpoint. However, it is also possible (in hard impermeable rock areas) to extract a landfill area beneath an old landfill. However, this would not be accepted as a separate entity by the regulator.

A permit including the closed landfill would require the operator to operate the closed landfill according to best practice, such as on leachate and gas management. However, problems can arise and presents the operator with enforcement problems. At New Albion Landfill the installation has had to include a closed area, which includes a landfill that was used for disposal in the 19th Century (so that its precise composition is uncertain). At the site groundwater movements are from the closed site to the new site, so it is very difficult to identify if the new site is discharging any List I substances or not.



This issue is not one raised by the nature of the definition of ‘installation’ under IPPC or of ‘landfill’ under the IPPC or Landfill Directives, but of how this is interpreted, indicating further complexities in defining what is to be regulated under those Directives.

Interaction between landfill Directive and IPPC Directive Scope of the two Directives

As noted in the earlier analysis in the project, the IPPC Directive applies to landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste. The Landfill Directive applies a different definition according to the nature of the waste and associated activities being undertaken. While this might present some issues of coverage in certain cases, this is not an issue for the New Albion landfill site which falls under the definitions of both Directives.

Application for a permit The Landfill presents a list of minimum requirements of information to be submitted in the application for a permit. These requirements differ form those set in art 6 of the IPPC Directive, as they are targeted for landfill activities. These differences have not been an issue for the operator or regulator in this case.

Disapplication of PPC regulatory requirements

The Landfill Regulations specifically state that some of the requirements of the PPC Regulations are ‘disapplied’. For example Section 11 and 12(1) of the PPC regulations are disapplied according to Section 6(3) of the landfill Regulations. Section 11(3) of the PPC Regulations covers issue of waste recovery, energy efficiency and accident management (see Box 1 and Box 2). However, in setting conditions in the permit, the Environment Agency inserted conditions as set out in the disapplied section of the PPC Regulations. This is set out in sections 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 of the permit.

This was done for all landfill permits and resulted in a large number of appeals. As a result the Environment Agency issued a variation notice that removed the requirement of waste production, relaxed the condition on energy efficiency and required action for accidents that may cause pollution (as required elsewhere in the landfill Regulations).

This issue is interesting in that it illustrates some of the practical consequences facing operators and regulators in interpreting the interaction between Directives. The UK Government, in interpreting the provisions of the landfill Directive, have sought to disapply certain conditions that were sent in transposing and implementing IPPC. However, this has resulted in different interpretations on what is appropriate in setting permit conditions by the operators and regulators. This is not the place to seek to interpret UK law and its implementation, nor to argue whether the disapplication is a correct interpretation of the landfill Directive and its interaction with IPPC. What this does show is that lack of clarity can impact in a practical way in implementation. It is not known what costs have been incurred by operators and the regulator in addressing this issue, although costs will have been incurred.

It seems that the issue has, in principle, been resolved. Thus amending either Directive would not obviously lead to a benefit in this particular case. However, this does assume that UK implementation and interpretation of the interaction of the two Directives is correct and, therefore, the issue is not re-opened.



Interaction between the Groundwater and IPPC Directives Earlier regulation of landfill sites in the UK focused primarily of the protection of groundwater. Therefore, interactions with the Groundwater Directive are to be expected.

The New Albion Landfill is a sub-water table landfill. Indeed, around 200 landfills in England and Wales have some or all of the site below the local water table. The Landfill Directive requires that ‘appropriate measures shall be taken, with respect to the characteristics of the landfill and the meteorological conditions, in order to….prevent surface water and/or groundwater entering into the landfilled waste’. This is interpreted in a risk-based way by the Environment Agency, i.e. that groundwater must be prevented from entering the landfill ‘as far as is necessary to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk to the stability or effectiveness of engineering controls’.

In interpreting the Landfill Regulations the Agency has guidance which states that, for landfill sites below the water table, the leachate head should not be greater than 1m. However, landfill installations have to undertaken hydrological risk assessments, which determine the precise hydrological characteristics of the individual site, including the relationship between water intrusion, leachate head depth and risk to groundwaters. Thus imposition of a 1m depth limit is inappropriate as it does not take account of the risk assessment. This approach by the regulator has, therefore, been changed. However, it does illustrate the complexities of interpreting a need for absolute protection of the environment (Groundwater Directive) alongside an regulation interpreted by environmental assessment (IPPC Directive).

The installation did undertake a risk assessment for groundwaters in its application. However, being a new site, the permit issued to the installation included a further condition, stating (section 2.5.1):

‘the activities of disposal, or tipping for the purpose of disposal of waste that are authorised by this permit shall cease 3 ½ years from commencement of landfilling, unless by that date the operator has submitted to the Agency a written review….which shows that, at the specified date, the level of risk to groundwater meets the terms of the Groundwater Regulations 1998.’

This conditionality was viewed by the operator as inflexible, especially given the nature of all of the installation. Indeed, the enforcement action (closure) could have been viewed as disproportionate. However, the condition was subsequently changed in the permit variation, whereby a revised hydrological risk assessment was required, but without the threat of site closure.

Future changes It is important to note that significant revision of environmental permitting obligations is currently being undertaken in England and Wales. Under the heading of the ‘Environmental Permitting Programme’, the government has sought to revise the way that permits addressing different issues (such as IPPC and waste management) are handled, by proposing an integrated approach.

In October 2006 the UK government issued a second public consultation on proposals for creating a streamlined environmental permitting and compliance system in England and Wales.



The proposal consisted of a detailed consultation paper37, an accompanying partial Regulatory Impact Assessment38 and draft regulations. The Environmental Permitting Programme is a joint Defra, Welsh Assembly Government and the Environment Agency programme. It aims to simplify the mechanics of environmental permitting and compliance systems (for example, how to obtain, vary and transfer permits) without altering the standards that have to be met. The Programme should deliver a modernised permitting system, in line with EU requirements, sound environmental policy and the Government's principles of good regulation. The new system aims to be better for industry, better for regulators and better for the environment.

Different regulatory systems have been developed largely independently of each other over time. This has led to a regulatory system that is perceived as excessively complex and one that imposes unnecessary administrative burdens upon both industry and regulators. There has already been some convergence of the system, stimulated by the waste management activities covered by IPPC.

The Government identified the features that an ideal permitting and compliance system should contain and reconcile if it is to meet simplification objectives. Because most of these could apply to any system in any Member State, many are worth highlighting. Thus the system should:

• Contain a high degree of commonality for permitting and compliance tasks;

• Avoid unnecessary prescription;

• Be easily understood and implemented;

• Deliver risk-based regulation where the level of regulatory control is, as far as is practicable, proportionate to the environmental risks posed by the activities;

• Be capable of extension to other permitting and compliance systems;

• Meet obligations (such as from the EU) in a way which can accommodate change without significant regulatory change; and

• Apply a uniform approach across the country.

In implementing new permitting systems, the Government has highlighted key principles, including:

• Permit application forms should be as concise as possible to reduce administrative burdens. They must be designed in consultation with industry.

• Only information that is necessary should be required to be submitted with a permit application. Applicants should also be in no doubt what they are being asked to provide.

37 Defra 2006. Environmental Permitting Programme: Second consultation on proposal for

creating a streamlined environmental permitting and compliance system. Available from: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp/#consult.

38 Defra 2006. Environmental Permitting Programme: RIA on proposals for creating a streamlined environmental permitting and compliance system. Available from: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp/#consult.



The aim is the delivery of waste and IPPC permitting and compliance could be through a single site-based permit, thus simplifying the existing regimes. Thus where more than one permit currently applies at a site they could be consolidated.

This is form the basis for new Regulations (replacing, amongst others, the PPC and landfill Regulations). Interestingly, the approach taken in the Regulations is to make explicit reference to relevant Directives. Thus the proposed Regulations have listed the ‘requirements of the landfill regulator’ (draft Schedule 9, Part 2), which simply lists the requirements that the regulator should consider by cross-reference to the relevant Articles in the Landfill Directive (without copy-out or interpretation). This includes the general statement that ‘the regulator must exercise its relevant functions with regard to Article 1 of the Landfill Directive’. This includes technical interaction with the IPPC Directive.

The proposed Regulations no longer make any reference to disapplication, etc. Indeed, there is now clear guidance from the Cabinet Office that there should be no attempt to interpret Directives in UK national law (as was done with section 6 of the Landfill Regulations). Instead, the requirements of Directives are either copied out or directly cross-referred to. This means that the proposed Regulations make no attempt to interpret the interaction between the IPPC and Landfill Directives. Such interpretation will be undertaken through the production of guidance. Such guidance is currently being prepared (using the older PPC Practical Guide as a basis, but radically changing it) and will be presented for consultation in early 2007. At this stage it is uncertain how far (e.g. prescriptive) will be the interpretation of the interaction between the requirements of the Directives and, therefore, how much might still remain for the regulator to interpret, in consultation for the operator.

Conclusions This case has provided interesting examples of the interactions between the IPPC, Landfill and Groundwater Directives. In each case the issues that have arisen have been driven by the interpretation placed on the interaction in the UK context, such as how to ‘disapply’ parts of the PPC Regulations or how to manage the absolute requirement to prevent discharge of List I substances. UK law has interpreted EU law, which has then been supported by guidance, interpreted by the regulator and, potentially, challenged by the operator.

It is interesting, therefore, to note that the new approach being taken for these Directives in England and Wales will remove much of the legal interpretation by making direct reference to the Directives themselves. Thus the role of guidance will become even more important, as will be its interpretation and acceptance by regulators and operators alike.

Acknowledgements Mark Langabeer - Veolia Environmental Services (United Kingdom)

Peter Kellett – Joint Environment Agency/Defra/ WAG Team.



Box 1 The landfill regulations state:

6. - (1) At the end of Part A(1) of Section 5.2 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Regulations (disposal of waste by landfill) insert - " (b) The disposal of waste in any other landfill to which the 2002 Regulations apply." (2) In these Regulations "landfill permit" means the permit which is required by the 2000 Regulations for the carrying out of the disposal of waste in a landfill. (3) Regulations 11 and 12(1) to (11) and (14) of the 2000 Regulations shall not apply to landfills. (4) Paragraph 5(b) in Part 1 of Schedule 4, and paragraph 4(8)(b) in Part 2 of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Regulations (requirement to advertise in the London Gazette), shall not apply to landfills falling within paragraph (b) of Part A(1) of Section 5.2 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to those Regulations.

Box 2 The relevant parts of the PPC Regulations which are disapplied under the landfill Regulations are:

11. - (1) When determining the conditions of a permit, the regulator shall take account of the general principles set out in paragraph (2) and, in the case of a permit authorising the operation of a Part A installation or Part A mobile plant, the additional general principles set out in paragraph (3). (2) The general principles referred to in paragraph (1) are that installations and mobile plant should be operated in such a way that - (a) all the appropriate preventative measures are taken against pollution, in particular through application of the best available techniques; and (b) no significant pollution is caused. (3) The additional general principles referred to in paragraph (1) in relation to a permit authorising the operation of a Part A installation or a Part A mobile plant are that the installation or mobile plant should be operated in such a way that- (a) waste production is avoided in accordance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste; and where waste is produced, it is recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment; (b) energy is used efficiently; (c) the necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences, and that, upon the definitive cessation of activities, the necessary measures should be taken to avoid any pollution risk and to return the site of the installation or mobile plant to a satisfactory state. 12. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (15) and (16) and regulations 13 and 14, there shall be included in a permit - (a) such conditions as the regulator considers appropriate to comply with paragraphs (2) to (8); and (b) in relation to any Part A installation or Part A mobile plant authorised by the permit - (i) such other conditions applying in relation to the Part A installation or Part A mobile plant as the regulator considers appropriate to comply with paragraph (9); and (ii) such other conditions (if any) applying in relation to the Part A installation or Part A mobile plant, in addition to those required by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)(i), as appear to the regulator to be appropriate, when taken with the condition implied by paragraph (10), for the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection for the environment as a whole, taking into account, in particular, the general principles set out in regulation 11; (c) in relation to any Part B installation or Part B mobile plant authorised by the permit, such other conditions (if any) applying in relation to the Part B installation or Part B mobile plant as appear to the regulator to be appropriate, when taken with the condition implied by paragraph (10), for the purpose of preventing or, where that is not practicable, reducing emissions into the air, taking into account, in particular, the general principles set out in regulation 11(2). (2) Subject to paragraph (8), a permit shall include emission limit values for pollutants, in particular those listed in Schedule 5, likely to be emitted from the installation or mobile plant in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and, in the case of emissions from a Part A installation or a Part A mobile plant, their potential to transfer pollution from one environmental medium to another. (3) Where appropriate, the emission limit values required by paragraph (2) may apply to groups of pollutants rather than to individual pollutants. (4) The emission limit values required by paragraph (2) shall normally apply at the point at which the emissions leave the installation or mobile plant, any dilution being disregarded when determining them. (5) The effect of a waste water treatment plant may be taken into account when determining the emission limit values applying in relation to indirect releases into water from a Part A installation or Part A mobile plant provided that an



equivalent level of protection of the environment as a whole is guaranteed and taking such treatment into account does not lead to higher levels of pollution. (6) Subject to paragraph (7), the emission limit values required by paragraph (2) shall be based on the best available techniques for the description of installation or mobile plant concerned but shall take account of the technical characteristics of the particular installation or mobile plant being permitted, and, in the case of an installation or Part A mobile plant, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions. (7) Where an environmental quality standard requires stricter emission limit values than those that would be imposed pursuant to paragraph (6), paragraph (2) shall require those stricter emission limit values; and for the purpose of this paragraph "environmental quality standard" means the set of requirements which must be fulfilled at a given time by a given environment or particular part thereof, as set out in Community legislation. (8) Where appropriate, the emission limit values required by paragraph (2) may be supplemented or replaced by equivalent parameters or technical measures. (9) A permit authorising the operation of a Part A installation or Part A mobile plant shall also include conditions - (a) aimed at minimising long distance and transboundary pollution; (b) ensuring, where necessary, appropriate protection of the soil and groundwater and appropriate management of waste generated by the installation or mobile plant; (c) relating to the periods when the installation or mobile plant is not operating normally where there is a risk that the environment may be adversely affected during such periods, including, in particular, conditions relating to the start up of operations, leaks, malfunctions and momentary stoppages; (d) setting out the steps to be taken prior to the operation of the installation or mobile plant and after the definitive cessation of operations; (e) setting out suitable emission monitoring requirements, specifying the measurement methodology and frequency and the evaluation procedure, and ensuring that the operator supplies the regulator with the data required to check compliance with the permit; (f) requiring the operator to supply the regulator regularly with the results of the monitoring of emissions and to inform the regulator, without delay, of any incident or accident which is causing or may cause significant pollution. (10) Subject to paragraph (11), there is implied in every permit a condition that, in operating the installation or mobile plant, the operator shall use the best available techniques for preventing or, where that is not practicable, reducing emissions from the installation or mobile plant. (11) The obligation implied by virtue of paragraph (10) shall not apply in relation to any aspect of the operation of the installation or mobile plant in question which is regulated by a condition imposed under any other paragraph of this regulation. (14) A permit may, without prejudice to the generality of the previous provisions of this regulation, include conditions - (a) imposing limits on the amount or composition of any substance produced or utilised during the operation of the installation or mobile plant in any period; (b) which are supplemental or incidental to other conditions contained in the permit.

Documents

Case Study 1: Amcor Flexibles, Flanders, Belgium - Europa · Case Study 1: Amcor Flexibles, Flanders, Belgium ... e.g. waste incineration and landfill. ... June 2006 waste gas management