by rijKErt KnoppErs

Discussions being held this spring about the revision of the European directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) are keeping the waste sector on edge. A decision is likely to be made before the end of the year. The underly-ing rationale for the proposed revision of the directive is to simplify and harmonise European environmental regulations. Derogation from this directive will in future be the exception rather than the rule, as is now the case. According to Pieter Roos, policy coordinator for the implementa-tion and revision of the IPPC Directive at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the revised IPPC Directive will create more cer-tainty, for example when working with the BAT Reference Documents (BREFs). ‘Companies may derogate from the BREFs only if they can provide sufficient justifica-tion. For instance, they will have to report each year on how they are complying with the permit conditions and on their per-formance measured against the BREFs.’ Another positive, according to VROM, is that new companies will also be covered by the directive. Besides the current hazardous waste processors and dispos-ers of non-hazardous waste, about two hundred additional waste companies are expected to fall within the scope of the legislation, doubling the current number. ‘These will mainly be companies active in scrap processing, the production of waste-derived fuels and the treatment of slags and ashes,’ thinks Roos. ‘We do not have precise figures because it is not yet certain

which companies will exceed the capacity thresholds and which will remain below them. The threshold for non-hazardous waste is 50 tonnes per day.’

VROM is not unhappy about the revised IPPC Directive because it will help with meeting its environmental targets. ‘The monitoring and reporting obligations will have to be simplified even more, though. Moreover, the European Parliament has not been critical enough about the number of smaller companies that will fall within the scope of the directive.’

PErmIssIblE EmIssIonsThe waste sector supports the objective of simplifying and harmonising the legisla-tion, but is worried about a number of pro-posals. It is concerned that the discussion about permissible emissions is heading in the wrong direction. The proposal on the table could lead to unworkable situations for plant owners in all sectors of European industry. One of the most important topics under discussion at the moment is whether the European Union will decide to use the emission limit values (ELVs) as the basis for drawing up licences or the average operational levels of installations, the BAT Associated Operational Emission Levels (BATAOEL). Ton Goverde, director of corporate relations at Van Gansewinkel Groep, has a clear preference for the first option. ‘If the European Union adopts the BATAOELs as a legal mechanism instead of the ELVs, it will inevitable lead to higher investments by industry.’

The differences between the ELVs and the BATAOELs can be considerable, the BATAOELs being lower than the ELV ceiling. An ELV is the maximum permissible quan-tity of a substance that may be discharged to water or air, which the operator may not exceed under any circumstances. The BATAOELs are presented as ranges of operational emission values, which account for the variation in emissions from instal-

DIsCussIons About thE rEVIsIon of thE EuroPEAn IPPC DIrECtIVE

reservations about proposed emission standardsThe revision of the IPPC Directive is on the European agenda this

spring. The waste sector applauds the move to simplify and harmonise

European legislation, but is concerned among other things about the

proposed emission standards, which will lead to unworkable situations

for plant owners.

lations that operate BAT within different technological and environmental contexts. These values are stated in the BREFs, which describe the best available techniques for each type of installation. Goverde outlines the difference: ‘Say that the maximum per-missible emission of hydrochloric acid – the ELV – is 10 mg per cubic metre and a plant operator orders an installation with an operational value – the BATAOEL – between 3 and 7 mg. In exceptional circumstances

TON GOVERDE (VAN GANSEWINKEL GROEP):

‘The IPPC takes too little account of the

depreciation period of installations.’

26 afvalforum maart 2009

The emission standards in the current proposed IPPC Directive will lead to unworkable situations (photo: stock.xchng)

the operator can then allow peak emis-sions up to 10 mg, while remaining within the emission limit,’ explains Goverde. ‘Should the BATAOELs become law, the ceiling would no longer be 10 mg, but 7 mg. The emission standards in the licence will become stricter and peak emissions due to temporary suboptimal operating conditions will no longer be permissible.’

hAstIly ConCEIVEDElla Stengler of the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP) is also critical of the proposal. ‘A deci-sion to equate BATAOELs with emission limit values will probably mean that these limits will often be exceeded. This is the nature of BATAOELs. They describe what can be technically achieved under normal, stable conditions. Emission limit values, however, have to be achieved even under the most adverse conditions. Particularly with regard to waste, which is a hetero-geneous fuel, we think there should be room for peak emissions. Of course, such peak emissions have to remain within the emission limit values stated in the Waste Incineration Directive, ensuring a high standard of protection for human health and the environment.’ Stengler points to the risk that local authorities in particular will be inclined to impose the lower level of the BATAOEL range, especially if environ-mental groups put them under pressure. However, it is often impossible to meet all the lower levels at the same time and setting a lower value for certain emis-sions may have an adverse effect in other

areas. In practice, integrated environmen-tal protection often necessitates making trade-offs. For example, lowering the ELV for NO2 inevitably raises the operational emission level for ammonia. Besides, the proportionality principle is being ignored, says Stengler. ‘Waste-to-Energy plants already have to achieve very low emis-sion levels, as required by the Waste Incineration Directive. The proposal is to reduce these to even lower (micro) emis-sions, whereas other polluters are spared or subject to “soft” standards.’ Stengler believes that the revision has been hastily conceived, bearing in mind that the Waste Incineration BREF was adopted in August 2006 and the Commission’s proposal is from December 2007. Moreover, in its pro-posal the Commission gives the authorities just four years after the publication of a BREF to reconsider the need to update permits. ‘This is too short because the normal investment cycle is much longer,’ stresses Stengler. ‘So far little experience has been gained with the application of the BREFs. A positive point is that a more har-monised approach to applying the BREFs is emerging across Europe. The BREFs are a valuable source of information on technicaldevelopments in the interests of impro-ving environmental protection. Ignoring the fact that the BATAOELs are not emis-sion limit values – despite the clear explanation in the BREFs themselves – would kill the Seville Process for produ-cing the BREFs, which is currently based on a fruitful exchange of information and experience.’

DEPrECIAtIonAnother aspect is that the new direc-tive will force the sector to bring forward investments in new or existing plant. A large waste processing plant is usually written off over a period of 15 to 25 years. The current proposal for a new IPPC Directive, however, assumes that the sector will upgrade installations every 5 to 8 years to meet the revised BREF. ‘We think that the IPPC takes too little account of the depreciation period of installations,’ says Goverde. ‘Discussions are still underway, but it could mean that new investments will be needed before the current depreciation period ends in order to meet the require-ments of the new BREF.’

Goverde also sees positive aspects in the proposed revision of the IPPC Directive. According to him the European Parliament has continued to keep the sector involved, particularly in the drafting of the BREFs. Another positive point is that a step has been taken towards a more level playing field. ‘The current directive on the incin-eration of waste has been incorporated into the recast directive. In the past there were major differences with other industrial sectors, especially in the emissions of NOx and SO2. The revision of the IPPC Directive improves the situation for the waste sector in this respect. The permissible emissions for the other industries are now closer to the stricter regime that applies to waste incinerators.’

27afvalforum maart 2009

EllA STENGLER (CEWEP):

‘A level is not a limit. We should not ignore

the difference between BATAOELs and Emission Limit

Values.’