Revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

17 July 2021ED13995Public© Ricardo plc 2021

Revision of the Industrial

Emissions Directive (IED)

Welcome & housekeeping

Alexandra Humphris-Bach, Ricardo

Final Stakeholder Workshop

07 July 2021


Housekeeping

• The workshop will be recorded.

• Attendee cameras are disabled and microphones are muted.

• Submit questions using the Q&A function at the bottom-centre of the screen and the presenters

will respond to them during the Q&A sessions.

• You can see all questions as they are submitted and are able to ‘upvote’ other questions.

• Please prefix your question with your organisation name.

1. Select Q&A

2. Type your

question in the

window


Agenda - morning

Times Item

09:30 - 09:35 Welcome and housekeeping

09:35 – 09:40 Welcome and objective of IED workshop

09:40 - 10:00 Keynote - Joanna Drake, Deputy Director-General DG ENV

10:00 – 10:15 IED IA process overview

10:15 – 10:35 Problems being addressed and introduction to policy options

10:35 – 10:50 Q&A – taken from chat

10:50 – 11:00 Break

11:00 – 11:20Consultation results – interim findings from the Open Public Consultation

and Targeted Stakeholder Survey


11:30 – 12:15 Current assessment of policy options - introduction

12:15 – 14:30 Break


Agenda - afternoon

Times Item

14:30 – 14:35 Policy option 1: More effective IED


14:50 – 14:55 Policy option 2: More effective and ambitious on innovation


15:10 – 15:15Policy option 3: More effective and ambitious on chemicals, resource

efficiency and circular economy


15:30 – 15:40 Break

15:40 – 15:45Policy option 4: More effective and a more central role in decarbonising

industry


16:00 – 16:05 Cross-cutting measures addressing new sectors i.e. scope extensions


16:20 – 16:50 Any further Q&A – taken from chat.

16:50 – 17:00 Next steps


IED revision

Welcome

Aneta Willems,

European Commission,

DG Environment - Industrial Emissions Unit (C.4),

Head of Unit

Final Stakeholder Workshop


IED revision

Keynote

Joanna Drake, Deputy Director General,

European Commission - Directorate-General for

Environment (ENV)

Final workshop

© Ricardo plc 2020

Stakeholder workshop, 7 July 2021

Assessment of options for the

revision of the Industrial Emissions

Directive


• IED Impact Assessment – Overview (Alexandra Humphris-Bach, Ricardo)

• Summary of problems and policy options being considered for revision of

the IED (Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo)

• Consultation – interim findings (James Tweed, Ricardo)

• Preliminary assessment of policy options (Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo)

• [Afternoon] Presentation and Q&A on policy options (Ricardo, VITO, Wood)

• Other Q&A

• AOB/ wrap up/ close (Ricardo, DG ENV)

Meeting aims and agenda

Primary aims of this workshop are to update stakeholders on:

• Overall thinking behind the impact assessment of revisions to the IED

• Consultation process and illustrative responses

• Policy options being assessed

Agenda


IED RevisionFinal workshop

IED Impact Assessment Overview

Alexandra Humphris-Bach, Ricardo






• Current assessment of policy options (Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo)


• Other Q&A



IED

eva

luati

on

fin

din

gs

• Under the European Green Deal, the European Commission is committed to review

the legal framework of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (the IED).

• The review aims to support the European Green Deal goals on zero pollution, climate

neutrality, biodiversity and a cleaner, more circular economy.

• An evaluation of the IED was completed in 2020

– Concluding that it largely works well

– Improvements could be made in its design and implementation

– Several IED sectors still contribute significant overall pressures on the environment

• The impact assessment to examine revisions to the IED was launched in 2020

Context to the IED impact assessment

Works well

✓ BREF process governance

✓ Permitting

✓ Reduced distortion of competition

✓ Reducing industry emissions

(especially to air)

✓ Cost-effectiveness

✓ Promotion of BAT

Works less well

❑ Emerging techniques and BREF process interface with innovation

❑ Clarification of legal requirements

❑ GHG emissions / decarbonisation

❑ Reducing resource use / supporting circular economy

❑ Availability of data

❑ Implementation of BAT conclusions in permits

❑ Access to information

❑ Public participation in the permitting procedure and access to justice


• The overall purpose of the study is to assist the Commission in carrying out an impact

assessment in line with the requirements of the European Commission’s Better

Regulation Guidelines and its Toolbox

• The contractor team is working with the Commission to

– define the problems to be tackled

– identify and develop a range of options to address them, and

– assess the impacts of those options

• Analysis based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, and contributions from

stakeholder consultation (collecting additional evidence)

• The evaluation of the IED identified a number of broad areas where the operation of the

legislative framework might be improved. The Inception Impact Assessment published

on the Better Regulation Portal set out some specific aspects.

• Supporting study to the official impact assessment – will provide the necessary

analytical background to the Commission’s impact assessment

• Contractor team: led by Ricardo and supported by Wood, Vito, E3M and Trinomics

Objectives of the impact assessment study


IA support studyCommission timeline

Revision of the IED impact assessment policy process with

support study adhering to the better regulation guidelines

Define and clarify problem definition

Identify possible EU level actions (long list)

Develop baseline scenario

Develop policy options (shortlist)

Assess impacts of options

Compare options to identify preferred option

2019-2020

Evaluation of the IED→ Commission Staff Working Document

SWD(2020)182 final

Co

nsu

ltati

on

sand r

esearc

h

2020-2021

Impact Assessment of the IEDMar 2020 - Inception Impact Assessment

Jul 2020 to Sep 2021 – Support study

Dec 2020 to Jul 2021 – Consultations

~Q1 2022

Legislative proposal

for revision of the IED

Consultations

Support study


IED revision

Summary of problems and policy options

being considered for revision of the IED Tim Scarbrough,

Ricardo

Final workshop



• Summary of problems and policy options being considered for revision of the

IED (Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo)




• Other Q&A



• 1 The IED is not as effective as it could be, in

terms of ensuring reduced pollutant emissions

from industry, public access to information and

participation, and coherence in

implementation.

• 2 The IED is not dynamic enough and doesn’t

support the rapid deployment of innovative

technologies

• 3 The IED does not sufficiently promote the

use of safer chemicals or chemical

alternatives, resource efficiency or the circular

economy

• 4 The IED has not contributed effectively to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions

• 5 The IED does not regulate some highly

polluting (agro-)industrial sectors

• 1a The environment is polluted (zero pollution

ambition)

• 1b The environment is polluted (non-toxic

environment)

• 2 Climate crisis is happening (carbon neutrality

at EU level)

• 3 Natural resources are being depleted

(circular economy)

• 4 State-of-the-art techniques cannot respond

in a satisfactory manner (deploy breakthrough

technologies)

• 5 Public access to information (empower

citizens, etc.)

• 6 Excessive burden may affect efficiency of

policy (ensure proportionality of EU law)

July 2021 – 5 problems driven by 9

shortcomings

December 2020 and TSS – 7 problem

areas

Development in presentation of revisions being assessed


Policy context Drivers Problems

Current

legislation

Evaluations

European

Green Deal

Industrial

Strategy for

Europe

Circular

Economy

action plan

Zero-Pollution

Action Plan

Resilience

and Recovery

Plan

IED delivery

shortcomingsFlexibilities allowed in

setting permit conditions

and granting derogations

Coherence shortcomingsThe IED framework is not

completely coherent, which

has led to differences in

implementation within and

between MS

IED information & access

to justice shortcomingsMS are under-informing the

public and IED does not

require public participation in

all relevant permit reviews

IED guidance

shortcomingsLack of clarity and

guidance on the permitting

process and monitoring &

enforcement requirements

The IED does not sufficiently

promote the use of safer

chemicals or chemical

alternatives, resource

efficiency (RE) or the circular

economy (CE).

The IED has not contributed

effectively to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.

Chemicals shortcomingsOngoing overuse of avoidable

hazardous substances

IED innovation

shortcomingsThe static character (and

backwards-looking nature)

of the BREF process

restricts innovation

The IED is not dynamic

enough to support the rapid

deployment of innovative

technologies.

IED scope shortcomingsScope also excludes polluting

(Agro-)industrial activities

RE/CE shortcomingsIED design & implementation

have not prioritised RE/CE

GHG shortcomingsIED design & implementation

have not prioritised GHG

The IED does not regulate

some highly polluting (agro-

)industrial sectors.

The IED has not been as

effective as it could be in terms

of ensuring reduced pollutant

emissions from industry, public

access to information and


implementation.


Problem #1: The IED has not been as effective as it could be in

terms of ensuring reduced pollutant emissions from industry,

public access to information and participation, and coherence in

implementation.

e.g. “BAT-based permitting has increased under the IED. The

tendency…for permit emission limit values to be set on the basis of

upper BAT-AELs… There is a limited proportion of installations granted

Article 15(4) derogations although there is some variability in

approaches across the EU.”

The IED has been broadly effective in reducing pollution,

especially to air, from industrial activities in its scope, but…

1 IED delivery shortcomingsFlexibilities allowed in setting permit conditions and

granting derogations

2 IED guidance shortcomingsLack of clarity and guidance on the permitting

process, monitoring and enforcement

3 Information & access to justice

shortcomingsMS are under-informing the public and the IED

does not require public participation in all relevant

permit reviews

4 Coherence shortcomingsThe IED framework is not completely coherent,

which has led to differences in implementation

within and between MS

e.g. “IED provisions are more explicit in relation to environmental

inspections than under the IPPCD and provisions relating to

environmental permits have been strengthened. It is unclear if

enforcement has been strengthened in practice.”

e.g. “Access to information has improved under the IED but there

remain some failings in implementation by Member States. There has

also been some improvement in access to justice but limitations

remain.”

e.g. “The IED is largely coherent with other EU environmental and wider

EU policies and at least to some extent the IED is supporting the

delivery of the objectives of other EU policies. However, there is

potentially scope for greater contribution in some areas.”

Illustrations from the 2020 study “Support to the evaluation of

the Industrial Emissions Directive”


Problem #2: The IED is not dynamic enough to support the

rapid deployment of innovative technologies.

The IED encouraged some innovation through BAT, but…

5 IED innovation shortcomingsThe static character (and backwards-looking

nature) of the BREF process restricts innovation



“The IED has to some degree stimulated innovation in

particular through provisions for identifying and deploying

BAT, expansion of markets for BAT, and identification of

emerging techniques... BAT are inherently ‘backwards looking’

and their ability to stimulate innovation has been limited.”


Problem #3: The IED does not sufficiently promote the use of

safer chemicals or chemical alternatives, resource efficiency

or the circular economy.The IED could contribute to lowering the use of hazardous chemicals where alternatives

are available and improving resource efficiency and the circular economy, but…

6 Chemicals shortcomingsOngoing overuse of avoidable hazardous

substances



“Additional feedback received from stakeholders via the survey

included the view that the lengthy timescales of some

BREFs…too long and the process is not dynamic enough to

address emerging issues, particularly around the use of specific

chemicals.”

7 RE/CE shortcomingsIED design & implementation have not prioritised

RE/CE

“The IED has been less effective in addressing resource efficiency

and circular economy aspects…”


Problem #4: The IED has not contributed effectively to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The IED could also contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but…

8 GHG shortcomingsIED design & implementation have not prioritised

GHG

Illustrations from the 2020 EC Staff Working Document –

Evaluation of the Industrial Emissions Directive

“there remain some GHG emissions which are mainly addressed

only indirectly through BAT and BAT-AEPLs on energy efficiency”

“BAT-AELs for GHG emissions have very rarely been set”

“BREFs have paid little attention to date to the synergies that may

be achievable for addressing other pollutant emissions through

decarbonisation techniques”


Problem #5: The IED does not regulate some highly polluting

(agro-)industrial sectors.

The IED covers a wide range of sectors, but…

9 IED scope shortcomingsScope also excludes polluting (Agro-)industrial

activities



“There are a small number of agro-industrial activities that may

generate high levels of pollution that are not covered by the IED.

This includes various intensive livestock activities (cattle, mixed

farms, poultry farms just below IED activity thresholds), mining

and aquaculture. Some of these were assessed for inclusion in

the IED previously but were excluded for specific reasons.”


The consequencesE

nviro

nm

enta

lE

co

no

mic

So

cia

l & H

ealth

Contribution to climate change through

releases of GHGs

Impacts of increased acidification on ecosystems

and buildings

Soil contamination

Ozone damage to crop production

Lack of synergies with other EU policies, including with the goals of the EU Zero-Pollution Action Plan and others related to

energy and climate change, access to justice and information (Aarhus), the sustainable use of chemicals and circular economy

Administrative burden of the BREF process and

permitting

Ecosystem impacts in polluted water bodies, affected

by eutrophication and from releases of hazardous

chemicals, including impacts on biodiversity, forests

Elevated emissions of industrial pollutants to air,

water, soil; relatively high waste production, and

relatively inefficient use of resources

Innovation may be hindered given lock-in of BAT,

and limited access to finance for innovative

techniques

Not completely levelled playing field for industry

within the EU

Economic burden on the agro-industrial sector

in the EU to reduce industrial emissions

Costs to society of environmental pollution from

industry are significant

Public health systems may be affected by the

relatively high morbidity and mortality attributed to

environmental pollution from industry and the use of

hazardous chemicals

Premature deaths and morbidity impacts in the EU

attributed to environmental pollution from industry and

the use of hazardous chemicals

Employment may be affected by the economic

burden on (agro-)industrial businesses required to

comply with the IED


Objectives

In line with the European Green

Deal agenda, the general aim is to

revise EU measures on pollutant

emissions from (agro-)industrial

installations to contribute to the

EU’s zero pollution ambition and

make it fully consistent with the

EU’s decarbonisation, energy and

circular economy policies.

Specific Objectives 9


Nine specific objectives

2

1

3

4

5

Prevent or, when impractical, minimise the emission of pollutants by large industrial and

(agro-) industrial plants.

Ensure a harmonised pre-emptive approach to transboundary pollution between Member

States.

Establish a level playing field across the EU for pollution prevention and control at a high

level of protection of health and the environment reflecting the use of innovative techniques.

Ensure proportionality of EU law.

Ensure access of private individuals, local communities and civil society organisations

concerned with environmental information, participation in environmental decision-making

and access to justice, in relation to permitting, operation and control of large (agro-)industrial

plants.


Nine specific objectives

7

6

8

Ensure that the IED is fit for more dynamic permitting and reviewing of permits of large

industrial and agro-industrial plants and supports the uptake of innovative technologies and

techniques during the upcoming transformation.

Prevent or, when impracticable, minimise the use of hazardous chemicals by large (agro-)

industrial plants.

Contribute to the transition to a circular economy.

Support decarbonisation of (agro-)industry by fostering synergetic uptake and investments

in depollution and decarbonisation.9


Policy context Drivers ProblemsSpecific

objectives

5. Ensure proportionality of EU

law

1. Prevent (or minimise) the

emission of pollutants by large

(agro-)industrial plants

2. Ensure harmonised pre-

emptive approach to

transboundary pollution between

Member States

3. Establish a level playing field

across the EU for pollution

prevention and control at a high

level of protection of health and

the environment reflecting the use

of innovative techniques.

8. Contribute to the transition to a

circular economy

7. Prevent (or minimise) the use of

of hazardous chemicals by large


9. Support decarbonisation of

industrial (agro-)industry

[SO 1-9]

Current

legislation

Evaluations

European

Green Deal

Industrial

Strategy for

Europe

Circular

Economy

action plan

Zero-Pollution

Action Plan

Resilience

and Recovery

Plan

IED delivery








between MS






IED guidance



process and monitoring

and enforcement

requirements

The IED does not promote the

use of safer chemicals or

chemical alternatives,

resource efficiency (RE) or the

circular economy (CE).



IED innovation



of the BREF process





technologies.
















implementation.

4. Ensure access of private

individuals and civil society

organisations concerned to

information, participation in

decision-making and access to

justice, in relation to permitting,

operation and control of…plants

6. Ensure that the IED is fit for more

dynamic permitting and reviewing of

permits of large industrial and agro-

industrial plants and supports the

uptake of innovative technologies

and techniques during the upcoming

transformation.





The policy options (or packages) for the IED revision

PO1: More effective IED

PO2: More effective and

ambitious on

innovation


ambitious on

chemicals, resource

efficiency & circular

economy

PO4: More effective and a

more central role in

decarbonising

industry

PO5: Cross-cutting measures addressing new sectors i.e. scope extensions

Existing IED with identified shortcomings and problems

and the European Green Deal mandate

The following diagram summarises the policy options, cross-cutting sectoral scope considerations, the issues identified

through the evaluation and the European Green Deal. There are a number of core policy choices embedded in the design

of the policy options, which have been described at a high level in earlier sections and are further considered in the

following slides.



Policy Option

1: more

effective

Policy Option

2: innovation

Policy Option

3: Chemicals

and RE/CE

Focusses on addressing issues associated with the effectiveness of the IED so far

• to improve environmental protection, access to information and coherence in

implementation

• limited measures to improve how the IED supports innovation, promotes resource efficiency

and considers GHG emissions e.g. through deleting exemptions from setting requirements

on energy efficiency.

• relatively low ambition.

Expands the focus on supporting innovation.

• introduces the Innovation Observatory

• allow more time for operators to implement more environmentally performing Emerging

Techniques instead of BATs.

• introduce further requirements on the BREF process to provide indicative information on the

use of resources and hazardous substances

• establish a permit review by 2035, requiring a Transformation Plan for each installation.

More ambitious approach for how the IED promotes a transition to safer chemicals,

resource efficiency and the circular economy.

• require installations to have an Environmental Management System that includes sections

for Resource Efficiency, Circular Economy and Chemicals Management.

• require critical, sector-specific information on feedstock and waste is included more

systemically in the BREF process.

• Further ambition to support decarbonisation with a sunset date to IED Article 9(1) so that

ELVs can cover GHG emissions in the future.



Policy Option

4: GHG

emissions

Policy Option

5: scope

extensions

A more central and authoritative role in industrial decarbonisation.

• delete IED Article 9(1) so that the revised IED would allow the setting of emission limit

values for all GHG emissions from IED installations.

• introduce an explicit reference to the systematic binding nature of resource efficiency BAT-

AEPLs, for new permits or reviews,

• require MS develop national industrial symbiosis plans.

Widens the IED scope to address additional sectors which are responsible for significant

pollution, and that are the type of installations that can be addressed by the processes

set up in the IED.

• (a) a wider coverage of livestock production by adding the rearing of cattle and increasing

the current IED scope with regard to intensive rearing of pigs and poultry, coupled with a

tailored regulatory framework,

• (b) adding mining, quarrying and aquaculture, and

• (c) widening the definition of certain sectors currently covered by the IED.


Policy context Drivers ProblemsPolicy measures

overview

Specific

objectives


law

5 policy measures retained to

ensure that BAT AELs are

achieved.

1 policy measure retained to tackle

transboundary pollution

• 4 policies measures retained to

clarify the IED permitting process

• 5 policy measures retained to

homogenize and enhance

enforcement

1. Prevent (or minimise) the




emptive approach to trans-

boundary pollution between MSs


across the EU for pollution

prevention and control at a high

level of protection of health and

the environment reflecting the use

of innovative techniques.


improve and expand the public’s

access to information, participation

and access to justice


circular economy


of hazardous chemicals by large




2 policy measures retained for

transitioning to safer chemicals

5 policy measures retained (2: BAT-

AEPLs, 2: resource efficiency and circular

economy, 1: industrial symbiosis)

6 policy measures retained (1: GHG

benchmark, 1: BAT on GHG, and 4: GHG

emissions limits coherent w EU objectives)


address BAT lock-in/ promote

innovation

[SO 1-9]

Current

legislation

Evaluations

European

Green Deal

Industrial

Strategy for

Europe

Circular

Economy

action plan

Zero-Pollution

Action Plan

Resilience

and Recovery

Plan

IED delivery








between MS






IED guidance



process and monitoring &

enforcement requirements

The IED does not promote the

use of safer chemicals or

chemical alternatives,

resource efficiency (RE) or the

circular economy (CE).



IED innovation



of the BREF process





technologies.
















implementation.

4. Ensure access of private

individuals and civil society

organisations concerned to

information, participation in

decision-making and access to

justice, in relation to permitting,

operation and control of…plants

9 policy measures retained to clarify

and/or simplify existing legal

requirements (NB +22 measures

identified as legal amendments with a

low likelihood of any significant

impacts, mostly focussed on

legislative simplification and/or

update)






and techniques during the upcoming

transformation.

+12 policy measures retained to expand

scope across multiple high-polluting

(agro-)industrial sectors





PO1: More effective


law


ensure that BAT AELs are

achieved.

1 policy measure retained to tackle

transboundary pollution

• 4 policies measures retained to

clarify the IED permitting process

• 5 policy measures retained to

homogenize and enhance

enforcement

9 policy measures retained to clarify

and/or simplify existing legal

requirements

1. Prevent (or minimise)the




emptive approach to trans-

boundary pollution between MSs


across the EU

PO2: innovation PO3: Chemicals, CE & RE PO4: Decarbonisation


improve & expand the public’s access

to info,

4. Ensure access of public to

information, participation and

justice

Policy measures

overview

Specific

objectives

4 policy measures across all packages (time limit in derogations, standardised methodology for assessing proportionality, amending Art 15(1) and Art 18).

1 measure setting lower limit values as default from PO2

Measure across all packages seeking to address this by adding a new provision linked to Article 26

• 4 policy measures to introduce guidance to support with clarifications across all options (implementation of BAT-C in permits, indirect releases to water and

emissions to soil, baseline reports, environmental inspections)

• 3 measures across all packages (suspension of non-compliant installations, common rules for assessing compliance with ELVs, penalty adjustments)

Measure to facilitate peer to peer support for undertaking inspections (PO3+)

+4 measures across all packages (info on monitoring impact of derogations to be made available, widen scope of public participation, uniform permit summary

required and made public, and open-access information on the internet)

+8 measures across all packages clarifying legal text and simplifying requirements through legal amendments or guidance

Policy options

Add thresholds to chem. sub-activities

Measure for continuous monitoring

/ sharing emissions data (PO4)


circular economy


hazardous chemicals by large




2 policy measures retained for

transitioning to safer chemicals

6 policy measures retained (1: GHG

benchmark, 1: BAT on GHG, and 4:

GHG emissions limits coherent w EU

objectives)

5 policy measures retained (2: BAT-

AEPLs, 2: resource efficiency and

circular economy, 1: industrial

symbiosis)

Measure mandating systematic inclusion of information an chemicals as part BREFs/BAT-C from PO2

Measure obliging operators to establish a Chemical Management System

Measure to update guidance on sharing business information when setting BAT-AEPLs

Measure across all packages to delete 9(2) exempting installations from setting requirements on energy efficiency

2 measures: collection of data on GHG and explicit requirement to develop BAT AELs for non-EU ETS GHG (PO1-3)

Measure to establish a permit review obligation by 2035 from PO2

Art 9(1) sunset date Deletion of Art 9(1)

• Binding RE BAT AEPLs

• National industrial symbiosis plans

+2 measures to require RE and CE Plan as part of EMS and a separate BREF

chapter with information on feedstock and waste & opportunities for symbiosis






and techniques during the

upcoming transformation.


address BAT lock-in/ promote

innovation Establish shorter BREF cycles +2 measures, to establish the Innovation Observatory and amend requirements to allow more time for operators

to implement ETs

>6 years for deep transformation

[SO 1-9, with a focus on

addressing gaps in scope]

• 3 policy measures retained to expand

scope on animal husbandry

• +9 measures for other sectors

PO5: Scope extensions: +12 measures covering industrial sectors part of horizontal cross-cutting scope extensions that could be considered and added to

the policy options or packages (incl. for example, cattle farming, thresholds for IRPP, and tailored regulatory permit; mining and quarrying, aquaculture, etc.)

Measure to facilitate development and testing of emerging techniques (ETs)



We summarise the core policy choices captured in the four policy options (PO1-4) and the horizontal package PO5 below.

Existing IED

Not as effective as it

could be 1

2

3

4

5

Does not encourage

innovation sufficiently

Does not promote the

use of safer chemicals,

RE or CE

Does not consider

GHG emissions

comprehensively

Does not regulate

some highly polluting

(agro-)industrial

sectors

PO1: More effective IED


ambitious on innovation

PO3: More ambitious on

chemicals, RE & CE

PO4: A more central role

in decarbonising industry

PO5: Scope extensions

PO1 and PO2 differ primarily on their level of ambition

in addressing IED’s effectiveness and especially IED’s

shortcomings with innovation, whether or not to:

•Set lower limit values as default

•Require the inclusion of chemicals data in BREFs

and a permit review obligation

•Innovation Observatory, and allowing more time for

implementation of emerging techniques

PO3 and PO4 consider new and more ambitious

approaches for addressing the overuse of hazardous

chemicals, resource efficiency, circular economy and

the decarbonisation of industry, e.g. whether or not to:

•Introduce peer-to-peer support on inspections and

live monitoring and reporting

•Allow more time for deep transformation

•Require EMS with sections on RE and CE and

Chemicals Management, binding RE BAT AEPLs and

National Industrial Symbiosis plans

•Introduce a Sunset date for or immediate deletion of

Art 9(1) on GHG ELVs

Finally, choices of the industrial sectoral scope

covered by the IED are considered.

Options for revision

A

C

Overview of core policy choices

B


• ~150 policy measures identified as a long list

• Screening process qualitatively assessed all measures against criteria

• Led to short-list of ~60 policy measures

• Refinement of policy measures through discussion/iteration with DG ENV (+EIPPCB)

and the consultant team (Ricardo, Wood, VITO) with a lead expert for each problem

area

• The ~60 policy measures grouped into policy options (packages) for the impact

assessment

• Policy measures included in multiple policy options

• Following slides show the policy measures in full, as included in the background paper,

and how they are included in each policy option.

Refinement of policy measures – approach taken


See Table 1 in the background paper

58 individual policy measures, which would contrite to addressing

the problems identified and achieving the objectives, were

shortlisted. Each is mapped to a problem and policy option


See Table 1 in the

background paper





See Table 1

in the

background

paper





Questions


BREAK


IED revision

Consultation – interim findingsJames Tweed,

Ricardo

Final workshop








• Other Q&A



IED evaluation

identified issues

Consultation activities

(OPC, TSS, Stakeholder Workshops, 7 Focus Groups, ~50 Interviews)

1- Problems

and baseline

scenario

defined

2- Policy

options

established

3- Options

assessed

across key

impact

categories

4- Options

compared and

leading option

identified

Ongoing consultation activities


• Aim/scope: to gather views (and data) on

– The problem definition (scale of the

problem and scope of those affected)

– EU added value

– Objectives and level of policy ambition

– Available policy options (and

suggestions for alternatives to those

suggested)

• Design: Two-part structure, covering:

1. General awareness and views on the

environmental impacts.

2. Detailed questions on revision of the

IED and the E-PRTR.

• Scale: 336 responses received.

• Aim: to target stakeholders who are able to

provide specific feedback and information for

the identification and assessment of options.

• Scope: stakeholders included EU-level

actors, national and sub-national authorities,

industry trade associations, business and

economic actors, technical experts, academia

and researchers, environmental and civil

society organisations.

• Design: clear and concise questions,

targeted to the information needs, structured

into seven problem areas.

• Scale: 235 responses received.

Targeted Stakeholder Survey (TSS)Open Public Consultation (OPC)

Core consultation activities


7 Focus Groups over June and July 2021

Core consultation activities

❖ Tailored permits & widening IED scope regarding livestock production – with MS experts only

❖ EMS mechanism – across areas (chemicals, resources, water), including links to BATC and

reporting on progress/compliance

❖ Operator’s industrial transformation plan & related permit review @ 2035

❖ Promoting innovation mechanisms & role of the Innovation Observatory

❖ Case Study No 1 – Steel

❖ Case Study No 2 – Cement

❖ Case Study No 3 – Refineries (oil & gas plus biofuels, bioliquids)


• ~7 in 10 respondents are businesses or business associations

• ~2 in 10 respondents are based in Belgium

• Combined Other, Academic/research, Non-EU

citizen and Trade Union as “Other” for analysis

• Compared with the evaluation TSS

– Asked MS respondents to choose national or

regional/local

– Gave explicit option for “Environmental

NGOs” (7 in this TSS, 3 in evaluation)

OPC TSS

Who responded to the OPC and the TSS?


OPC TSS

Who responded to the OPC and the TSS?


OPC

• Data reviewed, validated and presented

by stakeholder and responses (see

illustration)

How are we analysing the data and presenting results?


OPC


• Where pertinent, these data are also summarised by a single metric (along the x axis),

showing the balance of agreement, from:

– +100 % where all respondents in a group strongly/moderately agree

– To -100% where all respondents in a group strongly/moderately disagree.


TSS

• Charts include horizontal stacked bar

charts, weighted to 100% and with

responses shown for each stakeholder

group across the answer types



TSS

• Where a question is asked about many

options, data are summarised using a

single metric - example later



OPC – Do you agree that sectors covered by current IED still have a

significant negative environmental impact?


NGOs agree across all sectors.

Public Authorities tend to agree

as well, albeit less so for food

and drink, ceramics and textiles








Companies often disagree with

business associations to some

extent and find negative impacts

from, e.g. IRPP,

slaughterhouses, minerals and

metals








Companies often disagree with

business associations to some

extent and find negative impacts

from, e.g. IRPP,

slaughterhouses, minerals and

metals



Industry does not see a

significant negative impact from

some e.g. waste management

and incineration, and

independent WWTPs


OPC - Do you agree that these additional activities need to be

addressed in IED to reduce significant negative impacts on the

environment and on human health?


On balance, all stakeholder

groups agree that oil and gas

extraction activities, and, to a

lesser extent, that UWWTPs

should be included









should be included

Public Authorities, citizens and

companies also agree that the

intensive rearing of cattle, and, to

a lesser extent, aquaculture and

mining should be included









should be included

Public Authorities, citizens and

companies also agree that the

intensive rearing of cattle, and, to

a lesser extent, aquaculture and

mining should be included




The lowest levels of support are

for the inclusion of energy

industries (medium combustion

plants), the storage of hazardous

substances and landfills


OPC - When reviewing policy options in the IED and E-PRTR, how

would you assess the following, in relative importance?

Zero pollution

Low admin burden

Access to justice

Level playing field

Decarbonisation

Circular economy

Innovation

Access to information


Zero pollution

Low admin burden

Access to justice

Level playing field

Decarbonisation

Circular economy

Innovation


NGOs tend to agree options are

important, businesses tend to be

more neutral, and public

authorities and citizens

somewhere in the middle




Zero pollution

Low admin burden

Access to justice

Level playing field

Decarbonisation

Circular economy

Innovation


NGOs tend to agree options are

important, businesses tend to be

more neutral, and public

authorities and citizens

somewhere in the middle

All stakeholder groups consider

as important options that

contribute to a zero-pollution

ambition, innovation, level

playing field and lower admin

burden




Zero pollution

Low admin burden

Access to justice

Level playing field

Decarbonisation

Circular economy

Innovation




Industry considers as least

important options supporting

public access to information,

public participation/access to

justice and, to a lesser extent,

decarbonisation


Zero pollution

Low admin burden

Access to justice

Level playing field

Decarbonisation

Circular economy

Innovation




Industry considers as least

important options supporting

public access to information,

public participation/access to

justice and, to a lesser extent,

decarbonisation

Industry considers as most

important options that support

new technologies and innovation,

level playing field and low admin

burden


TSS - What impact do you think including GHG in the BREF process

as a mandatory key environmental issue (KEI) would have on

reducing GHG emissions?


TSS - To what extent do you think making the binding nature of BAT-

AEPLs in BAT Conclusions explicit for new permits and permit

reviews would impact on resource management at (agro-)industrial

plants?


TSS – How significant are the environmental pressures from the

following (agro-)industrial activities?


• NGOs – generally all pressures significant

• Industry and MS authorities

– “top row” generally moderate

– “bottom row” generally slight to moderate

• Scored each choice and combined:

– No impact = 0,

– Slight = 1/3,

– Moderate = 2/3,

– Significant = 1

TSS – How significant are the environmental pressures from the

following (agro-)industrial activities? Intensive cattle farming


Questions


IED revision

Current assessment of policy optionsTim Scarbrough,

Ricardo

Final workshop








• Other Q&A



Preliminary impact assessment

Evidence-based

qualitative assessment

Using an evidence-based scoring approach to compare

policy options across the most significant impact categories

(costs and benefits).

Case studies

Selected three sectors covered by IED –Steel, cement, and

downstream oil and gas– to showcase the challenges facing

sectoral transformation and how the revision of the IED may

contribute to achieving EU objectives.

Limited quantification of the size

of core costs and benefits

Drawing on available evidence from the recent IED

evaluation, E-PRTR, Eurostat, the consultation and others to

estimate the potential size of core impacts.

Unlikely that we will quantify costs and benefits for all

measures across all impact categories (see next slide). The

aim is to quantify core impacts where possible.

Our proposed

approach

1

2

3



Economic

impacts

Environmental

impactsSocial impacts

• Administrative burden

• Operating costs

• Competitiveness

• Level playing field

• Position of SMEs

• Innovation and research

• Public authority impacts

• Climate

• Air quality

• Water quality

• Soil quality

• Waste

• Efficient use of resources

• Employment

• Public health (attributed

to environmental

pollution)



O ✓ ✓✓✓✓✓ U

Strongly

negative

Weakly

negative

No or limited

impact

Weakly

positive

Strongly

positive

Unclear

impact

• Drawn on available evidence and expertise

• Classified impacts for each measure and across impact category (see below)

• Amalgamated this analysis to the policy option level



Broad impact

category

Specific impact category PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4

Economic

impacts

Administrative burdens on

businesses O O

Operating costs and conduct of

businesses

Competitiveness of businessesO O O O

Level playing field in the EU✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓

Position of SMEsO O O O

Innovation and researchO ✓ ✓ ✓✓

Public authority impacts



Broad impact

category

Specific impact category PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4

Environmental

impacts

ClimateO ✓ ✓ ✓✓

Air quality✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓

Water quality and resourcesO ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓

Soil quality or resourcesO ✓ ✓ ✓✓

Waste production, generation,

and recycling O O ✓ ✓

Efficient use of resourcesO O ✓ ✓

Social impacts EmploymentO O O O



At this stage, the policy options appear to be generally balanced, with

increasing burden and potential environmental and social benefits as

ambition increases from PO1 to PO4.


Questions


Lunch until 1430 hours CEST

Please DO NOT log out of the meeting.

Please switch cameras and microphones off.


IED revision

Afternoon session

Presentation & Q&A on policy options

Ricardo, VITO, Wood

Final workshop








• Other Q&A




Policy Option

1: more

effective

Policy Option

2: innovation

Policy Option

3: Chemicals

and RE/CE

Focusses on addressing issues associated with the effectiveness of the IED so far


implementation

• limited measures to improve how the IED supports innovation, promotes resource efficiency

and considers GHG emissions e.g. through deleting exemptions from setting requirements

on energy efficiency.

• relatively low ambition.



• allow more time for operators to implement more environmentally performing Emerging

Techniques instead of BATs.

• introduce further requirements on the BREF process to provide indicative information on the

use of resources and hazardous substances

• establish a permit review by 2035, requiring a Transformation Plan for each installation.

More ambitious approach for how the IED promotes a transition to safer chemicals,

resource efficiency and the circular economy.

• require installations to have an Environmental Management System that includes sections

for Resource Efficiency, Circular Economy and Chemicals Management.

• require critical, sector-specific information on feedstock and waste is included more

systemically in the BREF process.

• Further ambition to support decarbonisation with a sunset date to IED Article 9(1) so that

ELVs can cover GHG emissions in the future.



Policy Option

4: GHG

emissions

Policy Option

5: scope

extensions


• delete IED Article 9(1) so that the revised IED would allow the setting of emission limit

values for all GHG emissions from IED installations.

• introduce an explicit reference to the systematic binding nature of resource efficiency BAT-

AEPLs, for new permits or reviews,



pollution, and that are the type of installations that can be addressed by the processes

set up in the IED.

• (a) a wider coverage of livestock production by adding the rearing of cattle and increasing

the current IED scope with regard to intensive rearing of pigs and poultry, coupled with a

tailored regulatory framework,

• (b) adding mining, quarrying and aquaculture, and

• (c) widening the definition of certain sectors currently covered by the IED.


IED revision

Policy Option 1:

More effective IED

Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo

Final workshop



Policy Option

1: more

effective

Focusses on addressing issues associated with the effectiveness of the IED

so far


implementation

• limited measures to improve how the IED supports innovation, promotes

resource efficiency and considers GHG emissions e.g. through deleting

exemptions from setting requirements on energy efficiency.

• relatively low ambition

• Lots of measures!


Retained policy measures Problem

Ensuring that BAT-AELs are achieved

( 1 ) Introduce a time limit for derogations granted under Article 15(4) . 1

( 2 ) Mandate the application of a standardised methodology for assessing the

(dis)proportionality between costs of implementation of BAT conclusions and the potential

environmental benefits for assessing applications for derogations under Article 15(4).

1

( 3 ) Amend Article 15(1) to introduce an explicit requirement that indirect releases of polluting

substances to water shall be assessed and evidence must be provided to demonstrate that such

releases would not lead to an increased load of pollutants in receiving waters compared to a

scenario where the IED installation applies BAT and meets AELs for direct releases.

1

( 4 ) Amend Article 18 to require that stricter ELVs that go beyond BAT shall be set in permit

conditions in the case that environmental quality standards cannot be met by implementing

existing BAT conclusions.

1

Clarifying the IED permitting process

( 6 ) Provide guidance on the implementation of BAT conclusions in permits focussed on

establishing a more consistent approach across the EU.1

( 7 ) Provide guidance on the implementation of IED provisions concerning monitoring

requirements specifically for indirect releases to water and emissions to soil (Articles 14, 15, 16).1

( 8 ) Provide guidance on baseline reports submitted for environmental protection and

stringency of requirements upon definitive cessation of activities (Article 22). 1

( 9 ) Provide guidance on how environmental inspections shall be carried out (Article 23). 1

Policy option 1: More effective

Measures to improve environmental protection, access to

information and coherence in implementation



Homogenizing and enhancing enforcement

( 10 ) Allow Member State Competent Authorities to suspend non-compliant installations in

cases where non-compliance (Article 8) causes significant environmental degradation until

compliance is restored.

1

( 11 ) Introduce common rules for assessing compliance with emission limit values under

Chapter II of the IED.1

( 12 ) Require Member States, in determining the penalties under Article 79, to give due regard

to the nature, gravity, extent and duration of the infringement as well as the impact of the

infringement on achieving a high level of protection of the environment.

1

Tackling transboundary pollution

( 15 ) Add a new provision in or linked to Article 26 for requiring effective multidisciplinary

cooperation among competent national administrative, law enforcement and judicial

authorities in cases of transboundary pollution, and for Member States receiving a request

for cooperation to respond within three months of receipt.

1






Improving and expanding the public’s access to information

( 46 ) Require that information from Member States’ monitoring of the impact of Article15(4)

derogations is made publicly available.1

( 47 ) Widen scope of public participation under the permitting procedures based on the

recommendations by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.1

( 48 ) Introduce a requirement for a uniform permit summary to be made public. The ‘uniform

permit summary’ shall include an overview of the ELVs regulated and monitoring frequency and

the timings for permit reconsideration or reviews. A reference to a template of the uniform permit

summary could be added to the IED provision so that at least the format and content

requirements of the permit summary are uniform across the EU.

1

( 49 ) Amend legislation to state that ‘the competent authority shall make available to the public

by publishing open-access on the internet’ (i.e. free of charge and without restricting access

to registered users).

1






Clarifying existing legal requirements

( 50 ) Produce guidance on the compliance assessment relating to “effective operating

time” outlined in Annex VI, 8, 1.2 for installations subject to both large combustion plants and

waste (co)-incineration provisions.

1

( 51 ) Produce guidance to address potential administrative overlaps between the IED, the ELD

and Seveso Directive.1

( 52 ) Produce guidance on the definitions of ‘combustion installation’ and ’combustion plant’. 1

( 53 ) Produce guidance on the definition of ‘co-incineration’. 1

( 54 ) Amend the legislation to clarify the scope of coverage of the IED pertaining to

gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis plants.1

( 55 ) Amend the legislation to remove the ambiguity on the approaches to be taken in

accounting for measurement uncertainty in compliance assessments for LCPs and waste

(co)-incineration plants.

1

Simplifying the legal requirements

( 56 ) Delete Annex II of the IED “List of polluting substances”. 1

( 57 ) Introduce a provision in Chapter II of the IED that sets out that the compliance

assessment rules for Chapter II installations take precedent over other compliance

assessment provisions for those installations.

1






Benchmarking GHG performance of IED installations

( 30 ) Introduce an explicit requirement to undertake systematic data collection on GHG

emissions at the IED installation level within the BREF process, for those installations and/or

emissions covered by the EU-ETS at an EU level.

4

Integrating BAT on GHG into BAT conclusions

( 31 ) Introduce an explicit requirement to develop BAT-AELs systematically for direct and

indirect GHG emissions not covered by the ETS. This shall include emissions of non-ETS

GHG by ETS installations and emissions of any GHGs by non-ETS installations.

4

Setting GHG emissions limits consistent with EU’s climate objectives

( 32 ) Delete Article 9(2) that exempts (agro-)industrial installations from setting requirements

relating to energy efficiency in respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide

on the site.

4

Improving determination of BAT-AEPLs and their implementation

( 36 ) Update guidance on information exchange to address issues associated with sharing

potentially confidential business information when setting BAT-AEPLs.3

Promoting innovation

( 41 ) Introduce legislative amendments to facilitate the development and testing of emerging

techniques over a longer period.2

( 42 ) Establish shorter, up to 5-year BREF cycles focussed on defining stricter BAT-AELs

based on recent innovations.2


Limited measures to improve how the IED supports innovation,

promotes resource efficiency and considers GHG emissions


Preliminary impact assessment for policy option 1

Broad impact

category

Specific impact category PO1

Economic

impacts


businesses O

Operating costs and

conduct of businesses

Competitiveness of

businesses O

Level playing field in the EU✓✓

Position of SMEsO

Innovation and researchO


Broad impact

category


Environment

al impacts

ClimateO

Air quality✓

Water quality and resourcesO

Soil quality or resourcesO

Waste production,

generation, and recycling O

Efficient use of resourcesO

Social

impacts

EmploymentO


– Minor negative impacts from measures aimed at harmonising implementation (1-4, 6,

10, 11, 31, 32), i.e. installation operators in some MS needing to make changes

– Minor negative impacts from measures considering GHG emissions (31, 32)

– A key aim of measures related to harmonising implementation

– Minor positive impacts for most measures (1-4, 6-11, 15, 31, 32, 36, 48-50, 52-54)

– Minor negative impacts for measures aimed at harmonising implementation (2, 3, 4,

46, 47, 48, 49), i.e. MS competent authorities updating national implementation

– Minor negative impacts for measures promoting innovation (41, 42) and considering

GHG emissions (31, 32)

– Minor positive impacts for measures clarifying legislative overlaps (51, 53, 54)

– Minor positive impacts for most measures (1-4, 6, 30-32, 41, 42, 46-49, 52)

Preliminary impact assessment of policy option 1

Operating costs and




Air quality✓


Questions


IED revision

Policy Option 2:

More effective and ambitious on innovation

Alfredo Lopez, Ricardo

Final workshop



Policy

Option 2:

innovation



• allow more time for operators to implement more environmentally performing

Emerging Techniques instead of BATs.

• introduce further requirements on the BREF process to provide indicative

information on the use of resources and hazardous substances

• establish a permit review by 2035, requiring a Transformation Plan for each

installation.


Policy option 2: More effective and ambitious on innovation

Main measures being assessed

Measures

( 4-3 ) or ( 43 ) Establish the Industrial Emissions Innovation Observatory to monitor the Technology Readiness

Level (TRL) and environmental performance (BAT-AEPLs) of emerging and breakthrough techniques. Recognition by

the Observatory of advanced techniques with TRL 8-9 (or improved environmental protection) would suggest an

update of BAT conclusions upon approval from the pertinent Technical Working Group.

( 4-14 ) or ( 44 ) Amend requirements to allow more time (6 to 8 years) for operators to implement emerging

techniques with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 8-9 or stricter long-term Emerging Techniques Associated

Emission Levels (ET-AELs) reflecting the expected environmental performance of emerging techniques. Applicable

to Key Environmental Issues only.

( 2-5 ) or ( 33 ) Establish a permit review obligation by 2035 that focusses on the capacity of the installations to

operate in accordance with the EU’s general climate objectives; including a requirement for installations to produce

Transformation Plans for review as part of this process and write results into the permit. Contents of Transformation

Plans would be clarified in a Commission Decision at a future date.

( 1.1-19 ) or ( 5 ) Require competent authorities to consider under Article 15(3) setting permit ELVs by default at the

lower limit of the BAT-AEL range.

( 1.2-2 ) or ( 28 ) Mandate the systematic inclusion of information on chemical substances of concern developed

under other legislation related to IED and the availability of safer chemicals in the BREF process and BAT

conclusions.


Summary of key evidence and consultation input


Item Measure Response

4-3 Establish Innovation

Observatory that would

suggest update of BAT

conclusions (if novel

technique performance)

• Pilot test has proven useful also identifying TRL9 (candidate BATs)

• Assumption that no legally binding document generated by Observatory.

• Interest on how to design observatory: sufficient resources, prioritise sectors,

stakeholders type to validate data, etc.

4-14 Allow more time (6-8

years) if operator

implements ETs with

better performance

• Industry: concerns on data to support ET-AELs not accurate, reliable if

based on low TRL installations.

• Concerns on legal situation if after implementing ET the performance is not

lower than BAT-AEL or ET does not deliver stable production

2-5 Transformation plans in

2035

• Case studies FGs: sectors with ‘Deep transformation’ perceive that several

key technologies are not now TRL9 but might be ready in 2030-35

1.1-19 ELVs at lower end of

BAT-AEL range

• Studies proving that most common ELV values are set in higher end of range

• TSS: authorities believe this will add certain administrative burden

1.2-2 Inclusion of information

on chemical substances

of concern

• Generally positive feedback. Inherent benefits for different agencies under

REACH, IED, and WFD (I.e., flow of data both-ways)

• Process currently working on a case-by-case basis, but pragmatic approach

has been adopted.

• Level of resources and staff effort required, not expected to be excessive,

but this may change for the more intense development phases.

• Possible increased burden for industry if more substances have BAT-C





Ec

on

om

ic im

pac

ts


businesses O


businesses

Competitiveness of businessesO


Position of SMEsO

Innovation and research✓


Several measures are only an option for operators

This may lead to larger Capex and Opex (such as

lower ELVs) or options to invest in ETs

Novel techniques might be also provided by suppliers

outside EU

Workload on authorities but also I.O. budget





En

vir

on

me

nta

l im

pa

cts

Climate✓

Air quality✓✓

Water quality and resources✓

Soil quality or resources✓

Waste production, generation, and

recycling O

Efficient use of resourcesO

Social

impacts

EmploymentO

New Innovation measures may have impact

on GHG emissions

Reducing impact where majority of BAT-

AELs are focused

Measures on this policy option with no/limit

impact on circular economy, waste, etc.


Questions


IED revision

Policy Option 3

More effective and ambitious on chemicals,

resource efficiency and circular economy

Rob Whiting, Wood

Dirk Nelen and Sander Aa Vander, VITO

Final workshop



Policy Option

3: Chemicals

and RE/CE

More ambitious approach for how the IED promotes a transition to safer chemicals, resource

efficiency and the circular economy. This option would require installations to have an Environmental

Management System that includes sections for Resource Efficiency, Circular Economy and Chemicals

Management. Further, it would require that critical, sector-specific information on feedstock and waste is

included more systemically in the BREF process. Further ambition to support decarbonisation is

introduced with a sunset date to IED Article 9(1) so that ELVs can cover GHG emissions in the future.


Policy option 3: More effective and ambitious on chemicals,



Measures

( 1.1-34 ) or ( 13 ) Facilitate peer to peer support among Member States Competent Authorities for

undertaking mutual/joint environmental inspections (building on the TAIEX-EIR P2P support

implemented for Seveso III).

( 1.2-3 ) or ( 29 ) Introduce an obligation (e.g. via Article 14) for operators to establish a CMS to track,

quantify and manage hazardous chemicals and, ultimately, move to the use of safer chemicals.

( 2-4 ) or ( 34 ) Introduce a limit of 2035 (‘sunset date’) beyond which the exemption for (agro-

)industrial plants from setting GHG ELVs requirements in permit conditions if they are regulated by the

EU ETS will not apply.

( 3-4 ) or ( 38 ) Require operators to incorporate a Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plan at

the installation level as a separate section of their Environmental Management System. Expand the

scope of monitoring and reporting to cover resource efficiency techniques, indicators and performance

levels.

( 3-9 ) or ( 39 ) Require the inclusion a separate BREF chapter containing critical, sector-specific

information on i) feedstock and waste specifications more systematically and ii) opportunities for

industrial symbiosis as part of the BREF process, in order to support authorities in the setting of End-

of-Waste criteria and the development of Industrial Symbiosis plans/initiatives.





B


1.2-3 Introduce an obligation (e.g., via

Article 14) for operators to

establish a CMS to track,

quantify and manage hazardous

chemicals and, ultimately, move

to the use of safer chemicals.

• Parts of the CMS already implemented at national level but unevenly

across EU.

• Inventory of hazardous substances, including by-products and de novo

formation seen as positive by most stakeholders. Assessment of

alternatives more contentious.

• Industry has concerns about level of burden and possible double-

regulation.

• Need for additional support tools, particularly for SMEs may be needed.

3-4 Require operators to

incorporate a Resource

Efficiency and Circular

Economy Plan at the installation

level as a separate section of

their Environmental

Management System. Expand

the scope of monitoring and

reporting to cover resource

efficiency techniques, indicators

and performance levels

• May have strongly positive impact on research and development

• TSS indicates significant negative impact on administrative burden on

business and on public authorities

• Very mixed response on reporting on measures and choices that improve

resource efficiency. Authorities and NGOs in favour, industry not.

• Positive impact on climate, resource efficiency and waste production





B


3-9 Require the inclusion a separate

BREF chapter containing

critical, sector-specific

information on i) feedstock and

waste specifications more

systematically and ii)

opportunities for industrial

symbiosis as part of the BREF

process, in order to support

authorities in the setting of End-

of-Waste criteria and the

development of Industrial

Symbiosis plans/initiatives

• May increase administrative burden for industry and public authorities,

• limited to no direct impact on environmental parameters

• Indirect impacts are likely to be weakly positive although highly

dependent on the specific material resources, applied waste treatments

and the industrial processes that use or generate the by-products or

waste, or its corresponding end-of-waste material.

• Public authorities seem to expect most improvements

• For industry, little over half expect no impact at all.

• For NGOs this varies strongly between the questions of inclusion of

information to support setting End-of-Waste (slight to significant) and of

inclusion of information on how to improve upstream and downstream

environmental impacts of the installation (significant impact).






Ec

on

om

ic im

pac

ts


businesses


businesses

Competitiveness of businessesO

Level playing field in the EU✓✓✓

Position of SMEsO

Innovation and research✓



En

vir

on

me

nta

l im

pac

ts

Climate✓

Air quality✓✓✓

Water quality and resources✓✓

Soil quality or resources✓

Waste production, generation, and

recycling ✓

Efficient use of resources✓

Social

impacts

EmploymentO


Questions


BREAK


IED revision

Policy Option 4

More effective and a more central role in

decarbonising industry

Keir McAndrew, Wood

Final workshop



Policy Option

4: GHG

emissions


• delete IED Article 9(1) so that the revised IED would allow the setting of emission limit values for all GHG

emissions from IED installations.

• introduce an explicit reference to the systematic binding nature of resource efficiency BAT-AEPLs, for new

permits or reviews,



Policy option 4: More effective and a more central role in




Homogenising and enhancing enforcement

Measure (1.1-36) or (14) Introduce a requirement for operators to link and share their installations’ continuously monitored

emissions data with Member State Competent Authorities and making such information available to public on the internet.1

Setting GHG emission limits consistent with EUs climate objectives

Measure ( 2-3 ) or ( 35 ): Delete Article 9(1) that exempts (agro-) industrial plants from setting GHG ELVs requirements in

permit conditions if they are regulated by the EU ETS. 4

Improving determination of BAT-AEPLs and their implementation

Measure (3-1) or (37) Introduce an explicit reference to the binding nature of resource efficiency BAT-AEPLs for new

permits and permit reviews. 3

Promoting industrial symbiosis

Measure (3-5-1) or (40) Require Member States national authorities (or delegated competent authorities) to establish a

national plan to promote industrial symbiosis.3

Promoting innovation

Measure (4-8) or (45) Amend requirements to provide up to six years to implement BAT conclusions where deep

transformation of industrial sectors is required. ‘Deep transformation’ would refer to the adoption of completely different

process routes and/or primary process techniques that facilitate a significant reduction in the emissions of pollutants

and/or use of energy, raw materials (i.e. secondary, or ‘end-of-pipe’ techniques would not qualify as deep transformation).

2

Simplifying the legal requirements

Measure (6-40) or (58) Add specific thresholds to certain sub-activities within activity 4 ‘Chemical industry’, e.g.

pharmaceuticals to account for lower scale ‘artisanal’ production 1


Policy option 4: More effective and a more central role in



Broad impact

category


Economic

impacts


businesses

Operating costs and


Competitiveness of

businesses O

Level playing field in the

EU ✓✓✓

Position of SMEsO

Innovation and research✓✓


Broad impact

category

Specific impact

category

PO4

Environmental

impacts

Climate✓✓

Air quality✓✓✓

Water quality and

resources ✓✓

Soil quality or

resources ✓✓

Waste production,

generation, and

recycling

✓

Efficient use of

resources ✓

Social impacts EmploymentO


Questions


IED revision

Policy option 5:

Cross-cutting measures addressing new

sectors i.e. scope extensions

Harry Smith, Ricardo

Final workshop



Policy Option

5: scope

extensions


pollution, and that are the type of installations that can be addressed by the processes set up in

the IED. This includes consideration of (a) a wider coverage of livestock production by adding the

rearing of cattle and increasing the current IED scope with regard to intensive rearing of pigs and poultry,

coupled with a tailored regulatory framework, (b) adding mining, quarrying and aquaculture, and (c)

widening the definition of certain sectors currently covered by the IED.


Policy option 5: scope extensions


Measures

( 1.1-2 ) or ( 16 ) Include intensive cattle farming within the scope of the IED.

( 1.1-9 ) or ( 17 ) Amend the capacity thresholds of the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry considered under

activity 6.6 of Annex I.

( 1.1-17 ) or ( 18 ) Introduce a tailored regulatory framework for installations carrying out intensive rearing of

animals.

( 1.1-6 ) or ( 19 ) Include battery production within the scope of the IED.

( 1.1-7 ) or ( 20 ) Include ship building (other than coating) and ship dismantling within the scope of the IED.

( 1.1-8 ) or ( 21 ) Include cold rolling, with capacity exceeding 10 t/h, and wire drawing, with capacity exceeding

2 t/h, within the scope of the IED (e.g. via Annex I, activity 2.3)

( 1.1-10-12 ) or ( 22 ) Revise the scope of two activities in Annex I:

i) Revise the definition of activity 6.2, pre-treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles, to also include

finishing activities with the existing capacity thresholds.

ii) Revise the capacity threshold for activity 2.3(b), smitheries, from the current limit of 50 kilojoule per hammer

and where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW, to 20 kilojoule per hammer and do not include a threshold

for the calorific power or reduce the capacity threshold for the calorific value to > 5 MW.



Main measures being assessed (continued)

Measures

( 1.1-14 ) or ( 23 ) Facilitate the adoption of BAT conclusions for activity 5.4, landfills.

( 1.1-15 ) or ( 24 ) Revise the capacity threshold in Annex I for activity 5.4 , landfills.

( 1.1-1 ) or ( 25 ) Include mining and quarrying industries (EPRTR Annex I activities 3a and 3b) and extractive

waste within the scope of the IED.

( 1.1-3 ) or ( 26 ) Include intensive aquaculture within the scope of the IED.

( 1.1-4 ) or ( 27 ) Include upstream oil and gas industries within the scope of the IED.





16 Include intensive cattle farming within the scope of the IED

• Detailed study commissioned analysing the costs and benefits of including cattle within the IED at different livestock unit (LSU) thresholds. Benefits of CH4 and NH3

reductions predicted to outweigh administrative and compliance cost down to the smallest thresholds.

• Strong evidence towards mitigation potential for climate and air quality.

18 Introduce a tailored regulatory framework for installations carrying out intensive rearing of animals.

• Focus group held on livestock-related measures and the tailoring of the regulatory

framework. Tailoring of requirements towards agri-installations generally supported

amongst stakeholders.

• Connected to measures 16 (above) and measure 17.

25 Include mining and quarrying industries (EPRTR Annex I activities 3a and 3b) and extractive waste within the scope of the IED.

• Mining & quarrying included within E-PRTR reporting, indicates mitigation potential

for water quality and air quality.

• Currently assessed to indicate minor increase in regulatory burden.

• Concerns from industry over overlap with Extractive Waste Directive.

26 Include intensive

aquaculture within the

scope of the IED.

• Aquaculture included within E-PRTR reporting, indicates mitigation potential for

water quality.

• Currently assessed to indicate minor increase in regulatory burden.

• Concerns over overlap with existing regulatory framework, for example Water

Framework Directive.




Retained policy measures Costs Benefits

( 1.1-2 ) or ( 16 ) Include intensive cattle farming within the scope of the IED. ✓✓✓

( 1.1-9 ) or ( 17 ) Amend the capacity thresholds of the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry

considered under activity 6.6 of Annex I. ✓✓✓

( 1.1-17 ) or ( 18 ) Introduce a tailored regulatory framework for installations carrying out intensive

rearing of animals. ✓✓

( 1.1-6 ) or ( 19 ) Include battery production within the scope of the IED. ✓

( 1.1-7 ) or ( 20 ) Include ship building (other than coating) and ship dismantling within the scope of

the IED. ✓✓

( 1.1-8 ) or ( 21 ) Include cold rolling, with capacity exceeding 10 t/h, and wire drawing, with capacity

exceeding 2 t/h, within the scope of the IED (e.g. via Annex I, activity 2.3) ✓✓

( 1.1-10-12 ) or ( 22 ) Revise the scope of two activities in Annex I:

i) Revise the definition of activity 6.2, pre-treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles, to also

include finishing activities with the existing capacity thresholds.

ii) Revise the capacity threshold for activity 2.3(b), smitheries, from the current limit of 50 kilojoule

per hammer and where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW, to 20 kilojoule per hammer and do

not include a threshold for the calorific power or reduce the capacity threshold for the calorific value

to > 5 MW.

✓✓

O (or O/ and O/✓) ✓ ✓✓✓✓✓ U

Strongly negative Weakly negative No or limited impact Weakly positive Strongly positive Unclear impacts



Preliminary impact assessment (continued)

Retained policy measures Costs Benefits

( 1.1-14 ) or ( 23 ) Facilitate the adoption of BAT conclusions for activity 5.4, landfills. ✓✓✓

( 1.1-15 ) or ( 24 ) Revise the capacity threshold in Annex I for activity 5.4 , landfills. ✓✓✓

( 1.1-1 ) or ( 25 ) Include mining and quarrying industries (EPRTR Annex I activities

3a and 3b) and extractive waste within the scope of the IED. ✓✓✓

( 1.1-3 ) or ( 26 ) Include intensive aquaculture within the scope of the IED.

✓✓

( 1.1-4 ) or ( 27 ) Include upstream oil and gas industries within the scope of the IED. ✓✓✓


Questions








• Other Q&A



Questions








• Other Q&A



IED revision

Next StepsAlexandra Humphris-Bach, Ricardo

Final workshop


• Recording, slides and minutes (including responses to questions raised today) from this

meeting will be made available online: https://ee.ricardo.com/industrial-emissions-

directive-revision-consultation

• Complete stakeholder engagement activities – mid July

• Final report to DG ENV – Autumn 2021

– Annexes to include

• Stakeholder consultation reports

• Longlist of measures

Next steps

https://ee.ricardo.com/industrial-emissions-directive-revision-consultation

Alexandra Humphris-Bach

[email protected]

Tim Scarbrough

[email protected]

IED revision

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




IED revision

AOB/ Wrap-up & Next Steps/ Close of the

Workshop Aneta Willems,

HoU DG ENV C4

Final workshop

Revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

Documents

Transcript of Revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)