1 / 29

Phase III Implementation Study

Phase III Implementation Study. Assessment of the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) IPPC Experts Group meeting, 11 February 2010 Keith Lawton, Entec UK Limited keith.lawton@entecuk.co.uk. Overview of presentations.

phartman
Download Presentation

Phase III Implementation Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phase III Implementation Study Assessment of the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) IPPC Experts Group meeting, 11 February 2010 Keith Lawton, Entec UK Limited keith.lawton@entecuk.co.uk

  2. Overview of presentations • IPPC permitting overview • Introduction to Phase III Study • rationale and aims; • assessment outline and Member State involvement; • benefits and outputs • Scope of the Phase III Study • summary of selection methodology; • presentation of draft list of Member States and sectors; • use of assessment factsheets and checklists • Open Discussion and Feedback Session • Closing Remarks

  3. IPPC Installations in EU-27 (2008) Total Installations: 43,264http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting&vm=detailed&sb=Title

  4. Spread of IPPC Installations within Activities (2008) Total allocated: 39,729Unallocated: 4535

  5. Rationale and Aim • Rationale for a third study • useful quantitative and qualitative data from Phases I and II • gaps in assessment outputs prevalent (e.g. consistency of limits against BAT-AELs) • Member State feedback generally positive on previous studies • opportunity to advance tools and outputs (e.g. BREF review) • Study aim 'To inform the Commission and to support and enhance the correct implementation of the IPPC Directive and other related legislation'

  6. Objectives • Review BREF documents to develop BAT-AEL database • Select at least 50 case studies across 10 Member States • using a method developed by the consultants • taking account of previous case studies • working in cooperation with Member States and authorities • Evaluate and assess 50 case studies • using desk-based reviews of key documents and site visits • focus on key environmental issues and impacts • identify interactions with sectoral Directives (SED, WID, LCPD) • review approach to BAT and use of BAT-AELs • analyse consistency of ELVs against BAT-AELs • report findings in a systematic manner Transparent, accurate, informative, value-adding

  7. Data Gathering Assessment and Reporting Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Formal Information Request Information submitted by Member States Consultant's Desk-based assessment Authority & Operator Comments Site visits to Operator & Authorities Factsheets & Checklist Draft Case Study Assessment Reports Final Reports Assessment process outline • Request for Information • IPPC permit, decision document, 08/09 monitoring data • Analysis of permits, decisions and data • Initial assessment report (desk-based) • Site visit to Competent Authority and Operator • Draft case study assessment report • Member State authorities and operator comments • Finalisation of reports

  8. Member State involvement • What are we asking for? • consideration / agreement on proposed Member States, sectors and installations • submission of data • information on key contacts (authorities/operators) • two meetings per case study (authority/operator) • approximately 1-2 hours each (complexity) • opportunity to provide independent evaluation and comments on draft output

  9. Member State involvement (2) What benefits are there for participants? Opportunity to contribute and provide valuable input to enable the Commission to improve the IPPC D and to promote cooperative and collaborative working • Independent view of assessment of the IPPC D • Enable benchmarking of performance • Summary of positive areas and highlight best practice • Identify areas of inefficiency or weakness in implementation – prioritise action • Ask questions and share learning

  10. Outputs • BAT-AEL tool and BREF review supporting report • 50 IPPC D assessment case study reports • Searchable ELVs database for case studies • Main and Summary reports • Workshop presentation of results • Published on Circa website • confidential data (no installation or company names)

  11. Assessment of the implementation of the IPPC Directive:Collation of information from BREFs concerning BAT-AELs & development of an electronic tool IPPC Experts Group Thursday 11th February 2010 Ben Grebot (Entec) ben.grebot@entecuk.co.uk

  12. Overview • Aims & objectives: • to review and summarise the BAT-AELs and related BAT from all BREFs (adopted & drafts) • to present this information in an electronic tool so that the data can be queried and updated in the future with ease • MS Excel based • Uses: • reference source for Task 2 of the study • valuable reference tool for wider use

  13. Tool Structure • Data inventory worksheets: • separate tab for each BREF • data summarised against number of criteria including IPPC activity, plant/product/fuel types, pollutant, BAT & BAT-AEL, reference conditions • colour coded to reflect split views in TWG & achievable vs associated emission levels • Searchability – two options: • central search worksheet (can search all BREFs by selecting criteria and producing output sheet) • use of MS Excel data filters (individual or all BREFs)

  14. Example BREF worksheet

  15. Example SEARCH worksheet

  16. Scope of the Phase III Study

  17. Installation selection methodology • Member States • not previously covered • significance of emissions

  18. Member States Coverage Phases I & II

  19. Installation selection methodology • Member States • not previously covered • significance of emissions • Sectors • subject to sectoral Directives • significant environmental impacts • sectors not previously studies • clear BREF conclusions on BAT & BAT-AELs • previous study conclusion on permit conditions vs. BAT • Installations • availability of an IPPC permit • significance of emissions and discharges at MS-level • location of installation

  20. 10 Proposed Member States – Phase III

  21. Member States coverage for IPPC implementation 1 visit 2 visits

  22. Selection of sectors (1) • Previously covered – Phase I (2005-2007) • Production of iron and steel (integrated BOF & EAF); • Production of non-ferrous metals; • Manufacture of large volume organic chemicals; • Production of cement and lime; • Production of pulp and paper; • Pre-treatment or dyeing of textiles

  23. Selection of sectors (2) • Previously covered – Phase II (2007-2009) • Combustion plants >50MW (coal and lignite-fired) • Production of iron and steel (blast & sinter plants); • Nitric acid production; • Refineries (sectoral study); • Surface treatment (printed circuit boards); • CN/NPK fertiliser manufacture.

  24. Selection of sectors (3) • Proposed coverage – Phase III (2009-2011) • Combustion plants >50MW (gas, biomass and liquid-fired); • Waste incineration plants • Foundries; • Manufacture of ceramics (bricks and blocks); • Surface treatment using organic solvents.

  25. Selection of installations • Selection based on review of E-PRTR data (2008) and LCP inventory study; • supplemented by internet and literature searches for some Member States and sectors • use of permitting progress data as a sanity-check • Process is a consultative one – agreement sought from proposed participant Member States, their competent authorities and operators • Sensitivity and confidentiality issues

  26. Data Gathering:Assessment Factsheets and Data Checklists • 5 'sector-level' information request factsheets • overview of the assessment process • brief highlight of the key sectoral issues and impacts • outline of the scope of the assessments • detail on the information being requested • 50 installation-specific data checklists • pro-forma for key information • Member State • Installation Name • Contact details for competent authority and operator • document checklist (tick box)

  27. What information is being requested?

  28. Discussion and Feedback on proposed Member States, Sectors and Installations Image courtesy of George Ciardi, www.artificaldaylight.com

  29. Closing remarks and timetable Timetable • Confirmation of Member States, Sectors and Installations (Feb 2010) • Formal information requests from Commission (Feb 2010) • Responses and information received from Member States (March-April 2010) • Installation Assessments begin April 2010 • Site visits begin May 2010 • All assessments complete by end October 2010 • Report finalised and workshop Feb 2011 Thank-you for listening and your continued participation

More Related