1 / 27

The review of the BREF on refineries : First findings and next challenges

This workshop focuses on the review of the BREF on refineries, discussing findings and challenges after the "Call for Wishes". Topics include general and specific areas of concern and the challenge of data collection. Presented by Michel Chaugny from the European IPPC Bureau.

sauceda
Download Presentation

The review of the BREF on refineries : First findings and next challenges

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. Assessment of implementation of the IPPC Directive Workshop for the Refineries sector Brussels - 4th July 2008 The review of the BREF on refineries : First findings and next challenges after the “Call for wishes” Michel Chaugny European IPPC Bureau 4th July 2008

  2. Outline • The Sevilla Process (brief recall) • Purpose • Actors • The review of BAT Reference Documents (BREFs) • Purpose • Generic schedule • REF BREF : which difficulties, which areas for improvement? • General areas of concern • Particular areas of concern • The challenge of data collection

  3. IPTS in the context of DG JRC European IPPC Bureau  18 staff Within the Competitiveness and Sustainability (C&S) Unit IPTS  180 staff  15 M€/year budget + 5 M€ revenues

  4. The Sevilla Process A complex consensus building exercise with all main stakeholders based on sound techno-economic information

  5. Purpose • Article 17(2) of the IPPC Directive (2008/1/EC) – Exchange of information: The Commission shall organise an exchange of informationbetween Member States and the industries concernedon best available techniques, associated monitoring, and developments in them. Every three years the Commission shall publish the results of the exchanges of information

  6. Actors (1) Information Exchange Forum (IEF) European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission 33 Technical Working Groups (TWGs) so far

  7. Actors (2) • IEF members: • oversee exchange of info. • nominate experts to TWGs • indicate degree of support • on BREFs to DG ENV • advise on BREF review • programme • decide on fundamental • issues Information Exchange Forum (IEF) European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission 33 Technical Working Groups (TWGs)

  8. Actors (3) • BREF authors: • permanent secretary to TWG • steer work of TWG • analyse info. from TWG • seek for additional information • propose texts for BREF • present BREF at IEF Information Exchange Forum (IEF) European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission 33 Technical Working Groups (TWGs)

  9. Actors (4) Information Exchange Forum (IEF) • TWG members: • collect and provide info. • provide expert opinions • contribute to discussions • participate in TWG meetings • comment on BREF drafts European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission • TWG • Industry • Member States • NGOs • Commission 33 Technical Working Groups (TWGs)

  10. The review of BAT Reference Documents (BREFs) A necessary and challenging task as an integral part of the Sevilla Process

  11. Why reviewing BREFs ? • BAT is intrinsically a dynamic concept : • New techniques emerge permanently • New environmental processes are being successfully introduced into the industry • Costs of techniques change… • New Member States in the playing field • New products and new processes may enter in the scope (e.g. biofuels…) • Purpose of a BREF review : • Not to rewrite the whole BREF • Review new information which may affect BATs • Correct errors and inconsistencies with other BREFs • Improve user friendliness and fill possible gaps

  12. Review of a BREF Generic process for BREF reviews BREF ‘Wish list’ for the review Technical Working Group (TWG) Collection and submission of information 1st TWG meeting Analysis/validation of information Site visits Collection and submission of information If strictly needed 2nd TWG meeting Collection and submission of information Site visits Analysis/validation of information + drafting of the document Consultation Site visits 1st Draft Comments Analysis/validation of information + drafting of the document Final TWG meeting Analysis/validation of information + drafting of the document Presentation IEF Final draft Acceptation Adoption by the Commission DG ENV Inter-service consultation

  13. Generic schedule for BREF reviews Step No. BREF review step Expected step time (months) Accumulated time (months) REF BREF Feb 08 1 TWG reactivation 1 1 May 08 2 Call for wishes 1 – 2 2 – 3 Sep 08 3 Kick-off meeting 1 3 – 4 Apr 09 4 New information (deadline) 6 – 8 9 – 12 Jun 09 5 Consultation and 2nd meeting 2 – 3 11 – 15 End 09 6 Draft 4 15 – 19 7 TWG comments 2 17 – 21 Along 2010 8 Final meeting 3 – 4 20 – 25 9 Final draft 3 23 – 28 10 Presentation at an IEF meeting Subject to schedule of IEF meetings

  14. Where are we in the process of BREF reviews? • First series (33 docs) finished - Last one : Energy efficiency April 08) • Reviews have started: • Cement and lime (2005) • Iron and steel, pulp and paper, glass (2006) • Non-ferrous metals, common waste water/gas, tanneries (2007) • Refineries, intensive rearing of poultry and pigs, ferrous metals (2008) • Work programme 2008-2010: ► At least 3 reviews to launch every year • 2008 : chlor-alkali, large volume organic chemicals • 2009 : textile, cooling systems, monitoring • 2010 : waste treatment, large combustion plants (tentative…)

  15. BREF on refineries : First findings after the call for wishes What do we have on the table ?

  16. Wishes • Around 370 wishes from : • 12 MS, among which only 2 Eastern new comers • 3 industrial NGOs + 1 isolated company • 1 environmental NGO • EIPPCB

  17. General areas of concern / improvement (1) • Clarify position with / facilitate links to other BREFs • Articulation with other vertical BREFs • LCP (e.g. scope of application for fuel mixtures…) • Storages : cross references to avoid duplication • Use of horizontal BREFs (e.g. cooling systems, monitoring, cross media) • Stand-alone document or cross references ? • User friendliness • General lay out • Internal automatic links • Separate techniques and processes • BAT/BAT-AELs summary tables • Accessibility to all users • Language • More practical and operational executive summary

  18. General areas of concern / improvement (2) • Address the overall context evolution • Sulphur • Increase of input sulphur in crudes • Decrease of output sulphur in products • EU enlargement • Full update of chapter 1… and others • How to motivate new comers ? • Scope • Biofuels stored/mixed/processed in refineries (hydro treatment…) • Off shore refining of natural gas • LNG storage and distribution

  19. General areas of concern / improvement (3) • BAT/BAT-AELs • Specification/justification • Averaging period • Operating conditions • Sampling and measuring references and standards • Pertinent way of expressing performance • Split views • Clarify justification • Methodology for solving ? • New/existing installation • Retrofitting cost • Theoretical/real performance of BAT (Low NOx burners…) • Local conditions (safety, congestion…)

  20. General areas of concern / improvement (4) • BUBBLE • In principle : why not, but… • What in ? What about LCP, gas turbines, flares…? • What for ? What about dust and fine particulates, VOC…? • Need of flexibility for internal optimization: to which extent ? • How to take into account the site complexity level ? • In practise : • NOx and SOx : simply not applicable with : • ranges width as provided in the current BREF • data justification as provided in the current BREF • Set up the flexibility frame : • from… the strict sum of all unit-specific BAT-AELs ? • to… a fixed “packaged” bubble level ?

  21. Particular areas of concern / improvement (1) • Hazardous substances in air • PCDD/F • More data on emission (catalytic reforming, FCC…) • Specific BAT and BAT-AEL required ? • PM 10 and PM 2.5 • Introduce BAT-AELs (FCC, combustion plants) • Avoid confusion (secondary aerosols…) • CMR : heavy metals, toxic organic compounds • More data • Specific BAT-AELs in line with other EC regulations (LCP…) • Hazardous substances in water • CMR : heavy metals, toxic organic compounds • Specific BAT-AEL for each individual metal • Specific BAT-AELs in line with other EC regulations (Water Framework…)

  22. Particular areas of concern / improvement (2) • Energy consumption and efficiency • Find a common methodology for evaluation/comparison • Collect and share homogeneous data • Consider the complexity level (Nelson and Salomon indexes ?) • Better use of the tools given in the ENE BREF • Address energy monitoring • Best ways to evaluate activity data for CO2 calculation (MRG) • Continuous monitoring of CO2 concentration in key flue gases • Consider flares • Consider cross media effects • Optimize energy consumption of additional SRU capacities • Every BAT should be evaluated regarding their “added CO2” • More examples/data on internal/external reuse of heat • Air pre-heating versus NOx performance

  23. Particular areas of concern / improvement (3) • For some specific units (1/2) • Boilers, heaters, furnaces • Low NOx burners retrofitting : BAT-AELs to be reviewed • ESP filtering for heavy fuel oil firing : technical adaptation • FCC ► Review BATAEL ranges due to real performances observed : • Non Pt - Low NOx oxidation promoters • NOxand SOX-reducing catalysts • SNCR performance achieved after real retrofitting • Dust + PM 10-2.5 using best 3rd stage filters operated (Australia) ► Reconsider economics / cross media effects for : • Scrubbing • SCR (operability due to pressure drops) • SOx-reducing catalysts

  24. Particular areas of concern / improvement (4) • For some specific units (2/2) • Flares • No data available on flare emissions • Report experience from recent flare reduction programmes • Sulphur recovery units (SRU) • Review recovery efficiency for all existing techniques • Application to stand-alone lubricant refineries • Handing and storages • VOC monitoring, measurement, reduction : new techniques • Impermeable bunds (Groundwater Directive)

  25. A major challenge : data collection (1) • Essential to the information exchange process • IEF Guideline (IEF 20-4 Final) of June 2008 : • Main gaps in the data provided so far to the EIPPCB • Quantity and representativeness • Data at installation level • Key data for BAT determination (particular techniques, best performing installations, cross media effects, economic data) • Data on particular topics (e.g. energy, residues/waste, fugitive emissions, monitoring, “non standard” pollutants or processes) • Comparability of data (background and context information

  26. Data collection (2) • BAT conclusions are useful when associated with good figures defining the environmental performance: • Clear and appropriate units • Reference conditions (e.g. flue gas oxygen level…) • Averaging period (daily/monthly/yearly…) • Several ways of expression (concentration + mass flow + specific flow…) • General principles for the type, format and quality of data • Complete data sets at the level of single installations • Clear references to the applied techniques • Information from best performing plants • Specific issues under the remit of each TWG • Sector-specific template for collecting information • Time schedule for collecting and submitting data

  27. Thank you for your attention Michel Chaugny European IPPC Bureau serge.roudier@ec.europa.eu Tel.: +34 954 488 404 http://eippcb.jrc.es European IPPC Bureau

More Related