Page 1


Industrial Emissions Directive (IPPC Recast) NGO BRIEFING NOTE CONCERNING DRAFT RECOMMENTATION FOR SECOND READING (Rapporteur Holger Krahmer) Dear Member of the ENVI Committee of the European Parliament, Dear Minster of Romanian Environmental and Forest Ministry, Dear Secretary of Stat of Romanian Environmental and Forest Ministry, At the end of April you will vote on second reading amendments proposed to the Council position on a Directive on Industrial Emissions (IPPC Recast) and the deadline for amendments has been set for tomorrow. Rapporteur Holger Krahmer has already set out the draft recommendations for second reading containing 52 key amendments. Since group discussions are ongoing we would therefore like to take the opportunity to briefly comment on the draft recommendation (hereafter referred to as “2nd reading Krahmer report”) and highlight key concerns in relation to the Council Position, most of which have been touched upon on the exchange of view of 17th March. In particular, we would like you to pay attention to the key priorities as set out below: 1. Derogations from Best Available Techniques (Article 15.4) 2. Extension of the European Safety Net (first reading position of EP) 3. Issues relating to Large Combustion Plants (derogations, 20-50MW threshold, special rules for refineries, compliance ) 4. Soil and groundwater protection 5. Monitoring of pollutants from waste incineration 6. legal clarification on GHG emissions from IPPC installations We trust that these important matters will be granted your full consideration. Best regards, Ionut Georgescu President CEDD Romania EEB Member


General comments to the Council Position adopted on 15th February 2010. EEB (European Environmental Bureau) shares the discontent and position of several Member States that are opposed –for good reasons- to the downgrading of ambition introduced in the Council text. In particular a major group of delegations consider that derogations -referred to as ”flexibility”- for Large Combustion Plants (Chapter III) and derogations from BAT (ex Article 16.4, now Article 15.4) are not acceptable because they “offer too much flexibility and would reduce the environmental ambition of the directive compared to the Commissions proposal1”. There is also recognition that this weakening has a detrimental effect on competitiveness and industrial innovation. The following Member States therefore expressed their opposition to the downgrading of ambition: Belgium, Denmark (abstained), Germany (previously voted against, abstained), Ireland (abstained), France, Netherlands, Austria (previously voted against, abstained), Slovenia, Sweden. EEB would like to comment on some of the most important issues where the positions of Council and Parliament differ: 1. Need for strong provisions that would promote innovation, a level playing field and even level of environmental protection for EU citizens Article 15.4 (derogation from BAT based on local conditions) Background: Best Available Techniques (BAT) are agreed by a multi-stakeholder process as being economically and technically viable and proven techniques which are accessible to the operator according to the official definition, which remains unchanged (Art. 3(9)). The inherent flexibility of the IPPC permitting system has been abused, leading to a situation where the innovative effects of BAT based permitting have not been fully realized. An evaluation on implementation of the IPPC Directive found that half of the permits assessed were not demonstrably based on BAT. In some cases significant differences between the permit conditions and the performance corresponding to BAT with a factor 2 up to 500 for certain pollutants were applied2. This is because the current system allows for derogations because of local conditions. Despite clear recognition of this major shortcoming, the Commission and Council failed to deal with derogations from BAT performance. The Council text even weakens the Commission’s mandate to remediate this problem. The competent authority may derogate “in specific cases”, based on an assessment of environmental and economic costs and benefits and taking into account the local conditions (technical characteristic, geographical location and local environmental conditions). This proposal does not contain any element to verify on what the “specific cases” refer to and if any derogation is based on qualitative grounds, but only requires that a justification should be annexed in the permit. A competent authority could derogate by simply stating in the permit “derogated because of local conditions”, and would be complying with the rules. Not providing for clear criteria in the legal text could lead to “business as usual” (i.e. permits not reflecting BAT and therefore creating an unlevel playing field in the EU and downgrading


environmental ambition). Divergence does not only mean an unlevel playing field for industry but also an uneven level of environmental protection for EU citizens, who ultimately pay the price. What needs to be improved? The current wording on derogations (CP Art. 15.4) still gives too much flexibility to competent authorities to deviate from BAT associated emission levels (BATAEL). Derogations should remain exceptional, be based on proper criteria and be publicly justified. The Amdt 22 proposed by 2nd reading Krahmer report goes in the right direction and picks up some fundamental elements that have been strongly supported in the first reading of the European Parliament. However we urge the following aspects to be strengthened: ¾ Delete any reference to the cost/benefit assessment (point c in Amdt 22 Krahmer 2nd reading report) The Commission Proposal has introduced a new concept that derogations should be based on a secondary cost/benefitassessment that would be carried out by any permit writer in the EU at the local level. EEB thinks that this new concept should be strongly rejected since it risks undermining and questioning the technical expert assessment done within the BREF, where all stakeholders (Member States, industry concerned and NGO) agree on what is economically and technically viable to the EU operators according to the official BAT definition. Considering that there are plenty of different cost/benefits methods available that could be interpretated differently by different permit writers that are not trained for these kind of assessments, the current wording leads to widely diverging interpretations at the national level, meaning an unlevel playing field for industry and downgrading of environmental ambition.

1 Council Document 10898/09 (public) ENV 423,CODEC 838 of 15 June 2009 2 Commission Impact Assessment SEC (2007) 1679, page 17; “Assessment of the Implementation by the Member States of the IPPC Directive”, ENTEC 2007 ; EEB / Commission presentations


¾ Keep the “integrated approach” and only allow derogation based on cross-media impacts The spirit of the IPPC approach should be kept, which is to take a cross-media approach when it comes to prevention/minimizing of pollution to all the relevant environmental media (i.e. air, soil, water, resource/energy use, waste prevention, prevention of accidents). Should trade off decision justified by specific local conditions been taken, then derogation from BAT should only be granted if this relates to a significant cross-media impact, which needs to be clearly demonstrated. Member States would keep the flexibility to decide on what particular media protection goal they would give more importance in detriment to other objectives that need to be safeguarded according to the IPPC general principles (Article 11 Council text). ¾ Limit the derogation possibility only to existing installations There is no justification on why new installations should be granted derogations from BAT, they should operate according to the “state of the art”. Since the BREFs set out a wide panel of different techniques that are existing and proven, it is then up to the competent authority to use this flexibility for choosing the most suitable technique to the local conditions. ¾ Provide for a clear link between permit conditions and environmental safeguards A clear link such as emission ceilings under the National Emissions Ceiling Directive (NEC-D)3 needs to be established. The NEC-D sets legally binding ceilings, so non-compliance is not an option. Many Member States are currently not on target4 to meet the ceilings set out in the NEC-D, and therefore the competent authorities should not be able to derogate from BAT if those objectives are jeopardized. The following text approved under the Council recitals should be included “In any event, no significant pollution should be caused and a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole should be achieved”. ¾ Support time limited validity and reporting obligation for possible derogations Should any derogation be granted, than this should be limited to a maximum time limit of 5 years and the competent authorities should directly report to the Commission. strongly support: strengthening of Article 15(4) with the aim to restrict flexibility and clarify criteria for derogations (to be tabled), in particular: - public participation / transparency provision in Amdt 22 2nd reading Krahmer report) - link to NEC-D targets - the Commission to set specific criteria for the granting of derogating provision though - delegated acts Amdt 22 2nd reading Krahmer report), by a given deadline (to be tabled) - 5 year time limit for derogations (to be tabled) - specific notification obligation to Commission (to be tabled) strongly reject: - any reference to secondary cost/benefit assessment at the local level (part c of Amdt 22 2nd reading Krahmer report) - granting of derogations to new installations (to be tabled)


2. Support minimal baseline of environmental performance to be extended to other sectors: European Safety Net (ESN) CP Articles 13.5, and Art. 74 (Review of Annexes), previously Art. 68 and 68a The European Safety Net (ESN) is not a new concept – it exists already in the form of the existing sector directives ELVs that are being merged with IPPC within Annex V-VIII (Large Combustion Plants, Waste Incineration, activities using solvents and installations producing titanium dioxide). It coexists with flexibility to take account of local factors at the sitespecific level. As such, the existence of a safety net in the form of minimum legally binding requirements that cannot be exceeded provides an important safeguard against exploitation of the flexibility component of IPPC (CP Art. 15.4) and provides a level playing field for industry, so that those that meet proper standards are not undermined by those that don’t. (cf point 1 on derogation flexibility). In order to contribute to the long term objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air and Soil Pollution and the Water Framework Directive we urge the Commission to propose minimal binding requirements for other sectors not yet covered by this proposal, after revision of the relevant BREF document. A systematic extension to all the IPPC sectors has been strongly supported by European Parliament in first reading, but not been supported by the majority of Member States. The 2nd reading Krahmer report proposes to reintroduce provisions that are based on existing text of the IPPC Directive (Art. 19 Directive 2008/015). This provides for the establishment of Union-wide minimum requirements (ESN) on a caseby-case basis, where a “need for Community action” has been identified, and subject to stakeholder consultation (2nd reading Krahmer report Amdts 16, 17 + 61). The proposed criteria for the assessment i.e. the impacts of the activities on the environment and the state of implementation of BAT constitute a sound basis and are supported.

3 Directive 2001/81 of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants; OJEU 27.11.2001 4 EEA Technical report No.9/2008, NEC Directive status report 2007 reporting by the Member States under Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants 5 Directive 2008/1/EC of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control; OJEU 29.1.2008 L.24/8


What needs to be done? EEB regrets that the strong position adopted in first reading is not kept (Amendments 61 and 62). Action or non-action will again depend on the Commission, which since the review of the IPPC Directive, only used twice the provision to set Union-wide minimum requirements: for Large Combustion Plants and Waste Incineration. Annex I counts at least 28 different industry sectors covered by specific BREFs that are covered under 6 larger categories. ¾ The “need for Community action” could be demonstrated by key results of E-PRTR database The current approach leaves too much subjective discretion to the Commission on deciding on whether there is “need” for action or not. We strongly encourage the Commission to verify the implementation of BAT, indeed this is a duty that needs to be performed according to the Treaty in any case. In regards to future extension of the ESN, EEB proposes to adopt a more pragmatic approach by using verified and easily accessible information at hand: The European Pollutant Emission Release Register (EPRTR) database quantifies industrial mass emissions of IPPC installations by source that are reported and verified on an annual basis, it allows to have a clear overview on which particular sector of the 6 IPPC category of activities listed in Annex I contributes most to total emissions of a particular polluting substance listed in Annex II of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). A coherent approach in line with the prevention principle would be to set minimal binding requirements for particular polluting substances, in priority for those particular sectors where it is established that they contribute most to the total share of industrial emission i.e. [>20 %]. An ESN, set under scrutiny of the European Parliament and in participation with the relevant stakeholders, is urgently needed for these sectors. According to most recent E-PRTR 2007 data, this concerns in particular the following pollutants and sectors: - large combustion plants are clearly the biggest emitters to air, but they are already covered by a safety net (i.e. Annex V). However Mercury emissions are highest from the combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input of 20MW or more. Their total share to air emissions is 54,1%, i.e. 19,5 tonnes and share of water emissions is 44,4% i.e. 4.6 tonnes, meaning an annual pollution load of 24,1 tonnes! It does not make sense that Mercury is heavily restricted in products because of its toxicity, yet no EU requirements are taken in order to prevent/reduce the largest point source emissions. Annex V therefore needs to be supplemented with minimal binding requirements aiming to prevent mercury emissions from the largest contributors, as is the case in some Member States (e.g. Germany). - the production and processing metals plants (IPPC category 2) are responsible for 29% of total arsenic and 48,7% cadmium emissions in the EU, 46% / 43,1% of cyanides emissions to air/water, 55,7% / 70% of Chromium compounds emissions to air/water, 71,9% of lead emissions, 69% of Perfluarocarbons emissions and are the highest source for dioxins and furans emissions 73,9% (air), 82,6% (water), and 86,3% (soil). It is therefore essential to provide for minimal binding requirements for this sector, in particular in regards to dioxins and furans. The


latter was adopted in Amendment 62 which tasked the Commission to set ELVs by 31 December 2011 for the activities referred to in points 2.1 and 2.2 of Annex I. For more information please refer to page 12-13 of "A push for cleaner industrial production" strongly support: - reinstate key elements of first reading Amdt 61 and 62 - strengthen the case by case approach proposed by Krahmer (Amdt 16 and Amdt 46) to cover major contributors to total industrial emissions by an ESN 3. Promote BAT performance for large combustion plants (LCPs) Chapter III, Annex V, The legally binding ELVs in Annex V must be aligned with the technically and economically viable BAT BREF standards in order to send a strong signal to the industry that still did not invest in abatement technologies. The proposed ELVs will apply for existing plants only from 2016 onwards, and will then determine actual emissions from LCPs for the following two decades. NGOs are deeply concerned about the lenient stance of some Member States (in particular from UK and Poland) regarding existing Large Combustion plants which contributes to around 90% of NOx and SO2 in industrial emissions. Such a lenient stance does not uphold the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (50% of NOx needs to be cut by 2020) and will worsen Member States’ already poor performance in meeting National Emissions Ceilings Directive limits (13 Member States projected to exceed NOx ceiling, 11 Member States exceeded their 2006 SO2 ceilings[6]. Many LCPs already have emission levels that are far below what is required by the current LCP Directive. Evidence from existing plant data across countries such as Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands and Italy demonstrates that BAT standards are already achieved in a wide range of commercially operating plants. Even without considering wider positive impacts the health benefits to citizens from cleaner air are at least 3 to 10 times greater than the costs to polluters by implementing BAT (defined in 2003) as compared to the current legislation (LCP ELVs), as demonstrated by impact studies [7]

6 EEA Technical report No.9/2008, NEC Directive status report 2007 reporting by the Member States under Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants 7 AEAT 2007 Evaluation of the costs and benefits of the implementation of the IPPC Directive on Large Combustion Plants; July 2007


• • •

Applying currently proposed ELVS bring annual net benefits of €7-28 billion Reduction in acute mortality deaths by 21.000, chronic mortality by 243.000. Reduction of years life lost by 270.000 from impact of PM

Should electricity providers pass on the eventual extra costs of cleaning up electricity production to consumers, electricity prices could increase up to 0,65% (0,03 eurocent/KWh) if the current ELVs would be fully implemented, according to the impact studies of the European Commission [8]. As support for some derogations (TNP and LLD), the argument of carbon lock-in is in direct contradiction to that of an energy gap – the latter assumes a lack of new plants 2016-2020, whilst the former assumes new capacity. Assuming that there is indeed new capacity, the carbon lock-in argument overlooks the role of carbon capture readiness, the unlikelihood of big coal economies turning away from coal in the event of CCDS failing to become a technical reality, the immediate emission reductions resulting from the increased efficiency of new plants, especially gas, and the very considerable advantage of gas for load following intermittent renewable sources of energy. For detailed information please click here. For more information please refer to page 14-18 of "A push for cleaner industrial production", and specific background documents on LCP The European Parliament took a strong supportive position towards the Commission proposal, the Council introduced however unacceptable derogation provisions for the main contributors of total industrial emissions. ¾ Support bringing forward of updated ELVs for new large combustion plants Art 30.2 The Commission Proposal and Council text proposes two different sets of requirements for Large Combustion Plants, depending on whether this relates to “existing” (Part 1 Annex V) or “new” (Part 2 Annex V) installations. Moving the date of compliance for one category of these installations will not resolve anything in regards to potential discrimination since the requirements are not the same. However it is clear that there is no reason why “new” installations should not be required to comply with the level of BATAEL for these plants upon entry into force of the IED, since these were defined already in 2006 in the LCP BREF. On this count the Commission Proposal did not make sense (which is acknowledged by Council and the Commission), and therefore we can support the anticipation by 2 years (2014 instead of 2016), although the date of entry into force should be the starting date. Support: Article 32.2 of Council Text ¾ No extra derogations for existing large combustion plants Art. 31 + Annex V part 6 (desulphurisation rate), Art. 32 (TNP), Art 33. (LLD), Art. 35 District heating plants, Art. 40 Multi-fuel combustion plants, Annex V part 7, Art. 33.6 and Annex V Part 4


- Reject Transitional National Plan (Art. 32) The plant by plant ELV approach proposed by the Commission will achieve significantly higher emission reductions than any National Emmission Reduction Plan option by a factor of 1.4 to 2.6 for NOx and SO2 and 3.6 for dust, as we demonstrated in our technical input that was sent to the IPPC experts and officials from the Perm. reps. In fact the TNP is a time limited NERP. The existing NERP provided transitional protection for plants that had been granted a construction licence before 1st July 1987 and at that time were affected by the imposition for the first time of plant-specific ELVs in the existing LCP-Directive9. There can be no justification for protecting these plants indefinitely and if because of economic reasons- the operator does not wish to invest in additional abatement technology, then these plants have to close. The TNP also fails to provide a competitive level playing field across industrial installations and potentially exerts a downward pressure on the proper implementation of BAT at the site-specific level, in order to maintain the flexibility required to implement a TNP. For these reasons this has been rejected in first reading and several Member States are against this Council Provision which in fact is only supported in particular by the UK and Poland. - Reject Limited Life Derogation (Art. 33) It is unacceptable that a 20.000 hours opt out derogation provision should be reintroduced to allow for further derogations than the existing ones currently limited to January 2016. Beyond the reasons as already stated under point 2, this derogation will disadvantage better performing plants and acts as a barrier to the replacement of those dirty plants by more efficient plants and renewable energy sources. This is even the more devastating since the derogation would last until 2023. Old plants have long since paid off their capital debt whilst new plants incur very considerable capital repayment costs to a higher environmental standard. This provision is purely aimed at securing additional profits from plants that could by then be 50 years old, and which are simply being run as cash cows. Within the liberalisation of the electricity market this also puts at a competitive disadvantage the plants operating in progressive countries that have succesfully applied BAT. It will also divert new investments to other countries in the EU which do not allow this “short term interests” provision. For these reasons this has been rejected in first reading and several Member States are against this Council Provision which in fact is only supported in particular by the UK and Poland. -

Strenghten the derogations for desulphurisation for large combustion plants (Art. 31 + Annex V part 6) The Council introduced special flexibility that would allow certain LCPs to avoid compliance with ELVs for sulphur dioxide in certain cases. EEB proposes that this derogation should be time-limited and subject to a review in order to take into account new technical developments. In the meantime we propose that those Member States which do have plants that apply the special desulphurisation rate need to provide a technical justification of non feasibility of complying with the regular ELVs.

8 Impact Assessment SEC (2007) 1679, page 144 9 Directive 2001/80 of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions on certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants; OJEU 27.11.2001



Strengthen the derogations for multi-fuel combustion plants i.e. refineries (Art. 40, Annex V part 7) The Council introduced weaker requirements for LCPs used in certain industry sectors (oil and chemicals industry). There should be no specific rules for refinery/chemical LCPs compared to other LCPs. It gives unjustified additional flexibility and unnecessarily hinders emission reductions. The conditions of combustion are not at all different from other LCPs: chemical plants and also refineries may direct their high sulphur content residues to those plants that provide of best sulphur recovery or desulphurisation equipment. In general, refineries send their high-sulphur residues to recovery or to the biggest LCP with good desulphurisation. If they want to use cheap refinery residues with high sulphur content also for the smaller boilers and heaters, they should install abatement techniques, eventually installed for a combination of several stacks. An alternative for those smaller boilers and heaters is always the use of less polluted fuels, which is a choice left to the operators. - Provide for a coherent framework for assessing compliance with ELVs (Annex V part 4) Whereas the BREF BAT levels reflect daily averages, Annex V requires the ELVs to be met on a monthly basis. In addition, daily average values cannot exceed 110% of the ELV and 95% of hourly averages over one year shall not exceed more than twice the ELVs. While keeping the same compliance rules for new and existing plants, it is necessary to align them with the BAT conclusions of the BREF which are based on daily averages and not monthly averages. This approach was strongly supported in the first reading position of European Parliament (Amdt 77), it therefore needs to be kept. Strongly support: - Amendment 37, 38 and 40 of second reading Krahmer report - Reinstatement of first reading amendment 77 (to be tabled) - Strengthening of desulphurisation provisions (to be tabled) Strongly reject: - special rules for LCPs operated by the oil industry (refineries), Article 40 and Annex V part 7 Council text ¾ Support lowering of LCP threshold from 50 to 20 MW Annex 1 para 1, Art. 73 Emissions from these installations (about 3.200) are significant (25% NOx, 10% SO2, 15% PM). Lowering the threshold for combustion installations from 50MW to 20MW would reduce their overall emissions by 83% for NOx, 95% for SO2 and 95% for particulate matter assuming an average of 3.000 operational hours. This will provide net health benefits up to €2.6 billion10 even without including all environmental benefits. The environmental benefits where not included because they could not be quantified. Lowering the threshold would also make the IE-D compatible with the scope of the EU ETS and also enable a streamlining and EU wide harmonisation of existing legislation since the following Member States already do have legislation in place for that category of plants: Belgium, Czech Republic,


France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. As part of a compromise package, EEB could agree that the special calculation method for healthcare facilities is retained (EPP amdt 129rev1). Strongly support: reintroduction of first reading position (20MW) in line with the Commission Proposal 4. Protect and support remediation of Europe's soil and groundwater Articles 3.18, 12.1,22.2, 73 para 2 point a Background: About 3.5 Million industrial sites are potentially contaminated with an estimated annual cost to society between €2.4 and €17.3 billion (most borne by tax payers). Periodic and timely monitoring will allow for early detection of contamination, reducing remediation costs and associated impacts on human health and the environment. It is unacceptable to weaken remediation requirements to the operators once they cease to operate which will mean shifting the remediation and depollution costs to citizens, which is clearly against the polluter pays principle. The Council weakens the baseline report and the requirements upon cessation of activities since remediation shall be done only to the extend so it ceases to pose a “significant risk” to human health or the environment and based on a risk based approach based “on future approved uses” of the site. For more information please refer to page 24-25 of "A push for cleaner industrial production" What needs to be done? Some parts of the new weakening provisions introduced by the Council need to be rejected, the words “significant” and “based on current or approved future use” should be deleted. In order not to weaken national provisions on soil protection already in place, we suggest to clarify that any necessary actions aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of relevant hazardous substances should be done at least to the extent so that the site ceases to pose any risk to human health or the environment. Since the proposal is based on Article 192 (1) TFEU, Member States are always allowed to provide for stricter provisions on soil. strongly reject:

risked based approach based on current or approved future use; references to the term “significant”, Amendments to be tabled to Article 22.3 and 22.4


Amdts 12, 13, 29, 2nd reading Krahmer report

10 AEAT 2007, Assessment of the benefits and costs of the potential application of the IPPC Directive to industrial combustion installations with 20-50MW rated thermal input, October 2007


5. Support continuous monitoring for waste incineration and co-incineration plants Annex VI part 6 Background: It is unacceptable that the proposal lends competent authorities the right to allow measurements only once every two years to be taken of heavy metals, and once a year for dioxins and furan emissions to air based on reports from operators on the quality of wastes. Once monitoring ceases, two of the conditions become irrelevant as monitoring information is not available to assess emissions. Secondly, waste quality control is an unreliable mechanism for avoiding dangerous emissions as the danger of mixed waste cannot be eliminated and a reliable prove may not be realised in case of mixed wastes from different sources. PCDD/F and PCBs are highly toxic persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants affecting human health and the environment by dermal toxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity and endocrine disrupting effects. The WHO defined already back in 1998 a tolerable daily intake of 1-4pg TEQ/kg body weight, a large part of European citizens are exceeding the tolerable daily intake value due to contribution of incinerators (especially municipal waste incinerators where separation of electronic waste is not done appropriately). What needs to be done? It needs to be ensured that at least one measurement per year needs to be carried out on heavy metals and for dioxins and furans. The only way to make sure that no dioxins and furans are emitted from these type of incinerators is to ensure that the operator can prove that neither electronic waste, nor waste containing chlorinated compounds is being treated. Therefore the first reading position needs to be kept. strongly support:

reinstatement of first reading amendments 78, 79, 80 (to be tabled)

6. Support legal clarification on GHG emissions from IPPC installations The Emission Trading Scheme Directive (2003/87/EC) introduced through its Art. 26 an amendment to the IPPC Directive to the effect to exclude the requirement for Member States to include in IPPC permits ELVs for greenhouse gas, unless necessary to ensure that no significant local pollution is caused. However both directives are based on Article 193 TFEU (ex Art. 176 TEC) which provides that: “The protective measures adopted pursuant to Article 192 [i.e. ETS and IPPC Directives] shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures. Such measures must be compatible with the Treaties. They shall be notified to the Commission”. Since the first reading, public debates have emerged in several Member States about adopting rules on GHG emissions from new thermal power plants. Diverging views have been expressed on the compatibility of such measures with EU law.


What needs to be done? A recital should clarify the legal text as to eliminate any possible doubt about Member States’ ability to make use of the Art. 193 TFEU provision in the context of GHG emissions from IPPC installations. support: introduction of a recital clarifying that according to Article 193 of the TFEU, nothing in this Directive would prevent Member States to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures, including requirements on GHG emissions for IPPC activities (to be tabled).

Thank you for your support. For more informations do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely, Ionut Georgescu President CEDD Romania EEB Member


Recomandari amendamente IPPC  
Recomandari amendamente IPPC  

Recomandari amendamente IPPC - Aprilie 2010 - Europarlamentari Romania