חומר רקע
European Commission Directorate-General Environment
Application of IED Article 15(4) derogations
Final report
March 2018
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment
& Infrastructure UK Limited
3
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Abstract
Article 15(4) of the Industrial Emissions Directive allows competent authorities to set, under certain specific
circumstances, less strict emission limit values in the permit than the emission levels associated with the
best available techniques. Derogations are considered a pivotal component of the IED as the application of
Article 15(4) directly affects the effectiveness and relevance of the IED, as well as wider competition in the
Single Market. The objective of this study was to provide an overview of the use of Article 15(4) and of the
approaches followed by Member States in their decision-making processes. The study compiled information
on Member State derogation procedures and on a selection of derogation case studies, illustrating their
application.
A total of 105 derogation requests, i.e. applications at the installation level, have been reported by Member
States of which the majority have been granted (75). The study also identified 27 derogation principles that
can be considered as high-level recommendations on the application of Article 15(4) and could assist
Member States in the assessment of future derogation requests. The derogation principles are illustrated
with exemplar practices from Member State derogation procedures.
4
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Executive summary
Article 15(4) of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) allows for derogation from the requirements of Article
15(3) under certain specific circumstances. Emission limit values less strict than the emission levels
associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AELs) may be set in the permit where all criteria in
Article 15(4) are met, including an assessment showing that achieving the BAT-AELs would lead to
disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation
concerned; or
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.
Derogations are considered a pivotal component of the IED as the application of Article 15(4) directly affects
the effectiveness and relevance of the IED, as well as wider competition in the Single Market.
Member States experience in the development of procedures and guidance and their application in relation
to Article 15(4) prior to this project had been somewhat limited to date. Ensuring the correct and consistent
implementation of the provisions under Article 15(4) across the EU is important both for environmental
reasons, as well as for ensuring a level playing field in the Union for operators’ subject to the IED. Therefore,
the objectives of the project were to provide an overview of the use of Article 15(4) derogations granted
under the implementation of IED BAT Conclusions and the approaches followed by Member States in their
decision-making processes. Furthermore, the project aimed to identify general principles and exemplar
practices in the application of the derogation provisions that have the potential for wider EU dissemination.
In total, the project comprised four main tasks, i.e.:
Task 1: the compilation and analysis of EU Member State derogation practices;
Task 2: the analysis of a selection of EU Member State case studies, providing information on
how the Member State derogation practices have been applied in actual cases;
Task 3: the identification of derogation principles and of EU Member State exemplar practices
for the evaluation of derogation requests; and
Task 4: the presentation and discussion of the project findings at the IEEG workshop in
Brussels, 19 October 2017 on IED implementation and at the IED Article 13 Forum meeting in
Brussels, 20 December 2017.
The data collection under Tasks 1 and 2 was conducted through an online questionnaire sent to
representatives of all EU Member States, complemented with more detailed questions on the Member State
practices and selected derogation case studies via follow-up emails and interviews. Information already
made available by Member States was taken into account in the data collection and analysis, including
responses to the questionnaire set out in Annex I of the Commission implementing Decision 2012/795/EU
(IED implementation) and IMPEL studies on the experience of derogations from IED BAT-AEL.
In total, 27 out of the 28 EU Member States responded to the invitation for the Article 15(4) questionnaire
under this project. Representative competent authorities from 22 Member States provided input via the
online questionnaire in this study, with a further five indicating that there is a lack of available information or
experience in their Member State.
A total of 105 derogation requests, i.e. applications at the installation level, were reported by Member States
in this study. In terms of the industrial sectors for which derogations had been requested, the largest
numbers were for Manufacture of Glass (40), Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries
(30) and for Iron and Steel Production (15). When referring to the number of Article 15(4) derogations,
Member States may have a different way of reporting. Some Member States reported the numbers as
derogations from individual BAT-AELs, i.e. one derogation request corresponds to derogation from a single
BAT-AEL. Other Member States reported the numbers as requests from industrial installations, i.e. one
derogation request corresponds to a single application for permit variations (and therefore, can relate to
5
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
more than one BAT-AEL of the BATC). The number of derogations presented in this study reflect the
situation at the time of reporting and are constantly evolving.
Guidance on Article 15(4) derogations has been developed in 14 Member States (BE, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR.
HR, IE, IT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK). In the majority of cases, the guidance has been finalised and made publicly
available. Some of the guidance developed covers all aspects of granting derogations, i.e. it considers the
three criteria outlined in Article 15(4), the calculation of costs and benefits and the assessment of
disproportionality. In other Member States, the guidance is either general or related to specific aspects of the
decision-making process. The guidance document developed by PL is specifically related to derogation
requests from the BATC for Large Combustion Plants.
Member States provided some examples to illustrate their understanding of the Article 15(4) criteria to justify
a derogation request, i.e. geographical location, local environmental conditions and technical characteristics
of the installation concerned. Only a limited number of Member States have included these specific
examples of the derogation criteria in the guidance and therefore, made available to operators (e.g. FR and
UK). For the majority of Member States, these or other examples are not made publicly available. The
assessment of a derogation request against these justifying derogation criteria is in some Member States
considered as a prerequisite to conducting further analysis.
There seems to be a common understanding amongst Member States of the type of cost data needed for
the assessment of a derogation request (both CAPEX and OPEX), as well as of the type of environmental
benefits to be considered in the assessment of a derogation request. In terms of calculating environmental
benefits, it was not clear for Member States how to value aspects such as emissions to water or pollutants to
air where no damage costs are available. Only a few examples were reported where a different, more
qualitative, approach was followed in the context of IED Article 15(4) derogations.
In order to assess disproportionality, i.e. to assess whether the costs for complying with the BAT-AELs are
disproportionally higher than the environmental benefits, Member States use different approaches such as
cost-benefit assessments (incl. the use of fixed cut-off values), cost-effectiveness calculations (incl.
comparison to reference values) and considerations of additional information on the installation and the
derogation request.
Based on the information collected on Member State derogation practices and case studies, the report
identifies 27 general principles that are currently applied by Member States. The principles can assist
Member States in their further application of IED Article 15(4) and it is recognised that the current list could
potentially change in the future. Additionally, a list of (parts of) Member State practices that are in line with
the derogation principles and have the potential for wider EU dissemination was identified. The derogation
principles and exemplar practices cover general aspects of the decision-making procedure as well as
aspects related to the Article 15(4) derogation criteria, the calculation of costs and benefits and the
assessment of disproportionality.
Based on the data collected, it appears that in a small number of cases, Member States practices are not
fully in line with the requirements of Article 15(4). This includes for example areas around the derogation
criteria and the inclusion of wider socio-economic benefits in the decision process. More time would be
needed to further understand how these Member States apply Article 15(4) and for Member States to make
use of the principles for further developing or amending their practices.
6
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
List of abbreviations
Abbreviation
BAT
Best Available Techniques (IED Article 3)
BAT-AEL
Emission levels associated with the BAT
BATC
Commission Implementing Decision establishing BAT conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council
BCR
Benefit Cost Ratio
BREF
BAT Reference Document
CA
Competent authority
CBA
Cost Benefit Analysis
CLM
Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide
ECM REF
Reference Document on Economics and Cross-media Effects
ELV
Emission Limit Value
GLS
Manufacture of Glass
IED
Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU)
IS
Iron and Steel Production
LCP
Large Combustion Plants
MS
EU Member State
NPV
Net present value
PP
Production of Pulp, Paper and Board
REF
Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas
EU Member States
AT
Austria
BE
Belgium
BG
Bulgaria
CY
Cyprus
CZ
Czech Republic
DE
Germany
DK
Denmark
EE
Estonia
7
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Abbreviation
EL
Greece
ES
Spain
FI
Finland
FR
France
HR
Croatia
HU
Hungary
IE
Ireland
IT
Italy
LT
Lithuania
LU
Luxemburg
LV
Latvia
MT
Malta
NT
Netherlands
PL
Poland
PT
Portugal
RO
Romania
SE
Sweden
SI
Slovenia
SK
Slovakia
UK
United Kingdom
8
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Contents
1.
Introduction
10
1.1
This report
10
1.2
Study context
11
1.2.1
Derogations in EU environmental legislation
11
1.2.2
IED Article 15(4) derogations
12
1.2.3
Development of the IED Article 15(4) derogation criteria
15
1.3
Structure of the report
18
2.
Member State Participation and Derogations
19
2.1
Methodology
19
2.1.1
Assessment of existing materials on IED derogation practices
19
2.1.2
Questionnaire development and launch
20
2.1.3
Detailed Member State analysis
21
2.1.4
Review and analysis of collected information
22
2.2
Overview of Member States participation and guidance
22
2.2.1
Overview of Member State participation
22
2.2.2
Member State guidance on IED Article 15(4) derogations
24
2.3
Overview of Article 15(4) derogation requests
26
3.
Member State Derogation Practices
36
3.1
Application for IED Article 15(4) derogations
36
3.2
Three derogation criteria
38
3.2.1
The three valid criteria for derogations
38
3.2.2
The relative weight of each derogation criterion
43
3.2.3
Initial screening of derogation criteria
44
3.2.4
Additional criteria used in the evaluation of IED Article 15(4) derogation requests
45
3.3
Calculation of costs
46
3.3.1
General approach for calculating BAT costs
46
3.3.2
Costs considered in the evaluation of IED derogation requests
49
3.3.3
Comparing and validating costs
51
3.3.4
Summary of cost calculations
53
3.4
Calculation of environmental benefits
53
3.4.1
Overview of approach for calculating environmental benefits of BAT
53
3.4.2
Environmental benefits considered
54
3.4.3
Comparison of benefits
56
3.4.4
Use of damage costs in IED derogations
56
3.4.5
Summary of environmental benefit calculations
59
3.5
Assessing disproportionality
60
3.5.1
Methods for determining disproportionality
60
3.5.2
Consideration of uncertainty
61
3.5.3
Additional considerations in the final decision
62
3.5.4
Overlap with other policy areas
63
3.5.5
Summary of disproportionality assessment
63
4.
Member State Derogation Case Studies
65
4.1
Methodology
65
4.2
Derogation case studies
66
4.3
Discussion
66
4.3.1
Initiation and application for derogation
66
4.3.2
Evaluation of derogation requests
70
4.3.3
Decisions on derogations
73
9
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
5.
Derogation Principles and Exemplar Practices
77
5.1
Methodology
77
5.2
Legal requirements and principles for the application of Article 15(4)
77
5.2.1
Legal requirements
77
5.2.2
Derogation principles
78
5.3
Exemplar derogation practices
80
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
87
6.1
Conclusions
87
6.2
Recommendations for future work
88
Table 1.1
Overview of project tasks and work completed
10
Table 2.1
Summary of input on derogations provided by Member States to this study, IMPEL projects and via the
formal IED reporting obligation.
23
Table 2.2
Status, type and link to Member States guidance on IED Article 15(4) derogations.
24
Table 2.3
Overview of derogations in EU Member States. Each line represents an individual derogation application at
installation level.
29
Table 3.1
Valid derogation criteria
39
Table 3.2
Overview of geographical location examples that are considered valid in specified Member States for IED
derogations
40
Table 3.3
Overview of ‘local environmental conditions’ examples that are considered valid in specified Member States
for IED derogations
41
Table 3.4
Overview of 'technical characteristics’ examples considered to be valid in specified Member States for IED
derogations
42
Table 3.5
Costs considered in the total cost calculations
50
Table 3.6
Benefits considered in the derogations
55
Table 3.7
Pollutants for which damage costs are available/used.
57
Table 3.8
Damage costs of pollutant emissions derived by the European Environment Agency for selected Member
States
57
Table 3.9
Air quality damage costs (for industry) derived in the UK Treasury Green Book
58
Table 3.10
Damage costs of pollutant emissions used in the Economics and Cross-Media Effects REF for selected
Member States 59
Table 3.11
Additional factors taken into consideration in the evaluation of derogations
62
Table 4.1
Selection of 11 derogation case studies
66
Table 4.2
Data and arguments used to justify the derogation requests.
68
Table 4.3
Assessment of disproportionality in the selected case studies.
71
Table 4.4
Derogations granted for the selected case studies.
73
Table 4.5
Follow-up evaluations
75
Table 5.1
Derogation principles for the application of IED Article 15(4).
79
Table 5.2
Member State exemplar practices
80
Figure 2.1
Overview of responses to the online questionnaire in the present study and Member States that have
developed guidance on derogations.
24
Figure 2.2
Four years compliance window for the adopted BAT conclusions.
27
Figure 2.3
Number of derogations requested (applications at installation level) for each sector.
27
Figure 2.4
Number of derogations requested (applications at installation level) for each sector relative to the number of
installations covered by each set of BAT conclusions.
28
Figure 2.5
Number of derogations requested (applications at installation level) in EU Member States (MS with no
information provided are not shown on the graph).
28
Figure 2.6
Number of derogations requested from the GLS BAT conclusions.
33
Figure 2.7
Number of derogations requested from the IS BAT conclusions.
34
Figure 2.8
Number of derogations requested from the CLM BAT conclusions.
35
Figure 3.1
Valid criteria in derogation decisions
40
Figure 3.2
Flow diagram of the Article 15(4) evaluation and decision process in FR illustrating the initial screening of
the derogation criteria.
45
Figure 4.1
IED Article 15(4) criteria used in the derogation case studies to justify a derogation request
67
Figure 4.2
Number of case studies where additional research or data requests were required.
70
Appendix A
Member State Derogation Practices
Appendix B
Member State Derogation Case Studies
Appendix C
Presentations at IEEG and Forum Meetings
10
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
1.
Introduction
This introduction presents the project’s objectives and tasks, background information and
the structure of the report.
1.1
This report
This is the final report for contract 070201/2017/753742/SFRA/ENV.C4 between the European Commission
and Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure UK Ltd (“Amec Foster Wheeler”) in collaboration
with the Regional Environmental Centre (“REC”). It concerns the “Application of IED Article 15(4)
derogations”.
This report presents our methodology and analysis of the EU Member State derogation practices and of a
selection of Member State derogation case studies. The analyses are based on information previously
provided by Member States and on additional data collection under this project. Furthermore, the report
provides possible derogation principles and identifies Member State exemplar practices. The findings
described in the intermediate report were presented and discussed at the IEEG workshop in Brussels, on 19
October 2017, jointly organised by the Commission and Belgian authorities.
In total, the project comprised four main tasks, i.e.:
Task 1: the compilation and analysis of EU Member State derogation practices;
Task 2: the analysis of a selection of EU Member State case studies, providing information on
how the Member State derogation practices have been applied in actual cases;
Task 3: the identification of derogation principles and of EU Member State exemplar practices
for the evaluation of derogation requests; and
Task 4: the presentation and discussion of the project findings at the IEEG workshop in
Brussels, 19 October 2017 on IED implementation. The project was also presented at the IED
Article 13 Forum meeting in Brussels, 20 December 2017. The feedback received during and
after the workshop and Article 13 Forum meeting is taken into account to update the work
under Tasks 1, 2 and 3 in this draft final report.
An overview of the work completed against each of the four tasks is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1
Overview of project tasks and work completed
Task (section in final report)
Work completed
Task 1 – MS derogation
practices
(Section 2, 3 and Appendix A)
• Review of existing information on IED Article 15(4)
• Primary data collection (survey with questionnaire to 28 Member States)
• Selection of 10 Member States for detailed analysis
• Interviews with selected Member States
• Analysis of collected information
• Task 1 updated based on feedback from the Commission, Member States and the IEEG
workshop
Task 2 – MS case studies
(Section 4 and Appendix B)
• Selection of derogation case studies
• Developing of questionnaire
• Interviews with selected Member States: BE (1), CZ (1), FR (1), IT (1), PL (1), SE (2), SK (1),
UK (2)
• Analysis of collected information
• Task 2 updated based on feedback from the Commission, Member States and the IEEG
workshop
Task 3 – Derogation principles
and exemplar practices
• Approach to identify principles and exemplar practices described
• Identification of possible derogation principles
11
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Task (section in final report)
Work completed
(Section 5)
• Identification and description of exemplar practices
• Task 3 updated based on feedback from the Commission, Member States, the IEEG workshop
and the IED Article 13 Forum meeting (20 December 2017)
Task 4 – IED implementation
workshop
(Appendix C)
• Communication with the Commission and Belgian authorities for the preparation of the
workshop
• Preparation of presentation on the project
• Delivery of workshop (presentation and discussion with Member State representatives)
• Presentation at the IED Article 13 Forum meeting
• Reporting on feedback and follow-up actions
1.2
Study context
1.2.1
Derogations in EU environmental legislation
European law is drafted and adopted to be binding on all Member States. However, some EU law may
include provisions allowing Member States to grant derogations (either individual or more general and
temporary or not, depending on the provisions). In general, they provide an exemption to implement a
particular provision of a legislation, usually for a limited time, in order to either allow for additional time to
meet the legislation’s requirements or to account for specific conditions.
Derogations may be directly applicable (without Member States having to make use of the option in their
transposition) by virtue of directly applicable provisions in Regulations. For example, in 2013 the EU banned
neonicotinoid pesticides in the Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009/EC. However, the legislation allows for
derogations (Article 53) so that farmers may use pesticides in emergency situations or where pest outbreaks
posed an imminent economic danger that could not be treated any other way.
In environmental legislation, some of the earlier examples of derogations come from the wildlife protection
legislation, in particular the Habitats and the Birds Directives (92/43/EEC). Article 16 of the Habitats Directive
foresees that provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not detrimental to
the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their
natural range, Member States may derogate from the provisions of the Directive for a number of specific
reasons. This may include the prevention of serious damage to crops or for imperative reasons of overriding
public interest1.
Water legislation offers other valuable examples of derogation. The main objective of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD, 200/60/EC) is to ensure that all waters reach ‘good status’ by the year 2015; however, the
WFD recognizes that reaching environmental objectives in all water bodies might not be feasible. The WFD
describes circumstances when the deadlines stipulated by the Directive to achieve the environmental
objectives could be extended or when the alternative objectives could be set (less stringent objectives or
justification of the deterioration from “high status” to “good status”). In particular, Article 4 of the WFD
envisages the possibility of such exemptions when objectives cannot be achieved due to natural
processes/conditions, lack of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs of available measures. Even the
most cost-effective set of measures could be disproportionately costly as a whole. Therefore, while not the
sole argument, disproportionality is one of the key considerations (other conditions need to apply) in
justifying the exemptions to the environmental objectives.
In particular, the WFD foresees a number of occasions when derogations can be justified on the basis of
disproportionality analysis including among others:
Deadlines established (2015) may be extended until the year 2021 or 2027 for the purposes of
phased achievement of the objectives, if completing the improvements by 2015 would be
disproportionately expensive (Article 4(4)); and
1 ECJ, C-240/09
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=derogation%2B96%252F61%252FEC&docid=80235
&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1005179#ctx1
12
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Less stringent environmental objectives may be set if achievement of the required objectives
would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive (Article 4(5)).
There are few general principles related to the applications of derogations in European environmental law.
Nonetheless, rulings from the European Court of Justice have consistently indicated that criteria for
derogations must be specified clearly and applied strictly (Case C-60/052, Case C-118/94). This was
reiterated in a recent ruling on the application of derogations contained in the LCP Directive (2001/80/EC)
where the ECJ indicated that a derogation from the general rule must be interpreted strictly. Furthermore, the
ruling stated that ‘the subjective intention of particular actors within the legislative process is not a valid
criterion of interpretation’3. In this case, the ECJ ruled that the UK failed to meet the requirements for using a
derogation to ELVs. Finally, when interpreting conditions for derogations, the ECJ has referred to the
practical objectives of the legislation. In another case, the court was asked to rule on the application of a
derogation under the VOC Directive. The Advocate General in its opinion considered the need for evidence
to support derogations. It indicated that when considering whether the conditions for the application of a
derogation are met ‘the competent authorities make a complex scientific and economic forecast. They must,
therefore, be afforded a wide margin of discretion which should be reviewed only to ensure that no manifest
errors have been committed. They must none the less examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects
of each individual case and give adequate reasons for their decisions’4.
1.2.2
IED Article 15(4) derogations
Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED) requires around 50 000 installations to operate in
accordance with permits issued by Member State competent authorities. The permits must include emission
limit values (ELVs) for emissions of polluting substances based on best available techniques (BAT).
Article 15(3) of the IED requires the competent authority to set ELVs that, under normal operating conditions,
ensure emissions do not exceed the BAT-AELs laid down in the BAT Conclusions adopted as Commission
Implementing Decisions. In accordance with the IED, permit conditions for an industrial site must be
reviewed and enter into force within four years of BAT Conclusions being published for the main activity.
However, there can be practical challenges in applying BAT to a particular installation and Article 15(4) of the
IED allows for derogation from the requirements of Article 15(3) under certain specific circumstances. ELVs
less strict than BAT-AELs may be set in the permit where the criteria in Article 15(4) are met, including that
an assessment shows that implementing the BAT-AELs would lead to disproportionately higher costs
compared to the environmental benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation
concerned; or
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.
In addition to the need for an assessment and the justification against the derogation criteria above, IED
Article 15(4) also contains a number of other legal requirements (see text of IED Article 15(4) in the box
below).
2http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d65467e3d492994965b8b9acac60b9f742.e3
4KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyMbN50?text=&docid=55164&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first
&part=1&cid=775914
3 ECJ, C-304/2015
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=derogation%2B96%252F61%252FEC&docid=18360
7&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1005179#ctx1
4 ECJ, Case C-81-14, Opinion from General Advocate,
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=derogation%2B96%252F61%252FEC&docid=16283
1&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1005179#ctx1
13
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Derogations are considered a pivotal component of the IED as the application of Article 15(4) directly affects
the effectiveness and relevance of the IED, as well as wider competition in the Single Market.
It is for the competent authority to judge the need for a derogation but the operator must ultimately make the
case for a derogation to be granted.
As noted in the ‘Assessment and Summary of the Member States’ Implementation Reports for the
IED, IPPC Directive, SED and WID’5 under the first reporting period for implementation of the IED, Member
States were asked specifically about the implementation of Article 15(4). Very little information was included
in the responses with at best, in some cases links provided to the procedures followed in order to decide
which value within the BAT-AEL range were to be included as ELV in the permit. Some additional
information was also provided, such as:
In Belgium, the general principle is that the upper limits of the BAT-AELs are adopted as ELVs
in the national legislation; and
Denmark, Germany and Sweden’s guidance includes information on setting ELVs in relation to
BAT-AELs and, for Denmark and Germany, which part of the BAT-AEL range should be used.
Denmark noted that it is not automatic that new installations should meet the lower end of the
BAT-AEL range.
On the implementation of the derogation provision included in Article 15(4), most Member States quoted
their national legislation without providing further information about how they practically intended to
implement this provision. Three Member States reported that a procedure for granting derogations had been
adopted, and four Member States had issued some guidance on the topic. Only one Member State reported
having experience with applying a specific procedure (date of the final report: March 2016).
Moreover, very little information was provided on what would be considered disproportionally higher costs
compared to environmental benefits. Replies referred to the following:
The cost which makes production uneconomical (Bulgaria);
5 Industrial Emissions Directive Final Report, March 2016. Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler.
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/99b250aa-17db-40d0-b8f9-
57f58a3465fe/IED%20implementation%20final%20report.pdf
Article 15(4) of the IED
By way of derogation from paragraph 3, and without prejudice to Article 18, the competent authority may, in
specific cases, set less strict emission limit values. Such a derogation may apply only where an assessment
shows that the achievement of emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in
BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.
The competent authority shall document in an annex to the permit conditions the reasons for the application of
the first subparagraph including the result of the assessment and the justification for the conditions imposed.
The emission limit values set in accordance with the first subparagraph shall, however, not exceed the
emission limit values set out in the Annexes to this Directive, where applicable.
The competent authority shall in any case ensure that no significant pollution is caused and that a high level of
protection of the environment as a whole is achieved.
On the basis of information provided by Member States in accordance with Article 72(1), in particular
concerning the application of this paragraph, the Commission may, where necessary, assess and further
clarify, through guidance, the criteria to be taken into account for the application of this paragraph.
The competent authority shall re-assess the application of the first subparagraph as part of each
reconsideration of the permit conditions pursuant to Article 21.
14
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Whether the ratio between the costs of undertaking the adjustments and the quantities of
emissions that need to be reduced in order to meet the levels is greater than the reference
values provided in the Economics and Cross-media Effects Reference Document (Croatia);
The fact that compliance with BAT-AELs does not have a beneficial effect compared to
compliance with the current set of permit conditions, achieving BAT-AELs has a positive effect
which is not significant given the extremely high cost, or territorial constraints render the cost of
meeting BAT disproportionate (Italy);
The cost associated with the technological investment required to meet the BAT-AEL
outweighs certain critical issues such as the environmental gains achievable should BAT be
applied (Malta); and
Cost of achieving the BAT-AEL is higher than the cost of harm caused (UK).
Furthermore, the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law
(IMPEL) has undertaken a project sharing information between Member States on implementing the
derogation provision. The IMPEL derogation project consisted of two phases, i.e.:
Phase I: Sharing of draft proposals between Member States for implementing derogations from
BAT-AELs under Article 15 paragraphs (4) and (5) of the IED6; and
Phase II: Experience of Derogations from IED BAT-AELs7.
The IMPEL Phase I report (2015) concluded that out of the Member States consulted, only nine had
guidance in place or forthcoming to assist in implementing Article 15(4). Furthermore, cost benefit
methodologies were being looked into by several Member States. The report noted the following key
messages:
Gathering data on costs and benefits is not easy and in some cases, not possible, in particular
considering costs of environmental damages. Due to the variety of methods existing (e.g.
valuations and damage cost functions) it was clear that different values might be assigned to
the same pollutants in different Member States;
Linked to the first point, qualitative analysis and data may be more useful than quantitative
analysis for some aspects of the assessment of derogations under Article 15(4);
Assessing costs and benefits over time may require economic specialist skills that are not
typically available within IED competent authorities, in particular use of discount rates,
investment costs and other costs data that might require some economic expertise;
Analysing costs and benefits is likely to be based on a small number of scenarios including do
nothing, complying with the BAT-AELs and a partial BAT-AEL compliance; and
Support might be sought from third parties to support derogation cost-benefit analysis.
The aim of IMPEL Phase II was to identify good practice in managing, assessing and granting or refusing
derogations against BAT-AELs, under Article 15(4) of the IED; through sharing the experiences of regulators
from different Member States (via a questionnaire and a workshop). Based on this exchange of experience
and information three main recommendations for further work were developed, i.e.:
It was recommended that the European Commission examine ways in which impact on the
aquatic environment can be quantified, with a view to then developing and publishing aquatic
cost of harm data, as well as values for a wider range of air pollutants;
To prevent inconsistent interpretation of Article 15(4)(a) with regard to which factors can be
considered as costs associated with geographic location or the local environmental conditions
6 IMPEL Phase I report (2015): https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FR-2014-18-
Implementing-derogations-from-BAT-AELs.pdf
7 IMPEL Phase II report (2016): https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/FR-2016-02-Experiences-
of-Derogations.pdf
15
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
of an installation; it was recommended that the European Commission develop guidance or
issue a direction specifying the types of costs which should and should not be considered; and
Further work was needed to identify ways in which impacts such as noise, odour and amenity
impact can be taken account of in a cost benefit analysis, as at present they cannot be
monetised.
The existing reports described above indicated that Member States experience in the development of
procedures and guidance and their application in relation to Article 15(4) had been somewhat limited to date.
Given the importance of ensuring the correct and consistent implementation of the derogation of provisions
under Article 15(4) across the EU both for environmental reasons, as well as for ensuring a level playing field
in the Union for operators’ subject to the IED (see recital 3 of the IED), the current project forms an important
assessment to both inform the Commission with regards to progress in implementation as well as identifying
principles and best practice in the application of the derogation provisions.
1.2.3
Development of the IED Article 15(4) derogation criteria
As noted above, derogations can only be granted if all conditions laid down in Article 15(4) are met. In
particular, it has to be demonstrated that the costs of having to achieve the BAT AELs are disproportionately
high as compared to the environmental benefits, taking into account one or more of the criteria laid down
under IED Article 15(4), namely the geographical location or local environmental conditions of the installation
concerned or the technical characteristics of the installation concerned. However, these criteria existed prior
to the 2007 Commission proposal that led to the IED and it is important to consider the evolution of the
criteria given:
i)
The role that the evolution has had in relation to the development of Article 15(4) of the IED; and
ii)
The experience of Member States of applying these criteria prior to entry into force of the IED
that is likely to have influenced the procedures and guidance developed in order to implement
Article 15(4) in practice.
A brief overview of the development of the derogation criteria under the IED is provided below.
Council Directive 84/360/EEC on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants8
This Directive was the first piece of EU legislation specifically targeting emissions from industrial plants. As
well as introducing the concept of Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC – the
predecessor to BAT), the Directive foresaw the need for BATNEEC to be gradually applied to existing plants
to take into account both technical and economic considerations. In particular Article 13 made clear that in
the light of an examination of developments as regards the best available technology and the environmental
situation, Member States must implement policies and strategies, including appropriate measures, for the
gradual adaptation of existing plants belonging to the categories given in Annex I to the best available
technology, taking into account in particular:
The plant's technical characteristics;
Its rate of utilisation and length of its remaining life;
The nature and volume of polluting emissions from it; and
The desirability of not entailing excessive costs for the plant concerned, having regard in
particular to the economic situation of undertakings belonging to the category in question.
It is useful to note, therefore, that Directive 84/360/EEC already considered the criteria of the technical
characteristics of the installation as a determinant for the application of Best Available Technology.
Furthermore, consideration of the nature of emissions and economics at the installation level was also
provided for under this Article. Whilst this cannot be considered as requiring the same cost-benefit analysis
as foreseen under the IED, it is apparent that Member States were expected to weigh up some of the
8 OJ L 188, 13.7.1984, p.20
16
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
elements that would naturally sit within a cost-benefit analysis for existing installations from the mid 1980’s
onwards.
Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control9
Article 9(4) of the IPPC Directive (now repealed) foresaw that ‘without prejudice to Article 10, the emission
limit values and the equivalent parameters and technical measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be based
on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology, but
taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and
the local environmental conditions. In all circumstances, the conditions of the permit shall contain provisions
on the minimisation of long-distance or transboundary pollution and ensure a high level of protection for the
environment as a whole’. Furthermore, recital 18 made clear that it was for the Member States to determine
how the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and local
environmental considerations could, where appropriate, be taken into consideration. It is these three criteria
that effectively formed the foundation for the criteria found under Article 15(4) of the IED.
In assessing the application of the three criteria under the IPPC Directive the Commission issued a number
of Communications and performed a number of studies that highlighted particular difficulties:
In its 2003 Communication ‘On the Road to Sustainable Production – Progress in implementing
Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control10’ the
Commission identified shortcomings in relation to all Member States except the UK in
transposing legislation requiring that authorities take account of the technical characteristics of
the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions
when determining the conditions of the permit. Section 6 of the Communication stated that
‘Since authorities are also expected to take account of the technical characteristics of the
installation, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions, BREF documents
cannot be the only basis for emission limit values and other permit conditions’.
The 2003 Communication also considered the issue of economic viability in relation to the
implementation of BAT whereby in Section 5.2 of the Communication it was emphasised that
‘The determination of BAT involves an assessment of the estimated net costs of implementing
a technique in relation to the environmental benefits achieved through its implementation. A
second economic test relates to whether the technique can be introduced in the relevant sector
under economically viable conditions. This affordability test can only be legitimately applied on
a European sectoral level, not to individual installations. If the techniques are considered too
expensive for the sector as a whole, then they are not BAT. However, by taking the sector and
not the individual installation as a basis for this test, there can be no perverse effect whereby
installations in a difficult financial situation are allowed to continue to pollute because they
cannot afford to take the required measures.’
In its 2005 report to the Council and the Parliament on the implementation of Directive
96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control11 the Commission emphasised
once again that ‘all installations should operate according to conditions fixed in a permit based
on BAT, taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its
geographical location and the local environmental conditions’.
In the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal for a Directive on
industrial emissions12, Section 2.3 indicated that in relation to Article 9(4) that the legal
interpretation of the Commission was that the BAT requirement came first in terms of weight
with ‘local factors’ as a secondary consideration and limited to specific circumstances.
Furthermore, as was indicated in the same section of the Impact Assessment, the Commission
considered that conditions in permit different from the normal application of BAT (such as less
strict ELVs) should be limited to the specific local factors mentioned in the Directive and be
9 OJ L 257, 10.10.96, p.26; codified by OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p.8
10 COM(2003) 354, 19.6.2003
11 COM(2005) 540, 3.11.2005
12 SEC(2007) 1679, 21.12.2007
17
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
allowed only if determined on the basis of an assessment of costs and benefits as noted in
COM (2003) 354.
In the Commission Study ‘Assessment of the Implementation by the Member States of the
IPPC Directive’ published in February 2007, Entec UK Limited (subsequently part of Amec
Foster Wheeler) examined in detail 30 permits for IPPC installations. 13 of the 30 installations
examined had permit conditions for the main emission sources demonstrably based on BAT
and consistent with BREF BAT-AELs. As a general remark, it was noted that where permit
conditions were not demonstrably based on BAT, no clear justification had generally been
provided explaining how conditions had been set and how derogation from BAT could be
justified on the basis of the criteria set in the Directive. Whilst 17 of the 30 installations
examined had conditions that considered specific technical, geographic or local conditions
there were few cases where those aspects appeared to provide a clear justification for
derogation from BAT-based permit conditions.
In the Commission Study ‘Assessment of the implementation of the IPPC Directive published in
February 2010, Entec UK Limited (subsequently part of Amec Foster Wheeler)13 examined
permits for 31 installations. For the majority of the installations (25) there was evidence of
consideration of specific technical characteristics of the installation, its geographical location or
local environmental conditions in the setting of emission limit values and equivalent technical
parameters. In some cases, this led to ELVs in permit that were less strict than the BAT-AELs.
For five installations, there appeared to be evidence of factors influencing permit conditions not
compatible with the Directive (e.g. the operator’s economic circumstances.) For only two of the
installations, all ELVs contained in permits were consistent with the range of BAT-AELs in the
BREFs. The remaining 29 had some but not all permit ELVs in line with the BAT-AEL ranges.
There were four cases where ELVs had not been set for pollutants for which BAT-AELs exist,
for all or parts of the installation. In terms of actual levels of emissions and based on the
monitoring data available, emissions from the installations appeared to comply with all permit
emission limit values for 16 installations, with mixed compliance for 12 installations and for
three installation monitoring data was missing to allow a complete assessment. For six
installations, all emissions data were consistent with BAT-AELs, with a mixed picture for 20 and
an unclear picture for five.
In the Commission Study ‘Assessment of the Implementation of the IPPC Directive Phase 3’
published in June 2011, Entec UK Limited (subsequently part of Amec Foster Wheeler)
assessed 50 permits. 14 (28%) of the installations had all ELVs set within the BAT-AEL ranges,
23 had a mixed set of ELVs, some BAT-AEL compliant and others not, 9 had no ELVs set
within the BAT-AEL ranges, 3 had no relevant BAT-AELs (shipyards) and 1 permit was
unclear. The majority of reasons given for not setting ELVs in line with the BAT-AELs fell under
one of the following bases – a relevant sectoral Directive limit applied (Solvents Emissions
Directive, Large Combustion Plant Directive and Waste Incineration Directive), BAT-AELs were
not mandatory, emissions were insignificant and/or the operator had demonstrated that the
installation was currently applying BAT and that stricter ELVs would have no direct impact on
the level of pollution.
In 25 of the 50 permits there was evidence to suggest that the main conditions relating to
permit ELVs or technical measures had been set on the basis of consideration of the technical
characteristics, local environmental conditions and/or geographic location of the installation
concerned. Specific examples included the setting of lower limits than BAT-AEL upper values
because a lower emission level was achieved through the application of BAT and the setting of
ELVs higher than BAT-AELs because of high levels of dispersion due to location and
prevalence of strong coastal winds.
Finally, a Commission study ‘Assessment and Summary of the Member States’ Implementation
Reports for the IED, IPPC Directive, SED and WID – IPPC Directive Final Report’ published in
March 2016, was carried out by Amec Foster Wheeler as part of the final implementation report
for the IPPC Directive. In this all Member States indicated that ‘in setting permit conditions,
13 In partnership with Arcadis Belgium
18
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
consideration must be given to the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its
geographical location and the local environmental conditions (in keeping with Article 9(4) of the
Directive)’, with these provisions remaining unchanged since the previous reporting period.
The wording found under Article 9(4) of the IPPC Directive is very close to the wording used in Article 15(4)
and it is reasonable to assume that competent authorities would have had to gain an understanding of how
to apply it beforehand as demonstrated in the abovementioned sources.
1.3
Structure of the report
This final report is structured as follows:
Section 2 provides the methodology for collecting the information on the Member State
derogation practices. The section presents an overview of Member State participation, the
available guidance on derogations in Member States and the number of derogations requested
and granted at the time of reporting.
Section 3 provides an analysis and discussion of the Member State derogation practices, with
a focus on three derogation criteria, calculation of costs, calculation of benefits and
assessment of disproportionality. The detailed information of each of the Member State
practices is presented in Appendix A.
Section 4 provides the methodology and analysis of the selected Member State case studies.
Similar to section 3, the analysis and discussion in the report focusses on the main aspects of
derogation requests and evaluations. The detailed information of each case study is presented
in Appendix B.
Section 5 presents the identification and description of possible principles for the application of
IED Article 15(4). Based on these principles exemplar Member State derogation practices are
identified.
Section 6 presents the main conclusions and recommendations for further work on the
application of IED Article 15(4) as identified under this study.
Appendix A provides the detailed information of all Member State derogation practices.
Appendix B provides the detailed information of the selected derogation case studies.
Appendix C provides the presentations at the IEEG workshop on IED implementation on 19
October 2017, Brussels and at the IED Article 13 Forum Meeting on 20 December 2017,
Brussels.
19
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
2.
Member State Participation and Derogations
This section describes the approach and information collected on the Member State
derogation practices and number of derogations. The primary objective of this part of the
study was to compile detailed information on, and conduct a thorough analysis of, the
procedures and guidance for the application and evaluation of IED Article 15(4)
derogations in all EU Member States.
The data collection approach is outlined in section 2.1. The subsequent sections describe
the Member State participation and number of derogations at the time of reporting,
providing a broad overview of the responses received from Member States on the
procedures and guidance available for the application and evaluation of derogations under
Article 15(4) of the IED.
2.1
Methodology
The four key stages involved in the collection and review of information on the Member States’ derogation
practices and guidance were as follows:
Assessment of existing materials on IED derogation practices;
Questionnaire development and launch;
Detailed Member States analysis (selection of Member States and follow-up interviews); and
Review and analysis of information from questionnaire and interviews.
The sections below describe the detailed approach for the collection and analysis of Member State practices
and guidance.
2.1.1
Assessment of existing materials on IED derogation practices
Existing information on the application of IED Article 15(4) derogations was thoroughly reviewed prior to the
development of a data collection questionnaire, to ensure that the data gathered in the current study would
complement rather than duplicate the findings of previous work on this subject. The review of existing data
was integral to build on the previous experiences and to form the basis for preliminary identification of gaps,
key trends, and inconsistencies to be addressed during the development of the data collection questionnaire.
Two key existing sources of information on the application of IED Article 15(4) derogations across the EU
were identified:
Reporting obligation for MS implementation of IED (Annex I Decision 2012/795/EU)
IED Article 72 states that ‘Member States shall ensure that information is made available to the
Commission on the implementation of this Directive on representative data on emissions and
other forms of pollution, on emission limit values, on the application of best available
techniques in accordance with Articles 14 and 15, in particular on the granting of exemptions in
accordance with Article 15(4)’. Article 1 of the Commission implementing decision
2012/795/EU14 states that MS have an obligation to reply to the questionnaire set out in Annex
I by 30 September 2014.
14 Commission implementing decision (2012/795/EU) establishing the type, format and frequency of
information to be made available by the Member States for the purposes of reporting on the implementation
of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions.
20
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
There are three specific questions in the questionnaire set out in Annex I of the Commission
implementing decision 2012/795/EU that provide information on Article 15(4) derogations:
Question 3.2 – How are derogations from Article 15(3) granted (Article 15(4))?
Question 3.3 – How is the cost-benefit assessment to allow such derogations undertaken
and what are considered to be 'disproportionately higher costs compared to the
environmental benefits'? (Article 15(4))?
Question 3.4 – Are there any limitations on the magnitude or duration of derogations (Article
15(4))?
The Member State responses to these questions are included in the final report on the
assessment of IED implementation reports, covering the first reporting period under the IED, i.e.
the year 201315.
IMPEL studies on the experience of derogations from IED BAT-AEL’s
A study of the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of
Environmental Law (IMPEL)16 has assessed the Member State IED derogations and aimed to
identify good practise and help regulators in IMPEL to develop a more consistent approach to
IED derogations. As part of this work, a survey was conducted across IMPEL Members on their
Article 15(4) derogation practices.
The information already issued in the European Commission responses and presented in the existing IMPEL
project reports was assessed and helped inform the structure and content of the questionnaire developed in
this study. It has previously been noted in relation to information collected by IMPEL and the questionnaire
on MS implementation of IED that data remains relatively limited. This study therefore provides an update
and more comprehensive coverage of information on Member State derogation practices and guidance.
A review of existing literature was also undertaken to provide additional (secondary) data on Member State
guidance and practices in relation to the application of Article 15(4). Documents reviewed included
assessments of derogation practices and/or specific derogation case studies performed by third parties. The
identification of sources was carried out through systematic web search.
2.1.2
Questionnaire development and launch
The primary source of information on derogation practices in this study was a direct consultation with
representatives from Member States.
The consultation strategy comprised the following steps (discussed in more detail below):
Identification of stakeholders to be contacted and communication strategy;
Development of data collection questionnaire;
Launching and conducting the first round of the consultation; and
Initial review and analysis.
Identification of stakeholders to be contacted and communication strategy
Representatives from the appropriate Member State competent authority were contacted in the first instance.
As an initial starting point, the members of the IEEG were invited to complete the survey. Additional contacts
were then established through the competent authorities and were utilised in the follow-up discussions and
interviews, where appropriate.
15 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/99b250aa-17db-40d0-b8f9-
57f58a3465fe/IED%20implementation%20final%20report.pdf
16 http://www.impel.eu/projects/proposals-derogations-best-available-techniques-associated-emission-levels-
bat-aels/
21
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Development of questionnaire
A targeted consultation questionnaire was then designed to gather information mainly related to:
The derogation application and evaluation procedure;
The three derogation criteria;
The calculation of costs;
The calculation of environmental benefits; and
Methods for assessing disproportionality.
The questionnaire, and responses from Member States are presented in Appendix A. The questionnaire was
developed in Survey Monkey.
Launching and conducting the first round of consultation
The distribution of the questionnaire and invitation for IEEG members to participate was preceded with a
general email explaining the background to the work and the basis of the stakeholder's selection to
contribute. This was to ensure that the objectives of the project were well understood by relevant
stakeholders and to allow them to prepare and allocate resources for its completion.
The invitation and link to the questionnaire were sent out on 16 May 2017. The consultation period lasted
approximately six weeks, including an extension allowed for some Member States that asked for additional
time to gather the necessary information and where follow-up was required to gather additional information
after the initial survey response. Survey responses were monitored regularly and reminder emails (in native
languages) regarding the completion of the questionnaire were sent out when appropriate.
Initial review and analysis
An analysis of the outcomes of the first consultation round was conducted to determine whether a sufficiently
complete population of 'sense-checked' responses was received from Member States, and to identify any
gaps in information or topics, where further research was required. The responses to each question of the
questionnaire in this study and the relevant information from previous IMPEL surveys and questionnaire on
MS implementation of IED (Annex I to Commission decision 2012/795/EU), and other data sources (see
above) were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet. This allowed a relatively simple assessment of the
completeness and quality of the information gathered and gaps remaining.
A second round of targeted stakeholder consultation was then carried out to fill gaps identified in the
previous steps of data collection and confirm preliminary findings.
The responses received in the questionnaires and follow up data collection have been used as input in
selecting the sample of ten Member States for a more detailed analysis (see Section 2.1.3).
2.1.3
Detailed Member State analysis
Following the review and analysis of Member State responses to the survey questionnaire, ten EU Member
states were selected for a more detailed analysis based on the following criteria:
Member State size (area and population);
GDP (and share of industry);
Geographical location in the EU;
Information found in primary data collection: literature review and responses to questionnaires;
Sectoral composition across Annex I of IED;
Number of IED installations - for sectors where BAT conclusions have been adopted:
Availability of official guidance or procedure on IED Article 15(4) derogations;
22
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Number of derogations;
Centralised or regional competent authority; and
Availability of information in previous tasks.
The ten Member States were selected in order to represent a wide range over the criteria listed. After
agreement with the Commission, the following ten Member States (or regions) were selected for a more
detailed analysis: Belgium (Flanders), Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain (Catalonia),
Sweden, Slovakia and the United Kingdom (England). These ten Member States represent 10 out of 14 who
indicated in the initial survey that guidance is available on derogations.
For each of the ten Member States a tailored set of supplementary questions was developed, building on the
information available from the previous steps.
The stakeholders who had contributed to the primary data collection were again the first point of contact in
this detailed information collection. However, in this phase of the project we also enquired about potential
other stakeholders to provide (part of) the additional requested information. The information gathering for this
stage of the study was primarily carried out via telephone interviews (in native language) with additional
follow-up emails and conversations conducted when required to clarify or query information provided or
request further details.
2.1.4
Review and analysis of collected information
All the information collected through the review of existing materials, the initial online survey and the follow-
up interviews with selected Member States has been compiled and analysed in detail. Throughout the data
collection phase, gaps have been identified and actions were taken to fill these information gaps where
possible. The overview and analysis of all the EU Member State derogation practices is described in the
section below.
2.2
Overview of Member States participation and guidance
This section provides a broad overview of the responses received from Member States on the procedures
and guidance for the application and evaluation of derogations under Article 15(4) of the IED.
2.2.1
Overview of Member State participation
Table 2.1 provides a summary of information from each EU Member State, providing their situation in terms
of their participation in the questionnaire in the current study, the previous IMPEL studies and the formal IED
reporting obligation (Annex I to Commission decision 2012/795/EU).
Representative competent authorities from 22 of 28 Member States responded to the online questionnaire in
this study, with a further four (EE, NL, LV, SI) declining to participate due to a lack of available information or
experience. AT also declined to participate, commenting there was a lack of additional value in the study and
there had been no cases of derogations to date in AT. There was no input to the study from RO. For some
Member States (e.g. ES), multiple responses were provided for different regions. The UK and BE have also
provided multiple inputs to previous IMPEL projects and IED reporting obligation for different regions.
Therefore, the number of responses to specific questions within the online questionnaire, discussed in
subsequent sections, is variable and often greater than 22. Member States did not always respond to all the
questions in the questionnaire and therefore the total responses to each question may vary as well.
23
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 2.1
Summary of input on derogations provided by Member States to this study, IMPEL projects and
via the formal IED reporting obligation.
Input to this study
(Survey Monkey)
Input to IMPEL projects
Input via formal IED reporting
obligation (Annex I to Commission
decision 2012/795/EU)
Austria
NO*
NO
YES
Belgium (Flanders)
YES
YES
YES
Bulgaria
YES
YES
YES
Croatia
YES
NO
YES
Cyprus
YES
NO
YES
Czech Republic
YES
YES
YES
Denmark
YES
YES
YES
Estonia
NO**
NO
YES
Finland
YES
YES
NO
France
YES
YES
YES
Germany
YES
YES
YES
Greece
YES
NO
YES
Hungary
YES
NO
YES
Ireland
YES
YES
YES
Italy
YES
YES
YES
Latvia
NO**
NO
YES
Lithuania
YES
NO
YES
Luxemburg
YES
NO
YES
Malta
YES
NO
YES
Netherlands
NO**
NO
YES
Poland
YES
YES
YES
Portugal
YES
NO
YES
Romania
NO
NO
YES
Slovakia
YES
NO
YES
Slovenia
NO**
NO
YES
Spain
YES
YES
YES
Sweden
YES
NO
YES
United Kingdom
YES
YES
YES
* provided statement that there was a lack of additional value of the study.
** provided response via email that no information is available in the Member State and/or there is no experience on derogations under
IED Article 15(4).
24
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
2.2.2
Member State guidance on IED Article 15(4) derogations
Of the 22 Member State responses to the online survey, 14 (BE, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, PL, PT, SE,
SK, UK), indicated that guidance on IED derogations has been developed. The guidance document
developed by PL for the evaluation of IED Article 15(4) derogations is specifically related to requests for
derogations from the LCP BATC. For an overview and further details provided by each country, see Figure
2.1 and Appendix A.
Figure 2.1
Overview of responses to the online questionnaire in the present study and Member States that
have developed guidance on derogations.
In the majority of cases, the guidance had been finalised and made publicly available (see Table 2.2). In HR,
the specific guidance for derogations is not publicly available and is only provided when an operator initiates
the procedure for requesting derogations. A general guidance document was available in HR for economic
evaluation of BATs, most of which could be used in evaluating derogation requests.
Table 2.2
Status, type and link to Member States guidance on IED Article 15(4) derogations.
Member State
Status of
guidance
Format
Link to guidance**
BE (Flanders)
Publicly
available
PDF Document
https://navigator.emis.vito.be/mijn-navigator?woId=61193&woLang=nl
http://emis.vito.be/sites/emis.vito.be/files/pages/1142/2017/Leidraad%20BBT%20o
p%20bedrijfsniveau_definitief.pdf
CZ
Publicly
available
PDF Document
http://www.mzp.cz/ippc/ippc4.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/ippc/ip
pc4.nsf/0E783DE513877FC2C12580110023AFB9/files/Metodika%20vyjimky%20
BAT%20%2815.04.14%29%20FINAL.pdf
DK
Publicly
available
Web page
http://miljogodkendelsesvejledningen.dk/opslag/mere-om-bat/fravigelser-fra-bat/
ES (Catalonia)
Publicly
available
Web page
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2016-12601
25
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Member State
Status of
guidance
Format
Link to guidance**
FI
Publicly
available
Not specified
No link provided
Existing IED Article 15(4) documentation previously received
FR
Publicly
available
PDF Document
http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Publication-du-
Guide-de-demande-de.html
HR
Internal
use only
n/a
n/a
General guidance on economic assessment of BAT:
http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/studija_o_smjernicama_za_ekonomsko_vrednovanje_izb
ora_najboljih_raspolozivih_tehnika_nrt_u_skladu_sa_zahtjevima_postojece_legisl
ative_1.pdf
IE
Publicly
available
PDF Document
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/licensee/Draft%20Guidance%20on%20IED%20alte
rnate%20ELVs%20or%20derogation%20from%20BAT%20AELs.pdf
IT
Publicly
available
Section/annex of
national
legislation
‘Annex XII-bis to Part II’ to the Italian IED transposition Decree (Legislative Decree
n. 46/2014, published in the Italian Official Journal)
PL
Publicly
available
PDF Document
http://www.ekoportal.gov.pl/fileadmin/Ekoportal/Pozwolenia_zintegrowane/Podrec
znik_dotyczacy_udzielania_odstepstw_-__Konkluzje_BAT_dla_LCP.pdf
PT
Publicly
available
PDF Document
and Excel based
tool
http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=17&subref=151&sub2ref=321&sub3ref=3
30
SE
Publicly
available
Section/annex of
national
legislation
No link provided
In the Member State implementation report, reference has been made to the
motives of the Swedish main ordinance which implements IED issued by the
Ministry of the Environment and Energy (FM 2013:1 p. 38-39). Guidance on
derogations is given on page 38-41.
SK
Publicly
available
Web page
http://www.minzp.sk/sekcie/temy-oblasti/integrovana-prevencia-kontrola-
znecistovania/informacie/informacie-usmernenia.html
UK (England)
Publicly
available*
PDF Document
+ Excel-based
tool
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-emissions-directive-
derogation-cost-benefit-analysis-tool
* Partially available - there are elements of the guidance that are published (Defra guidance, Treasury guidance, cost benefit analysis
tool and guidance), and there are others that remain internal only. This is largely due to the government digital policy.
** All of the guidance is available in the MS official languages.
The UK's questionnaire response indicated that the situation with guidance varied across its different
regions. In England and Northern Ireland, the government’s cost benefit tool and comprehensive guidance
on how to complete it was published and are publicly available. However, a full step by step guidance
advising operators how to apply derogations was not yet available. In Wales, guidance was in draft form, and
in Scotland, it was indicated that details would be provided later.
Six Member States (CZ, FI, IE, SE, SK, UK) indicated that their guidance covered all aspects of granting
derogations i.e. it considers the three criteria outlined in the IED Article 15(4), the calculation of costs and
benefits and the assessment of disproportionality. By contrast, seven Member States (BE, DK, ES, FR, HR,
IT, PT) indicated that their guidance is either general or related to specific aspects of these criteria.
BE (Flanders) specified that they provide general guidance to determine BAT on an installation level, not
specific to IED 15(4) derogations. DK also indicated their guidance covers general aspects. HR noted that
their guidance covers only choosing the option for which derogation could be granted. Similarly, IT noted
their guidance details typical criteria and circumstances under which derogations may be granted. PT
indicated that their guidance covers economics and cross-media effects.
ES (Catalonia) specified that their guidance covers the following:
26
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Whether the economic cost endangers the viability of the company;
Assessment of the capacity of the local environment;
Assessment of economic cost estimation;
Comparison of emission values of the activity with BAT associated emission levels, to assess
whether the economic costs compared to environmental benefits are disproportionate; and
Other installations of the same sector in the same situation.
PL has developed guidance for submitting and evaluating derogation requests specifically related to the
BAT-AELs from the LCP BATC. The guidance specifies the exceptional nature of IED Article 15(4)
derogations, the need for an assessment of the cost and benefits of achieving the BAT-AELs, as well as the
need for a statement on disproportionality due to geographical location, local environmental conditions or
technical characteristics of the installation concerned. In addition to the guidance, a spreadsheet is available
for operators to populate, including data on costs and environmental benefits, in order to perform a cost-
benefit analysis.
2.3
Overview of Article 15(4) derogation requests
This section provides an overview of the sectors and BAT conclusions for which Article 15(4) derogations
have been requested, granted or rejected in Member States as reported under this study.
Table 2.3 provides an overview of the derogation requests made to date17 in each EU Member State,
according to the information provided in the questionnaire responses and follow up interviews. This indicates
how many derogation requests have been made, for which specific sectors and BAT conclusions these
applications relate to, and the outcome of these applications (granted/rejected/pending). A number of data
gaps still exist for this information, as for example some Member States did not report the number of
derogations that are currently under evaluation. Furthermore, information on the number of derogations from
two Member States is missing (DE and RO).
The number of derogations presented in this study reflect the situation at the time of reporting. The number
of derogations requested by operators, evaluated and decided by the Member States are constantly
evolving.
When referring to the number of Article 15(4) derogations, Member States may have a different way of
reporting. Some Member States reported the numbers as derogations from individual BAT-AELs, i.e. one
derogation request corresponds to a derogation from a single BAT-AEL of the BATC. Other Member States
reported the numbers as requests from industrial installations, i.e. one derogation request corresponds to a
single application for permit variations (and therefore, can relate to more than one BAT-AEL of the BATC).
In total, 105 derogation requests are reported in this study. At the time of reporting 19 applications at
installation level have been reported by the UK (3 in Wales and 16 in England) and 19 by FR. The
information from the UK relates to the determined derogations. The 16 applications in England originate from
12 installations (two installations submitted two separate derogation requests and one installation submitted
three requests). The Environment Agency (England) only allows operators to group their derogations into a
single application if compliance with BAT-AELs for all derogations within the application can be achieved by
using the same solution. There could also be other valid reasons for grouping derogation applications
together, for example if there are multiple requests from the same plant for the same pollutant. The
derogations in England relate to 37 individual BAT-AELs.
The number of derogations requested in other Member States are fewer (there are also fewer installations),
for example compared with the next highest numbers, FI (10), CZ (8), PL (8), IT (7), SK (7). The vast majority
(73) of derogation requests reported in this study have been granted. Relatively few (6) have been rejected.
Some of the requests reported are still under evaluation (26).
17 Member State consultation period: Q2 2017; further clarifications were provided after the IED
implementation workshop (October 2017) and the IED Article 13 Forum meeting (December 2017).
27
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
The industrial sectors for which the largest numbers of derogations have been requested were Manufacture
of Glass (GLS) (40) and Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (CLM) (30). The
majority of derogation requests concerning CLM have been in the UK, FR and PL with relatively few in other
Member States. Derogation requests concerning GLS are more common throughout different Member
States. Fewer derogation requests have been made for Iron and Steel Production (IS) (15), Production of
Pulp, Paper and Board (PP) (6), Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas (REF) (3), Non-ferrous Metals Industries
(NFM) (2), Wood-based Panels Production (WBP) (1) and Common Waste Water and Waste Gas Treatment
(CWW) (1). The specific sector and BAT conclusions for some derogation requests and/or their current
status is unknown and relevant Member States were contacted to obtain or clarify the relevant information.
It should be noted that the date to comply with the BAT conclusions for the GLS, IS, TAN and CLM sectors
has passed, while installations from other sectors (e.g. PP, REF) have still time to comply with the applicable
BAT conclusions, as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2
Four years compliance window for the adopted BAT conclusions.
An overview of the derogations requested, granted and rejected as reported under this study is presented in
Figure 2.3, Figure 2.4, Figure 2.5 and Table 2.3.
Figure 2.3
Number of derogations requested (applications at installation level) for each sector.
BATC
Adoption
date
Deadline for
compliance
Q1
Q2
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
GLS
03/2012
03/2016
IS
03/2012
03/2016
TAN
02/2013
02/2017
CLM
04/2013
04/2017
CAK
12/2013
12/2017
PP
09/2014
09/2018
REF
10/2014
10/2018
WBP
11/2015
11/2019
NFM
06/2016
06/2020
CWW
06/2016
06/2020
IRPP
07/2017
07/2021
LCP
08/2017
08/2021
2018
2019
2020
2021
Window for compliance
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
GLS
IS
CLM
PP
REF
WBP
NFM
CWW
Unknown
Granted
Rejected
Pending
28
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Figure 2.4
Number of derogations requested (applications at installation level) for each sector relative to
the number of installations covered by each set of BAT conclusions.
Figure 2.5
Number of derogations requested (applications at installation level) in EU Member States (MS
with no information provided are not shown on the graph).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
GLS
IS
CLM
PP
REF
NFM
Derogation requests (% of installations)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE EL ES
FI FR HR HU IE
IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE
SI SK UK
Granted
Rejected
Pending
29
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 2.3
Overview of derogations in EU Member States. Each line represents an individual derogation
application at installation level.
Member State
BATC /
Sector
BAT conclusion(s)
Granted
Rejected
Pending
BE
GLS
BAT 28
√
GLS
BAT 74
√
REF
BAT 52
√
CZ
GLS
BAT 17, BAT 18
√
GLS
BAT 38, BAT 40, BAT 42
√
GLS
BAT 24, BAT 25, BAT 28
√
GLS
BAT 59, BAT 63
√
GLS
BAT 9, BAT 17
√
GLS
BAT 9, BAT 18
√
GLS
BAT 20
√
GLS
BAT 74
√
ES
(Catalonia)
GLS
BAT 17 and BAT 18 (NOx)
√
GLS
BAT 17 and BAT 18 (NOx)
√
GLS
BAT 17 and BAT 18 (NOx)
√
ES (Basque)
GLS
BAT 24
√
FI
PP
BAT40
√
GLS
BAT 38
√
GLS
BAT 40
√
GLS
BAT 63
√
IS
BAT 56
√
GLS
not specified
√
IS
not specified
√
IS
not specified
√
GLS
not specified
√
Unknown
not specified
√
FR
GLS
not specified (NOx, Pb)
√
GLS
not specified (NOx, Pb)
√
IS
not specified (dust)
√
CLM
not specified (dust)
√
CLM
not specified (dust)
√
30
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Member State
BATC /
Sector
BAT conclusion(s)
Granted
Rejected
Pending
CLM
not specified (dust)
√
CLM
not specified (dust, SO2)
√
CLM
not specified (SO2)
√
CLM
not specified (SO2)
√
CLM
not specified (SO2)
√
CLM
not specified (SO2)
√
CLM
not specified (SO2)
√
PP
not specified (NOx, S gas, SO2)
√
PP
not specified (NOx, S gas, SO2)
√
PP
not specified (NOx, S gas, SO2)
√
REF
BAT 52
√
WBP
not specified (dust and formaldehyde)
√
NFM
not specified (TVOC and dust)
√
NFM
not specified (TVOC and dust)
√
HR
Unknown
not specified
√
Unknown
not specified
√
Unknown
not specified
√
HU
GLS
BAT 17
√
GLS
BAT 17
√
IS
BAT 20
√
IE
CLM
BAT 19
√
IT
GLS
BAT 16, BAT 17, BAT 19
√
GLS
BAT 16, BAT 17
√
GLS
BAT 17, BAT 19
√
GLS
BAT 16, BAT 17/18, BAT 20 (HCl)
√
GLS
BAT 17
√
GLS
BAT 9; BAT 24; BAT25/26
√
GLS
BAT 13 (TSS), BAT 24; BAT 25; BAT 28; BAT31 (SOx)
√
MT
CWW
Not specified
√
31
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Member State
BATC /
Sector
BAT conclusion(s)
Granted
Rejected
Pending
PL
CLM
BAT 21 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 21 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 21 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 42 (dust), BAT 43 (dust), BAT 45 (NOx), BAT 47 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 42 (dust), BAT 43 (dust), BAT 45 (NOx), BAT 47 (SOx)
√
Unknown
not specified
√
Unknown
not specified
√
Unknown
not specified
√
PT
GLS
BAT16 (dust); BAT17 (NOx)
√
GLS
BAT16 (dust); BAT17 (NOx)
√
GLS
BAT17 (NOx); BAT20 (HCl)
√
GLS
BAT17 (NOx)
√
GLS
BAT17 (NOx)
√
GLS
BAT17 (NOx); BAT19 (SOx)
√
SE
IS
BAT 34
√
IS
BAT 49, BAT 64
√
IS
BAT 51, BAT 56
√
IS
BAT 64, 65
√
PP
BAT 23
√
GLS
BAT 63
√
SK
IS
BAT 49 ; BAT 50 ; BAT 21
√
IS
BAT 20 ; BAT 25 ; BAT 26
√
CLM
BAT 63
√
CLM
BAT 63
√
CLM
BAT 48 ; BAT 50
√
GLS
BAT 59
√
CLM
BAT 50
√
UK (England)
IS
BAT 48 (H2S), BAT 49 (SOx and dust)
√
IS
BAT 50 (dust), BAT 51 (dust)
√
IS
BAT 56 (total N)
√
32
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Member State
BATC /
Sector
BAT conclusion(s)
Granted
Rejected
Pending
GLS
BAT 32 (dust), BAT 35 (HF)
√*
PP
BAT 40 (COD), BAT 50 (TSS)
√
CLM
BAT 21 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 48 (CO)
√
CLM
BAT 18 (dust)
√
CLM
BAT 43 (dust)
√
CLM
BAT 43 (dust)
√
CLM
BAT 17 (dust)
√
CLM
BAT 17 (dust), BAT 18 (dust), BAT 21 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 17 (dust), BAT 18 (dust)
√
CLM
BAT 21 (SOx)
√
CLM
BAT 18 (dust)
√
CLM
BAT 18 (dust)
√
UK (Wales)
IS
BAT 26 (dust), BAT 48 (HS), BAT 49 (SO2 and dust)
√
REF
BAT 52
√
GLS
BAT 59
√
* Original derogation request was rejected
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/558695/Decision_Documents.pdf)
Where this information was reported, the table above includes the individual BAT conclusion(s) (and BAT-
AELs) of each derogation application. The number of derogations requested from the BAT-AELs linked to
these BAT conclusions are summarised in Figure 2.6, Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8 for the GLS, IS and CLM
BAT conclusions, respectively. These numbers refer to the individual BAT conclusion numbers and not to the
number of derogation applications. Some applications (at installation level) relate to only one BAT conclusion
number, while other applications relate to more than one.
33
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Figure 2.6
Number of derogations requested from the GLS BAT conclusions.
[* BAT63: BAT-AELs for air emissions from downstream processes in the mineral wool sector, when treated separately]
Chapter 7 of the final GLS BREF (2013)18 describes the concluding remarks and recommendations for future
work based on the TWG information exchange process. During and following the final meeting of the TWG, a
consensus was reached within the TWG for the whole GLS BREF document. Dissenting views were
expressed on a limited number of BAT-AELs, two of which have been recorded in chapter 7 of the GLS
BREF. i.e.:
GLS BAT 17 (IT and PT): The two Member States consider that the upper value of the BAT-
AEL range concerning the application of combustion modifications for the reduction of NOX
emissions is not achievable in the case of existing installations, in particular for cross-fired,
gas-fired, regenerative furnaces.
GLS BAT 19 (The European container glass federation, FEVE): The industrial organisation
considers that the upper value of the BAT-AEL ranges for both natural gas and oil-fired
furnaces are difficult to achieve in particular when a complete recycling of filter dust and high
external cullet rates are used in the batch formulation.
Those dissenting views all indicated that the upper value of a specific BAT-AEL range is not achievable
under certain situations and therefore argued for a less stringent upper BAT-AEL value.
18 http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/GLS_Adopted_03_2012.pdf
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
9
13
16
17
18
19
20
24
25
26
28
31
32
35
38
40
42
59
63
74
No of derogations
BAT conclusion number
CO
TSS
Dust
Dust
Dust
Dust
NOx
NOx
SOx
HCl
HF
NOx
NOx
HCl
HF
SOx
HF
NOx HCl
HF
SOx *
HCl
HF
34
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Figure 2.7
Number of derogations requested from the IS BAT conclusions.
[* BAT 56: BAT-AELs based on a qualified random sample or a 24-hour composite sample and referring only to single coke oven water
treatment plants]
Chapter 12 of the final IS BREF (2013)19 indicates that at the final TWG meeting, a high level of consensus
was achieved on the BAT conclusions. Three split views are recorded in the IS BREF, i.e.:
IS BAT 20 (AT and one NGO): BAT for sinter plants should be to reduce dust emissions from
the sinter strand waste gas by means of a bag filter only and the BAT-AEL for dust should be
<10 mg/Nm3, determined as a daily mean value. Several installations in the EU have installed
bag filters and achieve dust emission levels below 10 mg/Nm3 on a daily average basis.
IS BAT 25 (AT and one NGO): BAT should be to reduce PCDD/F and PCB by applying
injection of adequate adsorption agents into the waste gas duct of the sinter strand before
dedusting with a bag filter. Based on the information of this document, the BAT-AEL for
PCDD/F should be <0.05 – 0.2 ng ITEQ/ Nm3 for a 6 – 8-hour random sample with steady-
state conditions.
IS BAT 49 (DE and one NGO): A dust emission level of <10 mg/Nm3 should be considered
BAT-AEL for coke oven under firing based on the information provided. The high number and
the size of cracks in the oven walls of very old coking plants (up to >40 years) should not be
used as a basis for the higher BAT-AEL.
Those dissenting views all indicated that evidence is available to support certain lower BAT-AEL values and
therefore argued for more stringent BAT-AELs in these cases.
19 http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/IS_Adopted_03_2012.pdf
0
1
2
3
4
5
20
21
25
26
34
48
49
50
51
56
No of derogations
BAT conclusion number
Dust
Hg
PCDD/F
Dust
SOx,
HF, HCl
H2S
SOx,
dust, NOx
Dust
Dust
*
35
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Figure 2.8
Number of derogations requested from the CLM BAT conclusions.
The final CLM BREF (2013) indicates that a high level of consensus was achieved on the BAT conclusions
for the cement and lime industry, with no split views recorded. For the BAT conclusions of the MgO industry
a general level was achieved. After the final CLM TWG meeting (2008) Euromines and the MgO industry
expressed their concerns about the BAT-AELs for SOx emissions (BAT 65), the applicability of the available
abatement techniques and the associated cross-media effects (overall environmental protection). The MgO
industry argued for a less strict BAT-AEL due to raw material compositions leading to higher SOx emissions.
After discussions during the CLM TWG meeting in 2012 a final conclusion was reached concerning the BAT
for SOx emissions in the MgO industry, with a high level of consensus.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17
18
19
21
42
43
45
47
48
50
63
No of derogations
BAT conclusion number
Dust
Dust
NOx
Dust
Dust
NOx
SOx
SOx
CO
TOC
CO
36
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
Member State Derogation Practices
This section provides an overview of Member State practices for deciding on an IED
Article 15(4) derogation request. The section focusses on the initiation and application for
derogations (section 3.1); the three derogation criteria referred to in IED Article 15(4)
(section 3.2); the calculation of costs (section 3.3), the calculation of environmental
benefits (section 3.4) and the methods for assessing disproportionality (section 3.5).
3.1
Application for IED Article 15(4) derogations
Derogation applications, in nearly all Member States and regions, are initiated by the operator. In five
responses (CZ, ES, HR, MT and UK), it was indicated that the competent authority can make an initial
determination that a derogation may be warranted before contacting the operator.
ES (Catalonia) indicated that if an operator does not agree with an ELV in accordance with the BAT-AEL in
the draft environmental permit the competent authority assesses if a derogation may be possible. ES
(Murcia) noted that derogations are initiated by competent authorities.
In CZ and SK there are 2 possible initiation scenarios, (1) initiated by operator (for both new and existing
installations); or (2) initiated by competent authorities when reconsidering permit conditions within the 4
years window after publication of the BAT conclusions (existing installations). For new installations only an
initiation by the operator is possible. The initiation by the competent authorities should be considered as an
invitation for the operator to comply with the BAT conclusions. It is then up to the operator to assess the
need to apply for a derogation.
In the UK, the situation varies between different regions. In England and Northern Ireland, the competent
authorities presume that all operators will fully implement BAT conclusions. If the operator cannot meet a
particular BAT-AEL the onus is on them to apply for a derogation. The process starts by asking operators to
provide evidence to demonstrate compliance with the BAT conclusions and to identify those BAT
conclusions for which a derogation will be sought. In Scotland, the merits of derogation are considered after
undertaking a site-specific BAT assessment.
In some Member States the available guidance or procedure specifies the information that needs to be
submitted by the operator for an IED Article 15(4) derogation request. Examples of such information
requests are provided in Box 2.1 for BE, CZ and PT.
Box 2.1. Information requested from operators when applying for an Article 15(4) derogation
BELGIUM – Flanders20
The request for derogation should contain the following information:
name, role and address of the requester;
name, and registration number of installation/company;
Identification of the installation or activity;
reference to the relevant BREF, BAT conclusion and if applicable, BAT-AELs;
an assessment showing that the achievement of emission levels associated with the best
available techniques as described in BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher
costs compared to the environmental benefits due to:
20 VLAREM III, Article 1.4. https://navigator.emis.vito.be/mijn-navigator?woId=61193
37
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
(a) The geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation
concerned; or
(b) The technical characteristics of the installation concerned;
a proposal for ELVs indicating that these are not higher than:
(a) the relevant ELVs in VLAREM II (as far as no derogation from these VLAREM II ELVs is
allowed);
(b) the applicable emission limits outlined in Annex II of VLAREM III (technical provisions of
Annex V to VIII of the IED).
a proposal of measures to ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole is
achieved; and
a note indicating that the proposed measures respond to the BAT, with special attention to the
criteria outlined in Annex 3.3 of VLAREM II (criteria for determining BAT).
CZECH REPUBLIC
For granting of any derogation, processing a permit application by the operator is required. The following
information is therefore requested:
Operator identification;
Installation identification;
Emission limits:
Emission levels associated with BAT;
Proposed emission limits by operator.
Description of the technical solution:
Description of the technical solution necessary to achieve the BAT-AEL;
Justification for not meeting the BAT-AEL;
Proposed scenario.
Evaluation in relation to the environment:
Basic environmental information (emission quantification, emission significance, dispersion
study, etc.)
Estimation of environmental pollution and level of environmental protection if derogation was
granted.
Cost evaluation (basis for cost comparisons as a separate economic assessment, including
info on annual depreciation, operating costs - energy, work, material, licences, services etc.,
indirect costs – in case of change in manufacturing process parameters, tax effects and
subsidies, costs of compensatory measures - If there is a possibility to make compensatory
measures to reduce emissions of other sources, avoided costs - cost savings, revenues);
References used for assessment.
PORTUGAL21
It should be noted that the guidance and derogation requests in PT relate to the assessment of costs of BAT
in general. But this approach is also used for any derogation requests under IED Article 15(4). Annexes A to
E of the guidance provide details of the information to be submitted by the operator when requesting
derogations. In summary, the following information is requested:
21 http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=17&subref=151&sub2ref=321&sub3ref=330
38
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Annex A: Content of the technical report:
Detail of the content of the technical report supporting the application. This includes Excel files
where data and calculations should be provided. Any calculations should be shown as full
formulae in Excel so they can be validated by the competent authority.
Annex B: Scope and identification of alternative options:
Application form which includes the following items: IPPC installation reference;
Dimension/capacity of the proposed technique; Environmental impacts expected by the
proposed BAT; Table with details for reference case and BAT assessed; Table with BAT
assessed and not considered technically feasible; Costing approach used.
Annex C: Supporting files for the assessment of cross-media effects:
The supporting Excel files which should be used in the assessment of cross-media effects
(these files can be downloaded from the CA website). Guidelines are available for the user and
require justification and reference to the source of the data used.
Annex D: Supporting files for the cost calculations:
The supporting Excel files which should be used in the costing (these files can be downloaded
from CA website). Two files are available depending on the approach used for calculating the
total annual costs of an investment (whether or not inflation is taken into account). Both files
have guidelines for the user and require justification and reference to the source of the data
used. For each BAT assessed, details are required on the investment cost,
operation/maintenance cost, environmental benefits and cost-benefit.
Annex E: Checklist of application documents:
Checklist for the operator to ensure all required documents are provided with the BAT
assessment.
3.2
Three derogation criteria
This section assesses how the three different derogation criteria specified under IED Article 15(4)
(geographical location, local environmental conditions, and technical characteristics of the installation
concerned), are considered in the evaluation of derogations across the EU Member States. In particular, this
looks at which of these three criteria are taken into account in Member States derogation practices, the
relative importance or weighting of the three criteria, where these criteria fit into a step-by-step derogation
assessment process, specific examples or conditions of what are considered as valid criteria for justifying a
derogation request, and cases where additional factors have been considered beyond the three main
criteria.
3.2.1
The three valid criteria for derogations
This subsection provides an overview and discussion of the different derogation criteria considered in each
Member State, based on responses to the questionnaire and previous IMPEL projects and the formal IED
implementation questionnaire. Table 3.1 indicates whether Member States consider the three criteria as valid
for granting derogations. This is based on the responses to the questionnaire and a more detailed discussion
is provided below.
39
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 3.1
Valid derogation criteria
Responded to
questionnaire?
Responded to Q4
on derogation
criteria?
Geographical
location
Local
environmental
conditions
Technical
characteristics
AT*
✓
BE (Flanders)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
BG
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
CY
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
CZ
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
DE
✓
✓
✓
DK
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
EE
EL
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Basque)
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Catalonia)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Extremadura)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Madrid)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Murcia)
✓
FI
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
FR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
HR
✓
✓
✓
✓
HU
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
IE
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
IT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
LT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
LU
✓
LV
MT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
NT
PL
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
PT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
RO*
✓
✓
✓
40
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Responded to
questionnaire?
Responded to Q4
on derogation
criteria?
Geographical
location
Local
environmental
conditions
Technical
characteristics
SE
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
SI
SK
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
UK
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
*based on previous submission to IMPEL and formal IED implementation questionnaire
In the survey under this study it was asked whether the three derogation criteria of IED Article 15(4) are
considered as valid to grant derogations in each of the Member States. The results are presented in Figure
3.1, and discussed in the sections below.
Figure 3.1
Valid criteria in derogation decisions
Geographical location
Of 24 responses, 21 indicated that geographical location of the installation concerned is, or would be,
considered a valid criterion for granting derogations under IED Article 15(4), while three responses (DE, ES
(Basque), HR) indicated that this is not considered a valid criterion (see Figure 3.1). It should be noted that,
while some Member States consider this a theoretically valid criterion, some also highlighted that it is unlikely
to be applicable in their country or region (e.g. BE (Flanders), ES (Catalonia), UK (Wales)).
A number of responses to the questionnaire in this study (in addition to responses noted in previous IMPEL
projects and formal IED implementation questionnaire)) provided specific examples of what aspects of the
geographical location have been or could be considered valid in derogation assessments. These are
summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Overview of geographical location examples that are considered valid in specified Member
States for IED derogations
Consideration
Member State(s)
input
Installation location leads to insufficient water resources e.g. for wet cooling.
SK
An installation is located on an island with high costs for transport or waste treatment.
FR
Availability of local raw materials e.g. the extra costs associated with transport from deposits outside the
region/country; the unique physico-chemical characteristics [of] local raw materials.
CZ, FR
0
5
10
15
20
25
Geographical location
Local environmental conditions
Technical characteristics
Number of responses to the survey
YES
NO
41
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Consideration
Member State(s)
input
Land use constraints lead to an installation not being in a position to install certain abatement technologies.
MT, SK, CZ
Overseas locations where raw materials / consumables supply or waste treatment are more expensive.
FR
Remote location of a facility leads to higher construction or energy supply costs than would normally be
encountered.
UK, HU
Remote location could mean the environmental benefits of meeting the BAT-AEL would be disproportionate to
the costs.
UK
Added costs if the installation is in a built-up location.
UK
Limited space for new equipment required to comply with the BAT conclusions*.
PT
* the example from PT originates from an actual derogation request for the glass sector. The glass manufacture sector in Portugal is
characterised by historical installations which have been surrounded by industrial/residential developments over time. The lack of space
is interpreted as a reason for derogation due to the geographical location of the installation. Equivalent scenarios in other MS appear to
have been treated as 'technical characteristics of the installation concerned' (see analysis below).
Local environmental conditions
Of 24 responses, 22 indicated that the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned is
considered as a valid derogation criterion, while two (DE, ES (Basque)) do not (see Figure 3.1).
A number of responses to the questionnaire in this study (in addition to responses noted from previous
IMPEL projects and formal IED implementation questionnaire) provided specific examples of what aspects of
the local environmental conditions have been/could be considered valid in derogation assessments. These
are summarised in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3
Overview of ‘local environmental conditions’ examples that are considered valid in specified
Member States for IED derogations
Consideration
Member State(s)
response
The BAT-AEL emission level for particular pollutant causes higher pollution of other component of environment
e.g. due to insufficient inflow of surface water as a recipient for waste water.
SK
Installation is located in a dry area and which has to implement a BAT requiring a lot of water to operate.
FR
Increasing hazardous waste production.
CZ
Production of hazardous pollutants related to implementation of primary and secondary measures.
CZ
Legislative priority of waste production prevention.
CZ
Source has a minor influence on air pollution in local environment.
CZ
Higher emission impact when changing input substances in production line.
CZ
The ability of the local receiving environment to assimilate the emissions of pollutants e.g. inflow of surface
water as a recipient for waste water.
ES (Catalonia)
The characteristics and current suspended solid load of a river, when discharge is to water - a receiving water
with a naturally high suspended solids load differs from a river with a small suspended solid load. Thus, making
the effect of an emission on the environment insignificant in some circumstances.
UK (Wales)
Technical characteristics
All Member States that responded indicated that technical characteristics of the installation concerned is
considered as a valid criterion in their evaluation of derogation requests.
42
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
A number of responses to the questionnaire in this study (in addition to responses noted from previous
IMPEL projects and formal IED implementation questionnaire)) provided specific examples of what aspects
of technical characteristics have been/could be considered valid in derogation assessments. These are
summarised in Table 3.4 and can be broadly grouped into considerations of the plant’s emissions, the impact
on the capacity/production/efficiency, the age and type of installation, the previous or future investment in the
plant’s operations.
DE, in their response to the IMPEL projects, highlighted a specific example where technical characteristics
were considered in the manufacture of special glass. The recycling of sulphate-rich filter dust and the
unavoidable use of sulphates in the batch formulation causes emission levels above the SO2 BAT-AEL from
the BAT conclusion for this type of glass. Similarly, ES (Catalonia) in their IMPEL response, also highlighted
a derogation case from the glass industry. It is noted that the glass industry started building the
corresponding BAT conclusions filter in order to comply with the deadline date. However, there were delays
caused by external reasons (delay in permit issue by the public railway operator for works in the protection
area).
Specific derogation case studies are discussed in Section 4 and provided in Appendix B.
Table 3.4
Overview of 'technical characteristics’ examples considered to be valid in specified Member
States for IED derogations
Aspect
Specific consideration
Member State(s)
response
Emissions
BAT-AEL results in an insignificant emission reduction of given pollutant.
SK
Reduction of emissions of one pollutant causes increase in emissions of other
pollutant, or it impacts transfer of emissions to another component of the environment.
SK
Reduction of emissions of one pollutant causes higher consumption of resources
(energy, water, fuel) or generation of waste.
SK, UK
The unique nature of effluent discharged from the installation means the BAT AELs
cannot be achieved.
FR
Production
capacity/efficiency
The practicability and feasibility (particularly bearing in mind Health & Safety and other
relevant legal obligations) of interrupting the activity so as to install improved emission
control upon the pollutant(s).
SK, UK
If the achievement of BAT AELs would require suspension of a long-term production
campaign, i.e. technical improvements require shut down production for several days
or a recently installed device to be rebuilt – could lead to reduced production capacity.
CZ
When the process is used only during a very short period of time each year (high costs
for the operator compared with a small environmental benefit).
FR
Absence of adequate substitution to ensure required quality of the wide-spectrum
production.
CZ
Age/type of
installation
Site land use makes it impossible to build new units to improve emissions abatement.
PL
Tailor-made plants, designed to use local raw materials / fuels with specific properties,
e.g. in cement & lime production.
DE
If ensuring compliance with the limits when occasional changes in production portfolio
occur, these requests by the customer may lead to higher fluctuations in emissions.
CZ
Technical condition of equipment, age of plant, location of plant at the industrial site,
space constraints – mean installation cannot implement BAT AELs.
HU, IT, FI, FR
The intended remaining operational lifetime of the installation as a whole or of the part
of it giving rise to the emission of the pollutant(s), where the operator is prepared to
commit to a timetable for closure.
UK
43
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Aspect
Specific consideration
Member State(s)
response
Specific character of given production (e.g. medicinal or military purpose) or specific
qualitative parameters of local resources.
SK
Investment
The recent history of pollution control investment in the installation in respect of the
pollutant(s) for which the derogation is sought.
UK, SK
The configuration of installation on a given site makes it more technically difficult and
costly to comply with BAT e.g. in the case of retrofitting of plants that do not yet meet
the newly published BAT AELs and where there is therefore a need for an upgrading
or replacement of already existing abatement technologies.
SK, DE, UK
Installation reaching breaking point of economic lifetime with regard to investments
already spent on implementation of BAT in given installation,
SK
The examples presented in the tables above were provided as part of the Member State responses to the
online survey and represent Member States understanding of the derogation criteria. Only in a limited
number of Member States these specific examples of the derogation criteria are included in the guidance
and therefore, also available to operators (e.g. FR and UK). For the majority of Member States, these or
other examples are not made publicly available.
From the examples provided above it is clear that in some cases Member States have a different
interpretation of what is covered by each of the criteria. For example, under the geographical location of the
installation concerned, the example reported by PT makes reference to space constraints for installing new
equipment. This is however, similar to the examples reported by e.g. HU, IT, FI, FR and PL under technical
characteristics of the installation concerned. Similarly, the land use constraints reported by MT, SK and CZ
under geographical location of the installation concerned could be considered by other Member States as an
example of local environmental conditions.
Some of the examples provided above are unlikely to be accepted on their own, but often will need additional
information or justification. For example, ’Remote location could mean the environmental benefits of meeting
the BAT-AEL would be disproportionate to the costs’”, reported by the UK under geographical location of the
installation concerned, will only be considered in conjunction with an argument detailing the extra cost of
compliance in comparison to a ‘typical’ plant.
Some of the examples reported seem to relate to aspects which are part of or considered in the
determination of BAT, such as cross media effects: ’Reduction of emissions of one pollutant causes higher
consumption of resources (energy, water, fuel) or generation of waste’ (SK, UK) or ’Production of hazardous
pollutants related to implementation of primary and secondary measures’ (CZ). Although these are very
relevant issues, these might not be the best examples to justify IED Article 15(4) derogations.
In their response to the survey ES (Basque) noted that it is a region with a very high population density and
that has an influence on the criteria for derogation that they consider. This may not be the same in other
territories so they understand that they may prioritise different criteria. This is the reason why local
environmental conditions of the installation concerned is unlikely to be accepted as a valid reason. This
explanation seems to contradict to the example reported by the UK ’Added costs if the installation is in a
built-up location’ as a valid example for geographical location of the installation concerned, indicating the
potentially additional costs for installations in a built-up location as a valid reason for a derogation request.
3.2.2
The relative weight of each derogation criterion
This subsection discusses the weighting given to the three IED derogation criteria in Member States, i.e.
whether they are equal or one criterion is given more significance than others:
In terms of geographical location, 17 of 20 responses to this question indicated that this
criterion is of equal importance to the other derogation criteria. Two responses (BE (Flanders)
and HR) indicated this criterion was of lesser importance, HR noting that to date, cases are not
recognised where this criterion could be applied. One response (ES (Murcia)) indicated
44
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
geographic location was of greater importance than other criteria, noting that the location is key
to determine the exceptions due to the public health factors by proximity of the population.
In terms of local environmental conditions, 20 of the 22 questionnaire responses indicated
this criterion of equal importance with the other derogation criteria. One response (BE
(Flanders)) indicated local environmental conditions was of less importance, while one
response (ES (Murcia)) indicated this criterion is of greater importance.
In terms of technical characteristics, 20 of the 24 responses to this part of the questionnaire
indicated that the technical characteristics are of equal importance to the other derogation
criteria. Four responses (BE (Flanders), DE, ES (Basque), ES (Murcia)) indicated that technical
characteristics are given more importance than the other criteria.
BE (Flanders) indicated that technical characteristics of the installation concerned is the main criterion and
that local environmental conditions and/or geographical location are less important. Given the location and
homogenous environmental condition in BE (Flanders) the competent authority only expects derogation
requests referring to the technical characteristics. As indicated in their IMPEL submission, DE noted that
derogations are considered as limited to exceptional cases, i.e. when the technical characteristic of the
installation would clearly lead to disproportionate costs or when the BAT-AELs are even not possible. It does
not mention the other derogation criteria in its submission. ES (Extremadura) noted that technical
characteristics will be much more important than geographical or local environmental conditions.
A number of responses (e.g. BE, DK, ES (Catalonia)) noted, that it is likely that more derogation requests will
be received based on technical characteristics than the other criteria and therefore more consideration of this
criterion has been and/or will be made compared to the others for this reason. HU noted that the criteria of
geographical location and local environmental conditions are evaluated on a case by case basis, and in
themselves cannot be considered as a valid reason for derogation; they must be evaluated together.
All of the derogation requests received so far in IT have been based on technical characteristics, and IT
highlighted a lack of clear, overarching guidelines in terms of derogations based on geographical location or
local environmental conditions (see Appendix A). IT also noted that, in the future, when national and regional
competent authorities will be required to outline what criteria should be considered when assessing the
geographical location of an installation for the purpose of granting a derogation, their assessment of which
criteria should be considered might be different.
3.2.3
Initial screening of derogation criteria
Of 24 responses to this section of the questionnaire, nine responses (DE, EL, ES (Basque), ES (Catalonia),
FR, HU, MT, PT, UK) indicated that the derogation process is a multi-step process, i.e. involving an initial
screening process for derogation requests. In a number of cases, Member States indicated that this multi-
step process involves consideration of the three derogation criteria as a prerequisite to conducting further
analysis of the derogation application.
The UK (separate responses from England, Wales, Northern-Ireland and Scotland) indicated that the initial
stage of the derogation process, is for the operator to demonstrate that the installation is different to other
‘typical’ sites in the sector, ensuring the request complies with the criteria listed in Article 15(4), and to
explain how these differences translate into significant additional costs of achieving a BAT-AEL. It is noted
that in England, at this stage, the potentially reduced benefits that can be a direct result of, for example,
remote location or low population density, are not considered. If the operator provides sufficient information
and successfully passes the first stage assessment, the full cost-benefit analysis will be carried out.
In Wales the option to request a derogation is thoroughly scrutinised before an official application. The
assessment of the BAT conclusions is discussed with all installations in that sector to understand which
conclusions might be problematic, often even before the publication of the BAT conclusions. The initial
assessment covers aspects such as costs, high level of environmental protection and any air quality or other
standards possibly affected. It involves a discussion with the operators and allows operators to evaluate their
investment strategy. Only after this “broad brush approach” can a formal derogation request be submitted.
45
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
In the UK (England and Wales), the rationale behind justifying an Article 15(4) derogation is published as
part of the permit variation and accompanying decision documents22. The information in these decision
documents provide specific details on how the derogation criteria have been considered and interpreted
(some are discussed in section 4 as a derogation case study). No information is available for the cases
where after this initial step of screening against the derogation criteria it is decided not to proceed and
perform a cost-benefit assessment.
FR indicated that they have a multi-step process for considering and granting derogations (see Appendix A).
This includes the requirement for justifying the origin of the request (with reference to the three derogation
criteria), before the risk assessment, and technical and economic studies are carried out. This step in the
process is clearly presented in the guidance as a separate step in the evaluation process and needs to be
decided before progressing to any further assessments23. The flow diagram below illustrates how the initial
screening step sits in the entire process.
Figure 3.2
Flow diagram of the Article 15(4) evaluation and decision process in FR illustrating the initial
screening of the derogation criteria.
The initial assessment in BE (Flanders) involves a screening of the derogation criteria referred to in the
application. In case the reference is not clear or even missing in the application, the competent authority will
request the operator to provide more information. The evaluation of the derogation only starts when this
additional information is provided.
In other Member States, it is not explicitly indicated that the three derogation criteria are considered as an
initial screening. For MT and PT, for example, the initial consideration of the application is based on the
consideration of the techniques (BAT) already applied in the installations. EL indicates that a multi-step
process might be followed but there is no formal obligation to do this.
3.2.4
Additional criteria used in the evaluation of IED Article 15(4) derogation requests
Factors other than the three criteria specified in IED Article 15(4) are also considered in the submission and
assessment of derogations in some Member States. Seven respondents to this section of the questionnaire
(DE, ES (Catalonia), ES (Murcia), IT, MT, PT, SK) indicated that other criteria are used in their derogation
processes.
22 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/industrial-emissions-directive-ied-environmental-permits-issued
23 Logigramme de la procédure, p. 13: http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Guide_de_demande_de_derogation_v1.pdf
46
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
One factor raised by a number of respondents is a specified time limit by which derogation applications must
be submitted by the operator or reassessed by the national authority. For example, the UK (England and
Wales responses, to the current study and the previous input to IMPEL) indicated that if the operator is
unable to comply with BAT-AELs within the 4-year period after BATC publication, then a derogation
submission should be made by the operator. It is also assumed that any derogation granted will be
reconsidered and a further derogation request required when the next BREF and BAT conclusions are
published, which is likely to be 8 years after the current BREF and BAT conclusions. Other responses to the
questionnaire in this study and the IMPEL study (e.g. BE (Flanders), ES (Catalonia) and PT) also specified a
maximum time period to achieve the expected ELVs, after which a derogation request will be required.
The UK indicated that for a number of smaller installations, the responsibility for granting derogations is
placed on local authorities, and it is unclear if these will follow the same derogation procedure as the
Environment Agency (see Appendix A for further details). Furthermore, the UK also indicated that in some
cases, a secondary consideration in addition to the three derogation criteria specified under IED Article
15(4), is the extent to which operators have taken steps to make improvements prior to the submission of a
derogation. An example case study where this has been considered is discussed in Section 3 and Appendix
B.
In its regulation24 for an IED Article 15(4) derogation request, in addition to the derogation criteria of Article
15(4) and the provision to ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole, BE (Flanders)
requires that the ELVs are not higher than:
the relevant ELVs in VLAREM II (as far as no derogation from these VLAREM II ELVs is
allowed); and
the applicable emission limits outlined in Annex II of VLAREM III (technical provisions of Annex
V to VIII of the IED).
A number of other respondents outlined additional factors that are taken into account. ES (Murcia) indicated
they consider synergistic effects and accumulated impacts with other industries or historically highly
industrialised areas. IT noted in their submission to the formal IED implementation questionnaire that
derogations must comply with other applicable legislation, such as measures laid down in Italian air quality
plans.
The additional criteria used by some of the Member States in their decision procedures can be applied in
different steps of the process, i.e.:
as a prerequisite to any further assessment: for example, in the case of BE (Flanders) where
the relevant ELVs in VLAREM II are not exceeded if not allowed; or
as information or criteria used in addition to the initial screening and the cost-benefit
assessment to make a final decision on the derogation request: for example, in the case of ES
(Catalonia), PT or UK.
3.3
Calculation of costs
3.3.1
General approach for calculating BAT costs
Of the responses to the questionnaire in this study, ten responses (CZ, ES (Catalonia) ES (Extremadura),
FR, HR, HU, IE, PT, SK, UK) indicated their competent authority has a standard methodology in place for
calculating the costs of implementing BAT.
The UK noted they have developed a cost benefit analysis tool and guidance25 for carrying out the necessary
calculations in an IED Article 15(4) derogation request. IE and HU indicated they base their approach on the
UK Environment Agency’s cost benefit analysis tool.
24 VLAREM III, Article 1.4. https://navigator.emis.vito.be/mijn-navigator?woId=61193
25 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-emissions-directive-derogation-cost-benefit-
analysis-tool
47
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Similarly, FR stated that they have developed a cost sheet to be used by operators in preparing derogation
requests26. The spreadsheet tool specifically guides the operator in calculating cost-effectiveness values (i.e.
annual costs vs. annual avoided emissions, k€/t avoided) for a number of BAT and derogation scenarios.
The formula used for calculating the total annual costs is as presented in the ECM REF (2006) 27:
Total annual costs
OC
r
r
r
C
n
n
O
1
1
1
Where:
Co = investment cost at year 0 (base year)
r = discount rate per period (year)
n = estimated economic lifetime of the equipment in years
OC = total operating costs
HR indicated that they use a standard economic methodology for the investment project.
Five questionnaire responses (CZ, ES (Catalonia), HR, IE, UK), indicated their approach to assess costs and
benefits is based on an existing methodology. In the UK (England) the methodology was adapted from the
amended guidance H1 Annex K methodology28, but has been significantly developed to be fit for the purpose
of assessing derogation requests under the IED. The original version of Annex K was designed purely to
help identify BAT from a series of options and place a cost against the achievement of each option, to
identify the most cost-effective solution. The new version covers BAT and IED derogations and so broadens
the scope to include proposals that are not BAT (more details can be seen in the UK (England) response to
the IMPEL project).
CZ, ES (Catalonia) and PT noted that their methodology is based on the ECM REF.
The details of the general approaches used to calculate costs are described in Appendix A. Box 2.2 below
provides some examples of the approaches applied in SK and the UK.
Box 2.2. Examples of approaches to calculate costs of implementing BAT.
SLOVAKIA
The methodology developed by SK (The Ministry of Environment) is standardized for each operator and
industry. Operators need to fill in the tables with internal company data. This includes economic data related
to the current situation, the situation after implementing BAT, and for the situation after implementing other
techniques to reduce emissions (revenue, costs - investment, annual accounting depreciation, operating
costs divided in separated categories, taxes and fees). Data for the 15-year financial plan is requested. The
average of the input data is then calculated. If operators include information for fewer years the calculations
are standardised by the competent authority to enter into the 15-year plan of the tool. All data required to
make these calculations are requested from the operator (e.g. assumed lifetime of abatement technique,
costs etc.).
26 Outil de présentation des coûts et calcul des RCE: http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/Publication-du-Guide-de-demande-de.html
27 http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/ecm_bref_0706.pdf
28 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/h1-annex-k-cost-benefit-analysis
48
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Operators are also requested to include further information about the company, such as number of
employees, other important investments in last 5 years, and other BAT that has to be installed. This
information is used by the competent authority to assess the operator’s historic investment in abatement
techniques and is used as additional input to the decision process. The Ministry has developed key
performance indicators (KPIs) forms to evaluate all of the information submitted by operators. Two primary
types of economic analyses are used in the assessment of proposed environmental investments to comply
with the BAT and search for feasible and financially available solutions:
Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA); and
Cost benefit analysis (CBA).
These approaches are described in Appendix A (SK).
UNITED KINGDOM
In the methodology developed by the UK (Environment Agency (England)), the operator navigates an Excel-
based form, filling in their relevant data on current and future operations, costs and benefits. This requires
the provision of three main types of data:
1) Background information – information about the processes and technologies being considered and
how these impact on each option, including an assessment of the costs and benefits of implementing
BAT within the four-year period required under Article 21(3) of the IED.
2) Qualitative information – an assessment of the environmental impacts under different options being
considered (including the BAU scenario, the BAT-AEL and proposed derogation options) and the
relative significance of an impact (LARGE, MEDIUM, LOW).
3) Quantitative data on key costs including:
Upfront investment costs;
Financing costs;
Operating costs; and
49
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
[As well as data on emissions and energy consumption – see Appendix A].
In other Member States (e.g. BE (Flanders), FI, IT, SE) it was indicated that there are no standardised
evaluation methods and each case is individually investigated by competent authorities on a case-by-case
basis. IT noted that the different authorities have a level of discretion about which data to request and to
evaluate in order to formulate the response. In BE (Flanders) guidance is available for determining BAT at an
installation level (2017)29, including an assessment of the costs and benefits. This guidance is used as
reference only and is not considered as a standard methodology in the evaluation of derogations under IED
Article 15(4).
3.3.2
Costs considered in the evaluation of IED derogation requests
The aspects considered in the calculation of the overall cost of compliance with BAT can consist of both
capital and operational costs. A total of 17 responses were received to the question in the survey concerning
the different costs considered in this calculation in different Member States. For specific details of the costs
considered by individual Member States, an overview is provided in Table 3.5 with full questionnaire
responses in Appendix A.
In terms of capital costs (CAPEX), responses indicated that the cost of new equipment (e.g. for monitoring,
abatement, technology) is considered in nearly all cases (94%). Additional examples of capital costs were
also specified, including the cost of purchasing new land to accommodate the abatement equipment, cost of
any civil works (UK); financing costs (FR, UK); costs of retiring/decommissioning another technique or
equipment (FR, UK); and contingency costs (FR).
In terms of operational costs (OPEX), a range of different costs are considered by Member States, including
costs of operating the new equipment e.g. raw materials / utilities (82%); maintenance costs (88%); time
spent e.g. labour costs (65%); training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques (65%); costs
of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services) (71%). Additional examples of operational
costs were also specified by some responses, including the cost of recovery, treatment or disposal of waste
generated (HU, UK); costs of product quality or efficiency loss, and temporary or permanent production loss
(FR, UK).
In terms of other costs (i.e. costs other than CAPEX or OPEX), costs of production loss due to changes to
the installation (59%) and insurance costs associated with the new equipment (47%) are considered in some
Member States. Additional examples of such other costs were also specified, including patent royalties,
overhead costs, grants, energy savings, sales of utilities, residues, recycled chemical products (FR), and
avoided taxes (ES (Catalonia), FR). FI noted that the assessment of derogation requests is carried out on a
case by case basis, with cost data presented to the permitting authority in a way that it can be verified.
29 VITO (2017). Guidance for a BAT assessment at an installation level.
https://emis.vito.be/sites/emis.vito.be/files/pages/1142/2017/Leidraad%20BBT%20op%20bedrijfsniveau_defi
nitief.pdf
50
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 3.5
Costs considered in the total cost calculations
CAPITAL
OPERATIONAL
OTHER
Responded to questionnaire?
Responded to Q5.4 on costs?
New equipment
Set-up/installation costs
Costs of operating the new equipment
(raw materials / utilities)
Maintenance costs
Time spent on undertaking the changes
needed to comply with the BAT conclusion
Training costs for staff to carry out the
new activities / techniques
Costs of external services (e.g. consulting
and verification services)
Costs of production loss due to changes
to the installation
Insurance costs associated with the new
equipment
Other costs
AT
BE (Flanders)
✓
BG
✓
CY
✓
CZ
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
DE
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
DK
✓
EE
EL
✓
ES (Basque)
✓
ES (Catalonia)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Madrid)
✓
ES (Murcia)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
FI
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
FR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
HR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
HU
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
IE
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
IT
✓
LT
✓
✓
✓
✓
LU
✓
LV
MT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
51
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
CAPITAL
OPERATIONAL
OTHER
Responded to questionnaire?
Responded to Q5.4 on costs?
New equipment
Set-up/installation costs
Costs of operating the new equipment
(raw materials / utilities)
Maintenance costs
Time spent on undertaking the changes
needed to comply with the BAT conclusion
Training costs for staff to carry out the
new activities / techniques
Costs of external services (e.g. consulting
and verification services)
Costs of production loss due to changes
to the installation
Insurance costs associated with the new
equipment
Other costs
NL
PL
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
PT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
RO
SE
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
SI
SK
✓
✓
UK
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.3.3
Comparing and validating costs
A range of different approaches to comparing and validating costs associated with complying with BAT is
observed across Member States, with differing levels of detail and clarity provided. Eleven responses to the
questionnaire in this study provided details of the approaches taken.
Comparing costs
In terms of comparing costs, the approach of some Member States (or regions) involves the use of present
values, while others do not. SK indicated that the comparison of costs is expressed in terms of key
performance indicators.
Several responses (ES (Catalonia), HR, HU, LT, PT, UK) specified that calculations should be made using
net present values. A method for the calculation of net present values (NPV) is set out in the ECM REF
(2006); the Net Present Value is calculated as a sum of discounted future payments minus the initial
investment cost:
n
t
t
t
r
revenues
net
investment
NVP
0
1
_
Where:
t = year 0 to year n
n = the project lifetime
r = the discount (interest) rate
52
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
ES (Catalonia) and PT, for example, specified that they use the methodology set out in the ECM REF (see
Appendix B for more details). Other responses did not specify the method for calculating the present values.
Furthermore, some Member States are also accounting for the cost of capital to reflect the risk that private
companies are facing when borrowing or investing capital. For instance, FR noted that when costs are
annualised, an interest rate is applied to take into account the cost of the capital (insurance cost included).
Similarly, SE noted that the capital costs are assessed with regards to depreciation and interest rate. HU
specified that they use a Discounted Cash Flow method which incorporates capital costs into the calculations
but discounts it with social discount rate.
In the UK, the approach involves incorporating the cost of accessing financial capital (company’s Weighted
Average Cost of Capital (WACC)) in the total financial costs and then discounting costs (and benefits) using
the social discount rate set out in the HMT’s Green Book.
Validating costs
In terms of validation of costs, a number of different approaches are specified in the Member State
responses to the questionnaire. In some cases, Member States indicated the use of external experts, either
at the request of the operator or authority. Others rely on the competent authority to validate costs
themselves, in some cases requesting additional information from external parties.
The approach in CZ is an evaluation based on the latest relevant sectoral or aggregate data and actual
project data. It is noted that the source of the data must always be part of the application and to enable
validation of the costs by the CA. CZ noted that validation of the entire application (including economic
assessment) is done by an expert body (CENIA, the Czech Environmental Information Agency). If the
competent authority decides not to use the competent authorised person, it must evaluate those aspects
themselves. HR also stated that, if necessary, external experts could be consulted in cost validation. In HU,
while there is no specific methodology other than the reference to the UK CBA tool, the cost data and
calculations are prepared by experts commissioned by the applicant, and these are evaluated by the
competent authorities.
By contrast, SK noted that the validation of data is not necessary as the calculation is performed by the
competent authority. It is up to the operators to provide cost data (see above), such as revenue, investment,
annual accounting depreciation, operating costs divided in separated categories, taxes and fees. The
comparison of the cost data (and environmental benefits – see below) is expressed in terms of key
performance indicators, e.g. a KPI on average annual costs, average payback period, additional investment
payback. According to these calculations points are awarded for each KPI, based on the data included to the
submission form (see Appendix B for a derogation case study in SK).
SE specified that the burden of proof is placed on the operator. Descriptions and calculation must be
transparent with given values on for example different types of costs. Also, ES (Catalonia) noted that the
operator is required to present budgets to implement the techniques selected. The economic data provided
by operators are validated through the submission of the budget / fees to be charged for the investments and
the balance sheets from companies. FR noted that when available, external quotes or internal detailed
costings have to be submitted to justify costs.
In the UK, the Environment Agency (England) indicated that validation of costs is mostly achieved by:
using previous experience;
comparing all installations within a sector that have asked for a derogation;
using common sense; and
checking any appropriate reference material, e.g. the Treasury Green Book30, the cost data in
section 4 of sector specific BREFs, ECM REF etc.
The English Environment Agency can also request formal quotes from technology providers but has so far
not resorted to asking for formal quotes as obtaining them can be costly as well as time consuming. In
30https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220541/green_book_comple
te.pdf
53
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Scotland, it is noted that SEPA seeks evidence that the costs are based on sound principles and
assumptions. In Wales it is noted that technical experts make use of data from BREFs and internet sources.
An economist also scrutinises the figures if required. IE specified that costs should be supported by evidence
such as price quotes from commercial providers of the technologies considered or references to costs in the
BREFs which can be verified.
As noted elsewhere in this report, FI indicated they carry out the assessment of derogation requests on a
case by case basis, with cost data presented to the permitting authority in a way that it can be verified (no
further details are specified). DE have also noted that the evaluation is determined by the competent
authority and environment agencies of the Federal States. In IT and BE (Flanders) the cost-benefit analyses
are evaluated by the competent authorities on a case-by-case approach.
3.3.4
Summary of cost calculations
Based on the information collected on the MS practices, there seems to be a common understanding of the
type of cost data needed for the assessment of a derogation request. Both CAPEX and OPEX (and in some
cases reference to other costs) are considered in the evaluations.
The way total costs are calculated, however, is only explicitly indicated and made publicly available by some
Member States. Member States with such a standard methodology for calculating the costs in place most
often refer to the calculation of total costs as presented in the ECM REF (2006). Even though other Member
States who have not such a standard methodology made available or published (and reported a case-by-
case approach), often made reference to a similar calculation of total costs in their response to the
questionnaire.
Different approaches are applied between Member States to validate the costs provided by the operators,
incl. the use of external experts, data from similar plants and information from BREFs. However, Member
States did note that it is often very time consuming and costly to validate all of the cost information provided
by the operator.
3.4
Calculation of environmental benefits
3.4.1
Overview of approach for calculating environmental benefits of BAT
Of the responses to the questionnaire in this study, five responses (CZ, ES (Catalonia), FR, SK, UK)
indicated their competent authority has a standard methodology in place for calculating the benefits of
implementing BAT.
As discussed in section 3.3, the UK (Environment Agency, England) has developed a cost benefit analysis
tool and guidance for this purpose. It is indicated that in Scotland, a methodology exists for some pollutants
to air and a more qualitative methodology for other pollutants where it is not currently feasible to calculate
damage costs (e.g. to water). It is indicated that in Wales, calculation of benefits includes an assessment of
damage costs per unit emission. Similarly, FR noted their methodology considered the tonnes of pollutant
avoided multiplied by a reference cost for the pollutant, with the benefits compared with the costs for
implementing the BAT. CZ indicated that the calculation is based on a comparison between the effects of the
BAT scenario and the derogation scenario on the environment (amount of pollution, dispersion studies etc.)
Two responses to the questionnaire (ES (Catalonia) and UK) indicated their methodology was adapted from
a method in existence prior to the IED. Other countries (e.g. FR and SK) indicated they have a methodology
designed specifically for the IED.
The UK provided a detailed description of what aspects are considered in their CBA tool (see Appendix A for
a full discussion). It is noted that in England, the Environment Agency’s method is a standard CBA
framework based on the UK Treasury’s Green Book31, with several elements specially developed for the
derogations process. For example, it was indicated the CBA approach was adapted to consider the following
aspects:
31https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220541/green_book_comple
te.pdf
54
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
The baseline – it was noted that determining the ‘baseline’ situation for an installation is
complex and highly variable between individual cases. For example, the standard ‘business as
usual’ scenario is not applicable in most IED derogation requests as, a) it is established that a
business as usual approach will not be suitable to achieve BAT-AELs, and b) many plants
have undertaken at least some measures to reduce emissions prior to a derogation application.
The baseline must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis for the characteristics of
each site.
The costs and benefits are accrued by different ‘parties’ – It is noted that, in the
compliance of operators with BAT-AELs, the cost is private (i.e. investment by industry) and the
benefits are public (i.e. environmental improvement). There is a lack of guidance in the
Treasury Green Book on how to this into account in the CBA methodology. The Environment
Agency note that they take the ‘Spackman’ Approach32, which includes using a weighted
average cost of capital before applying the social discount rate of 3.5% which declines after 30
years. Human health benefits (expressed in terms of the VPFs, SLYs and QALY effects) are
discounted at the health rate of 1.5% (also declining after 30 years).
The appraisal period – the Treasury Green Book notes the requirement to take into account
the ‘lifetime of the longest-term asset’ when assessing appraisal periods. However, it is noted
that industrial plants typically make continuous ‘ad-hoc’ improvements. Therefore, the
Environment Agency comment that their approach considers the point of major refurbishments
(typically 10-30 years). However, there is a degree of ambiguity in terms of what is meant by
‘major refurbishment’.
The methodology in Scotland and Wales is adapted, at least partially from existing methodology, the latter
using Interdepartmental Group on Costs & Benefits (IGCB) damage costs.
ES (Catalonia) and PT indicated that their methodology is based on the European Commission (2006) ECM
REF, where different terminology is used for the values that are derived for the polluting effects, including
‘shadow prices’, ‘reference costs’, ‘benchmark prices’ and ‘levies’. Once a value that can be attributed to an
environmental effect is defined, then this value can be used to calculate the benefits of implementing a BAT.
The ECM REF furthermore provides some examples of how ‘shadow prices’ are derived and used in a
number of Member States.
In FR the benefits are expressed as emission reductions for each scenario and are used to calculate cost-
effectiveness values. In a subsequent step, these cost-effectiveness values are compared with available
reference values, such as sectoral cost-effectiveness values or damage costs.
3.4.2
Environmental benefits considered
A total of 14 responses were received to the question in the survey concerning the different environmental
benefits considered in the calculation in different Member States. An overview of the benefits considered by
individual Member States, is provided in Table 3.6 and full details can be seen in the questionnaire
responses in Appendix A.
The vast majority of responding Member States consider the avoided or reduced emissions to air (93%) and
avoided or reduced emissions to water (86%). A large number of responding Member States also consider
avoided or reduced raw material use (79%), avoided or reduced waste generation (71%) and avoided or
reduced odour levels (64%). A smaller number of responses indicated the consideration of avoided or
reduced energy use (57%) and avoided or reduced noise levels (57%). Relatively few responding Member
States consider the avoided or reduced impact on biodiversity (36%). Five Member State responses also
noted that additional benefits to those specified in the questionnaire are also considered. For example, the
UK noted that the impact on future ability to comply with other legislation i.e. NECD, cross media affects, and
amenity value are also taken into account in their consideration of derogations. Although these are rather
considered as factors in addition to the cost-benefit analysis (see section 3.5.3).
32 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/37856/jrg_statement.pdf.
55
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 3.6
Benefits considered in the derogations
Member State
Responded to
questionnaire?
Responded to Q6.4
on environmental
benefits?
Avoided/reduced
emissions to air
Avoided/reduced
emissions to water
Avoided/reduced
noise levels
Avoided/reduced
odour levels
Avoided/reduced
waste generation
Avoided/reduced raw
material use
Avoided/reduced
energy use
Avoided/reduced
impact on
biodiversity
Other
AT
BE (Flanders)
✓
BG
✓
CY
✓
CZ
✓
✓
✓
DE
✓
DK
✓
EE
EL
✓
ES (Basque)
✓
✓
ES (Catalonia)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
ES (Extremadura)
✓
ES (Madrid)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
FI
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
FR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
HR
✓
HU
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
IE
✓
IT
✓
LT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
LU
✓
LV
MT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
NL
PL
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
PT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
RO
SE
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
56
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Member State
Responded to
questionnaire?
Responded to Q6.4
on environmental
benefits?
Avoided/reduced
emissions to air
Avoided/reduced
emissions to water
Avoided/reduced
noise levels
Avoided/reduced
odour levels
Avoided/reduced
waste generation
Avoided/reduced raw
material use
Avoided/reduced
energy use
Avoided/reduced
impact on
biodiversity
Other
SI
SK
✓
UK
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.4.3
Comparison of benefits
A total of ten responses were submitted to this section of the questionnaire. As with the comparison of costs
(see Section 3.3) the approach of some Member States (or regions) involves the use of present values, while
others do not.
Several responses (ES (Catalonia), LT, UK) specified that calculations should be made using net present
values (see section 3.3.3 for details on the calculation of NPVs). ES (Catalonia) noted that environmental
benefits are evaluated by comparing present values and values of selected techniques to achieve the BAT-
AEL. In the UK, the competent authorities in England, Wales and Scotland specified the use of present
values. However, SEPA noted that the methodology being developed may not include damage costs for
emissions to water, and therefore a different method to compare benefits may be required (such as a
method similar to the approach used by SEPA for qualitatively assessing derogations under the Water
Framework Directive33).
FR indicated that they express benefits as emission reductions (for emissions to air and water). Other
benefits (waste generation, energy use, etc.) are only discussed with the competent authority in case there is
a significant difference between the technique options. CZ indicated that they express benefits as emission
reduction (only for emissions to air) rather than cost. Subsequently, costs and benefits (impact on the
environment) of BAT and other proposed scenarios are compared. Similarly, HU noted that, depending on
the case, comparisons of benefits are made based on evaluation of different scenarios for an individual plant
(see Appendix A for examples).
3.4.4
Use of damage costs in IED derogations
Damage cost is the cost incurred by repercussions (effects) of direct environmental impacts (for example,
from the emission of pollutants) such as the degradation of land or human-made structures and health
effects34.
Nine responses to the questionnaire (ES (Catalonia), FI, FR, HU, IE, PL, SE, SK, UK) indicated that damage
costs of pollutants are used in the determination of a derogation request. The pollutants considered for which
damage costs are available or used in this assessment were specified by a small number of Member State
questionnaire responses. The pollutants considered and the type of sources used to derive damage cost
values are summarised in Table 3.7.
33 https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/149762/wat_rm_34.pdf
34 OECD – Glossary of statistical terms
57
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 3.7
Pollutants for which damage costs are available/used.
Member State
NOx
SOx
PM
NH3
VOC
EEA damage
costs
ECM REF
damage costs
Other sources/
methods
HU
✓
✓
FR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
UK
✓1
✓1
✓1
✓2
✓3
✓
✓
ES (Catalonia)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
1 – England, Scotland, Wales; 2 – England and Wales; 3 – Wales
A number of questionnaire responses outlined the source of the damage cost unit values used in calculating
BAT benefits. In a number of cases, use is made of the European Environment Agency (EEA) damage
costs35, which provide standardized values.
The EEA approach uses a simplified modelling approach to quantify, in monetary terms, the damage costs
caused by emissions of air pollutants from industrial facilities reported to the E-PRTR pollutant register. The
EEA approach is based on existing policy tools and methods, such as those developed under the EU's Clean
Air for Europe (CAFE) programme. The damage cost values derived by the EEA for the nine Member States
that indicated the consideration of damage costs in the questionnaire, are presented in Table 3.8. In addition
to the pollutants listed in Table 3.8, damage costs are also derived by the EEA for the following pollutants:
CO2, PM10, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, benzene, PAHs, dioxins and furans.
Table 3.8
Damage costs of pollutant emissions derived by the European Environment Agency for selected
Member States
Member
State
Damage costs (EUR/tonne) for pollutant emission in 2020
NOx
SO2
PM2.5
NH3
NMVOC
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
ES
2 551
6 054
5 586
15 393
20 170
56 459
1 970
5 518
133
132
FI
2 005
5 303
3 229
8 995
6 862
19 207
3 233
9 052
77
97
FR
10 291
27 098
11 105
30 550
32 330
90 495
6 608
18 501
461
803
HU
14 287
38 540
9 633
26 775
29 199
81 731
10 217
28 602
51
-58
IE
3 574
9 250
6 107
16 958
16 229
45 426
1 327
3 715
281
464
PL
9 450
25 607
8 928
24 754
22 268
62 332
7 418
20 767
220
363
SE
2 688
6 960
3 560
9 880
11 383
31 863
3 385
9 478
155
233
SK
12 937
34 857
9 207
25 585
22 853
63 968
10 761
30 124
75
-11
35 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/cost-of-air-pollution
58
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Member
State
Damage costs (EUR/tonne) for pollutant emission in 2020
NOx
SO2
PM2.5
NH3
NMVOC
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
UK
5 999
16 663
10 309
28 571
32 764
91 710
10 457
29 277
510
840
Data source: European Environment Agency, Revealing the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities in Europe,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/cost-of-air-pollution ; Value ranges based on Low Valuation of Mortality (VOLY) estimate and
High Value of Statistical Life (VSL) estimate.
Note: damage costs are also derived for a range of other pollutants
As noted above, the UK bases its standard CBA framework on the UK Treasury’s Green Book, but with
several elements that had to be specially developed for the derogations process. For example, the damage
costs provided by the Treasury only consider the UK-specific impacts. The EEA provide damage costs for a
wider range of pollutants (e.g. VOCs) and will be more relevant as pollutants emitted from the UK can
potentially have transboundary impacts across Europe. In England, the Treasury’s Green Book values are
used by default for the benefit calculations and the EEA damage costs are used in the subsequent sensitivity
analyses. Feedback received from the Environment Agency indicates there has been only one case so far
where the use of EEA damage cost has had a tangible difference in the CBA outcome compared to the use
of the Treasury’s Green Book values. For comparison, the damage cost values from the UK Treasury Green
Book are presented in Table 3.9. The damage costs for NOx and PM are derived for three different sources,
i.e. transport, industry and domestic. The values for industry, listed in Table 3.9, are lower compared to those
from domestic and transport.
Table 3.9
Air quality damage costs (for industry) derived in the UK Treasury Green Book
Pollutant
Air quality damage costs (EUR per tonne), 2015 prices
Central
Low
High
NOX
18 094
7 239
28 951
PM
41 650
32 610
47 330
SOX
2 695
2 179
3 065
NH3
3 256
2 540
3 700
Data source: UK Treasury Green Book, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-quality-economic-analysis, converted from GBP to EUR based
on average 2015 exchange rate.
IT and PT have previously indicated in their input to IMPEL projects and the formal IED implementation
questionnaire, that their cost benefit assessment is conducted on the basis of the ECM REF and national
cost-effectiveness methodology. Damage cost values from the ECM REF relevant to the nine relevant
Member States are presented in Table 3.10.
59
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 3.10 Damage costs of pollutant emissions used in the Economics and Cross-Media Effects REF for
selected Member States
Member
State
Damage cost values (EUR/tonne), 2010 prices
NOx
SO2
PM2.5
NH3
NMVOC
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
ES
2 600
7 200
4 300
12 000
19 000
54 000
4 300
13 000
380
1 100
FI
750
2 200
1 800
5 200
5 400
16 000
2 200
6 300
160
490
FR
7 700
21 000
8 000
23 000
44 000
130 000
12 000
34 000
1 400
4 200
HU
5 400
15 000
4 800
14 000
25 000
72 000
11 000
32 000
860
2 700
IE
3 800
11 000
4 800
14 000
15 000
42 000
2 600
7 400
680
2 000
PL
3 900
10 000
5 600
16 000
29 000
83 000
10 000
29 000
630
1 900
SE
2 200
5 900
2 800
8 100
12 000
35 000
5 900
17 000
330
980
SK
5 200
14 000
4 900
14 000
20 000
58 000
14 000
41 000
660
2 000
UK
3 900
10 000
6 600
19 000
37 000
110 000
17 000
50 000
1 100
3 200
Data source: The Economics and Cross-Media Effects REF, results are taken from the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Air Quality Related
Issues, carried out in particular in the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme (CAFE CBA), see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/activities/cba.htm
As noted previously, HU refers to the UK's approach, and uses the EEA Damage costs. It is also indicated
that SK and FI use the EEA damage costs, however, FI noted that sometimes the EEA damage cost values
are difficult to use as information is limited to certain pollutants. ES (Catalonia) indicated that in their
calculation of environmental benefits, data are taken from both the EEA damage costs and the ECM REF.
FR indicated they make use of the ECM REF as well as data from Institut National de l’Environnement
Industriel et des Risques (INERIS)36. The damage costs are used in FR as reference values to compare with
the calculated cost-effectiveness values.
3.4.5
Summary of environmental benefit calculations
There seems to be a common understanding of the type of environmental benefits to be considered the
assessment of a derogation request.
In terms of calculating the benefits, however, it should be noted that the sections above relate to damage
costs for air pollutants only. As shown in Section 3.4.2 , there are a variety of other environmental benefits
that Member States indicated are considered in the IED derogation process.
In their previous input to the IMPEL study, FR for example noted that ‘ideally we would like to be able to
create reference costs for pollution per tonne of pollutant for a wide range of pollutant’. However, FR
suggested this is a complex task ‘considering that the references are mainly on "air pollutants", and that
these references differ widely from one another’. Furthermore, environmental benefits are only taken into
account for the assessment if they are considered significantly different between the technique options.
36 INERIS (2007). Guide pour l’analyse du volet technico-économique. N° INERIS–DRC 07–85842–12011A
60
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Also, CZ noted that, in the case of direct discharge of waste water to water recipients, the procedure
according to Article 15(4) cannot be applied because of national legislation. This related to Government
Regulation No. 401/2015 Coll, effective from January 1st, 2016, on the indicators and values of permissible
pollution of surface water and wastewater treatment, detailing the permit to discharge wastewater into
surface water and sewerage systems and sensitive areas, and setting limits on the discharge of wastewater
at the level required by the [Urban Waste Water Treatment] Directive and, in some respects, even more
severely.37
For aspects such as emissions to water, noise, odour, biodiversity, energy and natural resources, it is not
clear to Member States how these can be valued and included as part of the assessment.
There are a few examples where other, more qualitative, approaches appeared to be used in the context of
IED Article 15(4) derogations:
In the UK (as discussed in the UK case study, see Appendix B) the estimation of benefit costs
for emissions to water was based in a single case on the willingness to pay values for
improvements in water quality, assuming an improvement in water quality according to Water
Framework Directive classifications i.e. assuming an improvement from one classification to
another. This gives an upper limit of what the damage cost would be (i.e. the benefits). This is
likely to be an overestimate of what the benefit will be, although this can be communicated to
decision makers during the derogation process.
In Scotland, the qualitative derogation assessment procedure as it currently exists for
assessing derogations under the Water Framework Directive38, might also have benefit for
evaluating IED Article 15(4) derogations. This procedure makes use of matrices to assess the
magnitude and importance of a proposal on the environment (a range of effects) and to weigh
up the significant positive and negative effects.
3.5
Assessing disproportionality
3.5.1
Methods for determining disproportionality
A relatively small number of Member State responses indicated a specific definition or methodology has
been defined for assessing disproportionality in IED derogation requests. Detailed information on the
assessment of disproportionality was provided by CZ, FR, PL, SK, and UK. In most cases Member States
use a combination of quantitative assessment (i.e. cost benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis) and
additional qualitative information about the site and operation in question to make a final decision. PL
developed an approach to assess disproportionality for derogation requests specifically related to the LCP
BATC.
In the UK, the Environment Agency (England) indicated that the assessment of what constitutes
‘disproportionate’ is provided by the difference in NPV between costs and benefits. However,
disproportionality is assessed, only partially, by using the cost benefit analysis tool. The final judgement on
disproportionality is made on a case by case basis, taking into account a full consideration of the merits,
including evidence on both cost and benefits that can only be assessed qualitatively. In Scotland, SEPA
follows a similar approach, noting that the monetisation of the costs and benefits have high uncertainty,
therefore sensitivity analysis is important. However, the Welsh competent authority NRW indicated that
disproportionality is based only on the benefit to cost ratio. A benefit to cost ratio of less than 0.75 is
considered disproportionate.
FR noted that they do not have a definition of what is considered to be disproportionate, noting that, given
the uncertainties on costs and environmental benefits (especially for water pollutants), it is difficult to strictly
apply a cost-benefit methodology. FR indicated that they compare three different scenarios, i.e.:
37https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/Protocol_reports/reports_pdf_web/2016_reports/Czech_R
epublic_Protocol_report_3rd_cycle_13Apr16.pdf
38 Regulatory Method (WAT-RM-34): https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/149762/wat_rm_34.pdf and Supporting
Guidance (WAT-SG-67): https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/149801/wat_sg_67.pdf
61
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
i)
the "business as usual";
ii)
techniques which have been demonstrated as technically feasible; and
iii)
the alternative solution proposed by the operator.
For each scenario, a cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated. In order to make a decision on disproportionality,
the cost-effectiveness is then compared with available reference values, such as abetment costs relevant for
the installation or sector concerned and damage cost when available (see step 3 in the flow diagram of the
decision process in FR, section 3.2.3). Depending on this comparison with reference values, the
implementation of a technique is then assessed as proportionate or not.
CZ also indicated that they have no specific limit of disproportionate costs that is necessary to achieve for
granting a derogation. They assess disproportionality on the basis of two semi-independent analyses
comparing two or more scenarios (from the point of view of cost and impact on the environment). If the
operator gets close to the BAT-AELs by series of "low cost" measures (or compensatory measures on
another source in the site) and the investment in the BAT scenario would not lead to additional significant
emission reductions (within a year or longer), then granting a derogation is possible.
As described in Section 3.3, SK bases its cost-benefit analysis on the definition of a number of key
performance indicators (KPIs). A value is defined for each KPI and each indicator has a specific weight.
Based on this, the operator is awarded points (based on the data included to the submission form). A
derogation can then be awarded according to the following categories:
0-40 point = derogation not recommended
40-70 points = individual evaluation
70-100 = derogation recommended
If an individual evaluation is required (40-70 points awarded), then all information from the installation,
region, regional unemployment, local environmental situation, fees for the company, investments for the
region provided by the operator, the technical options, is taken into account.
The approach developed by PL for the evaluation of derogations from the LCP BATC makes reference to a
fixed cut-off value, i.e. a benefit to cost ratio of 0.7. After quantifying and monetising the costs and benefits
for achieving the BAT-AELs, derogations can be considered for a benefit to cost ratio of less than or equal to
0.7. This value is used as a reference value only. If clear arguments exist or other factors are to be
considered, a different cut-off value could be applied.
In their previous submission to the IMPEL study, HR noted that for cost-benefit assessment, a cost-
effectiveness analysis will be undertaken by: a) calculating the ratio between the costs of undertaking
adjustments or modifications and the reduction in emissions needed to achieve the emission limit values; b)
comparing the resulting ratio with the values from ECM REF. If the resulting cost ratio is greater than the
reference values, granting of a derogation would be considered justified. This approach is similar to the
approach applied in FR.
A number of other Member States also provided details. HU indicated that disproportionality is determined by
technical evaluation. For different scenarios, total annual emissions, investment costs, operating costs and
benefits from pollution reduction are considered. Based on the results the scenarios are ranked by qualitative
and quantitative risk evaluation. ES (Catalonia) indicated that their assessment uses a semi-qualitative
method to assess disproportionality, considering the result of the cost-benefit assessment and the overall
economic impact for the company. IE noted that it is recommended that the operator should use
standardised methodologies e.g. cost benefit analysis.
3.5.2
Consideration of uncertainty
Of the survey responses in this study, ten (DE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, MT, PL, SE, UK) indicated that the
uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations is addressed in the evaluation, for example by conducting a
sensitivity analysis in their assessment of disproportionality.
62
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
FR noted that their methodology includes a sensitivity analysis to evaluate what cost parameters are the
most significant in cost-effectiveness ratio calculation.
For the UK, the Environment Agency (England) indicated that a sensitivity analysis is built into the cost
benefit analysis tool and the tool guidance also provides additional sensitivity tests that must be carried out if
the operator and the regulator cannot agree on a particular cost, benefit or other input. It is indicated that the
operator’s claim is tested by inflating the costs and decreasing the benefits, and vice versa, performed for a
range of different parameters, to check if the outcome from the CBA tool changes substantively (e.g. the
NPV changes from negative to positive, or moves close to zero). If the results from the sensitivity testing do
not change the outcome, there is more trust in the robustness of the result. If the sensitivity analysis
substantively changes the result, the data will be scrutinised more closely. The Welsh competent authority
noted that depending on the benefit to cost ratio, the level of sensitivity analysis increases. A benefit to cost
ratio above 0.75 is generally not considered disproportionate. In Scotland, the SEPA response also
confirmed a sensitivity analysis is used.
Other Member State responses provided a more general consideration. For example, DE indicated that data
on costs and benefits are interpreted very cautiously bearing in mind the uncertainty of numbers and
calculations presented, especially with regard to cost data. IE noted that the costs and the benefits (where
they have been monetised) should be expressed in a cash flow framework, which shows separately the
costs and benefits.
3.5.3
Additional considerations in the final decision
Of the questionnaire responses received, two (BE (Flanders) and UK (Wales)) indicated the final decision is
solely based on the NPV calculations. A further 14 responses indicated that the cost-benefit analysis forms
part of the overall assessment and additional qualitative factors are also taken into consideration. An
overview of the additional factors taken into consideration is provided in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Additional factors taken into consideration in the evaluation of derogations
Consideration
Member State
response(s)
Compliance with other relevant European and National legislation and environmental quality standards
DE, IT
The socio-economic conditions of the region in which the installation is located, e.g. employment, social and
economic aspects
FR, SK
Substantially greater investments required overall in comparison to other installations in the sector.
UK
The operator’s history of investment, for example if they have invested heavily in resolving another important
environmental issue at their installation.
FR, PT, UK
The benefits might be overestimated for low population areas.
UK
The benefits might be underestimated for habitats.
UK
The age and previous refurbishments of equipment, environmental interactions were also considered.
HU
Availability of specialist contractors to do the required work (for example provide and install the abatement)
UK
Consistency with other operators in the sector - fairness to others, especially in the context of other derogations
previously granted or rejected
UK
The history of complaints
UK
Potential development of higher product prices
DE, FR
FR noted that, except situations where the cost-effectiveness decision is clear, discussions can take place
because other regulatory texts may impose other environmental investments. A final decision is made by the
63
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Prefet39 taking into account other considerations such as employment, social and economic aspects. FR also
noted that historical investment is already taken into account (through consideration of depreciation costs,
decommissioning costs, scenario "business as usual"). The methodology also allows the operator to provide
information on the potential higher product prices resulting from BAT compliance, which may impact on
competitiveness of the company. DE noted in their submission to the IMPEL study that they also consider
this factor.
In the UK, the Environment Agency (England) and SEPA (Scotland) indicated they use a range of aspects
and will consider other factors in addition to the outcome of the CBA in making the final decision (see Table
3.11). They stress they are careful not to let the CBA ‘tell’ them what the final decision should be. The
operator is encouraged to give as much contextual information as possible. This includes impacts that are
difficult to assess quantitatively, for example from noise, odour or cross-media effect. However, the
Environment Agency will not take into account affordability (can the operator afford to meet BAT-AEL), effect
on employment or local economy. In contrast, the Welsh competent authority makes the final decision solely
based on the NPV calculations. The Environment Agency (England) indicated that they will verify the
information by checking with experienced regulatory, permitting and policy staff and also through basic desk
research. The onus for providing the information, including suitable justification, is placed on the operator.
SK noted that they will only consider additional criteria beyond the CBA when the final assessment reaches
40-70 points (see Section 3.5.1), and the extent to which these are considered will vary between individual
sites and is dependent on many variables. Other Member States (e.g. DE, FI) indicated the assessment is
made on a case-by-case basis. AT indicated in the previous IMPEL study that the cost/benefit assessment
and the assessment as to whether costs are disproportionately high compared to the environmental benefits
is carried out on a case-by-case basis. Only one Member State response (DK) indicated that internal
guidance was available on how such additional information to the CBA is considered in the process.
3.5.4
Overlap with other policy areas
Three survey responses in this study (IE, SE, UK) indicated that the methodology used for determining
disproportionality for IED Article 15(4) derogations is similar to that used in other policy areas.
As discussed in Section 3.4.4, in the UK potential benefits of BAT compliance in terms of emissions to water
were assessed in a single case based on consumers’ willingness to pay for improvements to water body
status based on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) classification. Therefore, some overlap is noted in
terms of water-based derogations where the National Water Environment Benefits Survey (NWEBS) data is
used in this case. However, the CBA framework used in the UK for IED derogations is quite different in terms
of baseline, appraisal period etc. A link with the WFD is also noted in the intention to apply a qualitative
derogation assessment approach in Scotland, similarly as under the WFD, for pollutants where no damage
costs are available.
3.5.5
Summary of disproportionality assessment
Member States use different approaches to assess disproportionality, i.e. to assess whether the costs for
complying with BAT-AELs are disproportionally higher than the environmental benefits, such as cost-benefit
assessments, cost-effectiveness calculations (including comparison to reference values) and consideration
of additional information on the installation and the derogation request.
Fixed cut-off values, as reported by UK (Wales) and PL, are used to give a direction of the disproportionality
and to make a final decision on the derogation request. These values can be useful as they can ensure
consistency in decision-making over time, between sectors and regions. It also helps in increasing the
transparency of the decision-making process towards to operators and external parties. Since the use of
such fixed cut-off values relies only on the outcome of the CBA and the data used to make the calculations, it
may be questioned whether setting such a value close to one adequately takes account of other factors.
It is reported that a range of additional factors, in addition to the quantified costs and benefits, are important
to take into account in the final decision. These additional factors, as listed in Table 3.11, can for example
relate to uncertainty of the data used (“benefits over or underestimated”) or to the history of the installation in
39 State representative in a department or region in France
64
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
terms of investment and/or complaints. Therefore, several Member States reported that the outcome of the
CBA (or cost-effectiveness comparison) should not be the only factor to take into account and should not
dictate the final disproportionality decision.
65
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
4.
Member State Derogation Case Studies
This section describes the approach and information collected on the Member State
derogation case studies. The objective of this part of the study was to analyse and present
how the Member State derogation practices (described in Section 3) have been applied in
actual case studies. A selection of derogation case studies for a range of BAT conclusions
and in a range of Member States have been analysed.
The data collection approach is outlined in section 4.1. The overview of the selected case
studies is presented in section 4.2 and the discussion is provided in section 4.3, focussing
on the initiation, application, evaluation and decision of the derogations.
The detailed information of all derogation case studies is presented in Appendix B.
4.1
Methodology
Following the analysis of the responses to the questionnaire on the Member State derogation practices, 11
derogation case studies were selected using the following criteria, i.e. ensuring:
a range of industrial sectors / BATC;
a range of Member States (location, size, [number of] IED installations);
a range of environmental aspects and pollutants;
a selection of case studies in Member States with and without developed guidance for
evaluating derogations;
a selection of granted and rejected derogation case studies; and
a selection of derogations of the same BAT-conclusions in different Member States.
The selection of case studies was discussed and validated with the Commission. The competent authorities
of the Member States of these case studies were invited to participate using the contact list gathered during
the initial consultation on the Member State practices. A list of questions on how the derogation process had
been applied for these specific case studies was sent to the competent authorities together with an invitation
for a phone interview (in the native language).
This list of questions is provided in Appendix B, but broadly covered the process starting from initiation to
evaluation and decision:
Case study details (identification of installation and BAT conclusion(s));
Initiation of derogation;
Application of derogation (description of the request, arguments, data and calculations used);
Evaluation of the derogation request (validation, additional research);
Derogation decision (outcome, communication, follow-up); and
Further information (available documents).
The consultation was run in parallel with the detailed analysis of the selection of ten Member State practices.
Finally, the derogation documents that were publicly available and/or provided by the competent authorities,
such as derogation decisions, have also been reviewed.
66
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
4.2
Derogation case studies
The derogation case studies selected for further analysis are listed in Table 4.1
. In total 11 case studies
have been analysed.
Table 4.1
Selection of 11 derogation case studies
Member State (region)
GLS BATC
IS BATC
CLM BATC
REF BATC
PP BATC
BE (Flanders)
BAT 52
CZ
BAT 17/18
ES (Catalonia)
BAT 17/18
FR
BAT 52
IT
BAT 16, 17, 18,
19, 20
PL
BAT 17, 21
SE
BAT 63 (rejected)
BAT 56
SK
BAT 50
(rejected)
UK (Wales)
BAT 48/49 (26)
UK (England)
BAT 40/50
4.3
Discussion
This section assesses how the practices identified in previous sections have been applied in the 11 case
studies, describing the practical application of Member State procedures and guidance and highlighting
similarities and discrepancies between Member States.
4.3.1
Initiation and application for derogation
Initiation of a derogation request
The initiation and application for a derogation had similarities for all Member States and sectors.
According to the data received, the initiation process involved conversations between the competent
authority and the operators in almost all cases. However, the discussions were initiated and held in slightly
different ways. In CZ, IT and SK discussions were initiated by the operator either to clarify the requirements
or in connection with their (then) future application for derogation. In other cases, the competent authority
approached the operator first as they were pre-empting a derogation request from that installation (UK
(Wales) and UK (England)). In one case (BE (Flanders)), the competent authority has ongoing discussions
with all operators once the BAT conclusions are published (not necessarily those that subsequently submit a
derogation request). In one case (FR), the operator was in contact with the competent authority even before
the publication of the BATC. In the SE case study there was no evidence of prior contact between the
competent authority and operators. PL also did not provide any information about any contacts or
discussions between the operator and the competent authority.
In six of the case studies it was reported that the operator was somehow involved in the BREF review
process, i.e. in advance of the publication of the BAT conclusions (FR, IT, PL, SK, UK (England), UK
(Wales)). This has been through the relevant industrial association and it is unclear to what extent these
operators provided any input to the process.
67
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Application for derogation
As shown in Figure 4.1 , technical characteristics of the installation concerned was the most commonly used
criterion under IED Article 15(4) to justify the derogation request. In several cases (BE (Flanders), CZ, ES
(Catalonia), IT, SK, UK (Wales)), technical characteristics was also the only criterion used in the application.
In an additional case (UK (England)), it was the primary reason for requesting the derogation but it was used
in conjunction with another criterion (geographical location).
Figure 4.1
IED Article 15(4) criteria used in the derogation case studies to justify a derogation request
From the arguments used by operators in the case studies, it is clear that overall the cost calculation and
statement on disproportionately high costs is the main focus of the application and of the justification for a
derogation.
Only in four of the case studies (CZ, FR, PL, UK (England)) was the technical argument highlighted by the
operator prominently, i.e.:
CZ: The operator intended to install a new furnace a few months after the deadline. The cost of
retrofitting the equipment required to meet the ELV at the time of the request is 40% of that of
the new furnace. The power outage needed to do that was going to lead to disproportionate
costs and would have also prevented the installation of the new furnaces, which were going to
meet the BAT-AEL after their installation.
FR: For historical reasons (there used to be two refineries and the companies merged), the
installation consists of 2 piers with a relatively large distance in between. Due to the
geographical characteristics of the area (tidal constraints), it is not possible to use one of these
piers and therefore they have to work with higher filling rates.
PL: The operator noted the high amount of sulphur in fuels (coal and co-incineration with coal)
and in the raw material, as well as the dynamics of the changes taking place during the
production of the clinker. The very high cost of constructing and exploitation of wet
desulphurization devices was also noted.
UK (England): The operator has a multi-million investment plan that will reduce emissions
significantly. The operator has already invested 15% and will comply with the BAT-AELs once
the plan is completed.
As a result of the above, the data used to justify the requests in the selected case studies was mainly related
to the costs of implementing BAT, with the use of some additional arguments in some of the case studies
(Table 4.2).
Technical
characteristics
9
Geographical
location
2
Local environmental
conditions
3
68
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 4.2
Data and arguments used to justify the derogation requests.
Case study
Data used to justify the derogation request
Source of data
GLS BATC
CZ
Expert assessment
Economic assessment, which included:
Economic calculations: all capital, operational and other costs (as
described in the Czech methodology). Benefits not included (not
required in the national methodology)
AQ assessment with dispersion modelling (undertaken by
independent company).
The competent authority states that it
complies with the national
methodology but the exact
calculations are confidential
ES (Catalonia)
The operator provided data on the technical viability on the possible
techniques that could theoretically be applied. This was validated by
the competent authorities, although it is recognised that not every
single possible option has been assessed (only those in the BAT
conclusions). The operator stated that these options would also
imply the redesign and rebuild of the furnace, which would also
imply considerable costs. In order to justify this, it provided the costs
of the previous significant rebuild of the furnace, which was
undertaken in 2011. The emissions reductions estimates were
based on the ELV that the installation would need to comply with,
and the volume of flue gas of a typical year of operation. The
benefits were calculated using damage cost functions and
compared to the costs. According to the operator, the furnace is due
for replacement at the end of 2019, and it would be replaced with a
new furnace with optimised emission reduction technology that will
make the installation compliant with the ELV after the derogation.
Technical viability: Information from
the operator and expert assessment
from the committee evaluating the
derogation request.
Costs of technology: quotes made of
the operator to manufacturers of
abatement technology on what the
costs of such equipment would be.
Damage cost functions:
Costs of reconstructing the furnace:
Previous works undertaken on the
furnace.
Damage cost functions: Specific DCF
for NOx in Spain according to a
report from the EAA quoted in the
application for derogation.
IT
The operator claims that, given the current plant design (i.e. without
the possibility of substituting the furnace), it would be possible to
achieve compliance with BAT AEL levels only for limited periods and
under certain operating conditions of the furnace which, in turn,
would lead to reduced emissions. The latter would not be always
possible to maintain over time due to oven instability and due to the
need to search for optimal settings, aimed at reducing energy
consumption and ensuring the quality of the glass produced.
Info provided:
CBA based on ExternE, CAFÉ and NEEDS methodologies. 5
scenarios developed with costs and benefits presented
There is little information available on
the individual data inputs or source
SE (rejected)
An old court case has determined that the installation’s emission
standards are in line with local environmental conditions and the
geographical setting. Maintaining these emissions does not pose
any drastically changes to the environment. The company argues
that it is important that the installation can remain productive until a
new smoke gas burner has been installed and request an exemption
from the BAT 63 until the 31st of August 2016.
Emission data is provided.
Jurisprudence. 6-month derogation would not change the
environmental situation of the area
-
IS BATC
SE
Operator provided costs and benefits but the competent authority
estimated it was not sufficient. The competent authority made their
own calculations on benefits.
Source of operator’s data is unclear
UK (Wales)
Capital costs of achieving BAT in 2 scenarios, with net present cost.
Cost-effectiveness and sensitivities
Unclear. However, they made various
sensitivities for the price of fuel and
for the capital cost of buying a new
plant
CLM BATC
SK (rejected)
Company performance indicators, annual costs, payback period,
ratio of investment value in BAT, overview of investments in the last
5 years
Not indicated
PL
For BAT 17:
Source of operator’s data is unclear
69
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Case study
Data used to justify the derogation request
Source of data
The cost of replacing filters as well as costs for using of dust
extraction systems and the knock-on effects that affect the
technological processes carried out in rotary kilns and raw mills
including:
• reduced cost-less efficiency,
• quality regimes for clinker,
• ecological regimes referring to the gas emitted from the
installation.
For BAT 21:
Annual increase in sulphur dioxide emissions compared to the
volume of the existing integrated permit;
The capital cost of construction of wet flue gas desulphurisation
plant in the furnaces as well as associated costs of operation of the
wet flue gas desulphurisation plant (e.g. the wastewater from the
desulphurisation plant, and new noise sources with relatively high
acoustical power (sorbent preparation, desulphurisation fans and
others).
REF BATC
BE (Flanders)
Costs: capital costs of implementing BAT
Benefits: cost-effectiveness using reduction estimates
NEC reduction programme (CE
criteria), VITO report, technology
supplier
FR
Detailed capex. Opex are estimated at 4% of capex (CONCAWE).
Capex is taken from internal expert judgment, info from supplier.
Benefits: Specialists within the company calculated emission
reductions.
CONCAWE, operator internal
experts, technology supplier, REX
PP BATC
UK (England)
Capex, Opex, cost of waste disposal, energy consumption, impact
on GHG.
Benefits: Monetised using the National Water Environment Benefits
Survey.
The CBA tool from EA was used in the application.
Operator estimates on capital
investment.
NWEBS used to monetise benefits.
The source of the data provided is not always indicated in the publicly available documents or in the
information provided by the competent authorities during the consultation. According to the available
information, the source of the cost data has been the technology providers or based on the knowledge and
understanding of the operator.
Benefits were monetised in three of the case studies (ES (Catalonia), IT and UK (England)). In all the other
case studies cost effectiveness (cost per tonne abated) was calculated to estimate disproportionality.
For the IT case study, the conclusions of the CBA provided by the operator in the request were that the
yearly cost increase for managing the plant (in case of compliance with BAT-AEL) outweighs the yearly
environmental/healthcare benefits (costs = 250,000 EUR/year; benefits = 100,000 EUR/year).
In the UK (England) case study the benefits have been monetised using the National Water Environment
Benefits Survey (NWEBS) willingness-to-pay survey produced for assessing bundles of measures under the
Water Framework Directive.
Disproportionality was mentioned in the majority of cases (all but CZ). This was justified quantitatively in
most cases (all but the two case studies in SE, where the explanation of how costs were disproportionate
was qualitative). The quantitative methods to calculate disproportionality were very diverse, with BE
(Flanders), FR and the UK (Wales) providing the cost effectiveness ratio and justifying how it was
disproportionately high compared to the costs. In the case of FR this was performed by comparing it with the
values in the ECM REF. In all other case studies, the costs were compared with the benefits using other
methods (CBA in IT and UK (England)), and an explanation of the cost increase (SK). Details of the
disproportionality statements are included for each case study in Appendix B.
70
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
4.3.2
Evaluation of derogation requests
In this section, the following elements of the evaluation of the derogation requests by the competent
authorities are addressed: validation of the cost data, additional research/consultation, assessment of
disproportionality and the consideration of any additional aspects in the evaluation.
Validation of costs
Three main approaches are applied by competent authorities to validate the cost data provided by operators
in derogation requests. In some cases, these approaches are used in combination:
Reliance on operator’s data in the derogation request. This data is then sense-checked by
internal experts within the competent authority or other public authorities at national level: BE
(Flanders), CZ, PL, SE (rejected), SE (accepted), SK.
Comparison of the data provided by the operator with information within the relevant BREF
and other publicly available information: FR, IT, UK (England), UK (Wales).
Comparison with other similar plants in the sector: FR, SK, UK (Wales).
There was an additional approach that was unique for one case study (UK (England)), which was to assess
the actual investment data, as the operator had already started upgrading its installation.
Additional research/consultation and data requests
As shown in Figure 4.2 , in several case studies (FR, IT, PL, SE (accepted), SK and UK (Wales)), the
competent authority performed additional research or consultation in evaluating the derogation request.
For one of those that did not need additional data, the derogation request was rejected (SE (rejected)). In
this case, Swedish competent authorities did not request additional data from the operator, which implies
that the case was sufficiently clear for the authorities assessing the request.
The majority of case studies implied additional data or clarification requests to operators (all but CZ, ES
(Catalonia) and SE (rejected)). In the SK case study, the information provided by the operator was
considered insufficient and incorrect to justify the derogation (and therefore rejected, see below).
Figure 4.2
Number of case studies where additional research or data requests were required.
The additional requests by the competent authorities to the operators include clarifications on the data
sources used, information on the alternative technique options or emission data.
6
8
5
3
Additional research by CAs
Additional data requests from CAs
to operators
YES
NO
71
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Assessment of disproportionality
It was clear that for a majority of cases, disproportionality was assessed on a case by case basis, rather than
using a specific threshold or a fixed cut-off value.
In all cases, the calculations and data submitted by the applicants (and validated as described in the
previous sub-section) were used to estimate the difference between benefits and costs and, alongside other
information, make a decision on the disproportionality of the cost for complying with the BAT-AELs compared
to the environmental benefits. In the BE case study for example the calculated cost-effectiveness was
compared with the criteria under the NECD for NMVOC (29 EUR/kg NMVOC vs. 5 EUR/kg NMVOC for the
loading of ships). In the IT case study, the competent authority indicated that the external cost of the
increased dust emissions almost equalled the benefits linked to the reduced NOx emissions, while the
operating costs for the plant amounted to approximately double the total expected benefits.
In one of the case studies (UK (Wales)), the competent authority used a specific threshold (a benefit cost
ratio of 0.75). The benefit cost ratio calculated in the Welsh case study was significantly lower than the
threshold used by the competent authority to assess disproportionality (0.11 or even 0.04 after reworking the
calculation using different damage cost functions). The decision on disproportionality was therefore clear
regardless of any possible sensitivity related to the threshold.
Where the information provided by the operator was considered insufficient or invalid (SE (rejected) and SK),
competent authorities rejected the application for derogation. The arguments used by the competent
authorities for the rejection are provided in Section 4.3.3. An overview of the disproportionality assessment
for each case study is presented in Table 4.3, the details are provided in Appendix B.
Table 4.3
Assessment of disproportionality in the selected case studies.
Case study
Disproportionality assessments
GLS BATC
CZ
Economic calculations:
•
all type of cost items are quantified (see cost structure in methodology summary)
•
benefits are not expressed (not required by methodology)
•
calculations are made according to the formula given in the methodology
Assessment of the of glass manufactory operation effect on air quality - contribution dispersion study
The competent authority stated that on the basis of submitted documents the derogation can be granted.
ES (Catalonia)
The operator discarded two of the possible options because the costs were so high that it would have to shut
down the installation. As for the rest, the operator compared it to the potential benefits and concluded that the
cost per year would be between €25,573 and €59,147, once the annualised costs and the potential benefits are
taken into account. Given that the operator has to replace the furnace in 2019 anyway and that it would incur in
losses for four years to be able to afford meeting the ELV before then; it was considered that the benefits
achieved would not be significant enough to justify the costs.
IT
The competent authority assessed disproportionality based on scenario 4 presented by the operator: emission
limits of NOx (700 mg/Nm3 daily) and dust (20 mg/Nm3 daily).
The competent authority observed that the lengthy interruption of the furnace would lead to a minor improvement
in NOx emissions (<100 mg/Nm3, 55 t/y, 10% less than the yearly NOx emissions), but also to significantly more
dust emissions (+ 12 mg/Nm3, 7 t/y, or 50% more than the than the yearly dust emissions).
Moreover, the CA highlighted how the external cost of the increased dust emissions nearly matches the benefits
incurred due to the reduced NOx emissions, while the operating costs for the plant (interruptions plus loss of net
electricity production) amount to double the net foreseen benefit.
•
costs = 250,000 EUR/year (100,000 EUR/year for two additional interruptions of the furnace’s
operation to allow for its maintenance; and 150,000 EUR/year for the loss of net electricity production
through Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)).
•
benefits = 100,000 EUR/year.
SE (rejected)
N/A
IS BATC
SE (accepted)
Costs have been estimated by the applicant, no figures are mentioned in the court decision. Environmental
impact has been estimated by the operator, source of data is unclear.
Swedish EPA has then commented on the estimated benefits and the local environmental impact along with the
costs of its implementation. They comment that the applicant has not provided enough data.
72
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Case study
Disproportionality assessments
The CA has made an individual estimate of the benefits. There are no standardised calculation methods. The
administrative county board of Norrbotten, recommended the competent authority to approve the application of
time limited exemption.
UK (Wales)
The competent authority has assessed the costs and benefits of closing the coke oven and rebuilding it against
the costs and benefits of a retrofitting scenario in 2018, utilising a derogation for the two-year period. The cost-
benefit used CAPEX and OPEX estimates on annual bases supplied by the operator, cumulative interest on
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) and Green Book (Government Guidance to the Treasury) compliant
discounting factors with a base year of 2014. The difference between the two scenarios in discounted costs
terms was then set against the potential environmental benefits over the 2016-2019 period.
As its central estimation the competent authority has taken the highest valuation of SO2 and has applied both a
regional adjustment factor and a price weighting to deal with inflation since the estimates were made.
Discounted benefits are outweighed by discounted costs some nine-fold (BCR 0.11). When the calculation is
reworked using the central DEFRA estimate of SO2 valuation, the BCR falls further to 0.04 on account of the
discounted aggregate benefits being lower. Only derogating for a period of three years was considered as the
operator will be able to meet the new limit in 2019.
CLM BATC
SK (rejected)
Economic evaluation:
The operator stated in its application economic information for the immediate introduction of BAT. This data was
relevant for the actual operation of two furnaces.
The average annual loss of operation equalled more than € 235,000. Investment costs would amount to almost
€ 800,000. The highest increase in operating costs is caused by energy costs. The cost of reducing 1 t of
pollutant would be € 485,000.
Environmental assessment:
In the case of the introduction of new abatement technologies to meet the requirements of the BAT, 33%
reduction of the pollutant would be achieved. This information was provided from a comparable operation by
CALMIT spol. s.r.o. – plant Žirany. This reduction would have a significant positive impact on the environment.
However, since both furnaces are not currently in operation and no measurements have been made on these
facilities, it is not possible to assess the actual positive environmental impact.
Ministry of environment recommend not to grant an exception.
PL
No details provided
REF BATC
BE (Flanders)
Cost-effectiveness compared with previous investments, criteria under NECD and shadow prices (ca. 1 – 7
euro/kg NMVOC)
•
Loading of trucks: 10.3 euro/kg NMVOC
•
Loading of ships: 29 euro/kg NMVOC
FR
Disproportionate costs to the environmental benefit (per tonne of VOC avoided): the operator estimated a cost-
effectiveness ratio of 6,600 € / t VOC or 4 000 € / t, i.e. 5 and 3 times higher than the acceptable cost from the
ECM BREF (Annex 12), respectively.
PP BATC
UK (England)
The additional costs represented in terms of NPV range is 26 – 37 million compared to the derogation proposal.
The range shown is a function of taking the lowest costs and largest benefits compared to the highest costs and
least benefits and is the approach advocated within the CBA tool; the conclusion being that neither figure affects
the outcome of that assessment as both figures clearly demonstrate that the BAT option is disproportionally
expensive compared to the derogation proposal.
The competent authority deliberately does not set a defined level of ‘disproportionality’ – the numbers generated
by the CBA tool will only tell part of the story, and the qualitative information needs to be taken into account as
well. The CBA analysis does not dictate a decision on derogations.
Consideration of additional factors, the BREF process and the development of the BAT conclusions
Additional factors, other than what was included in the applications, were not explicitly considered in any of
the derogation case studies (for example employment or socio-economic effects in the region). In the UK
(England) case study it was noted however that the CBA tool, while extremely important in making the final
decision, is only one of the things considered by the competent authority. The wider context is also
considered, such as amenity impacts, size of the local population and its proximity to the installation, history
73
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
of complaints, consistency, especially in the context of other derogations previously granted or rejected. This
is called their ‘basket of measures’ approach.
The development of the BREF and BAT conclusions in question was not considered in general, except in SE
(rejected) and in the UK (England). In SE the competent authority used the BREF process as an argument to
conclude that the operator should have known about the BAT-AELs before they became legally binding. In
the UK (England) case study it was noted that the BREF process was useful to identify and compare similar
installations to that of the operator and validate the data submitted in the application.
4.3.3
Decisions on derogations
As stated above, the derogation requests were accepted and granted in the majority of the case studies,
except for two, i.e. SE (rejected) and SK. The arguments of the competent authority for the two rejected case
studies are:
SK. The emission measurements provided in the request for derogation originated from a
different plant. Therefore, the competent authority rejected these input data (and provided
explanation to operator). The competent authority did not accept the submitted information and
for this reason rejected the derogation request.
SE (rejected). The competent authority argued that the applicant has been aware of the BREF
process and that the applicant has been aware of BAT 63 before the publication. A derogation
based on the fact that a court case from about eight years earlier that ruled the installation
environmentally sound and that an additional six months (6/3-31/8) would not have a significant
impact on the local environment, is not accepted by the competent authority.
Those granted were temporary derogations in place for a number of years. The timeframe for the granted
derogations as well as the decisions (granted derogation from BAT-AELs and link to the decision
documents) are listed in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4
Derogations granted for the selected case studies.
Case study
Date of
decision
End of
derogation
period
Derogation granted
BAT-AEL
GLS BATC
CZ (1)
30 June
2016
December
2021
ELV for NOx: 1 200 mg/m3 (2 400 mg/m3 when nitrates
are used in very high-quality products manufacturing).
BAT 17:
NOx 500-800 mg/Nm3
(BAT 18:
NOx < 1000 mg/Nm3)
ES
(Catalonia) (2)
September
2017
31
December
2019
ELV for NOx: 1 200 mg/m3
BAT 17:
NOx 500-800 mg/Nm3
(BAT 18:
NOx < 1000 mg/Nm3)
IT (3)
29 October
2015
December
2022
BAT 16 (dust): 30 mg/Nm3 daily (until new furnace is
installed);
BAT 17 (NOx): 1000 mg/Nm3 daily (until new furnace is
installed);
BAT 19 (SOx): BAT-AEL only for the mass flow limit
equal to 0.64 kg / hour (obtained by considering the
concentration limit of the BAT AEL));
BAT 20 (HCL): 30 mg/Nm3 HCl daily, 5 mg/Nm3
BAT 16:
Dust: <10-20 mg/Nm3
BAT 17:
NOx 500-800 mg/Nm3
BAT 19:
SOx: <200-500 mg/Nm3
BAT 20:
HCl: <10-20 mg/Nm3
SE (rejected)
(4)
15 February
2016
N/A
N/A
74
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Case study
Date of
decision
End of
derogation
period
Derogation granted
BAT-AEL
IS BATC
SE (accepted)
(5)
7 March
2016
July 2018
Sum of ammonia-nitrogen (NH4+-N), nitrate-nitrogen
(NO3-N) and nitrite-nitrogen (NO2--N): 200 mg/l
BAT 56:
< 15–50 mg/l
UK (Wales) (6)
20 April
2015
March 2018
No ELV (BAT 48)
BAT 48:
H2S: < 300 – 1 000
mg/Nm3 (BAT I) and < 10
mg/Nm3 (BAT II)
CLM BATC
SK (rejected)
(7)
24 March
2017
N/A
N/A
PL (8)
9 June 2017
N/A
BAT 17 (dust): 30 mg/Nm3
BAT 21 (SO2):
1) in waste gases from rotary kiln No. 1 (emitter E18):
variant of work without raw material mill: 750 mg/Nm3
(for 200 h / year), in the variant of work with the raw
mill: 750 mg/Nm3 (for 7800 h / year), 1000 mg/Nm3 (for
500 h / year),
2) in waste gases from two rotary kilns (emitter E19):
a variant of the mill without a mill, but with a carbon mill
- 750 mg/Nm3 (for 200 h / year),
in the variant of work with the mill and with the coal
mill: 750 mg / Nm3 (for 7800 h / year), 1000 mg/Nm3
(for 500 h / year).
BAT 17:
Dust: <10–20 mg/Nm3
BAT 21:
SOx: < 50–400 mg/Nm3
REF BATC
BE (Flanders)
(9)
11 April
2017
April 2024
No need for installation to apply techniques from BAT
52 (and hence BAT-AEL, as these refer to the
technique).
BAT 52:
NMVOC: 0.15-10 g/Nm3
Benzene: < 1 mg/Nm3
FR (10)
5 January
2017
Until permit
re-
consideration
Emissions of volatile organic compounds must not
exceed 270 tonnes per year on average over a period
of 6 rolling years and in any case must not exceed 300
tonnes per year.
Benzene emissions shall not exceed 2.3 tonnes per
year on average over a rolling six-year period and in
any event shall not exceed 2.5 tonnes per year.
BAT 52:
NMVOC: 0.15-10 g/Nm3
Benzene: < 1 mg/Nm3
PP BATC
UK (England)
(11)
21
November
2016
December
2022
The current limit of 280 tonnes for weekly load of COD
discharged at W will remain in force and is specified in
table S3.2 of the permit;
The current concentration limit or 2,250 mg/l for COD
limits (no BAT-AEL) will be suspended until the 31
December 2021 deadline and is specified in table 3.2
of the permit;
TSS levels will remain controlled by the existing permit
limits in table S3.2 of the permit.
BAT 40:
COD: 12-20 kg/ADt
TSS: 0,5-0,9 kg/ADt
BAT 50:
COD: 0.15-1.5 kg/t
TSS: 0.02-0.35 kg/t
Links to decision documents:
(1) CZ: http://www.mzp.cz/ippc/ippc4.nsf
(2) ES (Catalonia): Not yet publicly available, provided by the competent authorities
75
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
(3) IT: www.provincia.cuneo.gov.it/allegati/tutela-territorio/procedimenti-tutela-
territorio/2014aia001rie/agc_provv_riesame_suap_prot_66833_del_29_10_2015_p_15461.pdf
(4) SE (rejected): http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsfall/domar/beslut-mpd-skane-2016-02-15.pdf
(5) SE (accepted): http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsfall/domar/ied-avgoranden/alternativvarde-dispens-
mmd-norrbotten-2016-03-07.pdf
(6) UK (Wales): https://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/check-for-a-permit-licence-or-exemption/?lang=en
(7) SK (rejected): http://ipkz.enviroportal.sk/povolenie.php?id=68045
(8) PL: http://bip.slaskie.pl/dokumenty/2017/07/14/1500021704.pdf
(9) BE (Flanders): https://www.vlaanderen.be/nl/vlaamse-regering/beslissingenvlaamseregering [not yet available]
(10) FR: http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ [not yet available]
(11) UK (England): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ca14-1jx-iggesund-paperboard-workington-limited-environmental-
permit-issued-eprbj7590ibv005
Decisions were communicated to the operators and publicly in a variety of ways:
Ministerial decree (e.g. BE);
Prefectoral decree notified to operator (e.g. FR);
Secured email (e.g. IT);
Verbally, prior to official submission of decision to operator (e.g. UK-England);
Operators are informed via official decision document sent by post (PL);
By email, prior to official submission of decision to operator (e.g. UK-Wales); and
Copy of decision submitted to operator.
All decisions have been published online (CZ, IT, SE (rejected), SE (accepted), SK, UK (England), UK
(Wales)) or will be published in the near future (BE (Flanders) and FR).
It was indicated that follow-up evaluations of the derogations granted will be undertaken for most of the case
studies, although it is intrinsic to each case. Some of the information on the follow-up evaluations is included
in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5
Follow-up evaluations
Case study
Follow-up evaluations
GLS BATC
CZ
Continuous evaluation
ES (Catalonia)
Competent authorities in charge of air quality monitoring have the duty of assessing that the derogation is
being complied with and that it does not compromise the environmental quality of the surrounding
environment. The derogation is granted until 31 December 2019, when it is stated that a new furnace will
be installed and the BAT-AEL will be complied with. The information on the decision provided by the
competent authority does not specify whether operators can be penalised if they do not comply with this
on time.
IT
Continuous monitoring during the derogation period
SE (rejected)
N/A
IS BATC
SE (accepted)
Unknown
UK (Wales)
The derogation is due in March 2018. The competent authority expects the operator will apply for another
derogation.
CLM BATC
76
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Case study
Follow-up evaluations
SK (rejected)
N/A
PL
Unless there is a change in law or new BAT conclusions are published, the integrated permit in which the
derogation was granted is issued for an indefinite period of time.
REF BATC
BE (Flanders)
The derogation is for 7 years. A new CBA will be undertaken after 5 years to see if the other 2 years are
necessary
FR
Not before the next re-evaluation of permit conditions
PP BATC
UK (England)
Compliance checks and evaluation will be performed every 6 months to see the expected investment
works are going as planned
77
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
5.
Derogation Principles and Exemplar Practices
This section identifies a number of derogation principles and exemplar practices of
Member State decision-making procedures in relation to IED Article 15(4).
The derogation principles can be considered as high-level recommendations on the
application of IED Article 15(4) and could assist Member States in the assessment of
derogation requests. The exemplar practices are intended to illustrate the derogation
principles with specific examples.
5.1
Methodology
Based on the information collected on Member State derogation practices and case studies, a number of
principles currently applied by Member States were identified. These principles were discussed with the
participants at the IEEG workshop on IED implementation on 19 October 2017 in Brussels and at the IED
Article 13 Forum meeting on 20 December 2017 in Brussels (see Appendix C). The discussions and
feedback from these meetings were taken into account to develop a revised list of derogation principles. The
current list of principles can assist Member States in their further application of IED Article 15(4). The current
list of principles could potentially change in the future as Member States gain more experience in
implementing BAT conclusions.
In the following step, all Member States practices as summarised in Section 3 and described in Appendix A,
were reviewed against those principles in a screening exercise. The result of this review is a list of (parts of)
Member State practices that are in line with the derogation principles and have the potential for wider EU
dissemination.
5.2
Legal requirements and principles for the application of Article 15(4)
5.2.1
Legal requirements
Prior to consideration of the derogation principles, it is first necessary to ensure that the application of Article
15(4) follows the over-riding legal requirements provided in the IED and wider EU law. These requirements
can be grouped as follows [those that do not originate explicitly from Article 15(4) are marked with an *]:
A. Scope
The IED makes clear that, with regard to their scope, Article 15(4) derogations:
i.
Apply only to BAT-AELs. They do not apply to BAT conclusions without BAT-AELs.
ii.
Are of an exceptional nature40.
iii.
Relate only to individual industrial installations. Derogations cannot be granted generically e.g. at the
sectoral or national level.
iv.
Can provide a longer period than 4 years after the publication of BAT conclusions to comply with
BAT-AELs to be written into permit conditions41.*
v.
Must be re-assessed each time permit conditions are reconsidered under Article 21.
40 See IED Recital 16 reference to 'certain specific circumstances' and Article 15(4) reference to 'in specific
cases'.
41 See IED Recital 22
78
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
B. Safeguards
In order to ensure a continued high level of environmental protection, the following safeguards exist when
Article 15(4) of the IED is used:
i.
Derogation applications must respect the Precautionary Principle42.*
ii.
The burden of proof on the need for a derogation lies with the operator of the installation
concerned42.*
iii.
A derogation is without prejudice to environmental quality standards43.
iv.
Emission limits set under a derogation must not exceed emission limit values that are set out in the
IED Annexes.
v.
When granting an Article 15(4) derogation, competent authorities must continue to ensure that no
significant pollution is caused and a high level of protection of the environment as a whole is
achieved.
C. Transparency
Since Article 15(4) derogations are a divergence from the normal application of BAT conclusions, it is
important to have public participation in decision-making by:
i.
Giving the public early and effective opportunity to participate in any proposal to grant an Article
15(4) derogation when granting or updating a permit44.*
ii.
Ensuring that, when an Article 15(4) derogation is granted, there is:
o
an annex to the permit conditions that documents the reasons for the application of Article 15(4),
including the result of the assessment and the justification for the conditions imposed; and
o
public access to information, including via the Internet, on the specific reasons for that derogation
and the conditions imposed45.
D. Process
i.
BAT conclusions are implementing Acts of the European Commission. The conclusions are the
result of the process for developing BAT conclusions as outlined under Article 13 of the IED as well
as their adoption under Article 75. Consequently, the final text of the BAT conclusions as published
in the Official Journal are the documents to be used in the setting of permit conditions under the IED.
Derogation justifications should not be based on the calling into question of the content of the BAT
conclusions, nor based on arguments that were discounted during the development of the BAT
conclusions themselves.*
5.2.2
Derogation principles
The derogation principles are structured in Table 5.1 into four main categories following the different steps
and subject areas of the decision-making process. The first category includes more general principles that
apply to the overall decision-making process.
42 See Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
43 See IED Article 18
44 See IED Article 24(1)
45 See IED Article 24(2)
79
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Table 5.1
Derogation principles for the application of IED Article 15(4).
Category
Derogation principles
A.
General issues
1.
Procedures: Member States should have an auditable and repeatable procedure in place
for assessing Article 15(4) derogation applications. To the extent possible materials relating
to such procedures should be made publicly available to both assist operators in
understanding to process to be applied as well as to assist Members of the public in
understanding their ability to make input into the derogation decision making process.
2.
Consistency: The procedure for assessing derogation applications should ensure
consistent decision-making in each Member State i.e. across their geographical regions and
across industrial sectors. This decision-making should also be consistent over time.
3.
Monitoring systems: Member States should have systems to monitor the application of
Article 15(4). This should include key indicators such as the number of applications; the
BAT conclusions being derogated and the assessment status (i.e. granted, rejected or
pending).
B.
Criteria for granting Article
15(4) derogations
(i.e. geographical location,
environmental conditions or
technical characteristics of
the installation concerned)
4.
Prerequisite. Fulfilment of the Article 15(4) criteria should be a prerequisite for conducting
further assessment of the derogation request, i.e.one of the criteria has to be applicable for
the process to start.
5.
Elaboration of criteria. Any additional elaboration of the derogation criteria should have a
narrow and well-defined scope that is consistent with the Article 15(4) text.
6.
Understanding of scope. Operators and competent authorities should have a common
and clear understanding of the scope of the derogation criteria.
7.
Other justifying criteria. The IED does not allow other criteria to justify an Article 15(4)
derogation request. For example, there should be no consideration historic investments or
impact on the competitiveness.
C.
Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
C.1. Calculation of costs
8.
Compliance costs. The derogation assessment should include an evaluation of the costs
from complying with the BAT-AELs. Wider social or economic costs should not be included.
9.
Cost quantification. The evaluation of the costs should be quantitative, if possible, and/or
supported by a qualitative assessment.
10. CAPEX and OPEX. The total cost for complying with the BAT-AELs should include both
capital costs (CAPEX) and operating costs (OPEX).
11. Net value costs. The total cost for complying with the BAT-AELs should be a net value that
deducts any financial benefits from applying BAT. For example, this might include revenues
(e.g. sale of ash for building materials; sale of heat or electricity generated); avoided costs
(e.g. savings on raw materials, energy or disposal costs); improved productivity; or higher
product quality. The cost of accessing financial capital required to finance the technique (i.e.
cost of capital) can be incorporated in the operator’s cost profile using, for instance,
appropriate interest rate for loan repayment or company’s Weighted Average Cost of
Capital (WACC)).
12. Discounting. In order to allow comparison, a discount rate should be applied to the costs of
complying with BAT-AELs, addressing differences in values over time. The chosen discount
rate should be clearly indicated and justified.
13. Source of costs. The derogation request should clearly identify the source of cost
information and the methods used to calculate costs.
14. Cost validation. Cost information supplied by the operator should be validated as part of
the assessment process. Validation may come from alternative quotes (e.g. from technology
providers), expert judgement or data from other plants where the technique was recently
installed.
15. Cost uncertainties. Given potential uncertainties in the information used to calculate costs
for complying with the BAT-AELs, realistic ranges of the cost information used and/or
various cost scenarios are a good basis for better understanding potential uncertainties in
cost parameters.
C.2. Calculation of
environmental benefits
16. Environmental benefits. The derogation assessment should include an evaluation of the
environmental benefits from complying with the BAT-AELs.
17. Type of benefits. The evaluation of environmental benefits should be quantitative (in
monetary terms), if possible, and/or supported by a qualitative assessment. Established
80
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Category
Derogation principles
pollutant damage costs should be used, where available (e.g. EEA damage cost estimates).
18. Discounting. In order to allow comparison, a discount rate should be applied to any
monetised benefits from complying with BAT-AELs, addressing differences in values to
society over time. The chosen discount rate should be clearly indicated and justified
19. Source of benefits. The derogation request should clearly identify the source of the
environmental benefits information and the methods used to calculate the environmental
benefits.
20. Benefit validation. Environmental benefits information supplied by the operator should be
validated as part of the assessment process. Validation may come from expert judgement
or data from other plants where the technique was recently installed.
21. Benefit uncertainties. Given potential uncertainties in the information used to calculate
environmental benefits for complying with the BAT-AELs, realistic ranges of the information
used and/or various benefits scenarios are a good basis for better understanding potential
uncertainties in benefits parameters.
D.
Assessment of
disproportionality
22. Disproportionality. The assessment of disproportionality should compare the costs to the
environmental benefits for complying with the BAT-AELs.
23. Assessment mechanism. There should be an agreed and repeatable mechanism for
assessing what are disproportionally higher costs compared to the environmental benefits.
This may be assisted by quantitative mechanisms and fixed cut-off levels.
24. Uncertainties. The agreed mechanism for assessing disproportionality should have a
means to address the inherent uncertainty in costs and environmental benefits for
complying with the BAT-AELs.
25. Level of confidence. The margin by which costs exceed benefits should be appreciable
and characterised by a high level of confidence.
26. Additional considerations. Additional considerations (e.g. the operator's previous
compliance with permit conditions) could contribute to the competent authority's final
decision on whether to grant derogation. However, these additional considerations cannot
be part of the initial screening.
27. Duration. The duration of any derogation that is granted should not extend beyond the point
when the disproportionality between costs and benefits is solved.
5.3
Exemplar derogation practices
Table 5.2 maps the derogation principles (see section 5.2.2) against the Member State derogation practices
as reported under this study to identify exemplar practices. The list of exemplar practices is not
comprehensive but is intended to illustrate the derogation principles. Reference is made to the relevant
sections in the report or appendices for more information on the highlighted Member States practices.
Table 5.2
Member State exemplar practices
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
A. General issues
1
Procedures. Member States
should have an auditable and
repeatable procedure in place
for assessing Article 15(4)
derogation applications. To the
extent possible materials
relating to such procedures
should be made publicly
available to both assist
operators in understanding to
process to be applied as well as
to assist Members of the public
14 Member States have indicated that guidance on derogations has
been developed. In the case of PL this relates specifically to derogation
requests from the LCP BATC.
The majority of these Member States made the guidance publicly
available, either in the form of a web page (DK, ES (Catalonia), SK), a
section of annex of national legislation (IT, SE) or PDF documents (BE
(Flanders), CZ, FR, IE, PL, PT, UK). The UK provides a detailed step-
by-step Excel-based guide.
See Section 2.3.2,
Table 2.2;
Appendix A4 (BE);
A7 (CZ); A14 (FR);
A17 (IE); A24
(PL); A29 (SK);
A30 (UK)
81
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
in understanding their ability to
make input into the derogation
decision making process.
2
Consistency. The procedure for
assessing derogation
applications should ensure
consistent decision-making in
each Member State i.e. across
their geographical regions and
across industrial sectors. This
decision-making should also be
consistent over time.
In some Member States, the information that needs to be submitted by
the operator for an IED Article 15(4) derogation request is specified
explicitly, which ensures a degree of consistency in the information used
to make decisions. The report highlights example of BE (Flanders), CZ,
and PT.
In BE (Flanders) the requirements of derogation requests, in addition to
the derogation criteria of Article 15(4), are written into national regulation
(VLAREM II). High level discussions are held by the Flemish minister
and there is no further interaction with the competent authority after
advice has been provided to the minister.
In CZ, ad hoc meetings are held between permitting authorities and
experts on interpretation of national guidance and GLS BATC. Similarly,
in PT, the competent authority has worked closely with the industry
associations and operators to agree a consistent approach on the
implementation of the BATC for the Manufacture of Glass. In the UK
(England), two tiers of governance are involved that ensure the
consistency and quality of decision making – the Derogations and
Permit Review Support Group (DAPR) and the National Derogations
Panel (NDP).
Section 3.1, Box
2.1; Section 3.2.4;
Appendix A4 (BE);
A7 (CZ); A25 (PT)
3
Monitoring systems. Member
States should have systems to
monitor the application of Article
15(4). This should include key
indicators such as the number of
applications; the BAT
conclusions being derogated
and the assessment status (i.e.
granted, rejected or pending).
In this study, Member States have provided information on the number
of derogations requests received, the sector/BATC to which they apply,
and their status. This would indicate that most Member States have
systems to monitor derogation applications (at installation or BAT-AEL
level), either at a national or regional level.
However, Member States have not indicated what processes they have
in place to monitor or record this information. It is therefore not possible
to highlight examples of exemplar practice in relation to this principle.
Section 2.3.3;
Table 2.3
B. Criteria for granting Article 15(4) derogations (i.e. geographical location, environmental conditions or
technical characteristics of the installation concerned)
4
Prerequisite. Fulfilment of the
Article 15(4) criteria should be a
prerequisite for conducting
further assessment of the
derogation request, i.e.one of
the criteria has to be applicable
for the process to start.
Nine Member States indicated that the derogation process is a multi-
step process, i.e. involving an initial screening process for derogation
requests. BE (Flanders), FR, and the UK indicated that consideration of
the three derogation criteria is a prerequisite before further analysis (i.e.
the technical and economic assessment) can be conducted.
In BE (Flanders) the competent authority will request the operator to
provide more information if required. The evaluation of the derogation
only starts when this additional information is provided. The UK (all
regions) indicated that the initial stage of the derogation process is for
the operator to demonstrate that the installation is different to other
‘typical’ sites in the sector, ensuring the request complies with the
criteria listed in Article 15(4).
FR indicated that they also have a multi-step process for considering
and granting derogations, which includes the requirement for justifying
the origin of the request (with reference to the three derogation criteria).
This is required before the risk assessment, and technical and economic
studies are carried out.
Section 3.2.3;
Appendix A4 (BE);
A14 (FR); A30
(UK)
5
Elaboration of criteria. Any
additional elaboration of the
derogation criteria should have
a narrow and well-defined scope
that is consistent with the Article
15(4) text.
For FR and the UK, the guidance published provides specific illustrative
examples of the three derogation criteria specified by Article 15(4) (the
geographical location, local environmental conditions and the technical
characteristics of the installation) that will be particularly relevant.
Section 3.2.4;
Appendix A14
(FR); A30 (UK)
6
Understanding of scope.
Operators and competent
authorities should have a
common and clear
For FR and the UK, the guidance published provides specific illustrative
examples of the three derogation criteria specified by Article 15(4) (the
geographical location, local environmental conditions and the technical
characteristics of the installation) that will be particularly relevant.
Appendix A14
(FR); A30 (UK)
82
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
understanding of the scope of
the derogation criteria.
Case studies have noted instances where operators have demonstrated
engagement with, and knowledge of the derogation process through
direct involvement with the BREF process itself, usually through the
national or European-level trade association (FR, IT, UK).
Interactions took place between competent authorities and operators
following the publication of BATCs to informally discuss the implications
and options for potentially problematic installations prior to derogation
requests being submitted (BE(Flanders), FR, UK (England), UK(Wales),
For example, in the UK (Wales), the assessment of BAT conclusions is
discussed with all installations to understand which might be
problematic, even before publication of the BAT conclusions.
Case studies have also noted where official requests for additional data,
information, and clarifications have been made by the competent
authorities to the operator (IT, PL, UK (England, UK (Wales)). In the FR
case study, monthly meetings were also held between the competent
authority and the operator during the process.
Appendix B6 (FR);
B7 (IT); B12
(UK(England));
B13 (UK(Wales)
7
Other justifying criteria. The
IED does not allow other criteria
to justify an Article 15(4)
derogation request. For
example, there should be no
consideration of historic
investments or impact on the
competitiveness.
As indicated in derogation case studies, the primary basis of the
justifications for granting derogation is based on the three IED Article
15(4) criteria. See for example, case studies from BE based on technical
characteristics, and UK based on technical characteristics (primary),
geographical (secondary). The UK (England) case study stated that ’The
IED does not allow other criteria to justify an Article 15(4) derogation
request”’.
In the FR case study, it is indicated that the derogation justification was
based on i) technical characteristics, ii) geographical location, and iii)
‘local context’.
Section 3.2.4;
Appendix A
A4 (BE); A14 (FR);
A30 (UK)
Appendix B
(Sections 3, 6 and
12)
C. Cost Benefit Analysis
C.1. Calculation of costs
8
Compliance costs. The
derogation assessment should
include an evaluation of the
costs from complying with the
BAT-AELs. Wider social or
economic costs should not be
included.
CZ, ES (Catalonia), ES (Extremadura), FR, HR, HU, IE, PL, PT, SK, UK)
indicated their competent authority has a standard methodology in place
for calculating the costs of implementing BAT. HU and IE indicated they
use the UK (England Environment Agency) cost benefit analysis tool
and guidance.FR stated that they have developed a cost sheet to be
used by operators in preparing derogation requests.
SK described a specific standardised approach to cost calculation,
based on the provision of data by companies for different scenarios over
a 15-year time scale. This covers the current situation, after
implementing BAT, after implementing other technology to reduce the
emissions (revenue, costs - investment, annual accounting depreciation,
operating costs divided in separated categories, taxes and fees)
The economic costs of compliance with BAT-AELs is either based on
the amended guidance H1 Annex K methodology (HU, IE, UK), the
European Commission Reference Document on Economics and Cross-
Media Effects (CZ, ES (Catalonia), PT), or in some cases was designed
specifically for the IED (FR, SK).
Section 3.3.1;
Appendix A7 (CZ),
A12
(ES(Catalonia)),
A14 (FR), A25
(PT), A29 (SK),
A30(UK)
9
Cost quantification. The
evaluation of the costs should
be quantitative, if possible,
and/or supported by a
qualitative assessment.
In the methodology developed by UK (England), the operator navigates
an Excel-based form, filling in their relevant data on current and future
operations, costs and benefits. This includes both quantitative (upfront,
financing, operating costs) and qualitative (assessment of environmental
impacts, with a low, medium or high ranking) data. The competent
authority reviews the information and makes a decision whether it
agrees with the cost outputs generated.
The methodology described by SK also involves the provision of
quantitative and qualitative (e.g. data about the company and other BAT
that has to be installed). SK has developed key performance indicators
(KPIs) forms to evaluate all of the information submitted by operators.
Section 3.3.1;
Appendix A29
(SK), A30 (UK);
Appendix B12
(UK(England)
10
CAPEX and OPEX. The total
cost for complying with the BAT-
AELs should include both capital
costs (CAPEX) and operating
The majority of Member States indicated that both OPEX and CAPEX
costs are considered in their assessment of derogation requests. A
smaller number (PT, SK) included this as a specific requirement in their
guidance. For the UK (England) (IE and HU use the same tool) CBA tool
Section 3.3.2;
Appendix A25 (PT,
83
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
costs (OPEX).
also specifies the inclusion of specific capital and operational costs.
A29(SK); A30
(UK)
11
Net value costs. The total cost
for complying with the BAT-
AELs should be a net value that
deducts any financial benefits
from applying BAT. For
example, this might include
revenues (e.g. sale of ash for
building materials; sale of heat
or electricity generated);
avoided costs (e.g. savings on
raw materials, energy or
disposal costs); improved
productivity; or higher product
quality. The cost of accessing
financial capital required to
finance the technique (i.e. cost
of capital) can be incorporated
in the operator’s cost profile
using, for instance, appropriate
interest rate for loan repayment
or company’s Weighted Average
Cost of Capital (WACC)).
ES (Catalonia), HR, HU, LT, PT and the UK specified that calculations of
costs should be made using NPVs. A method for the calculation of NPVs
is specified in the ECM REF.
This includes a consideration of net revenues. ES (Catalonia) and PT,
for example, specified that they use this methodology.
Section 3.3.3
Appendix A12
(ES) and A25 (PT)
12
Discounting. In order to allow
comparison, a discount rate
should be applied to the costs of
complying with BAT-AELs,
addressing differences in values
over time. The chosen discount
rate should be clearly indicated
and justified.
ES (Catalonia), HR, HU, LT, PT and UK specified that calculations of
costs should be made using NPVs. A method for the calculation of NPVs
is specified in the ECM REF.
CZ, ES (Catalonia) and PT indicated they follow this method in their
calculation of costs (see principle 8).
In the UK (England and Wales) the methodology (as followed in the CBA
tool) first incorporates the cost of accessing financial capital (using
WACC) and then discounts the costs using discounting factors specified
by the UK Treasury Green Book (i.e. social discount rate).
Section 3.3.3;
Appendix B12
(UK(England)) and
B13 (UK(Wales))
13
Source of costs. The
derogation request should
clearly identify the source of
cost information and the
methods used to calculate
costs.
In most cases, the burden of proof is on the operator to provide the
necessary information. In the derogation procedure described by a
number of Member States (CZ, PT, SK, UK) the derogation requests are
required to follow the specified methodology and the information
required to be submitted in support of the derogation request is
specified. The guidance documents provided includes description of the
formulae used in the calculation of costs. SE stated there is a
requirement for descriptions and calculations to be transparent with
given values on, for example, different types of costs. It is criminalized
by Swedish law to submit incorrect information or omit information.
In FR the operator describes the methodology and skills used to study
the costs – the source of the data being for example the internal
information or information from suppliers. In CZ the operator provides a
list of sources for the data used in the calculations (i.e., expert opinions,
economic calculations, air quality assessments and dispersion studies).
Section 3.3;
Appendix A7 (CZ)
(s A25 (PT), A27
(SE), A29 (SK)
and A30 (UK)
14
Cost validation. Cost
information supplied by the
operator should be validated as
part of the assessment process.
Validation may come from
alternative quotes (e.g. from
technology providers), expert
judgement or data from other
plants where the technique was
recently installed.
CZ noted that validation of the entire application (including economic
assessment) is done by an expert body. HR also stated that, if
necessary, external experts could be consulted for cost validation. In the
UK (Wales) it is noted that technical experts make use of data from
BREFs and internet sources and an economist scrutinises the figures if
required.
In addition, validation by external experts (e.g. agencies, authorities) has
been applied in some individual derogation cases (PL, SE, SK).
FR noted that when available, external quotes or internal detailed
costings have to be submitted to justify costs. In the UK (England), the
competent authority reserves the right to ask for specific quotes from
suppliers to verify the capital costs supplied are correct. IE specified that
costs should be supported by evidence such as price quotes from
commercial providers of the technologies considered or references to
costs in the BREFs which can be verified.
Section 3.3.3;
Appendix A7 (CZ),
A15 (HR) A17,
A30 (SK), A30
(UK)
Appendix B8 (PL),
B9 (SE), B11 (SK)
B12 (UK(England)
84
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
15
Cost uncertainties. Given
potential uncertainties in the
information used to calculate
costs for complying with the
BAT-AELs, realistic ranges of
the cost information used and/or
various cost scenarios are a
good basis for better
understanding potential
uncertainties in cost parameters.
In the standardised methodology developed by SK, the operator is
required to supply cost data for three different scenarios: i) for current
situation; ii) after implementing BAT, and iii) after implementing other
technology to reduce the emissions. Data for the 15-year financial plan
is requested, and an average of the input data is then calculated.
Section 3.3.1;
Appendix A 29
(SK)
C. Cost Benefit Analysis
C.2. Calculation of environmental benefits
16
Environmental benefits. The
derogation assessment should
include an evaluation of the
environmental benefits from
complying with the BAT-AELs.
For the UK (England), the competent authority has developed a CBA
tool and guidance for this purpose, with separate methodologies detailed
in the UK (Wales) and the UK (Scotland). HU and IE use the UK
(England) CBA tool.
Other countries (e.g. FR and SK) indicated they have a methodology
designed specifically for the IED.
Section 3.4.1
17
Type of benefits. The
evaluation of environmental
benefits should be quantitative
(in monetary terms), if possible,
and/or supported by a
qualitative assessment.
Established pollutant damage
costs should be used, where
available (e.g. EEA damage
cost estimates).
Some Member States (e.g. FI, SK) use the standardised EEA damage
costs. ES (Catalonia) indicated that in their calculation of environmental
benefits, sources are taken from both the EEA damage costs and the
ECM REF. FR uses the ECM REF as well as data from INERIS.
In the UK (England), the CBA tool developed uses the Treasury’s Green
Book values by default for the benefit calculations and the EEA damage
costs are used in the subsequent sensitivity analyses. HU and IE use
the UK (England) CBA tool in their derogation assessments.
Section 3.4.4
18
Discounting. In order to allow
comparison, a discount rate
should be applied to any
monetised benefits from
complying with BAT-AELs
addressing differences in values
to society over time. The chosen
discount rate should be clearly
indicated and justified.
See principle 12.
Section 3.3.1;
Appendix A
(Section 29 (SK))
19
Source of benefits. The
derogation request should
clearly identify the source of the
environmental benefits
information and the methods
used to calculate the
environmental benefits.
A number of Member States outline the required source of damage cost
unit values (See principle 17).
For SK it is noted that the Slovak hydro-meteorological institute provides
the competent authority with data to compare the values.
In the BE (Flanders) NECD cost effectiveness criteria and reports are
used to derive cost data and compare values.
For the UK (England) the standard CBA framework is based on the UK
Treasury’s Green Book, with several elements that had to be specially
developed for the derogations process.
Appendix B3 (BE)
Appendix A29
(SK), A30 (UK)
20
Benefit validation.
Environmental benefits
information supplied by the
operator should be validated as
part of the assessment process.
Validation may come from
expert judgement or data from
other plants where the
technique was recently installed.
See principle 13 and 14.
Appendix A7 (CZ)
(Sections 7, A25
(PT), A27 (SE),
A29 (SK) and A30
(UK))
21
Benefit uncertainties. Given
potential uncertainties in the
information used to calculate
See principle 15.
In the IT case study, the operator considered five emissions scenarios
when it prepared the cost-benefit analysis.
Section 3.3.3;
85
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
environmental benefits for
complying with the BAT-AELs,
realistic ranges of the
information used and/or various
benefits scenarios are a good
basis for better understanding
potential uncertainties in
benefits parameters.
Appendix B7 (IT)
B12
(UK(England)) and
B13 (UK(Wales))
D. Assessment of disproportionality
22
Disproportionality. The
assessment of disproportionality
should compare the costs to the
environmental benefits for
complying with the BAT-AELs.
Definition or methodology for assessing disproportionality has been
defined by CZ, FR, PL, SK, and the UK (England). For example, for CZ,
the operator is obliged to submit expert assessment for exemption from
emission levels associated with BAT, which must include a comparison
of the costs of achieving the emission levels associated with BAT or the
cost of reducing emissions with a similar effect on the environment and
other economic indicators.
For FR, different scenarios are assessed, with a cost/efficiency ratio
calculated and compared with environmental benefit values. For the UK
(England) disproportionality is assessed, only partially, by using the CBA
tool on a case by case basis, taking into account qualitative evidence on
both cost and benefits e.g. noise, odour or cross-media effect. For SK, it
Is indicated that, in the definition of key performance indicators for
assessing disproportionality, the value for economic and environmental
assessment is given a 50/50 percentage weighting.
Section 3.5.1
Appendix A7 (CZ);
A14 (FR); A29
(SK); A30 (UK)
23
Assessment mechanism.
There should be an agreed and
repeatable mechanism for
assessing what are
disproportionally higher costs
compared to the environmental
benefits. This may be assisted
by quantitative mechanisms and
fixed cut-off levels
Definition or methodology for assessing disproportionality has been
defined by a number of Member States (see principle 22) and in most
cases, this involves the use of a combination of quantitative assessment
and additional qualitative information.
The approach developed by PL specifically for the evaluation of
derogations from the LCP BATC makes reference to a fixed cut-off
value, i.e. a benefit to cost ratio of 0.7. Similarly, UK (Wales) indicated
that a benefit cost ratio of less than 0.75 is considered disproportionate.
SK bases its cost-benefit analysis on the definition of a number of key
performance indicators. A value is defined for each KPI and each
indicator has its specific weight. Based on this, the operator is awarded
points, with a derogation awarded based according to this score.
Section 3.5.1
Appendix A24
(PL); A29 (SK);
A30 (UK)
24
Uncertainties. The agreed
mechanism for assessing
disproportionality should have a
means to address the inherent
uncertainty in costs and
environmental benefits for
complying with the BAT-AELs.
A number of Member States (FR, UK) include a sensitivity analysis in
their assessment of disproportionality. For example, FR noted that their
methodology includes a sensitivity analysis to evaluate what cost
parameters are the most significant in cost/ effectiveness ratio
calculation. For the UK (England) a sensitivity analysis is built into the
CBA tool and guidance provides additional sensitivity tests that must be
carried out if the operator and the regulator cannot agree on a particular
cost, benefit or other input.
IE express costs and the benefits in a cash flow framework, which
shows separately the costs and benefits for each of the years covered
by the appraisal, in order to capture the fact that capital costs are spread
across a number of years and the operating costs might change across
the appraisal period.
Section 3.5.2.
Appendix A14
(FR), A16 (HU);
A17 (IE); A30 (UK)
25
Level of confidence. The
margin by which costs exceed
benefits should be appreciable
and characterised by a high
level of confidence’
PL and the UK (Wales) describe a methodology for assessing
disproportionality based on a fixed cut-off value for the benefit to cost
ratio (see principle 23)
In other cases (e.g. FR), the disproportionate costs relative to the
environmental benefits are compared with the relevant values as for
example detailed in the ECM REF.
Section 3.5.1
26
Additional considerations.
Additional considerations (e.g.
the operator's previous
compliance with permit
conditions) could contribute to
Qualitative factors in addition to cost benefit analysis are taken into
consideration by Member States (e.g. DE, FR, HU, PT, SK, UK).
The operator’s history of investment to address other important
environmental issues is considered in some Member Stets (FR, PT,
Section 3.5.5;
Table 3.11
Appendix A8 (DE);
86
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
N°
Derogation principle
Member State exemplar practices
Report section
reference
the competent authority's final
decision on whether to grant
derogation. However, these
additional considerations cannot
be part of the initial screening
UK).
In the UK (England) and UK (Scotland) a range of aspects are
considered in addition to the outcome of the CBA, which is not designed
a fully ‘prescriptive’ assessment. Thus, includes impacts that are difficult
to assess quantitatively, for example from noise, odour or cross-media
effect.
SK will only consider additional criteria beyond the CBA when final
assessment reaches 40-70 points.
A14 (FR); A16
(HU); A25 (PT);
A29 (SK); A30
(UK)
27
Duration. The duration of any
derogation that is granted
should not extend beyond the
point when the disproportionality
between costs and benefits is
solved
A number of Member State case studies (CZ, IT, ES (Catalonia), UK
(England)) indicated that the duration of a derogation is directly
dependent on the operator’s indication of when realistically the BAT-
AELs will be met.
In the CZ case study, the operator proposed the technical solution
necessary to achieve the BAT-AEL is based on installation of new
melting furnaces in 2018 and 2021. A derogation from the NOx emission
levels was granted until 31 December 2021
In the IT case study, the substitution of the float-glass furnace was
considered feasible only after 2021-2022. The derogation valid until 31
December 2022.
In the ES (Catalonia) case study, the operator indicated there is a
scheduled rebuild and refurbishment of the furnace for 2019. A
derogation on BAT 17/18 (NOx) was granted until 31 December 2019.
In the UK case study, the operator considered that continuing with
ongoing improvements, then building the necessary treatment facilities
would deliver compliance with BAT-AELs from 1 January 2022. The
derogation decision specifies new emission limits that will apply from 1
January 2022.
A number of Member State case studies specified the requirement for
follow-up evaluations or compliance checks of the derogations granted.
The BE (Flanders) case study noted that the derogation is for 7 years,
but a new CBA will be undertaken after 5 years to see if the final 2 years
are necessary. Continuous monitoring of emissions during the
derogation period is also specified in some case studies (CZ, IT, UK
(England)).
Section 4.3;
Appendix B3
(BE(Flanders), B4
(CZ),
B5(ES(Catalonia)),
B7 (IT), B12
(UK(England))
87
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future
Work
The aim of this project was to provide an overview of the approaches followed by Member
States in their decision-making processes on Article 15(4) derogations and to identify
general principles and exemplar practices on the application of Article 15(4) that have the
potential for wider EU dissemination. This section presents the main conclusions and
some recommendations for future work.
6.1
Conclusions
In total, 27 out of the 28 EU Member States responded to the invitation to complete an Article 15(4)
questionnaire under this project. Representative competent authorities from 22 Member States provided
input via an online questionnaire, with a further five indicating that there is a lack of available information or
experience in their Member State. Given this very good coverage of EU Member States, indicating a large
interest of Member States, the project findings are considered representative and reflect the current
experiences and practices in the EU at the time of reporting.
A total of 105 derogation requests, i.e. applications at the installation level, have been reported by Member
States in this study. The number of derogation requests reported by individual Member States range
between 0 and 19. The vast majority (73) of derogation requests reported in this study have been granted.
Relatively few (6) have been rejected. Some of the requests reported are still under evaluation (26). In terms
of the industrial sectors for which derogations have been requested, the largest numbers were for
Manufacture of Glass (40), Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (30) and for Iron
and Steel Production (15). For these sectors, the four-year window for complying with the adopted BAT
conclusions, and granting an Article 15(4) derogation, has passed and therefore, no further derogations are
expected to be granted. Based on the information available, a break-down of the derogations at BAT-AEL
level was presented, indicating a relatively higher number of derogation request for certain BAT conclusions,
such as BAT 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the BATC for the Manufacture of Glass. The number of derogations
presented in this study reflects the situation at the time of reporting and are constantly evolving.
Some data gaps still exist as information from two Member States is missing (Germany and Romania) and
as not all Member States provided detailed information of the derogations requested, for example a break-
down at the level of pollutants or BAT-AELs. Also, the number of derogations currently under evaluation was
not reported by all Member States.
When referring to the number of Article 15(4) derogations, Member States may have different ways of
reporting. Some Member States reported the numbers as derogations from individual BAT-AELs, i.e. one
derogation request corresponds to derogation from a single BAT-AEL. Other Member States reported the
numbers as requests from industrial installations, i.e. one derogation request corresponds to a single
application for permit variations (and therefore, can relate to more than one BAT-AEL of the BATC).
Guidance on Article 15(4) derogations has been developed in 14 Member States (BE, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR.
HR, IE, IT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK). In the majority of cases, the guidance has been finalised and made publicly
available (either as a PDF document, spreadsheet tool, webpage or annex to the national legislation). Some
of the guidance developed covers all aspects of granting derogations i.e. it considers the three criteria
outlined in Article 15(4), the calculation of costs and benefits and the assessment of disproportionality. In
other Member States, the guidance is either general or related to specific aspects of the decision-making
process. The guidance document developed by PL is specifically related to derogation requests from the
BATC for Large Combustion Plants.
Member States provided some examples to illustrate their understanding of the Article 15(4) criteria to justify
a derogation request, i.e. geographical location, local environmental conditions and technical characteristics
of the installation concerned. Only in a limited number of Member States these specific examples of the
88
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
derogation criteria are included in the guidance and therefore, are also made available to operators (e.g. FR
and UK). For the majority of Member States, these or other examples are not made publicly available. Some
Member States indicated that it is likely that more derogation requests will be received based on technical
characteristics compared to the other criteria. The assessment of a derogation request against these
justifying derogation criteria is in some Member States considered as a prerequisite to conducting further
analysis.
There seems to be a common understanding amongst Member States of the type of cost data needed for
the assessment of a derogation request (both CAPEX and OPEX), as well as of the type of environmental
benefits to be considered the assessment of a derogation request. The way total costs are calculated and
validated however, is only explicitly indicated and made publicly available by a small number of Member
States. The reported approaches to validate the costs provided by the operators include the use of external
experts, data from similar plants and information from BREFs. It is reported that validating all of the cost
information provided by the operator is often very time consuming and costly. In terms of calculating
environmental benefits, it was not clear for Member States how aspects such as emissions to water or air
pollutants without damage costs, could be valued and included as part of the assessment. Only a few
examples were reported where a different, more qualitative, approach was followed in the context of IED
Article 15(4) derogations.
In order to assess disproportionality, i.e. to assess whether the costs for complying with the BAT-AELs are
disproportionally higher than the environmental benefits, Member States use different approaches such as
cost-benefit assessments (including the use of fixed cut-off values), cost-effectiveness calculations (including
comparison to reference values) and considerations of additional information on the installation and the
derogation request. The use of fixed cut-off values can be useful to decide on disproportionality and can
improve consistency in decision-making. But a decision based on such values relies only on the outcome of
the cost-benefit analysis and the data used to make the calculations (these are not always available). It is
reported that a range of additional factors, in addition to the quantified costs and benefits, are important to
take into account in the final decision.
Based on the data collected, it appears that in a small number of cases, Member States practices are not
fully in line with the requirements of Article 15(4). This includes for example areas around the derogation
criteria and the inclusion of wider socio-economic benefits in the decision process. More time would be
needed to further understand how these Member States apply Article 15(4) and for Member States to make
use of the principles for further developing or amending their practices.
A list of 27 derogation principles currently applied by Member States was identified. The derogation
principles can be considered as high-level recommendations on the application of Article 15(4) and could
assist Member States in the assessment of derogation requests. It is recognised that the current list could
potentially change in the future. Additionally, a list of (parts of) Member State exemplar practices that are in
line with the derogation principles and have the potential for wider EU dissemination was identified. The
exemplar practices are intended to illustrate the derogation principles with specific examples. The derogation
principles and exemplar practices cover general aspects of the decision-making procedure as well as
aspects related to the Article 15(4) derogation criteria, the calculation of costs and benefits and the
assessment of disproportionality.
6.2
Recommendations for future work
This project provided an overview of the current Member State practices and experiences in relation to
Article 15(4) as well as a list of principles to assist Member States in the decision-making process. The data
collected and analysed also revealed a number of areas for future work that could further clarify and assist
the application of Article 15(4):
The number of derogations are presented in this report as the number of applications at
installation level and where possible, with a breakdown to the level of BAT-AELs. Both levels
(i.e. installation and BAT-AEL level) are important as it provides information on the number of
installations requesting a derogation and on the number of BAT-AELs of potentially more
concern, respectively. Furthermore, reporting derogations at the level of an emission source
would be a possible interpretation as well. It is recommended based on this study to continue
89
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
reporting the number of derogations as applications at the installation level and to encourage a
consistent reporting by all EU Member States.
The project did not analyse the additional total amount of emissions that could occur from the
installations with a derogation granted compared to achieving the BAT-AELs. Further work is
required to get a better understanding of the quantitative impact from the derogations currently
granted under Article 15(4). In order to make such an analysis, more information would be
required, including all the derogation decisions (emission limit levels set for a specific time
period) for a certain sector or process, the current amount of emissions of the pollutant from
that particular sector or process and a value to relate a process from a specific installation to
the overall amount of emissions of the sector (for example based on the energy use or
emission factors).
The use of damage costs is an effective approach to value environmental benefits related to
achieving BAT-AELs. Damage costs can be used as such or as part of an Impact Pathway
Approach (IPA), i.e. a more comprehensive methodology following a sequential pathway from
emission to quantification of impacts and monetisation. Damage costs are however, only
available for a number of pollutants to air and often only at a national level. For other pollutants
and for emissions to water, other approaches to calculate the environmental benefits are
required. Some examples have been reported to address this (incl. willingness to pay values or
a more qualitative approach), but overall little experience is available. Future research could
help clarifying how to best calculate environmental benefits for pollutants without relevant
damage costs available.
The list of derogation principles is developed based on the data and experience reported under
this study. With experience on the evaluation of Article 15(4) derogation requests increasing,
and potentially further guidance being developed in some Member States, the list of principles
might slightly change in the future. It is therefore recommended to keep the list of principles as
a ‘live’ document and to conduct further research to update the list whenever required.
The list of derogation principles can assist Member States in further developing or amending
their practices in relation to Article 15(4), especially those Member States where some of the
practices did not appear to be fully in line with the requirements of Article 15(4). Further work
and time is needed to better understand how these Member States apply Article 15(4) and for
the Member States to adopt the list of derogation principles.
A1
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Appendix A
Member State Derogation Practices
European Commission Directorate-General Environment
Application of IED Article 15(4) derogations
Appendix A – Member State derogation practices
March 2018
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment
& Infrastructure UK Limited
A3
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Report for
European Commission
Directorate-General Environment
Directorate C – Quality of Life
Unit ENV C.4 – Industrial emissions & Safety
1049 Brussels
Belgium
Main contributors
Keir McAndrew (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Toon Smets (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Ian Keyte (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Tamas Kallay (REC)
Issued by
.................................................................................
Toon Smets
Approved by
.................................................................................
Keir McAndrew
Amec Foster Wheeler
Floor 12
25 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London E14 5LB
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0) 203 215 1610
Doc Ref. 39465
\\att5-fs7\shared2\projects\39465-pp article 15(4)\c
client\reports\4. final report\39465_ied article 15(4)_final
report_annex a.docx
Copyright and non-disclosure notice
The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright
owned by Amec Foster Wheeler (© Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2017) save to the
extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to
another party or is used by Amec Foster Wheeler under
licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report,
it may not be copied or used without our prior written
agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in
this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is
provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or
copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of
Amec Foster Wheeler. Disclosure of that information may
constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may
otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party
who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any
event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
Third-party disclaimer
Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this
disclaimer. The report was prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler
at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the
front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to
any third party who is able to access it by any means. Amec
Foster Wheeler excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted
all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever
arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not
however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or
death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other
matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.
Management systems
This document has been produced by Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited in full compliance with
the management systems, which have been certified to ISO
9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 by LRQA.
Document revisions
No.
Details
Date
1
Draft final report
2
Final report
March 2018
A4
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Appendix A
Member State derogation practices
1.
Introduction
5
2.
Questions for data collection on Member State derogation practices
6
3.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – AT
11
4.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – BE (Flanders)
12
5.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – BG
16
6.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – CY
19
7.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – CZ
22
8.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – DE
27
9.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – DK
31
10.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – EE
34
11.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – EL
35
12.
IED Article15(4) survey responses – ES
38
13.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – FI
43
14.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – FR
46
15.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – HR
51
16.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – HU
55
17.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – IE
59
18.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – IT
62
19.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – LT
68
20.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – LU
71
21.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – LV
74
22.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – MT
75
23.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – NL
79
24.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – PL
80
25.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – PT
83
26.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – RO
88
27.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – SE
89
28.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – SI
93
29.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – SK
94
30.
IED Article 15(4) survey responses – UK
101
A5
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
1.
Introduction
Appendix A provides the detailed information of all Member State derogation practices to the questionnaire
in this study. Furthermore, details are provided from previous IMPEL studies in relation to the application of
IED Article 15(4) and from the reporting obligation for MS implementation of IED (Annex I Decision
2012/795/EU).
The following colour code is used in the text of each Member State overview to differentiate the information
received via various inputs in addition to the online survey under this study:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
A6
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
2.
Questions for Data Collection on Member State
Derogation Practices
1.
Respondee information
1.1. Name of respondee:
1.2. Organisation:
1.3. Telephone:
1.4. E-mail:
1.5. Please identify your role in respect to Article 15(4) of the IED.
PICK LIST (more than one option possible):
-
Economic expert – evaluating costs aspects of derogations
-
Technical expert – evaluating technical aspects of derogations
-
Environmental expert - evaluating environmental aspects of derogations
-
Permitting/enforcement officer
-
Author of the Member State guidance
-
Other (please specify):
1.6. Please provide the name, telephone number and e-mail address of the point of contact for further
correspondence related to this study. This may be yourself and/or a colleague.
Name:
Telephone:
E-mail:
2.
General
2.1. In your Member State, who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations? If more than one,
please indicate all competent authorities and the basis of their respective roles (i.e. by region/devolved
administration or sector/installation type?)
Competent Authorities:
Respective roles of Competent Authorities:
2.2. Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? YES/NO
If YES, please provide links
If no links are available, please attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
Where this information has previously been submitted to IMPEL or to the European Commission and is listed in
the accompanying document ‘Existing IED Article 15(4) documentation previously received’ please simply
refer to that list.
2.3. If guidance is available, does it cover all aspects of granting derogations or is it related to specific aspects?
PICK LIST:
-
Guidance covering all aspects
-
Guidance covering specific aspects (please specify)
2.4. If guidance is available, what is its current status?
PICK LIST (more than one option possible):
-
Publicly available
-
Not publicly available (internal use only)
-
Draft version
-
Other (please specify)
2.5. If you answered 'yes' to question 2.2, does the guidance include information on, or interpret, the following
aspects?
A7
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
-
The criteria listed under Article 15(4) (a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of
the installation concerned”? YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
The criteria listed under Article 15(4) (b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
The assessment of costs as referred to under Article 15(4)? YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
The assessment of “benefits” as referred to under Article 15(4)? YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
Advice/consideration on what constitutes “disproportionately higher costs” compared to the environmental
benefits under Article 15(4)? YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
Where you have responded PARTIALLY to any of the above please provide more details in the following
box.
3.
Derogation procedure
3.1. Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process (i.e. setting out general timeframe and
deadlines)
3.2. What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority procedures and
expectations?
PICK LIST:
-
Information on a website
-
Information provided on request
-
Reference to a contact person of the competent authority
-
Other (please specify)
3.3. How are derogations initiated?
-
Application made by the operator; YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
The competent authority makes an initial determination that a derogation may be warranted before
contacting the operator; YES/NO/PARTIALLY
-
Other (please specify) YES/NO/PARTIALLY
3.4. Where you have responded PARTIALLY to any of the above please provide more details in the following box.
3.5. Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
3.6. According to the Member State procedure, how long does it take to grant a derogation, from the start to the
final decision of the process?
3.7. Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations (e.g. in relation to different industrial sectors, regions, or over time)? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
3.8. Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations? For example, is there an initial screening stage,
before you require an operator to consider a more detailed case (i.e. more detailed information on costs,
benefits and disproportionality will only be required and evaluated in a second step)? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
4.
Derogation criteria
4.1. How is the criterion of geographical location considered in relation to derogation decisions?
-
Is this criterion accepted as being a valid reason for derogation? YES/NO
-
Do you have examples of how the geographical location of an installation can be interpreted? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
-
Typically, is this criterion judged to be of equal, greater or lesser importance to the other Article 15(4)
derogation criteria in the evaluation?
PICK LIST:
-
Equal importance
-
Greater importance
A8
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
-
Lesser importance
If of a greater of lesser importance, please provide more details in the following box (e.g. on the weighting
approach).
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your responses using the upload function.
4.2. How is the criterion of local environmental conditions considered in relation to derogation decisions?
-
Is this criterion accepted as being a valid reason for derogation? YES/NO
-
Do you have examples of how the local environmental conditions of an installation can be interpreted?
YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
-
Typically, is this criterion judged to be of equal, greater or lesser importance to the other Article 15(4)
derogation criteria in the evaluation?
PICK LIST:
-
Equal importance
-
Greater importance
-
Lesser importance
If of a greater of lesser importance, please provide more details in the following box (e.g. on the weighting
approach).
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
4.3. How are the criteria of technical characteristics of the installation considered in relation to derogation
decisions?
-
Is this criterion accepted as being a valid reason for derogation? YES/NO
-
Do you have examples of how the technical characteristics of an installation can be interpreted? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box (e.g. considering age of plant, implication on the
operation, other).
-
Typically, is this criterion judged to be of equal, greater or lesser importance to the other Article 15(4)
derogation criteria in the evaluation?
PICK LIST:
-
Equal
-
Greater importance
-
Lesser importance
If of a greater of lesser importance, please provide more details in the following box (e.g. on the weighting
approach).
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
4.4. Do you use other/additional criteria than those from Article 15(4) in the evaluation of derogations (e.g.
restrictions on granting derogations)? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
5.
Calculation of costs
5.1. Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT? YES/NO
5.2. What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
5.3. Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed specifically for
the IED? YES/NO
If YES, from which method was it adapted?
5.4. Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
PICK LIST:
-
Capital costs:
o
new equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
A9
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
o
set-up/installation costs
-
Operational costs:
o
Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
o
Maintenance costs;
o
Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT
conclusion;
o
Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
o
Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services)
-
Other costs:
o
Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
o
Insurance costs associated with the new equipment;
o
Other (please specify)
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
5.5. How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation (e.g. by using present values)?
5.6. How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
5.7. How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
6.
Calculation of environmental benefits
6.1. Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing
BAT? YES/NO
6.2. What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a BAT?
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
6.3. Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed specifically for
the IED? YES/NO
If YES, from which method was it adapted?
6.4. Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
PICK LIST:
-
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
-
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
-
Avoided/reduced noise levels
-
Avoided/reduced odour levels
-
Avoided/reduced waste generation
-
Avoided/reduced raw material use
-
Avoided/reduced energy use
-
Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
-
Other (Please specify)
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
6.5. Are damage costs1 of pollutants used in the determination of a request? YES/NO
-
If YES:
o
For which pollutants are damage costs available/used?
o
What sources are used as a reference for the damage cost unit values? Please provide link or
actual values used.
-
If NO (and in case no damage costs are available for the pollutants):
o
Are the avoided emissions monetised and how is this done?
Please provide more details in the following box
1 Damage cost is the cost incurred by repercussions (effects) of direct environmental impacts (for example, from the emission of
pollutants) such as the degradation of land or human—made structures and health effects. (OECD – Glossary of statistical terms)
A10
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
6.6. How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation (e.g. by using present values)?
7.
Methods for assessing disproportionality
7.1. What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Please provide links or attach the relevant sources to your response using the upload function.
7.2. Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas (e.g. the EU Water Framework Directive)?
YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
7.3. What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in respect to
the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
7.4. Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation (e.g. by the use of sensitivity
analysis)? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
7.5. Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations? YES/NO
If NO, what other factors are considered in the final decision?
7.6. To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA), prepared by the applicant or
the competent authority, taken into account? For example additional information such as levels of complaints,
historical investment in the installation, etc.
7.7. Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information to the CBA is considered in the
process? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
8.
Application of the methods in relation to actual installations
8.1. How many derogations have been requested in your Member State?
8.2. How many derogations have been decided in your Member State?
8.3. How many derogations have been granted in your Member State?
Please indicate for which BAT conclusions.
8.4. Based on your experience with actual derogation cases, did you identify any areas where the guidance was not
clear or had to be revisited? YES/NO
If YES, please provide more details in the following box.
8.5. How many of the requests for derogations have been refused in your Member State?
Please indicate for which BAT conclusions.
9.
Further information
9.1. Can we contact you again in subsequent stages of this project?
•
Regarding a more detailed description of derogation practices? – YES/NO; and
•
Regarding one or more specific derogation case studies? YES/NO
A11
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – AT
No input was provided by AT to the online survey under this study.
A12
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
4.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – BE
(Flanders)
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
The Flemish Minister responsible for the environment and water policy
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Yes. Publicly available
Link to guidance
http://emis.vito.be/sites/emis.vito.be/files/pages/1142/2017/Leidraad%20BBT%20op%20bedrijfsniveau_definitief
.pdf
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
It is a general guidance to determine BAT on an installation level, not specifically related to IED Article 15(4)
derogations.
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
The guidance covers the calculation of costs and benefits; in the guidance reference is made to cost-
effectiveness and shadow prices (emissions to air) for assessing disproportionality. Criteria for derogation are
not considered.
No references or examples of derogation criteria are available – evaluation is on a case-by-case approach.
In VLAREM there already existed a flexibility for derogating from permit conditions (not from ELVs). Operators
often consider the IED Article 15(4) derogations similar to other derogation requests and not much attention is
given to the specific derogation criteria of IED Article 15(4).
As all derogations are evaluated by the same unit in Brussels (several people) there is no need for an internal
consistent procedure / approach on deciding on IED Article 15(4) derogations.
No information /submission forms exist for the operators, but if requested the authority can provide some
context.
In general the competent authority feels that not enough attention is given to the derogation criteria by operators
so far. The arguments on the derogation criteria should be the first step in the application for an IED Article
15(4) derogation. Only in a later stage, the focus should be on a CBA. In reality it is usually the other way. The
rationale behind it is that a CBA is considered to be performed as part of the determination of the BAT in the
Sevilla process. So it is difficult to justify that an installation performs a different CBA (often with other,
sometimes less relevant data) to make the case, without explicitly referring to the derogation criteria. The first
step of justifying the derogation request based on the derogation criteria should be the focus.
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
A13
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes
Application for an IED Article 15(4) derogation: https://navigator.emis.vito.be/mijn-navigator?woId=61193
Procedure for granting IED Article 15(4) derogations, including time scales and steps:
https://navigator.emis.vito.be/mijn-navigator?woId=54729
Additional conditions or factors (to the IED Article 15(4) derogation criteria) noted are:
2° the emission limit values determined in accordance with the first paragraph are not higher than:
(A) the relevant emission limit values in Title II of VLAREM, insofar as there is no derogation
from Title II of the VLAREM;
(B) any applicable limit values, listed in Annex 2;
3° it is ensured that no significant pollution is caused and that a high level of environmental protection
is achieved in its entirety
The application needs to contain:
1° the name, capacity and address of the applicant;
2° the name and, where applicable, the operator's number of the operator;
3° the identification of the classified device or activity that is the subject of the application for
derogation;
4° the identification of the applicable BREF, the applicable BAT from the BAT conclusions and, where
applicable, the corresponding conditions regarding the emission limit values as well as the articles of
this decision for which the derogation is requested;
5° A rating demonstrating that achieving emission levels associated with BAT as described in the BAT
conclusions would lead to excessive costs in relation to environmental benefits due to one of the
following causes:
(A) the geographical location or local environmental conditions of the installation in question;
(B) the technical characteristics of the installation in question;
6° a proposal of emission limit values showing that they are not higher than:
(A) the relevant emission limit values, as specified in Title II of VLAREM, if there is no
derogation from Title II of the VLAREM;
(B) any applicable limit values, listed in Annex 2;
7° a proposal of measures to ensure that no significant pollution is caused and that a high level of
environmental protection is achieved;
8° a note demonstrating that the proposed measures correspond to the BAT, with particular attention
to the criteria set out in Annex 3.3 of Title II of the VLAREM
Further details:
Operators are free to use the data and calculations as deemed relevant. Usually, the more information provided
by the operator the better or more efficient the evaluation can be performed. Often data from technology
providers are used for the costs.
The VITO guidance document can be used as a reference, but it is not compulsory for the competent authority
to use in the evaluation.
Before an application is considered complete and receptive, the competent authority might request some
additional information from the operator (e.g. if nothing on the derogation criteria is provided). This is separate
from the actual evaluation.
The competent authority expects a lot more requests for the LCP BAT conclusions compared to other BATC to
date.
A14
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information is provided on request.
Communication on the decision: Decree of Flemish Government of 27 November 2015 :
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&table_name=wet&cn=2015112729 .
How are derogations initiated?
By the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
A public inquiry is organised at local level (community) for the public to have insight and provide comments on
the request for application only, i.e. not on the evaluation or decision.
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
High level discussions are held by the Flemish minister.
There is no further interaction with the competent authority after advice has been provided to the minister.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - no experience or examples / lesser importance
Local environmental conditions
Yes- no experience or examples / lesser importance
Technical characteristics
Yes - main criteria
Other criteria
No response
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No response
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
No response
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
No response
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
No response
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
No response
5.
Calculation of benefits
A15
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No response
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
No response
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
No response
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
No response
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No response
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
No response
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
No response
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No response
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
No response
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No response
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
3
Number of derogations granted
3
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
BAT 28 GLS, BAT 74 GLS, BAT 52 REF
Number of derogations rejected
0
A16
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
5.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – BG
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Executive Environmental Agency
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available.
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
There is no separate procedure on derogation granting, however according to the national legislation the
derogation process is integrated into the procedure of issuing or reconsideration of the permits.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information is made available on a website.
The information necessary for application for the derogation is referred to in the national legislation.
How are derogations initiated?
Initiated by the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
A17
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - According to the IED and national legislation, geographical location is considered as valid reason for
derogation, however up to now we have no application for derogations.
Local environmental conditions
Yes - No further details provided.
Technical characteristics
Yes - No further details provided.
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
N/A
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
N/A
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
N/A
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
N/A
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
N/A
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response
A18
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
We do not have such methodology developed.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
N/A
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
N/A
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
N/A
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
N/A
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
N/A
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
0
Number of derogations granted
N/A
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A19
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
6.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – CY
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Department of Environment (under Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment) and
Department of Labour Inspection (under Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance).
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available.
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information is provided on request.
How are derogations initiated?
Initiated by operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes - The procedure for granting a derogation is the same as that followed when issuing a permit, including
public consultation.
Time frame for decision
3-4 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Yes - The application made by the operator and the draft derogation permit are submitted to the Technical
Committee for Environmental Protection for evaluation. This Committee is chaired by a representative from the
Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance and comprises representatives from six government
departments, one representative from the Scientific and Technical Chamber of Cyprus (ETEK) and one from the
Cyprus Federation of Environmental Organisations. The opinion of the Committee is then sent to the competent
A20
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Ministers for final decision.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - No further details provided.
Local environmental conditions
Yes - No further details provided.
Technical characteristics
Yes - No further details provided.
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
N/A
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
N/A
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
N/A
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
N/A
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
N/A
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
N/A
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
A21
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
N/A
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
N/A
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
N/A
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
N/A
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
N/A
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
N/A
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
0
Number of derogations granted
N/A
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A22
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
7.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – CZ
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Regional authority responsible for issuing permits. The regional authority shall establish the conditions for the
implementation of BAT including deadline, if necessary, given the conclusions of the European Commission.
In the event that the operator is unable to meet the requirements, exemption can be requested in accordance
with the relevant legislation.
In this process, the authority may request the expert opinion of other competent authorities (such as
Environment Agency, Ministry of Industry and Trade, CEI, Regional Public Health).
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
http://www.mzp.cz/ippc/ippc4.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/ippc/ippc4.nsf/0E783DE513877FC2
C12580110023AFB9/files/Metodika%20vyjimky%20BAT%20%2815.04.14%29%20FINAL.pdf
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Yes
Specific criteria listed under Article 15(4) are not described in more detail, there is only a reference to national
and EU legislation paragraph (i.e. “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions” and “the
technical characteristics of the installation concerned”).
Justifications of the reason for which the derogation should be granted is a required item of the expert
assessment. General examples are mentioned in required data list for this assessment (see the following):
•
due to geographical location of the facility (plant disposition, land, availability of resources),
•
due to the environmental significance of an installation in relation to local environmental conditions
(e.g. environmental concentration limits or other environmental quality standards),
•
due to the technical characteristics of an installation (e.g. extent of necessary device modifications)
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
Yes
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Yes
(c) “costs”
Yes
(d) “benefits”
Yes
(e) “disproportionality”
Partially
Generally the operator should achieve the same or very similar effect under the derogation as with BAT, only in
A23
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
different way (e.g. reduction on other source of pollution) or over a longer time period (mandatory reduction of
emission in the future).
There is no specific limit of disproportionate/proportionate costs that is used to grant derogation.
Disproportionality is assessed on the basis of comparing costs and impact on the environment of applying BAT
and other proposed scenarios.
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes. Same as "substantial change" according to IED as implemented in national legislation.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information on a website, information provided on request, conferences, meetings of national (shadow) TWGs.
How are derogations initiated?
There are 2 possible initiation scenarios, (1) initiated by operator (new or existing installations) or (2) initiated by
competent authorities when reconsidering permit conditions within 4 years of publication of decisions on BAT
conclusions (existing installations).
When scenario 1 is not initiated by the operator of an existing installation, the operator is invited by the
competent authority according to scenario 2. For new installations, of course, only an initiation by operator
(scenario 1) is possible.
However, scenario 2 cannot be identified as the official initiation of a derogation, the authority only invites the
operator to bring the installation in line with BAT. The operator then assesses the need to apply for a
derogation.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes. Participants and involved state bodies of the permitting procedure. CENIA, Czech environmental
information agency as assisting expert body.
Competent authority may, during permitting procedure, request to an expert's opinion of the application. This
assessment is made by an expert body (authorised according to national legislation – e.g. Czech environmental
information agency). If the competent authority decides not to use the competent authorised person, it must
evaluate those aspects themselves and state the outcome of the evaluation in the justification of the relevant
decision. The outcome of this assessment is subsequently stated in the decision.
This procedure is defined in national legislation. The same assessment is required when submitting any permit
application.
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Yes. Ad hoc meetings with permitting authorities and experts on interpretation of national guidance and BREFs.
There is an identical approach for other installations. The relevant meetings took place in different format and
scope - according to current needs. So far, there has been a need for GLS BREF, CLM BREF and also for LCP
BREF, CWW BREF and IRPP BREF.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes, equal importance. It is interpreted as an extra cost which needs to be invested to overcome the obstacle to
achieve BAT-AELs.
•
availability of raw input material and the extra costs associated with transport from deposits outside the
Czech Republic
•
existing spatial layout of facility does not allow installation of a space-intensive technological unit (change
of arrangement of other units is necessary)
A24
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Local environmental conditions
•
increasing hazardous waste production,
•
production of hazardous pollutants related to implementation of primary and secondary measures
•
legislative priority of waste production prevention
•
completely insignificant reduction of air quality (source has a minor influence on air pollution in local
environment
•
higher emission impact when changing input substances in production line
Technical characteristics
•
suspension of a long-term production campaign (achievement of BAT levels require general
modernisation of the entire installation unit, i.e. shut down production for several days)
•
BAT application require a recently installed device to be rebuilt
•
ensuring compliance with the limits when occasional changes in production portfolio occur, these
requests by the customer may lead to higher fluctuations in emissions
•
necessity to ensure an appropriate follow-up timetable for the modernization of the entire facility, including
related activities
•
absence of adequate substitution to ensure required quality of the wide-spectrum production
•
reduced production capacity may lead to lower production device reliability
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
Yes, described in the guidance.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
Yes, described in the guidance plus expert judgment.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
Yes, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control - Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media Effects
(July 2006)
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT
conclusion;
Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services)
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment;
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Validation is done by an assisting expert body - CENIA, Czech environmental information agency
Evaluation is based on the latest relevant sectoral or aggregate data and actual project data.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
Source of data must be always part of the application and validation of them must be possible.
Validation of the entire application (including economic assessment) is done by an expert body (authorised
according to national legislation – e.g. Czech environmental information agency). If the competent authority
decides not to use the competent authorised person, it must evaluate those aspects themselves. The outcome
A25
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
of this assessment is subsequently stated in the decision.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Via general parts of the IPPC act (§ 8 /4/ of the act No 76/2002 Coll.)
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
Yes
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
Comparison between the effect of BAT scenario and derogation scenario on the Environment (amount of
pollution, dispersion studies).
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
Only avoided/reduced emissions to air are considered. In case of direct discharge of waste water to water
recipients, the procedure according to Article 15 (4) cannot be applied because of Government Regulation No.
401/2015 Coll. which prevents such a procedure.
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
Benefits are expressed as emission reduction (within year and longer period). Subsequently, costs and
benefits (impact on the environment) of BAT and other proposed scenarios are compared.
For more details, see methodology and the answer to the question 7
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Disproportionality is assessed on the basis of 2 semi-independent analyses (comparison of 2 or more scenarios
from the point of view of cost and impact on the environment).
The Decree specifies the requirements for an expert assessment exemption from emission levels associated
with BAT.
The operator is obliged to submit (according Annex 3) Expert Assessment for exemption from emission levels
associated with BAT. This assessment must include a comparison of the costs, which means the costs of
achieving the emission levels associated with BAT or the cost of reducing emissions with a similar effect on
the environment and other economic indicators (reference costs, …).
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
There is no specific limit of disproportionate/proportionate costs that is used to achieve for granting derogation.
The significance of the costs against the reference cost vs. difference between the observed effects on the
environment is compared. If the operator gets close to the BAT levels by series of "low cost" measures (or
compensatory measures on another source in the site) and the investment in BAT scenario would not lead to
additional significant emission reduction (within year or longer period), then granting an exception is possible.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
N/A
A26
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No. Economic analysis is only part of the assessment
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
These issues are addressed within the administrative procedure itself (all art. 15(4) procedures are regarded as
substantial change).
No other aspects except those described in the methodology are assessed.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
8
Number of derogations granted
8
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
Company Name
Sector
BAT conclusion
Sklárny Moravia, a.s.
GLS
BAT 17 BAT 18
PRECIOSA ORNELA, a.s.
GLS
BAT 38 BAT 40 BAT 42
AGC Flat Glass Czech a.s.
GLS
BAT 24 BAT 25 BAT 28
Saint-Gobain Construction Products CZ, a.s.
GLS
BAT 59 BAT 63
O-I Manufacturing Czech Republic, a.s., plant Nové Sedlo
GLS
BAT 9
BAT 17
O-I Manufacturing Czech Republic, a.s., plant Rudolfova Huť
GLS
BAT 9
BAT 18
STÖLZLE - UNION s.r.o.
GLS
BAT 20
MEFRIT, spol. s r.o.
GLS
BAT 74
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A27
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
8.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – DE
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
The respective competent authorities of the Federal States are responsible for handling and deciding on
derogation application and for the whole derogation assessment/process.
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available.
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
N/A
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes
For example, the competent authority has to decide within six months, if the enquired derogation - and therefore
a modification of the permit - will be granted (Article 16 Paragraph 3 of the Federal Immission Control Act
(BImSchG)).
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Reference to a contact person of the competent authority.
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
There is no derogation evaluation on the level of the Federal Government.
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Yes
A28
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
A working group of representatives of the Federal Government and the Federal States are currently developing
a tool for the assessment of derogation applications.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
There is no derogation evaluation on the level of the Federal Government.
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
No
Local environmental conditions
No
Technical characteristics
Yes
We consider the second question as a mistake in writing and we therefore answer to the question "Do you have
examples how technical characteristics of the installation can be interpreted?" - See example from IMPEL
contribution of Germany under No. 7.
Other criteria
Yes
In case of environmental quality objectives, e.g. water quality objectives under the Water Framework Directive
or e.g. air quality management plans in the respective area, the freedom of action of the Competent Authority is
limited to grant a derogation according to 15 (4) IED.
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
The methodology is determined by the competent authority and environment agencies of the Federal States.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
The methodology is determined by the competent authority and environment agencies of the Federal States.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No response
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
•
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
•
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
•
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
•
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
•
Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with
the BAT conclusion;
•
Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
•
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services);
•
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
•
Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
The evaluation/methodology is determined by the competent authority and environment agencies of the Federal
States.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
The calculation/evaluation/methodology is determined by the competent authority and environment agencies of
the Federal States.
A29
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
The methodology is determined by the competent authority and environment agencies of the Federal States.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No response
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No response
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
No response
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
No response
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Case by case assessment by each competent authority.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
Case by case assessment by each competent authority.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
Yes
Data/costs and benefits are interpreted very cautiously bearing in mind the uncertainty of numbers and
calculations presented, especially with regard to cost data.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No
It is a complex assessment of several factors. Among those, cost-benefit-assessment is part of the list of
relevant criteria.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Case by case assessment by each competent authority.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
No response
Number of derogations granted
No response
A30
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
No response
Number of derogations rejected
No response
A31
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
9.
IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – DK
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Miljøstyrelsen)
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
Please see existing documentation. Furthermore some examples based on IMPEL project have been included
in the guidance: http://miljogodkendelsesvejledningen.dk/opslag/mere-om-bat/fravigelser-fra-bat/
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering specific aspects.
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
Partially
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Partially
(c) “costs”
No
(d) “benefits”
No
(e) “disproportionality”
No
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No - We have not yet any experiences with derogations.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information on a website.
How are derogations initiated?
We have not yet any experience with derogations but expect that an application would be made by the operator
e.g. in connection with reassessment of the permit after new BAT conclusions are published.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
The approval authority's assessment and justification for the derogation shall be indicated in the authorisation or
decision of a reassessment which has to be made publically available.
Time frame for decision
No response
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
A32
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes, no further details provided
Local environmental conditions
Yes, no further details provided
Technical characteristics
Yes, no further details provided
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
N/A
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
N/A
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
N/A
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
N/A
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
N/A
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
N/A
6.
Disproportionality
A33
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
N/A
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
N/A
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
N/A
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
N/A
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
N/A
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
Yes - We make CBA in other connections. Danish EPA presented the method at IED workshop on CBA.
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
0
Number of derogations granted
N/A
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A34
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
10. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – EE
No input was provided by EE to the online survey under this study.
A35
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
11. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – EL
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
At the central level, the Environmental Permitting Division of the Ministry of Environment & Energy and at the
regional level, the Environmental Divisions of the 7 Regional Administrations
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available.
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information provided on request, reference to a contact person of the competent authority.
How are derogations initiated?
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes - Derogations are carried out through the environmental permitting procedure for IED installations, which
includes a consultation phase.
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
Yes - Apart for the stages entailed in the environmental permitting process of the installation, for derogations in
particular, a multi-step process might be followed but not formally.
A36
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - No further detail provided.
Local environmental conditions
Yes - No further detail provided.
Technical characteristics
Yes - No further detail provided.
Other criteria
No.
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
N/A
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
N/A
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
N/A
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
N/A
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
N/A
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response
6.
Disproportionality
A37
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
N/A
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
N/A
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
N/A
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
N/A
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Available information, such as complaints, are taken into account during the environmental permitting
procedure.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
0
Number of derogations granted
N/A
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A38
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
12. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – ES
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
According to the IED, competent authorities are in charge of granting derogations. In Spain, the competent
authorities are the Regional Governments (Comunidades Autónomas). The central Government does not have
the right to demand that they use homogeneous criteria. Nonetheless, there is a forum in which the various
Regional Governments discuss and exchange opinions on anything related to the IED, including derogations.
This is done via meetings and email and the discussions are not publicly available.
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available.
Link to guidance
Only one guidance available (Catalonia):
http://mediambient.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/ambits_dactuacio/empresa_i_produccio_sostenible/prevencio
_i_control_dactivitats/mtd/les_guies_catalanes/documents/mtd_econ.pdf
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
The guidance covers: technical characteristics of the installation, assessment of costs.
Partially: benefits, disproportionality, geographic/local conditions: No experience on the criterion geographical
location. Problems in assessing the environmental benefits because the lack of data of damage from emissions
of some pollutants, especially from emissions to water. It is also difficult to determine disproportionate costs
compared to environmental benefits for different industrial sectors and different installations.
In the last IED meetings (all Spanish regions) on 20/06/17 it was agreed that all regions would try to adapt to the
guidance and criteria of Catalonia because it is more advanced. Other regions have contacted them for
questions. However, it has to be borne in mind that ultimately this is not legally binding and competent
authorities do not have to do this.
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
Partially
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Yes
(c) “costs”
Yes
(d) “benefits”
Partially
(e) “disproportionality”
Partially
2.
Derogation procedure
A39
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
During the process of permit renewal or modification, by submitting an application of the operator.
•
The operator presents the request for derogation during the process of reviewing the permit or a permit
update due to a substantial change to the installation. The request has to contain the justification that the
costs are disproportionate to the benefits. It is recommended to follow the guidance but that in itself is not
mandatory.
•
Technical evaluation of the documentation presented by the operator to support the case. If it is not
enough, the operator is required to provide additional details.
a)
If the evaluation is not satisfactory, the decision is to reject the derogation request and propose
complying with the ELV or BAT-AEL as indicated in the BAT conclusions. Normally, the upper limit is
used unless otherwise stated in the BAT conclusions (e.g. sometimes the installation has a technology
and the conclusion states: "if XXX is used, then the lower limit applies". In cases where the
environment of the area is sensitive, then they may also choose the lower limit.
b)
If the evaluation is satisfactory, a less strict ELV is imposed in the new permit conditions. The
evaluation of the derogation is included as an annex to the permit.
•
Allegations/plea procedure of the proposal for final environmental permit.
•
Final decision/resolution
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information on a website.
Information provided on request.
How are derogations initiated?
Catalonia: Application made by the operator. Either during permit renewal or if they request a modification for
example if they disagree with the AELs.
Basque country: Initiated by the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
Catalonia: 1-2 years
Basque Country: <1 year (only one example)
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Catalonia: Yes. An environmental collegiate body represented by different units of the Ministry of Environment
of Catalonia, decides the content of the permit proposal, including IED article 15.4 derogations, based on the
reports of all units involved.
It is a collegiate body from the Department of territory and sustainability (competent authority for environmental
issues). This organism evaluates and passes all the resolutions and modifications related to environmental
permits. This organism is formed by all the competent authorities and is chaired by the Director-General for
environmental quality. Its functions and rules are set out in Catalonian transposition of the IPPCD (when the IED
came into force replacing 7 Directives, many MS did not do the same and just updated the requirements of the
previously existing transposition of the Directives). More information about this group on:
http://mediambient.gencat.cat/es/05_ambits_dactuacio/empresa_i_produccio_sostenible/ponencia_ambiental/in
dex.html (Spanish)
Basque country: No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
Catalonia: Yes. There is first screening. Prior to that they request more detailed information to the operator.
Basque Country: No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
A40
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Geographical location
Basque Country: No
Catalonia: Yes but no examples as no cases are expected in Catalonia. It is given equal importance to the other
criteria
Local environmental conditions
Basque Country: No.
The Basque Country is a region with a very high density of population and that has an influence on the criteria
for derogation that they consider. This may not be the same in other territories so they understand that they may
prioritise different criteria. They do not consider the geographical location as a "standalone" reason/option to
justify a derogation. The rationale behind this is the following:
1- We understand that the IED has a preventive approach, regardless of the possible effects at local level. In
this sense, it should be noted that the majority of the effects originating from their industrial sectors has an
impact at regional/national level. In their evaluation of BAT, they will try to implement the BAT conclusions
coherently and homogeneously for air, water, soil etc.
2- Also, it is difficult for them to implement conditions which depend on the local environment (new buildings
nearby or new industries with cumulative effects). If a new similar activity is implemented in the vicinity and the
cumulative effect means that the conditions for the derogation are no longer valid, would they have to reject an
already granted derogation? (rethoric question). Environmental control and complying with permit conditions
needs investments (planification at medium-long term) which cannot change every time this could happen, they
need to be more stable so they would not choose that as plausible criterion.
Because of this, they do not intend to consider the geographical location as a plausible criterion (as standalone
reason for granting a derogation).
Catalonia: Yes, equal importance to the other criteria. The ability of the local receiving environment to assimilate
the emissions of pollutants will be evaluated but no examples as yet
This is one of the criteria that is considered to be a reason for derogations. In order to evaluate local conditions,
the Competent Unit (group, department) for each of the vectors (air, water, soil) evaluates whether the receptor
(air, water, soil) is able to receive more associated emissions without a major effect on the environment.
Technical characteristics
Basque Country: Not accepted generally, but considered when the delay is caused by others (e.g. government
authorities not giving the permit for building a filter according to law). It is considered to be more important
because geographical or local environmental conditions are not directly linked to the availability.
For the time being they have not found any installation that would make reconsidering this approach. The only
derogation request so far is related to not being able to meet it due to external reasons, and this was considered
valid to grant a temporary derogation.
Catalonia: Yes, equal importance to the other 2 criteria. At the moment only derogations in container glass
sector have been granted. The useful life of furnaces for glass containers and the amortization periods for
investments are considered.
Other criteria
Catalonia: Amortization periods for investment, maximum period of the derogation
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
Basque Country: No.
Catalonia: Yes, described in the guidance. It is based on the BREF on economics and cross-media effects
(2006).
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
Basque Country: Only derogations have been given for delays in short periods when the delay has been caused
by other authorities permitting works.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
BREF on economics and cross-media effects (2006).
A41
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
Basque Country: No costs considered as indicated above.
There is no intention to do this, beyond using the Cross media BREF.
Catalonia: There is a detailed description in the guidance. Costs considered: Capital costs: New equipment
(abatement / monitoring / IT); Set-up/installation costs.
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities); Maintenance costs; Time
spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT conclusion; Training costs
for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques; Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification
services)
Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment; admin costs (Tax). Economic benefits of
implementing a technique (i.e. if it is more efficient) are also considered.
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Basque Country: No.
Catalonia: Costs data of implementing the different techniques selected to achieve BAT-AEL
NPV are used, as per the methodology set out in the ECM BREF.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
The operator is required to present budgets to implement the techniques selected.
Economic data provided by operator are validated through the submission of the budget / fees to be charged for
the investments and the balance sheets from companies. In this case the competent authority could validate the
investments required because they have the budget for the new furnaces.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
If the operator proves the confidentiality of data included in documents submitted, this information is not
included during the public information process of the application for the environmental permit.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
Basque Country: No
So far it was not required to estimate the benefits, because in the cases assessed the costs have not been
disproportionate. If costs are not disproportionate, you do not need to estimate benefits. It is understood that
when the BAT conclusions are decided, both benefits and costs are taken into account.
Something that was done is disregarding requests from installations that stated that they had losses, if they
belonged to a major industrial group or a bigger consortium, because in all those cases the consortium did not
have losses and it was understood that they could assume the installation of BAT.
Catalonia: Yes.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
The guidance refers to benefits from the new process and DCF.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
Methodology is based in Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media Effects (July 2006, European
Commission).
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
•
Avoided/reduced waste generation
•
Avoided/reduced raw material use
•
Avoided/reduced energy use
•
If relevant, noise
A42
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
Environmental benefits are evaluated by comparing present values and values of selected techniques to
achieve BAT-AEL.
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request? Yes
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
A semi-qualitative method to assess disproportionality, considering the result of the cost-benefit assessment
and the overall economic impact for the company.
In the particular cases of BAT 17/18 (GLS BATC), apart from evaluating the economic impact of the
investments in the company's viability, Catalonia has compared these cases with other companies of the same
subsector (containers, I suppose bottles) in a similar situation of other Spanish regions and in the EU. This is
what is understood as semi-qualitative. The issue of these BAT conclusions is common in other EU countries
and even within Spain so it could be compared how it has been done in other places. Two of the companies that
requested a derogation are multi-nationals and have other glass manufacturing installations in other Member
States. They informed the competent authority of the issues in those other places and how those other MS
evaluated (DE, BE, IT). In the case of the 3 derogations in Catalonia, they are temporary (2019, 2020, 2022),
taking into account the amortization of the investment so the operator can have the new furnaces ready for
those years and then comply.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
Once assessed the overall environmental benefits of techniques selected to achieve BAT-AEL compared to
present values, and assessed the economic costs and the economic impact associated, then evaluate a
qualitative analysis of the costs compared to the environmental benefits, finally the economic viability for the
company is evaluated.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation? Not addressed
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
Final decision not only based on NPV. Catalonia considers also the economic impact to the company and the
economic viability of the investment and associated costs
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
No
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information? N/A
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested: 4
Number of derogations granted: 4
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
GLS - NOx ELV (BAT 17 and BAT 18)
Catalonia: BAT 17/18 (Glass) - 3 cases. They got delayed by the soil assessment. In one of them, there were
also urban planning issues so it delayed everything. Publicly available end of 2017.
Basque Country - "Temporary derogation to the BAT on PM for glass furnaces". The company manufactures flat
glass so assumed it would be BAT 24.
Number of derogations rejected: 0
A43
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
13. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – FI
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Ministry of the Environment, Finland
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
Existing IED Article 15(4) documentation previously provided: http://www.ym.fi/fi-
FI/Ymparisto/Lainsaadanto_ja_ohjeet/Ymparistonsuojelun_valmisteilla_oleva_lainsaadanto/Ymparistonsuojelula
in_uudistaminen/Ymparistonsuojelulain_uudistuksen_toimeenpano
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering all aspects
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
Interprets on general level what aspects to take into account
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
Partially
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Partially
(c) “costs”
Partially
(d) “benefits”
Partially
(e) “disproportionality”
Partially
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No - Part of normal permitting process
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information on a website; Information provided on request; Reference to a contact person of the competent
authority
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes - Part of normal permitting process (statements, complaints and opinions)
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
A44
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - The anticipated impact of the emission varies on geographical basis (sensitivity of the recipient, for
example lake/sea)
Local environmental conditions
Yes - The anticipated impact of the emission varies on geographical basis (sensitivity of the recipient, for
example lake/sea)
Technical characteristics
Yes - age of plant etc.
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No response
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
•
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
•
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
•
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
•
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
•
Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with
the BAT conclusion;
•
Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
•
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services);
•
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
•
Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment;
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
See above
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
See above
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Commercially confidential data is presented only for authorities and thus not publicly available.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
Available European methodologies (eg EEA damage cost data)
A45
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
•
Avoided/reduced noise levels
•
Avoided/reduced odour levels
•
Avoided/reduced waste generation
•
Avoided/reduced raw material use
•
Avoided/reduced energy use
•
Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
Case by case consideration
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
Yes - used case by case when suitable data is available, e.g. EEA damage cost data, although sometimes they
are difficult to use as information is limited to certain pollutants
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
We have no method in place to analyse disproportionality.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No response
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits
Case by case consideration by the permit authority
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
Case by case consideration by the permit authority
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Case by case consideration by the permit authority
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
7
Number of derogations granted
5
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
Sectors:
Manufacture of Glass
Iron and steel production
Production of Pulp, Paper and Board
Number of derogations rejected
1 - Manufacture of Glass
A46
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
14. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – FR
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Inspection Department of the competent Prefecture, appointed in each of the 101 French regions (department),
In charge of granting and reconsidering permits, granting derogation
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Yes – publically available.
Link to guidance
http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Publication-du-Guide-de-demande-de.html
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering specific aspects
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
The three criteria are taken into account, but these may depend on the local context, and the localisation.
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
YES
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
YES
(c) “costs”
YES
(d) “benefits”
YES
(e) “disproportionality”
YES
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
None - Not specifically because the timeframe and deadlines correspond to those of the permit reconsidering
process. Indeed, the costs/benefits assessment required to comply with IED Art. 15(4) is part of the
reconsidering file and therefore both are assessed in the same time. In France, operators have to submit a
reconsidering file within a mandatory 12-month period after BAT conclusions publication. Then, the
reconsideration of operating conditions should happen within the following 12-month period (only a target).
Finally, installations have to comply with IED dispositions within a 4-year period after BAT conclusions
publication.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Also inspectors, directly in touch with operators, disseminate all required information.
A47
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
The operator must submit an assessment demonstrating costs are disproportionate
For the reconsideration and for the application for a permit, the operator has to provide a file containing the
envisaged emissions of the installation. If an emission is above a BAT-AEL (e.g. a derogation is asked for), the
operator has to propose an assessment of the costs of “respecting” the BAT-AEL compared to the
environmental benefits.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
There are no third parties involved in the evaluation of derogation per se. On the other hand, other parties are
involved in the rest of the processes, including the CODERST mentioned by IMPEL. Its role is to involve the
public in the consultation. It will provide the Prefect with support. Its role will be mostly an advisory role, and will
represent the industry, the associations, the public services, NGOs, regional and health agencies. Stakeholders
involved in the committee will be picked by the Prefect.
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
None
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
We have a multi-step process for considering and granting derogations (as indicated in the frame included in
the Guidance):
1) A clear and precise expression of the request
2) A brief review of the process involved, a monitoring results assessment for the pollutant and potential
evolutions on the installation
3) The justification of the origin of the request as regards the 3 criteria
4) The sanitary risk and environmental impact assessment to ensure that the sanitary risk and the
environmental impact are not unacceptable
5) The technical and economic study
6) A conclusion describing the alternative technical solution proposed by the operator to reduce emissions,
timetable and achievable values
Note that steps 3, 4 and 5 are "Go / no Go" steps.
The CODERST role has only an advisory role and does not take an active role in the decision. In order to be
granted, derogations have to followed the guidance step by step. It contains all the criteria and guidelines to
validate the derogation. In parallel, if the file is complete, an act of admissibility will be delivered to admin
services. The final decision falls under the prefect.
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Evaluation of derogations are done in a systematic way, following the guidance step by step, for all criteria.
Geographical location
It is typically the case of overseas regions where raw materials / consumables supply or waste treatment can be
more expensive. Another case: local raw materials have specific physico-chemical characteristics.
Also, when the plant is located on an island with high costs in transport or for waste treatment.
Local environmental conditions
It is typically the case of an installation located in a dry/desert area and which has to implement a BAT requiring
a lot of water to operate.
Technical characteristics
It is typically the case of an installation which cannot implement a BAT due to lack of space or specific
characteristics of effluents.
Other criteria
Should be noted that derogations can only be granted for ELVs where BAT-AELs apply [to] point of discharge
emission.
A48
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
There is a standard methodology used or suggested in the guidance to calculate the costs of implementing
BAT.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
A cost sheet is to be used by the operator. It is sent to the operator, it is a public document as the guidance will
be.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
• Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
• Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
• Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
• Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
• Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT
conclusion;
• Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
• Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services);
• Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
• Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
When costs are annualised, an interest rate is applied to take into account the cost of the capital (insurance cost
included).
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
When available, external quotes or internal detailed costings have to be transmitted to justify costs.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Some cost details can be marked confidential when transmitted (separately) but minimum public data is
required for public consultation.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
Yes, there is a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
Tons of pollutant avoided x reference cost for the pollutant. These environmental benefits should be compared
with the costs for implementing the BAT. The main issue is how to determine the reference costs?
Efficiency will depend very much on the sectors, and on how much a sector is ready to spend for abatement.
Damage costs are determined with professionals on certain criteria for each BREF review. These are
developed through time, sector by sector (e.g. now LCP). National experts work on this. They use literature
INERIS 2017, INTEL study, and consolidated data. The main problem relies in knowing whether these are
realistic and relevant.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
A49
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
Ideally they would like to be able to create reference for pollution per tonne of pollutant for wide range of
pollutant. But this task seems mainly on the "air pollutants", and that these references differ widely from one
another.
There are also problems in determining references for water pollutants. It is very complex and it is still not
established how to obtain them. Sometimes data is consulted from other countries.
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
For which pollutants are damage costs available/used?: NOx, SOx, VOC, dust (mainly air pollutants)
What sources are used as a reference for the damage cost unit values?
ECM BREF and INERIS study (2007).
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
To assess disproportionality, 3 scenarios are compared:
i) the "business as usual";
ii) techniques which have been demonstrated as technically feasible; and
iii) the alternative solution proposed by the operator.
For each scenario, a cost/efficiency rate is calculated and compared with environmental benefits (tons of
pollutant avoided per year x reference cost). Depending on the cost/efficiency rate, the implementation of a
technique is assessed as proportionate or not.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
We do not have a definition of what are considered to be disproportionate. The methodology presented before
is just one of a number of elements for granting derogation. Given uncertainties on costs and environmental
benefits (even more for water pollutants), it is difficult to apply strictly this methodology. The methodology is
useful to determine whether costs for implementing a technique are far from the balance between costs and
benefits, and at the middle, discussions between operator and inspector can take place.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
The methodology includes a sensitivity analysis to evaluate what cost parameters are the most significant in
cost/efficiency rate calculation. Sensitivity analysis is still very theoretical now. It is not applied yet as there was
no case where it was relevant.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No - Except situation where cost effectiveness rate is far from the balance and where the decision is clear,
discussions can take place because other regulatory texts may impose other environmental investments. And
finally the Prefect makes the decision taking into account other considerations such as employment, social and
economical aspects.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Historical investment is already taken into account (depreciation costs, decommissioning costs, scenario
"business as usual"). The methodology allows operator to provide inspector with information about higher
product price which may have impact on competitiveness of the company.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
None
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
15
A50
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Number of derogations granted
3 granted; the remainder are under review
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
REF 52
Number of derogations rejected
0
A51
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
15. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – HR
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Energy
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Guidance specific for derogation is not publicly available. When the operator starts with the procedure of
requesting derogations, the Ministry provides the guidance. The whole procedure/issue could be considered as
new in Croatia. Therefore, there are no final solutions yet. Also, that is the reason why guidance is not publicly
available (it will be once when finalised). But, there is a general guidance for economic evaluation of BATs the
most of which could be used in derogation process, also including basic principles for economic evaluation of
derogation, and could be considered as a basic guidance for all economic issues related to IED.
Link to guidance
http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/studija_o_smjernicama_za_ekonomsko_vrednovanje_izbora_najboljih_raspolozivih_te
hnika_nrt_u_skladu_sa_zahtjevima_postojece_legislative_1.pdf
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
It covers only choosing the option for which derogation could be granted
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
No
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Yes
Emission costs (or environmental costs on general basis for that kind of pollution) are to be compared with
compliance costs of operator, both based on the unit of pollution.
(c) “costs”
Yes
(d) “benefits”
No
(e) “disproportionality”
Yes
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes - it is described in Regulation on Environmental Permit (Official Gazette 8/14).
Two possible cases:
1.
The operator already has environmental permit, realizing that emission level could not be compiled
with:
•
This must be proven. The operator prepares and provides report and analysis of disproportionality of
A52
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
costs.
•
The Ministry then sends further instructions or requests for more details/clarifications if necessary.
•
After clarifications are obtained, the Ministry evaluates the request is assessed (approved/not
approved).
•
The whole procedure takes up to 6 months and it is considered as Modification of the Environmental
Permit.
2.
The operator does not have environmental permit:
•
In that case, this is to be considered as a part of the environmental permission obtaining procedure.
•
NOTE: in some cases, environmental permit procedure is to be launched ex officio (official
responsibility of ministry).
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Reference to a contact person of the competent authority
How are derogations initiated?
The competent authority makes an initial determination that a derogation may be warranted before contacting
the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Not accepted. There are no current cases where this could be applied.
So far, there have been no derogation requests using geographical location as criteria. As Croatia is a small
country, this criterion will not be used in the future neither.
Local environmental conditions
Yes, considered. Equal importance to technical characteristics but more than geographical location. They are
considered as basis for environmental quality standards.
Local environmental conditions are included under disproportionality measuring i.e. as a basis for environmental
quality standards. This approach is limited on substances causing no health problems for local population.
Technical characteristics
Yes, no examples. Equal importance than local but more than geographical location.
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
Yes
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
The standard economic methodology used for the investment project was adapted.
Croatia reported that for cost-benefit assessment, the cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken by: a)
calculating the ratio between the costs of undertaking adjustments / modifications and the amount of reduced
A53
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
emissions needed to achieve the emission limit values; b) comparing the resulting ratio with the values from
BREF document on Economics and cross media effects. If the resulting cost ratio is greater than the reference
values, granting of a derogation would be considered justified. Derogations might be limited in time.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
The standard economic methodology used for the investment project was adapted.
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT
conclusion;
Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services)
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Present values.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
If necessary external experts could be consulted.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
On request of the operator the data is protected.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No - No benefits are calculated, but methodology for that exists, and could be applied. It was used in past in
EIA procedures.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
a) calculating the ratio between the costs of undertaking adjustments / modifications and the amount of
reduced emissions needed to achieve the emission limit values; b) comparing the resulting ratio with the values
from BREF document on Economics and cross media effects.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
ECM REF
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
No response
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
No response
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No damage costs calculations, but methodology for that exists, and could be applied (ECM REF). It was used
in past in EIA procedures.
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Comparison of costs. The operator suggests the deadline by which the emission limit values are going to be
achieved. No reference values used.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
A54
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
No response
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
There is neither precise boundary of “much higher” nor precise approach for assessing it. This shows high level
of flexibility. It is insisted on the period within which the emission limit values will be achieved.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
Yes if necessary.
This issue was discussed but not finally determined. The operator is allowed to propose “uncertainty”, and it has
to be well documented.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
NPV is not the only aspect used. Also, standard factors developed through the decision making methodology.
The standard factors are not prescribed/defined. Discounting is not used because of the short periods of time. In
guidance for economic evaluation of BATs, the discounting factors between 2% do 3.8% are proposed in
environmental evaluations, for the purpose of NET present value determination. For longer period of demanded
compliance, the discount factors are likely to be used.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Not yet taken into account.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
4 (3 shipyards; 1 mineral fibres)
Number of derogations granted
0
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A55
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
16. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – HU
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Regional Environment Authorities of Government Offices (19)
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available.
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes, it is part of the permitting procedure.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
•
Information on a website
•
Information provided on request
•
Reference to a contact person of the competent authority
•
We also provide personal consultations upon request.
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
A56
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
Yes - The request for derogation is submitted to, and evaluated by authorities as part of the IPPC permit
application / review documentation.
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - The criterion of geographical location is evaluated on a case by case basis. In itself it cannot be
considered as a valid reason for derogation; it has to be evaluated together with the local environmental
conditions. Examples for the interpretation of geographical location include the impacted area of the activity,
distance of the plant from inhabited areas etc.
Local environmental conditions
Yes - The criterion of local environmental conditions is evaluated on a case by case basis. In itself it cannot be
considered as a valid reason for derogation; it has to be evaluated together with the geographical conditions.
Examples for the interpretation of local environmental conditions are: other large facilities (emission sources) in
the vicinity (total emissions), concentration of air pollutants etc.
Technical characteristics
Yes - Technical condition of equipment, age of plant, location of plant at the industrial site, space constraints.
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
Yes
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
The O-I Glass Manufacturing Ltd. used the IED Cost-Benefit Assessment Tool of the UK Environment Agency
(version no. 6.9., 02/2016), in which the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method was applied, ISD Dunaferr Ltd.
did not name a methodology.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No - The IED Cost-Benefit Assessment Tool of the UK Environment Agency was adapted specifically for the
IED (see UK information, below).
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
•
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
•
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
•
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
•
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
•
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services);
•
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation; costs of waste treatment.
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Yes, the DCF method applied by the operator uses present values.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
There is no specific methodology: costs data and calculations are prepared by experts commissioned by the
applicant, these are evaluated by the authorities.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Confidential data is only accessible to the authorities. Authorities protect commercial confidentiality by
substituting confidential data with information that can be used in public evaluation of the activity.
5.
Calculation of benefits
A57
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
The O-I Glass Manufacturing Ltd. used the IED Cost-Benefit Assessment Tool of the UK Environment Agency
(version no. 6.9., 02/2016), in which the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is applied, ISD Dunaferr Ltd. did
not name a methodology
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No, the IED Cost-Benefit Assessment Tool of the UK Environment Agency was designed for the IED.
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
•
Avoided/reduced noise levels
•
Avoided/reduced odour levels
•
Avoided/reduced waste generation
•
Avoided/reduced raw material use
•
Avoided/reduced energy use
•
Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
Depending on the case, comparisons of benefits are made based on evaluation of different scenarios. For
determination of, for example, environmental benefits, the 4 following scenarios were considered at I-O Glass
Manufacturing Ltd.:
- operation under current conditions (baseline conditions)
- primary emission reduction techniques used during furnace refurbishment
- primary NOx emission reduction techniques used with the immediate start of furnace refurbishment
- post-installation of secondary NOx emission reduction techniques (selective catalytic reduction).
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
Yes, EEA Damage costs for NOx
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
The IED cost-benefit analysis tool compares costs of different scenarios (operational costs, costs of emissions),
and their benefits (e.g.: reduced emissions) calculated for the total lifetime of the equipment to assess
disproportionality. Other methods include technical assessments.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
It is determined by technical evaluation. For all 4 of the above listed scenarios for example, NOx emission
concentrations, total annual emissions, investment costs, operating costs and benefits from pollution reduction
were considered. Based on the results the scenarios were ranked by qualitative and quantitative risk evaluation.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
Yes, discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method incorporates capital costs into the calculations but discounts it with
social discount rate.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No, In the evaluation of the O-I Glass Manufacturing Ltd. derogation request, other factors considered were
laboratory measurements of air quality in the city and at the emission sources, technical documentation of
A58
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
furnace and location of furnace within the site.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
In the two derogation cases additional information such as age and previous refurbishments of equipment,
environmental interactions were also considered.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
3
Number of derogations granted
2
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
GLS and IS BATC
Number of derogations rejected
1 – Manufacture of Glass
A59
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
17. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – IE
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Environmental Protection Agency
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/licensee/Draft%20Guidance%20on%20IED%20alternate%20ELVs%20or%20der
ogation%20from%20BAT%20AELs.pdf
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering all aspects
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
Yes
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Yes
(c) “costs”
Yes
(d) “benefits”
Yes
(e) “disproportionality”
Yes
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information on a website
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes - Licence review is open process to all stakeholders. EPA shall attach to the licence one or more conditions
and the reasons for the derogation.
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No response
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
A60
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes
Local environmental conditions
Yes
Technical characteristics
Yes
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
EPA have relatively limited experience with such methodologies but would be guided by approach used in UK
EA Derogation CBA tool.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
Yes, UK EA Derogation CBA tool
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
•
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
•
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
•
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
•
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
•
Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with
the BAT conclusion;
•
Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
•
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification service;
•
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
•
Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment;
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Costs should be presented in real terms.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
Costs should be supported by evidence such as price quotes from commercial providers of the technologies
considered or references to costs in the BREF which can be verified.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
If any of the material intended to be submitted as part of the derogation application, is considered to be
commercially confidential, the operator should inform the EPA in advance.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No response
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
No response
A61
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No response
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
No response
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
No response
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
Yes
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/cost-of-air-pollution
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
It is for the operator to demonstrate how the cost of complying with the BAT-AEL is disproportionate to the
environmental benefit it would bring. It is recommended that the operator should use standardised
methodologies e.g. Cost Benefit Analysis.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
Yes
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
Varies when assessed on a case by case basis. Costs are driven by geographical location, technical
characteristics of the installation, or local environmental conditions - In terms of environmental costs of emitting
more pollutant than BAT-AEL allows, it is recognised there are deficiencies in methodologies for some
pollutants e.g. air pollutants. Therefore it is considered necessary to carry out a quantitative environmental
assessment that assesses the effect (including cumulative effect) of the excess emission of the levels of
pollutant already in the locality.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
Yes, the costs and the benefits (where they have been monetised) should be expressed in a cash flow
framework, which shows separately the costs and benefits for each of the years covered by the appraisal. This
should capture the fact that capital costs often do not all occur in the first year but are spread across a number
of years; and the operating costs might change across the appraisal period.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No, local environmental conditions.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Yes additional information is considered e.g. level of compliance, investment cycle, complaints.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
Yes, see epa.ie licensing & permitting/Industrial (IED).
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested: 1
Number of derogations granted: 0
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations: 0
Number of derogations rejected: 0
A62
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
18. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – IT
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
1) Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea is responsible for granting IED derogations to the following IED
categories of activities:
• Refining of mineral oil and gas, gasification and liquefaction plants of coal and shale oils with a
capacity of at least 500 tonnes (Mg) per day
• Combustion of fuel in installation with a total rated thermal input equal or above 300 MWth;
• Production of pig iron or steel (primary and secondary fusion); Production of large volume of
chemicals.
2) Regions or Provinces are responsible for granting IED derogations to IED categories of activities other than
those above
The administrative procedure that an operator must follow for requesting a derogation is standardized (i.e.
official communication to the competent authority).
The operator addresses his request to the specific competent authority (Ministry for the Environment, Land and
Sea, Region or Province) who is responsible for granting the derogation, based on the IED category of activity
that is related to his sector and output. The addressee of the derogation request should be the same competent
authority who is responsible for granting the AIA permits (Autorizzazione Integrata Ambientale / Integrated
Environmental Permit). This permit authorises the operation of the entire plant, or of a specific part of it, where
certain industrial activities are carried out.
NOTE: Since 2004, after the approval of Law 56/2014, Italy's Provinces have been institutionally reshaped and
specific provincial competences and responsibilities have been reallocated to the Region and/or to the
Metropolitan Cities in which the Province(s) are located. In some cases, other local authorities (e.g. Region;
Metropolitan Cities) have taken over from the Provinces the responsibility of granting Integrated Environmental
Permits and, subsequently, handling any IED derogation request.
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
The guidance (which includes only typical criteria and circumstances under which derogations may be granted)
is included within ‘Annex XII-bis to Part II’ to the Italian IED transposition Decree (Legislative Decree n. 46/2014,
published in the Italian Official Journal).
Legislative Decree n. 46/2014 is available both in online and in paper formats.
Link to guidance
Annex XII-bis to Part II’ to the Italian IED transposition Decree (Legislative Decree n. 46/2014, published in the
Italian Official Journal).
Link to Legislative Decree n. 46/2014, which contains the guidance, published in the Italian Official Journal:
www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2014/03/27/14G00058/sg
The national legislators have developed a brief (1 page) document detailing what is required and the general
criteria for granting of derogations.
Competent authorities and national legislators have not developed a set of guidelines that cover or provide any
further indication about the calculation of costs, benefits and disproportionality.
A63
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
The guidance (i.e. ‘Annex XII-bis to Part II’) details typical criteria and circumstances under which derogations
may be granted.
If one or more criteria are fulfilled, competent authority may grant a derogation.
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
YES
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
YES
(c) “costs”
YES
(d) “benefits”
YES
(e) “disproportionality”
PARTIALLY - The guidance does not provide explicit advice/consideration on what constitutes
‘disproportionately higher costs’ compared to the environmental benefits for all the criteria and
circumstances detailed therein. However, it can be assumed that costs involved in relation to the benefits
gained might be considered disproportionate e.g. for the following conditions (as set out in the Annex):
•
The specific technical characteristics of the installation or the geographical location do not allow to
achieve ELVs within the BAT-AELs by the implementation of BAT (as described in the BAT
Conclusions concerned);
•
It is appropriate to grant to the operator a time extension to achieve ELVs within the BAT-AELs range
in order to allow him to reach the break-even point in relation to the investments already made for
implementing the best available techniques required by the renewal or review of the permit;
•
It is appropriate to grant to the operator a time extension to achieve ELVs within the BAT-AELs range
in order to allow him to reach at least the break-even point in relation to the investments already made,
due to the specific technical characteristics of the installation and the production processes which
make possible the implementation of certain BAT (as described in the BAT Conclusions concerned)
only throughout the complete replacement of the whole technical unit(s) involved, instead of the part(s)
of the unit(s) to which BAT should technically apply.
Competent authorities and national legislators have not developed a set of guidelines that cover or provide
any further indication about the calculation of costs, benefits and disproportionality.
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
In a simplified way, below the main administrative steps and related deadlines:
•
Once EC Decisions on BAT Conclusions are published in the EU OJ, the competent authorities launch
the procedures for reconsidering the permit conditions;
•
The operators have 30-180 days to submit a dedicated application form (including detailed fact sheets
as well as a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ duly elaborated for such a purpose). After the operator has
submitted his application form, the competent authority will review it and can also request the operator
to provide additional/integrating elements/data/information;
•
Stakeholders are entitled to submit their comments and opinions to the competent authorities before
any decision on derogation is taken. To such purpose, a copy of the application for requesting the
derogation and related supplemented documents are made available for comments (via web) at least
for 30 days. - Within 90 days of the date on which permit proceedings were formally initiated, the
competent authorities convenes a so called “Conference of Services (CdS)”, with the scope of defining
the updated permit conditions.
Digital copies of the request(s) for derogation are available online within the relevant permits
portal/webpages managed by the competent autjority to whom the request had been addressed. Copies, or
A64
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
parts of them, might not be uploaded in case sensitive/proprietary data/information are present in the
request.
Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea: http://aia.minambiente.it/Intro.aspx
Regions and Provinces:
e.g. Lombardy Region
http://www.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/istituzionale/HP/DettaglioRedazionale/servizi-e-
informazioni/Imprese/Sicurezza-ambientale-e-alimentare/Autorizzazione-Integrata-Ambientale-AIA/aia-
rilasciate-anno-2015/aia-rilasciate-anno-2015
Abruzzo Region:
http://www.regione.abruzzo.it/xAmbiente/index.asp?modello=AIA&servizio=xList&stileDiv=monoLeft&templ
ate=intIndex&b=impianti5
•
Within 150 days of the date on which permit proceedings were formally initiated, the competent
authorities have to conclude the permitting procedures, issuing the updated permit. The permit
proceedings formally commence once the competent authority officially informs the operator that the
administrative procedure concerning the request for derogation is under consideration. The 150 days
have to be considered as "effective days". In case the competent authority requests the operator to
provide additional/ integrating information/data, the countdown to 150 stops until the operator submits
it, and then resumes.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Competent authority procedures and expectations are published in the Italian Official Journal, made publicly
available via web.
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator. Either during permit renewal or if they request a modification e.g., if they
disagree with the AELs
The operator can also highlight the relevant criterion, or criteria, of ‘Annex XII-bis to Part II’ to the Italian IED
transposition Decree (Legislative Decree n. 46/2014) as ground for his request.
Operators should supplement the application for requesting the derogation under Article 15(4) with a ‘cost-
benefit analysis’ duly elaborated for such a purpose.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
A copy of the application for requesting the derogation and related supplemented documents are made
available for comments (via web) at least for 30 days.
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes
All of the derogation requests received so far in Italy have been based on technical characteristics. Because of
the lack of clear, overarching guidelines, a possible future case might pinpoint that geographical location is
taken into account for the purpose of derogation based on the national/regional guidelines connected to the
granting of the AIA permits.
It is also worth noting that, in the future, when national and regional competent authorities will be required to
outline what criteria should be considered when assessing the geographical location of an installation for the
purpose of granting a derogation, their assessment of which criteria should be considered might be different.
A65
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Local environmental conditions
Yes
Technical characteristics
Yes
By way of example, to schedule the plant/unit upgrades taking into consideration the life time of a (glass
melting) furnaces.
Specific Case example linked to technical characteristics - Abruzzo Region: Assovetro, the Italian Association of
Industrial Glass, highlighted that glass production is an industrial process which relies on continuous flow.
Therefore, the implementation of measures and interventions required to comply with the BAT conclusions
would hamper the industrial process and lead to financial losses in case of furnaces that have only recently
started working, or of those furnaces whose residual lifetime overshoots the deadline foreseen for the
necessary upgrade.
Other criteria
Yes
Derogations must comply with other applicable legislation, for example emission limit values for Large
Combustion Plants or measures laid down in Italian air quality plans
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
Because of the lack of a standard methodology, each competent authority requests, on a case-by-case basis,
certain data to be submitted by the operator who is requesting a derogation, and formulates the response. The
different competent authorities have their own level of discretion about which data to request and to evaluate in
order to formulate the response (granted/rejected).
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
Specific Case example: derogation requested to Abruzzo Region (CA) by Pilkington Italia SpA (operator). The
operator submitted a combined technical/financial report, in which it laid out the current scenario, the financial
results, and the future impacts of implementing the necessary BAT conclusions. This cost-benefit analysis
included the relevant recent balance data, temporary production stop, complete cessation of production,
extraordinary expenses, potential penalties and future markets trends and forecast.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
There is a certain degree of flexibility and the competent authority might request specific costs to be included in
the request for derogation.
Example: derogation granted by Metropolitan City of Milan to Vetropack Italia Srl (operator) related to BAT 16
and BAT 17 (glass manufacturing). The competent authority had requested from the operator a cost-benefit
analysis which includes:
• repayment plan/scheme for the costs already incurred in upgrading the plant
• technical/financial analysis of all feasible interventions already undertaken/to be performed upon the existent
and operational furnaces in order to reduce emissions
• description of plant-related interventions needed to comply with BAT-AELs
• timeline of plant-related interventions needed to comply with BAT-AELs
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
No response
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
Cost-benefit analysis are evaluated by the competent authority on a case-by-case approach.
Example: derogation granted by Metropolitan City of Milan to Vetropack Italia Srl (operator) related to glass
manufacturing BATS.
A66
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
In granting the derogation, the competent authority took into consideration the following data that had been
requested from the operator:
• the repayment plan/scheme for the costs already incurred in upgrading the plant experienced a delay because
of the market conditions from 2008 onwards had been characterized by lower demand and consumption. This,
in turn, led to a lower output and income, which prompted the operator to push back to 2020, instead of the
originally foreseen 2017, the fulfilment of his repayment plan/scheme.
• technical/financial analysis of all feasible interventions already undertaken/to be performed upon the existent
and operational furnaces in order to reduce emissions showed that emissions had been decreased, but these
temporary interventions were still not enough to guarantee that all emissions' ceilings (e.g. dust emissions from
melting furnaces), and that BAT-AELs could be respected fully only by overhauling completely two existing
furnaces
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
The competent authority is entitled to do not grant public access to those information, provided within the
derogation process, considered to be business sensitive (according to art. 29-quarter, paragraph 14, of the
Italian IED transposition Decree).
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
No response provided, but some details can be inferred from Section 5
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
There is no specific list of benefits, but the following can be potentially considered:
• Avoided/reduced emissions to air
• Avoided/reduced emissions to water
• Avoided/reduced noise levels
• Avoided/reduced odour levels
• Avoided/reduced waste generation
• Avoided/reduced raw material use
• Avoided/reduced energy use
• Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
No response provided
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No response provided
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
On a case-by case approach
The competent authority requests data to the operator. Once the operator submits the data, the competent
authority evaluates it and, in case necessary or doubts arise, competent authority can request additional data to
be presented before making a decision about the request for derogation.
Based on specific requests for derogations, disproportionality could be indicated by using the cost benefit
analysis tool. Any judgement on disproportionality could be made on a case by case basis, taking into account a
full consideration of the merits, including evidence on both cost and benefits.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas? No similarity
A67
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
Details provided in previous responses
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
No response provided.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No response provided
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
No response provided
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
Non
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested: 7
Multiple competent authorities are in charge of reviewing requests for derogations. According to the Ministry for
the Environment, Land and Sea, all seven derogations requested so far have been addressed to the local
authorities and are connected to glass manufacturing.
Local authorities, in principle, inform the Ministry about any request for derogations that they receive.
Number of derogations granted: 7
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
Decision 2012/134/EU (GLS BATC), BAT conclusions for container glass manufacturing (depending on the
case, derogations were granted for e.g. BAT 16, BAT 17/18, BAT 19, BAT20)
The following documents, shared by the Ministry, are currently available:
http://ambiente2.provincia.mi.it/aia_pubblicazione/files/04_Deroga%20BAT%20RG%20%202226%20del%2007.
03.2016.pdf
•
derogation granted by Metropolitan City of Milan to Vetropack Italia Srl (operator): according to the
decision, there is a reference to BAT 16 (dust emissions from melting furnaces), BAT 17 (NOx
emissions from the melting furnace) and BAT 19 (SOx emissions from the melting furnace). However,
the competent authority notes that the operator has already undertaken temporary interventions
through which he now respects the limits for BAT 16 and BAT 19. Precise information on the BATs
referred to by the operator in his original request are not available at the moment, because the
operator’s original request is not uploaded online.
http://www.regione.abruzzo.it/ippc/docs/provvedimentiAIA/2016/DPC025_24_pilkington.pdf
•
derogation granted by Abruzzo Region to Pilkington Italia SpA (operator): BAT 16 (dust emissions from
melting furnaces), BAT 17 (NOx emissions from the melting furnace) and BAT 21 (metal emissions from the
melting furnace). http://www.provincia.cuneo.gov.it/allegati/tutela-territorio/procedimenti-tutela-
territorio/2014aia001rie/agc_provv_riesame_suap_prot_66833_del_29_10_2015_p_15461.pdf
•
derogation granted by Cuneo Province to AGC FLAT GLASS ITALIA srl (operator): BAT 16 (dust emissions
from melting furnaces), BAT 17 (NOx emissions from the melting furnace), BAT 19 (SOx emissions from the
melting furnace), and BAT 20 (HCl and HF emissions from the melting furnace).
https://www.provincia.mantova.it/UploadDocs/15309_riesame_aia_saint_gobain_vetri.pdf
•
derogation granted by Mantova Province to Saint Gobain Vetri S.p.A. (operator): BAT 16 (dust emissions
from melting furnaces), BAT 17 (NOx emissions from the melting furnace), BAT 19 (SOx emissions from the
melting furnace), and BAT 20 (HCl and HF emissions from the melting furnace).
Number of derogations rejected
Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea has not been informed by local competent authorities about any
rejected requests for derogation. It is not compulsory for the local competent authorities to inform the Ministry
about rejections. However, as a rule of thumb, the competent authorities would inform the Ministry about both
granted and rejected derogations.
A68
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
19. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – LT
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency; IPPC Permitting Authority
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information provided on request
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
A69
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Geographical location
Yes
Local environmental conditions
Yes
Technical characteristics
Yes
Other criteria
Yes
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities).
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Present values
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
It is the biggest question
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Protected simply
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
•
Avoided/reduced odour levels
•
Avoided/reduced energy use
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
By using present values
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No
A70
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
No response
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
No response
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
No response
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
Yes
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
No
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
0
Number of derogations granted
N/A
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A71
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
20. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – LU
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Ministère du Développement durable et aux Infrastructures
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information on a website ; Individual information of operators
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
No response
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No response
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No response
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
A72
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Geographical location
No response
Local environmental conditions
No response
Technical characteristics
No response
Other criteria
No response
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
N/A
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
N/A
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
N/A
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
N/A
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
N/A
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
N/A
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
No response
A73
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No response
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
No response
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
No response
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No response
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
No response
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No response
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
0
Number of derogations granted
N/A
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
N/A
Number of derogations rejected
N/A
A74
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
21. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – LV
No input was provided by LV to the online survey under this study.
A75
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
22. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – MT
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Environment and Resources Authority
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance
Link to guidance
N/A
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
Yes
The granting of a derogation involves evaluation of technical justifications provided by the operators to the
authority as part of the permit application. Any conditions (including timeframes associated with improvement
items which may be related to the specific derogation) form part of the permit which is eventually determined by
the authority's board. If granted, reasons for such a derogation are included as an annex to the permit.
To note that due to the fact that the number of IED sites is small, no formal guidance document is deemed
necessary.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
•
Information on a website
•
Information provided on request
•
Reference to a contact person of the competent authority
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes, requests for derogations required under Article 15(4) together with the technical justifications made by the
operator are made available to the public during the mandatory public consultation process and are also
discussed with other regulatory authorities during the processing of an application.
A76
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Time frame for decision
There is no formal timeframe associated. The derogation (if granted) is part of the determination of the permit.
MT would like to comment that in filling out this explanation, the “if over 4 years, please specify” checkbox was
automatically ticked. However, as explained earlier the process could take less than one year but could also
take 3-4 years depending on the complexity of the request together with other studies which may be required to
complete the evaluation process.
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Yes, in view that the IPPC process is defined in the local regulation and the processing of any type of IPPC
application (including requests for derogations) follows structured internal procedures, the authority applies the
principle of good governance in every case.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
Yes, As part of the application, the first step would involve a comparison of the proposed operations with the
relevant BAT conclusions. If any proposed operations are not in line with BAT and suitable alternatives are not
proposed by the operator, then detailed justifications such as cost benefit analyses are requested to enable the
authority to evaluate such a request from derogation from BAT. Notwithstanding the fact that no formal
guidance for the application of any derogations under Art 15(4) is available, any such request is processed
through the established process for a new or existing process with an installation.
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes
Although not applied on a national level as yet, the location of a plant or certain land use constraints may lead to
an installation not being in a position to install certain abatement technologies required to achieve BAT-AELs.
Thus alternatives need to be considered by the operator and the authority so as to assess whether the inclusion
of different abatement technologies which would not achieve the required BAT-AELs is justified.
Local environmental conditions
Yes - No further details provided
Technical characteristics
Yes - No further details provided
Other criteria
Yes, although none are identified at this point in time, there may be other criteria proposed by the operator
which may necessitate the authority to consider such derogations.
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation
A77
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
No information can be provided in view that the authority has not required evaluation of such economic
considerations.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
No information can be provided in view that the authority has not required evaluation of such economic
considerations.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Should the operator consider any information as being commercially sensitive, a non-confidential version of the
application/request is provided to the authority for utilisation during the public consultation process. Such
commercial sensitivity is however assessed by the Authority on a case by case basis.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to air;
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to water;
•
Avoided/reduced noise levels;
•
Avoided/reduced odour levels;
•
Avoided/reduced waste generation;
•
Avoided/reduced raw material use;
•
Avoided/reduced energy use;
•
Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
Malta believes that all are relevant depending on the applicable case.
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
Comparison with a baseline of the current environmental scenario would be required.
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Although until now, Malta has never had to assess reviews related to disproportionality such an assessment
would be carried out on the basis of the cost benefit analyses assessing the cost required to achieve the
required environmental standards versus the environmental costs of implementing the derogation request.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No response
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
Although Malta has never had to assess reviews related to disproportionality such an assessment would be
carried out on the basis of the cost benefit analyses assessing the cost required to achieve the required
environmental standards versus the environmental costs of implementing the derogation request.
A78
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
Yes, the uncertainty of any data utilised in the assessment and any assumptions would have to be clearly
identified in such a report.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No - The final decision would also need to address possible advances in technology and amendments to the
BAT-AELs from time to time
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
All information allowing an informed decision by the authority may be requested as needed.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
2
Number of derogations granted
2
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
2
Number of derogations rejected
0
A79
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
23. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – NL
No input was provided by NL to the online survey under this study.
A80
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
24. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – PL
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Permiting authorities: Starosta, Marshal (local government officers of Polish administration)
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
No guidance available
A guidance was recently developed specifically related to derogations from the LCP BATC.
Link to guidance
N/A
LCP BATC guidance:
http://www.ekoportal.gov.pl/fileadmin/Ekoportal/Pozwolenia_zintegrowane/Podrecznik_dotyczacy_udzielania_o
dstepstw_-__Konkluzje_BAT_dla_LCP.pdf
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
N/A
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
N/A
(c) “costs”
N/A
(d) “benefits”
N/A
(e) “disproportionality”
N/A
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information provided on request
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
A81
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
Yes
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Yes
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - No further details provided
Local environmental conditions
Yes - No further details provided
Technical characteristics
Yes - No further details provided
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
•
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
•
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs
•
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
•
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
•
Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with
the BAT conclusion;
•
Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
•
Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services)
•
Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
•
Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
No response
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
No response
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
No response
5.
Calculation of benefits
A82
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT? No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT? No response
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED? No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
•
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
•
Avoided/reduced noise levels
•
Avoided/reduced odour levels
•
Avoided/reduced waste generation
•
Avoided/reduced raw material use
•
Avoided/reduced energy use
•
Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
No response
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
Yes
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality? No response
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas? No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
No response
In the LCP BATC guidance a fixed cut-off of 0.7 for the benefits to costs ratio is applied. Values smaller than 0.7
can be considered for a derogation. Although this is a fixed value, its intention is more as a reference value.
Additional factors can play a role as well.
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations? Yes
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation? No
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
No response
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information? No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested: 8
Number of derogations granted: 4
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
Manufacture of Glass
Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide
Number of derogations rejected
No response
A83
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
25. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – PT
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
APA - Portuguese Environmental Agency (Permitting and evaluating derogations)
APA is responsible for granting IED derogations in all IED categories and across all regions of Portugal.
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=17&subref=151&sub2ref=321&sub3ref=330
The IED was transposed to Portuguese law by Legislative Decree no.124/2013 (dated 30/08/2013) which is
available online. Article 30(6) states that APA may set less strict ELVs where the operator shows that
implementing the BAT-AELs would lead to disproportionally higher costs compared to the environmental
benefits due to (a) geographical location or local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or (b)
the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.
The Guidance Document entitled "Guia de Aplicacao- BREF Economics and Cross Media Effects" (dated
15/03/13) is available online in Portuguese. This document provides a methodology for the operator to
undertake cost-benefit analysis to identify BAT and is based on the REF Economics and Cross Media. The
document also provides details of the information and the forms to be submitted to APAP supporting the
derogation request.
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
It covers basically economics and Cross-Media Effects
It should be noted that the Guidance Document was issued before IED was transposed to Portuguese law.
However it has been used by operators and APA for cost-benefit analysis under IED derogations.
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
The Guidance Document was issued before IED was transposed to Portuguese law. The Guidance Document
provides a methodology for the operator to undertake cost-benefit analysis to identify BAT and is based on the
REF Economics and Cross Media. The Guidance does not explicitly refer to the factors geographical location,
local environmental conditions of the installation concerned, or the technical characteristics of the installation
concerned. However the operator is required to state in the application forms included in the Guidance the
relevant factors supporting the derogation (which may include the factors above). APA has recognised that the
application forms could be improved by referring explicitly to the factors above.
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
No
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
No
(c) “costs”
Yes
(d) “benefits”
Yes
A84
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
(e) “disproportionality”
Partially - It is difficult to find data of the effects of some pollutants.
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
There is no formal procedure in place. The operator must submit to APA the application forms and information
set out in the Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects". The
applications are then assessed by APA on a case by case basis. Information on granted derogations is
appended to the Environmental Permit of the installation (in accordance with the requirements of Legislative
Decree no.124/2013 (dated 30/08/2013). The Environmental Permits and Variations are available online
(http://ladigital.apambiente.pt/). There is no internal (governmental) guidance on the derogation procedure. APA
would welcome any EC guidelines on the derogation procedure.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Reference to a contact person of the competent authority, Information on a website
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by operator
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
1-2 years
There is no formal schedule but typically the derogation process lasts less than 12 months.
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
Yes, for some industrial sectors preparation to evaluate the state of the art considering the effort made to
comply to the previous BREF.
APA has worked closely with the Portuguese Association of Manufacture of Glass and operators to agree a
consistent approach on the implementation of the BREF for the Manufacture of Glass (2012). The technical
characteristics and historical investment in the installation are taken into account in the derogation requests.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
Yes. The application is first submitted and evaluated considering the BAT already available and applied on the
installations.
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
It is considered. No examples provided. It is given the same importance than the other criteria.
All derogation requests received to date have been from the glass manufacture sector and some of them were
based on geographical location.
Example: The glass manufacture sector in Portugal is characterised by historical installations which have been
surrounded by industrial/residential developments over time. This often results in limited space for new
equipment (e.g. new gas emission filters) required to comply with the BAT conclusions. Although no derogations
have been received to date from the ceramics industry this is also likely to be an issue for this sector.
Local environmental conditions
It is considered. No examples provided. It is given the same importance than the other criteria.
No relevant examples from the derogation requests received to date.
Technical characteristics
It is considered. Some improvements could only be implemented when there is a major refurbishment and it is
taken in account. It is given the same importance than the other criteria.
All derogation requests received to date have been from the glass manufacture sector and some of them were
A85
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
based on technical characteristics.
Example: The implementation of measures required to comply with the BAT conclusions for e.g. NOx and SOx
emssions include re-construction of the melting furnaces. When reviewing derogation requests APA takes into
consideration the residual lifetime of the melting furnaces (typically up 8-12 years) compared to the 4-year
period for implementation of the BAT conclusions. Derogations may be granted where the residual lifetime of
the furnaces exceeds the BAT conclusions implementation period.
Other criteria
Usually a time period is agreed between operator and authority to achieve the expect ELV.
The Environmental Permits are renewed at least every 10 years (typically less than 10 years) depending on the
characteristics of the installation. At permit renewal stage any permitted derogations are reviewed.
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
Yes.
The Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects" (dated 15/03/13) sets
out a methodology for the operator to undertake cost-benefit analysis to identify BAT. This methodology has
been used by the operators and APA since 2013.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
The Guidance Document sets out a methodology for the calculation of costs of implementing BAT and details
the information required to be submitted to APA in support of the derogation request.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
The Guidance Document has been based on the REF Economics and Cross Media. The Document is not just a
translation of the BREF as it also provides information for the operator on the data and forms to be submitted to
APA in support of the derogation request.
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs
Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT)
As per the methodology set out in the Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross
Media Effects".
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
As per the methodology set out in the Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross
Media Effects".
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
The Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects" requires the operator
to provide details of the source of all information supporting the costing calculations in order to be validated by
APA. The Guidance Document recommends that data costs should be obtained from more than one
independent source.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
The Environmental Permits and Permit Variations (which include details on any derogations) are publicly
available. However APA do not grant public access to detailed information provided under the derogation
process, including any information considered to be business sensitive.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
Yes. The Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects" (dated 15/03/13)
sets out a methodology for the operator to undertake cost-benefit analysis to identify BAT. This methodology
A86
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
has been used by the operators and APA since 2013.
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
No
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
Avoided/reduced emissions to air
Avoided/reduced emissions to water
Avoided/reduced waste generation
Avoided/reduced energy use
As per the methodology set out in the Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross
Media Effects".
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
No
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Portuguese guidance (similar to Catalonia)
Disproportionality is assessed on the basis of the cost-benefit analysis methodology set out in the Guidance
Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects". Reference prices as set out in the
REF Economics and Cross Media Effects have been used by operators.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
According to the Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects" there are
two approaches for calculating the total annual costs of an investment whether or not inflation is taken into
account. The operator must complete different application form depending on the approach selected.
The Guidance Document recommends that the justification of the proposed technique should be based on the
ranking of the available techniques by their cost effectiveness. This is a useful way of identifying the best
balance between the cost of a technique and the environmental benefits that implementing it will deliver. APA
recognises that some professional judgement may also need to be used when identifying the technique that
represents the best alternative.
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
No
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
No
According to the Guidance Document "Guia de Aplicacao - REF Economics and Cross Media Effects" there are
two approaches for calculating the total annual costs of an investment whether or not inflation is taken into
account. The operator must complete different application form depending on the approach selected.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Yes, the historical investment in the installation is taken in account
The derogation process takes into account any historical investments in the installations. For example some of
A87
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
the glass manufacture installations have made large investments relatively recently (2007) to meet the previous
BAT-AELs for dust emissions. However the AELs have been reduced under the current BATC. In these
circumstances APA would grant derogations for dust emissions.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
6
All derogation requests received to date have been from the glass manufacture sector.
For the wider industry sector in Portugal APA expects derogation requests from the agriculture sector (which
comprises 300-400 installations) and some from the large combustion plants sector (which comprises 20-25
installations).
Number of derogations granted
6
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
Most of the derogations concerned the NOx BAT-AELs for glass furnaces. The BAT for abatement of this
pollutant requires a reconstruction of the oven which can only be done at specific timings. Other BAT require
easy access to oxygen, as oxidizing agent of combustion, which is not readily available for most operators.
Most of the derogations granted were related to the technical characteristics of the installation in particular the
NOx emissions but also SOx and dust emissions for melting furnaces. The derogations were granted taking into
consideration the residual lifetime of the melting furnaces and requires the BAT-AELs for NOx to be met at the
scheduled time of re-construction of the furnaces.
Number of derogations rejected
0
In some cases the operators applied for derogations for longer periods, higher ELV or more pollutants then the
ones that were agreed on the final decision.
Although no derogations were rejected some of the ELVs originally proposed by the operators were rejected
and lower values were agreed. In these cases the operators applied for higher ELVs than those set out in their
Permit. Although the proposed ELVs were consistent with current legislation APA noted that if historically the
installations were able to achieve lower ELVs then higher emission limits would not be allowed.
A88
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
26. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – RO
No input was provided by RO to the online survey under this study.
A89
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
27. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – SE
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Eleven Regional County Administrative Boards have an Environmental Permit Office that have the authority for
granting derogations. In the case an operator is in an ongoing licencing process, also the Environmental Courts
(five units) have this authority.
The geographical location of the applicant determine which testing authority is responsible for decisions in the
first legal instance.
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
In the member state implementation report, reference has been made to the motives of the Swedish main
ordinance which implements IED issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (FM 2013:1 p. 38-39).
Guidance on derogations is given on page 38-41. General guidance on the implementation of IED in Sweden
is given in a report from the Swedish EPA.
General guidance on derogations is given in paragraph 8.5, page 39-42 in the Swedish report. General
guidance report from the Swedish EPA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-
Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ISBN/6700/978-91-620-6702-1/
Ordinance document :
http://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/0dc2803e58f748028786ca01260e2285/forordning-om-industriutslapp-
fm-201301
The guidance says that there are three aspects that can be taken into account when estimating disproportionate
high costs. Those are geographical location, local environment and the facility's technical properties. Emission
standards can only be eased and not repealed. Emission standards should only be eased to such level that the
disproportionate costs can be eliminated.
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering all aspects
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
The guidance is on a general level and is up for interpretation for each individual case.
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
YES
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
YES
(c) “costs”
YES
(d) “benefits”
YES
(e) “disproportionality”
YES
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
YES - There are no specific timeframes set.
Applications shall be handed to one of the 11 Regional County Administrative Boards that have an
Environmental Permit Office or to the Land and Environmental court. Derogation applications can be submitted
A90
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
at the same time as the facility's production is being authorized. The derogation process and decision should be
in line with Swedish environmental law (Miljöbalken, kap.2 7§). However, no other arguments than the three
(previously listed) aspects can be used. All data and evidence should be provided by an applicant. The
guidance documents contains instructions of what should be included in an application. Exemptions can only be
granted for a maximum of 4 years, but can also be shorter.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information provided on request and reference to a contact person of the competent authority
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
When an application is received by the competent authority it shall be officially announced in order to give those
with right to litigate the possibility to give one´s opinion. A decision can be appealed to higher court.
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Yes - Some examples are given in the document describing the motives for the Swedish main ordinance which
implements IED issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, giving guidance on derogations, page
38-4 (FM 2013:1) and in the general guidance report from the report from the Swedish EPA (p.39-42).
Local environmental conditions
Yes - Some examples are given in the document describing the motives for the Swedish main ordinance which
implements IED issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, giving guidance on derogations, page
38-4 (FM 2013:1) and in the general guidance report from the report from the Swedish EPA (p.39-42).
Technical characteristics
Yes - Some examples are given in the document describing the motives for the Swedish main ordinance which
implements IED issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, giving guidance on derogations, page
38-4 (FM 2013:1) and in the general guidance report from the report from the Swedish EPA (p.39-42).
Other criteria
No
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
• Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
• Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
• Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
A91
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
• Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
• Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT
conclusion;
• Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
• Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services);
• Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
• Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment.
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
The capital costs are assessed with regard to depreciation and interest rate
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
The burden of proof is on the operator. Descriptions and calculation shall be transparent with given values on
for example different types of costs. It is criminalized by Swedish law to submit incorrect information or omit
information.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
Upon request for a document from the competent authority, a confidentiality assessment is always carried out
by the competent authority against the confidentiality rules.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
No
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
N/A
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
N/A
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
• Avoided/reduced emissions to air
• Avoided/reduced emissions to water
• Avoided/reduced noise levels
• Avoided/reduced odour levels
• Avoided/reduced waste generation
• Avoided/reduced raw material use
• Avoided/reduced energy use
• Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
N/A
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
Yes – no further details provided
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Equitable balances similar to those made according to the Swedish Environmental Code chapter 2 section 7 in
the General Rules of Consideration are used. According to the motives for the Swedish main ordinance which
implements IED issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (FM 2013:1 p. 38-39) the result of the
cost-benefit analysis should essentially be in accordance with the result of the application of chapter 2 section 7
in the environmental code - states that requirements shall be applicable where compliance cannot be deemed
unreasonable. Particular importance shall be attached in this connection to the benefits of protective measures
A92
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
and other precautions in relation to their cost.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
Chapter 2 Section 7 the environmental code are, together with the general rules of consideration in Chapter 2
the Environmental Code, generally applicable.
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
See earlier response
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
The burden of proof is on the operator.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
According to chapter 1 section 16 the Swedish main ordinance which implements IED a derogation may only be
granted if, due to the geographical location of the installation where the activity is pursued, the technical
characteristics of the installation, or the local environmental conditions, it would result in disproportionately high
costs compared to the environmental benefits to meet the emission limit value. The operator shall also show
that the obligations arising out of chapter 2 the environmental code, the general rules of consideration, have
been complied with.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
N/A
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
6
Number of derogations granted
5
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
IS BATC: BAT 34; 49 and 64; 51 and 56; 64 and 65.
PP BATC: BAT 23.
Number of derogations rejected
1 - GLS - BAT 63, table 53.
A93
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
28. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – SI
No input was provided by SI to the online survey under this study.
A94
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
29. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – SK
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Ministry of the Environment
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Publicly available
Link to guidance
http://www.minzp.sk/sekcie/temy-oblasti/integrovana-prevencia-kontrola-znecistovania/informacie/informacie-
usmernenia.html
Usmernenie pre uplatnenie § 22 ods. 6 zákona č. 39/2013 Z. z (only in Slovak language)
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering all aspects
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
Yes
•
limited disposition of the operation, that presents broader technical issues with new technology
placement, e.g. separator within the operation or operator area, which leads to inadequately higher
costs for harmonization than adequate costs for BAT-AEL;
•
insufficient water resources e.g. for wet cooling;
•
reaching BAT-AEL emission level for particular pollutant would cause higher pollution of other
component of environment, which is in given location endangered, e.g. insufficient inflow of surface
water as a recipient for waste water.
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
Yes
•
insignificant emission reduction of given pollutant – if reaching BAT level does not guarantee reduction
of emissions of given pollutant, or no significant environmental effect;
•
reduction of emissions of one pollutant causes increase in emissions of other pollutant, or it impacts
transfer of emissions to another component of the environment, or it is linked to higher consumption of
resources, fuel or generation of waste;
•
particular configuration of installation in given operation – implementation of BAT would require wider
interventions to operation, e.g. link to renewal of larger technological unit than is required by BAT, or
the whole operation, if this investment is associated with inadequate costs;
•
feasibility of investment (e.g. ensuring at least minimum production capacity) mainly with regard to
hygienic requirements, safety risks and other relevant requirements arising from different legislation.
This means dividing the implementation into several stages or timing of investment on planned outage
within the scope of natural investment cycle; taking into account several dependent investments;
•
specific character of given production, whereas BAT conclusions do not consider specifics of such
production (e.g. medicinal or military purpose) or specific qualitative parameters of local resources;
A95
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
•
reaching equal positive effect corresponding to BAT-AEL emission level through less costly provisions
to associated operations within the scope of given operation;
•
recent measures for reduction of emissions of given pollutant;
•
reaching breaking point of economic lifetime with regard to investments already spent on
implementation of BAT in given installation;
(c) “costs”
Yes
(d) “benefits”
Yes
(e) “disproportionality”
Yes
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
No
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
Information provided on request and reference to a contact person of the competent authority
How are derogations initiated?
Application made by the operator
Slovakia uses the same approach as in Czech Republic (scenario 1 initiated by operator). Scenario 2 (initiated
by competent authorities when reconsidering permit conditions within 4 years of publication of decisions on BAT
conclusions) cannot be identified as the initiation of derogation. The authority only invites the operator to bring
installation in line with BAT, the operator then assesses the need to apply for derogation.
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
No
Time frame for decision
<1 year
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
No
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
No
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
YES
•
limited disposition of the operation, that presents broader technical issues with new technology
placement, e.g. separator within the operation or operator area, which leads to inadequately higher
costs for harmonization than adequate costs for BAT-AEL,
•
insufficient water resources e.g. for wet cooling.
Local environmental conditions
YES
•
reaching BAT-AEL emission level for particular pollutant would cause higher pollution of other
component of environment, which is in given location endangered, e.g. insufficient inflow of surface
water as a recipient for waste water.
Technical characteristics
YES
A96
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
•
insignificant emission reduction of given pollutant – if reaching BAT level does not guarantee reduction
of emissions of given pollutant, or no significant environmental effect,
•
reduction of emissions of one pollutant causes increase in emissions of other pollutant, or it impacts
transfer of emissions to another component of the environment, or it is linked to higher consumption of
resources, fuel or generation of waste,
•
particular configuration of installation in given operation – implementation of BAT would require wider
interventions to operation, e.g. link to renewal of larger technological unit than is required by BAT, or
the whole operation, if this investment is associated with inadequate costs,
•
feasibility of investment (e.g. ensuring at least minimum production capacity) mainly with regard to
hygienic requirements, safety risks and other relevant requirements arising from different legislation.
This means dividing the implementation into several stages or timing of investment on planned outage
within the scope of natural investment cycle; taking into account several dependent investments,
•
specific character of given production, whereas BAT conclusions do not consider specifics of such
production (e.g. medicinal or military purpose) or specific qualitative parameters of local resources,
•
reaching equal positive effect corresponding to BAT-AEL emission level through less costly provisions
to associated operations within the scope of given operation,
•
recent measures for reduction of emissions of given pollutant,
•
reaching breaking point of economic lifetime with regard to investments already spent on
implementation of BAT in given installation,
Other criteria
YES
Slovakia reported that when granting derogations, the authorising authority may take account of the socio-
economic conditions of the region in which the installation is located, e.g. if the region has a high unemployment
rate;
Other limitations may be associated with the geographical location of an installation, for example, if it is in an
area with controlled air quality or in a protected water management area.
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
Yes
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT?
Methodology is standardized for each operator and industry. Ministry of environment have created the specific
methodology. Operator fill the tables with internal company data. Mostly economics data (forms is attached) for
current situation, after implementing BAT, after implementing other technology to reduce the emissions
(revenue, costs - investment, annual accounting depreciation, operating costs divided in separated categories,
taxes and fees). Data for the 15 year financial plan is requested, average of the input data is then calculated. If
operator include fewer years the Ministry of environment calculated the average of those years.
A97
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Environmental data for the pollutant is required (current emissions and the reduced emission based on BAT).
Formulas include the math formulas that calculate average costs on 1t of released pollutants (current/BAT/other
technology), costs of 1 t of reduction pollutants with BAT/other technology) etc.
Operator also includes information about the company - employees, other important investments in last 5 years,
other BAT that has to be installed and the other information. Ministry has developed other forms like KPIs to
evaluate all of these information for operator.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
A98
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Methodology is designed specifically for the IED.
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
See earlier response
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
The comparison is expressed in terms of key performance indicators.
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
Validation of data is not necessary as the calculation is performed by the competent authority.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
All economics information from operator is confidential and in the decision is used just the results of each KPI.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
Yes
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
Environmental benefits are considered.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
Methodology is designed specifically for the IED. Slovak hydro-meteorological institute provides competent
authority the data for the operator and competent authority can compare the emission that report SHMU and
the submitted data from operator.
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
See earlier response.
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
Yes.
The pollutants are determined by the operator or Inspection. The selected pollutant corresponds to the
pollutant for which an exemption is requested.
Information on costs to reduce environmental pollution by a specific pollutant are taken from document “Costs
of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008–2012”, EEA Technical report No 20/2014. According to
this document, there are standardised values that are acceptable from the EC. These costs are acceptable and
standard for the given pollutant. If the costs that are defined by the operator are higher than standard costs,
operator receives points in the evaluation. If their price to reduce the pollutants is the same or lower, they do
not get points.
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
The comparison is expressed in terms of key performance indicators.
6.
Disproportionality
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
Ministry of environment defines the value for each KPI. The value for economic and environmental assessment
is 50:50 percentage. Each indicator has its specific weight (see following form).
According to these calculations the operator get the points for the each KPI (based on the data he had included
to the submission form).
A99
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
According to the final result, derogation can be recommended/not recommended or individual evaluation can be
recommended (see decision key). If individual evaluation is necessary, than all information from the company,
region, regional unemployment, local environmental situation, fees for the company, investments for the region
provided by the operator, the technical options, etc. is taken into account.
Decision key:
0-40 point = derogation not recommended
40-70 points = individual evaluation
70-100 = derogation recommended
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
•
if the value of the investment is greater than 20% of the property value
•
if the average payback period is higher than 12 years.
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
No
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
No, but Ministry of environment plan to include to the evaluation process.
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
Only when final assessment reaches result of 40-70 points. Extent is very individual and dependent on many
variables.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
10
Number of derogations granted
8
A100
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Sectors/BAT conclusions of the granted derogations
Company Name
Sector
BAT conclusion
U. S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. - Coke oven
IS
BAT 49
BAT 50
BAT 21
U. S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. - Sinter strand
IS
BAT 20
BAT 25
BAT 26
SMZ, a.s. Jelšava
CLM
BAT 63
SLOVMAG, a.s. Lubeník
CLM
BAT 63
Calmit, spol. s r.o. – Plant Žirany
CLM
BAT 48
BAT 50
Knauf Insulation, s.r.o.
GLS
BAT 59
Number of derogations rejected: 2
Company Name
Sector
BAT conclusion
Calmit, spol. s r.o. – Plant Tisovec
CLM
BAT 50
Fortischem a.s.
CAK
BAT 1
A101
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
30. IED Article 15(4) Survey Responses – UK
Colour coding:
Black – responses to the online survey
Green - Follow-up interview with the competent authority and/or additional information provided
under this study
Blue - IMPEL survey response
Purple – Formal IED reporting obligation
1.
General questions
Who is the competent authority responsible for granting derogations?
Defra has the overall responsibility for compliance with IED.
The Environment Agency (EA) are responsible for derogation activities in England; SEPA ( in Scotland), NRW
(in Wales) and IPRI (in Northern Ireland).
However some installations are regulated by local authorities
The regulation of emissions are handled as follows:
• Group A1 (high emitting) installations – EA
• Group A2 and B – Local Authorities
Also, the situation is different in Scotland (SEPA covers all installations).
It is unclear exactly how local authorities follow the guidance.
There is a local authority unit at the EA – to provide them support - with the aim of having consistency with EA
processes e.g. guidance on how to use the CBA tool
Has guidance on the procedure for granting derogations been developed? What is the current status of
the guidance?
Yes. Some aspects are not published - there are others that remain internal only. This is largely due to the
government digital policy.
Link to guidance
EA – Cost benefit tool and guidance published (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-
emissions-directive-derogation-cost-benefit-analysis-tool)
Full step by step guidance advising operators how to apply not yet published.
NRW – guidance currently in draft form.
SEPA – Details to be provided later.
IPRI - use EA guidance.
Does the guidance cover all aspects of decision making on IED Article 15(4) derogations?
Guidance covering all aspects
Does the guidance covers derogation criteria, calculation of costs, benefits and/or disproportionality?
(a) “the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned”?
PARTIALLY
From the guidance document:
“4.4.2. The geographical location of the installation may have a bearing on costs: for example, construction
or energy supply costs may be higher than would normally be encountered if the installation is in a remote
location. The local environmental conditions may also influence the costs: for example, there may be added
costs if the installation is in a built-up location. Conversely a particularly remote location could mean the
environmental benefits of meeting the BAT-AEL would be disproportionate to the costs.”
(b) “the technical characteristics of the installation concerned”?
A102
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
PARTIALLY
From the guidance document:
“4.4.1 Technical characteristics which may be particularly relevant include:
• the general investment cycle for a particular type of installation;
• the recent history of pollution control investment in the installation in respect of the pollutant(s) for which
the derogation is sough
• the configuration of the plant on a given site, making it more technically difficult and costly to comply;
• the practicability (particularly bearing in mind Health & Safety and other relevant legal obligations) of
interrupting the activity so as to install improved emission control upon the pollutant(s);
• the effect of reducing the excess emission(s) upon other pollutant emissions, energy efficiency, water use
or waste arisings from the installation as a whole; and;
• the intended remaining operational lifetime of the installation as a whole or of the part of it giving rise to
the emission of the pollutant(s), where the operator is prepared to commit to a timetable for closure.”
(c) “costs”
YES
From the guidance document:
“The extra costs – both capital and operating. It will be for the operator to demonstrate how these extra
costs are disproportionate to the environmental benefits they would bring. In doing so, the operator may be
encouraged to use such standardised methodologies as the regulator has already established, but both
operator and regulator must recognise methodological limitations and be prepared to adapt accordingly,
bearing in the mind the need for a robust, documented assessment.”
(d) “benefits”
PARTIALLY
(e) “disproportionality”
YES
If the results are close to zero or if the range of NPVs includes zero then the panel is asked to make a
subjective judgement on the merits of the application. The economist working on the derogations project
emphasises at every panel meeting the fact that the CBA is a guide only and is one of a number of pieces
of evidence that the panel need to consider in coming to their decision
2.
Derogation procedure
Do you have a formal procedure in place on the derogation process?
The EA has a formal procedure but it does not set general timeframes and deadlines. This is because it is not
always helpful if we, as a regulator, juggle several derogation requests at the same time and only have limited
resources (for example economic expertise) to assess them. We do however set some timescales and
deadlines for example, we aim to complete permit reviews within 12 months from the publication of BAT
conclusions, we aim to give operators 3 months to provide the information on how they intend to comply with
BAT conclusions (or apply for a derogation), and we strive to assess the derogation requests as soon as we can
to give operators the certainty they require (subject to the positive outcome from the public participation
process). It is important to note that the planned timescales can vary according to the complexity and /or size of
the sector.
IPRI response: For NI the process for derogations is stated in Regulation 13(3) of the PPC Regulations.
What communication methods are used to disseminate to operators the competent authority
procedures and expectations?
• Information on a website
• Information provided on request
• Reference to a contact person of the competent authority
Some information is available online, some can be shared on request. We have a dedicated person who can
answer generic questions on derogations, and also specific people (called sector leads) who act as primary
points of contact for individual BREFs. Individual permitting officers involved in sector reviews triggered by the
publication of BAT conclusions are also trained to be able to give site-specific advice. Sector leads regularly
A103
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
engage with their respective industries. We also periodically organise pan-sector engagement sessions. The
last one was in December 2016, covered the general approach to derogations in England (but included
representatives from regulators in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who were able to give their perspective
and also highlight and explain any differences in approach) and several case studies. The session attracted a
lot of interest mostly from the energy generating and refineries sectors. The economist working on the
derogations has offered one site meeting with each applicant and the EA site inspector to go through their CBA.
This gets round company concerns over draft costs data being held by the Environment Agency and therefore
potentially subject to release under the Environmental Information Regulations. It is also easier logistically than
doing the same thing by phone or email. Applicants can also speak to the economist by phone or through email
as they go through the process of filling out their application.
SEPA response: The guidance and methodology will be placed on website when finalised. NRW response:
Face to face meetings if derogations are likely.
The most important factor is the quality of operator’s submission. Every request for further information slows the
process down considerably. Unfortunately, ensuring good quality submissions requires substantial time
investments from the operator and the regulator. Internal staff training is critical too to ensure staff can process
requests independently, at least to an extent.
In general, 10 months from application submission to minded decision is a standard but can take longer
In case of the Iron and Steel sector, the timescales were long as we were assessing the request for a
derogation and developing the derogation process at the same time. In the case of Cement and Lime, we were
to a certain extent restricted by the availability of specialist staff to make a recommendation – it was because of
the volume of the requests.
The internal ‘self-help’ group consisting of experienced permitting, regulatory and policy staff as well as
economic expert and legal, is critical as it helps officers handling individual derogations throughout the process,
acts as a ‘critical friend’ and helps with the consistency.
How are derogations initiated?
The application is made by the operator.
EA: presumes that all operators will fully implement BAT conclusions. If the operator cannot meet a particular
BAT-AEL the onus is on them to apply for a derogation. The process starts by asking operators to provide
evidence to demonstrate compliance with the BAT conclusions and to identify those BAT conclusions for which
a derogation will be sought. This provides an early opportunity for the regulator to engage with the operator on
their derogation needs.
If the operator’s response to the Regulation 60 Notice sent by the regulator includes a request for a derogation,
it is assessed by the National Permitting Service. As part of the assessment, a Head Office team of experts with
appropriate technical, economic and legal experience is established. Each derogation assessment will be
presented to a National Derogation Panel made up of senior managers from the legal, environment and
business and economist teams.
SEPA response: The competent authority makes an initial determination that a derogation may be warranted
before contacting the operator. The merits of derogation are considered after undertaking a site specific BAT
assessment.
IPRI response: If the Operator is unable to comply within the 4 year period then a derogation submission would
be made.
Wales: Operators requesting a derogation are expected to submit a report detailing the reasons for the
derogation and demonstrate compliance with Article 15(4).
Are third-party representations addressed in the derogation evaluation procedure of the Member State?
If the Environment Agency is minded to grant a derogation, it consults the members of the public on the minded
to position. The consultation contains the reasons for arriving at the minded to decision. Any responses
received as part of the consultation are taken into account in issuing a final decision. If the Environment Agency
is minded to refuse a derogation, it doesn’t consult the members of the public.
SEPA response: Consultation under Public Participation Directive is a requirement of the Scottish Regulations.
IPRI response: If derogation request received then as part of NIEA substantial variation process both
consultees and members of the public will have opportunity for consultation as part of the determination
process. If minded to issue a derogation, the revised permit will be placed on the NIEA website for consultation
A104
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
in-line with the Public Participation Directive.
NRW response: The draft permit including the minded to derogation is consulted on and any comments
received taken into account and logged prior to issue.
Time frame for decision
EA response: The procedure does not have a timescale. It is entirely possible to reach a decision within a year,
however, it often depends on the quality and timeliness of information received from the operator asking for a
derogation. There are also sometimes issues related to the interpretation of individual BAT conclusions that can
delay the application process for the operator.
SEPA response: Not stated in the procedure, will depend on the complexity of the case, each completed before
the 4 year period for BATc compliance required.
IPRI response: 1-2 years
NRW response: <1 year
A particular problematic sector has been iron and steel – it has taken time for the EA to assess exactly how the
derogations for this sector should be evaluated.
Are there governance arrangements in place to help you make consistent decision-making on granting
derogations?
EA response: There are two tiers of governance that ensure the consistency and quality of decision making.
The first tier is the Derogations and Permit Review Support Group (DAPR), with economic, legal and technical
expertise. It supports the permit officer dealing with a derogation application, and endorses or not the proposed
derogation before it goes to the second tier. Second tier is National Derogations Panel (NDP), and it formally
recommends the approval or not of each derogation request. The Panel recommendation is just that – a
recommendation and not a final decision, and as such is subject to the public participation process and other
permit sign off controls.
SEPA response: Comprehensive procedure for all sectors and situations.
NI response: An Executive Summary for any derogation request that is to be accepted will be sent for approval
to the Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency prior to issue.
NRW response: The sector specialists in NRW carry out the first stage to ensure the information received from
the operator is valid. The sector specialists, policy advisor and economist then analyse the request and makes
recommendations to lower management tier. The recommendation if approved then moves up the management
chain for final sign off.
DAPR – made up of the sector leads from various sectors within the EA; permitting lead; IED lead – permitting
officers can ask for their thought processes/drafts to be reviewed.
NDP – made up of senior managers across different functions of the EA – not just industrial emissions – can
include other areas where CBA have been developed (e.g. flood defence); chaired by EA deputy director – the
permitting officer decisions are reviewed, questions asked – can recommend for publication.
Difficult cases – in some cases, further information can be requested if panel are not convinced.
Do you have a multi-step process for considering derogations?
Yes, there are two steps in the process that the Environment Agency has developed. First step is for the
operator to demonstrate how their particular installation is different to other ‘typical’ sites in the sector, having
regard to the criteria listed in Article 15(4), how these differences translate to significant additional costs of
achieving a BAT-AEL. At this stage we do not consider potentially reduced benefits that can be a direct result
of, for example, remote location or low population density. The second stage only happens if the operator
successfully passes the first stage assessment. At the second stage the Environment Agency uses a mixture of
qualitative and, where possible, quantitative assessments that compare the costs of achieving a particular BAT-
AEL versus environmental benefits. At each step of the process a template is completed by the permitting
officer summarising the case and this is reviewed by the DAPR group before the application can progress
further. Only when both stages have been reviewed at the DAPR can the application progress to the NDP for
approval.
SEPA response: Yes, there is frequent correspondence with operators throughout the assessment process.
The operator will only be asked to provide necessary details to fill gaps in the knowledge of the competent
authority. The costs are relevant for the BAT assessment.
A105
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
IPRI response: No
NRW response: Yes, the initial screening ensures the request complies with the requirements of Article 15(4).
The request is only processed further if there is sufficient information available. The extent of disproportionality
also directs the level of detail and sensitivity analysis required.
3.
Derogation criteria - How are the following criteria considered in relation to derogation decisions?
Geographical location
Details are provided in the Defra guidance on Part A installations
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221044/pb13898-epr-guidance-
part-a-130222.pdf)
• EA response: Equal importance – though in practice probably most difficult to use / prove
• SEPA response: Equal importance
• IPRI response: Equal importance
• NRW response: Lesser importance. It would only be applicable in a very small set of circumstances for
instance if the plant relied on local feedstocks alone. This is generally not applicable in Wales.
Local environmental conditions
Examples are provided in the Defra guidance on Part A installations
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221044/pb13898-epr-guidance-
part-a-130222.pdf)
Local Environmental conditions could be the receiving environment. Emissions of solids to a receiving water
with a naturally high suspended solids load differs from a river with a small suspended solid load. Thus making
the effect of an emission on the environment insignificant in some circumstances.
Technical characteristics
• EA response: Examples are provided in the Defra guidance on Part A installations
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221044/pb13898-epr-guidance-
part-a-130222.pdf)
Recent Investment, niche product, knock on effects to other parts of the installation, uses specific raw materials,
safety, and investment.
Other criteria
EA response: No. Only limitations are in relation to the duration of each derogation. IMPEL (qu8) - EA has
assumed that any derogation will be reconsidered when the next BREF and BAT conclusions are published,
which is likely to be 8 years after the current BREF and BAT Conclusions.
• SEPA response: No
• PRI response: No
• NRW response: Yes. All derogations are time limited to one BREF cycle at the most, a further derogation
request would be required following publication of the next BREF.
4.
Calculation of costs
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing BAT?
YES
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the costs of implementing a BAT? Link to the cost
benefit analysis tool and guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-emissions-directive-
derogation-cost-benefit-analysis-tool
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
YES
It was adapted from the H1 risk assessment methodology (Annex K) but had to be significantly developed to be
fit for the purpose of assessing derogation requests.
IMPEL (qu5)
• The structure of the new Annex K takes the user through the process of a cost benefit analysis. The old
A106
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
version was structured to carry out a cost assessment of achieving a given standard without reference to the
value of reduced emissions.
• Original version of Annex K was about identifying the most cost effective BAT option. The new version so
broadens the scope to include proposals that are not BAT (i.e. IED derogation).
• The new version attempts to place a numerical value against the benefits resulting from a reduction in
emissions where available - basis for developing a cost and benefit analysis of each proposal.
• In placing a value on the benefits of a proposal approaches such as damage costs are proposed in both the
old and new version, but they are given greater prominence in the new version.
• The monetised benefits are supported by information on the scale of the impact of the emission in relation to
EQS, national emissions and other known local impacts
• The new version discounts both the costs and benefits using discounting factors specified by the Treasury in
their Green Book, the aim being to produce a ratio of costs to benefits. The new version also considers the
sensitivity of the result to factors which may have a particular weighting.
• Discounting in the old version was based on “real” rates of between 6 and 12%. The Treasury’s Green Book
uses 3.5% up to 30 years and 3% from year 31 to 75. To account for the fact that the operator’s weighted
average cost of capital might be higher than HMT’s GB discount rate, then discounted using HMT’s GB discount
rate.
• Following our consultation the life span of plant items is likely to increase in years from that contained in the
original Annex K.
• In seeking a derogation the operator has to show that achieving emissions levels consistent with the BAT AEL
would result in him incurring disproportionately high costs compared to other installations in his sector. In the old
version of Annex K BAT was purely a site specific assessment.
• Cross media effects are considered in the original version of Annex K using the environmental quotient. The
new version focuses on the Economics and Cross-Media BREF published by the European Commission in
2006.
Which costs can be considered in the total cost calculation?
• Capital costs: New equipment (abatement / monitoring / IT);
• Capital costs: Set-up/installation costs;
• Operational costs: Costs of operating the new equipment (raw materials / utilities);
• Operational costs: Maintenance costs;
• Operational costs: Time spent (manpower costs) on undertaking the changes needed to comply with the BAT
conclusion;
• Operational costs: Training costs for staff to carry out the new activities / techniques;
• Operational costs: Costs of external services (e.g. consulting and verification services);
• Other costs: Costs of production loss due to changes to the installation;
• Other costs: Insurance costs associated with the new equipment;
• Other (please specify): cost of purchasing new land to accommodate the abatement equipment, cost of any
civil works, cost of recovery / disposal of any waste generated, residual cost of existing technology (if needs to
be retired early), financing costs
For the offshore sector, the regulator requires energy audits to be supported by a cost-benefit analysis for any
identified improvements that are considered to be feasible. Costs provided by the operator include replacement
or abatement equipment; shipping offshore; requirement for specialised heavy lift equipment offshore; and
specialised manpower to install. They also consider technical feasibility in retro-fitting equipment or introducing
abatement techniques where space and weight restriction on the platform would apply.
SEPA response: The relevant future costs are discounted to net present value
How are the various costs data compared in the evaluation?
Using present values
How are the costs data and calculations validated by the competent authority?
Environment Agency : Mostly by using previous experience, by comparing all installations within a sector that
have asked for a derogation, by using common sense but also by checking any appropriate reference material,
for example the Green Book, cost data in section 4 of sector specific BREFs, economics and cross media
A107
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
BREF. The Environment Agency can also request formal quotes from technology providers but has so far not
resorted to asking for formal quotes as obtaining them can be costly as well as time consuming.
SEPA response: We seek evidence that the costs are based on sound principles and assumptions.
NRW response: Technical experts use of data from BREF and Internet sources. An economist also scrutinises
the figures if required.
How is commercial confidentiality protected in the derogation process?
The Environment Agency produced separate guidance on how to assess commercial confidentiality for all
aspects of environmental permitting. We also have a process specific to derogations that considers the extent to
which the information in question is commercially confidential and the public interest in disclosing the
information. The information has to be published regardless of commercial confidentiality if it relates to
emissions. We consider commercial confidentiality twice: at the point of receiving the derogation request and at
the point of making the minded-to decision known to the members of the public.
SEPA response: Included in the Scottish Regulations.
IPRI response: If requested dealt with under Regulation 35 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations
NRW response: The detailed costs are withheld, the level of emissions and the benefit cost ratio are made
available.
5.
Calculation of benefits
Is there a standard methodology used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of
implementing BAT?
Yes
What methodology is used or suggested to calculate the environmental benefits of implementing a
BAT?
• EA response: Provided in the answer to earlier question
• SEPA response: Have methodology for some pollutants to air and developing methodology for other where
not currently feasible to calculate damage costs for example to water.
• NRW response: Damage costs per unit emission.
Was this methodology adapted from a method in existence prior to the IED or was it designed
specifically for the IED?
• EA response: It is a standard CBA framework based on the UK Treasury’s Green Book, but with several
elements that had to be specially developed for the derogations process, in particular the definition of the
baseline.
• SEPA response: Yes, partially adapting existing methodologies
• NRW response: IGCB damage costs
Some key issues taken into account to ‘supplement’ the Green Book:
1) The cost (investment) is private and the benefits are public:
• There is no guidance on how to take this into account in the Green Book
• They take the ‘Spackman’ Approach
(https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/37856/jrg_statement.pdf) – includes a weighted
average cost of capital – discounts everything at the standard Treasury discount rate.
2) The appraisal period
With no specific guidance in the Green Book, a flexible approach is taken:
• Green Book makes reference to ‘the lifetime of the longest term asset’ when assessing appraisal
periods
• However, industrial plants typically will constantly ‘patch up’ their facilities so this is hard to assess
• It is generally assessed from the point of ‘major refurbishment’ – typically 10-30 years
• There is some ambiguity what is meant by ‘major refurbishment’
3) Damage costs
Treasury will only take into account the damage costs that are UK-specific
EEA also provide damage costs for a wider range of pollutants (e.g. VOCs) and will be more relevant as
A108
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
pollutants emitted from the UK will have an impact in Europe
EA makes use of these EEA values - generally a direct use of damage costs – converted to current value £
Only been one case where these damage cost values have caused the CBA to go from one direction to the
other
4) The baseline
In most cases the ‘do nothing’ BAU is used as the baseline. This is not really an option in the case of IED
derogations (as described in PP case study) because:
i) The BAU may not be sufficient to meet the IED requirements
ii) In some cases have started making improvements already (see case study)
Baseline must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis for the characteristics of each site.
Which environmental benefits are considered in determining derogations under Article 15(4)?
• Avoided/reduced emissions to air
• Avoided/reduced emissions to water
• Avoided/reduced noise levels
• Avoided/reduced odour levels
• Avoided/reduced waste generation
• Avoided/reduced raw material use
• Avoided/reduced energy use
• Avoided/reduced impact on biodiversity
• Other :
EA response: Impact on future ability to comply with other legislation i.e. NECD, Cross media affects,
Amenity value
SEPA response: Waste, raw materials, energy etc. considered when considering derogation from
BAT-AELs.
NRW response: Only emissions to air have been determined thus far, however we envisage including
a wider range of benefits.
How are the various benefits compared in the evaluation?
• EA response: By using present values.
• SEPA response: By using present values, where damage costs available. The methodology being developed
may not include damage costs e.g. for water, and therefore a different method to compare benefits may be
required.
• NRW response: Present values
Explanation in context of PP Case Study (see Appendix B)
As discussed with the case study – estimation of benefit costs for water emissions are based on the willingness
to pay values for improvements in water quality, assuming an improvement in WFD classifications.
This gives an upper limit of what the damage cost would be (benefits). This is a massive overestimate of what
the benefit will be, although this can be communicated to the committee – will take this into account. There has
only ever been two cases where derogations take water emission into account (one of the PP case study).
Are damage costs of pollutants used in the determination of a request?
YES
• EA response: UK national average costs for NOx, SOx, PM10, ammonia
• SEPA response: SO2, NOx, PM, in emissions to air, some others, including to water, are under consideration.
• NRW response: PM2.5, SOx, NOx, NH3 and VOC
Sources used: IGCB and café
6.
Disproportionality
A109
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
What methodology is used to assess disproportionality?
The disproportionality is assessed, only partially, by using the cost benefit analysis tool. The judgement on
disproportionality is made on a case by case basis, taking into account a full consideration of the merits,
including evidence on both cost and benefits that can only be assessed qualitatively.
NRW response: Benefit cost ratio
We are careful not to let the CBA ‘tell’ us what the final decision is – we use it as an extremely helpful tool in the
‘basket of measures’ approach. The operator is encouraged to give us as much contextual information as
possible. This includes impacts that are difficult to assess quantitatively, for example from noise, odour or cross-
media effect. Depending on the context, we might also consider operator’s history of investment, for example if
they have invested heavily in resolving another important environmental issue at their installation.
We have also considered in the past things like availability of specialist contractors to do the required work (for
example provide and install the abatement). We tend to verify the information by checking with experienced
regulatory, permitting and policy staff and also through basic desk research. We place the onus for providing the
information, including suitable justification, on the operator.
We also consider wider context for example amenity impacts, size of the local population and its proximity to the
installation, history of complaints, fairness to others, especially in the context of other derogations previously
granted or rejected.
Is this methodology similar to that used in other policy areas?
EA: Yes, to a point in terms of considering CBA; however the WFD guidance looks at consumers’ willingness to
pay for improvements to water body status. There is also some overlap in terms of water-based derogations
where the NWEBS data is used, but the CBA framework is quite different in terms of baseline, appraisal period
etc.
SEPA response: Yes. It will be in some cases once this part of the methodology is developed.
NRW response: No
What are considered to be “disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits” in
respect to the application of Article 15(4) derogations?
EA: Partial answer is provided by the difference in the net present values between costs and benefits. This is
however only part of the answer, and provides some useful insight only when the damage costs exist. The rest
is judged on a case by case basis.
SEPA response: The monetisation of the costs and benefits have high uncertainty values, therefore sensitivity
analysis is important.
NRW response: A benefit cost ratio of less than 0.75
Is the uncertainty of cost and benefit calculations addresses in the evaluation?
This is built into the cost benefit analysis tool. The guidance to the tool also provides additional sensitivity tests
that must be carried out if the operator and the regulator can’t agree on a particular cost, benefit or other input
into the tool.
Is the final decision solely based on the net present value calculations?
EA response: No. The Environment Agency uses a ‘basket of measures’ approach and will consider other
factors in making the final decision. Other factors can include for example:
• The benefits might be overestimated for low population areas.
• The benefits might be underestimated for habitats.
• Operator’s starting point: if they have to make substantially greater investments overall in comparison
to other installations in the sector. We try to ensure that those who have failed to invest historically are
not advantaged. Otherwise, those that have underinvested will be advantaged as their costs will be
greater than those that have invested and the CBA results will be affected accordingly. If we identify
that there has been underinvestment we will be able to take this into account when considering the
decision in the round.
• The history of complaints
• Consistency with other operators in the sector. The Environment Agency will not take into account
affordability (can the operator afford to meet BAT-AEL), effect on employment or local economy.
SEPA response: No. Due to uncertainty, decision is based on a range of aspects and judgement is required.
A110
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
NRW response: Yes
To what extent is additional information beyond a cost-benefit assessment (CBA) taken into account?
EA: It can be as important depending on the extent of information contained in the CBA and the specific
circumstances.
SEPA response: Before considering a derogation a BAT assessment is undertaken, so all aspects considered
at this stage are part of the final decision.
NRW response: Providing the other criteria are met then the additional information can be taken into account.
Do you have internal guidance available on how such additional information?
• EA: Yes but it is very high level and not prescriptive as each derogation case will be different
• SEPA response: No
• NRW Response: No
7.
Number of derogations
Number of derogations requested
44
[note: these refer to individual BAT-AELs, i.e. one operator’s request can contain several of the numbers
reported here]
Number of derogations granted
42
[note: these refer to individual BAT-AELs, i.e. one operator’s request can contain several of the numbers
reported here]
BAT conclusions - granted derogations
GLS, IS, CLM, REF, PP
NRW response: Iron and Steel: BAT 26, 48 and 49. Refining of Oil and gas: BAT 52
Number of derogations rejected
4 - GLS, IS, CLM
NRW response: Manufacture of Glass: BAT 59, Cement and Lime: BAT 20
111
© AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
B1
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Appendix B
Member State Derogation Case Studies
European Commission Directorate-General Environment
Application of IED Article 15(4) derogations
Appendix B – Member State case studies
March 2018
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment
& Infrastructure UK Limited
B3
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Report for
European Commission
Directorate-General Environment
Directorate C – Quality of Life
Unit ENV C.4 – Industrial emissions & Safety
1049 Brussels
Belgium
Main contributors
Keir McAndrew (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Toon Smets (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Ian Keyte (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Juan Calero (Amec Foster Wheeler)
Tamas Kallay (REC)
Issued by
.................................................................................
Toon Smets
Approved by
.................................................................................
Keir McAndrew
Amec Foster Wheeler
Floor 12
25 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London E14 5LB
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0) 203 215 1610
Doc Ref. 39465
\\att5-fs7\shared2\projects\39465-pp article 15(4)\c
client\reports\4. final report\39465_ied article 15(4)_final
report_annex b.docx
Copyright and non-disclosure notice
The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright
owned by Amec Foster Wheeler (© Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2017) save to the
extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to
another party or is used by Amec Foster Wheeler under
licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report,
it may not be copied or used without our prior written
agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in
this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is
provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or
copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of
Amec Foster Wheeler. Disclosure of that information may
constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may
otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party
who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any
event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
Third-party disclaimer
Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this
disclaimer. The report was prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler
at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the
front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to
any third party who is able to access it by any means. Amec
Foster Wheeler excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted
all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever
arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not
however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or
death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other
matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.
Management systems
This document has been produced by Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited in full compliance with
the management systems, which have been certified to ISO
9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 by LRQA.
Document revisions
No.
Details
Date
1
Draft final report
2
Final report
13/03/2018
B4
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Appendix B
Member State case studies
Appendix B Member State case studies
4
1.
Introduction
5
2.
Questions for Data Collection on IED Article 15(4) Derogation Case Studies
6
3.
Derogation Case Study – BE (Flanders)
8
4.
Derogation Case Study – CZ
11
5.
Derogation Case Study – ES (Catalonia)
15
6.
Derogation Case Study – FR
19
7.
Derogation Case Study – IT
22
8.
Derogation Case Study – PL
28
9.
Derogation Case Study – SE (IS BAT 56)
34
10.
Derogation Case Study – SE (GLS BAT 63)
37
11.
Derogation Case Study – SK
40
12.
Derogation Case Study – UK (England)
45
13.
Derogation Case Study – UK (Wales)
51
B5
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
1.
Introduction
Appendix B provides the list of questions on the IED Article 15(4) derogation case studies and the detailed
information of the selected derogation case studies.
The following derogation case studies are described in the sections below:
Member State (region)
GLS BATC
IS BATC
CLM BATC
REF BATC
PP BATC
BE (Flanders)
BAT 52
CZ
BAT 17/18
ES (Catalonia)
BAT 17/18
FR
BAT 52
IT
BAT 16, 17, 18,
19, 20
PL
BAT 17, 21
SE
BAT 63 (rejected)
BAT 56
SK
BAT 50
(rejected)
UK (England)
BAT 40/50
UK (Wales)
BAT 48/49 (26)
B6
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
2.
Questions for Data Collection on IED Article
15(4) Derogation Case Studies
1.
Case study details
Company name
Company website
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Year of first operation
Location
Capacity
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
2.
Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application for
derogation request?
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental conditions or
technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion was concerned please
include information for each criteria.
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
4.
Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please specify.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
B7
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If so,
please specify.
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been considered in
the evaluation? If so, please specify.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation? If so,
please specify.
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed, timeframe
granted, other permit conditions)
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Has the decision been published online?
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If so,
please specify.
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluation, decisions)?
B8
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
3.
Derogation Case Study – BE (Flanders)
1.
Case study details: REF- BAT 52
Company name
ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical
Company website
http://www.exxonmobil.be/en-be/company/locations/belgium/antwerp-refinery
Description of company and process (main process, products)
The company produces a range of fuels (LPG, petrol, naphtha, kerosene, diesel oil, domestic fuel oil, light and
heavy gasoil), raw materials for the chemical sector, solvents and bitumen.
Year of first operation
1953 (information from permit)
Location
Polderdijkweg z/n, Haven 447, 2030 Antwerpen
Capacity
Annual production: 20 million tonnes
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
BAT 52 of the REF BATC (BAT-AEL for NMVOC and benzene)
2.
Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
The CA is not aware of any involvement.
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Before the BAT conclusions are transposed in VLAREM III, the government invites trade association for opinion
(and in this case of limited installations also from the individual installations).
After publication of the BAT conclusions, the permit of every installation is re-evaluated within 2 years of
publication of the BAT conclusions. At that time it was already flagged by the CA that BAT 52 could be an issue
for the installation. Then there are two options, i.e. complying with the BAT conclusion or a request for an Article
15(4) derogation.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
20 September 2016 (receptive 17/10/2016).
There was no interaction between CA and operator at application stage (immediately receptive).
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
It concerned 1 request related to 2 derogations (one for loading of trucks/trains and one for loading of ships).
BAT-AELs related to NMVOC and benzene (BAT 52 of the REF BATC).
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
Relatively little attention or focus was made on the criteria for justifying a derogation. The focus of the
application was on the CBA in the request.
B9
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
It involved 2 different projects, i.e. one for loading of trucks/trains (need for a new VRU) and one for
loading of ships (need for pipelines to existing VRU). The ELVs and techniques are already applied in the
installation, but to other activities, i.e. not to the activities covered by BAT 52. The scope of the BAT 52 is
now broader and includes more activities/products.
The data used by the operator in the request are mainly costs of pipelines, scaffolding and VRU from
(technology) providers. Sometimes rather old information (in case of old NEC) is used.
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
The information from the NEC reduction programme (cost effectiveness criteria), shadow prices from VITO
report
(https://emis.vito.be/sites/emis.vito.be/files/pages/1142/2017/Leidraad%20BBT%20op%20bedrijfsniveau_d
efinitief.pdf) are used.
The CA indicated that although the CBA might indeed indicate that costs are disproportionally higher, the
technical characteristics of the installation seem to be similar to a standard refinery (and hence should
comply with BAT conclusions).CBA for pipelines outcome lower than for new VRU (lower volumes).
Disproportionality: cost-effectiveness calculated for:
loading of ships: 29 euro/kg VOCs;
loading of trucks: 10.3 euro/kg VOCs.
Cost-effectiveness criteria from the NECD: below 5 euro/kg suggests applying the technique, if the value is
higher it is not suggested to apply the technique.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
NECD cost-effectiveness criteria were used, see above.
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No, but a lot of focus was made on the cost-effectiveness (less on the criteria for justification).
4.
Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
This is considered the most difficult part for the CA. The CA has to rely on the input provided by the operator
(e.g. data provided on costs from technology provides). The CA does not have the resources to search for new
data.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
No
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Some interactions between CA and operator took place during the evaluation: explanation of data, alternatives,
etc.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
Reference to NECD cost-effectiveness criteria in the request
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
•
Only information provided by operator in the request.
B10
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
•
Advice was provided by three CAs:
o
VMM (focus on water)
o
LNE lucht (air)
o
LNE Milieuvergunningen (environmental permits)
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
11 April 2017
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Derogation was granted – see decision document (Ministerial Decree)
The conclusions was that there is no need for the installation to apply techniques from BAT 52 (and hence BAT-
AEL, as these refer to the technique). Specifically for VOC it is also difficult to apply other techniques.
A similar condition already existed, but the scope of the BAT conclusion was broader and therefore more
activities had to comply with the conclusion. For the two parts, i.e. loading of trucks/trains and loading of ships,
a derogation was granted.
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Ministerial Decree
Has the decision been published online?
Not yet, but will be published online via geopunt: http://www.geopunt.be/
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
See above, permit also available via geopunt
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Derogation is granted for 7 years.
A new CBA is requested after 5 years
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluation, decisions)?
The request might be available at community level
Ministerial Decree – specifies whether the advice from the different CAs was favourable or unfavourable.
The details of the advice from different CAs (VMM, LNE (lucht & milieuvergunningen) can be requested, but is
not publicly available online
B11
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
4.
Derogation Case Study – CZ
1. Case study details: GLS – BAT 17/18
Company name
SKLÁRNY MORAVIA a. s.
Company website
https://www.sklomoravia.cz/
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Glassworks Moravia, residing in Úsobrno, is a traditional manufacturer and dealer of packing glass: liqueur and
wine bottles, bottles for food products, laboratory glass (reagent bottles, powder bottles, dropping bottles,
burette bottles), cosmetic bottles.
All products in transparent, brown and black glass colour, with a capacity ranging from 50 ml to 2000 ml, with
maximum height of 340 mm. Specialization in producing bottles and glasses that are custom shaped according
to customer's requirements.
Technical parameters:
Melting aggregate No. 1 - transverse flame with oxygen boosting. The melting part is equipped with 9 whirling
burners with a total output of 3 150 kW and 2 oxygen burners of 600 kW. Melting temperature max. 1 460°C.
The combustion air is preheated in the steel heat exchanger, the preheating temperature is up to 560°C. The
melting part is connected to the working part and the feeder heated by natural gas.
Melting aggregate No. 3 - transverse flame with electric boosting. The melting part is equipped with 14 whirling
burners with a total output of 4 700 kW and 12 electrodes with a power input of 700 kW. Melting temperature
max. 1 425°C. Two recuperators are used to preheat the combustion air, the preheating temperature is up to
560°C. The melting part is connected to the working part A and B connected with 1 burner and gas-heated
feeders.
Year of first operation
The beginning of the glassworks dates back to 1827, but according to legal classification the operation dates
from 2002.
Location
Úsobrno 79, 679 39 Úsobrno, Czech Republic
Capacity
Two glass melting aggregates:
•
No. 1: 18 t of glass melts / day
•
No. 3: 48 t of glass melts / day
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
GLS BATC - BAT 17 and BAT 18
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
No
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request? Yes
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
20-01-2016
B12
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
Application for derogation was initiated by operator. Derogation request was part of the application for the
permit change. Content of application was in line with national legislation requirements.
Existing melting furnaces are technically designed so that there is no economical equipment that would be able
to guarantee compliance with the BAT limits, and installation of the NOx emission reduction technology would
mean disproportionate investment.
In the expert assessment, the operator proposed the technical solution necessary to achieve the emission level
associated with the best available techniques. This solution is based on installation of new melting furnaces in
the following years (one will be installed in 2018 and the other in 2021).
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics of the installation.
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
If the operator would bring installation into compliance with BAT-AELs, he would have to invest several million
CZK in the NOx reduction technology. According to the information obtained, the costs of the denitrification
equipment range between 30-40% of the cost of new melting furnace.
It would not be possible to use this emission abatement equipment with the planned new furnaces due to the
small melting capacities of the current furnaces and higher capacity of new furnaces (each 60 t/day). If the
operator would have to build a denitrification for both existing furnaces, it would interfere with the planned
construction of the new furnace in 2018. One furnace would be shut down and the whole facility would therefore
not be fully utilised. Then the undersized or over-sized device may not work reliably.
Currently there is no information on the amount of exhaust gas from the new melting furnaces. Since the
furnace design and the burner system are different from the current furnace system, it is possible that the NOx
emission from the new aggregates will ensure that BAT-AELs will be achieved. This would make the expected
investment in denitrification of existing melting aggregates uneconomic.
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
All data was in accordance with the methodology. Exact calculations are not available (confidential).
The overview of the documents submitted is as follows:
1) Application for permit change including application for derogation from the BAT-AELs (for the NOx levels),
prepared by SKLÁRNY MORAVIA, dated 20 January 2016.
2) Expert assessment to grant derogation from the BAT-AELs, prepared by SKLÁRNY MORAVIA.
3) Economic Assessment for achievement of BAT-AELs, prepared by SKLÁRNY MORAVIA, joint stock
company, dated 25 January 2016.
4) Economic calculations (appendix to economic assessment of achievement of BAT-AELs)
•
all type of cost items are quantified (see cost structure in methodology summary)
•
benefits are not expressed
•
calculation are made according to the formula given in the methodology
5) Assessment of the of glass manufactory operation effect on air quality - contribution dispersion study,
prepared by Bucek s.r.o., January 2016
6) Evaluation of parameters in line with the BAT conclusions, Chapter 5.1.5 Emission level associated with
B13
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
best available techniques for discharging wastewater from glass production into surface water, December
2012.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
No
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Assessment was made by authorised person according to national legislation.
Statement of the expert body:
“The operator has submitted an application for derogation (application for permit change No. 9). Related
documentation and background materials were elaborated within all requirements. After assessing the
technical, economic and environmental aspects the application is considered to be founded.
On the basis of the request of the Regional Authority of the South Moravian Region, (No. JMK 26803/2016,
dated 22.02.2016), which we received on 26.02.2016, we have assessed the request for the 9th permit change
for installation (Glass melting furnace No. 1 and No 3) submitted by Sklárny Moravia, a. s.
We state that on the basis of submitted documents the derogation can be granted."
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
The documents were reviewed and there was no need to make any amendments.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
No
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
Calculations and thresholds for disproportionality are not expressed (assessment on the basis of 2 scenario
comparison from the cost and impact on the environment point of view).
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Approximately 10 times throughout permitting procedure.
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
No
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
No
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
30-06-2016
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
A derogation from the NOx emission levels is granted until 31.12.2021.
The emission limit for NOx is set at 1 200 mg/m3 (2 400 mg/m3 when nitrates are used in very high quality
products manufacturing).
B14
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
After expiration of the period covered by the granted derogation, operator has to meet limit values in
accordance with BAT conclusions.
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
The decision was sent in accordance with national legislation.
Has the decision been published online?
Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
http://www.mzp.cz/ippc/ippc4.nsf/$pid/MZPMNGWABTJE
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Yes, continuously.
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Decision in Czech language is available, summary from these documents is presented in the appropriate parts
of this questionnaire.
Application and financial statement analysis is the property of the operator and contains sensitive data, the
competent authority cannot pass the documents for inspection without the operator's consent.
B15
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
5.
Derogation Case Study – ES (Catalonia)
1. Case study details: GLS – BAT 17/18
Company name
The decision has not been made publicly available yet and the information on the company has not been
provided by the competent authority.
Company website
N/A (See above)
Description of company and process (main process, products)
The company produces container glass. It has requested a derogation for its melting furnace.
Year of first operation
N/A, see above.
Location
N/A, see above.
Capacity
N/A, see above
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
GLS BATC - BAT 17 and 18 for melting furnace.
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
No
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Unknown
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
Unknown, see above.
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
An operator has requested to set emission limits deviating from BAT-AELs for a certain period until the technical
/ operational measures reach the required level according to BAT.
The request for derogation describes the primary and secondary measures that may reduce NOx emissions.
These include:
Primary:
•
Different choice of fuel: The operator cannot apply this due to technical reasons. Current furnaces are
designed to use natural gas and it would not be practical to adapt them to a different fuel.
•
Reduction of combustion temperature: Not considered applicable because furnaces would be more
efficient, which would imply a potentially lower concentration but probably higher absolute emissions (in
tonnes).
•
Waste gas recirculation: Not technically applicable to the furnaces used in the installation.
•
Low NOx burners: It requires making substantial changes and it needs the furnace to shut down. It was not
possible to install it in the last periodic shutdown of the furnace. However, it is possible technically.
•
Electrical fusion: It requires a complete refurbishment of the furnace. It is possible.
•
Special design: If the design of the furnace is changed, the furnace would have to be refurbished
completely. It would not be practical to do this due to space constraints and other technical reasons.
However, it is possible in theory.
B16
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
•
Electric melting (converting it to an electric furnace): It would require the complete rebuild of the furnace but
it is possible technically.
•
Oxy-fired melting: Possible in principle.
Secondary:
•
SCR: Possible in principle.
•
SNCR: It would be technically challenging for the type of furnace used.
The following options were considered to be technically viable:
•
Low NOx burners
•
Modification of the design
•
Electric melting.
•
Oxy-combustion
•
SCR.
According to the operator, a change to the design would need a complete rebuild of the furnace. Due to the lack
of space, that would mean upgrading the whole building with a cost of approx. €6m, according to quotes
requested by the operator to technology providers and construction companies.
The electric combustion or the oxy-combustion would require an investment of between €5.9m and €6.3m.
A SCR system would require an investment between €0.966m and €1.461m with operational costs between
€86,325 and €92,080 per year. These costs do not take into account the additional investment of installing a
sour gas scrubber or the necessary changes to the installation, as the SCR equipment requires space.
The operator requested the competent authority to accept its proposal:
There is a scheduled rebuild and refurbishment of the furnace for 2019. The operator intends to apply the
necessary changes to meet the NOx BAT-AELs as part of these works. These modifications consist of:
•
Optimisation of the design
•
Reduction of the number of burners and optimisation of their location
•
Design of a new doghouse.
•
Study the feasibility of increasing the height of the structure. This has to be confirmed.
•
Installation of low-NOx burners
•
Installation of systems that control the amount of gas used in each burner.
•
Electric boosting
•
Reverse system for residual gases
•
New system to control the furnace parameters
The operator stated that the current furnace was rebuilt in 2011 and that the estimated lifetime is up to 2019.
The furnace had to be repaired in 2015. The total costs of this were €1.6m, to be amortised in the 8 years of
lifetime of the furnace. The additional costs of the changes outlined above would mean that the company would
make losses for four years, taking into account its balance sheet. Also, it would require a complete shutdown for
a number of months, which would be an advantage for the operator’s competitors.
Given the economic analysis outlined above, the operator discards the oxy-combustion, electric combustion or
design change outlined as possible options, as they would compromise the viability of the installation. SCR
could be possible, but the cost would be very similar to the upgrade proposed by the company for 2019 but with
much higher operational costs. Moreover, SCR is associated with ammonia slip and the production of
hazardous waste.
The operator estimated the damage costs of having an ELV of 1,200 mg/Nm3 instead of 1,000 mg/Nm3 or lower
considering the damage cost functions for NOx for Spain from an EEA report. If compared to the costs, the
balance is that costs are higher between €25,573 and €59,147 per year.
The competent authority understands this and concluded that as long as the proposed works are undertaken in
2019 and as long as air quality monitoring is suitable in the area, the operator could have this derogation until
31 December 2019.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics of the installation.
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
B17
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
The options that are technically feasible would either compromise the viability of the business or be
disproportionate for the environmental benefits obtained, also considering that the operator intends to rebuild
the furnace completely in 2019, which will include the necessary upgrades to be able to comply with the BAT-
AEL.
The operator justified the costs using quotes from technology providers and construction companies. The
damage costs were estimated using the damage cost function for NOx in Spain in a report from the EEA. The
arguments used by the operator were deemed adequate.
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request
See above. There is no detailed information in the document provided by the competent authority.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
Yes.
It is stated and the costs are provided but there is no explanation on how it is deemed disproportionate. The
guidance drafted by the Regional Government was used.
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Assessment was made by the expert group in charge of assessing all derogation requests. This organism
evaluates and passes all the resolutions and modifications related to environmental permits. This organism is
formed by all the competent authorities and is chaired by the Director-General for environmental quality. Its
functions and rules are set out in Catalonian transposition of the IPPCD (when the IED came into force
replacing 7 Directives).
The operator included real costs from either a refurbishment undertaken in 2011 or real quotes from
technology providers and construction companies. The damage cost functions used are publicly available. The
tonnes reduced per year (potentially) were calculated using the ELV of the BAT-AEL as opposed to the ELV
requested, and data on the normal annual activity of the company.
The operator compromised to conduct the necessary changes during the programmed rebuild that is intended
for 2019.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
No
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Unknown
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
See above. The thresholds do not appear in the information provided by the competent authority.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Unknown
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
Unknown
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
Unknown
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
B18
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
September 2017, but not publicly available yet. The official date may therefore be set at a different date.
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
A derogation on BAT 17/18 (NOx) was granted until 31 December 2019 provided that the local environment is
not affected and provided that the operator undertakes the rebuild programmed for 2019.
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
A copy of the decision is usually sent to the operator, but it is unknown how it was done this time.
Has the decision been published online?
No
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
N/A
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
These are expected, as it is stated that the refurbishment proposed by the operator has to be completed.
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
The competent authority provided part of the final decision by email. The information is anonymised.
B19
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
6.
Derogation Case Study – FR
1. Case study details: REF – BAT 52
Company name:
ESSO Raffinage SAS
Company web site:
http://corporate.esso.fr/fr-fr/notre-groupe/nos-sites-industriels/la-plateforme-de-gravenchon
Description of company and process (main process, products):
The Gravenchon refinery manufactures a wide range of petroleum products: gas, gasoline, kerosene and gas
oil, heavy fuel oil and domestic fuel oil. It also manufactures base oils for lubricants. All these products are then
marketed by Esso in various distribution networks.
Year of first operation:
1931
Location:
Port-Jérôme-sur-Seine, France (76)
Capacity:
12 millions tonnes/year
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested:
REF BATC - BAT 52
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Yes, ESSO is a member of UFIP and UIC.
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Yes, during the publication of REF BATC.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application:
End of 2015, with supplements provided in March 2016.
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
In accordance with the provisions of Article R515-68 of the Environmental Code, the operator has requested to
benefit from the derogation provided for in article R515-68 of the Environment Code for the recovery of vapours
for the loading of dust, gasoline at wharves (BAT 52).
The arguments put forward by the operator to justify the request for exemption are as follows:
•
Historical (merging of two sites) to justify the number and distance of wharves: technical characteristics
•
Tidal constraint to justify the impossibility of operating only with a single wharf and the need to work with
larger filling rates: geographical location
•
Gasoline market until now turned towards the USA thus exporting a large volume of gasoline: local
context
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation? See above.
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
B20
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
•
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other – specify):
Presentation of the methodology and skills used to study the costs. Only investment costs (labour,
material costs, engineering works, studies) are presented, operating costs of 4% of the investment costs
(CONCAWE report).
•
Source of cost data:
Internal tool from Exxon Mobil, and budgetary information from the supplier, REX
•
Calculations of costs: 22,825,000 €
Benefits:
•
Type of benefits used in the application: Reduction of VOC emissions during ship loading.
•
Source of data: Exxon Mobil experts.
•
Calculations of benefits: 260 tonnes of VOC/year, among which approx. 1.9 tonnes of benzene/year.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
Disproportionate costs to the environmental benefit (per tonne of VOC avoided): the operator estimated a cost /
effectiveness ratio of 6,600 € / t VOC or 4 000 € / t, i.e. 5 and 3 times higher than the acceptable cost from the
ECM BREF (Annex 12).
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
By comparing with other sites and using some cost data in the REF BREF (paragraph 4.23.6.2)
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
Yes, in particular in the ECM document, but very little data was available and these were old and without
information on the methodology used to determine. Furthermore, these data do not differentiate between VOCs
and benzene and only relate to the costs of environmental damage, not the abatement costs.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Yes, additional information was received in March 2016.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
Comparison of cost / effectiveness ratios with ECM values and comparison with other similar sites.
Investments (€ 23 million) and associated indirect costs (€ 3.6 million / year) for the establishment of a VRU for
the refinery would be disproportionate to the environmental gain (260 tonnes of VOC per year for about 2
million m3 loaded).
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Bi-monthly meetings were held between DREAL and the operator during the second review, a letter requesting
supplements was also sent to the operator on 26 February 2016.
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
The operator indicated that the VOC emissions associated with the loading operations of vessels without VRU
do not introduce health risks for the surrounding populations.
The operator also indicated that an action program was under way to reduce VOC emissions from storage
tanks from 2020. Thus, it proposes in an alternative solution an annual compensation of 100 tons of VOCs for
the non-implementation of the VRU.
Moreover, the impact of the phasing out from Diesel of the French car fleet by 2028 will lead to a significant
reduction in French gasoline exports from 2.6 to 1.2 MT and thus a similar reduction in exports of gasoline
Esso refinery and emissions.
Finally, the operator aims to go below the threshold of one million cubic meters of volatile liquid hydrocarbons
loaded by ship by the next review of the BREF.
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
No, the evaluation was made on the basis of the information supplied by the operator, the available information
B21
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
and the comparison of sites.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
Yes, the company was involved through the UFIP but did not submit a questionnaire during the review of the
REF BREF.
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision:
5th of January 2017
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions):
The derogation was granted by laying down the following requirement:
"During this period, their emissions of volatile organic compounds must not exceed 270 tonnes per year on
average over a period of 6 rolling years and in any case must not exceed 300 tonnes per year. Benzene
emissions shall not exceed 2.3 tonnes per year on average over a rolling six-year period and in any event shall
not exceed 2.5 tonnes per year. "
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
A copy of the prefectoral order was sent to the operator.
Has the decision been published online?
Ongoing.
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
Consultable
at
the
town
hall
of
the
site
and
the
prefecture
of
Seine-Maritime.
Or
online:
http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Not before the next re-examination of the permit
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Yes, the re-examined file including the claim for exemption was subject to public consultation. The report of the
Inspection used to take the prefectural order, as well as the prefectural decree, will soon be available on the
internet.
B22
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
7.
Derogation Case Study – IT
1. Case study details: GLS – BAT 16,17,19,20
Company name
AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl
Company website
www.agc-glass.eu/en
Description of company and process (main process, products)
AGC Glass Europe is the European glass branch of AGC (Japan), the world leader in flat glass. AGC Glass
Europe produces, processes and markets flat glass for the construction industry (external glazing and interior
decoration), car manufacture and solar power applications. It has over 100 sites throughout Europe, from Spain
to Russia, and employs around 16,000 employees.
The AGC Cuneo plant entered service in 1963 and is now the largest glass manufacturing plant supplying the
construction industry in Italy. It has one float glass line, together with downstream facilities for processing the
float glass into laminated glass, mirror glass, coated glass and matt glass. It produces two types of float glass
with different thicknesses:
•
from 2 to 6 mm, mainly for the plant's own processing units; and
•
from 8 to 25 mm, for the particular requirements of the furniture and interior decoration industries.
These products include the blue-tinted "Linea Azzurra," much appreciated by designers.
At the end of 2015 the plant employed around 220 people.
Year of first operation
1963
Location
Cuneo (Piedmont Region, Italy)
Capacity
Flat glass production: 600 t/day
Flat glass processing:
•
Mirror glass: 2.500.000 m2/year
•
Laminated glass: 3.000.000 m2/year
•
Coated glass:4.500.000 m2/year
•
Matt glass:500.000 m2/year
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
GLS BATC:
•
BAT 16 (dust emissions from melting furnaces)
•
BAT 17 (NOX emissions from the melting furnace)
•
BAT 19 (SOX emissions from the melting furnace)
•
BAT 20 (HCl and HF emissions from the melting furnace)
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Yes, through Glass for Europe trade association. AGC Glass Europe is a member of Glass for Europe.
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Four meetings (“Conferenza di Servizi”) took place between the operator and the CA after the operator had
submitted its request to the CA for granting the necessary renewal of its AIA permit (Autorizzazione Integrata
Ambientale / Integrated Environmental Permit) linked to the manufacture of glass, including the production of
B23
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
glass fibres, with a melting capacity of more than 20 mg/day.
(Date of the four meetings: 23 July 2013; 28 November 2013; 16 December 2014; 29 May 2015)
During such meetings, the CA raised issues and requested clarification to the operator about several points,
including the operator’s request for a derogation to the application of specific BAT-AELs.
According to the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2014, the CA requested the operator to provide
several clarifications and integrating data and information linked to the operators request for derogation,
including:
•
The cost-benefit analysis presented by the operator (ExternE methodology) states that the only way to
respect the BAT-AELs is to substitute the existing furnace, and that this substitution could be only
possible in 2021-2022.
•
CA - based on the technical report submitted by the operator - notices that the present emission
abatement equipment could make it possible to respect the BAT-AELs. Therefore, CA requested the
operator to review its cost-benefit analysis by taking into consideration additional factors, such as:
o
Assess the consequences for the impacted area and population in terms of air quality if the
derogation would be granted;
o
Compare healthcare costs and foreseen increase in management costs between 2016 and
2021-2022;
o
Pinpoint the underlying criterion, or criteria, within the ‘Annex XII-bis to Part II’ to the Italian
IED transposition Decree (Legislative Decree n. 46/2014) as ground for the request for
derogation, and submit any relevant, supporting financial data.
o
Indicate how many times the electrofilters should be interrupted for maintenance in order to
keep the dust emission concentrations below 20 mg/Nm³.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
The operator submitted to the CA the request for granting the necessary renewal of its AIA permit
(Autorizzazione Integrata Ambientale / Integrated Environmental Permit) linked to the manufacture of glass,
including the production of glass fibres, with a melting capacity of more than 20 mg/day, on 28 May 2013.
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
The operator, based on the performed cost-benefit analysis, considered the substitution of its float-glass furnace
to be the only way to comply with the limits provided by the BAT-AELs. The multi-annual financial plan of the
AGC Group did not foresee the substitution of the float-glass furnace in the short term, but only after 2021-2022.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
The operator highlighted the following criterion set forth ‘Annex XII-bis to Part II’ to the Italian IED transposition
Decree (Legislative Decree n. 46/2014) to justify his request:
b) the achievement of ELVs within the BAT-AEL ranges does not guarantee, compared to the environmental
performances ensured according to the permit conditions being defined, any significant positive effect for the
environment in which the industrial activity is taking place while, on the other hand, it requires a considerable
investment by the operator concerned;
The operator claimed that, given the current plant design (.i.e. without the possibility of substituting the furnace),
it would be possible to achieve compliance with BAT AEL levels only for limited periods and under certain
operating conditions of the furnace which, in turn, would lead to reduced emissions. The latter would not be
always possible to maintain over time due to oven instability and due to the need to search for optimal settings,
aimed at reducing energy consumption and ensuring the quality of the glass produced.
To achieve the BAT-AELs, the operator claimed that maintenance of the furnace should be increased from one
to three interruptions of 21 days each; the timing of each interruption includes the time necessary for
interrupting and restarting the abatement facilities. This scenario would lead to an increase in the running costs
B24
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
for the plant.
Considering the scenario in which the plant would be able to achieve the BAT-AELs, and comparing this
scenario to the current situation, the increase in the interruptions necessary for the furnace’s maintenance
would lead to a reduction of about 55 t/y of NOx and to an increase of dust emissions from melting furnaces of
about 7 t/y of dust. This scenario would apply to each of the remaining years of the current furnace’s operation
(assumed until 2021-2022).
The operator concluded that, in case the plant needs to comply with the BAT-AELs, the cost-benefit analysis
shows how in the period 2016 -2021/2022 the management costs will always be considerably higher than the
healthcare costs (i.e. the lost benefit).
Specific BAT-AELs derogation requested by the operator:
BAT Conclusion
BAT AEL
Derogation requested by operator
BAT 16 (dust emissions from
melting furnaces)
10-20 mg/Nm3 daily
30 mg/Nm3 daily (until new furnace is
installed)
BAT 17 (NOx emissions from
the melting furnace)
400-700 mg/Nm3 daily
1000 mg/Nm3 daily (until new furnace is
installed)
BAT 19 (SOx emissions from
the melting furnace)
200 mg/Nm3 hourly
Only for the mass flow limit equal to 0.64
kg/hour (obtained by considering the
concentration limit of the BAT AEL)
BAT 20 (HCl and HF
emissions from the melting
furnace)
10-25 mg/Nm3 HCl
daily
1-4 mg/Nm3 HF daily
30 mg/Nm3 HCl daily
5 mg/Nm3 HF daily
(until new furnace is installed)
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
The operator prepared and submitted the cost-benefit analysis based on the following methodologies:
•
ExternE (External costs of Energy) www.externe.info/externe_d7
•
NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability) www.needs-project.org
•
CAFE (Clean Air For Europe)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/cafe_cba_externalities.pdf
The operator considered five emissions scenarios when it prepared the cost-benefit analysis:
B25
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
The operator, compared the specific conditions set forth in scenarios 2 and 4 outlined in the above table.
•
Scenario 2: emission limits of NOx (1.000 mg/Nm3 daily) and dust (30 mg/Nm3 daily), including one
necessary interruption of 21 days for the furnace’s maintenance and considering, during the sole
interruption , the emission data foreseen for scenario 5
•
Scenario 4: emission limits of NOx (700 mg/Nm3 daily) and dust (20 mg/Nm3 daily), including three
necessary interruptions totalling 63 days per year for the furnace’s maintenance and considering,
during each interruption, the emission data foreseen for scenario 5
and developed the associated cost-benefit analysis, whose conclusions are as follows:
•
The yearly cost increase for managing the plant outweighs the yearly environmental/healthcare
benefits:
•
costs = 250,000 EUR/year (100,000 EUR/year for two additional interruptions of the furnace’s
operation to allow for its maintenance; and 150,000 EUR/year for the loss of net electricity production
through Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC))
•
benefits = 100,000 EUR/year.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
Yes, see last paragraphs in the above section
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
The CA relied on the judgment of the Provincial Department of Cuneo of the Regional Environmental
Protection Agency (ARPA - Agenzia regionale per la protezione ambientale) who carried out the validation of
data and calculations.
Information and data were validated mainly by considering the BREF and the information/data provided by the
operator. The CA then compared both to check if the information provided by the operator is reasonable.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
Yes, additional data was requested during the meetings (“Conferenza di Servizi”) that took place between the
operator and the CA after the operator had submitted its request to the CA for granting the necessary renewal
B26
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
of its AIA permit (Autorizzazione Integrata Ambientale / Integrated Environmental Permit).
For example, the CA requested the operator to specify which sources had been considered when it came to
determining the healthcare costs connected to NOx and dust emissions.
Please see Section 2 (Initiation of derogation) for additional details.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Yes, please see Section 2 (Initiation of derogation) for additional details.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
The CA assessed disproportionality based on scenario 4 presented by the operator: emission limits of NOx
(700 mg/Nm3 daily) and dust (20 mg/Nm3 daily), including three necessary interruptions totalling 63 days for the
furnace’s maintenance and considering, during each interruption, the average emission data foreseen for
scenario 5.
The CA observed that the lengthy interruption of the furnace would lead to a minor improvement in NOx
emissions (<100 mg/Nm3, 55 t/y, 10% less than the yearly NOx emissions), but also to significantly worse dust
emissions (+ 12 mg/Nm3, 7 t/y, or 50% more than the than the yearly dust emissions).
Moreover, the CA highlighted how the external cost of the increased dust emissions nearly matches the
benefits incurred due to the reduced NOx emissions, while the operating costs for the plant (interruptions plus
loss of net electricity production) amount to double the net foreseen benefit.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
N/A
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
No
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
No
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
29-10-2015
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Granted
Derogation valid until 31 December 2022
Granted derogations:
BAT Conclusion
BAT-AEL
Derogations granted
BAT 16 (dust emissions from
melting furnaces)
10-20 mg/Nm3 daily
30 mg/Nm3 daily
(until new furnace is installed)
BAT 17 (NOx emissions from
the melting furnace)
400-700 mg/Nm3 daily
1000 mg/Nm3 daily
(until new furnace is installed)
BAT 19 (SOx emissions from
the melting furnace)
200 mg/Nm3 hourly
Only for the mass flow limit equal to 0.64
kg/hour
(obtained by considering the concentration
B27
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
limit of the BAT-AEL)
BAT 20 (HCl and HF
emissions from the melting
furnace)
10-25 mg/Nm3 HCl
daily
1-4 mg/Nm3 HF daily
30 mg/Nm3 HCl daily
5 mg/Nm3 HF daily
(until new furnace is installed)
Including one necessary yearly interruption of 21 days for the furnace’s maintenance
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Operator was notified via email about the decision through certified email (PEC - posta elettronica certificata).
Has the decision been published online?
Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
Link: www.provincia.cuneo.gov.it/allegati/tutela-territorio/procedimenti-tutela-
territorio/2014aia001rie/agc_provv_riesame_suap_prot_66833_del_29_10_2015_p_15461.pdf
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
During the derogation period (2016 - 2022), the emissions will be constantly monitored.
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Decision: (it includes information/data about the application and evaluation):
www.provincia.cuneo.gov.it/allegati/tutela-territorio/procedimenti-tutela-
territorio/2014aia001rie/agc_provv_riesame_suap_prot_66833_del_29_10_2015_p_15461.pdf
Minutes of the meeting between CA and operator held on 16 December 2014:
http://www.provincia.cuneo.gov.it/allegati/tutela-territorio/procedimenti-tutela-
territorio/2014aia001rie/agc_provv_riesame_allegati_cds_c_d_pdf_15906.pdf
B28
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
8.
Derogation Case Study – PL
1. Case study details: CLM – BAT 17,21
Company name
Zakład Cementownia Rudniki in Rudniki (part of company: Cemex Polska Sp. z o.o. )
Company website
http://www.cemex.pl/cementownia-rudniki.aspx
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Production: Portland cement slag, Portland multi-component, Portland limestone, steel cement, road cement
Silment CQ-25 licensed by Rowis System, limestone powder.
The production facility has two grinding mills for grinding raw material. Clinker burning takes place in three
rotary kilns on a dry method.
Stoves are fired with coal dust, light alternative fuels and dry sewage.
The production of coal dust takes place in ball-milled grinding mills with semi-indirect application of coal dust to
the furnace. Coal mills operate with closed-circuit furnaces. The hot air for drying the coal in the mill is taken
from the grate cooler. Each furnace works with a slag dryer, using the furnace gas heat. Furnace gases are also
used to dry the material in the mill system.
Dust from the dedusting installation is stored in an additional tank and is continuously added in a suitable
proportion to the furnace flour to the rotary kiln. The whole transport chain of flour is dusted with bag filters.
The cement production facility has five cement mills, which operate in a closed circuit with a separator. The
cement plant has 12 cement silos.
Year of first operation
1965
Location
Production facility: Zakład Cementownia Rudniki, Ul. Mstowska 10, 42-240 Rudniki (near Częstochowa, śląskie
vovoidenship)
Company adress: Cemex Polska Sp. z o.o., ul. Łopuszańska 38 D 02-232 Warszawa
Capacity
•
installation of clinker production – IPPC installation, max production capacity: 700 000 Mg/year
•
lime powder installations - installation connected technologically with IPPC installation of max.
production capacity 100 000 Mg/year
•
cement production installation - installation connected technologically with IPPC installation of max.
production capacity 1 250 000 Mg/year
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
CLM BATC – BAT 17 (Dust emission from kiln firing process) and BAT 21 (SOx emissions)
Derogation from the emission limit value 20 mg/Nm3 for a variant of the installation without co-incineration waste
for flue gases from rotary kilns (emitters E18 and E19), raw material mills (emitters E2 and E3) and coal mill No.
4 (emitor E88). Amount of dust emission: up to 30 mg/Nm3
Derogation from the emission limit value of 400mg/Nm3 for sulphur dioxide in flue gases from rotary kilns
(emitters E18 and E19) in a variant without co-incineration of waste. Amount of emission: up to 1000 mg/Nm3.
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Yes, through the Ekoekspert Sp. z o.o. company (http://www.ekoexpert.com.pl/) who wrote and submitted the
application.
B29
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
No information about any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
16-08-2016
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
In 2005, the Silesian Province Governor granted an integrated permit (period of validity is 10 years). In 2007 it
was changed by the Silesian Province Governor. Then next changes were introduced in 2008 by the Silesian
Marshal (due to changes in law: Environmental protection act and competence of local governance organs).
Further changes in the decision were made in 2010, 2012 and 2014 and on 7th of June 2016.
In August 2015 an analysis of the terms of the integrated permit was completed and CEMEX Polska Sp. with
o.o. Rampers Cement was called upon to apply for a change to the terms of the integrated permit, as well as
the need to adjust the installation by September 4, 2018 to the BAT conclusions.
CEMEX Polska Sp. z o.o. – Zakład Cementownia Rudniki requested on August 16 to change the integrated
permit for cement clinker installation in rotary kilns that are excessing the amount of 500 tons per day.
On the 7th of February 2017 inspection of installation was conducted. After the inspection the conclusion was
made that the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) installation is working well.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
•
The high amount of sulphur in fuels (coal and co-incineration with coal) and in the raw material (raw
material), as well as the dynamics of the changes taking place during the production of the clinker (the
part of the sulphur brought into the furnace is fixed in the clinker).
•
The amounts of sulphur dioxide and dust in the surroundings of Zakład Cementownia Rudniki do not
exceed the levels of this substances according to the Minister of Environment decree from 24th of
August 2012 on the levels of certain substances in the air (Dz. U. z 2012 r.,poz. 1081)
•
Economical aspects (very high cost of constructing and exploitation of wet desulphurization devices)
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
BAT 17
The calculations of the impact of dust emissions in flue gases from rotary ovens and from sources associated
with rotary kilns have shown little effect of deviation from emission limit values on air quality. Replacing the
filters with filters to ensure a dust concentration of no more than 20 mg/Nm3 would have to involve rebuilding
dust extraction systems. For example: the use of dust extraction systems in raw material mills with a heavier
weight would result in an increase in the pressure difference in the filters, and would therefore limit the capacity
of the mills (the bags that are installed are specially selected because they are technological filters that act as a
storage chamber for the raw material.). In order to increase the efficiency of the filter to 20 mg/Nm3, the filtration
surface should be increased by increasing the filter by an average of 30% of the filtration area. The resistance
to the filters and thus the dynamics of the gas flow would change, which would affect the technological
processes carried out in rotary kilns and raw mills including:
•
reduced cost-less efficiency,
•
quality regimes for clinker
•
ecological regimes referring to the gas emitted from the installation.
The cost of replacing the filter only in the dust extraction system of the raw material mill No. 4 is estimated at
about PLN 2 million, with the ecological effect being negligible (only a small reduction of 1 hour of maximum
dust concentration, including emissions and average annual dust concentrations in the air).
B30
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
BAT 21
The calculations of the influence of sulphur dioxide emissions in the waste gases from rotary ovens and from
sources related to rotary ovens (raw mills and coal mills) showed no exceedances of permissible levels of
sulphur dioxide in air. It should be noted that the derogation does not result in an aggregate (annual) increase in
sulphur dioxide emissions compared to the volume of the existing integrated permit.
The cost of construction of wet flue gas desulphurisation plant in the furnaces is estimated at about 30 million
PLN.
In addition, the operation of the wet flue gas desulphurisation plant would involve the emergence of new
pressures, including wastewater from the desulphurisation plant, and new noise sources with relatively high
acoustical power (sorbent preparation, desulphurisation fans and others), which are not yet occurring in the
Zakład Cementownia RUDNIKI.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
In the decision granted by the Marshal of Silesia Vovoidenship there is information that in specific cases, the
competent authority for an integrated permit may authorize a derogation from the emission limit values in the
integrated permit if its assessment would result in disproportionately high costs for environmental benefits and
provided that the emission standards are not exceeded.
In the other documents (Application for integrated decision and Substantiation of the derogation) there was no
comparison of cost calculations for production (cost of current production in comparison to cost of production
with achieving the BAT-AELs). There is only information about estimated costs of the desulfurization installation
(30 000 000 PLN) and information about the cost of replacing the filter in the dust extraction system of the raw
material mill No. 4 is estimated at about 2 000 000 PLN (in both documents: Application for integrated decision
and Substantiation of the derogation).
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Company Ekoekspert Sp. z o.o. counted the annual SOx emission, calculated from the average emissions and
working time of the source (duration of the emission).
In calculating the average dust emission, it was assumed that the average (annual) dust concentration behind
the dust filter systems of rotary kilns and raw material mills would not be higher than 15 mg/Nm3 (this
assumption justifies the measurement results).
Data are validated by Vovoidenship Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. (Act from 20 July 1991 on
Environmental Protection Inspection (Dz. U. z 2016 r., poz. 1688) - Tasks of the Inspection of Environmental
Protection (Articles 1 and 2)).
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
After the application was submitted to the Marshal of the Silesia Vovoidenship it was publicly available on
Public Information Bulletin of Silesian Vovoidenship for 21 days for consultation purposes. No additional data
or questions were reported during that time.
After granting the integrated decision on the 9th of June 2017 there was a 30 days period for reporting
comments. None were reported. The decision was validated after that period.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Yes, on the 29th of March 2017 the Marshal of the Vovoidenship asked the operator for additional information
to detail precisely how each BAT conclusion for Zakład Cementownia Rudniki in case of gas emissions are
implemented. The detailed information was provided (the table below present the information for BAT 17 and
21):
BAT
conclusion
number
Implementation - Zakład Cementownia Rudniki
BAT 17
Zakład Cementownia Rudniki used:
Fabric filters for reducing dust emissions from flue gases from firing processes in rotary
B31
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
kilns:
•
E18 and E19 emitters;
•
E2 and E3 emitters - Drying of raw materials in raw material mills 2 and 4 with
waste gases from the firing process in rotary kilns
•
emitter E88 - drying of coal in the coal mill No. 4 with waste gases from the
firing process in rotary kilns.
A derogation from the emission limit values for emitters is set:
E18, E19, E2, E3, E88.
The dust concentrations of 30 mg/Nm3 are defined for the emitters: E18, E19, E2, E3, E88.
Substantiation:
- For a variant of the installation with co-incineration of waste:
The emission levels for dust emissions from clinker firing processes using waste as a source
of heat is 30 mg/Nm3.
According to BAT 17, the standard BAT-AEL for flue gas emissions from furnace clinker
kilns is <10-20 mg / Nm3, calculated as the mean daily value (i.e., the emission limit value is
20 mg/Nm3).
The Industrial Emissions Directive, as "overriding" the Commission's implementing decision
on BAT conclusions for the cement industry, sets the total permissible dust emission from
clinker firing processes using waste as a source of heat (co-incineration) of 30 mg/Nm3
(Annex VI, part 4, point 2). Issued under the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Polish
regulations set emission limit values for clinker burning in rotary kilns in co-incineration
facilities at the same level.
The difference between the BAT-AEL of the conclusions (<10 - 20 mg/Nm3) and the "total
emission limit value" of 30 mg / m3, as defined in the Industrial Emissions Directive for flue
gas dust from clinker firing furnaces is a compensation for the use of waste as a heat carrier
needed to burn clinker and save natural resources.
- For a variant of the installation without co-incineration of waste
The calculations of the impact of dust emissions in flue gases from rotary kilns and from
sources associated with rotary kilns have shown little effect of deviation from emission limit
values on air quality.
The analysis shows that replacement of the filters in dust extraction systems of rotary ovens
and raw material mills (to increase dust extraction efficiency):
•
will not affect the total emissions of dust within a year,
•
will not affect the average annual concentrations of PM10,
•
will not affect the average annual concentrations of PM2.5 dust,
•
will not affect the amount of dust,
•
will cause a slight increase in the concentrations of maximum PM10
(concentrations1-hour).
Replacing filter media with dust filters at a level of no more than 20 mg/Nm3 requires the
conversion of dedusting systems.
The use in the dust extraction system of raw material mills with higher grammage results in
an increase in the pressure difference in the filters and limits the efficiency of the mills
(nonwovens in the installed filter bags of dust extractor mills are specially selected because
of the dust extraction equipment: technological filters serve as the storage chamber for the
raw material).
To increase the efficiency of the filter to 20 mg/Nm3, the filtration surface should be
increased, with the filter expanding by an average of 30% of the filter surface. The
resistance to the filters and therefore to the dynamics of the gas flow would change, which
would affect the technological processes in the rotary ovens and raw mills, including:
•
reduced cost-less efficiency,
•
quality regimes for clinker
•
ecological regimes referring to the gas emitted from the installation.
The cost of replacing the filter only in the dust extraction system of the raw material mill No.
4 for a filter with a higher dedusting efficiency is about 2 million PLN, but the ecological
effect is negligible (only a small reduction of 1 hour maximum dust concentration, including
B32
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
emissions and average annual dust concentrations in the air).
BAT 21
Zakład Cementownia Rudniki used:
- for the variant of the installation with the co-incineration of waste:
The emission standard (50 mg / Nm3) is not applicable.
Substantiation:
The amount of sulfur dioxide generated by the incineration of waste is not greater than the
amount that would have been generated if the waste had not been burned (Legal basis: -
Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 4 November 2014 on emission standards
for certain types of installations, fuel combustion sources and equipment. incineration or co-
incineration of waste (Dz.U. z 2014, poz. 1546), with regard to co-firing waste in cement kiln
production plants (Annex No. 8, Table II).
- for the variant of operation of the installation without co-incineration of waste
A derogation from the emission limit values for sulfur dioxide is determined.
The limit values for sulphur dioxide are specified:
in waste gases from rotary kiln No. 1 (emitor E18):
a.
variant of work without raw material mill - 750 mg / m3u (for 200 h / year),
b.
in the variant of work with the raw mill:
•
750 mg / Nm3 (for 7800 h / year),
•
1000 mg / Nm3 (for 500 h / year)
in waste gases from rotary kilns No. 3 and No. 4 (emitor E19):
a.
a variant of the mill without a mill, but with a carbon mill - 750 mg/m3 (for 200 h /
year),
b.
in the variant of work with the mill mill and with the coal mill:
•
750 mg / Nm3 (for 7800 h / year),
•
1000 mg / Nm3 (for 500 h / year).
Concentrations of sulphur dioxide in waste gases:
raw mills (emitters E2 and E3) are set at a level no higher than 300 mg / m3,
Carbon No. 4 (emitter E88) is set at a level not higher than 400 mg / m3.
Substantiation:
The reduction of emissions of sulphur oxides in flue gases from rotary kilns is achieved by
using raw materials for the production of clinker with the lowest possible sulphur content. It
is not possible to obtain concentration of sulphur dioxide in flue gases from rotary kilns at a
level not higher than the emission limit value (400 mg / Nm3) determined on the basis of
BAT-AEL (<50 - 400mg/Nm3) Because the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the waste
gases from the rotary kilns determines the sulphur content of coal (as a process fuel). It is
not technically justified to add lime to the feedstock as absorbent (due to the possibility of
interfering with the flow of mass in the rotary kiln) and total sulphur dioxide emissions do not
justify the construction of wet flue gas desulphurisation installations (sulphur dioxide
emissions levels are not sufficient for gypsum production).
The deviation from the emission limit values applied does not exceed the permissible
concentrations of sulphur dioxide in the air, in the zone of influence of the Cement Plant
RUDNIKI on the environment.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
No details.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
There were three official requests for additional information (3 Feb 2017, 29 March 2017 and 7 Feb 2017).
The operator submitted additional data on the following dates:
16 Dec 2016, 25 Jan 2017, 20 Feb 2017, 25 Apr 2017, 18 May 2017, 31 May 2017, 8 June 2017.
B33
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
No
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
Yes – see the table in point 4.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
The company granted all the required information but it was not stated as an exceptional involvement.
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
In case of sulphur dioxide emissions all the aspects to adjust the installation to the IED are being transposed to
the Act: Environmental protection law (Dz. U. z 2014, poz. 1101).
In case of dust emissions one aspect was pointed out:
The Industrial Emissions Directive, as "overriding" the Commission's implementing decision on BAT conclusions
for the cement industry, sets the total permissible dust emission from clinker firing processes using waste as a
source of heat (co-incineration) of 30 mg/Nm3 (Annex VI, part 4, point 2). Issued under the Industrial Emissions
Directive, the Polish regulations set emission limit values for clinker burning in rotary kilns in co-incineration
facilities at the same level.
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
9-06-2017
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Granted. See the table in the point 4.
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Operator was informed via official decision document sent by post.
Has the decision been published online? Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
http://bip.slaskie.pl/dokumenty/2017/07/14/1500021704.pdf
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Unless the law will not change or the new BAT conclusions will be announced the integrated permit in which the
derogation was granted is issued for an indefinite period of time.
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Since 2014 decisions are published online (unless the operator will request and will be granted concealment):
http://bip.slaskie.pl/dokumenty/2017/07/14/1500021704.pdf
The application is available online during 21 days after the submission. After that period, it is removed from the
public server.
B34
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
9.
Derogation Case Study – SE (IS BAT 56)
1. Case study details: IS – BAT 56
Company name
SSAB EMEA AB
Company website
http://www.ssab.se/
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Highly specialized steel company. Producing Advanced High-Strength Steels (AHSS), Quenched & Tempered
Steels (Q&T), strip, plate, tubular products and construction solutions.
Year of first operation
Company was founded in 1878
Luleå factories was operational in 1940
Location
Luleå, Sweden
Capacity
Between 2000-2015, production equalled 31 Million tonnes of crude iron (2.07 Mt/y)
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
IS BATC - BAT 56 (and BAT 51)
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Unknown
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
An earlier court ruling determined that the operator could maintain and increase the production at the facility in
Luleå. The court ruling left the question of emission levels open, awaiting further test results. The application for
exemption from BAT 56 can be considered as a continuation of the earlier court case.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
24-11-2014
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
The application was handed in to the Land and Environmental court (Mark- och miljödomstolen), following a
previous court case regarding the facility in Luleå. This previous court case determined that the facility could
remain operational until further noticed. Due to the implementation of IED the case was re-opened as the
applicant needed to comply with the BATC.
The application referred to derogations from BAT 51 and BAT 56.
The applicant first requested alternative values for BAT 56, but later changed the application to time limited
exemption.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Regarding BAT 56, the operator considered that the local environmental benefits are disproportionate to the
costs of improving the facility. They required an exemption from BAT 56, until they further investigate the
possibility to build a new denitrification step in the waste water facility.
B35
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
That the environmental impact from the emissions are non-significant to the local environment and that the
costs of improving the facilities emissions are disproportionate to the environmental benefits. The operator
therefore required exemption from some of the BAT 56 to further investigate the enlargement of the waste water
facility.
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Costs have been estimated by the operator. No figures are mentioned in the court decision and it is
unclear how high the costs of complying with BAT 56 would be.
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
Environmental impact has been estimated by the operator, source of data is unclear.
Swedish EPA has commented on the estimated benefits and the local environmental impact along with the
costs of its implementation. They commented that the operator did not provide enough data.
The CA made an individual estimate of the benefits. There are no standardized calculation methods.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
No specific costs are mentioned, but the emissions are considered not significant and the compliance with BAT
56 is too expensive in comparison to the environmental benefits. The operator stated that a new step in the
denitrification process would have to be implemented, something that according to the operator, would be
costly.
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
Yes, Swedish EPA commented there was a lack of information regarding the costs of implementing BAT 56.
They also considered that the local environmental assessment is not fulfilling. The latter was later corrected by
the operator.
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Emission data and environmental impact are provided by the operator and validated if the CA deemed it
necessary. In this case, the CA has asked Swedish EPA and the country administration board of Norrbotten, to
investigate the environmental impact assessment and if they deem the costs to be disproportionate in relation
to the environmental impact.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
Yes, Swedish EPA gave their opinion on the case. They commented that data was lacking of the actual
implementation cost of a new denitrification facility and that the operator had not provided enough evidence of
the costs to implement BAT 56. They also requested better estimates of the environmental impacts. The latter
was completed by the applicant after being requested.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Yes, to clarify the environmental impact assessment and costs estimates.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
The case has been individually assessed based on the information and argumentation provided by the
operator. Further details are unclear.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Unknown, most likely several.
B36
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
The previous court case has left the question of emission levels open. This could have had to do with the
awaiting of the IED implementation. However, this has not been confirmed and remains uncertain.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
Unknown
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
Swedish EPA deemed that the applicant did not full-fill the requirements of disproportionate costs in relation to
the environmental benefits, and recommended the CA to reject the application of the alternative values and
time limited exemption from BAT 56. The administrative county board of Norrbotten, recommended the CA to
approve the application of time limited exemption.
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
07-03-2016
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Alternative values are granted until 1st of July 2018
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Has the decision been published online?
Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsfall/domar/ied-avgoranden/alternativvarde-
dispens-mmd-norrbotten-2016-03-07.pdf
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Unknown
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Decision: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsfall/domar/ied-
avgoranden/alternativvarde-dispens-mmd-norrbotten-2016-03-07.pdf
B37
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
10. Derogation Case Study – SE (GLS BAT 63)
1. Case study details: GLS – BAT 63
Company name
Paroc Aktiebolag
Company website
http://www.paroc.com/
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Producer of stone wool insulator as a building material.
Year of first operation
1930’s
Location
Hässleholm, Sweden
Capacity
Unknown
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
BAT 63
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Unknown
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Unknown
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
4th of November 2015
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
The applicant did not meet the levels of BAT 63 for ammonia, formaldehyde and volatile organic substances,
and requested an exemption from BAT 63 until the 31st of August 2016.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Geographical location and local environmental conditions.
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
The facility is likely to maintain the same emission levels as previous years. An old court case has determined
that the facility’s emission standards are in line with local environmental conditions and the geographical setting.
Maintaining these emissions does not pose any drastically changes to the environment. The company states
that it is important that their facility can remain productive until a new smoke gas burner has been installed and
requested an exemption from BAT 63 until the 31st of August 2016. This would allow them to install a new
smoke gas burner during the already planned summer shut down of the plant.
B38
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
The operator has provided emission figures and suggested that the old emission levels should remain in place
until the 31st of August 2016. They argued that an earlier court case eight year earlier has ruled the facility
environmental sound and that the additional six months (6/3-31/8) will not have a significant impact on the local
environment.
Data of environmental assessment is not provided in the court case.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
The operator claimed that the production stop required to install the new smoke gas burner, would be highly
expensive, considering the loss of income due to an idle facility, risk of indemnity to customers claiming contract
break and finally lost of goodwill. In conclusion the operator claimed that an unscheduled production stop would
have disproportionate high costs in comparison to the emission improvements that the first six months of
complying with BAT 63 would have.
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
Unknown
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Data and calculations are be provided by the applicant. The CA can take in a third party for assessment the
data and calculation if they deem needed. In this case, no third party has been involved.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
No
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
No
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
The case has been individually assessed based on the information and argumentation provided by the
operator. No further information has been given.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Unknown
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
No
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
Yes, the CA argues that the applicant has been aware of the BREF process and that the operator has been
aware of BAT 63 before the BATC were published / became applicable.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
Unknown if they have been involved the BREF process.
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
B39
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Unknown
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
15-02-2016
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Derogation rejected
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Through court decision.
Has the decision been published online?
Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsfall/domar/beslut-mpd-skane-2016-02-15.pdf
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
No.
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Decision: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsfall/domar/beslut-mpd-skane-2016-02-
15.pdf
B40
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
11. Derogation Case Study – SK
1. Case study details: CLM – BAT 50
Company name
Calmit, spol. s r. o., Bratislava
Company website
http://www.calmit.sk/
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Calmit, s.r.o., is a leader in lime and limestone products in Slovakia. Major production activities are:
•
production of burnt lime
•
production of ground lime
•
production of lime hydrate
•
production of ground limestone
•
delivery of lime and limestone products
There are 4 single-shaft furnaces (No. 1-4) and one double-blast furnace (No. 5) in operation.
At present, in furnaces No. 3 and 4 (Mixed feed shaft kilns) the combustion of solid fuels (coke, anthracite and
mixtures of coke, anthracite, petroleum coke and coke) is allowed. Furnace no. 5 (Parallel flow regenerative
kiln) burns ground petroleum coke with natural gas.
Furnaces No. 1 and 2 are currently serving as lime containers, furnaces No. 3 and 4 are out of operation, so
only furnace No. 5 is in operation.
Year of first operation
1960
Location
980 61 Tisovec, Rimavská Sobota
Capacity
The projected capacity is 86.4 t of lime per day per furnace.
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
BAT 50 for furnace no. 3 and 4
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
No
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Yes, there were several contacts for clarifying some of the information provided.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
20-12-2016
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
Application for derogation was initiated by operator. Derogation request was part of the application for the
permit change.
The operator has requested to set emission limits deviating from BAT conclusion for a certain period until the
technical / operational measures reach the required level according to BAT.
The Inspectorate requested the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic to evaluate the deviations
B41
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
from the emission limits. The inspection announced to the parties and the authority the initiation of the
administrative procedure. During the 30-day written observations were delivered to the inspection:
•
The District Authority agreed with the proposed derogation for the TOC for MFSK furnaces for a certain
period until the technical / operational measures reach the required BAT level. The operator shall take
measures to reduce the TOC emissions, as evidenced by eligible measurements.
•
The city of Tisovec agreed with the submitted application for a period of four years from the putting the
decision into effect. However, the derogation may not exceed the limits specified in the valid legislation of
the Slovak Republic. During this period, technical equipment must be installed in operation to reach all
emission limits in line with BAT conclusions.
•
The Ministry has recommended not to grant a deviation from the emission limit compared to the emission
level stated in the BAT conclusions with additional statement that a reassessment could be made in case of
measurements of real emission values during operation (currently not operated, data from a similar facility
in another location was used). The operator is recommended to consider whether it is possible to include
the gradual reconstruction of the furnaces in the investment plans (introducing BAT in two years of each
device). This would lead to an increase in the use of the furnace even in the case of increased sales within
two to three years. Because there is no plan to use (or restart) furnaces No. 3 and No. 4 for at least one
year, it is more appropriate to gradually invest in alignment with the BAT conclusions.
The Inspectorate ordered an oral hearing. A comparison of the activities with BAT conclusions was performed
on the basis of the information provided to the operators, the previous inspections carried out by the inspection,
the data and the information sent by the operator.
Based on the results of the discussion made by the operators at the oral hearing as well as the Ministry's
opinion, the Inspectorate did not grant derogation for TOC emission limit from furnaces No. 3 and No 4. Neither
emission limits according to BAT was established because furnaces are shut down for long periods of time.
Before restarting operation the new application for determination of conditions for operation of furnaces No. 3
and 4 will be requested.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics of the installation.
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
Single-shaft furnaces used for lime burning in the plant Tisovec were previously shutdown, therefore the BAT-
AEL compliance in the application is made on the basis of former emission measurements. The comparison
shows the non-compliance with BAT -AEL determined for the TOC pollutant:
•
TOC was measured in single-shaft furnaces at Calmit spol. (Tisovec plant) only in 2009, at No. 3 furnace
when combustion of fuel mixture (coke + anthracite). The measured average value was 58.9 mg/m3. At
present, it is not possible to perform a measurement because furnaces are shut down.
•
The operator also documented the results of the TOC measurement on the same types of solid fuel burning
furnaces at Calmit s.r.o.. – Žiran plant. The measured average TOC emissions ranged from 33 - 54 mg/m3
for anthracite combustion.
From these measurements it is obvious that the BAT-AEL for TOC, determined as a mass concentration of 30
mg/m3, cannot be achieved with the current technical equipment. TOC emissions are emissions of volatile
organic compounds and often refer to CO emissions from incomplete fuel combustion. Reducing total organic
carbon emissions in BAT can be achieved by:
•
optimizing process management, including automatic computer control,
•
using modern gravimetric charging systems for solid fuels and gas flow meters,
•
by choosing the input material into the furnace because it has a significant effect on the emissions to the air
due to the impurity content,
•
regular monitoring/measurement of process and emission parameters (continuous or periodic
measurements).
Concerning the input material (limestone), the selection is limited by the specific requirements for the output
product (lime) and the quality of the limestone extracted in the local quarry used for the firing process. The
choice of fuel is based on two main criteria, which are also the quality requirements of the output product and on
the other hand the purchase price of the fuel (firing process is energy-intensive and the fuel costs represent a
significant part of the cost of running lime production.
B42
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Using process optimization techniques to achieve stable and total combustion, cannot be achieved due to
uncontrollable variables, i. e. limestone quality.
Moreover, in the CLM BREF, in the section on TOC emissions for lime production, the emissions from the LRK,
PFRK and ASK furnace types are listed. MFSK type emissions are not found here, and further text indicates
that higher emissions of TOC due to special process conditions occurring at the top of the furnace (reduction
area) may occur in older MFSK type furnaces.
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
Costs - the economic criteria included (overview is prepared for 15 years):
•
average annual flow
•
average annual costs
•
average annual revenues
•
average payback period
•
additional investment payback
•
ratio of the investment value in BAT (other technology) of the property
•
significant investment over the last 5 years
Benefits - environmental criteria:
•
reduction of pollutants
•
evaluative comparison of changes
•
social benefit
•
contribution of installation on the pollution in the local and regional area
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
Yes
The emission abatement equipment would have to be installed on every shaft furnace. It would be a significant
investment that would subsequently require additional costs for routine maintenance and gas (about 110 to 130
Nm3/h) and el. energy (about 25 to 35 kW/h).
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Assessment was made by Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic according to national methodology.
Statement of the expert body:
Economic evaluation
The operator stated in its application economic information for the immediate introduction of BAT. These data
were relevant for the actual operation of furnaces No. 3 and No. 4.
The average annual loss of operation reached more than € 235 000. Investment costs would amount to almost
€ 800,000. The highest increase in operating costs is caused by energy costs. The cost of reducing 1 t of
pollutant would be € 485 000.
Environmental assessment
B43
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
In the case of the introduction of new abatement technologies to meet the requirements of the BAT, 33%
reduction of the pollutant would be achieved. This information was provided from a comparable operation by
CALMIT spol. s.r.o. – plant Žirany. This reduction would have a significant positive impact on the environment.
However, since furnaces No. 3 and No 4 are not currently in operation and no measurements have been made
on these facilities, it is not possible to assess the actual positive environmental impact.
CONCLUSION: Ministry of environment recommend not to grant an exception.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
Ministry of Environment always communicates with the ministry of economy and source all possible data for
each industry. Ministry also asks for annual reports. This approach of data control was carried out.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Yes, because emission measurement data from another plant (Calmit Žirany) was used in the application. So
the Ministry rejected these input data and explained the issue to operator.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
Ministry of environment did not accept the submitted information (emission measurements) and for this reason
did not recommend the derogation.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Up to 5
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
No
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
No, the BAT conclusion is taking as the only reference.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
24-03-2017
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
A derogation from the TOC emission levels was rejected.
Final statement of expert body:
The operator is required to comply with permit conditions in line with the BAT conclusions from 26.03.2017.
In the context of BAT conclusions, the operator has introduced general primary techniques, techniques to
minimize negative dust emissions, dust reduction techniques from furnace burning processes, and dusty
operations other than burning processes, meets the thermal energy consumption values for lime production in
single furnace furnaces No. 3 and No. 4 (MFSK) and double shaft furnace SP No. 5 (PFRK).
The operator fulfils the conditions resulting from the BAT conclusions:
•
emissions of PM in waste gases from dust operations,
•
PM emissions, emissions of gaseous compounds (NOx, SOx, CO), TOC emissions and PCDD / PCDF
in waste gas from the durance No. 5.
The operator should comply with the emission limits in accordance with the BAT conclusions for pollutants
PM, NOx, SOx and PCDD / PCDF, as well as the No. 3 and No. 4. However, the operator does not comply
with the BAT conclusions in the lime industry in the section on TOC emissions from processes in furnaces No.
3 and No. 4. The operator has not yet set the emission limit for TOC in the permit. The emission limit in the
B44
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
sense of BAT conclusions for TOC (<30 mg/Nm3) for existing shaft furnaces cannot be reached with the
current technical equipment. In case of operation resume of these furnaces, the operator shall take measures
to reduce TOC emissions, which shall be demonstrated by authorized measurement. If the reduction in
emissions cannot be achieved by optimizing the firing process, this will be addressed by other technical
measures, for example additional combustion of waste gases in afterburner.
The abatement device would have to be installed separately for each shaft furnace. It would be a significant
investment that would subsequently require additional costs for routine maintenance and consumption of
natural gas and electricity. This would lead to CO and TOC emission reduction from burning lime processes
below the BAT-AEL, but combustion of natural gas is associated with other emissions (especially NOx). This
means that after the installation of an afterburner CO and TOC emissions are expected to be reduced and
NOx emissions can slightly increase.
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
The decision was sent in accordance with national legislation. Because the Ministry performed the continuous
communication during the evaluation process, inspection just sent the decision to the operator.
Has the decision been published online?
Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
http://ipkz.enviroportal.sk/povolenie.php?id=68045
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Derogation rejected – not relevant
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
Application and decision in Slovak language is available, summary from these documents is presented in the
appropriate parts of this questionnaire.
Financial statement analysis is the property of the operator and contains sensitive data, the competent authority
cannot pass the documents for inspection without the operator's consent.
B45
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
12. Derogation Case Study – UK (England)
1. Case study details: PP – BAT 40,50
Company name
Iggesund Paperboard (Workington) Limited
Company website
https://www.iggesund.com/en/about-us/workington-mill/
Description of company and process (main process, products)
The main purpose of the activity at the installation is the manufacture of paperboard; in particular folding
boxboard for the packaging and graphics industries. Folding boxboard is a paperboard product in which the two
outer plies are made from bleached chemical pulp and the middle plies are made from bleached or unbleached
mechanical pulp. This creates a high-quality ‘gloss’ cardboard packaging e.g. used in cigarette and whisky
boxes.
The permit covers all stages of the paperboard manufacturing process from raw materials storage and handling,
the pulp mill, the paper mill, surface coating, conversion to finished reels and sheets, warehousing prior to
despatch and the effluent treatment plant. Electricity and steam are generated by the biomass Combined Heat
and Power (CHP) plant.
The fibre source for the installation is either wood from the UK or imported bleached chemical pulp.
More details are available from the introductory note to the permit:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571715/Variation_And_Consolida
tion_Notice.pdf
Year of first operation
Permit issued in 2002
Location
Workington, Cumbria, CA14 1JX, UK
Capacity
235,000 tonnes per year
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
BAT 40 (COD) and BAT 50 (TSS)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 8.45 – 14.45 kg tonne of paper produced
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 0.35 – 0.74 kg tonne of paper produced
These values are not lifted directly from the BAT conclusions. This is because Iggesund Paperboard are also an
integrated mill (as defined in the BAT conclusions) and so a mixing calculation has to be performed to account
for the load coming from the paper making process as well as the pulping activity. In this case BAT conclusion
50 (Paper making and related processes) and BAT-AEL table 20 applies as well as the BAT conclusion 40
(mechanical and chemi-mechanical pulping) and BAT-AEL table 16 or 17. The CA has conducted the mixing
calculation based on a CTMP mill accounting for 70% of the load (BAT 40 Table 17) and 30% of the load
coming from papermaking activities using the imported chemical pulp (BAT 50 Table 20). The decision to apply
Table 17 rather than Table 16 is based again on the characteristics of the mill and that their operation, involving
such high levels of bleaching is more comparable to a CTMP mill than a mechanical pulping mill.
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Yes, via the UK Trade Association the CPI (Confederation of Paper Industries) and the European Trade
Association CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries). The Company is part of a European parent
Company; the Holmen group based in Sweden where they have a sister mill to the Workington mill.
https://www.holmen.com/en/
B46
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Yes, various discussions took place well ahead of any application. These were focussed on interpretation
issues from the BREF as well as improving the understanding of the subsequent derogation determination
process. These discussions led to a draft application being submitted for comment (informally) ahead of the
actual application itself and supporting CBA analysis.
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
The revised BREF published in Sept 2014 (the dialogue between operator and EA was initiated before this).
Formal application was made on 1 October 2015
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
Iggesund Paperboard (Workington) Limited produces high quality Folding Box Board (FBB) trading under the
name “Incada” for a competitive market and is a mechanical pulp mill as defined in the revised BREF. The
brightness of the final product is critical and relies heavily on the highly bleached mechanical pulp produced at
the mill.
Iggesund Paperboard has presented a case for a derogation based on the technical characteristics of the
installation. The basis for the derogation request is that the mill is unique and not represented in the data set
used to compile the BAT-AELs for mechanical pulp mills within the revised BREF. The data set used for
mechanical pulp mills does not include any examples where the same level of brightness needs to be achieved
from a purely mechanical pulp coupled with high levels of bleaching with hydrogen peroxide. This is more
normally achieved by a chemi-mechanical pulp process or CTMP mill that would then need to use less
bleaching. Such mills would normally already have secondary (biological) effluent treatment plants installed in
order to meet the BAT-AELs and so Iggesund have to make significant alterations to the process and
reconfiguration across much of the site in order to install the most appropriate secondary (biological) treatment
that will meet the agreed BAT-AELs.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristic as a primary reason
Geographical location as a secondary reason
The purely mechanical nature of the pulping plant and high levels of bleaching make it difficult to adjust
processes to be compatible with a secondary treatment plant, which the operator proposes to install in order for
BAT-AELs to be complied with. Further, all four of the CTMP mills that are referenced in the BREF are located
on inland waters (Waggeryd Cell, Fors AB, Rottneros & Korsnas Rockhammer Mills in Sweden) and have
operated secondary biological effluent treatment for some considerable time. The current on site effluent
treatment plant (ETP), provides only coarse screening and primary (settlement) treatment and then discharge
via a short sea outfall to the Solway Firth.
The geographical location is a secondary criterion in that helps explain why the site currently has primary
effluent treatment only.
Iggesund Paperboard referred to geographical location in their derogation application – installation is on the
coast, emissions to coastal water had previously been thought to result in sufficient dilution. Iggesund have not
presented a case based primarily on the geographical location, nor have we accepted that is it anything other
than a secondary criterion and helps explain why the site technical characteristics (primary treatment, coupled
with high levels of bleaching) mean that compliance by 30 September 2018 would be disproportionally
expensive.
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
The operator proposed to implement a whole range of improvements to the process, including reviewing
operation of the board machine, introduction of alternative bleaching technology and installation of new
reclaimed water silos as well as improved primary treatment; all of that ahead of the biological treatment being
sized and constructed (e.g. H2O2 reduction).
This work (costed out to £13.5 million over 5 years with £2 million already spent by the time of applying for a
derogation), is predicted to deliver the following reductions:
B47
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
-
75% lower COD per tonne paperboard produced
-
90% lower TSS per tonne paperboard produced
-
45-50% lower water consumption per tonne paperboard produced (this helps as the BAT-AELs are load
based annual limits calculated as a function of concentration and effluent flow).
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
The EA recommends applicants to use the CBA tool (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-
emissions-directive-derogation-cost-benefit-analysis-tool) – there was a discussion between EA and operator on
how to handle the costs.
This case was notably different to that of other derogation cases. The operator had approached them in
advance of the BAT conclusions.
The basis of the derogation was that the operator was placed in a situation where they would need to install
secondary treatment facilities and a system for dealing with very high volumes of effluent – high capital,
maintenance and waste disposal costs.
It is important to state that the CA requires the applicant to consider all viable options to meet BAT-AEL in time
(September 2018), and other options to achieve BAT-AEL as soon as possible after the compliance deadline. In
the case of the operator, they had the following options:
-
Installing an activated sludge treatment of total stream, secondary clarifier, biosludge treatment and tertiary
dissolved air flotation unit (i.e. stop the ongoing improvements and build a separate 2ary+3ary plant). This
would enable to operator to meet BAT-AELs by the deadline. The CA progressed this option to the CBA
stage.
-
Tankering off all the effluent to a suitable external treatment plant. This would involve some 900 tankers per
day and movement of liquid waste out of the County to suitable works, travelling to and from the Lake
District in order to do so. This option was not entered into the CBA tool because the very high costs
involved mean it is clear it would have been found to be disproportionately costly.
-
Optimising the operations prior to sizing and installing an appropriately sized effluent treatment plant (i.e.
continue with ongoing improvements, then build the necessary treatment facilities). This would deliver
compliance with BAT-AELs from 1 January 2022 (time limited derogation until 31 December 2021).
Interestingly the operator did not present the ‘business as usual’ case as they have already invested £2m into
their preferred (derogation) option, therefore ‘business as usual’ no longer existed.
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Installation of a large activated sludge and tertiary treatment based on current loadings is calculated as a
minimum additional £26 million capital costs (due to a much larger footprint and operating costs of the ETP
as well as considerably higher disposal costs for the resultant sludge), whereas tankering all effluent to
waste water treatment works capable of taking the effluent at current volumes of 18,000m3/day (900
tankers per day) is calculated at over £130 million per year operating costs. In assessing total cost, the CA
took into account the total of:
-
capital costs (equipment, set up cost – preparation of the site, civils, materials and other capex –
project planning)
-
operational costs (labour, maintenance, chemicals needed for operation)
-
cost of waste disposal
-
energy consumption
-
process related greenhouse gases generated
The operator has completed the cost/benefit tool developed by the Environment Agency which confirmed
that complying by 2018 will cost at least £26 million more than the proposed derogation option. The CA
reviewed those costings and agreed with both the figures used and the conclusion reached.
A whole range of impacts that were only assessed qualitatively was also considered, for example visual
impact, impact from noise and impact on the shoreline.
B48
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
The benefits have been monetised using the National Water Environment Benefits Survey (NWEBS)
willingness-to-pay survey produced for assessing bundles of measures under the Water Framework
Directive. The NWEBS values cover aesthetic, recreational and existence values. The nearest water body
for which we have NEWBS values is the Solway Tweed, which is slightly to the north of Iggesund’s plant
but still not too far away. The actual receiving water body is the Solway Outer South, which is currently
classified as ‘moderate’. NWEBS suggests that society would be willing to pay around £1000 per year per
km to improve the status of the Solway Tweed from moderate to good. If it is assumed that by complying
with BAT Iggesund will achieve that benefit three years earlier and that it would affect around 10km of the
water body then the cost to the environment of Iggesund’s proposed derogation option is £10,000 per year
for three years. Note that this substantially over-estimates the impact of Iggesund’s emissions on the
water body’s status so this is already a very conservative assessment from the point of view of the
applicant. The value of £10,000 per year for three years is not large compared to the size of Iggesund’s
investments and therefore the view of the economist supporting the determination of this application is that
it is not necessary to pin down the details any further. Instead a wide sensitivity analysis has been used to
see if it changes the overall result, with values of £5,000 per year and £30,000 per year being used in the
CBA tool. As set out above, while the higher benefits value do make the NPV less negative it does not
change the overall result.
Note – it was not certain exactly how the improvements would change the WFD status, so it was assumed
the change would result of improvement of one level (moderate to good) – assumed a 10km stretch of
water, for 3 years + sensitivity analysis.
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
This was calculated using the CBA tool, which uses the Net Present Value to discount both costs and benefits
first, then add them together and compare for each option considered.
It is important to highlight that the CBA tool, while extremely important in making the final decision, is only one
of the things we will consider. The CA will also consider wider context for example amenity impacts, size of the
local population and its proximity to the installation, history of complaints, fairness to others, especially in the
context of other derogations previously granted or rejected. This is called ‘a basket of measures’ approach.
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
The only thing was not considering the ‘business as usual’ case but this was well justified by the operator. The
CA advises all operators to enter at least 2 options in additional to BAU; in this case we only had 2 options and
no BAU.
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
Checked both by the permitting officer considering the derogation as well as by the principal economist. Some
cost data can be validated by the reference to the BREF, others checked against freely available data for
example on energy consumption. The CA reserves the option to ask for formal quotes from suppliers or even
to commission an external supplier for quotes ourselves, however, this was not done in this case. There was
high confidence in the costing of the derogation option as the operator has already started implementing it.
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
Not in this case as it was fairly straightforward.
Note – the EA reserves the right to ask for specific quotes from suppliers to verify the capital costs supplied are
correct.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
Several times. For example, with operator’s involvement the figures that should be used to measure
environmental benefits were agreed. The operator supplied more information in May 2016. This included:
better justification for a derogation, better description of the work plan including costings. There were a few
B49
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
conversations to clarify an odd point that are not recorded separately.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
In this case it was straightforward, given the output from the CBA. There are no specific thresholds to guide us,
and instead it is preferred to look at the merit of each application on a case by case basis. This is mostly to
ensure that the CA does not encourage perverse behaviours from operators, for example the derogation case
being just above the threshold come up with. Also, any thresholds will be arbitrary and therefore open to a
challenge.
Noted that disproportionality assessment in this process is a foregone conclusion as in most cases, when an
application has got to that point, it is very likely to be deemed to be disproportionate – usually get a very net
negative value from the CBA tool.
Opens a wider point about the BREF and derogations process – the BREFs themselves are not subject to a
CBA. It was noted that once an application has passed ‘stage 1’ of the process i.e. demonstrates a case that is
defined in Article 15(4), most cases will be found to be disproportionate on CBA grounds.
This is why the EA deliberately does not set a defined level of ‘disproportionality’ – the numbers generated by
the CBA tool will only tell part of the story, and the qualitative information needs to be taken into account as
well.
The CBA analysis does not dictate a decision on derogations.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
The EA does not record every contact ever made. As part of the permitting process, the EA encourages
permitting officers to be in close contact with the applicant, discuss progress regularly and resolve minor issues
using an informal approach (for example email not a notice). The EA only records major interactions to make
sure the critical records of the application are retained.
This approach is also important from the confidentiality point of view. The entire derogation application is often
considered confidential, and it is only made visible to the public including competitors at the point of deciding
that the EA is minded to grant the derogation – as there is a need to consult on the ‘minded to’ decision.
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
Not in this case, other than as described above.
The impact on employment or local economy as part of the derogation application will not be considered.
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
It was important to compare the installation to other similar plants across the EU to validate the operator’s
arguments.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No – but it helped to highlight that the installation was an ‘outlier’ on the proposed BAT-AEL ranges.
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No – although there was dialogue between operator and EA, about some specific details e.g. requesting
operator provide further detail on how they planned to implement the improvements (i.e. clarifying timeline) and
what each step would achieve in terms of emissions reduction.
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision internal ‘minded to grant’ decision on 28 July 2016, followed by a statutory external
consultation on 7 October 2016, and followed by a permit with derogation granted on 21 November 2016.
Note – public consultation is standard for all derogation reviews. If the EA is minded to grant a derogation, they
always proceed to consult the public for the minimum of 28 days so the permit with the formal grant of a
derogation is always issued a few months later.
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Granted, time limited for 3 years
B50
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
*Note that all (bar one) of the derogations grated in the UK are time-limited
Refer to the permit for specific permit conditions and limits imposed:
-
Conditions 3.1.1, 3.1.2 (compliance with limits), 2.4 (improvement programme), 3.5 (monitoring)
-
page 23, Table S1.3, IC3 and IC4 for the obligation on the operator to inform us every 6 months on
the progress of work aimed at achieving compliance with BAT-AELs and associated narrative BAT.
-
page 31, Table S3.2 for current limits on TSS and COD (note different units), page 34, Table S3.3 for
new limits from 1 January 2022.
-
pages 46 and 47 for a summary of the derogation decision.
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Verbally (the designated permitting officer will have a contact with the operator); the operator also received the
link to the minded to consultation, and a copy of the final permit.
Has the decision been published online?
Yes
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed (please provide a link to the documents)?
Permit and the decision document can be accessed from here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ca14-1jx-iggesund-paperboard-workington-limited-environmental-
permit-issued-eprbj7590ibv005
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify.
Yes, as part of the normal compliance checks. Also, the EA are evaluating operator’s progress every 6 months
so are in a position to intervene quicker than 1 January 2022 if the improvement work does not progress as
planned and/or does not deliver expected reductions of emissions.
If it is indicated that the operator will not be in compliance, the EA can intervene, requesting the operator to
submit a revised derogation application (i.e. before the expiry date of the current one).
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
B51
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
13. Derogation Case Study – UK (Wales)
1. Case study details: IS – BAT 48,49
Company name
Tata Steel UK Limited
Company website
https://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/about%E2%80%93us/operations/about-tata-steel-uk
Description of company and process (main process, products)
Integrated iron and steelworks.
Sinter production, coke making, blast furnace (iron), basic oxygen steelmaking.
The integrated steel works has several identifiable processes which are carried out sequentially across the
installation in order to convert the raw iron ores and coal to semi-finished (slab) and finished steel products
(such as hot rolled, pickled and oiled, cold rolled and annealed).
Coke making - Once in the ovens, the coal is heated at a temperature of between 1200 -1300 °C for a period of
around 18 hours to produce coke. At the end of the coke cycle, the coke is pushed out of the oven into a rail car
and the red hot coke is transported to a quenching tower where it is quenched by water.
Year of first operation
1953 (estimated)
Location
Port Talbot, Wales
Capacity
Liquid steel production from its 2 blast furnaces at full capacity is approximately 5 million tonnes per annum.
BAT conclusion and BAT-AEL for which derogation was requested
IS BATC - BAT 48 and 49 (the installation also requested derogations from BAT 26)
2. Initiation of derogation
Was the company involved in the BREF process (either directly or via trade associations)? If so, how?
Yes – through trade association (EUROFER). No further details.
It was the first BREF / BAT conclusions under the IED. It is expected that more focus will be given during other
BREF reviews.
Were there any contacts or discussions between the operator and the CA in advance of the application
for derogation request?
Yes – the option to request a derogation is thoroughly scrutinised before an official application. NRW has the
philosophy to avoid where possible requests for derogations. The assessment of the BAT conclusions is
discussed with all installations to understand which might be problematic, even before publication of the BAT
conclusions.
Prior to application there was a lot of discussion with the operator as part of an initial assessment.
NRW gives the message to operators that derogation requests are difficult and complex.
An initial assessment by NRW prior to an official application involves the following:
•
NRW does not tend to accept geographical location as a valid criterion (rationale: Wales homogenous
region, no remote islands);
•
Costs are key;
•
Is a CBA included?
•
Any air quality or other standards affected;
•
Limit in permit designed to ensure no significant pollution (provided no new release);
•
High level of environmental protection achieved.
B52
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
This very early assessment allows operators to evaluate their investment strategy.
Only after this “broad brush approach”, formal derogation requests are submitted (as for the IS case study).
3. Application for derogation
Date of application
2014
Description of the derogation request / background info / rationale for request
The installation does not scrub coke oven gas at the moment, levels of sulphur are controlled by the inputs.
Coke oven gas is used elsewhere (linked to BAT 48), where the same ELVs apply as in BAT 49 (overall
environmental protection is therefore ensured).
BAT 49: they do not use coke oven gas, they use it for various parts of the integrated works (e.g. heating
furnaces) BAT does not really apply
(NRW from hindsight: wouldn’t include BAT 49 in the derogation request as the BAT just does not apply)
A CBA was included as part of the derogation request associated with BAT 48.
Against which criterion as listed under Article 15(4) (i.e. geographical location, local environmental
conditions or technical characteristics) was the derogation requested? In case more than one criterion
was concerned please include information for each criteria.
Technical characteristics
Arguments used by the operator for requesting derogation?
The age of the existing plant, meaning that retrofitted pollution abatement equipment would have a more limited
operational life, significantly increasing costs.
The installation of coke oven gas de-sulphurisation lies outside the normal investment cycle for the plant.
The requirement to improve tar and ammonia removal to ensure effective operation of the de-sulphurisation
plant increase the capital cost of the project.
BAT 48
From “Review of General, Coke, Sinter, Iron and Steel processes against Iron and Steel BAT Conclusions,
March 2012.”:
Reducing Sulphur Content of COG BAT assessment
Plans have commenced to install a coke oven gas desulphurisation unit to treat the gas arising from the coke
ovens in Port Talbot, subject to the capital planning process within Tata Steel. To date, provisional financing
arrangements remain to be confirmed although detailed engineering studies are on-going. Installation of COG
desulphurisation is a substantial and complex project involving considerable engineering and technological
resource. An assessment undertaken in August 2013 indicates that December 2017 is the earliest feasible date
for commissioning of the planned coke oven gas desulphurisation unit. By the end of 2017 therefore, the Port
Talbot Morfa coke ovens will meet BAT.
BAT 49:
Coke Oven Gas is not currently desulphurised at Port Talbot, SO2 is currently controlled by the use of low-
sulphur coking coals, this does not achieve the same level of environmental protection as desulphurised coke
oven gas. However in normal operation the gas used for underfiring at Port Talbot is predominately Blast
Furnace gas which is inherently low in sulphur, only a proportion of coke oven is gas added to elevate the
calorific value and in this situation the BAT-AEL is not exceeded.
This cannot be achieved until coke oven desulphurisation is complete.
From “Review of General, Coke, Sinter, Iron and Steel processes against Iron and Steel BAT Conclusions,
March 2012.”:
Coke Oven Underfiring BAT assessment
BAT conclusions I & II are achieved through regular refractory maintenance and the use of airborne sealing
surface powder to ensure leaking is minimised. Single stage burners are in place at Morfa Coke Ovens,
however BAT conclusion III only applies to new plants (NA). No COG desulphurisation plant is currently in
operation (see BAT 48 comments above), but blast furnace gas, with intrinsically low sulphur content, is
B53
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
normally used for underfiring and the SO2 emissions are well below the relevant BAT-AEL. In the event that
COG is used for underfiring because insufficient BFG is available, the BAT-AEL would not be achieved until
such time as the COG desulphurisation plant described in the response to BAT 48 has been commissioned.
Data and calculations used in the application to justify request:
Costs:
Type of costs used in application (operational, capital, other - specify)
Source of cost data
Calculations of costs
Benefits:
Type of benefits used in the application
Source of data
Calculations of benefits
In this case, the costs of achieving BAT are focussed only on the costs between now and March 2019 (the
assumed date by which a new coke ovens with COG desulphurisation could be operational). The longer-term
picture previously presented, taking into account the likely remaining life of the existing plant, has not been
considered here.
Two scenarios have been assessed:
1. The BAT AEL compliance scenario
Cease coke production at Port Talbot in March 2016; rebuild the coke plant to incorporate coke oven gas
desulphurisation and, in the interim, purchase coke from external suppliers and additional natural gas. This
scenario avoids producing coke oven gas with an H2S content greater than the BAT-associated emission level
after March 2016.
2. The derogation Scenario
Continue to operate the existing plant without coke oven gas desulphurisation until March 2018, but then install
a desulphurisation unit to treat the gas arising. Although at a later date the coke ovens would be rebuilt within
the normal investment cycle, this cost has not been considered in the assessment as it falls outside the
timescales of the required derogation. This alternative would result in greater SO2 emissions than achieving
BAT, but would be less costly.
Net Present Cost
The Net Present Cost (i.e. the cost at 2014 prices, taking into account both capital and operating costs) of each
of these options has been estimated.
Scenario 1: The cost of meeting BAT is based on the following assumptions:
•
A new coke plant incorporating coke oven gas desulphurisation would be built, to become operational in
March 2019
•
The capital cost of the new coke plant would be £250M
•
25% of the capital cost would be incurred in the year when the plant started operation, 50% in the
previous year and 25% in the year before that
•
There would be no overall change in operating costs, manning, maintenance costs or revenues for the
new plant compared to the existing plant, other than the additional costs for COG desulphurisation
•
Whilst the new coke plant is being built, 913,000 tonnes of coke would be bought each year (based on
2013 production)
•
The cost of purchasing coke from external suppliers, purchasing additional natural gas and loss of
revenue from by-products sales would be equivalent to £20 per tonne of coke compared to maintaining
coke production on site
On this basis, the Net Present Cost of Scenario 1 over the period from now up to March 2018 would be £308M.
Scenario 2: The cost of the proposed option of retrofitting coke oven gas desulphurisation to the existing coke
plant has been assessed based on the following assumptions:
•
The COG desulphurisation plant would become operational in March 2018
•
The capital cost of the COG desulphurisation plant would be £26.6M
•
25% of the capital costs would be incurred in the year when the plant started operation, 50% in the
B54
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
previous year and 25% in the year before that
•
The net operating costs would be £5.38M per annum
On this basis, the Net Present Cost of Scenario 2 from now up to March 2018 would be £35.3M.
SO2 emissions
The additional SO2 emissions arising from the proposed Scenario 2 are 2,089 tonnes per annum greater than
could be achieved through implementation of BAT, but since the derogation is only required for two years, this
amounts to 4,177 tonnes SO2 overall.
Cost-benefit analysis
The effective SO2 abatement cost of achieving BAT can be calculated by dividing the difference between the
Net Present Cost of the two options by the amount of SO2 that would be abated by earlier installation of coke
oven gas desulphurisation.
Thus the effective SO2 abatement cost of achieving BAT would be (308-35.3) x106/4,177 = £65,286 per tonne
SO2 abated.
Sensitivity analysis
Because of the uncertainty of the cost of buying coke and natural gas whilst the ovens were being rebuilt, the
sensitivity of the SO2 abatement cost to this value has been assessed:
If the cost is £20/tonne coke, the cost to achieve BAT = £65,286 per tonne SO2
If the cost is £10/tonne coke, the cost to achieve BAT = £59,393 per tonne SO2
If the cost is £40/tonne coke, the cost to achieve BAT = £77,050 per tonne SO2
Because of the uncertainty of the capital cost of a new coke plant, the sensitivity of the SO2 abatement cost to
this value has been assessed:
If the cost is £250M, the cost to achieve BAT = £65,286 per tonne SO2
If the cost is £200M, the cost to achieve BAT = £52,887 per tonne SO2
If the cost is £300M, the cost to achieve BAT = £77,670 per tonne SO2
Statement on disproportionality in the application? If so, what and how is this calculated?
Net present values
IS BATC: ~0.1 (benefit cost ratio)
Were any aspects of the information provided not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
4. Evaluation of derogation request
How are the data and calculations validated?
The operator provided costing of project, NRW validated information (e.g. based on info from BREF, similar
projects, previous projects dealt with, EA) to check if the information provided is reasonable.
NRW - Small project team (4 people).
The cost of harm used by NRW in the evaluation of this derogation was the Eunomia figure for SO2, this figure
is the highest cost of harm available and is used as a conservative screen.
Also reference to the IS BREF:
Typical operating and capital costs for the desulphurisation of 42000 Nm3/h coke oven gas containing 6 g/Nm3
H2S and 6 Nm3 NH3 of the two main types of coke oven gas desulphurisation techniques used in Europe (ASK
and Stretford) are given in Table 5.18. It was reported that an increase in desulphurisation efficiency from 95 to
99.9 % in the Stretford process only costs 10 % extra. In the Stretford process, the most important operating
costs items are the capital charges and the chemicals (see Table 5.18). Coke oven gas with high HCN
concentrations (>2 g/Nm3) consumes relatively large amounts of chemicals. In this case it might be beneficial to
install an HCN prewash before the Stretford unit.
Implementing the gas desulphurisation technique costs around EUR 30 million (capital cost) in a coke oven
plant with about a hundred ovens (ArcelorMittal).’
B55
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Did the CA perform any research or consultation for additional data sources? If so, please specify.
YES – see above
It is also investigated whether the derogation breaches any applicable limit in the Annexes to the Directive or
quality standards.
Coke ovens are combustion units but are specifically excluded from Chapter III the special provisions
for combustion plants and Annex V by virtue of Article 28.
The current emission levels will remain, there is currently no breach of EQS for SO2 and therefore
allowing the derogation will not result in a breach of EQS.
Have there been requests to the operator for clarifications or revisions of calculations? If so, please
specify.
There have been several interactions for clarifications.
How was disproportionality assessed? (calculations and thresholds)
NRW consulted legal opinion and came up with a benefit cost ratio of 0.75 (to be used for all derogation
requests, also communicated with operators).
Rationale:
-
In general, for values above 0.75 small variation in costs of project or harm could result in real
benefit
-
For values below 0.75 one could be fairly comfortable the actual ratio is less than 1 (taking into
account sensitivity analyses, other data etc.); Below 0.75: NRW is more comfortable that within
limits, disproportionate
-
Closer to 0: costs disproportionately higher
0.75 is used as screening threshold
Reason for communication screening threshold value: operator wants certainty and needs some indication.
From decision document:
NRW has assessed the costs and benefits of closing the coke oven at Port Talbot in March 2016 and rebuilding
it against the costs and benefits of a retrofitting scenario in 2018, utilising a derogation for the two year period.
The cost-benefit used Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) estimates on annual
bases supplied by Tata, cumulative interest on Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) and Green Book
(Government Guidance to the Treasury) compliant discounting factors with a base year of 2014.
Analysis limited solely to the 2016 to 2019 period would indicate that discounted costs under the closure /
rebuild scenario were around 8.5 times those associated with the retrofitting scenario. This broadly confirmed
Tata’s own Net Present Costs.
The difference between the two scenarios in discounted costs terms was then set against the potential
environmental benefits over the 2016 -2019 period.
As its central estimation NRW has taken the highest valuation of sulphur dioxide and has applied both a
regional adjustment factor and a price weighting to deal with inflation since the estimates were made. Taking
the highest valuation for a pollutant is considered a screening stage; if the cost benefit fails other internationally
agreed valuations can be used in order to properly asses the submission.
Discounted benefits are outweighed by discounted costs some nine-fold (Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.11). When
the calculation is reworked using the central DEFRA estimate of SO2 valuation, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) falls
further to 0.04 on account of the discounted aggregate benefits being lower. We have only looked at derogating
for a period of three years as Tata will be able to meet the new limit in 2019.
However, at some point the capital will have to be replaced. This would be done at a more usual point in Tata’s
investment cycle. Clearly, analysis limited solely to the 2016-2019 period takes no account of this.
Nevertheless the entire costs over a three year replacement 2024-2026 have been factored in on a discounted
basis. The expenditure figures used for this period are those supplied earlier as part of an initial package of
scenario information from Tata over and above the usual operation costs for that period which were deducted
from the supplied costs for the years. The early (2026) scenario has been taken rather than either 2031 or 2036
as discounted costs will weigh heavier under this scenario.
NRW has sensitivity tested this addition to the model by replacing the supplied costs with the full closure /
B56
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
rebuild costs shifted down the line and appropriately discounted. Under none of these scenarios does the 2016
closure option have a BCR of greater than 0.53 when the baseline option is the retrofitting alternative.
Therefore, unless further information to the contrary is supplied, it would appear that the closure / rebuild
scenario is an inefficient allocation of resources in terms of its returns in environmental benefits and that a
derogation to 2019 could be allowed.
How many iterations / contacts between operator and CA took place during the evaluation
Have additional factors (not submitted in the application) been taken into account in the evaluation? If
so, please specify.
No
Has the BREF process and in particular the development of the BAT conclusion in question been
considered in the evaluation? If so, please specify.
Not specifically. But as stated above, contacts were made between NRW and the operator in advance of the
publication of the BAT conclusions to understand which might be problematic.
Was the involvement of the company in the BREF process, if any, taken into account in the evaluation?
If so, please specify.
No
Were any aspects of the evaluation process not in line with the MS guidance, if any?
No
5. Derogation decision
Date of the decision
Not specified
Outcome of the decision: granted/rejected and specifics of the derogation (e.g. actual ELV imposed,
timeframe granted, other permit conditions)
Derogation up until March 2018
Decision in annex to permit (see BAT 48 and 49):
B57
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
How was the decision communicated to the operator?
Operators are notified via email in advance of the official decision document / annex to permit.
Has the decision been published online? See below, section 6
Where can the permit and application decision be accessed?
https://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/check-for-a-permit-licence-or-exemption/?lang=en
Will there be a follow-up evaluation, for example after the time frame of the derogation has expired? If
so, please specify. Derogation up till March 2018
6. Further information
Documents available (applications, evaluations, decisions)?
It is intended for the documents to be made available online. The website is currently being reorganised so
some documents may be available only upon request for the time being:
-
Permit with annex of derogation, permit number EPR/BL7108IM (incl NRW’s arguments of the
derogation evaluation); and
-
Derogation decision document
Available via: https://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/check-for-a-permit-licence-or-
exemption/?lang=en
January 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
C1
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465
Appendix C
Presentations at IEEG and Forum Meetings
IEEG Workshop on IED implementation (Article 15(4)) – 19 October 2017, Brussels46
IED Article 13 Forum meeting – 20 December 2017, Brussels47
Feedback from participants at IEEG and Forum meetings
46 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2faa5192-2ac0-4d92-a728-353f01bb3c61/5.%20Derogations%20AFW.pdf
47 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a9515429-6176-468c-840a-d251a62af8fb/AMEC%20Article%2015-
4%20derogations%20AMENDED.pdf
C2
© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2018
Doc Ref. 39465