IEF 22-4-1 BAT information exchange guidance document

IEF22-4-1 (final revised version September 2010) 1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JRC JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Seville) Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit European IPPC Bureau

IEF 22-4-1 September 2010

BAT information exchange guidance document

Purpose of this document

In accordance with Article 17(2) of the IPPC Directive1, the European Commission organises the information exchange on Best Available Techniques (BAT). In the last 10 years, a complete series of 33 BAT Reference Documents (BREFs)2 has been finalised. These documents have been adopted by the Commission and published on the European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) website. Since 2005, the revision of these BREFs has started in order to update them and include the most recent information on BAT.

The information exchange process has evolved substantially during the years as the work on the more recent BREFs took advantage of the lessons learnt during the elaboration of the earlier BREFs. Several guidance documents dealing with specific issues related to the BAT information exchange have been developed and were endorsed by the IEF, including:

(1) IPPC BREF outline and guide (last updated in December 2005);

(2) Generic schedule for the review of the BREFs (last updated in April 2009);

(3) Guidance document on improving the collection and submission of data for deriving useful BAT conclusions during the review of the BREFs (June 2008);

(4) Standard texts on some sections of the BREFs;

(5) A specific document related to the participation of "equipment suppliers" in the "Sevilla process" (March 2007).

These documents have been drafted at different time periods and therefore include some repetitions and inconsistencies. Therefore, DG ENV and the European IPPC Bureau, after having received input from the IEF, have streamlined the existing key guidance documents, in particular the ones mentioned above, into a single and coherent guidance document on the BAT information exchange. This aims to be a concrete and practical tool for those involved in the information exchange on BAT that responds to the issues raised during IEF meetings concerning the need to further improve the information exchange process and to provide for high quality BREFs. The standard texts on some sections of the BREFs have not been incorporated into this document.

This paper is meant to guide the BREF authors and members of the technical working groups (TWGs) in a harmonised manner across the whole series of BREFs.

1 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and

control (codified version), OJ L 24, 29.1.2008. Formerly, this was article 16(2) of Directive 96/61/EC). 2 including one reference document on "Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining Activities" which has been elaborated in the

framework of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, OJ L 102, 11.04.2006


This paper builds on the important work of Don Litten, previous Head of the European IPPC Bureau, who was pioneering in the development of the BREF process and sadly passed away on 18 September 2009.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. AIM AND GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR THE REVIEW OF A BAT REFERENCE DOCUMENT (BREF)................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1. Aim of a BREF and its review ................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Generic schedule for the BREF review...................................................................................... 5 1.3. Amendments of the draft final BREF by the IEF....................................................................... 8

2. BREF CONTENTS AND BOUNDARIES....................................................................................... 9 2.1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2. Preface ..................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3. Scope........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.4. General information about the sector concerned...................................................................... 11 2.5. Applied Processes and Techniques .......................................................................................... 11 2.6. Current Emission and Consumption Levels............................................................................. 11 2.7. Techniques to Consider in the Determination of BAT............................................................. 12 2.8. Best Available Techniques (BAT) (see section 3) .................................................................. 13 2.9. Emerging Techniques .............................................................................................................. 14 2.10. Concluding Remarks and recommendations for future work................................................... 14 2.11. References................................................................................................................................ 14 2.12. Glossary and abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 14 2.13. Annexes ................................................................................................................................... 14

3. USEFUL CONCLUSIONS ON BAT ............................................................................................. 16 3.1. Elements in a useful conclusion on BAT ................................................................................ 16 3.2. Split views................................................................................................................................ 17

4. ORGANISATION OF THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION............................................... 19 4.1. Role of the Information Exchange Forum (IEF) ...................................................................... 19 4.2. Technical Working Group (TWG)........................................................................................... 19

4.2.1. Establishment of TWGs................................................................................................. 19 4.2.2. TWG tasks ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.3. TWG subgroups............................................................................................................. 20 4.2.4. Involvement of equipment suppliers.............................................................................. 20 4.2.5. Security of personal data................................................................................................ 21

4.3. Role of the European IPPC Bureau and of BREF authors ....................................................... 21 4.4. TWG meetings ......................................................................................................................... 22 4.5. BREF working documents and drafts ...................................................................................... 22 4.6. Information exchange tools...................................................................................................... 23

4.6.1. BAT information system (BATIS) ................................................................................ 23 4.6.2. EIPPCB website............................................................................................................. 23

5. DATA SUBMISSION AND COLLECTION ................................................................................ 24 5.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 24 5.2. Main gaps in the data provided to the European IPPC Bureau ................................................ 24 5.3. General principles for the type, format and quality of data to be collected and reported for BREF

review processes ...................................................................................................................... 25 5.4. Confidentiality issues............................................................................................................... 26 5.5. Type of information needed to fill the chapter(s) on 'techniques to consider for the determination of

BAT' and to derive useful conclusions on BAT...................................................................... 28 5.6. Installation-specific operational data needed to draw useful conclusions on BAT................. 30

5.6.1. Water use and emissions to water .................................................................................. 30 5.6.2. Air emissions ................................................................................................................. 30 5.6.3. Residues/waste............................................................................................................... 31 5.6.4. Energy............................................................................................................................ 31 5.6.5. Other information .......................................................................................................... 31 5.6.6. Reference information ................................................................................................... 32

5.7. Specific issues under the remit of each Technical Working Group ......................................... 33 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ 35

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................ 36


1. AIM AND GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR THE REVIEW OF A BAT REFERENCE DOCUMENT (BREF)

1.1. Aim of a BREF and its review

A BREF is the product of an exchange of information on BAT as referred to in article 17(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC (IPPC Directive).

Recital 27 of the Directive makes clear that the development and exchange of information at the Union level about best available techniques should help to redress the technological imbalances in the Union, should promote the worldwide dissemination of limit values and techniques used in the Union and should help the Member States in the efficient implementation of the IPPC Directive. Above all the aim of a BREF should be to offer information to the competent authorities of Member States, industrial operators, the Commission and the public at large to guide the determination of BAT-based permit conditions or general binding rules by providing information relevant to the permitting of installations according to the IPPC Directive . A BREF should serve as a driver towards improved environmental performance across the European Union.

The European Commission organises and coordinates the information exchange through the involvement of the European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) (DG Joint Research Centre) and DG Environment. The stakeholders involved (Member States, industry and environmental NGOs) and other services of the Commission as appropriate, oversee the process through the Information Exchange Forum (IEF). They contribute to each of the BREFs by participating in the Technical Working Groups (TWGs).

More information on the role of the stakeholders and the functioning of the IEF and the TWG, is given in Section 4.

After finalizing the first round of BREFs, the focus of the information exchange has shifted to a review of these BREFs. The review of BREFs is a continuing process which is a consequence of the dynamic concept of best available techniques.

New measures and techniques may emerge, science and technologies are continuously developing, or new or emerging environmental processes are being successfully introduced into the industry. Since the elements of BAT change over time and industry develops, BREFs have to be reviewed and updated accordingly.

The decision to start reviewing a BREF is taken by the Commission based on the recommendation of the IEF on the work programme regarding BREF reviews. This decision should take into account information in the emerging techniques and concluding remarks chapters of the BREF and factors such as the time that has elapsed since the BREF was initially published or reviewed, the indication that new techniques might be available, the need to expand the scope of the BREF, and the need to include products/substances or processes not covered in the BREF.

The objective of the review of a BREF is not to rewrite the whole BREF, but to review new information (for instance regarding techniques or new processes to be covered in the BREF) which can have an impact or can improve the BAT conclusions. For this purpose, it is very important that data be collected on the basis of the guidance in Section 5 of this document.


Clearly, the most relevant new information is that which might lead to revised conclusions on BAT. Additionally, there is the issue of complementing older information with new information regarding the enlarged EU. The review should also enable the correction of errors and possible incoherence with other BREFs.

1.2. Generic schedule for the BREF review

The generic schedule for the review of a BREF shown in Table 1 is a reference point for the different Technical Working Groups, which could adapt it to the specificities of the particular BREFs, taking also into account the experience gained from the review process of other BREFs.

The timescales noted in Table 1 should be taken as representative of a typical review for the vertical BREFs. The exact time of each project will depend on the number of topics that need to be reviewed and on the complexity of each topic addressed.

It is expected that in principle two TWG meetings will be held (kick-off meeting and the final meeting). However, in cases where very much new information has been provided or when the assessment of BAT is particularly controversial, the EIPPCB may decide, in exceptional cases, to organise an additional meeting.

In order to make the most efficient use of resources during a review, there needs to be a clear cut-off point for submission of new information after which date the TWG only works with the information submitted by this deadline. Late information can exceptionally be taken into account by the EIPPCB when it contributes substantially to deriving useful conclusions on BAT .

The EIPPCB will provide a consolidated version of the revised BREF. This will highlight the new information and changes carried out in comparison with the former BREF. This will help the user of the documents to identify what has been changed. In specific cases and with agreement of the TWG, an addendum, which will only include the changes made to the BREFs, may also be produced.

Step No.

BREF review step

Expected step time (months)

Accumulated time (months) Comments

0Preparation for the review

After finalising a BREF, the European IPPC Bureau produces a document to enable the communication between members of the TWG through BATIS (see Section 4.6.1), in particular as regards follow-up actions to the recommendations for future work made in the BREF and in view of the future review of the BREF. BATIS should serve as a forum for discussion and exchange of information in support of the review process.

1 TWG activation 1 1 The European IPPC Bureau reactivates the TWG calling

for confirmation of membership and contact details.


Step No.

BREF review step



2 Wish list 1 – 2 2 – 3

The request for establishing a wish list is made to the TWG, based in particular on the issues identified in the concluding remarks chapter of the preceding BREF version. At the same time, the tools for the information exchange (such as internet workspace) can be restructured in preparation for the wish list and the submission of information.

TWG members are then given time to develop and submit their wish lists and promises of information they would like to see brought into the review process.

3 Kick-off meeting 3 5 – 6

The European IPPC Bureau then structures and establishes the wish list of information and, if necessary, develops standard templates for each issue on the wish list, for the TWG to provide information in a structured, efficient and directly usable way.

The European IPPC Bureau calls a meeting of the TWG in order to discuss the wish list, to agree on the scope of the review and to clarify the process before starting an extended period of information gathering before a stated deadline. The kick-off meeting will agree on the data to be collected and its format based on the guidance document on data collection.

4New information (deadline)

6 11 – 12

The TWG collects, collates and submits information promised or identified in the conclusions of the kick-off meeting.

During this period, the author can participate to site visits, which might be agreed at or after the kick-off meeting. The author uploads into BATIS the information and the data collected during site visits. The same applies for the outcome of meetings with parts of the TWG and/or persons/organisations who are not members of the TWG.

The information submitted by members of the TWG and collected by the author is shared with the TWG members in "real time" via BATIS. The TWG members can comment on the submitted information.

5 Elaboration of first draft 4 -6 15 – 18

The European IPPC Bureau produces a first draft of the revised Chapters 1-4 and 6 (see also Section 2 of this document).

If the information submitted in the consultation period provides the background needed to achieve a high consensus on Chapter 4, then Chapter 5 may be included in the first draft. In this case only one draft may be elaborated before the final TWG meeting.

6 TWG comments 2 17 – 20

The draft of the revised BREF is issued for formal consultation for TWG comments to be received within two months. When consultation is foreseen over the summer or Christmas holidays then the period of consultation may be extended.


Step No.

BREF review step



7Elaboration of the second draft

0-4 17 – 24

The European IPPC Bureau then takes into account the comments and the submitted information and produces a second draft containing Chapter 5 with the BAT conclusions and the latest version of Chapters 3 and 4.

8 TWG comments 0-2 17 – 26

The second draft is issued for formal consultation for TWG comments to be received within two months. When consultation is foreseen over the summer or Christmas holidays then the period of consultation may be extended.

9 Final meeting 3 20 – 29

The European IPPC Bureau analyses the comments and prepares for a final TWG meeting. The Bureau elaborates a background document including at least an assessment of the comments received, and at least the latest version of Chapters 3, 4 and 5.

This final TWG meeting seeks consensus for a final draft.

10 Final draft 3 23 – 32 The final draft is produced and it is made available to the IEF at least eight weeks before the IEF meeting.

11 Presentation at an IEF meeting

The final draft and the assessment of the final comments received are presented to the IEF.

Table 1. Generic schedule for the review of a BREF


1.3. Amendments of the draft final BREF by the IEF

In order to be taken into account during the IEF meeting discussing the draft final version of a BREF, proposals for changes in the text of the draft final BREF must be submitted in writing. Members of the IEF are asked to send all proposals to the EIPPCB and DG Environment in advance of the IEF meeting. For illustrative purposes, the following non-exhaustive list of possible proposals and the likely response of the Commission is provided.

The TWG must be considered as the competent group to debate technical issues and either reach consensus or express split views on issues. Therefore proposals from the IEF will generally be rejected if they meet any of the following criteria:

• The issue is technical and was discussed in the TWG where consensus was reached.

• The issue is technical and information was submitted at a late stage in the work so the TWG have not had a proper opportunity to validate or comment upon its inclusion.

• The issue is technical and despite discussion in the TWG no consensus was reached and the split views of the TWG are reported correctly in the final draft.

• The proposal is a compromise solution to avoid a split view on a technical issue.

These criteria will often apply to discussions over numbers, averaging periods or inclusion/exclusion of a technique as BAT in the final draft.

Proposals from the IEF will generally be accepted subject to advice from the EIPPCB, if they meet any of the following criteria:

• The issue was raised in the TWG and the dissenting view of the TWG member concerned is not accurately reflected in the final draft text.

• The IEF member proposes to remove or modify an opposing view expressed by their own TWG representative on the basis that the TWG member has not followed the principles of the BAT information exchange agreed by the IEF.

• The proposal clarifies text, which is unclear due to clumsy English language used in the final draft.

• The proposed text more accurately reflects the conclusion reached by the TWG.

• The proposal corrects a typographic error in the final draft.

• The proposal adds important issues, which are already within the body of the BREF, to the executive summary or conclusions and recommendations sections.


2. BREF CONTENTS AND BOUNDARIES

A BREF should contain a number of elements leading up to the conclusions of what are considered to be "best available techniques" (BAT) in a general sense at the EU level for the sector concerned. The definition of BAT ("available") requires that the technique be developed on a scale that allows implementation in the sector. The definition of 'techniques' includes both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned. The evidence to support a technique as BAT can come from one or more installations applying the technique somewhere in the world.

A BREF does not interpret the IPPC Directive , nor does it remove the obligations on operators and Member States under the Directive to make the necessary decisions at the national, regional or local level. BREFs do not prescribe techniques or emission limit values.

A BREF should remain a fundamentally technical document and where a TWG identifies issues outside the scope of the BREF or of the IPPC Directive they should not be included in the BREF (but could be raised at the IEF level). Similarly, political opinions and views should not be introduced into a BREF. If it serves a specific purpose of assisting the reader to seek further information on an issue, companies (i.e. installations or suppliers), trade names, contributors or TWG members should be named in a BREF.

A BREF should generally contain the following parts:

Executive Summary

Preface

Scope

Chapter 1: General Information about the sector concerned

Chapter 2: Applied Processes and Techniques

Chapter 3: Current Emission and Consumption Levels

Chapter 4: Techniques to Consider in the Determination of BAT

Chapter 5: Best Available Techniques (BAT)

Chapter 6: Emerging Techniques

Concluding remarks and recommendations for future work

References

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

Annexes (dependent upon relevance to the sector and availability of information)

All BREFs should follow the general principles set out in this section, but the order of chapters given here is illustrative and any BREF may be structured differently in detail where that is more appropriate to the subject of the BREF. Documents dealing with horizontal issues (also called 'horizontal' BREFs as opposed to 'vertical' BREFs which deal with concrete industrial activities) may depart substantially from this outline and some chapters may not be relevant at all. For horizontal subjects, the TWG, and therefore the reference document, should try to conclude on BAT as far as relevant and possible. Due to the fact that the Executive Summary is a comprehensive 'standalone' document which can give a good view of


the sector special attention should be given to the elaboration of a good summary containing precise information on BAT.

Horizontal and vertical BREFs

Horizontal and vertical BREFs are developed so as to be complementary in offering information to guide the determination of BAT-based permit conditions or general binding rules. Vertical BREFs may include specific information on techniques which can be useful in this respect beyond the sector for which they particularly apply. In a similar way, the horizontal BREFs dealing with issues regarding monitoring, economics and cross-media effects, industrial cooling systems, emissions from storage, common waste water and waste gas treatment/management systems in the chemical sector and energy efficiency include information of a generic nature that can assist the implementation of BAT across all vertical sectors. In order to facilitate the use of both vertical and horizontal BREFs in such a complementary way, appropriate cross-references need to be made in a BREF concerning its interaction with other relevant vertical and horizontal BREFs.

2.1. Executive Summary

The main findings from all chapters of the document will be presented, without background information but with references to details within the body of the BREF, in such a way that the summary can be read and understood as a “standalone” document. It should include the conclusions on BAT, the emission and consumption levels associated with the use of BAT and should describe any split views of the TWG in respect of those conclusions. Emission and consumption levels should be qualified with reference conditions and averaging periods. As a standalone document, however, the Executive Summary should not attempt to replace the main text within the BREF or to encourage decision-making on BAT in specific cases without reference to the full text.

2.2. Preface

This standard section (for vertical BREFs) will describe the structure of the document, the legislative context, the way in which the document was generated (e.g. how information was collected and assessed) and how it can be used. The text will be tailored to reflect the individual structure of each BREF.

2.3. Scope

This section will describe which activities within the industrial sector are covered by the document. This will include at least a reference to the activity descriptions listed in Annex I of the Directive. Where relevant, further details on the processes and subprocesses covered will be included. This section will also indicate processes which are intentionally excluded from the BREF, while providing the reasons for such exclusion. It will also mention the main "directly associated" activities covered by the document, even when those are not Annex I activities themselves.

The scope of a BREF may be either broader or narrower than the scope of the corresponding Annex I activity under the IPPC Directive and therefore needs to be clearly defined in the


document. The definition of the scope of a vertical BREF does not constitute a legal interpretation of the activity descriptions in Annex I of the IPPC Directive.

For the "horizontal" BREFs, the issues covered will be described, while indicating their applicability in relation to the activities mentioned in Annex I of the IPPC Directive.

2.4. General information about the sector concerned

This brief introductory chapter will provide recent general information about the industry sector addressed by the BREF in terms of numbers of installations, size, geographical distribution, production capacity and economics. It will describe the structure and nature of the sector and will give an indication of the key environmental issues for the sector with some sector-relevant emission and consumption data as background information.

2.5. Applied Processes and Techniques

This chapter will briefly describe the production processes and techniques currently applied in the industrial sector covered by the BREF. The activities covered will include the activities described in the Directive and directly associated activities while noting the relevance of other BREFs to certain aspects of some associated activities. There will be descriptions of process variants, developing trends and alternative processes. The description may be aided by diagrams or flowsheets and will reflect the sequential steps in a typical manufacturing unit. Some or all of the following issues will be included:

- raw materials (including secondary/recycled) and consumables used, including water and energy;

- auxiliary chemicals/materials used; - raw material preparation (including storage and handling); - material processing; - product manufacture; - product finishing; - intermediate and final product storage and handling; - handling of by-products and residues.

The actual or possible relationships between various activities within the BREF and between BREFs should be described, giving a first indication of issues affecting overall environmental performance (for example where wastes from one activity could act as feedstock to another).

2.6. Current Emission and Consumption Levels

This chapter will report on the range of currently observed emission and consumption levels for the overall process and its subprocesses along with an indication of the techniques used if this information is available. Information will include currently observed usage of energy, water and raw materials as well as an indication of issues such as noise or odour. As far as available, data will include emissions to air and water and the generation of solid residues arising from the activities as well as inputs to and outputs from subprocesses, thus highlighting the more environmentally significant subprocesses and addressing options for recycling and reuse of output streams within the whole process. The information and data in this chapter provide the basis for assessing existing cross-media impacts and interdependencies (see Section 2.7).


Linkages between inputs and outputs will be highlighted, in particular where this is relevant to enhance understanding of different environmental impacts and their interaction, for example where different parameters are dealt with together or where some trade-off has been made such that certain levels cannot be achieved at the same time.

Performance data will be qualified as far as possible with details on operating conditions (e.g. percentage of full capacity, inclusion or exclusion of other-than-normal operation periods, reference conditions), sampling and analytical methods, and statistical presentation (e.g. averages, maxima, ranges).

2.7. Techniques to Consider in the Determination of BAT

This chapter will provide a catalogue of techniques allowing to prevent or to minimise emissions and other environmentally beneficial techniques (e.g. to minimise the use of raw materials, water and energy or to prevent waste production) that are considered to be most relevant in the determination of BAT (both generally and in specific cases). This pool of possible techniques will include both process integrated and “end-of-pipe” techniques, thus covering pollution prevention and pollution control measures. Good operating practices will be addressed and consideration given to inspection routines, maintenance systems, process control methods and contingency provisions. Techniques that are generally seen as obsolete will not be included. Techniques which are emerging in practice within the sector and are established techniques in other sectors will be included where relevant.

This chapter will aim to include as much information as may be needed in order to assess the applicability of a certain technique in general or specific cases and to assess whether or not it may qualify as BAT for the sector concerned. Each technique will be discussed without prejudging whether it meets all the BAT criteria (cf. Article 2(12) and Annex IV of the IPPC Directive).

Techniques presented may apply to the improvement of existing installations, or to new installations or a combination of both. The range of techniques presented will aim to span various cost/benefit situations including both lower and higher cost techniques.

Information on each technique should preferably include the elements shown in Table 2 below (see also Section 5.5):

Type of information included

Description Brief technical description using, as appropriate, pictures, diagrams and flow sheets;

Achieved environmental benefits

Main potential environmental benefits to be gained through implementing the technique (including the consumption of energy, reduced emissions to water, air and land, raw material savings, as well as production yield increases, reduced waste , etc.)

Cross-media effects Potential environmental side effects and disadvantages due to implementing the technique, including details of the environmental effects of the technique in comparison with others (advantages and disadvantages supported by data if available) in order to assess the impact of the technique on the environment as a whole. This may include issues such as:

• consumption of raw materials and water • energy consumption and contribution to climate change • stratospheric ozone depletion potential • photochemical ozone creation potential


• acidification resulting from emissions to air • particulate matter in ambient air (including microparticles and metals) • eutrophication of land and waters resulting from emissions to air or water • oxygen depletion potential in water • persistent/toxic/bioaccumulable components in water or to land (including

metals) • creation or reduction of (waste) residues • ability to reuse or recycle (waste) residues • noise and/or odour • risk of accidents.

Operational data Actual performance data (including reference conditions, monitoring periods and monitoring methods) on emission levels, consumption levels (raw materials, water, energy) and amounts of waste generated. Any other useful information on how to operate, maintain and control the technique;

Applicability Indication of the type of plants or processes in which the technique may or cannot be applied as well as constraints to implementation in certain cases, considering, e.g. plant age (new or existing), factors involved in retrofitting (e.g. space availability), plant size (large or small), techniques already installed and type or quality of product

Economics Information on costs (investment and operating) and any possible savings (e.g. reduced raw material or energy consumption, waste charges) or revenues including details on how these have been calculated/estimated. Economic information relevant to new build and retrofit to existing installations will be included. This should allow identifying, where possible, the overall economic impact of the technique.

Driving force for implementation

Specific local conditions, requirements (e.g. legislation, safety measures) or non-environmental triggers (e.g. increased yield, improved product quality) which have driven or stimulated the implementation of the technique to date.

Example plants Reference to (a) plant(s) where the technique has been implemented and from which information has been collected and used in writing the section. Indication of the degree to which the technique is in use in Europe or worldwide

Reference literature Literature or other reference material (e.g. books, reports, studies, websites) that was used in writing the section and that contains more detailed information on the technique

Table 2. Information to be provided for techniques.

The general principles for gathering data including the abovementioned information are set out in section 5.

2.8. Best Available Techniques (BAT) (see section 3)

This chapter, with a standard explanatory introduction, will conclude on what are considered to be BAT in a general sense at the EU level for the sector based upon the information in the previous chapters, but taking account of the Article 2(12) definition of 'best available techniques' and the considerations listed in Annex IV to the Directive. Here the overarching criteria of the costs of techniques and their environmental performance, including cross-media implications, are considered in relation to the industry sector. This chapter will not set emission limit values but will suggest emission and/or consumption levels that are associated with the use of BAT and it will explain the basis for the conclusions. When the best of the achieved levels as described in the previous chapter are excluded, the reason for this should be explained. Reference conditions and averaging periods will be included so that these conclusions on BAT in a general sense could act as an input to the determination of BAT in specific cases.


More information on what are useful conclusions on BAT is given in Section 3.

The general principles for gathering data in order to obtain useful conclusions on BAT are set out in Section 5.

2.9. Emerging Techniques

This chapter will identify any novel pollution prevention and control techniques that are reported to be under development and may provide future cost or environmental benefits. Information will include the potential efficiency of the technique, a preliminary cost estimate, and an indication of the timescale before the techniques might be commercially “available“. This section can also include techniques to address environmental issues that have only recently gained interest in relation to the sector at hand. Established techniques in other sectors that are emerging in practice within the sector and which are not considered to be BAT will be included in this chapter.

2.10. Concluding Remarks and recommendations for future work

This section will conclude on the information exchange exercise for the particular BREF. The timing of the process will be indicated by mentioning the start date and duration of the information exchange exercise as well as the key milestones (e.g. TWG meetings). Mention will be made of the institutions and organisations represented in the TWG which have actively contributed to the process and of the various sources of information on which the BREF was based highlighting any particularly noteworthy reports or submissions which contribute to the confidence in the results. The degree of consensus reached amongst parties in the information exchange will be reported without making reference to any specific Member State expressing a dissenting view. Any gap or weakness in knowledge will be identified. Recommendations will be included for further research or information gathering and for the timescale for revising the reference document, in light of ongoing technical and/or economic developments.

2.11. References

This section will list the sources of information used by the author in drafting the document and in particular the documents provided by the TWG members to the information exchange. These documents shall also be made available through BATIS.

2.12. Glossary and abbreviations

This section will summarize and define the specific technical terms and all acronyms used in the document.

2.13. Annexes

Dependent upon the relevance to the sector and the availability of information, the main document may be supplemented by annexes containing supporting information taken from literature and/or case studies.

Summaries of legislation shall not be included in the BREF.


Where summaries of national or other legislation are submitted by the TWG, they will be incorporated into a separate document and made available as additional information from the website of the EIPPCB.


3. USEFUL CONCLUSIONS ON BAT

3.1. Elements in a useful conclusion on BAT

Useful conclusions on BAT are meant to assist Member States' national authorities in the determination of ‘BAT-based’ emission limit values and other permit conditions or in the establishment of general binding rules under Article 9(8) of Directive 2008/1/EC. They are also meant to be useful for operators in making clear what is considered BAT and what environmental performances they can achieve.

A useful conclusion on BAT will contain in particular an indication of the performance associated with BAT (usually a numerical range, e.g. 10 – 50 mg C/Nm3) but noting that in some instances a numerical range cannot be easily indicated – e.g. for BAT related to minimising risk or to Environmental Management System (EMS). The performance range associated with BAT is often referred to in BREFs or TWG meetings as an Associated Emission Level (AEL) but it can obviously also refer to a consumption level (e.g. consumption of energy, water, raw material). If a performance figure is provided, the units, the reference conditions (e.g. flue-gas oxygen level) – if applicable – and the averaging period (e.g. daily/weekly/monthly/yearly average) should be provided too.

Useful conclusions on BAT should also indicate, in particular, technique(s) to satisfy the environmental objective(s)/benefit(s) referred to in the BAT chapter and to meet the associated performance. Conclusions on BAT should be as clear as possible in stating that either certain or sequences or combinations of techniques are necessary to achieve the BAT AEL or that example techniques are given which support the BAT AEL.

Useful conclusions on BAT are also those which indicate when certain techniques are not BAT due to factors such as economics, cross-media conflicts, and operational reliability.

An example of a 'useful' conclusion on BAT is provided in Figure 1.

When defining a performance range associated with BAT, the rationale for the lower-end and the upper-end of the range should be found in the BREF document (generally in Chapter 'Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT'). A range reflects the fact that there are differences within the sector (e.g. use of different fuels or raw materials) that result in variations in the environmental performances achieved when applying BAT.

When defining the range, it is necessary to use the best environmental performance4 provided in the information exchange, unless this best environmental performance is not accepted/agreed as part of the BAT AEL range by the TWG and there is an explanation in the BREF of why it has been rejected (see Section 1.3).

With regard to pollutant emissions ranges (to air, water, or land) and waste production, they may be expressed in more than one way, e.g.

• mass of pollutant/waste released per volume (concentration value, e.g. in mg/Nm3 or mg/l)

• mass of pollutant/waste released per unit of time5 (e.g. in kg/yr)

4 The installation achieving the best performance for a given environmental impact indicator may not be able to be the best performing for

other indicators 5 Ranges expressed in this way are not sufficient to enable meaningful comparisons between installations with different production levels


• mass of pollutant/waste released per mass of product manufactured (specific value, e.g. in kg/t)

• mass of pollutant/waste released per mass of raw material (e.g. in kg/t).

With regard to consumption ranges (e.g. of raw material, energy, water), they may be expressed in more than one way, e.g.

• consumption per mass of product manufactured (specific value, e.g. in kg/t, MJ/t)

• consumption per unit of time5 (e.g. m3/yr).

It is preferable to use a true range rather than an expression of the type <X, because this gives less information.

The performance associated with BAT should take into account possible constraints for the data collection, particularly technical issues (e.g. monitoring methods, accuracy of measurements).

Figure 1: Elements in a useful conclusion on BAT

3.2. Split views

BAT and emission or consumption levels associated with BAT will generally be proposed by the EIPPCB on the basis of information available at the time of drafting. Such information may include any specific proposals for BAT or associated levels received from the TWG.

TWG members are expected to provide sound technical, cross-media and economic arguments as relevant to their case when they do not agree with the BAT proposals. Such


arguments should be submitted initially as comments to the draft BREF within the consultation period set. If the TWG finally reaches no consensus on this issue, the dissenting views and their rationale will be reported in the BREF only if the following conditions are observed:

• The dissenting view is based on information already made available to the EIPPCB at the time of drafting the conclusions on BAT for the BREF or has been provided within the commenting period corresponding to such draft;

• A valid rationale supporting the split view is provided by the TWG member(s) concerned. A rationale is considered valid if it is supported by technical, cross-media and economic data and information relevant to the definition of BAT;

The Member States (MS), environmental NGOs or industry associations that bring or support the split view will not be named in the document. Nevertheless, the degree to which the split view is supported among TWG members will be indicated using statements such as: one MS, two MS, few MS, some MS and (part of) industry.


4. ORGANISATION OF THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

4.1. Role of the Information Exchange Forum (IEF)

The IEF is the forum to discuss general and horizontal issues relating to the information exchange and the finalisation of each BREF. Through the IEF, stakeholders can express their opinions on the information exchange process. Specifically, this includes recommending to DG Environment the rolling BREF work programme and keeping it under review, discussing the scope of upcoming BREFs and indicating to the Commission the degree of support for final draft BREFs. IEF members are also responsible for the nomination of their representatives to TWGs and to keep in contact with these throughout the drafting process. The main task of the IEF is to evaluate the outcome of the BAT information exchange with the aim of reaching consensus on the content and format of the BREFs. Final responsibility for the formal adoption and publication of BREFs rests with the Commission.

4.2. Technical Working Group (TWG)

4.2.1. Establishment of TWGs

For the drawing up or review of each BREF document, a TWG is set up. The IEF may, if deemed necessary, direct the TWG's attention to specific aspects that should be addressed during the review of a BREF.Each TWG consists of technical experts representing Member States, industry and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The experts for each TWG are nominated by the representatives in the IEF and the TWG experts report back to the IEF once the BREF is presented to the IEF for approval.

Member State focal points and IEF members representing environmental NGOs can nominate experts to the TWGs directly by sending their names and contact details to the European IPPC Bureau.

Industrial NGOs, representing the industry sectors concerned and equipment suppliers, have to nominate their TWG members by sending their names and contact details via BUSINESSEUROPE even where those industrial NGOs are not members of BUSINESSEUROPE.

4.2.2. TWG tasks

The TWG has the mandate from the IEF to draw up or review a BREF document recording the outcome of the exchange of information for a given sector.

The TWG is the main source of information for the elaboration and review of a BREF.

It is essential that the TWG members provide and exchange information in order to fill the gaps identified in the first round of the BREF elaboration (see Section 5).

The main tasks of a TWG member are:

• to identify and list new/updated key data and issues in the sector, which need to be considered during the elaboration/review of a BREF;

• to actively collect technical and economic information important for the elaboration/review of a BREF, including in particular new/updated emission and


consumption levels data from installations covered by the BREF (e.g. collect information from installations from the Member State that she/he is representing) (see Section 5 on data collection) according to the approach agreed by the TWG in line with the principles set out in Section 5

• to provide all relevant information to other TWG members and to the EIPPCB via BATIS

• to comment on draft BREFs and documents prepared by the EIPPCB

• to attend the TWG meetings and actively participate in these TWG meetings

• to share their experiences with the EIPPCB and other TWG members (e.g. during site visits in agreement with the operator)

• to identify and establish contacts/networks with non-TWG members (e.g. shadow groups of experts, permit writers, operator or group of operators, national groups) to gain more experience to be shared with the TWG and the EIPPCB.

TWG members are responsible for uploading all the information they have collected and submitted for the BREF elaboration or review process onto BATIS (with the possible exception of confidential or sensitive data, see Section 5). Exceptionally data may be submitted through other electronic means e.g. via e-mail.

Most of the work for TWG members can be expected to take place outside of the plenary meetings in submitting information and reviewing draft proposals. In particular, the successful development of a BREF requires the TWG to respond in detail to substantial draft documents within a limited time period. Whilst consensus of the TWG is sought throughout the work, it is not a prerequisite and it is the task of the EIPPCB to reflect the available information in the draft BREF.

4.2.3. TWG subgroups

To address specific issues within the scope of the work, the TWG may decide to establish subgroups in order to undertake specific tasks such as to collect, analyse, structure, discuss information and data, discuss comments to draft texts proposed, or to prepare and develop templates or documents. The functioning of such subgroups is managed in a transparent way by the EIPPCB enabling all TWG members to have access to the groups and allowing them to follow and understand the subgroup's activities and its outcome (e.g. meeting agendas and minutes and reports are uploaded onto BATIS as soon as possible).

Discussions and work in the subgroups will not replace the plenary TWG meetings where decisions are made involving the whole TWG.

4.2.4. Involvement of equipment suppliers

The term 'equipment suppliers' should be understood in a rather broad sense in order to extend the knowledge boundaries of the information exchange. The main criterion for their involvement in the information exchange process is that the 'equipment suppliers' should have the relevant technical and economic knowledge/information that could be profitable to the information exchange on BAT and associated monitoring. This will, in principle, exclude the mere commercial intermediaries (wholesalers) that sell equipment or services to the operators/owners of the installations for a profit, without necessarily having sufficient technical understanding of the 'equipment' function and knowledge of its operational performance.


The technical and economic knowledge/information held by the 'equipment suppliers', may apply to a broad range of activities such as the conception, design, licensing, manufacture/construction, supply, operation, maintenance, monitoring and decommissioning of an IPPC installation or part of such an installation (e.g. process, system, component).

'Equipment suppliers' which can provide valuable technical and economic data and information for the development of BREFsshould be invited to actively participate in the ' BAT information exchange process' either directly as TWG members, or indirectly as experts providing information to the EIPPCB or to TWG members.

A representative of an 'equipment supplier' company nominated to a TWG should de facto act as a representative of 'equipment suppliers' in general or of a particular subsector (not solely as a representative of the company which employs him/her) in order to ensure the appropriate level of representativeness within the sector.

It is therefore recommended to involve representatives of associations of equipment suppliers, whenever possible through which individual companies could provide information.

4.2.5. Security of personal data

The personal data of TWG members, which consists of the addressee’s name and contact details, will be collected by the EIPPCB from their appointment as a TWG member with the exclusive purpose of allowing the EIPPCB to manage TWG member’s participation in the elaboration/review of a BREF and to allow TWG members to access the contents management tools for the editing and reviewing of BREFs and other documents. Additionally, and in order to facilitate the work of the TWG, the IPTS publishes TWG contact details on its website: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu.

The European Commission is committed to user privacy. The policy on ‘protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union's institutions’ is based on Regulation (EC) N° 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000.

The European Commission, as the institution responsible for the treatment of the personal data mentioned above, will retain the data. At any time, TWG members may exercise their right to access and modify them by contacting the EIPPCB Secretariat:

email: [email protected]: +34 954 488 284 Fax: +34 954 488 426

4.3. Role of the European IPPC Bureau and of BREF authors

The role of the EIPPCB is to coordinate the exchange of information stipulated in the IPPC Directive and to ensure that information is collected and processed according to the guidance in this document in order to draw up the BREFs. For each BREF under elaboration or review, a BREF author is designated to lead the work of the technical working group (TWG) established for the purpose. The BREF author is a member of the staff of the EIPPCB. The EIPPCB steers the work on determining BAT as defined in the IPPC Directive guided by the principles of technical expertise, transparency and neutrality.

The work of the EIPPCB entails the independent verification and analysis of such information to derive conclusions on BAT.

mailto:[email protected]


If the TWG members provide incomplete or insufficient information, the BREF author informs the TWG and the IEF of this and asks for completion. Additionally, the BREF author tries to close the information gaps by asking other relevant persons/institutions (e.g. competent authorities, equipment suppliers, representatives of industrial plants who are not directly represented in the TWG) for missing or incomplete data (e.g. during site visits).

BREF authors are expected to have a very good understanding of process engineering; environmental issues; industry regulations; environmental permitting processes; environmental policy in the EU and particular knowledge and understanding of the relevant industrial sector.

The key competencies needed are technical knowledge, organisational skills, communication skills, drafting skills, neutrality, integrity and an ability to work and write technical documents in the English language.

4.4. TWG meetings

Plenary TWG meetings (e.g. kick-off meetings and final meetings) are held within the premises of the IPTS in Seville, Spain. English is the working language used in these meetings. These TWG meetings are chaired by the EIPPCB. They are supported by a background document prepared by the EIPPCB laying down the issues proposed for discussions and sent in advance of the meeting to all TWG members (see Section 1.2 on "generic schedule").

Depending on the issue, the EIPPCB may organise additional ad-hoc meetings with an individual or a group of TWG members to discuss or explain individual issues or comments made by TWG members with the aim of enhancing a successful outcome of the information exchange process (see also Section 4.2.3 on TWG subgroups).

Furthermore, phone conferences or video conferences may be organised by the EIPPCB if there is the need to discuss certain issues regarding the review of the BREF.

Brief meeting minutes and notes of conferences will be prepared by the EIPPCB and will be uploaded onto BATIS.

4.5. BREF working documents and drafts

In addition to the official drafts of a new or revised BREF, as foreseen by the generic schedule in Section 1.2, and in order to increase the transparency of ongoing work during the elaboration/revision of a BREF, the EIPPCB may decide to send out a draft version of the BREF or parts of the BREF as a working document for information and consultation of the TWG where members may choose to volunteer comments.

However, the EIPPCB shall make clear to the TWG for which issues their comments are required while making clear that it is an informal consultation which does not replace the formal consultation process. This consultation can for instance be used to highlight possible data gaps and trigger the further collection of information.

For the BAT chapters, this approach shall not be used and only the proposed structure (table of contents) may be circulated prior to issuing the official draft. The consultation on the BAT chapters shall be part of the draft BREFs foreseen as part of the "generic schedule" (see section 1.2).


4.6. Information exchange tools

4.6.1. BAT information system (BATIS)

BATIS is a web-based software application set up to facilitate the exchange of information on BAT as well as the internal process carried out within the EIPPCB in order to produce or review BREFs. In addition to EIPPCB staff, only nominated IEF and TWG members have access to BATIS.

The key objective of the system is to support the EIPPCB to organise and manage BREF-related information, and produce high quality BREFs.

The information management system should be considered a tool for the elaboration of BREFs, for the collecting, publishing and sharing of initial information and data, and for drafting, approving and publishing the BREF drafts.

BATIS helps to maintain transparency in the BREF elaboration process. To this end, all information collected in the framework of the elaboration or review of a BREF is available on BATIS, except for confidential or sensitive information. BREF authors are responsible for the overall management of information within BATIS. In particular, BREF authors are responsible for making available on BATIS information regarding TWG meetings and subgroup meetings (e.g. background papers, meeting minutes, meeting slides) as well as TWG comments received on draft BREFs and their assessment by the EIPPCB. TWG members are responsible for the uploading of their individual contributions onto BATIS. An online user manual is available in BATIS to BATIS users. When, it is not practicable or possible to use BATIS to submit information (e.g. when a book is sent to the EIPPCB), other methods of submitting information to the EIPPCB can be used (e.g. regular mail, fax). However, this is not expected to be the general case, and information available electronically should be uploaded directly into BATIS as indicated above.

BATIS has a functionality which allows TWG members to know automatically (i.e. daily) if new information has been uploaded or if members of the group have accessed the information uploaded in the last 24 hours.

The EIPPCB will ensure the gradual transfer of the information contained in the previous BSCW system into BATIS.

4.6.2. EIPPCB website

The EIPPCB website (http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu) constitutes the main tool for the dissemination of the BREFs. The website contains:

• generic information about IPPC and the EIPPCB

• BREFs and information on their status (e.g. adopted, under review)

• IEF documents (such as this guidance)

• notification of IPPC events and Bureau meetings

• information regarding employment opportunities within the Bureau

• members area along with the opportunity for TWG members to access the BATIS electronic workspace.

http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/


5. DATA SUBMISSION AND COLLECTION

5.1. Introduction

This section presents conclusions to improve the collection and submission of data for the review of the BREFs.

It defines some principles to improve the collection and submission of environmental performance data (in particular consumption and emission data) in the BREF review framework.Main gaps in the data provided to the European IPPC Bureau

5.2. Main gaps in the data provided to the European IPPC Bureau

Table 2 presents on overview of the main type of gaps in the data provided to the EIPPCB during the development of the first series of BREFs and also during the kick-off meetings for the first BREF reviews. 1. Quantity and representativeness of data

2. Data at installation level needed to determine BAT

3. Important data for determining BAT • data from processes using particular techniques • data from best performing installations • data on cross-media effects • economic data 4. Data on particular topics • energy • residues and waste • fugitive/diffuse emissions • emission monitoring • emissions of "non-standard" pollutants • processes 5. Comparability of data • 'background' information • 'context' information

Table 3. Main gaps in the data provided to the European IPPC Bureau for the first round of BREFs Details concerning each of the topics mentioned are given in Annex 1.

In order to improve the BAT information exchange process and its output, these gaps should be filled during the reviews of BREFs. It is also important to recognise that other information in the BREFs may also have to be updated during BREF reviews.

The following sections set out the proposed way forward to ensure this process.


5.3. General principles for the type, format and quality of data to be collected and reported for BREF review processes

The type of data to be collected and reported to the EIPPCB regarding the environmental performance of installations and applied techniques shall allow for drawing useful conclusions on BAT as described in Section 3.

The general principles that TWG members will follow for collecting and reporting data for the BREF review process in order to derive useful conclusions on BAT are outlined below.

Complete data sets at the level of single installations (i.e. including both the environmental performance achieved and the techniques used to achieve it) are essential to ensure comparability and for determining BAT. It is therefore important that TWG members supply complete data sets following the guidance provided in Section 5.6. Data aggregated from several installations are generally not sufficient to derive useful conclusions on BAT. In many cases, it is also necessary to gather data at a more discrete level (e.g. reactor, furnace, production line, unit, operation or process level). In exceptional cases, issues of confidentiality may necessitate the aggregation of information by the EIPPCB (see also the paragraph on confidentiality issues below).

Both the in-process and end-of-pipe techniques utilised in the installation to minimise its impact on the environment should be mentioned. Where relevant, a full description of the technique(s) will be given following the table in Section 5.5 and this will need to be linked to individual emission sources within the installation (e.g. stack level)

Type of data:

• the main data/information should be collected at least at the installation level and preferably even at a more discrete level (e.g. plant, unit, process, furnace), making clear reference to the applied technique(s)

Note: information providing a global overview of the sector – which might include industry capacity, production levels, market information, prices and other possibly sensitive information – can be provided in an aggregated form, but this will be mainly useful for developing or updating the chapters on 'General information' and 'Current emission and consumption levels' of a BREF

• the information reported on techniques should address, as far as possible, all aspects mentioned in Section 5.5, in order to allow for the drafting of the Chapter on 'Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT'. Performance of techniques should be put into context and supported in particular by the relevant operational and economic data (see Sections 5.5 and 5.6)

• information from best performing installations should be provided

Note: this does not mean that only information on best performing plants should be collected and submitted. Updating the Chapter on 'Current consumption and emission levels' necessitates that information be reported on the range of currently observed consumption and emission levels for the overall process and its subprocesses.


Format of data:

• information at the installation level should preferably be submitted to the EIPPCB using a common template agreed by the TWG. For minimising the work of completing this common template, the TWG is encouraged to take into account periodic reporting requirements and the availability of data. Templates are particularly useful for gathering a great deal of information, to enable comparison of data as well as to identify gaps and anomalies. This does not exclude using other formats or supplementary data (e.g. case-studies, technical or cost data concerning specific techniques) if considered instrumental for deriving useful BAT conclusions

• the main type of data/information that a template for gathering complete data sets at the installation level should contain is indicated in Sections 5.5 and 5.6 (detailing the operational data needed)

Quality of data:

• the information reported should be at a sufficient level of detail so as to enable comparability and finally to be used to draw useful BAT conclusions (see Section 3). Although the focus of the data collection exercise for BREFs is on available measured data , it is recommended to take into account the data quality rating system shown in Annex 2 to ensure the quality of estimated data

• all figures reported should be given in S.I. units or in units commonly used within the sector and agreed on by the TWG at the kick-off meeting.

5.4. Confidentiality issues

If any information submitted to the EIPPCB is considered confidential and should therefore not be reported in the BREF, this should be clearly stated when sending the information and the reason/justification for the confidentiality should be given. The EIPPCB will eventually aggregate the information before presenting it in the BREF (if necessary with the help of the industry association) using plant names under the heading 'Example plants' in the format in Section 5.5 is considered to be very useful and should generally not pose difficulties.

In this context it should be noted that Article 9(5) of the IPPC Directive mentions: "The permit shall contain suitable release monitoring requirements, specifying measurement methodology and frequency, evaluation procedure and an obligation to supply the competent authority with data required for checking compliance with the permit." Article 15(2) of the Directive states: "The results of monitoring of releases as required under the permit conditions referred to in Article 9 and held by the competent authority shall be made available to the public."

According to Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, Member States may refuse to provide environmental information if disclosure of the information would adversely affect, inter alia:

"- the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided for by national or Union law to protect a legitimate economic interest, including the public interest in maintaining statistical confidentiality and tax secrecy;

- intellectual property rights;


- the confidentiality of personal data and/or files relating to a natural person where that person has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the public, where such confidentiality is provided for by national or Union law;

- the interests or protection of any person who supplied the information requested on a voluntary basis without being under, or capable of being put under, a legal obligation to do so, unless that person has consented to the release of the information concerned;"

However, according to the same Article of that Directive, these grounds for refusal "shall be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account for the particular case the public interest served by disclosure. In every particular case, the public interest served by disclosure shall be weighed against the interest served by the refusal. Member States may not, by virtue of (the above elements, with the exception of the intellectual property rights), provide for a request for access to information to be refused where the request relates to information on emissions into the environment."


5.5. Type of information needed to fill the chapter(s) on 'techniques to consider for the determination of BAT' and to derive usefulconclusions on BAT

In order to determine BAT, all techniques to be considered in the BAT decision making will be presented in the BREF according to a standardstructure (agreed and used in the current BREFs), shown in the first column of table 4 below (for more information on the type of information tobe included in the BREF see the table in Section 2.7). The second column gives more details on the specific data which are needed from theTWG members in order to draft the chapter on 'Techniques to considered in the determination of BAT' and to derive useful BAT conclusionsfrom it:

Name of the type ofinformation Important information to collect and to report7

Description The description can include both prevention and control measures (in-process and end-of-pipe)

Achievedenvironmental benefits

Cross-media effectsThe Reference Document on Economics and Cross-media Effects (ECM) is a documentthat should be taken into account with regard to cross-media aspects as far as there aresignificant cross-media effects.

Operational data

Emission data (see also Section 5.6.6):• both the concentration and (specific) load of pollutant(s) (if available) or the data

needed to derive this information including monitoring methods used and referenceconditions.For specific load data, the product referred to should be clearly defined

• the quantity of pollutant before and after the abatement system in order to determinethe abatement efficiency

• the Reference Document on General Principles of Monitoring (MON) is a documentthat should be taken into account with respect to the expression of monitoring resultsand how to deal with uncertainties, emission factors, direct measurements andmonitoring requirements

Consumption data:• the type and amount of fuel, energy (heat, electricity), water and raw

materials/chemicals consumed/used by the technique

7 based on the main gaps identified during the elaboration of the first series of BREFs


Name of the type ofinformation Important information to collect and to report7

Waste:• the types and quantities of waste generated and treatment/disposal methods and/or

techniques to prevent waste

Others:• sensitivity and durability of the technique• operation/control/maintenance issues

Applicability Examples:- information on retrofitting of parts of the installation.

Economics

• capital/investment, operating and maintenance costs including details on how thesecosts/savings have been calculated/estimated

• possible savings (including payback time), including details on how thesecosts/savings have been calculated/estimated.

• cost data will preferably be given in euros (EUR)(If a conversion is made from another currency, the data in the original currency andthe year when the data were collected will be indicated. This is important asconversion rates vary over time)

• price/cost of equipment or service will be accompanied with the year it was purchased• information on the market for the sector to put costs of techniques into context

The Reference Document on Economics and Cross-media Effects (ECM) and theReference Document on the General Principles of Monitoring (MON) should be taken intoaccount with regard to economic aspects and monitoring costs, respectively.

Driving force forimplementation

Examples:• information on type/quality of receiving waters (e.g. temperature, salinity)• information on environmental quality standards• information on the increase of production or productivity

Example plantsReference literature

Table 4. Type of information needed to fill the BREF chapter(s) on 'techniques to consider for the determination of BAT' and to derive useful conclusions on BAT


5.6. Installation-specific operational data needed to draw useful conclusions on BAT

Currently, there is no agreed common format or template(s) for gathering complete data sets at the installation level (or at a more discrete level, e.g. unit, process, furnace) although TWGs will discuss the format for such data submission (see Section 5.7). Due to the diversity of the sectors covered by the IPPC Directive, it is unlikely that such a common format can be elaborated.

However, the main type of operational data that a template for gathering installation-level data (or data at a more discrete level, e.g. unit, process, furnace) should contain is further outlined in the sections below.

5.6.1. Water use and emissions to water

The information reported should distinguish between cooling water and process water, and indicate whether water is reused and if so how much. Data/information submitted should include, if relevant for the sector concerned:

• the amount and flow rate of discharged process waste waters as well as an indication of whether exceptional discharges are included

• an indication of the sources (e.g. unit processes) of discharged process water

• the amount and flow rate of discharged cooling water

• whether rainwater is collected and treated in the installation and how much

• the emission levels of discharged pollutants for each waste water stream considered and whether the waste water is discharged directly or indirectly to the receiving water

• an indication of whether the water effluents are treated in a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) located on site or off site (e.g. municipal or central for a whole industrial site) of the installation

• information about the origin of the water used and about the receiving water (e.g. name, type – surface water, i.e. lake, river, stream, sea, or ground water; when relevant also temperature, flow, quality)

5.6.2. Air emissions

Data/information submitted should include, if relevant for the sector concerned:

• the emission levels of pollutants emitted, making a distinction between stack emissions and diffuse/fugitive emissions as well as an indication of whether exceptional emissions are included

• an indication of the sources (e.g. unit processes) of both diffuse/fugitive and stack emissions

• flue-gas flow rate

• reference conditions (e.g. concentration data will refer to dry waste gases – if not, this will be indicated – and reference oxygen content will be mentioned, if applicable)


5.6.3. Residues/waste

Information submitted should include, if relevant for the sector concerned:

• the type(s) of residues/waste (e.g. sludge) generated/created by the activity

• the (physical/chemical) characteristics of the residues/waste generated/created by the activity (e.g. metals content, average dry solid content)

• the specific weight of organic and inorganic residues/waste disposed of and the specific weight which is recycled/reused internally or externally.

5.6.4. Energy

The information reported should include, if relevant for the sector concerned:

Inputs:

• the type of fuel/energy used (e.g. fuel oil, LPG, natural gas, steam, electricity, waste or biomass used as fuel), including cooling and technical gases (e.g. N2, O2). If steam is used, the temperature and pressure of the steam will be indicated

• fuel/energy consumption (per type), making a distinction between thermal and electrical energy

Outputs:

• whether energy is produced (e.g. electricity production) and how much. If steam is produced, the temperature and pressure of the steam will be indicated

• whether energy is sold

Others:

• whether there is recovered energy (in what part of the installation, under which form and how much)

• whether there are exothermic reactions (in what part of the installation and how much)

• heat losses (in what part of the installation and how much)

• whether energy benchmarking is used.

System boundaries (included parts of plant) and reference conditions should be provided when presenting energy consumption/efficiency values.

Energy data should be expressed in kWh or MJ per tonne of product, indicating whether net or gross calorific values were used to determine this.

The BAT Reference Document on Energy Efficiency (ENE) should be taken into account for collecting and reporting energy data.

5.6.5. Other information

The operational data provided should be accompanied with all the relevant general information such as, where applicable:


• the year the installation was built and an indication of the nature and dates of major retrofits

• the type of production processes, catalysts, process equipment (e.g. mill, heat exchanger and furnace) used

• the main operating conditions of the process (e.g. continuous or batch process, recurring events such as furnace decoking, catalyst regeneration8, production load, process temperature)

• the feedstock/raw material used and its composition

• the different type of products manufactured and how their quality may affect the consumptions/emissions.

5.6.6. Reference information

For emissions monitoring data, the information submitted should include, where applicable:

• the emission source (e.g. reactor, furnace)

• an indication of the type of emission pattern (e.g. minimum/maximum values, percentiles or a graphic presentation)

• the value and unit for the parameter monitored

• the frequency of the measurement/sampling/monitoring

• the averaging period used to report the data (see detailed information below)

• the monitoring method used, e.g. measurement, mass/heat balances

• an indication of the measurement/sampling/monitoring uncertainties

• details of the data source, e.g. who collected, analysed and submitted the data

• whether the data was taken during normal operation or under any other situation (e.g. start-ups/shutdowns, regular maintenance, exceptional conditions).

The Reference Document on General Principles of Monitoring (MON) should be taken into account with respect to the expression of monitoring results and how to deal with uncertainties, direct measurements and monitoring requirements.

Averages

When providing emission monitoring information, the period over which the values are averaged should be unambiguously indicated.

As a minimum, yearly average values should be provided. Yearly averages generally give a good image of the environmental performance related to a process/technique, independently of local disturbances or short-term variations as they include emissions at installation levels from all sources and conditions throughout the year, i.e. in a relative steady-state situation.

Yearly averages also have an advantage in the context of benchmarking.

For yearly averages, it is important to indicate how they were derived or calculated (e.g. from continuous or spot measurements and, if the latter, how many). 8 consumption/emission data may need to be collected separately from normal operating conditions


Additionally, short-term averages should be provided, if available, e.g. in the case of continuous measurements. Particularly (a range of) daily or hourly averages will be useful to illustrate the emission pattern and possible peak emissions that may occur.

5.7. Specific issues under the remit of each Technical Working Group

• the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) set up for the elaboration or review of a BREF should adhere to the general principles indicated in Section 5.3 of this paper. For the purpose of the information exchange, as defined in Article 17(2), TWG members should therefore provide information (especially consumption and emission data) at least down to the installation level. The TWG will determine whether or not to go to a more disaggregated level (e.g. reactor, furnace, unit operation, process). However, data aggregated from several installations can be used to elaborate the chapter on 'Current consumption and emissions levels'.

• in the case of a BREF review, TWG members should suggest in their list of wishes the type and format of sector-specific data that should be collected for the review of the BREF in question. The background paper prepared by the European IPPC Bureau for the kick-off meeting should present the TWG suggestions and make concrete proposals for the outline of a sector-specific data collection template and for discussions regarding the type and format of data to be collected and reported.

• the TWG should decide at its kick-off meeting whether the general principles provided in this guidance document on data collection will have to be supplemented by sector-specific aspects for the BREF in question.

• the TWG should discuss and develop sector-specific template(s) for collecting and reporting information to the EIPPCB following the general principles given in Section 5.3. The TWG should in particular determine the type of data, averages, units, reference conditions to be used/reported, taking into account the data available and the units and reference conditions used by the producers. Agreeing on these issues will therefore be one of the objectives of the kick-off meeting and there should be enough time foreseen for this.

• the TWG should define at their kick-off meeting the time schedule for gathering and submitting data to the EIPPCB (in accordance with the Generic Schedule For the Review of BREFs set out in Section 1.2). Last minute data should be avoided.

• for emissions data, the TWG should decide, on the basis of the concentration and (specific) load data gathered (if both data are available, they should both be reported), if one or both types of data would contribute to deriving useful BAT conclusions.

Note: Both concentration and (specific) loads can be useful for the BREFs. Specific loads allow for the comparison of the environmental performance of installations irrespective of their different production volumes and are not influenced by mixing or dilution. Loads give an idea of the total environmental impact of an installation. Concentrations (accompanied with reference conditions and averaging period) generally give more information on short-term performance of individual processes or unit operations and thus can reveal peak emissions. They also establish environmental performance at any given moment. Combining them with flow data, allows establishing the pollution load at any given


moment. When continuous measurements are used, concentrations can be used to provide information on performance over a longer time period (e.g. a year).


GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ENGLISH TERM MEANING Achieved environmental benefits

Main potential environmental benefits to be gained through implementing a technique (including consumption of energy, reduced emissions to water, air and land, raw materials savings, as well as production yield increases, reduced waste, etc.)

BAT Best available techniques (IPPC Directive) – the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing, in principle, the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole

BAT-AEL Emission level associated with BAT BATIS A web-based software application set up to facilitate the exchange of

information on BAT as well as the internal process carried out within the EIPPCB in order to produce or review BREFs

BREF BAT reference document Cross-media effects Potential environmental side effects and disadvantages due to

implementing a technique EIPPCB European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau ELV Emission limit value EMS Environmental management system EU European Union Fugitive emissions Emissions caused by non-tight equipment/leak: emissions into the

environment resulting from a gradual loss of tightness from a piece of equipment designed to contain an enclosed fluid (gaseous or liquid), basically caused by a difference of pressure and a resulting leak. Examples of fugitive emissions: leak from a flange, a pump, a sealed or tightened equipment etc.

IEF Information Exchange Forum (informal consultation body in the framework of the IPPC Directive presided by the Commission and composed of representatives from Member States, industrial and environmental non-governmental organisations)

Installation A stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I to the IPPC Directive are carried out, and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution (IPPC Directive, Article 2(3))

IPPC Integrated pollution prevention and control IPPC Directive Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of

15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codified version)


ANNEXES

Annex 1: Main gaps in the data provided to the EIPPCB for the 1st round of BREFs


ANNEX 1: MAIN GAPS IN THE DATA PROVIDED TO THE EUROPEAN IPPC BUREAU FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF BREFS

Quantity and representativeness of data

Sometimes, too few data sets were provided during the exchange of information.

In some instances, the number of plants involved in the collection of data was not indicated and this made it difficult to distinguish between data from one single plant and data representative of a number of European plants (e.g. representative of the sector as a whole and/or of the installations operating a given technique/unit process).

Data at the installation level needed to determine BAT To determine BAT, disaggregated data are needed at the installation level and sometimes even at a lower level (e.g. at the unit process level for waste water). Such disaggregated data have been difficult to obtain in some instances often due to competition issues within the sector, but these could be overcome by assuring the anonymity of the installations (provided the number of producers and installations allow this to be possible).

The lack of complete data sets at the installation level (e.g. full monitoring reports of an installation) which include not only emission data/information (e.g. waste gas, waste water and solid waste), but also information on the techniques applied, consumption data/information (e.g. on energy, water, chemicals and other raw materials) and economic costs has been a major gap.

It has been identified during the development of several BREFs that aggregated data (e.g. Member States/sector-level data or performance ranges covering a large number of installations) as such are not sufficient for determining BAT. However, such data are generally acceptable for getting an overview of the environmental impact of the sector as a whole.

Important data for determining BAT

The data given below have been recognised as essential when determining BAT, yet have sometimes been difficult to obtain during the exchange of information:

• data from processes which use particular techniques with information showing the effectiveness of the techniques

• data from best performing installations

• economic data

When deciding on BAT, having economic data is key as it allows the linking of techniques with their associated costs and possible savings. However, during the exchange of information the following data were often missing:

• retrofitting and operating costs associated with the installation and operation of the technique in situ

• savings such as payback time of techniques



• unit costs (e.g. related to a tonne of product manufactured, a tonne of pollutant abated, or a volume of waste water treated)

• background information on what exactly is included in the cost figures reported or how these figures have been calculated/estimated.

It is important to take into account that costs can vary considerably between plants when operating the same technique, e.g. due to different technical characteristics and different timings for plant investments.

• data on cross-media effects when applying certain techniques.

Data on particular topics

• data on energy

The provision of quantitative data on energy savings associated with the application of techniques/processes has been low and little information on practical experiences has been reported. When energy data (e.g. balances) have been reported, the assumptions and conditions have often not been sufficiently qualified. Furthermore, data on energy consumption that distinguish thermal and electrical energy consumption have not been provided by all TWGs and it is not clearly stated in some BREFs if the data on the energy requirements for a specific process were determined using net or gross calorific values.

• data on residues and waste

During the exchange of information, there has sometimes been a lack of information/data on solid waste quantities and characteristics, as well as on measures and techniques to prevent or reduce waste.

• data on fugitive/diffuse emissions

Different practices in collecting, sampling, measuring and/or calculating fugitive emissions have sometimes led to low levels of quantitative data being provided. It was pointed out that there is a lack of standardised monitoring or calculation methods to quantify fugitive emissions, e.g. of dust and VOCs.

• data on emission monitoring

Data on monitoring methods and frequency is often not provided, thus making it difficult to derive sector-specific BAT conclusions on emission monitoring.

• emission data for "non-standard" pollutants

Information on some particular types of pollutants, for example heavy metals and organic compounds (especially in emissions to water) was often lacking probably due to a lack of available monitoring data and knowledge of their environmental impacts.

• information on processes

There was information missing on some process routes for producing certain substances, especially in the chemicals BREFs.

Comparability of data

Quantitative data/information supported by 'background information' is essential in order to properly interpret and compare data.



Important gaps to fill are:

• reference time intervals (e.g. hourly, daily or yearly average values)

• type and number of measurements (continuous, spot measurements)

• measurement, sampling, analytical and computation methods (this is essential, given the lack of harmonisation in monitoring conditions/methods)

• reference conditions (e.g. reference oxygen content and standard conditions)

• process/operating conditions, e.g. continuous process vs. batch, stable process vs. start-ups and shutdowns, inclusion of exceptional or recurring events (e.g. furnace decoking, catalyst regeneration)

• stream(s) of emissions (not) covered by the data, e.g. fugitive/diffuse emissions.

In addition, also 'context information', such as the age of the installation, when it was last rebuilt, the mix and characteristics of the raw materials used, the local context or technical conditions (e.g. type of production process, furnace/reactor used and the type of fuel used) have not always been reported in data sets, whereas such information is generally necessary to guarantee an unequivocal interpretation and comparison of quantitative data.

Annex 2: Data quality rating system


ANNEX 2: DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM

The information below has been drawn from the Economics and Cross-media Effects (ECM) BREF (Section 2.4.1 of the ECM BREF).

Data quality rating systems have been used for emission estimates to give a qualitative indication of the reliability of data estimates. This approach has been extended to a generic data quality rating system. The following data quality rating system is recommended for all collected data:

A. an estimate based on a large amount of information fully representative of the situation and for which all background assumptions are known

B. an estimate based on a significant amount of information representative of most situations and for which most of the background assumptions are known

C. an estimate based on a limited amount of information representative of some situations and for which background assumptions are limited

D. an estimate based on an engineering calculation derived from a very limited amount of information representative of only one or two situations and for which few of the background assumptions are known

E. an estimate based on an engineering judgement derived only from assumptions.

Data of A or B quality are the most appropriate for determining BAT.

IEF 22-4-1 BAT information exchange guidance document

Documents

Transcript of IEF 22-4-1 BAT information exchange guidance document