FEAD welcomes progress on Emissions Directive

In particular, FEAD has raised issues over plans which would allow member states when granting permits for facilities to set tighter emissions limits than those developed through the European best available techniques (BATs) process.

And, it also questioned the fact that the current proposals would introduce different thresholds for technologies such as anaerobic digestion above which facilities would be subject to emissions limits, which FEAD claims would place “too much burden” on small plants.

However, FEAD said it was “not concerned” over the impact that a 'European Safety Net' setting minimum emissions standards for industrial plants would have on the waste sector, as it believed the requirements were in line with the minimum values set out in the existing Waste Incineration Directive (WID).

The plans are part of European Commission to update current emission regulation legislation by bringing together seven separate directives, including the WID and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive into a single Industrial Emissions Directive.

They reached the European Parliament's environment committee last week under the European co-decision process, having already been discussed by the Parliament in March 2009 (see letsrecycle.com story), and were then considered by the Council, which involves all EU member states' environment ministers, earlier this year.

The proposals are now set to be discussed informally over the next few weeks by representatives from the Commission, Council and Parliament, under an approach known as 'trilogue', before the European Parliament's full plenary is scheduled to vote on them on July 6.

Emissions limits

Speaking to letsrecycle.com this week about the current situation, the secretary general of FEAD, Nadine De Greef, explained that, while an amendment had been tabled at last week's environment committee to remove the proposal for 'competent authorities' to be allowed to set more stringent emissions limits, this had not been adopted.

“It's important to recall that BAT stands already for best available technique, so requesting more than what's best is not achievable without justification,” she explained. “Also authorities should not be able to set stricter permitting requirements without justification.”

Stating that the emissions conditions set by BATs should be enough, Ms De Greef said that FEAD would now ask MEPs to look to amend the proposals when they reached the plenary session.

Thresholds

In terms of the scope of the proposals, and the fact that the Commission had proposed the introduction of a threshold of 100 tonnes a day, above which anaerobic digestion facilities would be subject to the emissions limits set by the directive.

For other forms of biological waste treatment the proposed limit is 75 tonnes a day, and, in light of this, Ms De Greef said: “We felt there should be no distinction between AD and other bio treatments.”

She noted that FEAD has pushed for the AD threshold to be removed, but it had been rejected, and noted that they had similarly tabled an amendment for an end to the different thresholds for recovery and disposal operations, but this had also failed.

“For the disposal of non-hazardous waste there's a threshold of 50 tonnes a day and for recovery there's a threshold of 70 tonnes a day,” she explained. “We ask for a level playing field between recovery and disposal. We tabled an amendment but it was rejected.”

“It would put too much burden onto small plants and we are for a level playing field and don't want any distinction between technologies,” she added.

European Safety Net

While concerns had been raised in the past about exactly what a minimum emissions requirement, under the guise of a 'European Safety Net', could mean for the waste sector, Ms De Greef, that FEAD was “not concerned” about this aspect of the proposals, which the Parliament has said should be developed as a separate legislative proposal.

“The minimum requirements for the waste incineration sector were correspondent with minimum emissions values set in the WID so we don't think it will have a huge impact,” Ms De Greef said.

BREFs

Among other issues raised by Ms De Greef as being of importance to FEAD were Commission plans to change the process used to agree on BREFs, the guidance documents which outline BATs, so that the Commission can review them once they have been finalised.

Currently the documents are decided by the informal 'Sevilla' discussion process, which Ms De Greef explained give a “forum which stakeholders and commission use to share ideas on BAT in a very open way”.

“The result of informal exchange is elaborated by technical working groups allowing both stakeholders and member states to discuss BATS and BATSELS,” she explained. “Therefore those decisions and those results should not be open for discussion again at Commission level”

Ms De Greef raised concerns over the transparency of the proposed approach, stressing that the commission was already involved in the Sevilla process, and, she claimed: “It can put at risk all the achievements that have secured in this process.”

She noted that FEAD's attempt to halt the proposals was not tabled in the parliament and said they were “not hopeful” of success in this area.