{"id":104699,"date":"2021-07-06T11:10:02","date_gmt":"2021-07-06T09:10:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/?p=104699"},"modified":"2021-07-06T11:40:21","modified_gmt":"2021-07-06T09:40:21","slug":"new-eu-environmental-standards-for-chemical-industry-fall-short-of-green-deal-ambition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/en_gb\/new-eu-environmental-standards-for-chemical-industry-fall-short-of-green-deal-ambition\/","title":{"rendered":"New EU environmental standards for chemical industry fall short of Green Deal ambition"},"content":{"rendered":"

Progress towards air quality goals will be witnessed on new EU standards to prevent emissions from chemical installations (WGC BREF). However, the vague <\/span><\/b>methodology set to calculate pollutant mass flows <\/span><\/b>will leave the door open to deregulatory chaos, NGOs warns.<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n

Technical experts\u00a0<\/span>concluded<\/span>\u00a0last Friday 2 July on the Best Available Techniques (BAT) for Waste Gas Management and Treatment Systems in the Chemical Sector (the so-called\u00a0<\/span>WGC BREF<\/span><\/a>).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

These BAT conclusions\u00a0will constitute the binding\u00a0\u2018safety net\u2019\u00a0standards for preventing, or,\u00a0where not technically feasible, for reducing air pollution from EU\u2019s chemical production\u00a0installations\u00a0for the next decades. This includes\u00a0emissions\u00a0to air of\u00a0<\/span>carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic pollutants\u00a0or CMRs<\/span><\/a>.\u202fThe European Commission has estimated that the\u00a0establishment of\u00a0the new standards will\u00a0affect the emissions to air of around 5\u00a0000 chemical installations\u00a0[1].<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The drafting of BREFs is coordinated by the European Commission in consultation with representatives from member states, industry, and environmental protection groups.\u202f<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Aliki\u00a0Kriekouki<\/span><\/b>, l<\/span>ead\u00a0on the WGC BREF discussions for the EEB, says:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018We welcome the new standards and the significant progress made especially regarding the abatement of diffuse emissions to air. On the other hand, we regret that the concept of\u00a0<\/span><\/i>mass flow thresholds for channeled emissions is still retained in the final text; what makes things worse are the unclear provisions accompanying these thresholds.<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The EEB had already warned, during the negotiations, that this issue would, at best, lead to an uneven level playing field among member states, and, at worst, to a<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/i>deregulation mayhem, but the warnings have fallen on deaf ears\u2019<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is good<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n

Significant progress has been made regarding the abatement of diffuse emissions (such as fugitive emissions from\u00a0e.g.\u00a0equipment leaks, and non-fugitive emissions from\u00a0e.g.\u00a0tank venting or bulk storage), through a new approach underpinned by a management system for preventing, reducing and quantifying such emissions. This is a major step forward because diffuse emissions represent a high fraction of the total emissions from chemical installations.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, EEB regrets the absence of a stronger focus on emissions prevention, through the clear promotion of the use of high integrity equipment (HEI) as the main technique for fugitive emissions (equipment leaks) abatement. As the text stands, the use of HEI (which is already standard practice in the sector in Germany), is merely featured as an option among other techniques.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What is concerning<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n

We further regret that mass flow thresholds (below which thresholds the BAT-Associated Emission Levels or BAT-AELs do not apply) are still retained in the final text for\u00a0channelled\u00a0emissions (such as stack or chimney emissions). This means that emission limits may be set, or not, in such cases, depending on whether the emission source in question will be classified as a \u2018major\u2019 or a \u2018minor\u2019 source respectively by the national or regional competent authority.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>This includes harmful emissions of volatile organic carbons (VOCs), even for\u00a0<\/span>activities, such as the production of organic compounds, the production of polymers or the production of pharmaceuticals which are large emitters of VOCs with about 40 000\u00a0tonnes\u00a0emitted to air each year. Mass flow thresholds (although lowered) were even retained for the sum of VOCs classified as CMRs. What makes the situation worse is that the methodology of calculating the pollutant mass flows (in order to compare against the mass flow thresholds) is not clarified in the final text.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u2018(\u2026) where waste gases with similar characteristics,\u00a0e.g.\u00a0containing the same (type of) substances\/parameters, and discharged through two or more separate stacks could, in the judgement of the competent authority, be discharged through a common stack, these stacks shall be considered as a single stack\u2019,\u00a0the text reads.<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This vague formulation could lead to the \u2018splitting\u2019 of emission points (so-called \u2018salami tactics\u2019): operators may slice up their emissions into multiple stacks, each discharging below the BAT threshold<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>Some EU member states, such as Germany<\/span>,<\/span>\u00a0would likely be able to cut emissions under the new BREF because they currently calculate pollutant mass flows based on a \u2018virtual stack\u2019 approach that adds up all relevant waste gas flows at installation level rather than at the level of individual stacks.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>But member states that do not use a virtual stack approach face the prospect of operators using the above-mentioned tactics.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What needs to change in BREFs negotiations<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n

The drafting of the WGC BREF further revealed some already well-known weaknesses of the process itself: the issue of deriving standards from data deemed by the industry as \u2018confidential business information\u2019, and the issue of industry lobbyists talking on behalf of member states, as was the case this time with the Portuguese delegation.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

EEB call upon the European Commission to address these issues once and for all through the ongoing revision of the EU Industrial Emissions Directive, via the opening of BREF review ru<\/span>les\u00a0[2],\u00a0[3], [4].<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018The European Commission needs to walk the talk and act on the ambition of their Green Deal, instead of chewing over the \u2018big on big, small on small\u2019 mantra of Junker\u2019s deregulation era\u2019, conclude\u00a0<\/span><\/i>Chr<\/span><\/b>istian Schaible<\/span><\/b>, Policy Manager for industrial production at the EEB.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Next steps:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n